403

 ÇİFTLİKS, LANDOWNERS AND RURAL PRODUCERS:
CLASS RELATIONS IN THE BALKANS (18TH-19TH CENTURIES)

ABSTRACT
Çiftliks, Landowners and Rural Producers: Class Relations in the Balkans
(18th – 19th Centuries)
This dissertation examines the rural society of the Ottoman Balkans, focusing on the districts of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe through the central themes of çiftlik production and inequality. The analysis mainly focuses on the property and labor relations between landowners and rural inhabitants by positing the çiftlik question in the broader framework of rural class structure and labor relations in the Ottoman Balkans in the 19th century. The main sources utilized in this study consist of income survey registers (“Temettuat Defterleri”) of the districts under study. The analysis of the large-scale dataset obtained from these sources is combined with GIS analysis to demonstrate the diversity of settlement and production forms in a large geographical area. The thesis also touches upon several issues related to the rural structure and agrarian dynamics, including restriction of peasant mobility, imposition of corvee on agricultural producers, peasant poverty and indebtedness, appropriation of peasant land, and the turning of villages into çiftliks through incorporation into the study a variety of historical documents. In general, this dissertation combines different sources in order to portray the organization of the agricultural economy and the structure of the rural society of the Ottoman Balkans from the late 18th to the early 20th century from as many angles as possible by focusing on a selection of three districts -Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe.
v
ÖZET
Çiftlikler, Toprak Sahipleri ve Kırsal Üreticiler: Balkanlarda Sınıf İlişkileri (18. - 19. Yüzyıllar)
Bu tez çalışması, çiftlik üretimi ve eşitsizlik temaları üzerinden Manastır, İştip ve Pirlepe kazalarına odaklanarak Osmanlı Balkanlarındaki tarımsal yapıyı incelemektedir. Analiz çiftlik meselesini 19. yüzyılda Osmanlı Balkanlarındaki kırsal sınıf yapısı ve emek ilişkileri çerçevesine yerleştirerek toprak sahipleri ve kırsal bölge sakinleri arasındaki mülkiyet ve emek ilişkilerine odaklanmaktadır. Mevcut çalışmada yararlanılan temel kaynaklar, incelenen bölgelerin gelir kayıtlarını ihtiva eden temettuat defterleridir. Bu kaynaklardan elde edilen geniş çaplı veri setinin analizi GIS analizi araçları ile birleştirilerek geniş bir coğrafi alanda yerleşim ve üretim biçimlerindeki çeşitlilik ve çiftlik üretiminin tarımsal ekonomi içindeki ağırlığı gösterilmektedir. Tez çalışması, farklı nitelikteki tarihsel kaynakları mevcut çalışmaya dahil ederek köylü hareketliliği üzerindeki sınırlamalar, tarımsal üreticilere angarya emek dayatılması, köylü yoksulluğu ve borçluluğu, köylü toprağına el koyma ve köylerin çiftliklere dönüştürülmesi gibi kırsal yapılar ve tarımsal dinamiklerle bağlantılı olan birçok meseleye de değinmektedir. Bu tez genel hatlarıyla 18. yüzyıl sonundan 20. yüzyıl başlarına kadar olan dönemde Osmanlı Balkanlarında tarımsal ekonominin organizasyonu ve kırsal toplumun sınıf yapısını mümkün olduğunca farklı veçhelerden tasvir etmek üzere farklı nitelikteki tarihsel kaynakları bir araya getirerek Manastır, İştip ve Pirlepe kazaları üzerine odaklanmaktadır.
vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project and the ensuing dissertation would not have come to life without the support of several people. I would like to start by expressing my deepest gratitude for my thesis advisor Yücel Terzibaşoğlu, who has provided me not only with intellectual stimulation and academic guidance but also encouragement and support for the pursuit of my research interests. His courses broadened my vision of history, his advisorship shaped my research agenda, and the experience I obtained from participating in his research projects greatly fostered my research skills. I would like to send my heartfelt thanks and esteems to Socrates Petmezas, Cengiz Kırlı, Selçuk Dursun, and Tolga Cora for kindly accepting to be a part of my thesis defense committee and their invaluable feedback, comments, and suggestions on my dissertation. I would like to thank Alp Yücel Kaya and Antonis Hadjikyriacou for their participation in my PhD qualification process and the insight they provided me in the early stages of my dissertation. I would like to thank the academic and administrative staff of the Boğaziçi University Department of History for the knowledge and experience they provided me during my years as a graduate student and my work as a teaching and research assistant. Among many dear colleagues and friends I was lucky to have gotten acquainted with, I would especially like to thank Berna Kamay, Yener Koç, and Melike Sümertaş for their enjoyable company and friendship. I received a PhD Scholarship from TÜBİTAK (Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) (2211-A, 2015-2019) and research grants from Boğaziçi University Social Policy Forum (2018-2018) and Boğaziçi University Scientific Research Fund (BU/BAP) (2020-2021) and I thank these institutions for their support. I will always be grateful to my family members for their
viii
love and understanding. I especially thank my mother and father for their generous support during my reclusive focus on preparing my dissertation. Şefik Sevgener, my best friend and soul mate, always encouraged me in my moments of distress and kindly shared his immense technical knowledge whenever needed. Last but not least, I would like to thank my late grandfather, whom I lost during my PhD journey, for his compassion mixed with a hilariously sarcastic sense of humor throughout my life, and dedicate my study to his dear memory.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………….…….……...1
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE OTTOMAN ÇİFTLİK DEBATE……………….....10
2.1 Ottoman agrarian history and the çiftlik debate: An introductory overview……………………………………….………………….………....10
2.2 Forming Research Questions………………………………...……........42
2.3 Aim and Scope of the Thesis………..………………...………………..59
2.4 Archival sources and methodology……………...…………………...…63
CHAPTER 3: AGRARIAN CLASS RELATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN BALKANS: ÇIFTLIKS AND VILLAGES, LANDOWNERS AND RURAL PRODUCERS IN MANASTIR (MID-19TH CENTURY)…………………………..74
3.1 Çiftliks and villages: The socio-economic landscape of rural Manastır in the mid-19th century……………………...……………………………….....76
3.2 Villages, peasants and class relations: The question of inequality in a peasant society……………………………………………………………....98
3.3 Çiftliks, landowners and producers: Land, labour and agricultural production………………………………………………………………….123
3.4 Conclusion……………………...…………………………………..…163
CHAPTER 4: AGRARIAN CLASS RELATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN BALKANS: ÇIFTLIKS AND VILLAGES, LANDOWNERS AND RURAL PRODUCERS IN İŞTİP (MID-19TH CENTURY)………….………………….….166
4.1 Çiftliks and villages: The socio-economic landscape of rural İştip in the mid-19th century……………………………………….…………………..167
x
4.2 Villages, peasants and class relations: The question of inequality in a peasant society………………………………………………….………….186
4.3 Çiftliks, landowners and producers: Land, labour and agricultural production………………………………………………………………….205
4.4 Conclusion………………………………..…………...………………244
CHAPTER 5: AGRARIAN CLASS RELATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN BALKANS: ÇIFTLIKS AND VILLAGES, LANDOWNERS AND RURAL PRODUCERS IN PIRLEPE (MID-19TH CENTURY)…………………………….246
5.1 Çiftliks and villages: The socio-economic landscape of rural Pirlepe in the mid-19th century…………………….……………..…….………….....247
5.2 Villages, peasants and class relations: The question of inequality in a peasant society…………………………………………………………......265
5.3 Çiftliks, landowners and producers: Land, labour and agricultural production………………………………………………………………….283
5.4 Conclusion…………………………………...………………………..312
CHAPTER 6: DYNAMICS OF RURAL SOCIETY: CLASS CONFLICT AND LABOR RELATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN BALKANS………………...………314
6.1 On aspects of the labour regime in the Balkan çiftliks………...….......314
6.2 Rural mobility and peasant flight……………………….....…….….…328
6.3 The question of angarya…………………………………...…..............336
6.4 Rural poverty, peasant indebtedness, and bonded labour……………..358
6.5 Rural conflict, land grab and dispossession of the peasantry…….........351
6.6 Conclusion…………...………………………………………………..382
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….384
APPENDIX A: SAMPLES OF INCOME SURVEY REGISTERS........................397
xi
APPENDIX B: SAMPLES OF CALCULATIONS ON INCOME SURVEY REGISTERS.............................................................................................................400
APPENDIX C: THE ÇİFTLİKS OF THE NAZIRZADE FAMILY IN THE 18TH AND THE 19TH CENTURIES (İŞTİP)………………………………………...….408
APPENDIX D: EXAMPLES OF ÇİFTLİK LAYOUT............................................415
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….....417
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Settlements of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe: Number of Çiftliks and Villages ……………………………………………………………………………..……….. 70
Table 2. The Coding System of Settlements and Households (Income Survey Registers)....................................................................................................................71
Table 3. Example of the Coding System of Settlements and Households (Income Survey Registers)........................................................................................................72
Table 4. Number of Settlements and Resident Households by the Level of Çiftlik Formation in Manastır ………………………………………………………………78
Table 5. Level of Çiftlik Formation (Number of Households) in the Settlements of Manastır………………………………………...………………………………...…81
Table 6. Colour-Coding of the Level of Çiftlik Formation in (Figure 7)……...…...82
Table 7. Pure Çiftliks of Manastır ………...………………………………………..83
Table 8. Landownership by Çiftlik-owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (Manastır) (1)..............................................................................................................85
Table 9. Landownership by Çiftlik-owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (Manastır) (2)..............................................................................................................85
Table 10. Income Sources of Manastır......................................................................93
Table 11. Agricultural Production in Manastır: Çiftliks versus Villages (1)…..…..94
Table 12. Agricultural Production in Manastır: Çiftliks versus Villages (2)…...…..95
Table 13. Distribution of Village Households by Main Source of Income…...…..100
Table 14. Distribution of Land Types among Villagers……...…………………...101
Table 15. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Manastır (1)…………………102
Table 16. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Manastır (2)………….…...…103
xiii
Table 17. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Manastır (3)………….…...…104
Table 18. Level of Inequality in Landownership in a Sample of Villages in Manastır..………………………………………………………………………..…107
Table 19. Colour-coding of (Figure 24)……...…………………………………....107
Table 20. Colour-Coding of (Figure 26)…………………………………...……...110
Table 21. Income from Textile Production in Manastır………………...………...110
Table 22. Income Sources of Villages of Manastır………………………...……...113
Table 23. Income Sources of Landless Villagers of Manastır…………...………..117
Table 24. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of Manastır (Number of Households)………………………………………………………………………..119
Table 25. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of Manastır (Level of Income)…………………………………………………………………………….120
Table 26. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Manastır (1) ………………………….………………………..………121
Table 27. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Manastır (2)……………………………………………………………121
Table 28. Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Manastır….122
Table 29. Landownership and Income from Textile Production in the Villages of Manastır (1)……………...…………………………………………………………122
Table 30. Textile Production and Landowning in the Villages of Manastır...…….123
Table 31. Income from Textile Production in the Villages of Manastır……...…...123
Table 32. Dependency on Food Market in the Villages of Manastır………...……123
Table 33. Colour-Coding of (Figure 35)………...………………………………...130
Table 34. Landownership in the Çiftliks of Manastır (1)……………………...….132
Table 35. Landownership in the Çiftliks of Manastır (2)……………………...….132
xiv
Table 36. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour (Manastır).........132
Table 37. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping (Manastır)........134
Table 38. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping and Wage Labour (Manastır)............................................................135
Table 39. Distribution of Land among Çiftlik Workers in the Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Labour Types (Manastır)................................................................136
Table 40. Distribution of all types of land between çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers (Manastır)..................................................................................................................137
Table 41. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of Manastır (1).……………………………………………………….……………….142
Table 42. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of Manastır (2).……………………………………………………….……………….142
Table 43. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour (Manastır)…...........143
Table 44. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping (Manastır)…...…...143
Table 45. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping and Wage Labour (Manastır)…………………...………………………….………143
Table 46. Distribution of the Çiftlik Sizes of Manastır………………………...…147
Table 47. The Richest Çiftlik-Owners of the Town Center of Manastır (Annual Income over 10000 kuruş)…………………………………………………………150
Table 48. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners of Manastır………………………...……..151
Table 49. Largest 10 çiftliks of Manastır…………………………...………….….153
Table 50. Çiftliks of the family of Abdülkerim Bey in Manastır…...………….…155
Table 51. Largest 10 Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping in Manastır...…………….157
Table 52. Largest 10 Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour in Manastır………...……..159
Table 53. Çiftlik-owners residing in villages (Manastır)………………………….161
xv
Table 54. Number of Settlements and Resident Households by the Level of Çiftlik Formation in İştip………………………………………………………….……….168
Table 55. Level of Çiftlik Formation (Number of Households) in the Settlements of İştip…………………………………………………………….……………….….172
Table 56. Colour-coding of the Level of Çiftlik Formation in (Figure 59)……….173
Table 57. Pure Çiftliks of İştip…...…………………………………………….….174
Table 58. Landownership by Çiftlik-Owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (İştip) (1)………………………………………………………………………………..…176
Table 59. Landownership by Çiftlik-Owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (İştip) (2)…………………………………………………………………………………..176
Table 60. Income Sources of İştip………...………………………………………183
Table 61. Agricultural Production in İştip: Çiftliks versus Villages (1)……...…...183
Table 62. Agricultural Production in İştip: Çiftliks versus Villages (2)…….….....184
Table 63. Distribution of Village Households by Main Source of Income…….....187
Table 64. Distribution of Land Types among Villagers………...………………...188
Table 65. Distribution of Land among Villagers of İştip (1)……………...………189
Table 66. Distribution of Land among Villagers of İştip (2)…………...…………190
Table 67. Distribution of Land among Villagers of İştip (3)…………..……….…191
Table 68. Level of Inequality in Landownership in a Sample of Villages in İştip……………………………………………………………………………..….194
Table 69. Colour-coding of (Table 68 / Figure 76)……...…………….………….194
Table 70. Colour-Coding of (Figure 78)……………………………………...…...197
Table 71. Income Sources of Villages of İştip…………...………………………..197
Table 72. Income Sources of Landless Villagers of İştip………...……………….200
xvi
Table 73. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of İştip (Number of Households)…………………………………………………………..……………201
Table 74. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of İştip (Level of Income)…………………………………………………………………………….202
Table 75. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of İştip (1)…………………………………………………...……………202
Table 76. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of İştip (2)………………………………………………………………...203
Table 77. Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of İştip……....203
Table 78. Landownership and Income from Animal-Husbandary Related Wage Labour in the Villages of İştip (1)……………………………………………….....204
Table 79. Landownership and Income from Animal-Husbandary Related Wage Labour in the Villages of İştip (2)……………………………………...…………..204
Table 80. Income from Animal-Husbandary Related Wage Labour in the Villages of İştip………………………………………………………………………………...204
Table 81. Dependency on Food Market in the Villages of İştip……….……...…..205
Table 82. Colour-Coding of (Figure 86)……...…………………………….……..210
Table 83. Landownership in the Çiftliks of İştip (1)……………………...………211
Table 84. Landownership in the Çiftliks of İştip (2)………………...……………212
Table 85. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour……...…………212
Table 86. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping……...………..213
Table 87. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping and Wage Labour…………………………….…………………….215
xvii
Table 88. Distribution of All Types of Land among Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Workers (İştip)……………………………………………………………..………216
Table 89. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of İştip (1)……………………………………………………………………………….….220
Table 90. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of İştip (2)………………………………………………………………………....………..221
Table 91. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour (İştip)………...…...221
Table 92. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping (İştip)…………….221
Table 93. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping and Wage Labour (İştip)………………………… ………………………….…….222
Table 94. Distribution of the Çiftlik Sizes of İştip…………...……………………225
Table 95. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners of İştip………...………………………….228
Table 96. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Landownership (İştip)…………….....228
Table 97. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Types (1)………...…………...230
Table 98. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Types (2)……......……………230
Table 99. Largest 10 çiftliks of İştip……………………...……………………….231
Table 100. Çiftliks of Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey in İştip……...…………………233
Table 101. Income from Çiftliks of Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey………...………..235
Table 102. Largest 10 Çiftliks of Urban Dwellers of İştip……...………………...238
Table 103. Largest 10 Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping……...……………..……239
Table 104. Largest 10 Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour………...…………………240
Table 105. Çiftlik-owners residing in villages (İştip)………………...…………...241
Table 106. Number of Settlements and Resident Households by the Level of Çiftlik Formation in Pirlepe……………………………………………………………….248
xviii
Table 107. Level of Çiftlik Formation (Number of Households) in the Settlements of Pirlepe……………………………………………………………...………………252
Table 108. Colour-coding of the Level of Çiftlik Formation in (Figure 111)…….253
Table 109. Pure Çiftliks of Pirlepe…………………...…………………………...254
Table 110. Landownership by Çiftlik-owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (Pirlepe) (1)………………………………………………………………………...255
Table 111. Landownership by Çiftlik-owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (Pirlepe) (1)…………………………..…………………………………………….256
Table 112. Income Sources of Pirlepe…………………...……………………..…262
Table 113. Agricultural Production in Pirlepe: Çiftliks versus Villages (1)……....263
Table 114. Agricultural Production in Pirlepe: Çiftliks versus Villages (2)……....263
Table 115. Distribution of Village Households by Main Source of Income…...…266
Table 116. Distribution of Land Types among Villagers...……………………….267
Table 117. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Pirlepe (1)…….…...……….269
Table 118. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Pirlepe (2)………...…….….270
Table 119. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Pirlepe (3)………...……..…271
Table 120. Income Sources of Villages of Pirlepe……...………………………...273
Table 121. Income Sources of Landless Villagers of Pirlepe…………...………...278
Table 122. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of Pirlepe (Number of Households)………………………………………………………………………..279
Table 123. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of Pirlepe (Level of Income)…………………………………………………………………...………..279
Table 124. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe (1)…..…………………….…………………………………....280
xix
Table 125. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe (2)……………………………………………………………...281
Table 126. Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe......281
Table 127. Landownership and Income from Animal-Husbandary Related Wage Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe (1)…………………………………..…………..282
Table 128. Landownership and Income from Animal-Husbandary Related Wage Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe (2)………………...…………….………………282
Table 129. Income from Animal-Husbandary Related Wage Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe…………………………………………………………………………...282
Table 130. Dependency on Food Market in the Villages of Pirlepe………...…….283
Table 131. Color-Coding of (Figure 135)………...……………………………….287
Table 132. Landownership in the Çiftliks of Pirlepe (1)………...………………..289
Table 133. Landownership in the Çiftliks of Pirlepe (2)………...………………..289
Table 134. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour…...…………..290
Table 135. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping…...…………291
Table 136. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping and Wage Labour…………………………………………………..292
Table 137. Distribution of All Types of Land among Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Workers (Pirlepe)…………………………………………………………………..293
Table 138. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of Pirlepe (1)…………………………………………………………………………………..298
Table 139. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of Pirlepe (2)…………………………………………………………………………………..298
Table 140. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour…………...………299
Table 141. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping…...……………...299
xx
Table 142. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping and Wage Labour…………………………………………………………………..299
Table 143. Distribution of the Çiftlik Sizes of Pirlepe……………...…………….303
Table 144. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Landownership (Pirlepe)…...…...….305
Table 145. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Types (1)…………...……….307
Table 146. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Types (2)…………...……….307
Table 147. Largest 10 Çiftliks of Pirlepe……………...…………………………..308
Table 148. Çiftliks of Halil Bey oğlu Yusuf Bey in Pirlepe………………...…….309
xxi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The districts of Manastır, Pirlepe, and İştip...............................................62
Figure 2. Dragor River, Manastır…..………………………………………………75
Figure 3. Distribution of rural population between çiftliks and villages of Manastır……………………………………………………………………………..76
Figure 4. Distribution of settlements by level of çiftlik formation (number of households) in Manastır………………………………………..……………………79
Figure 5. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the settlements of Manastır…………………………………………………………….……………….79
Figure 6. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the population of Manastır……………………………………………………………………………..80
Figure 7. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and distribution of settlements in Manastır……………………………...................................................82
Figure 8. Distribution of rural population among settlements of Manastır……...…84
Figure 9. Distribution of landownership in Manastır……………...………………..86
Figure 10. Distribution of oxen between çiftliks and villages in Manastır...…...…..87
Figure 11. Means of production: Çiftliks versus villages (Manastır)……...……….88
Figure 12. Concentration of landownership (1) (Manastır)……...…………………89
Figure 13. Concentration of landownership (2) (Manastır)…...……………………89
Figure 14. Ratio of çiftlik land to all settlement land (Manastır)………...………...90
Figure 15. Distribution of settlements by landownership: Çiftliks versus villages (Manastır).………………………...…………………………………………………91
xxii
Figure 16. Distribution of land: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers of Manastır……………………………………………………………………………..92Figure 17. Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages (Manastır)…………...….96
Figure 18. Income from animal husbandary: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers (Manastır)………………………………………………………………….96
Figure 19. Villages of Manastır: Distribution of income sources……………...…...99
Figure 20. Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (1)………………………...102
Figure 21. Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (2)……………...…………103
Figure 22. Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (3)………………...………104
Figure 23. Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (4)………...………………105
Figure 24. Inequality of the distribution of landowning in a sample of villages in Manastır……………………………………………………………………………108
Figure 25. Distribution of grain fields among villages of Manastır…...………….109
Figure 26. Settlements based on non-agricultural income (Manastır)…...………..109
Figure 27. Centers of textile production in Manastır……...………………………110
Figure 28. Agrarian income sources of villages of Manastır……...………………113
Figure 29. Non-agricultural income sources of villages of Manastır………..……114
Figure 30. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftlik workers (Manastır)...……….….124
Figure 31. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftliks (Manastır)…...….……………..125
Figure 32. Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourers’ households (Manastır).……………………………...……………………………….………….126
Figure 33. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of sharecroppers’ households (Manastır)…………………………………………………………….…………….127
xxiii
Figure 34. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Number of households (Manastır)…………………………………………………128
Figure 35. Çiftliks and villages of Manastır………………………...…………….130
Figure 36. Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types (Manastır)……………......131
Figure 37. Çiftliks based on wage labour: Grain fields of çiftliks-owners (Manastır)……………………………………………………………….………….133
Figure 38. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (Manastır)…………………………………………………………….…………….134
Figure 39. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (Manastır)…………………………….…………….136
Figure 40. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners (Manastır)…...138
Figure 41. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik workers (Manastır)…………………………………………………………………………..139
Figure 42. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wage labour (Manastır)………………………………………………...…………………….......140
Figure 43. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on sharecropping (Manastır)……………………………………………………..………….…….…..140
Figure 44. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour (Manastır)……………………………….….…141
Figure 45. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik types (Manastır)……...141
Figure 46. Grains from the fields of çiftlik-owners of Manastır…...……….……..141
Figure 47. Grains from the fields of çiftlik workers of Manastır……...…….…….142
Figure 48. Distribution of draught animals among çiftlik types in Manastır......….144
Figure 49. Ownership of draught animals by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers of Manastır....................................................................................................................144
xxiv
Figure 50. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks (Manastır) (1).…................…...…..146
Figure 51. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks (Manastır) (2)……………......……148
Figure 52. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners with titles (Manastır)……...…...…….151
Figure 53. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners without titles (Manastır).…………….152
Figure 54. Sizes of çfitliks: Çiftlik-owning women (Manastır).….....…………….152
Figure 55. Distribution of rural population between çiftliks and villages of İştip………………………………………………………………………………...167
Figure 56. Distribution of settlements by level of çiftlik formation (number of households) in İştip………………………………………………………………...169
Figure 57. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the settlements of İştip………………………………………………………………………………...170
Figure 58. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the population of İştip………………………………………………………………………………...170
Figure 59. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and distribution of settlements in İştip……………………………………………………………...….173
Figure 60. Distribution of rural population among settlements of İştip (based on the number of households)……………………………………………………………..175
Figure 61. Concentration of landownership in İştip……………...……………….177
Figure 62. Distribution of oxen between çiftliks and villages in İştip………...…..178
Figure 63. Means of production: Çiftliks versus villages (İştip)…………...……..178
Figure 64. Concentration of landownership (1) (İştip)………...………………….179
Figure 65. Concentration of landownership (2) (İştip)…………...……………….180
Figure 66. Ratio of çiftlik land to all settlement land (İştip)……...………………180
Figure 67. Distribution of settlements by landownership: Çiftliks versus villages (İştip)……………………………………………………………………………….181
xxv
Figure 68. Distribution of land: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers of Manastır……………………………………………………………………………182
Figure 69. Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages (İştip)……………...…..184
Figure 70. Income from animal husbandary: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers (İştip)……………………………………………………………………..185
Figure 71. Villages of İştip: Distribution of income sources…………...…………186
Figure 72. Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (1)……………...…………...…189
Figure 73. Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (2)…………...….……………..190
Figure 74. Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (3)……………...……….……..191
Figure 75. Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (4)………...…………….……..193
Figure 76. Inequality of the distribution of landowning in a sample of villages in İştip……………………………………………………………….………………..195
Figure 77. Distribution of grain fields among villages of İştip……………………196
Figure 78. Settlements based on non-agricultural income (İştip)………...……….196
Figure 79. Agrarian income sources of villages of İştip…………...……………...198
Figure 80. Non-agricultural income sources of villages of İştip………...………..198
Figure 81. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftlik workers (İştip)……...…………..205
Figure 82. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftliks (İştip)……...…………………..206
Figure 83. Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourers’ households (İştip)……………………………………………………………………………….207
Figure 84. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of sharecroppers’ households (İştip)…………………………………………………………………...…………..208
Figure 85. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Number of households (İştip)……………………………………………………...209
Figure 86. Çiftliks and villages of İştip…………………………...………………210
xxvi
Figure 87. Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types (İştip)……………....……..211
Figure 88. Çiftliks based on wage labour: Grain fields of çiftliks-owners (İştip)…………………………………………………………………………….…213
Figure 89. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (İştip)……………………………………………………………………………….214
Figure 90. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (İştip)……………………………………………….215
Figure 91. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners (İştip)……...…217
Figure 92. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik workers (İştip)……......217
Figure 93. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wage labour (İştip)……………………………………………………………………………….218
Figure 94. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on sharecropping (İştip)……………………………………………………………………………….218
Figure 95. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour (İştip)………………………………………….219
Figure 96. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik types (İştip)…………..219
Figure 97. Grains from the fields of çiftlik-owners of İştip………...……….…….220
Figure 98. Grains from the fields of çiftlik workers of İştip………...…………….220
Figure 99. Distribution of draught animals among çiftlik types in İştip……….….222
Figure 100. Ownership of draught animals by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers of İştip………………………………………………………………..……….………222
Figure 101. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks (İştip) (1)……...…………………224
Figure 102. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks (İştip) (2)…………...…………....226
Figure 103. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners with titles (İştip)………...………….229
Figure 104. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners without titles (İştip)……...…………229
xxvii
Figure 105. Çiftliks of Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey in İştip…………...…………...233
Figure 106. Çiftlik of Krividol (Ahmed oğlu Emin and his brother Halil)………..236
Figure 107. Distribution of rural population between çiftliks and villages of Pirlepe…………………………………………………………………………….. 247
Figure 108. Distribution of settlements by level of çiftlik formation (number of households) in Pirlepe…………………………………………. ………………….249
Figure 109. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the settlements of Pirlepe………………………………………………………….…………………..250
Figure 110. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the population of
Pirlepe……………………………………………………………………………...250
Figure 111. Level of çiftlik formation and distribution of settlements in Pirlepe……………………………………………………………………………...253
Figure 112. Distribution of rural population among settlements of Pirlepe (based on the number of households)………………………………………….…….………..254
Figure 113. Concentration of landownership in Pirlepe………….…………...…..256
Figure 114. Distribution of oxen between çiftliks and villages in Pirlepe…...…....257
Figure 115. Means of production: Çiftliks versus villages (Pirlepe)………...……258
Figure 116. Concentration of landownership (1) (Pirlepe)……...………………...259
Figure 117. Concentration of landownership (2) (Pirlepe)………...……………...259
Figure 118. Ratio of çiftlik land to all settlement land (Pirlepe)………...………..260
Figure 119. Distribution of settlements by landownership: Çiftliks versus villages (Pirlepe).………………………………………………………………..…….……260
Figure 120. Distribution of land: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers of Pirlepe……………………………………………………………………………...261
Figure 121. Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages (Pirlepe)………...……264
xxviii
Figure 122. Income from animal husbandary: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers (Pirlepe)…………………………………………………………………..264
Figure 123. Villages of Pirlepe: Distribution of income sources……………...…..266
Figure 124. Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (1)………………..…...…..268
Figure 125. Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (2)…………………...……269
Figure 126. Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (2)………………...………270
Figure 127. Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (3)………………...………271
Figure 128. Distribution of grain fields among villages of Pirlepe………….……272
Figure 129. Agrarian income sources of villages of Pirlepe……………...……….273
Figure 130. Non-agricultural income sources of villages of Pirlepe………...……274
Figure 131. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftlik workers (Pirlepe)…...………...284
Figure 132. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftliks (Pirlepe)…...…………………284
Figure 133. Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourers’ households (Pirlepe)…………………………………………………………………………… 285
Figure 134. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of sharecroppers’ households (Pirlepe)…………………………………………………………………………….286
Figure 135. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Number of households (Pirlepe)…………………………………………………...287
Figure 136. Çiftliks and villages of Pirlepe………...……………………………..287
Figure 137. Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types (Pirlepe)...………………288
Figure 138. Çiftliks based on wage labour: Grain fields of çiftliks-owners (Pirlepe)………………………………………………………………………….…390
Figure 139. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (Pirlepe)…………………………………………………………………………… 291
xxix
Figure 140. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (Pirlepe)…………………………………………….292
Figure 141. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners (Pirlepe)…....294
Figure 142. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik workers (Pirlepe)…...294
Figure 143. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wage labour (Pirlepe)………………………………………………………………….…………295
Figure 144. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on sharecropping (Pirlepe)………………………………………………………….…………………295
Figure 145. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour (Pirlepe)……...….………………296
Figure 146. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik types (Pirlepe)……....296
Figure 147. Grains from the fields of çiftlik-owners of Pirlepe……...…………...297
Figure 148. Grains from the fields of çiftlik workers of Pirlepe…...……………..297
Figure 149. Distribution of draught animals among types of çiftliks…...………...299
Figure 150. Ownership of draught animals by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers of Pirlepe…………………………………………………………………..….………300
Figure 151. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks of Pirlepe (1) ……………..……..302
Figure 152. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks of Pirlepe (2)…………...……......303
Figure 153. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners with titles (Pirlepe)……….………...305
Figure 154. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners without titles (Pirlepe)…...…………306
Figure 155. Çiftliks of Halil Bey oğlu Yusuf Bey in Pirlepe……...………………310
Figure 156. Villages that participated in the signing of the petition concerning rural poverty……………………………………………………………………………..348
Figure 157. The village of Kruşevo.........................................................................355
Figure 158. Villages of Hoceste, Kosnica, Sorovic, Banica, and German…...…...364
xxx
Figure 159. The village of Sofilari (İştip)……...………………………………….365
Figure 160. The village of Krstec (Pirlepe)………...……………………………..366
Figure 161. The villages of Varsakli and Serçe (Sirceler/Sercijevo) (İştip)…...….367
Figure 162. The villages that participated in the signing of the petition from 1903 (İştip)……………………………………………………………………………….367
Figure 163. The villages of Kanina and Bareşani, Manastır……...……………….373
Figure 164. Villages of Dragos and Negocani, Manastır……...…………………..374
Figure 165. Villages of Gorobinci, Knezce, and Guzumel (İştip)…………...……375
Figure 166. Villages of Patatino, Nemanica, Barbarova, and Orle (İştip)……...…376
Figure 167. Villages of Magarevo and Nizopolje, Manastır...……………………377
Figure 168. Villages of Meckujevci and Strojisavci, İştip……...…………………378
Figure 169. The villages of Ribarci, Radobor, Mogila, Trn, Karaman, Çekrikçi, Novak, Opticar, Negotin and Egri (İştip)…………………………………………..381
Figure 170. The village of Magarevo (Manastır)…...……………………………..382
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This thesis examines the rural society of the Ottoman Balkans in the 19th century, focusing on the districts of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe, all located in modern North Macedonia, through the central themes of çiftlik production and rural inequality. The analysis mainly focuses on property and labor relations between landowners and rural inhabitants. The thesis also touches upon several issues related to the rural structure and agrarian dynamics, including restriction of peasant mobility, imposition of corvee on rural producers, peasant poverty and indebtedness, appropriation of peasant land, and the turning of villages into çiftliks.
The çiftliks of the districts of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe of the 19th century constitute the central axis of the present thesis. These forms of organization of rural production can be broadly defined as privately-owned landed estates primarily based on sharecropping arrangements having a market-oriented outlook, often under the ownership of urban-based figures from the upper classes. Furthermore, they were in close contact and interdependence with the villages of their regions. As such, çiftliks not only constituted an integral part of the rural universe at large, but also profoundly impacted the shaping of agricultural configuration. In this capacity, the significance of the çiftliks was not simply confined to these forms of rural organizations themselves but critically encompassed broader dimensions.
On a more practical level, the çiftliks often constituted complex and multi-dimensional structures. First and foremost, these estates were based on agricultural production and animal husbandry; hence, landed property constituted their raison d’etre. In terms of agricultural production, the çiftliks of the Balkans were often
2
confined to grains, while those of western Anatolia were mainly focused on the production of cash crops, even though variety within each region certainly existed. Fields confined to the production of various agricultural products were often complemented by areas reserved for the provision of the needs of the animals of the çiftlik, including meadows and pastures, and also by vineyards, orchards, uncultivated land, and woodland. Beyond the core area of production, the çiftliks were quite flexible formations and could display great diversity. For example, certain infrastructure was needed for production, harvest, and storage processes to continue properly and for the caring of animals. As such, çiftliks often included warehouses, granaries, barns, threshing areas, stables, sheepfolds, fountains, and wells, in addition to the occasional existence of stores, smithies, mills, and facilities for textile production. Lodgings for the çiftlik workers (“ortakçı odaları,” “çiftçi haneleri,” etc.) and sometimes accommodation facilities for household servants, gardeners, and other personae of complementary functions completed this main framework of infrastructure. These architectural features were complemented by tools of production, such as oxen, which constituted the main draught animal for the cultivation of land, and the iron plough, the essential traditional production tool. In the cases of more prominent landlords, çiftliks could also include mansions (“köşk”) for the residence of çiftlik owners; these estates, furthermore, would often be surrounded by walls and towers for purposes of defense both in the Balkans and western Anatolia. Lastly, sharecropping, which entailed the division of the agricultural produce between the landowner and the cultivator, often turned out to be the dominant arrangement of labor for cultivation, while various forms of labor co-existed side by side, other than cases of çiftliks based solely on sharecropping, wage-
3
labor, and tenancy contracts.1 The çiftliks under analysis are mainly based on the production of grains, followed by income obtained from meadows and vineyards, as well as occasional engagement in animal husbandry, often on the basis of sharecropping.
The size of these landed estates also diverged significantly, both in historical and geographical terms. While the larger examples of çiftliks were initially designated as “plantation-like farms” which mainly emerged on wasteland thanks to efforts at reclamation,2 later studies emphasized the variety of the size of çiftliks, which often tended to be on a scale much smaller than a “plantation-like farm.”3 Furthermore, it has become visible that the general layout of the cultivable land in the çiftliks mostly consisted of multiple smaller parcels of land rather than continuous landscapes of “plantation-like” çiftliks in addition to a number of non-cultivable areas which were sometimes left unregistered in sources, such as forests and pastures.4 In line with the size of the çiftliks, the number of workers also displayed great diversity.5 Lastly, this diversity was complemented by the considerable variation in the economic and social positioning of the çiftlik-owners6. The çiftliks under study also vary significantly in terms of size and number of
1 BOA TS. MA. d. 5913, 1181; BOA D. BŞM. MHF. d. 12808, 1191. Also see: Stoianovich, “Land Tenure and Related Sectors of the Balkan Economy, 1600-1800,” 402; Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 105-106; Arel, “Ege Bölgesi Ayanlık Dönemi Mimarisi: 1986-1991 Çalışmaları,” 231; Arel, “Foça Bağ Evleri ve Kule-Ev Geleneği,” 51; Arel, “Ege Bölgesi Ayanlık Dönemi Mimarisi Hakkında Bir Ön Araştırma,” 39.
2 İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants,” 19-25.
3 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800,
72; Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 106.
4 Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 124. This scattered quality of
cultivable land that consisted of smaller parcels also held true for the villages: Dragonava, Tuna
Vilayeti’nin Köy Nüfusu, 51-52.
5 For example, see: Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du nord-ouest au cours du XVIII siècle,” 208, 214; Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth Century,” 251; Parveva, Rural Agrarian and Social Structure in the Edirne Region during the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century, 49-50.
6McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800,
152; Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth Century,” 250.
4
workers as well as the characteristics of çiftlik-owners. As such, these çiftliks can be mainly defined by their common quality of the complete separation between the ownership and the cultivation of land, even though their size, forms of labor, and outlook could vary.
In general, the çiftliks of the Ottoman Empire, especially concerning the forms they took in the 18th and 19th centuries, have often been treated in the dominant orthodox history-writing within the confines of the rigid framework drawn by the unchanging principle of the miri land regime and çift-hane system. The other prevailing view posited the çiftlik question through the lens of the expansion of the capitalist world market and the integration of the Ottoman Empire into this newly emerging system. When the question has come to the commercialization of agriculture in general, the dominant model has functioned under the rubric of petty-commodity production whereby smallholding peasant families would benefit from market opportunities whenever they emerged. The çiftlik debate, therefore, mainly developed within the confines of these frameworks.
The transformation of traditional agrarian structures, especially from the 18th and 19th centuries onwards, has attracted considerable attention in the debates on the development of capitalism in relation to the changing character of class relations and agricultural production in the countryside. The global transformations of this era also found their resonance in the Ottoman Empire, which experienced significant economic, social, and political changes, and witnessed the emergence of an agrarian question in the same period. In this general context, the landed estates, or çiftliks, of the Ottoman Balkans are likely to open up an important venue that can enable the addressing of the historically specific features of the Ottoman Empire with reference to the globally prevalent issues of the period from the 18th to the 19th century,
5
including forms of agrarian transitions, processes of rural dispossession, the separation between the owners and the cultivators of agricultural land, erosion of traditional peasant self-sufficiency, and development of a degree of market dependency. With these concerns in mind, the present thesis can be considered an attempt to transcend the conventional frameworks that either focus on the resilience of the traditional Ottoman system or the transformative impact of trade on the organization of production and posit the çiftlik question in the broader framework of rural class structure and labor relations in the Ottoman Balkans in the mid-19th century. For this purpose, the main research questions around which the framework of the present thesis has been formed with regard to the rural class structure in the region under study are as follows: What is the extent of çiftliks vis-a-vis villages in the countryside; what are the common characteristics of çiftliks in the mid-19th century, and what are the main axes on which these forms of organization varied; how can the property structure and internal organization of the villages be characterized; and what is the nature of the relationship between çiftliks and villages in the composition of the countryside in general?
The general structure of this thesis stands on three main footholds. Here, the first foothold centers on the relations between landowners and rural producers. As such, the first point of focus is on the class relations that were formed around the phenomenon of Ottoman çiftliks which entailed a number of implications regarding the character of the economic and social system at hand. Concerning the rural society of the Ottoman Balkans, the çiftliks have been evaluated as the most visible proxy of class relations in the countryside directly related to the disruption of the traditional peasant society. Behind the first layer of rural inequality embodied in the presence of çiftliks, the question of whether tendencies towards stratification and differentiation
6
can be observed among the rural inhabitants has also been raised. Accordingly, the second main foothold of the thesis centers on the relations among the “peasantry” itself. Lastly, the third foothold of the thesis centers on the question of space and geography in relation to patterns of rural organization. Accordingly, this thesis has been formed in a dialogue with the concerns of environmental and spatial history with an emphasis on the importance of space as much as the concept of temporality in historical research. Beyond the internal structures of çiftliks and villages, the rural landscape is analyzed in its entirety in order to understand the reciprocal relationships between these forms of organization in the composition of the countryside.
The main body of sources utilized in this study consists of income survey registers (“Emlak, Arazi, Hayvanat ve Temettüat Tahrir Defterleri” or “Temettuat Defterleri”), which have been analyzed to draw a general portrait of the rural society, with a focus on property relations, forms of labor and inequality, in the districts of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe in the mid-19th century. For specific issues such as the co-existence of restrictions on rural mobility and peasant flight, the content of different types of labor arrangements, and various forms of contestation over the appropriation of peasant land, a selection of archival sources, including petitions, investigation reports, and legal documents, has incorporated into the analysis to present a broader glimpse of rural society in its general structure, tendencies, and dynamics.
Chapter 2 will start with a literature survey to provide a general introduction to the çiftlik question with its crucial implications regarding the characterization of the agrarian structure of the Ottoman Empire as an economic and social system. After the main lines of the problematique and various studies that have engaged in
7
the analysis of the çiftlik phenomenon based on different theoretical frameworks and methodologies are presented, the main research questions of the thesis will be formed with reference to the relevant literature, the main aim and scope of the thesis will be drawn, an exposition of the methodology will be provided, and the area under research will be briefly introduced.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 are based on the analysis of the income survey registers of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe. Each chapter consists of three main parts formed around two distinctive yet interrelated forms of settlement in the rural context –villages and çiftliks. In each chapter, the first part provides a general portrait of the district under study through comparisons between the villages and the çiftliks to draw a broad picture of the rural landscape. Then, the second part focuses specifically on villages. After a general introduction to the villages of the district under study, the focus centers on rural inequality and economic and social differentiation among the peasantry. Lastly, the third part deals with the çiftliks of the respective district in detail. After introducing a general typology of the çiftliks, based on the forms of labor employed, a discussion on the economic and social characteristics of the çiftlik-owners, who display significant diversity, concludes the analysis. Each of these chapters also contains a general introduction to the specific sources used and a brief conclusion whereby the most significant findings of the research will be underlined. Throughout this analysis, themes of property relations and forms of labor will be the main pillars for the exposition of the data retrieved from the income survey registers. In this group, Chapter 3 focuses on the district of Manastır, Chapter 4 focuses on the district of İştip, and Chapter 5 focuses on the district of Pirlepe. Although these chapters are mainly based on the income survey registers, several supplementary sources are also incorporated into the analysis.
8
The analysis of income survey registers mainly focuses on the general structure of rural society in the mid-19th century. As such, the resulting picture, while a rather detailed one due to the richness of the sources under question, remains a snapshot of a complex reality in flux. In order to develop a more variegated portrayal of the rural society and enlarge the temporal limits of the study, Chapter 6 combines a variety of archival sources, including petitions, investigation reports, and legal documents, and extends the analysis into the 18th and early 20th century. As such, it is intended to transcend the potential limits that an exclusive focus on the income survey registers could create. Another purpose of the analysis in Chapter 6 is to point out crucial processes in rural society which are not visible enough in the income survey registers, such as the nature of the relationship between landowners and peasants, the content of labor arrangements, the questions of restrictions on mobility and imposition of corvee labor on the peasantry and çiftlik-workers in a context of rural inequality, poverty, and peasant indebtedness as well as the turning of peasant land into çiftliks, during which the resulting contestation often took the form of a clash between different property regimes. Lastly, Chapter 7 provides a general summary and discussion of all the findings.
Chapter 3, 4, and 5, utilizing income survey registers, mainly consists of quantitative analysis to present rural society’s general structure in the mid-19th century. As such, it primarily focuses on the common points between phenomena organized through the central line of property relations. Nevertheless, cases of deviation from the norm can be as important and telling as the points of generality. With this concern in mind, anecdotal evidence obtained from the income survey registers has also been incorporated into the study as much as possible. Chapter 6 mainly focuses on the organization of sources through a number of themes and the
9
accompanying presentation of relevant cases compiled from all three districts in loosely chronological order.
Beyond the combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses, the thesis also engages in a dialogue with the recent questions raised by environmental and spatial history and utilizes the tools of digital humanities. As such, the statistical data will be combined with GIS (Geographical Information Systems) analysis to transcend the limits imposed by the relatively artificial boundaries of administrative units -such as the unit of district (“kaza”) under study- and demonstrate the great diversity of settlement forms and patterns of production within the districts, which would be lost from sight in an exclusive focus on averages. All in all, this thesis, through the utilization of a variety of archival sources, combines quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis, statistical methods and focused case studies, general patterns and singular cases, with sensitivity to the spatial dimension of historical processes.
10
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK:
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE OTTOMAN ÇİFTLİK DEBATE
2.1 Ottoman agrarian history and the çiftlik debate: An introductory overview
In the field of Ottoman economic and social history in general and rural history in particular, the Balkans -or southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule- has occupied a peculiar position. For one thing, the Balkans constituted a specific locus of interaction between the expansionist Ottoman state and an already-existing system of economy and society. The geographical location of the area, in its close proximity to the Eastern European rural universe, rendered this interaction a conflictual and complex process. The Balkans also turned out to be a central stage for the formation of an agrarian question which came forward with increasing intensity in the 19th century.
The emergence and the nature of çiftliks, or privately-owned estates engaged in production for market mainly on the basis of sharecropping, emerged as a point of controversy in relation to the economic and social characteristics of the Ottoman Empire. The historically changing meaning of çiftlik contributed to the confusion over various connotations of the concept. Initially, the term of çift was used to denote a piece of land that varied roughly from 70 to 150 dönüms according to local conditions and productivity of land.7 At the same time, the notion of “reaya çiftliği” referred to a piece of land under the use of a subsistence-based peasant-family, which obtained the right as well as the obligation to cultivate it on a regular basis, authorized through an official document called “tapu bedeli” while a failure by the
7 “(Has yerden yetmiş seksen dönüm ve evsat yerden yüz dönüm) ve edna yerden yüz otuz ve yüz elli dönüm yer, bir çiftlik i'tibar olunur”: Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri 2, 65-66.
11
cultivator to pay the agricultural tax (“çift resmi”) or engage in continuous production ended up in the retrieval of arable land by the state or demand for the compensation of the lost revenue through “çift bozan” payment. Then, through the legal categories of the classical tımar system, lands categorized as “hassa çiftlik” were placed under the direct control of the sipahi who could, on his initiative, cultivate this land personally or lease it out, outside the constraints of the miri land system, under arrangements of sharecropping, even though total alienation was not legally allowed. According to Barkan, this category of land gradually lost its importance after the 16th century as “tımarlı sipahi” turned into a tax-collecting state official rather than acting as a landowner per se. An offshoot of this category was large-scale “padişah hasları” and “vakıf” lands, both of which heavily relied on the employment of sharecroppers; these forms, however, either disappeared in the midst of the overruling miri land system or were transformed into “mülk arazi” to re-emerge as some of the bigger çiftliks of the late Ottoman period. Lastly, other than a limited number of specialized çiftliks based on specific military duties and functions, the term of çiftlik itself came to imply the existence of an agrarian question (“toprak meselesi”), which became markedly visible from the late 18th into the early 19th century, whereby estates under the control of wealthy landowners, in conjunction with the emergence of a stratum of landless peasantry, began to sprout, especially in the Balkans, the classical explanation mainly resting on factors such as the decay of classical institutions, the weakening of state authority, the encroachments by third-parties, the development of mukataa and malikane systems of tax-collection, the unceasing state of military upheaval and turmoil in the aforementioned geography, and the resulting re-flourishing of previous feudal institutions, such as seigniorial
12
manor and corvee labour.8 In this context, the çiftlik debate mainly focused on the concept of çiftlik as a landed estate which displayed private property-like characteristics and a commercial-orientation. This latter category of çiftliks constitutes the main focus of analysis of this thesis.9
During its development, the so-called “çiftlik debate” quickly gained a symbolic significance regarding the characterization of the Ottoman social and economic system. Different approaches to the çiftlik phenomenon have been largely shaped by the respective theoretical positions adopted by the parties of the debate; in turn, the debate brought forward crucial implications regarding the system of production under question.
2.1.1 The classic Ottoman land regime: Tımar system, miri land, and çift-hane principle
If orthodox Ottoman history writing was to be summarized with reference to one defining characteristic, it would probably be “state fetishism.” This general outlook did not fail to manifest itself in agrarian history either. The dominant paradigm of agrarian history was mainly characterized by the central place given to the existence of a strong state protecting a free, independent and self-subsisting peasantry against the claims and encroachments of third parties.10 In the field of Ottoman agrarian history-writing, this canon was established mainly by Ömer Lütfi Barkan and Halil İnalcık. In general, the characterization of the Ottoman social and economic system, in the form of whether it can be defined as a feudal, Asiatic, or sui generis one, has
8 Barkan, “Çiftlik,” 789-797.
9 See the Article 131 of 1858 Land Code: “beynennas çiftlik dedikleri bir takım araziyi ziraat ve hiraset zımnında inşa ve tedârik olunmuş olan ebniye ve hayvanat ve tohum ve edevat-ı çift ve müştemilatı sâire ile ol araziden ibarettir”: Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, 714.
10 Berktay, "Batı ve Türk Ortaçağ tarihçiliğinin köylülüğe bakışının temel deformasyonları”, 74-77.
Also see: Berktay, "The feudalism debate: The Turkish end – is ‘tax – vs. – rent’ necessarily the
product and sign of a modal difference?"; Haldon, State and the Tributary Mode of Production.
13
constituted a central axis of the controversy over the Ottoman çiftliks the answers to which were profoundly shaped by the aforementioned state-centered view.11
Barkan’s specific approach to the Ottoman economic and social system is exemplified in his double comparison -between the serfs of Western Europe and the “ortakçı kullar” of the Ottoman Empire, on the one hand, and between the Western European feudalism and the Ottoman tımar system, on the other hand. In the background of these comparisons, the specific model of European feudalism employed by Barkan turned out to be decisive for the results of his analysis.
The first comparison, which focuses on the serfs of Western Europe and the “ortakçı kullar” of the Ottoman Empire, has been developed through the similarities and differences between these cases with regard to issues such as restrictions on marriage, inheritance, and selection of occupation for the peasantry, imposition of corvee labor on agricultural producers, and the extent of lordly legal power, as main points of comparison. Although the “ortakçı kullar” of the Ottoman Empire, as Barkan argued, seem to be the Ottoman counterparts of the Western European serfs, their marginal place in the overall social composition and the distinctiveness of the reaya, being free and independent as it supposedly was, from this group of bonded laborers, relegated their historical importance to a limited time and space. Barkan’s second comparison is a more focused analysis of the similarities and differences between Ottoman tımar system and Western European feudalism, mainly expanding upon the issues of peasant mobility, state ownership of land, and economic, social, and legal position of the figure of tımarlı sipahi. Here, two points proved decisive for the argument developed by Barkan. Firstly, tımarlı sipahi cannot be seen as a feudal
11 For a discussion of the general lines of the controversy regarding feudalism and Asiatic Mode of Production in Turkey, see: Oyan, Feodalizmden kapitalizme, Osmanlı'dan Türkiye'ye, 9-15. For some works utilizing the latter concept, see: Divitçioğlu, Asya Üretim Tarzı ve Osmanlı Toplumu; Küçükömer, "Asyagil üretim biçimi, yeniden üretim ve sivil toplum.”
14
landlord, on a par with the European noble landowner, who directly managed and supervised the production process on his estates on his own initiative; here, tımarlı sipahi instead emerged as a figure with the outlook of a state official, in the form of a tax-collector living off of his tımar income which essentially constituted his salary received in return for service to the state. Secondly, no matter how many periodic waves of “feudalization” could be identified in the history of the Ottoman Empire, these trends in no way constituted an integral part of the Ottoman socio-economic system; rather, they are considered as deviations from the norm of the classical Ottoman land regime.12
This line of argument was taken over by Halil İnalcık, who expanded upon Barkan’s treatment of tımar system, focusing on the organization of agricultural production based on çift-hane. According to İnalcık, because tımar system rested on
12 Barkan, “Türkiye’de “Servaj” Var Mıydı?”, 717-723. Even when Barkan accepts that some degree of dependency might have actually existed for the reaya in relation to land as well, at the end of the day he still concludes that it was the state that had played the major part in the creation of such dependency for fiscal purposes, rather than an aristocratic landlord class per se: Ibid, 723-724. In the framework developed by Barkan, any possibility for the existence of feudalism in the Ottoman Empire has been ruled out from the start since the concept came to be associated with historically-specific features of the Western European feudalism, such as the dispersal of political power, aristocratic character of landlords and legal status of serfdom imposed on peasant producers: Ibid, 718-720. In Barkan’s account, the culprit for certain instances that resembled to serfom and feudalism was often pre-Ottoman elements -either as remnants from the time of the pre-Ottoman feudalism or revival of some of its features which flourished during periods of distress and decentralization: Ibid, 724. This general viewpoint is not specific to the Ottoman case and Turkish scholarship though. With reference to the ardent discussion by historians on the possibility (or impossibility) of feudalism in Poland due to the historical specificities of the country, Skwarczynski underlines that “some historians of the early 19th century and later considered feudalism so contrary to the Polish spirit that they would not admit it had ever existed in that country”: Skwarczyński, “The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century, 293. For another example of the same attitude towards the past, see Alfonso who refers to "the myth of Spanish difference". Alfonso, “Exploring Difference within Rural Communities in the Northern Iberian Kingdoms, 1000–1300,” 87. It seems as if each country has historians overly-fascinated by the historical specificities and particularities of their own past.In contrast to Barkan’s framework, Vera Moutafchieva underlined the specificities of an Eastern variant of feudalism, which was manifested in the existence of a strong state as in the Ottoman case, and put under scrutiny the categories of tımar and mülk in order to develop a nuanced understanding of the system, with due reference to the military dynamics of the empire. In this context, Moutafchieva mainly argued that while tımar, which was essentially a source of revenue for the tımar holder, cannot be seen as perfectly identical to the fief of the Western European feudalism with its territorial connotations, and that the tımar holder was not on a par with the European feudal landlord, at the end of the day the system comprised of dependent and exploited peasantry as against the ruling class consisting of tımar holders, who were relatively small actors, and mülk sahipleri, who were the real big feudal landlords of the Empire: Moutafchieva, Agrarian Relations in the Ottoman Empire in the 15th and 16th Centuries.
15
the principle of miri land, the state acted as the ultimate landowner and heavily regulated the rules and rhythm of agrarian production to ensure the continuity and indivisibility of the “reaya çiftlik” whereby the peasant family could subsist and pay taxes under state protection. Here, the figure of the sipahi once again emerged as a state-official working for a salary rather than acting as a feudal landlord directly supervising the production process. While abuses were often encountered even in this idealized picture, such as those cases when the sipahi tried to impose corvee labor on the peasantry or tried to expand his hassa çiftlik at the expense of peasant land, these were defined as abuses after all –forms of misconduct by corrupt state-officials trying to evade the legal framework of justice established by the state. This web of inter-relationships between the fiscal needs of the state, the tımar as the organizing military and economic system, miri land as the dominant form of land tenure and the çift-hane as the main principle regulating peasant production, in a nutshell, constituted the underlying logic of the Ottoman economy and society, according to İnalcık.13
In both of these accounts, Ottoman productive base is portrayed to consist of more or less free and independent peasantry engaged in small-scale family production under the paternal protection of the Ottoman state, which prevented -or at least aspired to do so- the attempts of third party actors from exploiting the peasantry on their own account. This picture, in the end, laid the conceptual ground for the upcoming generations of historians of the Ottoman Empire and constituted the basis of orthodoxy in Ottoman agrarian history-writing, which in turn shaped the resulting conceptualization of the çiftlik question.
13 İnalcık, “Village, peasant and empire.” Also see: İnalcik, “Tanzimat Nedir?”, 239-241.
16
In this narrative, because çiftliks do not exactly comply with the established picture of the Ottoman Empire, they are considered to be cases of deviation from the essential nature of the system under question. Here, the argument regarding the emergence of çiftliks has a strong affinity with the decline paradigm which evaluates the post-classical period in Ottoman history as a long process of decay, especially from the 16th century onwards.14 The first foothold of this decay entailed the turning of the miri land by various members of the upper class into vakıfs and private farms. Then, the second foothold was the decline of tımar system and the emergence of iltizam system, in the context of the increasing power and prominence of the ayan.15 Moreover, the transition from life-term to hereditary leasing of land -in other words, the transition from mukataa system to malikane within the framework of iltizam- gave a further impetus to this ongoing trend towards “çiftlikization.”16 While state lands were occasionally leased out to influential personages starting from the earlier periods of the Ottoman Empire, it was from the 18th century onwards that external trade opportunities gave a further impetus to this already-existing practice in tandem with the increase of ayan power.17 Nevertheless, the çift-hane system is claimed to have been mostly left untouched.18 Also, the earlier wave of the emergence of big çiftliks, which were characterized as “plantation-like farms,” has been argued to have mainly taken place “on waste or abandoned (mevat) lands outside the areas under the çift-hane system,” mostly on the basis of “şenlendirme”, or “reclamation”.19 This
14 For some critical overviews of the notion of decline in the Ottoman history, see: Quataert, “Ottoman
history writing and changing attitudes towards the notion of “decline”; Kafadar, “The Question of
Ottoman Decline”; Hathaway, “Problems of periodization in Ottoman history: the fifteenth through
the eighteenth centuries”.
15 İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants,” 19, 22- 23. Also see: İnalcik, “Tanzimat Nedir,” 241-252.
16 İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants,” 22-23.
17 Ibid, 24.
18 Ibid, 17-34. Also see: Veinstein, “On the Çiftlik Debate.”
19 İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants,” 19-23. According
to İnalcık, “through obtaining mülk lands from mevat, Islamic Law provided a legal framework to
17
also held true, as İnalcık argued, for the “market-oriented large farms” of the 18th century.20 Accordingly, what happened in the Ottoman Empire was not comparable to the developments in Eastern Europe, whereby feudal landowners increasingly resorted to estate management in response to the growing demand for grains from Western Europe.21
Fikret Adanır developed a similar account regarding the historical emergence of çiftliks in the Ottoman Empire. In the 16th century, he argued, “çiftlik farms, whether large or small, were far too few at that time to be considered in any sense characteristic of the prevailing land regime.”22 While their number increased considerably in the 17th century, these çiftliks mainly consisted of “ranches devoted primarily to stock breeding”. Although abandonment of land due to peasant flight -especially in the context of the Celali revolts- turned out to be an important factor behind their emergence, Adanır still concluded that “it would be stretching the point to consider çiftlik formation at this stage a result of the ‘usurpation’ of the land of peasants.”23 He also added that the çiftliks which emerged with the increasing power of the ayan from the 17th and 18th century onwards still remained “modest” in extent and ambition.24
In the case of Macedonia, Adanır specifically emphasized that the çiftliks in this region emerged on mevat lands thanks to efforts at reclamation, rather than
bring about large farms owned by individuals, and the Ottoman state, as a rule, encouraged the
application of this legal device to expand the area of such lands.” In this way, these çiftliks did not
disrupt the existing land system: Ibid, 21.
20 İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants,” 25-26. In this
context, İnalcık pointed out the fundamental difference between the çiftliks based on tax-farming (as
well as “appanage-like land grants”) and “plantation-like farms.” The former, he argued, “simply
constituted a fiscal-administrative rearrangement in the possession of the lands, and did not
necessarily bring about a change in the çift-hane system.” In contrast, most of the “plantation-like
farms” were mainly established on mevat land and hence, outside of the çift-hane system: Ibid, 24.
21 Ibid.
22 Adanır, “Tradition and Rural Change in Southeastern Europe During Ottoman Rule,” 147.
23 Ibid, 147-148.
24 Ibid, 148-149.
18
through the usurpation of peasant land, by claiming that the alluvial plains of Macedonia, where çiftliks mostly concentrated, rather than being fertile areas as often supposed by the relevant literature, were actually “agriculturally the poorest in the whole country.”25 As such, the concentration of the peasantry in mountainous areas, according to Adanır, is to be explained by the conscious choice of a body of independent peasantry freely moving around the countryside to find the best prospects for themselves, in the form of migration either to uplands for engagement in cash-crop agriculture and animal husbandry or to urban centers for engagement in crafts as well as wage-labor.26 As such, Adanır concluded that although “great changes in the West such as the emergence of the Atlantic economies or the Industrial Revolution” had certainly exerted an impact on the Ottoman Empire, in the end “they did not affect the relations of production in agriculture, the main sector of the Ottoman economy, significantly” while the changes of the Ottoman Empire from the 17th to the 18th century, he argued, “took place chiefly in the superstructure.”27
2.1.2 Trade, capitalist world-system and the question of second serfdom: A discussion on the Balkan çiftliks
While the aforementioned orthodoxy on Ottoman economic history had been established by the 1950s and 1960s to a considerable extent, the following period of the 1970s witnessed the increasing impact of the Wallersteinian world-system analysis on the general outlook of Ottoman economic history. However, the role played by global trade for the emergence of çiftliks in the Ottoman Empire has been discussed not only by Wallerstein and his students, in the form of the incorporation
25 Adanır, “The Macedonian question: the socio-economic reality and of its historiographic
interpretation,” 45-47.
26 Adanır, “The Macedonian question: the socio-economic reality and of its historiographic
interpretation,” 47-49.
27 Adanır, “Tradition and Rural Change in Southeastern Europe During Ottoman Rule,” 155.
19
of the Ottoman Empire into the capitalist world system, but initially by Fernand Braudel, whose study can be counted among the first attempts to establish some links between the expansion of global trade and the emergence of Balkan çiftliks.28
Stoianovich and Sadat, mainly working through the framework of second serfdom and estate production, articulated the emergence of çiftliks and bonded forms of labor in the Balkans.29 In this context, Stoianovich argued that tımar holders started to expand the land under their direct control -or “hassa çiftlik”- at the expense of peasant land from the 16th century onwards. This tendency, coupled by factors such as the expansion of the malikane system, chronic indebtedness of the peasantry, forceful acquisition of cultivable land and constant stream of peasant flight, ended up in the accumulation of land previously under peasant production in the hands of economically and politically powerful groups, such as the ayan and the yeniçeri, who treated these lands as estates under their private ownership while they, at the same time, employed armed men under their command to protect their position.30 In this context, as Stoianovich argued, “the çiftlik marks the transition from a social and economic structure founded upon a system of moderate land rent and few labor
28 In Braudel’s view, the expansion of çiftlik presence in the Balkans, as “a new and important phenomenon”, indicated the existence of transformations taking place in the agrarian structure. After Braudel referred to various usages of the term of çiftlik, such as “the acreage of land that could be ploughed in a day” as well as “privately owned property, whether that of the peasants … or of great noblemen”, he underlined that in its latter-day usage, especially from the 17th century onwards, the term of çiftlik started specifically to refer to “the large estate of modern times, a sort of colonial plantation or Gutsherrschaft”: Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, 724. These estates were, according to Braudel, mainly engaged in production of grain for export trade. Most importantly, as “large proprietors put to use the depopulated land whose possibilities had never been fully explored by previous generations of nobles and peasants,” they simultaneously “created ... the conditions leading to the 'new serfdom' observable in Turkey.” In this context, Braudel specifically underlined that there were important parallels between the large estates of Eastern Europe and the Ottoman çiftliks, both of which, he argued, came into existence as a response to the increasing demand for grain from the Western Europe, while the end result turned out to be large-scale enserfment of agricultural producers. Most importantly for the theoretical implications of the argument, Braudel concluded that “the existence of these tyrannically organized but productive modern estates would indicate that when considering the evolution of the Turkish nobility, other factors besides the social and political must be taken into account”: Ibid, 725.
29 Stoianovich, “Land Tenure and Related Sectors of the Balkan Economy, 1600-1800”; Sadat,
“Rumeli Ayanları: The Eighteenth Century.”
30 Stoianovich, “Land Tenure and Related Sectors of the Balkan Economy, 1600-1800,” 398-401.
20
services to one of excessive land rent and exaggerated service” and in this capacity, it refers to the emergence of a particular form of serfdom.31 In this picture, the expansion of export trade was critical -this is visible, according to Stoianovich, in the fact that “the institution of the çiftlik, as an enterprise of colonization … expands along the arteries of communication: the coastal plains and interior basins.”32 As such, he underlined that “the simultaneous development of serfdom and large quasi-private properties”33 was not a phenomenon exclusive to the Balkans, but it was evident in a large geography, including Eastern and Southern Europe as well as Russia.34
The theme of the integration of the Balkan economies into the expanding system of global trade has also been discussed by Sadat with reference to the changing outlook of the local ruling elite, or the so-called ayan, who had initially acted as elected local intermediaries with an urban and “semi-official” outlook in the 17th century, while they increasingly accumulated land, especially after the acquisition of iltizam rights, by appropriating the tapu titles of the indebted peasantry, started to engage in commercial agriculture and turned effectively into a “landed aristocracy” by the 18th century.35 As such, Sadat concluded that the ascendance of this group marked “the emergence of a seigneurial regime in the Balkans.”36 With reference to long-term economic development, Sadat argued that the change in the system of land tenure, in the form of the expansion of çiftlik agriculture, did not lead to “internal
31 Stoianovich, “Land Tenure and Related Sectors of the Balkan Economy, 1600-1800,” 402.
32 Ibid, 403. These arteries of communication included “Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, the
Marica Valley, Danubian Bulgaria, the Kosovo-Metohija basins, the coastal plains of Albania, and
parts of Bosnia”: Ibid, 402-403.
33 Ibid, 407.
34 Ibid, 407-411. The historical specificity of the Balkans compared to other regions in the Eastern
Europe with similar developments, according to Stoianovich, was to be found “in its emphasis upon
the use of thousands of armed guards to protect the estate of one landlord from the intrusions of
another and to keep the peasant on the land”: Ibid, 409.
35 Sadat, “Rumeli Ayanları: The Eighteenth Century,” 346-353.
36 Ibid, 346.
21
economic development” in the form of increase in productivity, as happened in Western Europe.37 Rather, the extraction of surplus was realized through the burdening of the peasantry under heavy exactions, not only in the form of rent in kind and rent in money, but also in the form of rent in labor, while the resulting tendency towards peasant flight ended up in the imposition of ever-increasing restrictions on their mobility and the related emergence of bondage to land.38 Just like Stoianovich, therefore, Sadat drew parallels between the emergence of the Ottoman çiftlik phenomenon and the development of estate agriculture on the basis of serfdom in Eastern Europe, in both of which “the peasants lost not only their land but also their mobility.”39
The general lines of the Braudelian framework, with its focus on the transformative impact of trade on the existing relations of production and the consolidation of large landholdings organized on the basis of serfdom, was later employed and utilized by Wallerstein, who posited the problematique through the formation of a global capitalist system from the 16th century onwards. In this narrative, the Ottoman Empire, which constituted “a classic case of a world-empire”, started to get in increasing engagement with the “capitalist world-economy” through commercial relations, during which the former gradually lost its relatively independent position and merely turned into, according to Wallerstein, “one more state located within the boundaries of the capitalist world-economy.”40 In this context,
37 Sadat, “Rumeli Ayanları: The Eighteenth Century,” 348.
38 Ibid, 353-354.
39 Ibid. Sadat underlined that attempts at immobilizing the peasantry were not usually successful as
many managed to escape to the mountainous areas and reverted to a semi-pastoral form of subsistence.
Others, both Muslim and Christian, joined robber bands, named klephts in Greece and haiduks in
Serbia, which were prevalent throughout the Balkans, due to peasant dispossesion: Ibid, 354.
40 Wallerstein, “The Ottoman Empire and the Capitalist World-Economy: Some Questions
for Research,” 391. Also see: Hopkins & Wallerstein, “Capitalism and the incorporation of new zones
into the world-economy”; Kasaba, “Incorporation of the Ottoman Empire, 1750-1820”. Historically,
Wallerstein argued that “in the period 1750-1873, the capitalist world-economy included in its ambit
22
the corollary of the integration of the Ottoman Empire into the capitalist world-system turned out to be the process of its “peripherialization” whereby the Ottoman economy “came to play a particular role within a capitalist mode of production, and be governed by the pressures for capital accumulation per se, as mediated by the supply-demand curves of the world market, and by the capital-labor relations that were reflected in the political compromises of the Ottoman state.”41 In historical terms, the integration of the former world-empire into the newly emerging capitalist world-system as a part of its periphery was accompanied by “the disappearance of the classical prebendal system and its effective replacement by çiftlik agriculture”
Russia, the Ottoman Empire, India, West Africa, and perhaps other areas as peripheral zones.” Wallerstein, “The Ottoman Empire and the Capitalist World-Economy: Some Questions for Research”,
392. Kasaba underlined that the integration of the Ottoman Empire to the world economy had started by the 18th century. Nevertheless, it was the 19th century that witnessed the culmination of these processes of integration as it was the time when “the power of the Ottoman state was effectively harnessed both internally by the groups who were benefiting from the expanding relations with Europe and externally by the interstate system”: Kasaba, “Incorporation of the Ottoman Empire, 1750-1820,” 806. In other words, “from the 1750s the western provinces of the Ottoman Empire were structurally integrated into the axial division of labor of the capitalist world economy” while “between ca. 1750 and ca. 1815 the Ottoman Empire as a whole was incorporated into the capitalist world economy”: Kasaba, The Ottoman Empire and the world economy: The nineteenth century, 35. Then,“the period that extended from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 to the end of the mid-Victorian boom in about 1876” turned out to be the “period that the Ottoman Empire was peripheralized”: Ibid, 38. In this context, Kasaba further distinguished between three phases of the 19th century peripherialization: Here, the first period from the end of Napoleonic Wars to 1840 was characterized by increases in import vis-a-vis export, relative scarcity of foreign investment, Britain’s dominant position and liberalization of trade in 1838; the second phase from the mid-19th century onwards witnessed an increase in Ottoman export to Britain, increase in foreign investment as well as loans and and capital transfer to the Ottoman Empire; and in the last phase towards the end of the 19th century, imports became more important as the Ottoman Empire turned into a market being an integral part of global capital by that time: Kasaba, The Ottoman Empire and the world economy: The nineteenth century, 47-48. Pamuk also identified in the 19th century similar sub-periods regarding the relationship between the Ottoman economy and foreign markets through external trade. In this framework, in the period from 1820 to 1853, Ottoman economy was increasingly opened to foreign trade through English influence and export-oriented production increased while non-agricultural sectors recessed due to the decline in the prices of industrial goods thanks to technological advances in the West; from 1854 to 1876, Ottoman foreign trade continued to develop due to increasing demand from the world market, specialization in agriculture increased while crafts further deteriorated, foreign debts and investments enabled entry of foreign capital into the country while trade deficit increased. As such, Pamuk defined the period from the 1820s to the 1870s as a period of the integration of the Ottoman Empire into the capitalist world economy. Then, the period from 1880 to 1895 witnessed a decline in foreign trade, exports as well as urban manufactures while specialization in agricultural production and foreign debts increased; this was also the period when France and Germany started to display increasing presence in the Ottoman Empire. Lastly, Pamuk identified the period from 1896 to 1914 as the further integration of the Ottoman hinterland into the global capitalist system in tandem with further commercialization of agricultural production directed towards external market: Pamuk, Osmanlı Ekonomisinde Bağımlılık ve Büyüme 1820-1913,152-159.
41 Wallerstein, “The Ottoman Empire and the Capitalist World-Economy: Some Questions for
Research,” 391.
23
especially in the Balkans and the Western Anatolia.42 In this framework, therefore, the process of “çiftlikization,” especially from the 18th to the 19th century onwards, can be understood with reference to the “peripherialization” of the Ottoman Empire. As such, capitalist world-market and engagement in trade created çiftliks, which, in turn, created relations of dependency.43
2.1.3 Commerce, tax-farming, and çiftlik-ownership: Sources of wealth
The question of the increasing power of the ayan, hand in hand with the themes of “decentralization” and “decline” that occupied considerable space in the history-writing of the Ottoman Empire, greatly affected the vocabulary employed by another line of discussion in the çiftlik debate. Here, the main line of contestation was formed around the assessment of the relative weight of estate management and the capacity of the ayan as çiftlik-owners against the significance of tax-farming for the development of this group as a new type of economic, political, and social actor.44 As such, the discussion focused mainly on the relative weight of the political and economic activities they were involved with - tax-farming, landownership, administrative activities, vakıf management, usury, and trade, out of which the focus often turned out to be iltizam arrangements and transition from mukataa into malikane system, especially from the 17th century onwards.45
The question of çiftliks, furthermore, constituted an important point of intersection between the debates on the question of estate production and second
42 Kasaba, “Incorporation of the Ottoman Empire”, 823.
43 “Çiftlik formation had changed the status of the peasantry and their relationship to the production
processes as well. They were transformed from being peasant producers whose freedom and
protection was institutionally guaranteed to the status of, at best, sharecroppers -but more commonly,
indebted tenants or dispossessed wage laborers”: Kasaba, The Ottoman Empire and the
world economy, 26.
44 Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 1-5.
45 Nagata, “Ayan in Anatolia and the Balkans During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: A
Case Study of the Karaosmanoğlu Family”, 270-273; Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları
üzerinde bir inceleme, 5.
24
serfdom in the Balkans and the aforementioned discussion on the economic and political character of the ayan as çiftlik-holders. In this context, the existing legacy of the “Braudelain” explanation, as well as the growing popularity of Wallerstein’s treatment of commerce and global capitalism in the 1970s and 1980s, both of which have explained the increasing wealth and prominence of the ayan with reference to the expansion of trade and the accompanying formation of çiftliks, created a reaction in the form of a line of critique that advocated for a more politically-focused approach.46 In this context, whereby the nature of the relationship between the ayan and the çiftliks turned out to be a primary focus and the main question was raised with reference to the extent of the contribution of çiftlik management to the increasing wealth and political prominence of the ayan, a consensus was gradually formed around the contention that “the sources of these men’s fortunes were political rather than economic.”47 In the Ottoman Empire, it was argued, in sharp contrast to Europe, the state had never lost its independence in the face of a thriving landlord class. As the power of the ayan originated from their bureaucratic position, they were never able to turn into a distinct class of powerful economic actors directly organizing production in their estates and as such, they were never able to severe the intimate relationship between the state and the free peasantry.48 Most importantly, even when this group managed to take hold of “large appanages”, they mostly remained “in a position of absenteeism” and left the organization of production, i.e. çift-hane system, intact.49 From this position, İnalcık, with reference to the famous Western Anatolian ayan family, the Karaosmanoğlu, underlined the importance of
46 Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 1-5; Nagata, “Ayan in Anatolia
and the Balkans During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: A Case Study of the Karaosmanoğlu Family,” 270-271.
47 Faroqhi, “Indebtedness in the Bursa area, 1730-1740,” 205.
48 Keyder, “Introduction: Large-Scale Commercial Agriculture in the Ottoman Empire,” 5-11.
49 İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants,” 24.
25
tax-farming and usury as against their capacity as estate-managers for their economic and political prominence.50 Similarly, in the context of the Western Anatolia of the late 18th century, Veinstein found the real source of ayan power in their political and financial activities, rather than their capacity as big landowners51, suggesting further that one should approach with caution to the existence of a direct relationship between çiftliks and trade since “the impact of trade was not enough by itself to provoke structural changes before the necessary historical preconditions would have allowed them” - the main “necessary historical preconditions” being, not surprisingly, the impressively resilient and immutable çift-hane system.52
However, this specific evaluation of the Karaosmanoğlu family does not constitute the sole perspective on the issue. Nagata argued that actual historical processes were much more complex than a simple choice between internal as against external factors, politics as against economy, or tax-farming as against estate-management.53 In this context, his detailed study on the Karaosmanoğlu family in the context of the Western Anatolia of the 18th and the 19th centuries demonstrated the complex co-existence of “iltizam, çiftlik, vakıf” activities with “administrative offices such as voyvodalık, mütesellimlik and muhassıllık” as they acted upon and fed one another while they cumulatively created long-term tendencies.54 In his study, Nagata argued that starting from the earliest point in the history of the family, iltizam power
50İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants,” 32-34.
51 Veinstein, “Ayan de la region d’İzmir et commerce du Levant,” 71-83.
52 Veinstein, “On the Çiftlik Debate,” 51.
53 Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 5.
54 Nagata, “Ayan in Anatolia and the Balkans During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: A Case Study of the Karaosmanoğlu Family,” 273. From the appointment of Hacı Mustafa Ağa to mütesellimlik of Saruhan in 1743 to the death of Karaosmanoğlu Hacı Hüseyin, the mütesellim of Saruhan and the muhassıl of Aydın, in 1816, this family controlled a considerable part of the Western Anatolia. During this lengthy process, there was continuous conflict between the state and the family, a picture colored by many a number of müsadere. This process of conflict ended up with the state gaining the upper hand after 1816 and following the centralization policies of Mahmud II, in most areas, the members of family came to resemble more to state officials rather than the members an ayan family at its apogee, even though they continued to hold certain posts of mütesellimlik, muhasıllık etc. See: Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 23-24, 52-58, 191-193.
26
was used not only for administrative purposes, but specifically for the collection of agricultural lands, which included not only lands newly opened to agriculture, but tımar land and commons as well, paving the ground for the large-scale establishment of çiftliks in and around Manisa.55 In this way, the so-called “political” factors were indeed at work for the establishment of çiftliks by prominent families. This quality regarding origins, however, not only from a historical but also from a logical perspective, does not detract anything from the possible significance of the “economic” aspects of the process. Therefore, Nagata underlined that the nature and the degree of the influence exercised by the members of the family differed decidedly in Aydın and Saruhan regions as against Manisa: In the former region, the family had mainly political influence, originating from their positions as administrators and tax-farmers, which limited the general extent of their exercise of power in these regions considerably; in Manisa, however, their engagement in çiftlik activity, hand in hand with the establishment of vakıfs, significantly extended the scale of their influence in general, no matter how much their “political” position might have contributed to the flourishment of this “economic” power in the first place. Similarly, the fact that the policies of Mahmud II considerably curbed the political influence of the Karaosmanoğlu family in Saruhan and Aydın, while the members of the family were able to keep their social and economic position in Manisa, at least until the broad-scale transformations brought about by the Tanzimat era, further demonstrated the significance of their engagement in çiftlik activities in
55 Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 191-192. As Nagata further adds, “the case of çiftliks reclaimed from pasture land … demonstrates a strong inter-relationship between the exercise of tax-farming rights and the emergence of çiftliks”: Nagata, “Ayan in Anatolia and the Balkans During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: A Case Study of the Karaosmanoğlu Family,” 280.
27
the latter region for their functioning as ayan from the late 18th into the early 19th century.56
As for the Balkans, the specific critique of the trade-centered theories developed by Bruce McGowan, who focused on the Macedonian çiftliks from the 17th to the 18th century with an emphasis on their origins, general characteristics, and geographical distribution to re-assess the presumed existence of direct causality between the expansion of external commerce and the increasing degree of “çiftlikization,” made lengthy reference to the question of the sources of ayan power. As such, McGowan put under question the view of çiftliks as large-scale estates producing mainly for the European markets as he referred to the transformation of taxation practices, the development and expansion of the iltizam system, and the transformation of the relationship between the state and the ayan as the main factors behind the expansion of çiftlik production.57
With reference to Weber, McGowan argued that the classic Ottoman regime was characterized by “prebendalism” in the form of tımar system, which was, in turn, based on “appointment from the center with a minimum local control,” “retrievability of the prebend (the timar) in case of default of duty” as well as “adjustment of the responsibility of each prebendary (timarlı) in proportion to the income expected from his living.”58 According to McGowan, this prebendal system, which characterized the Ottoman Empire during its classical period59, started to lose its vigor due to the European-wide phenomenon of inflation from the 16th century onwards, which caused considerable pressure on the incomes of the Ottoman state
56 Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 193.
57 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800,
1-79.
58 Ibid, 47.
59 Ibid, 47-56.
28
officials, who in turn resorted to tax-farming for compensation60, by forming a system that branched into “a network of primary, secondary and tertiary contractors”61, and it was in this context that “the campaign aimed at the conversion of the land regime for private purposes” in the form of “the chiftlik-building process” commenced.62
In this context, McGowan questioned the existence of a “relationship between export oriented agriculture in Ottoman territories (i.e. chiftlik agriculture) and export oriented agriculture elsewhere.”63 Although McGowan acknowledged the fact that the majority of the çiftliks of Manastır indeed were located in the alluvial plains around the central Crna River, he still concluded that it would be presumptious to assume that “all river valleys or coastal plains were equally or simultaneously affected.”64 Furthermore, focusing on the çiftliks of Manastır from the 17th into the 18th century, McGowan argued that the size of the majority of the çiftliks in this region, which is known for its relatively high level of “çiftlikization,” were actually smaller than it was once thought.65 While McGowan acknowledged the existence of bigger çiftliks, especially “in export oriented zones,” he underlined that these remained to be “most untypical” at the end of the day.66 In this context, McGowan argued that these larger çiftliks did not necessarily emerge due to the impact of external trade in all cases, but rather, they could flourish in relation to internal trade as well.67 McGowan’s general conclusion is that “the average Balkan chiftlik was a rental operation, far closer in its character and its scale to the Grundherschaft past
60 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800,
56-58.
61 Ibid, 58.
62 Ibid, 59.
63 Ibid, ix.
64 Ibid, 74.
65 Ibid, 72.
66 Ibid, 79.
67 Ibid, 135
29
from which it evolved, than to the Gutsherrschaft character which has frequently been imagined for it”68 while with an implicit reference to the ayan, he concluded that “chiftliks were not generally, or not yet, a primary means of becoming wealthy.”69
The recent history-writing on ayan and tax-farming employed a more dynamic approach compared to the framework of the earlier controversy, which had almost exclusively focused on the sources of ayan wealth, and problematized the nature of the relations between state, local notables and peasantry, trying to draw a variegated picture by going beyond the overarching role attributed to the central Ottoman state and the political order created by it in the orthodox Ottoman history-writing.70 As such, divisions within local communities as well as various backgrounds, methods, activities, and networks of tax-farmers came to the fore and rural actors were conceptualized as active agents in the making of their own histories. In this context, an important correction to the traditional view that had initially conceptualized the members of the non-Muslim communities only as the tax-paying subjects of a centralized Muslim empire, often presuming the existence of a perfect correspondance between class positions and religious/ethnic/national identities, extended the issue of tax-farming to the question of stratification within local communities themselves. In this context, Ianeva addressed the existence of non-Muslim tax-farmers who not only gained considerable wealth through their engagement in iltizam whereby they functioned as intermediaries between the state and their local communities, but also acted as money-lenders to the state, got involved in commercial activities and eventually obtained their own çiftliks,
68 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800,
79.
69 Ibid, 171.
70 For example: Yaycıoğlu, Partners of the Empire: The Crisis of the Ottoman Order in the Age of Revolutions.
30
especially from the mid-19th century onwards.71 Petmezas, in his study of the relations between the local communities and the central state, focused on the “fiscal and administrative transformations” of the empire and the increasing need of the state to co-operate with local institutions and actors especially from the 18th century onwards, referring to the emergence of a “new powerful class of Christian ‘notables cum merhant-financiers’” who enriched themselves through participation in the new fiscal arrangements.72 Accordingly, the existence of non-Muslim tax-farmers, as they constituted the new “elite” of their communities, confirmed that there was a certain degree of stratification among the members of the non-Muslim communities. In this context, the question of “whether the Muslim and Christian elites should be treated as a unified or two independent power groups” was raised by Anastasopoulos.73 Through these empirical studies, which got directly engaged with dynamic facets of historical reality, it has become possible to incorporate a notion of economic and social background into the analysis of tax-farmers going beyond religious and ethnic divisions between communities and delve into the lines of divisions that run within them as well as class positions of respective groups.74
Initially, the class character of merchants and their historical role in the development of capitalism in the Balkans had already constituted an axis of controversy in itself.75 In the more recent literature, the nature of the relationship
71 Ianeva, “The Non-Muslim Tax Farmers in the Fiscal and Economic System of the Ottoman Empire
in the 19th Century.”
72 Petmezas, “Christian communities in 18th and early 19th century Ottoman Greece: Their
fiscal functions,” 71-72.
73 Anastasopoulos, “The mixed elite of a Balkan Town: Karaferye in the Second Half of the
Eighteenth Century,” 259.
74 See: Terzibaşoğlu, “Land Disputes and Ethno-Politics: North-western Anatolia, 1877-1912”; Cora, “Osmanlı Taşrasındaki Ermeniler Üzerine Olan Tarihyazımında Sınıf Analizinin Eksikliği.”
75 In the Balkan context, Stoianovich initially focused on the relationship between the emergence of nationalist movements and the formation of a bourgeoisie in the form of an evolving merchant class. Stoianovich, “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant.” As such, Stoianovich identified evolutionary stages whereby the Balkan Orthodox merchants transformed from “muleteers” or “peddlers” into “commission agents”, then into “independent merchants”, then into “bankers”, then into “statesmen” and hence, coming to occupy a solid position within their communities from the 18th
31
between merchants, tax-farmers and çiftlik-owners also came into the picture. In this context, while one major aspect of the question turned out to be the existence of socio--economic stratification among the members of non--Muslim communities, as mentioned above, the other aspect was, by extension, related to the diversity among the outlooks of merchants themselves. In this context, Lyberatos focused on the relationship between “the Ottoman political and economic networks” and “the rise of the Bulgarian national elites” demonstrating “the gradual, complex and contradictory” character of the latter process.76
With reference to the relationship between tax--farming and commerce, Ianeva focused on the changing outlook of tax--farmers, especially from the mid--19th century onwards. As the role of the Ottoman Empire as an exporter of grain to the world market became more clearly defined77, the involvement of this group in international commerce has turned out to be a crucial part of their capacity as tax--farmers.78 In tandem with this process, the impact of global markets on tax-farmers and by extension, on the state treasury, displayed a considerable increase79 as “business and especially commercial experience and connections became extremely important for the tax--farmers’ profits and accumulation of wealth.”80 Furthermore, Ianeva referred
century onwards: Ibid, 312. In this account, we see a very linear view of the development of the bourgeoisie solely on the basis of the expansion of mercantile activity. While this view may be in line with a crude form of Marxism, Stoianovich further argued, in a somewhat Weberian fashion, that what took place in tandem with the development of capitalism was a transition from “the imperial and estate society”, which characterized the Ottoman Empire, into “a society of classes and non-Ottoman nation states”: Stoianovich, “Factors in the Decline of Ottoman Society in the Balkans,” 625. As the Ottoman state declined, it was this native merchant or middle class that ended up accumulating wealth and gaining prominence in the Balkans, setting out to establish the groundwork for the newly-emerging nation states: Stoianovich, “The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant,” 313.
76 Lyberatos, “Men of the sultan: the beğlik sheep tax collection system and the rise of a Bulgarian national bourgeoisie in nineteenth-century Plovdiv,” 57.
77 Ianeva, Ottoman Economic Practices in Periods of Transformation: The Cases of Crete
and Bulgaria, 261.
78 Ianeva, “Financing the State? Tax-Farming as a Source of Individual Wealth in the Nineteenth
Century,” 223.
79 Ianeva, Ottoman Economic Practices in Periods of Transformation: The Cases of Crete
and Bulgaria, 261.
80 Ianeva, “Financing the State? Tax-Farming as a Source of Individual Wealth in the Nineteenth
32
to the increasing significance of the involvement of local merchants from the Balkans in the commercial relations between Ottoman Empire and Western Europe in the 19th century: As such, Ianeva defined this group as “the most dynamic social strata of the period” who turned out to be “not passive but active participants” in the economic life81, getting engaged in a wide array of activities.82 As such, Ianeva argued that the old-school tax-farmers who tended to isolate themselves from commerce and acted exclusively as traditional tax-farmers, gradually lost their importance83 while, in sharp contrast, it was the new and dynamic group of tax-farmers who were more directly engaged in economic activities that kept the interest in tax-farming alive well into the 1870s, when arrears started to get common due to international context.84
With reference to the question of the involvement of çiftlik-owners in commercial activities, Demetriades underlined that “the chiftlik-owners were not also the exporters of their products”; rather, it was the non-Muslim merchants of the Ottoman Empire who were directly dealing with commerce, especially in the Balkans. Furthermore, these merchants eventually “started to buy their own chiftliks from their Turkish owners, thus becoming both producers and exporters.”85 With
Century”, 223.
81 Ianeva, Ottoman Economic Practices in Periods of Transformation: The Cases of Crete and Bulgaria, 134.
82 Ibid, 136.
83 Ibid, 261.
84 Ibid, 260-263. In some cases, political posts made crucial contributions to the turning of tax-farmers
into merchants: With reference to a tax-farmer/merchant from Bulgaria of the 19th century, Ianeva
argued: “We can only speculate to what extent his service as a kaza official was directly helpful or
profitable for this transformation, but we can be almost sure that his connections and the networks of
which he became part must have been decisive”: Ianeva, “Financing the State? Tax-Farming as a
Source of Individual Wealth in the Nineteenth Century,” 209-210.
85 Demetriades, “Problems of Land-Owning and Population in the Area of Gazi Evrenos Bey’s Wakf”,
53. In this context, Ianeva emphasized the involvement of not only foreign traders, but also local non-
Muslim as well as Turkish merchants in external trade as well: Ianeva, Ottoman Economic Practices
in Periods of Transformation: The Cases of Crete and Bulgaria, 135. İnalcık had also emphasized the last point as he referred to “the mistaken view that these merchants and bankers were non-Muslims, and that Muslims entered only the profession of arms and the administration”, especially in the period
prior to the 18th century: İnalcik, “Capital formation in the Ottoman Empire,” 138.
33
reference to İzmir, Frangakis--Syrett underlined that “both local and western entrepreneurs were active in all sectors of the local economy, cooperating and fiercely competing with each other at all times, succeeding at best to dominate a sector but not to completely monopolize it” as neither side could get rid of the other completely.86 Kasaba also developed a similar argument with reference to Western Anatolia as he focused on the economic and social role played by the intermediaries between peasantry and foreign merchants87 hand in hand with their engagement in activities of tax--farming, money--lending, usury, money changing and speculation as much as commerce88, referring to the fundamentally “conflicting interests of foreign merchants and local intermediaries”89 and defining the general picture as one of “competition rather than cooperation” around the mid--19th century.90
The importance of these so--called intermediaries, especially when they were engaged in activities of finance and money--lending, was also visible in the financial operations of the ayan. While the iltizam system promised to beget considerable amounts of profits, the tax--farmers had to make an advance payment to the state before the collection of taxes. This, in turn, led to the development of a direct relationship between the ayan and the sarrafs whereby the latter acted not only as
86 Frangakis-Syrett, “Western and Local Entrepreneurs in İzmir in the 19th and Early 20th
Centuries,” 88.
87 Kasaba, The Ottoman Empire and the world economy: The nineteenth century, 28-32.
88 Kasaba, “Was There a Compradore Bourgeoisie in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Western Anatolia,”
216-219.
89 Kasaba, The Ottoman Empire and the world economy: The nineteenth century, 73. Kasaba
underlined that when the foreign merchants arrived, they entered into a alliance with the central
government. Because an orderly Ottoman state would be beneficial for their operations in Western
Anatolia, they soon came into conflict with the local non-Muslims intermediaries as the interests of
both sides diverged greatly. In contrast, this group of intermediaries “reproduced the conditions of
anarchy and uncertainty that had originally been the main source of their wealth and influence”:
Kasaba, “Was There a Compradore Bourgeoisie in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Western Anatolia,”
219-220.
90 Ibid, 224. While Kasaba argued that non-Muslim intermediaries cannot be seen as examples of
a “comprador bourgeoisie” in full alliance with foreign imperialist powers (Ibid, 225-226), he
concluded that “it was local intermediaries who shaped the content and direction of social change in
the Ottoman Empire toward peripheralization”: Kasaba, The Ottoman Empire and the world economy:
The nineteenth century, 114. Accordingly Kasaba concluded that “their rise should be seen as an incipient development of a capitalist class in the Ottoman Empire”: Kasaba, “Was There a Compradore Bourgeoisie in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Western Anatolia,” 226.
34
kefils, but also as money--lenders to the former, which created a situation of indebtedness for the ayan. Furthermore, these figures often acted as bankers as well and they helped the ayan for the marketing of their agricultural products.91 The resulting networks of indebtedness, therefore, were quite complex ––it was not only the rural producers who were at times heavily indebted to çiftlik--owners, local notables and financiers, but the members of the higher echelons of the Ottoman society were also enmeshed in such relations.
2.1.4 The question of capitalist agriculture in the Ottoman Empire: A debate of many angles
The transformation of agrarian class relations in the form of a transition from feudalism to capitalism in the rural Balkan setting emerged as an axis of debate mainly raised by the Marxist historians of the Balkan countries.92 For the purposes of the present discussion on the çiftliks, the main problematique concerns the development of capitalist agriculture hand in hand with the transformation of rural class relations in the Ottoman Balkans, especially from the 18th into the 19th century, while the historical background of such a transformation is to be found in the development of commercial agriculture in tandem with the emergence of a class of landless rural laborers originating from the dispossession of the peasantry, on the one hand, and the creation as well as refurbishment of various forms of dependency, on the other hand.
One of the seminal accounts which has centered on various economic and social dynamics behind the emergence of çiftliks is Matkovski’s study on mühimme registers and sijils of Manastır from the late 17th to the 19th century. Here, Matkovski
91 Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 86-88; Kasaba, The Ottoman
Empire and the world economy: The nineteenth century, 75-83.
92 For an overview of the literature, see: Daskalov, The Making of a Nation in the Balkans:
Historiography of the Bulgarian Reviva, 57-98.
35
underlined that the constant stream of peasants fleeing from heavy obligations, including debt, tax, and rent, pushed the state towards severely restricting peasant mobility through official decrees. Nevertheless, such attempts were rarely successful and peasant flight remained to be a constant phenomenon. As rural inhabitants, privately or collectively, continued with their migration to cities or to different tımars and çiftliks, they gradually turned to a body of urban and rural wage-laborers as well as sharecroppers.93
Historically, Matkovski argued that the majority of the çiftliks of Macedonia were located on the fertile alluvial plains of the region. In these areas, although the rate of exploitation was higher than that of sipahi lands, this higher fertility increased the absolute share the producer was able to obtain from agricultural production, especially in cases of sharecropping, and this prospect created an important incentive for the peasantry to abandon their time-honored villages, with their accompanied burden of taxation, rent and indebtedness, and to flee into the çiftliks located in more fertile areas.94 In the long run, their constant movement proved to be an important factor for the further expansion of çiftliks as lands left vacant behind the fleeing
93 Matkovski, “La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre l'attachement a la glebe
pendant la domination ottoman.” In this context, the time period allowed to the tımar owner
to catch and return a fugitive tohis place of registration after flight was extended from 10 to 40 years
and various forms of çift-bozan was imposed, in addition to efforts to create incentives for the
peasantry to return though annullement or cancelling of debts and taxation. Furthermore, on has and vakıf land, the time period allowed to bring back a fugitive was indefinite. Lastly, collective debt was
also employed as a means of mobility control: Ibid. While some amelorations came about with regard
to the aforementioned time period in the mid-17th century, the official demand for the return of
fugitives to place of origin and payment of a compensation to the original tımar holder remained in
place: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 146. Peasant flight was not a phenomenon of the Balkans only. In the 17th century context of the Celali revolts in Anatolia, peasants had also left their villages en masse while “members of the military class, particularly Janissaries, occupied these deserted lands and made them into ranch-style grazing grounds for stock- raising”: İnalcik, “Capital formation in the Ottoman Empire,” 129. Also, İnalcık referred to a document which described the conditions surrounding this earlier flight: "Powerful people among the population of the province have occupied the villages from which the original peasantry have fled and treat them as if they were inherited property. They have built houses and stables in the places abandoned by the peasantry and brought in oxen, slaves, servants, sheep and cattle, and set up independent farms; the former peasantry of these lands are too afraid of them to return to their old holdings”: Ibid.
94 Matkovski, “La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre l'attachement a la glebe pendant la domination ottoman,” 704.
36
peasants could be easily converted into private property and agglomerated into estates.95
The long-term consequences of these movements, as Matkovski underlined, were nothing less than ground-breaking: On the one hand, with reference to the practical challenging of bondage to land in the face of constant peasant flight, Matkovski argued that the emergence of çiftliks was directly affected by the anti-feudal struggle of the peasantry (“lutte antifeodale des paysans”), which took the form of illegal peasant mobility in this instance; on the other hand, the migration of the peasantry into the urban centers ended up in the emergence of a class of town-dwelling artisans and merchants while their dominance in the economic life of the city eventually increased.96
In general, with regard to the appropriation of agricultural land, the emphasis was often placed on the higher segments of the society, such as the ayan, sipahi or members of the ruling family. There was, however, another side to this picture. As Gandev referred to the existence of various mechanisms behind the emergence of çiftliks rather than a singular and direct evolution from feudal sipahi land,97 he emphasized that it was not only “les feudataires grands ou petits” who appropriated
95 Ibid, 707-708.
96 Ibid.Cvetkova pointed out another aspect of this long-term process of peasant flight as she related the expansion of the lands under the control of the bigger sipahi at the expense of smaller ones to the movements of the peasantry away from their previous tımar villages. In this process, bigger landowners were able to concentrate increasing amounts of agricultural land under their control while they simultaneously tended to increase the rate of exploitation in their domains. With the further aid of various arrangements of iltizam, including both mukataa and malikane, that they got engaged in,
these bigger landowners started to treat their ever-expanding lands as private property while they constantly increased the weight and extent of their demands from the peasantry, who in turn ended up
completely tangled in debt-bondage, leading to their dispossession and further expansion of
çiftliks: Cvetkova, "Quelques problèmes du féodalisme ottoman à l'époque du XVIe au XVIII siècle.”
McGowan also argued that before the turning of the town of Manastır into a real alternative of haven,
the fugitives were usually obliged to settle in çiftliks the owners of which would protect them against
the claims of traditional tımar-holders for want of labor; alternatively, they could return to their
villages if they were absolved of their tax obligations and debts for some period of time –and most
importantly, if their villages were not claimed by a çiftlik-owner in the meantime: McGowan,
Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 138-140.
97 Daskalov, The Making of a Nation in the Balkans: Historiography of the Bulgarian Revival, 70.
37
agricultural land and turned it into their private property in northwestern Bulgaria, but also the lower segments of the society, including “commerçants, usuriers, rentiers, artisans, fonctionnaires, membres du clerge, etc.” who became increasingly involved in this activity.98 This extension of the profile of çiftlik-ownership from the wealthiest and most powerful families to the figures in the middle grounds as well as to the lower segments of the population proved crucial for Gandev’s following analysis of the emergence of capitalist agriculture in the form of çiftlik production.
In his study mainly based on kadı sijils, Gandev argued that the çiftliks of Vidin, in the context of the expansion of commercial relations due to the increasing European demand for grain from the mid-18th century onwards, gradually started to display the characteristics of a capitalist form of production and exploitation whereby agricultural land gradually turned into private property as it was put under production for market on the basis of a class of landless peasantry which was effectively turning into a proletarianized rural labor force.99 While the impact of trade found its place in this account as well, the main theme of the story centered on the gradual transformation of the existing relations of production in the rural society through the emergence of a private form of landownership and the creation of an expropriated peasantry turning into a rural labor force –in other words, the focus is on the question of transition from feudalism to capitalism in a rural setting.
Theoretically, Gandev started by differentiating between two main views regarding the character of exploitation in the Balkan çiftliks. Here, the first view held that çiftliks originated from the feudal tımar system whereby tımar holder appropriated the peasant land turning it into his de facto private property; as such, the
98 Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du
nord-ouest au cours du XVIII siècle,” 209.
99 Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du
nord-ouest au cours du XVIII siècle.”
38
majority of the Balkan çiftliks were considered to be feudal in character, and only rarely as semi-feudal and capitalist. The second view, however, argued that a certain part of the Balkan çiftliks eventually came to display capitalist characteristics. As such, Gandev differentiated the çiftliks with older feudal forms from the novel capitalist ones.100
In the case of Vidin, Gandev referred to the predominance of “has” property rather than feudal tımar holdings whereby the practice of land transfers was welcomed by the royal owners of agricultural land due to the revenue that could be obtained from such transactions. In this context, the extent of the agricultural land which was treated as private property started to expand at the expense of villages and commons in the region. This situation created a double burden on the peasantry, in the form of tax coupled by rent, especially in seigneurial villages where ağas appropriated the peasant land and often resorted to the use of “feudal” methods of exploitation, including sharecropping coupled by various obligations, which increased in time even further as a response to prospects of market sale. In this context, the peasantry of such seigneurial villages tended to flee and move to other villages and farms to work as rural wage laborers. Most crucially, as Gandev underlined, the character of villages and farms to which this peasant flight was directed, displayed completely different characteristics from the seigneurial ones.101
The processes of land acquisitions that had started piecemeal thanks to legal loopholes (under the pretext of renting of pasture or mills, for example) eventually turned into more systematic and large-scale operations of ever-increasing appropriation of cultivable land for commercial cereal production in the region.102
100 Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du
nord-ouest au cours du XVIII siècle,” 207-208.
101 Ibid, 212-213.
102 Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du nord-ouest
39
Here, as mentioned above, a crucial point Gandev underlined is the fact that it was not only traditional feudal echelons of the society who appropriated agricultural land and turned it into their private property in northwestern Bulgaria, but also people from various origins who were effectively getting hold of agricultural land. Most importantly, Gandev emphasized that çiftliks that emerged on the basis of such processes in Vidin were not feudal, mainly because there was no background of feudal obligations that could be imposed on the cultivators, in addition to the fact that agricultural land was effectively transformed into private property by various segments of society and not only by the traditional landowning classes.103 In other words, because of the absence of a properly feudal background in Vidin, the owners of these çiftliks could not benefit from bonded forms of labor and hence, they had to hire landless peasantry and wage workers (“des paysans sans terre ou proletarises de la region”) who abounded due to the ongoing appropriation of their lands and commons, and their turning into çiftliks.104 Furthermore, as the value of land increased, these farms gradually turned into outlets of investment by commercial companies whereby heritable farms under the control of the owners of commercial capital came to be directly related to activities of banking and usury.105
In this picture of capitalist agriculture, direct management of estates does not seem to be a sine-non-qua for Gandev to define a çiftlik as capitalist in nature. In the cases under Gandev’s study, the owners of çiftliks remained to be mostly absentee
au cours du XVIII siècle,” 209. Gandev added: “Ces nouvelles proprieties foncieres recurrent
officiellement le nom de “tchiftliks”... Mais ce term etait bien improprement applique a ces
exploitations agricoles d’un type nouveau, don’t l’etendue atteigneait des dizaines et des centaines
d’hectaires”: Ibid.
103 Ibid.
104 Ibid, 211-212. The expansion of the lands under çiftliks caused the rate of çiftlik growth to exceed
the rate of village development. This çiftlik expansion, in turn, further exacerbated the ongoing trend
of the creation of young, landless groups of peasants due to divisions of inheritance, restricting the
possibility of finding land to cultivate even further, and pushing them towards migration to farms and
cities to work as wage-labourers in ever-increasing numbers: Ibid.
105 Ibid, 210-211.
40
landowners who lived in urban centers where they were often involved in commerce, artisanship, administrative positions and public offices, when they did not choose to rely on their income from çiftliks alone. In this way, the profile of the çiftlik-owner at hand does not seem to be one who is actively and directly engaged in the management of his agricultural estates.106 For Gandev, the factors that rendered these novel forms of çiftliks as capitalist were “private … land property; then the working of the land -characterized as capitalist, with extensive use of wage labor; the marketing of the produce -commodified and market-oriented.”107 Historically, Gandev argued that this system of capitalist farming gradually developed in the Balkans during the course of the 18th century and gained a more definitively capitalist character by the 19th century.108 Most interestingly, Gandev did not only underline the coexistence of feudal and capitalist çiftliks in his account, but he also argued that the emergence and extension of seigneurial villages actually contributed to the development of the capitalist çiftliks, mainly by furthering the dispossession of peasantry which would come to constitute the main source of labor for the latter. From another perspective, the emergence of this new group of çiftlik owners, having no military obligations to the state -unlike their traditional feudal counterparts- and acting as a new group of private property owners, indicated the demise of the feudal system in general.109 As such, Gandev emphasized the coexistence of different forms of landholding -capitalist and feudal property- in this specific historical context while
106 Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du nord-ouest
au cours du XVIII siècle,” 211. The practice of employing “subaşı” in charge of çiftliks was also
encountered: Ibid.
107 Daskalov, The Making of a Nation in the Balkans: Historiography of the Bulgarian Revival,
70.
108 Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du
nord-ouest au cours du XVIII siècle,” 214-215.
109 Ibid, 215.
41
capitalist exploitation gradually became more important and supplementary feudal forms lost their significance.110
Just as Gandev distinguished the novel çiftliks of the 19th century from the traditional ones, Oyan also referred to the second wave of çiftlik formation of the late 18th and early 19th centuries whereby çiftlik production started to gain a capitalist character in contrast to the first wave of the 16th century.111 Nevertheless, Oyan concluded that even this second wave was displaying, in addition to some “capitalist” traits, not only some of the general characteristics of the first wave of the 16th century, but also certain tendencies comparable to the flourishment of second serfdom in the Central and Eastern Europe from the 16th to the 19th century.112 As such, the co-
110 Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du nord-ouest
au cours du XVIII siècle,” 215-216. Gandev argued that due to the existence of rent in the form of
taxation, state ownership of land cannot be simply considered as legal fiction: Ibid, 215. Such
coexistence of different forms of land-tenure, however, was not specific to Turkey; on the contrary,
Gandev argued that the transformation of land-tenure in England had followed quite a similar pattern:
Ibid, 216-217. Also see: Daskalov, The Making of a Nation in the Balkans: Historiography of the
Bulgarian Revival, 70.
111 Oyan, Feodalizmden kapitalizme, Osmanlı'dan Türkiye'ye, 312.
112 Oyan, Feodalizmden kapitalizme, Osmanlı'dan Türkiye'ye, 314. In contrast to Gandev, Oyan
argued that this process was different from the English case of transition to capitalism: Ibid, 314-315. In the context of Western Anatolia, Orhan Kurmuş related the integration between Ottoman Empire and global capitalism, especially in the 18th and the 19th centuries, to the transformation of the existing relations of production through the emergence of English-owned farms: Kurmuş, Emperyalizmin Türkiye’ye Girişi, 14. Kurmuş’s main focus of analysis is İzmir where the already-existing level attained with regard to external trade and commercialization of the economy had rendered this city a convenient entry point for the English capitalism into the Ottoman Empire: Ibid, 28-29. According to Kurmuş, the construction of railroads, and later the Port of İzmir, drastically changed the relations between the Ottoman producers and the European -and especially English- merchants in the 19th century by enabling the movement of commodities and labor-force as well as making the entrance of merchants into the hinterland possible: Ibid, 36-39. In this context, Kurmuş singled out production for market as one of the main pillars of capitalist agriculture. In Anatolia, he argued, the marketing of grain remained relatively low compared to commercial production on the basis of horticulture and industrial crops, and especially cotton which was produced on large English farms and as such, functioned to create relations of market dependency in and around İzmir: Ibid, 86-87, 100-101. In this context, it was production for market that marked a transition fromthe production of traditional to industrial crops in tandem with the transformation of land use and landholding patterns: Ibid,104. In Western Anatolia, as Kurmuş argued, the initial reason behind the turning of formerly feudal lands into private property had been the drastic population decline in the region mainly due to war-making while the resulting scarcity of labor ended up offering three possible strategies for the landowners: Firstly, large tracts of lands could be simply left uncultivated; secondly, slave labor could be employed; thirdly, excess lands could be sold out, especially to English merchants who would, in turn, make the development of capitalist farming possible: Ibid, 107-112. This last strategy of land transfer was further enabled when foreigners obtained the right to own property from 1866 onwards and English merchants and investors increasingly resorted to purchasing land in and around the region in order to establish commercial farms: Ibid, 114-115. Relatively low levels of land prices further
42
existence of different forms of labour created a situation of high degree of complexity in the rural structure of the Ottoman Balkans from the 18th to the 19th century.
2.2 Forming research questions
The transformation of traditional agrarian structures, especially from the 18th and 19th centuries onwards, has occupied a critical place in the literature on agrarian history as well as the development of capitalism. As such, the transformation of rural configuration and related processes have not only been discussed with reference to the changing class relations in the countryside and the developments in agricultural techniques but also in relation to the changing character of the relationship between urban and rural sectors in tandem with the development of industrial capitalism.113 This epoch of wide-scale agrarian transformations, which begot various developments in the global context, in terms of the transformation of economic systems, changing political configurations, and the development of a capitalist market also witnessed considerable economic, social, and political changes in the Ottoman Empire. In this context, the landed estates of the Ottoman Balkans open up a venue whereby an analysis that encompasses the historically specific aspects of the
enhanced this trend. In this context, Kurmuş argued that at least 1/3 of all cultivable land around İzmir was owned by the English by 1868; then, by 1878, almost all cultivable land around İzmir was held by forty-one English merchants: Ibid. In relation to the development of capitalist farming in the Western Anatolia, therefore, Kurmuş emphasized the importance of English farms with their pioneering -albeit limited- role in the use of modern machinery and relative willingness to resort to the use of wagelabor by expropriating the peasantry: Ibid, 120-129. Kurmuş also underlined that international demand for cotton, especially during the American Civil War, was crucial for the transition to production of cash crops in western Anatolia: Ibid, 105. As such, Kurmuş argued that it was the English farms that played the major role in the development of capitalist agriculture in the Western Anatolia: Ibid, 106-107. Most important for the purposes of the present discussion is Kurmuş’s emphasis that while these farms did not wipe out the existing system of production all at once, they still managed to shake it to a considerable extent creating a complex structure in the region: Ibid, 121-122. Accordingly, the early 19th century was, as Kurmuş underlined, defined by the coexistence of capitalist and feudal relations in the Western Anatolia whereby wage-labor was not generalized, çiftlik-owners only occasionally managed the working of their farms, and sharecropping, sometimes coupled by older feudal burdens, generally predominated: Ibid, 135-136, 315.
113 For the positing of the term “agrarian question” in the form of an “agrarian transition” with different connotations of the concept, see: Bernstein, “Agrarian questions then and now.”
43
Ottoman Empire and relates them to globally prevalent issues such as the development of capitalism, the nature of various forms of agrarian transitions, processes of peasant differentiation, and rural dispossession can be developed.
2.2.1 Rural inequality and peasant differentiation
In this general context, one of the central projections of the agrarian question has been the class differentiation of the peasantry. As the issue of differentiation has often been considered as “a central, indeed definite, dynamic of the transitions to capitalism in the countryside,” the debates on the development of capitalist agriculture and industrialization have often been conducted in relation to the question of the class character of the so-called pre-modern and modern peasantry.114
The notion that pre-capitalist in general, and feudal in particular, peasant communities were stratified, conflict-ridden structures, albeit with important limits to a full-scale socio-economic differentiation, was studied by Rodney Hilton and his students with an emphasis on the contribution of such stratification to the development of capitalism in the English countryside, paving the ground for the critical part played by the enclosures and the formation of large estates through the dispossession and expropriation of the previously self-sufficient peasantry.115 In his analysis of feudalism, Hilton defined the feudal peasant society as based on smallholding and subsistence-oriented peasant households on the basis of family labour.116 These units of production, however, far from being homogeneous and autonomous entities and thus creating a sui generis peasant society regulating itself in a Chayanovian sense, were organized along the lines of certain structural features
114 Bernstein, “V.I. Lenin and A.V. Chayanov: looking back, looking forward,” 55.
115 See: Byres, “Rodney Hilton (1916–2002): In Memoriam”; Byres, “Differentiation of the Peasantry
Under Feudalism and the Transition to Capitalism: In Defence of Rodney Hilton”; Duchesne,
“Rodney Hilton and the peasant road to 'Capitalism' in England.”
116 Hilton, Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and The English Rising of 1381, 24-
27.
44
that defined it as a specifically feudal class society in the first place.117 As such, the historical specificity of the various peasantries and peasant communities is to be found in the social relations of production between the agricultural producers, often under varying degrees and types of dependency, and the landowners, in a system based on the production of surplus by the former and its appropriation by the latter, in the form of rent in labour, kind or money.118
In the pre-capitalist context, the main class contradiction in rural society was to be found between peasant producers and landowners. Nevertheless, this did not mean complete homogeneity and equality among the peasants. On the contrary, village stratification and a certain level of socio-economic differentiation had come into existence in these communities long before the development of a market economy.119 As such, “it was a structural feature of feudalism at its very inception.”120 With regard to the internal configuration of the peasantry, “the most important distinction lay between those with larger holdings who produced a surplus, sold produce, hired labour, and tended to occupy official positions; and the smallholders who bought food, earned wages, and lacked much status.”121
In the context of late medieval English villages, practices such as the hiring of the labour of poorer peasants by wealthier peasants, as well as instances of significant differences among villagers in terms of wealth and patterns of
117 Hilton, “A Crisis of Feudalism,” 122-124.
118 Ibid, 127-128.
119 Hilton, Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and The English Rising of 1381, 31-
37. Nevertheless, it should also be underlined that “Hilton ... carefully avoided the assumption that peasants had a natural disposition or compulsion to maximize returns on exchange”, as peasant production continued to be primarily subsistence-oriented until the late medieval period: Duchesne,
“Rodney Hilton and the peasant road to 'Capitalism' in England,” 139-140. Also see: Kosminsky,
Studies in the Agrarian History of England in the Thirteenth Century, 197-255.
120 Byres, “The landlord class, peasant differentiation, class struggle and the transition to capitalism:
England, France and Prussia compared,” 36.
121 Dyer, “The English medieval village community and its decline,” 418.
45
landholding, were all evident.122 Furthermore, such stratification in pre-capitalist villages was not specific to any single place. In the context of France, Bourin referred to the existence of a village “elite” and rural stratification.123 The question of stratification, furthermore, gained another dimension in the context of landlord economies. In the context of Spain, Alfonso referred to the relationship between “diverse forms of lordship and internally divided communities”124 whereby the latter displayed a “tripartite social structure of peasants with large, medium and small holdings.”125 This, in practice, not only indicated “the existence, even in small rural communities, of a sector of the population dependent on other peasants”126, but also the fact that differentiation among rural producers could and did take place in seigniorial domains as well. In this case, the use of wage labour took the form of a system whereby labour services, heavily disliked by the peasantry, were performed by a network of “sub-dependents” of feudal tenants.127 As such, it was not only landlords who employed the labour of the landless peasantry, but also the tenants themselves in proportion to factors such as “size of their holdings, cyclical necessities, and/or seigneurial pressure.”128
A similar case also holds true for the realm of Eastern European feudalism whereby a relatively stratified society, even under the conditions of Gutsherrscahft, where the expected model is one of a clear-cut dichotomy between the noble landlord and the enserfed peasant family burdened under labour services, the latter often
122 Müller, “A Divided Class? Peasants and Peasant Communities in Later Medieval England”; Dyer,
“The ineffectiveness of lordship in England, 1200–1400”; Kosminsky, Studies in the Agrarian History
of England in the Thirteenth Century, 205-208.
123 Bourin, “Peasant Elites and Village Communities in the South of France, 1200–1350.”
124 Alfonso, “Exploring Difference within Rural Communities in the Northern Iberian Kingdoms,
1000–1300,” 88.
125 Ibid, 89.
126 Ibid, 100.
127 Ibid, 91-92.
128 Ibid, 98. With reference to the relationship of the landless villagers to wealthy peasants, Alfonso underlines the specific “character of this dependency which appears to have excluded them from a direct seigneurial relationship, and also to have deprived them of communal rights”: Ibid, 100.
46
having been portrayed as a “relatively undifferentiated population of unfree peasants living on small farmsteads,” could and did emerge.129 In this case, we have a highly differentiated rural composition, consisting of various shades of servility and freedom, especially with reference to mobility and feudal obligations.130 Here, just like in the Spanish case, “both peasants and seigniors were direct employers of hired labour”131 whereby “the full peasant”, who was positioned “at the top of the village social ladder,”132 resorted to hiring of the members of the landless population in order to transfer onto them the feudal labour obligations he was burdened under.133 In general, “between the full peasants and the landless hired hands there existed an intermediate stratum of smallholders”134 while both upward and downward mobility remained to be possible for all the groups under question.135
129 Melton, “Gutsherrschaft in East Elbian Germany and Livonia, 1500–1800: a critique of the model,”
328-329. In this case, the emergence of a landless population, due to war, famine and outright expropriation by the nobility, was behind the emergence of a group of rural wage workers in the 18th century: Ibid, 329-330.
130 Ibid, 330-341. As such, Melton underlines that “it is probably better to view the entire rural
population below the level of full peasant as a single, highly graduated continuum, rather than look for
an illusive threshold that separated the fieldhand from the smallholder”: Ibid, 340.
131 Ibid, 335.
132 Ibid, 330. As such, “servile peasants, many of whom worked holdings of above average size, could
accumulate considerable quantities of goods, both livestock and equipment for the farm, and
household goods, furniture and clothing”: Dyer, “The Ineffectiveness of Lordship in England,
1200–1400,” 75.
133 Melton, “Gutsherrschaft in East Elbian Germany and Livonia, 1500–1800: a critique of the model,”
335-336.
134 Ibid, 338-340
135 Ibid, 340-341. Also see: Kamiński, Neo-Serfdom in Poland-Lithuania; Klíma, “Agrarian class
structure and economic development in pre-industrial Bohemia”; Topolski, “Continuity and
discontinuity in the development of the feudal system in Eastern Europe (Xth to XVIIth centuries)”;
Hagen, “How mighty the Junkers? Peasant rents and seigneurial profits in sixteenth-century
Brandenburg”; Cerman, “Demesne lordship and rural society in early modern East Central and
Eastern Europe: Comparative perspectives.” In the context of communal forms of organization in the Russian countryside, Mironov underlined that “despite the high degree of intra-communal mobility, the commune gradually developed groups of hereditary poor and rich, a process that became increasingly marked as time passed” while it was often the case that “these extreme groups abandoned the commune and departed for the city, industry, trade, and the army, since they found it difficult to get along inside the commune”: Mironov, “The Russian peasant commune after the reforms of the 1860s,” 457- 458. As such, the commune itself by no means remained completely stable as “the reforms of the 1860s intensified bourgeois tendencies of development” due to “the strong growth of commodity-monetary relations and a degree of involvement of the peasantry in the country-wide market” which ended up with “an increase in social inequality” as well as the formation of “a new minority, which aspired to a bourgeois path” alongside with the more traditional Russian peasantry: Ibid, 240-461, 465. As such, even when the issue comes to the village commune, it is not always possible to talk about complete homogeneity either. As Mironov underlined: “The peasant economy
47
The main lesson that can be taken from the discussion on the question of peasant homogeneity and stratification is, for one thing, the complex and multi-faceted nature of historical reality. As such, an exclusive focus on the juxtaposition of an undifferentiated peasantry and an oppressive other, no matter how centrally critical such a separation remains to be for any proper understanding of the property relations operating in rural societies with regard to the extraction of agricultural surplus, carries with it the potential peril of overlooking certain potentially significant processes that might have been unfolding in the midst of the peasant society itself. In other words, the main focus on the pre-capitalist class society whereby relations of production revolved around the main line of division between the owners of agricultural land and rural producers, in the form of feudal landowners and various economic and social groups that can be subsumed under the descriptive title of “peasantry,” should benefit from, especially in transitional contexts, from an extension of the focus of study towards the potentially significant lines of division among the members of this latter group as well.136
One of the main counter-arguments against the significance of estate production in the Ottoman Empire has been concerned with the degree of involvement of the peasantry in the market and the prevalence of petty commodity production. In this context, İslamoğlu argued that commercialization of agricultural
formed a continuum from dispossessed households (families without land, sometimes without livestock and farm tools, subsisting as hired laborers and beggars) to prosperous ones (households with several thousand rubles income per annum, with commercial and nonagricultural enterprises using hired labor)-in other words, stretching from the proletarian to the semi-proletarian to the capitalist economic form”: Ibid, 452.
136 “There was a clear absence of struggle within the feudal peasantry. Yet, differentiation might
deepen within feudal limits. Such deepening needs close attention”: Byres, “The landlord class,
peasant differentiation, class struggle and the transition to capitalism,” 36. When the issue comes to
the study of peasant societies, it should also be underlined that the “rich” and “poor” peasants are
related to each other through their engagement in relations of production, rather than the former being
an absolute capitalist and the latter being the completely dispossessed labourer: Ennew & Hirst &
Tribe, “ ‘Peasantry’as an economic category,” 305-306. In other words, it is not “the simple
characteristic of individual enterprises” that define them, but rather “the ensemble of relations
which dictate their conditions of existence and reproduction as individual enterprises”: Ibid, 306.
48
production in the Ottoman Empire was not necessarily achieved in large estates; instead, she underlined that the role played by the free, independent, small-holding peasant producer in commercial agriculture was crucial for the gradual integration of the economy to the global market.137 Likewise, Keyder referred to the capacity of small peasant producers for commercial agriculture and engagement in external trade.138 Pamuk also referred to the resilience of peasantry by underlining that the greater part of commercial agriculture was performed by small-scale peasant enterprises that were heavily involved in both internal and external markets.139 Accordingly, market production led by the initiative of the small-holding peasantry has been presented as a model of commercialization alternative to large-scale estate production in the Ottoman Empire.140
However, an important point left relatively neglected in these arguments is the fact that historical developments that created çiftliks in the first place did not leave the peasantry untouched either. With reference to the period from the 16th to the 18th century, Cvetkova referred to the importance of the interaction of the peasantry with the market for the emergence of the tendencies towards increasing rural inequality -and specifically, inequality among the members of the reaya.141 In the context of rural Edirne of the 17th century, Parveva referred not only to the existence of differentiation among the peasantry, but also to the employment of wage
137 İslamoğlu-İnan, “Peasants, Commercialization, and the Legitimation of State Power in Sixteenth-
Century Anatolia.”
138 Keyder, “Introduction: Large-Scale Commercial Agriculture in the Ottoman Empire,” 12.
139 Pamuk, Osmanlı Ekonomisinde Bağımlılık ve Büyüme 1820-1913, 162.
140 See: Schilcher, “The Grain Economy of Late Ottoman Syria and the Issue of Large-Scale
Commercialization”; Khoury, “The Introduction of Commercial Agriculture in the Province of Mosul
and its Effects on the Peasantry, 1750-1850.”
141 “La liaison avec le marche contribua a renforcer les differences dans la condition materielle et sociale du raya. A partir du XVIe s., les sources mentionnent des personnes des milieux du raya, devenues percepteurs d'impots, voire affermataires d'impots, celeps etc., qui placaient probablement dans de pareilles entreprises l'argent qu'elles avaient ammasse dans les affaires commerciales et usuraires”: Cvetkova, "Quelques problèmes du féodalisme ottoman à l'époque du XVIe au XVIII siècle,” 720.
49
labour, often of other villagers, by the members of the richer peasantry.142 Regarding commercialization of agricultural production, while Parveva underlined the limits on peasant access to market as it was the members of the higher echelons of the society, appropriating a part of the agricultural surplus, that mainly benefited from commercial agriculture143, she nevertheless emphatically concluded that “in spite of their limited access, it was the market which could ensure the accumulation of capital in the hands of individual peasants. This capital was obviously invested in land, seeds, livestock and the hiring of additional farmhands.”144 As such, as early as the 17th century, certain localities witnessed the existence of “advanced property differentiation among the village inhabitants of the reaya category” whereby “thin layer of prosperous peasants who could afford to amass and cultivate land several times larger than the scope of the statutory raiyet çiftlik.”145 Dragonava’s focused study on the vilayet of Tuna of the 19th century demonstrated the existence of social stratification among the peasantry, which consisted of poor, middle, and rich segments.146 Likewise, Ianeva referred to the “deepening economic and social differentiation in the countryside” in relation to the “increasing regional specialization, market orientation and dependence on international market conjunctures of agricultural production and stockbreeding,” especially from the mid-19th century onwards.147 As such, what is at stake here is not simply a question of
142 Parveva, “Villages, Peasants and Landholdings in the Edirne Region in the Second Half of the 17th Century,” 35-41.
143 Ibid, 41-42.
144 Ibid, 42.
145 Ibid, 51. Also see: Gradeva, “Villagers in international trade: The case of chervena voda, seventeenth to the beginning of the eighteenth centuries.”
146 Dragonava, Tuna Vilayeti’nin Köy Nüfusu, 54.
147 Ianeva, Ottoman Economic Practices in Periods of Transformation: The Cases of Crete and
Bulgaria, 139. Ianeva further elaborated this point: “With the legalization of the possibility of
pledging land for debts and selling the lands of indebted peasants, the commercial transfer of land
plots became more common and as a result the prices of land dropped and economic differentiation
among the peasants increased. Not only the çiftlikçis, but also wealthy peasants who sold part of their
production to the market, were employing wage labor on their farms. Their economic positions were
further reinforced by money-lending and by taking financial and social advantages of participation in
50
rural inequality and a case of undifferentiated commercializing peasant family anymore; rather, the central problem concerns the existence of certain tendencies towards socio-economic differentiation in tandem with the formation of class relations between different segments of the peasantry and as such, the transformation of the very rubric of the peasant society itself during the course of the 19th century. Accordingly, even when the peasantry numerically predominated in the rural economy, as was often the case in the Ottoman Empire, their capacity to subsist independently came under serious erosion. In this context, not only market-dependency but also class relations between the members of the peasantry was making their entrance into the heart of rural society, creating a situation where completely landless “peasants” laboring under sharecropping arrangements, hand in hand with sharecroppers holding only minuscule amounts of land, came to constitute the backbone of the agrarian composition.148 In this context, the importance of evaluating the Ottoman çiftliks with reference to the transformations taking place in the broader agricultural economy, beyond the immediate confines of the çiftliks themselves, posits itself with renewed significance.
2.2.2 Class relations in the Ottoman çiftliks
While the theme of peasant differentiation constitutes an important aspect of the analysis this thesis develops, the main focus still remains on the çiftliks themselves as they are considered to be the most crucial manifestation of inequality and class relations in the rural context. In the analysis, the forms of labour employed in the
tax collection as they were also local notables. On the other hand, some of the peasants holding the
smallest land plots and members of their households had to supplement their incomes by working as
wage labourers, on a seasonal or permanent basis, or were even forced to migrate from mountain areas
to more fertile and prosperous regions, or even abroad, or to try to make a living from additional
economic activities. In the central Rumelian lands regional differences in the size of peasant
landholdings can also be observed”: Ibid, 118.
148 Oyan, Feodalizmden kapitalizme, Osmanlı'dan Türkiye'ye, 368-369.
51
çiftliks provide a central framework for the organization of the data. As the most common type of labour arrangement, sharecropping will constitute the main focus of interest.149
Sharecropping, as a specific form of labour arrangement in the organization of agricultural production, has sprouted in a great variety of geographies and ages, displaying an impressive degree of historical resilience and attracting academic and practical attention due to its prevalence.150 In the initial studies on sharecropping, the allegedly contradictory character of this form concerning the development of capitalism and modernization of agriculture has pushed the proponents of developmental agenda towards shunning it as an archaic form failing to reach the levels of efficiency often associated with the use of wage labour in modern, capitalized farms. This view of sharecropping as an inefficient form of labour
149 This widespread employment of sharecroppers in çiftliks has already emerged as a part of the controversy over the nature of the socio-economic system under question. Furthermore, concerning the relationship between forms of labour and transformation of agrarian structures, the prevalence of sharecropping has been treated as an indicator not only of economic backwardness but also that of a failure on the side of capitalist agriculture to develop in the Balkans properly. For example, Lapavitsas and Çakıroğlu, in their study focusing on “the region of Mount Vermion, comprising three towns: Naoussa (Ağustos), Veroia (Karaferye), and Edhessa (Vodina),” examined the development of industrial capitalism in textile production against a background of rural landscape dominated by smallholding peasantry and çiftliks relying on sharecropping and extra-economic methods of coercion such as corvee and debt bondage: Lapavitsas, & Cakiroglu, Capitalism in the Ottoman Balkans: industrialisation and modernity in Macedonia, 2. Here, the authors underlined that “industrial capitalism in provincial Ottoman Macedonia emerged in towns that lay in the uplands and did so despite the lack of capitalist transformation in agriculture”: Ibid, 108. In this context, they specifically argued that “the çiftlik was neither a feudal estate in the manner of medieval Europe, nor a capitalist farm ... the acquisition of çiftlik in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries often involved the use of political power and even outright force. The management of the çiftlik and the forms of land tenure on the estate, furthermore, involved non-economic processes”: Ibid, 90-91. As such, the lagging in generalized employment of wage labour is identified as the central reason behind the failure of capitalist agriculture to develop in the Ottoman Balkans: Ibid, 92. However, beyond the lengthy discussion on the predatory methods employed during the original development of capitalism as well as the complexity of transitional forms, the relationship between modern capitalism and the reproduction of unfree forms of labor has been largely addressed in the literature. See: Brass, Labor Regime Change in the 21st Century: Unfreedom, Capitalism and Primitive Accumulation; Brass, “Capitalism and bonded labour in India: Reinterpreting recent (re-) interpretations”; Brass, “Why Unfree Labour is Not ‘So-Called’: The Fictions of Jairus Banaji”; Banaji, Theory as History: Essays on modes of production and exploitation; Perelman, The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation; Stanziani, Bondage, Labor and Rights in Eurasia from the Sixteenth to the Early Twentieth Centuries.
150 For a general overview of the historical instances of sharecropping, see: Byres, “Historical perspectives on sharecropping.”
52
arrangement failed to explain its widespread occurrence and set the stage for the upcoming critique of the later line of neoclassical school which set out to prove that sharecropping was, in fact, efficient.151 In turn, the latter’s focus on the framework of sharing of risk and transaction costs among the parties of the sharecropping agreement and the potential efficiency of this form significantly shaped the following literature.152 As the growing impact of peasant studies in the 1960s and 1970s gave another impetus to the discussion, various critiques of the neoclassical framework were developed.153 The main line of the critique directed towards the aforementioned evaluation of sharecropping came from Marxism which criticized the neoclassical school for its general foundering when the issue at stake is “to explain or come to terms with any theoretical understanding of circumstances which might produce relationships based on an unequal distribution of economic power.”154 As such, the
151 As such, initial studies mainly focused on “the dynamic rationale underlying alternative wage and tenure forms and the problems of resource allocation and productive efficiency”: Pearce, “Sharecropping: Towards a Marxist View,” 49.
152 There exists a large corpus of studies dealing with sharecropping within this framework, albeit with considerable variations. Sharecropping has been compared to wage labour often with reference to the absence of transaction costs in the former: Martínez‐Alier, “Sharecropping Some Illustrations”; Stolcke & Hall, “The introduction of free labour on São Paulo coffee plantations.” Concerning the United States, it has been argued that “sharecropping was desirable because sharecropped farms could be more productive than owner-operated farms and perhaps more productive than rented farms”: Garrett & Xu, “The efficiency of sharecropping: evidence from the Postbellum South,” 578. In this context, it has been argued that the absence of supervision is balanced, from the perspective of efficiency, by the sharecropper’s interest to work efficiently: Caballero, “Sharecropping as an efficient system: further answers to an old puzzle.” Similarly, in an environment where peasant families need tools of production and landowners need labour force, it has been argued that sharecropping is likely to be more efficient than use of wage labour since cultivating families would likely be willing to expend their maximum effort and hence everyone would get the highest yield possible: Pertev, “A new model for sharecropping and peasant holdings.” In India, it has been argued that higher levels of certainty created a tendency towards sharecropping and lower levels of certainty towards fixed rents, which in turn effected preferred land size: Rao, “Uncertainty, entrepreneurship, and sharecropping in India,” 578. Although individual studies greatly vary in their focus, the general framework remains one of efficiency and sharing of transaction costs and risks.
153 For a general overview: Thorner, “Semi-Feudalism or Capitalism? Contemporary Debate on Classes and Modes of Production in India.” Also: Chandra, “Farm efficiency under semi-feudalism: A critique of marginalist theories and some Marxist formulations. Economic and political weekly.”
154 Pearce, “Sharecropping: Towards a Marxist View,” 51. Bagchi underlines that the absence of theoretical or conceptual understanding of sharecropping turns the neoclassical studies into a compilation of special cases whose inadequacy is further amplified due to their general failure to examine pre-capitalist forms of labour: Bagchi, “Cropsharing Tenancy and Neoclassical Economics,” 81. Also see: Patnaik, “Classical theory of rent and its application to India: Some preliminary propositions, with some thoughts on sharecropping.”
53
main focus of the Marxist studies has turned out to be agrarian class relations whereby the discussion was conducted with reference to concepts such as forms of ground rent, formal and real subsumption of labour, and development of capitalist agriculture.155 Several studies also tried to synthesize class relations and concepts such as supervision costs and estate management techniques, whereby lower-level concepts were set against the broader economic and social background.156
155 The alternative proposed by Marxism has been greatly influenced by discussions that were conducted in the context of the debates on the development of capitalism in “underdeveloped” countries such as India, as well as the question of rural stratification as well as the development of class relations among the members of the peasantry in the 1970s: Gupta, “Formal and real subsumption of labour under capital: the instance of share-cropping”; Banaji, “Capitalist domination and the small peasantry: Deccan districts in the late nineteenth century.” In a critique of the argument of efficiency proposed by the neoclassical school, it has been suggested that sharecropping could hinder technological development and, by extension, the development of capitalism: Bhaduri, “A study in agricultural backwardness under semi-feudalism.” Against the association of sharecropping with usury and debt bondage, often in relation to feudalism, it has been argued that the prevalence of this form of labour arrangement did not necessarily signify the failure of capitalism to develop: Bardhan & Rudra, “Terms and conditions of sharecropping contracts: an analysis of village survey data in India.” In this context, it has been questioned whether sharecropping can be seen as a relic from the past, or rather it made a considerable contribution to the development of capitalist farming while the long-term trend still remained to be the proletarianization of former sharecroppers: Keegan, “The Sharecropping Economy on the South African Highveld in the Early Twentieth Century.” In addition, there have been many attempts to develop geenral models while a number of local studies have also been produced: Bardhan & Srinivasan, “Cropsharing tenancy in agriculture: a theoretical and empirical analysis”; Bardhan & Srinivasan, “Cropsharing tenancy in agriculture: Rejoinder”; Halim, “The major mode of surplus labour appropriation in the West Malaysian countryside: The sharecropping system”; Mandle, “Sharecropping and the plantation economy in the United States South.”
156 In contrast to the narrow focus of neoclassical studies, "the use of marginal productivity and marginal revenue concepts would not be out of place if they could be clearly seen as just minor building blocks in the edifice, as low-level structures, rather than the structure of explanation itself": Bagchi, “Cropsharing Tenancy and Neoclassical Economics,” 79. In this framework, it has been argued that sharecropping was preferred by absentee, urban-based landlords of Italy who did not want to sacrifice their trading activities for direct management on their farms. In this context, “the use of sharecropping to lower costs associated with agricultural production must be considered in the context of the Tuscan political economy”: Emigh, “The spread of sharecropping in Tuscany: the political economy of transaction costs,” 423. In a similar vein, it has been argued that absentee landlords often preferred sharecropping due to the lower transaction costs compared to wage labour. As such, even though the ideal for the landlord remained to be fixed rent, sharecropping turned out to be also advantageous as it constituted a middle-ground for the parties of the arrangement in its distribution of the risks. Concerning France, it has been argued that the prevalence of sharecropping could be explained by the desire of the absentee landlords to minimize supervision costs in the context of rural poverty and the ongoing land grab of the former peasant land whereby “the increase in sharecropping (relative to wage labor) was … a result of the transfer of peasant property into the hands of absentee landlords”: Hoffman, “The economic theory of sharecropping in early modern France,” 318. As such, sharecropping took the form of “a way of administering property in areas where overburdened peasants had lost their farms to absentee owners, a contract undertaken with tenants who possessed little or no land or capital”: Ibid, 318-319. With regard to the widespread use of sharecropping in the large estates of Catalonia from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century, the focus has been on the entrepreneurial choice of the landowners based on lower supervision costs associated with sharecropping: “By renting out their land on a sharecropping basis, Catalan landowners managed to
54
Methodologically, the present thesis treats sharecropping not as a simple, voluntary contract of equal parties who can enter or exit such agreements freehandedly, but rather “as a particular method of surplus appropriation; a method through which surplus labour is transferred to the landlord in the form of surplus product.”157 In this sense, sharecropping contracts are evaluated “as instruments of surplus labour appropriation rather than mere technical arrangements facilitating the allocation of productive resources.”158 In a context of unequal access to economic, political, and legal resources159, sharecropping can be considered to be embedded in “a web of dependency” whereby extra-economic forms of compulsion are employed to increase the rate of exploitation, such as restrictions on rural mobility, resort to corvee labor and debt bondage.160 In this sense, “the line of causality … runs from class relations of production and their determination to the particular method of facilitating.”161 Accordingly, it is the broader background of the rural class structure
acquire the labour necessary to cultivate their estates and to reduce supervision costs without either losing their control over the property, weakening their contractual powers, or diminishing their capacity to intervene in order to improve agricultural practices”: Garrabou, Planas & Saguer, “Sharecropping and the management of large rural estates in Catalonia, 1850–1950,” 96.
157 Pearce, “Sharecropping: Towards a Marxist View,” 53. As such, “concentrating on sharecropping merely as a formal rental contract between two neutral parties is a rather sterile approach”: Cooper, “Sharecroppers and landlords in Bengal, 1930–50: The dependency web and its implications,” 245.
158 Pearce, “Sharecropping: Towards a Marxist View,” 43.
159 “The sharecropper-landlord relationship existed in a complex political structure which tended to empower the landlord vis-a-vis the sharecropper. Social and religious hierarchies inclined to parallel economic structures, sanctioning the landlord's authority and validating the sharecropper's dependency”: Cooper, “Sharecroppers and landlords in Bengal, 1930–50: The dependency web and its implications,” 245.
160 Ibid, 228. “Given the unequal distribution of property and absence of alternative sources of income, the majority of tenants do have no choice but to seek leases and in the prevailing circumstances, the landlords (certainly the big ones) exercise the decision to whom to lease out, in what parcels to lease out and on what terms and conditions”: Bharadwaj & Das, “Tenurial conditions and mode of exploitation: A study of some villages in Orissa,” 225.
161 Pearce, “Sharecropping: Towards a Marxist View,” 53. This economic and social view of sharecropping is also the main reason why sharecropping displayed great historical variety. For one thing, sharecropping families could be completely landless or have varying amounts of land, while their status might have ranged from bonded labor to relatively well-doing smallholding peasant farmers. A sharecropper could also depend on a single landowner or lease from multiple landholders: Ibid, 45-46, 50; Bharadwaj & Das, “Tenurial conditions and mode of exploitation: A study of some villages in Orissa,” A49. This variety created another line of studies that have focused on the anthropological investigation of rural communities and the particular characteristics of sharecropping practices. Here, instances of wealthier sharecroppers and poorer landowners have been emphasized in a critique of the studies focusing on the advantageous position of landowners vis-a-vis sharecroppers.
55
of the Ottoman countryside whereby technical aspects of sharecropping arrangements took shape in the context of çiftlik economy.162
In addition to sharecropping, instances of bonded labor will also be addressed in the analysis. Regarding the çiftliks of Bosnia, Güran and Uzun referred to the existence of certain tendencies towards feudalization, in the form of “çiftlikization”163 and the increasing power of local landholders due to accumulation of land in their hands, especially from the late 18th to the19th century, at the expense of the old tımar system, as a process which was especially visible in Rumelia where the Muslim landowning class, or “eshab-ı alaka”, resorted to usurping the land of the peasantry or offering protection to local inhabitants in return for a part of their agricultural produce hand in hand with imposition of arbitrary obligations.164 While the general contours of this narrative shares elements with the accounts of Barkan and İnalcık, Güran and Uzun raised the critical question of the possibility that bonded forms of labor, such as angarya, and forms of “agrarian question,” similar to the ones in Vidin and Bosnia, might have existed in other geographies of çiftlik concentration as well.165 Behind the emergence of a group of sharecroppers as well
See: Moßbrucker & Watt, “Sharecropping: traditional economy, class relation, or social system? Towards a reevaluation,” 54-55; Lehmann, “Sharecropping and the capitalist transition in agriculture: some evidence from the highlands of Ecuador,” 342. The main problem with these accounts is their almost complete omission of the content of such contracts in favor of the form and the construction of their critique on the basis of the concept of sharecropping as a technical arrangement. As such, it is the cartoonishly simple and one-sided duality expected of sharecropping in these accounts that actually betrays its historical variety.
162 Also, even when peasant farms produced more grains than the farms of landlords, “the most important point is that the development of the landlords' farms ensured the big landowners of a very large slice of the incomes of the peasant farms": Zytkowicz, “The Peasant's Farm and the Landlord's Farm in Poland from the 16th to the Middle of the 18th Century.” As such, the relationship between the two cannot be simply reduced to a numerical balance. Also see: Żytkowicz, “An investigation into agricultural production in Masovia in the first half of the 17th century”; Rosdolsky, “The distribution of the agrarian product in feudalism.”
163 Güran & Uzun, “Bosna-Hersek’te Toprak Rejimi: Eshab-ı Alaka ve Çiftçiler Arasındaki İlişkiler
(1840-1875),” 868-872. For Vidin, see: İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi.
164 Güran & Uzun, “Bosna-Hersek’te Toprak Rejimi: Eshab-ı Alaka ve Çiftçiler Arasındaki İlişkiler
(1840-1875),” 868-872.
165 Ibid, 871-875. Also see: Terzibaşoğlu & Kaya, “19. Yüzyılda Balkanlar’da Toprak Rejimi ve
Emek İlişkileri,” 91-92; Kaya & Peker, "Parga Çiftliği Kararnâmesi (1875): Çiftlik Sahipleri ve Çiftçi
'Ahâli' Arasında Mücadele"; Kaya, “Were Peasants Bound To The Soil in the 19th C. Balkans.
56
as bonded forms of labour, there lurked processes of rural poverty and peasant indebtedness, which will also be incorporated into the analysis. Lastly, the ultimate point of culmination for all the aforementioned processes, in the form of the embodiment of rural class conflict, will be addressed with reference to the cases of controversy over land, especially in relation to the appropriation of peasant land, and the turning of villages into çiftliks.166
The forceful turning of villages into the de facto private property of a group of landowners who did not cultivate it directly, as unfolded through various mechanisms, was a phenomenon of neither the 19th century nor the Ottoman Balkans only. In the 17th century context of the Celali revolts in Anatolia, İnalcık underlined that the land abandoned by the peasants fleeing en masse was taken over by the members of the upper class.167 In the context of the Balkans, Stoianovich argued that tımar holders gradually expanded the land under their direct control -or hassa çiftlik- at the expense of peasant land from the 16th century onwards.168 Likewise, Cvetkova pointed out the tendency of the expansion of the sipahi land through taking over of
166 See: Kırlı, “Tyranny Illustrated: From Petition to Rebellion in Ottoman Vranje”; Kolovos, “Riot in the village: Some cases of peasant protest around Ottoman Salonica”; Aytekin, “Peasant protest in the late Ottoman Empire: Moral economy, revolt, and the Tanzimat reforms”; Kokdaş, “Janissaries and Conflicts Over Rural Lands in the Vidin Region (1730-1810)”; Yıldız & Kokdaş, “Peasantry in a Well-protected Domain: Wallachian Peasantry and Muslim Çiftlik/Kışlaks under the Ottoman Rule”; Şahin, “Ondokuzuncu Yüzyıl'da Samsun'da Çiftlik sahibi Hazinedarzadeler ile Kiracı-Köylüler Arasındaki Arazi ve vergi İhtilafı Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler ve Sorular”; Şahin, “The Economic Power of Anatolian Ayans of the Late Eighteenth Century: The Case of the Caniklizades.” For other recent studies on Ottoman çiftliks, see: Laiou, “Some Considerations regarding Çiftlik Formation in Western Thessaly, Sixteenth-Nineteenth Centuries”; Kokdaş, “Osmanlı Çiftliklerinde Tek Tip Bir Demografik Yapı Var Mıydı? 19. Yüzyıl Teselya Çiftliklerinde Sosyo-Ekonomik Dinamikler ve Nüfus Yapıları”; Yıldız, “Politics, Economy, and Çiftliks: The History of Four Çiftliks in Larissa (Yenişehir-i Fener)”; Çiftçioğlu, “XIX. Yüzyilda Tırhala Sancağı’nda Çiftlikler”; Karademir, “Statüleri ve Mahiyetleri Açısından Osmanlı Ekonomisinde Büyük Çiftlikler (18. Yüzyıl)”; Öncel, Agrarian relations and estate (çiftlik) agriculture in Ottoman Thessaly (c. 1780 – 1880).
167 İnalcik, Capital formation in the Ottoman Empire, 129.
168 Stoianovich, “Land Tenure and Related Sectors of the Balkan Economy, 1600-1800,” 398. This
tendency, coupled by factors such as the expansion of the malikane system, chronic indebtedness of
the peasantry, forceful acquisition of cultivable land, and constant stream of peasant flight, ended up
in the further accumulation of land previously under peasant production in the hands of economically
and politically powerful groups, such as the ayan and the yeniçeri, who treated these lands as estates
under their private ownership while they, at the same time, employed armed men under their
command to protect their position: Ibid, 398-401.
57
peasant land.169 In his study on Manastır, McGowan referred to the formation of çiftliks through processes of “the usurpation … of land from the treasury, the dispossession of the peasantry who had formerly worked the land, and the reorganization of consolidated estates for commercial production.”170 In this context, McGowan underlined that both the encroachment of lands left vacant by peasant flight and the so-called actual or physical dispossession of peasant producers were positioned at the root of the emergence of çiftliks in Manastır. As such, McGowan has identified this ongoing separation between the owner of the land and the actual cultivator as a crucial angle to understand the çiftlik phenomenon, whereby the result turned out to be a situation where “all good land was under legal control, whether cultivated or not, while at the same time many good men had no land and were obliged to labor.”171 There were also many comparable cases in and around the Balkans whereby whole villages were turned into çiftliks and former villagers, now landless, became the cultivators of these large estates, such as the lands of the vakıf of Gazi Evrenos Bey.172 A number focused studies have also clearly demonstrated the extent of the chronic dispute between peasants and landowners over the appropriation of peasant land as well as claims imposed upon the former by the
169 Cvetkova, "Quelques problèmes du féodalisme ottoman à l'époque du XVIe au XVIII Siècle,” 714.
170 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-
1800, 60. Also see: Ibid, 60-73. With reference to the dispossession of the peasantry, McGowan has
identified two main forms. Here, “titular displacement of peasant” entailed “the decision to take over
the ‘deed’ (tapu) of the cultivator in order to dispossess him of customary rights under the prebendal
system” while “physical dispossession” literally meant “physically to dispossess the peasant, drive
him off the land and replace him with a sharecropper or a wage laborer”: Ibid, 64.
171 Ibid, 72.
172 Demetriades, “Problems of Land-Owning and Population in the Area of Gazi Evrenos Bey’s Wakf,” 44. As Demetriades further added: “The accumulation of great wealth was leading to the increase of the influence of the great estate-owners and to the danger of their becoming more independent and diminishing the power of the central government. Nevertheless, the measures taken bore no results and villages continued to turn into chiftliks in every part of the Ottoman empire”: Ibid, 52.
58
latter.173 Similarly, this thesis will incorporate some of the processes behind the emergence of çiftliks into the analysis as well.
2.2.3 Geography and patterns of rural economy
Lastly, this thesis will be in dialogue with the concerns of environmental and spatial history.174 This engagement will be crucial not only for the spatialization of historical data, but also for a proper appreciation of the possibilities and restrictions of the units of analysis -districts - under question for the objectives of the research at hand.175 For purposes of the visualization of large-scale historical data, GIS (Geographical Information Systems) analysis will be incorporated into the study.176 Furthermore, the spatialization of the historical data will make it possible to address the tremendous geographical variety of the organisation of rural production, which gains an even more important quality when rural industries enter the picture. In this context, Palairet emphasized the existence of regional specialization with reference
173 See: Güran & Uzun, “Bosna-Hersek’te Toprak Rejimi: Eshab-ı Alaka ve Çiftçiler Arasındaki İlişkiler (1840-1875)”; İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi; Pinson, “Ottoman Bulgaria in the first Tanzimat period‐the revolts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850)”; Terzibaşoğlu & Kaya, “19. Yüzyılda Balkanlar’da Toprak Rejimi ve Emek İlişkileri.”
174 For a survey of environmental and spatial history, see: White, “What is Spatial History?”; Isenberg, “Introduction: A New Environmental History”; Carey, “Beyond Weather: The Culture and Politics of Climate History”; Kelly & Ó Gráda, “Debating the Little Ice Age”; White, “The Real Little Ice Age”; Parker, “Crisis and Catastrophe: The Global Crisis of the Seventeenth Century Reconsidered.”
For the incorporation between environmental/spatial history and Ottoman studies, see: Dursun, “The history of environmental movements and the development of environmental thought in Turkey, 1850-1980”; Dursun, “A call for an environmental history of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey: Reflections on the fourth ESEH conference”; Dursun, “Çevresel (Ekolojik) Tarih Lensinden Osmanlı Tarihine Yeniden Bakmak”; Dursun, “Çevresel Bağlantılar: Tarihi Yeniden Düşünmek”; Hadjikyriacou, “Economic Geographies”; İnal, “Environmental History as an Emerging Field in Ottoman Studies: An Historiographical Overview”; White, The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire; Mikhail, "Ottoman Iceland: a climate history"; Mikhail, Nature and Empire in Ottoman Egypt: An Environmental History; Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean.
175 Lewis & Wigen, The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography; Middell & Naumann, “Global history and the spatial turn: from the impact of area studies to the study of critical junctures of globalization.”
176 For the integration of GIS analysis and historical studies, see: Owens, “Toward a geographically-integrated, connected world history: Employing geographic information systems (GIS)”; DeBats, Gregory, & Lafreniere, “Introduction: Spatial History, History, and GIS; Gregory & Geddes, “Introduction: From Historical GIS to Spatial Humanities: Deepening Scholarship and Broadening Technology”; Ayers, “Turning toward Place, Space, and Time”; Gratien, Polczynski, & Shafir, “Digital Frontiers of Ottoman Studies”; Petmezas, “Land Tenure and Land Settlement in Vostizza from Ottoman to Venetian Rule: G.I.S. Mapping of the Venetian Cadastro of 1700”; Hadjikyriacou & Kolovos, “Rural Economies And Digital Humanities: Prospects And Challenges.”
59
to Bulgaria, where the generalized “rural insecurity” and the resulting escape of the peasantry to mountainous areas contributed to the emergence of “non--agricultural labor” and the turning of “hill towns” into “small centers of industry”; extensive agriculture, in contrast, expanded in the Bulgarian lowlands due to low population density while the raw material --wool-- for the rural manufactures was supplied by the pastoralists.177 The complex network between settlements with different characteristics was highlighted by Petmezas who, in his focused study on the rural industries of Thessaly, integrated into the picture of rural economy the factor of geography and topography, emphasizing the existence of “smaller homogeneous regions that were complementary to each other” in the area.178 As such, the question of the interaction between agricultural production and rural manufactures will be crucial to understand the development of the division of labour, not only between town and countryside but also between different forms of rural settlements, and by extension, to properly assess the çiftlik question against the broader rural background.
2.3 Aim and scope of the thesis
As discussed in the previous parts, the çiftliks of the Ottoman Empire, especially with reference to the forms they took in the 18th and the 19th centuries, have been treated in the dominant literature either as marginal phenomena through which powerful echelons of the Ottoman society would set out to usurp economic, social,
177 Palairet, The Balkan Economies, 358.
178 Petmezas, “Patterns of Proto-industrialization in the Ottoman Empire: The case of eastern Thessaly,
ca.1750-1860.” In his study on Thessaly, Petmezas underlined that there was an intimate relationship
between agricultural production of the plains and the activities of the pastoralists of Pindus. In this
context, pastoralists left their summer pasture in the winter and rented winter pasture from landlords
or village communities in the plains: Ibid, 578. The plains, on the other hand, where population
density was low, was characterized by “sharecroppers’ villages” engaged in “surplus cereal extensive
agriculture ... having rudimentary communal institutions and being dominated by the great Muslim
landowners and notables living in the cities.” The picture was dramatically different in the “Eastern
Thessalian littoral mountain range” as this was “a zone of high demographic pressure and intensive,
but deficient, cash-crop agriculture of small owners with strong communal institutions, dominated by
class of Christian communal notables and merchants”: Ibid, 580.
60
and political power or as a result of the expansion of global trade and the resulting incorporation of the Ottoman economy to this newly emerging system. Here, the former approach has operated within the confines of the rigid framework drawn by the unchanging principle of miri land regime and çift-hane system; the second approach, while heavily referring to the literature on the second serfdom and estate production in Eastern Europe, ended up giving priority to the determining impact of global trade and commercialization at the expense of the potentially much more fruitful discussion that could be conducted with reference to forms of bonded labour. When the question came to the commercialization of agriculture in general, a model of commercialization through the efforts of small-holding peasant families engaged in petty commodity production, in line with the orthodox view of Ottoman history writing, turned out to be the dominant paradigm.
The present thesis shall attempt to locate the çiftlik phenomenon in the broader framework of rural composition, class structure, and relations of production in the Ottoman Balkans in the mid-19th century. As such, the çiftlik phenomenon will be treated as the most visible proxy of inequality and class relations in the rural setting due to the almost complete separation between landowners and landless producers embodied in its existence. Behind the first layer of inequality observed through the çiftlik presence, furthermore, there lurked processes of stratification among rural inhabitants, who comprised a large umbrella including peasants owning large tracts of land and employing hired labour, relatively self-sufficient and small-holding peasants, peasants having almost a cottager outlook with only minuscule amounts of land and obliged to resort to activities including wage labour and craftsmanship, completely landless rural wage workers, artisans, traders, etc. In this context, the questions of to what extent the Ottoman peasantry was self-subsisting
61
and to what extent it relied on non-agricultural activities and food market for survival will be raised. As such, the present thesis will try to draw a general picture of the rural landscape as a space of inequality, stratification, dispossession, and class relations while positing the central theme of the çiftlik question in this broader context.
The region under study comprises the districts of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe, as they were administratively defined around the mid-19th century. This area constitutes an almost continuous line, lying southwest to northeast, which was formed around river basins extending into hilly regions, as can be observed in Figure 1. Accordingly, it has been possible to examine not only various forms of çiftliks and village formations in the area but also the main topographical features with their impact on the distributional patterns of settlements. As such, one of the main objectives became transcending the limits of the relatively artificial administrative boundaries of units of analysis, such as districts, and demonstrating the problems that an exclusive focus on averages could potentially create in cases of great diversity by simplifying the complexity of rural structures. Furthermore, each of these districts was characterized by a different level of çiftlik formation and rural inequality. Through this selection of three districts, it is intended to develop a comparative framework whereby individual characteristics of the units of analysis can also be integrated into the discussion.
62
Figure 1. The districts of Manastır, Pirlepe, and İştip. The settlements of Manastır are indicated in colour red, Pirlepe in green, and İştip in blue.179
In the analysis, one of the main questions will be whether a certain degree of inequality and stratification can be identified among the rural inhabitants, including villages and çiftliks alike, residing in the districts of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe in the mid-19th century. By extension, the nature of such rural stratification will be questioned. First and foremost, the çiftliks, where producers are already landless and houseless to a large extent, will be evaluated as the pinnacle of the separation between property owners and rural producers. Here, the characteristics of different forms of çiftliks, especially with reference to the dominant form of labor on the basis of which production is organized, as well as the economic-social position of the
179 All the maps in this thesis are prepared with the software of QGIS. Sources consulted to locate the settlements include: 3rd Military Mapping Survey of Austria-Hungary / A Monarchia III. katonai felmérése (available online at http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/3felmeres.htm and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:3rd_Military_Mapping_Survey_of_Austria-Hungary); GeoNames Geographical Database (available online https://www.geonames.org/); Index Anatolicus (available online at https://nisanyanmap.com/). The settlement information of the districts under study has been mostly retrieved from the income survey registers. When other sources are consulted, they are indicated specifically. When real historical maps rather than GIS images are used to indicate the location of specific settlements, the source is “3rd Military Mapping Survey of Austria-Hungary / A Monarchia III. katonai Felmérése.”
63
çiftlik-owners, will be crucial for the analysis. Then, the villages will provide another locus of entry into the rural structure of the region under study. The internal composition of the villages will be analyzed to understand the general characteristics of the village society in the mid-19th century. Here, the distribution of property and the practices of employment among the villagers will be the main focus of analysis to understand the internal composition of village inhabitants. An important question in this context will concern the nature of the relationship between the upper strata of the peasantry and the çiftlik-owners with rural origins with reference to the long terms tendencies of differentiation within the rural society. Lastly, as a general wrap-up, various dynamics behind the emergence of different forms of rural organization will be examined.
2.4 Archival Sources and Methodology
The main archival sources for this endeavor will be the income survey registers (“Emlak, Arazi, Hayvanat ve Temettüat Tahrir Defterleri” or “Temettuat Defterleri”) compiled by the central Ottoman state, now preserved in the collections of Maliye Nezareti Varidat Muhasebesi Temettuat Defterleri (ML.VRD.TMT.d) in the Ottoman State Archives. These surveys, which were conducted in the mid-1840s in the areas under Tanzimat reforms for the replacement of the multitude of traditional taxes with a single general tax in relation to the income of each household, include information on the patterns of land use, agricultural production and animal husbandary, and most importantly for the purposes of the present dissertation, various labour arrangements between the çiftlik-owners and rural producers in terms
64
of the share of the respective parties in the agricultural produce and the distribution of farmers, craftsmen and wage-laborers within çiftliks.180
The systematic studies on the income survey registers have a history of about 40 years. Tevfik Güran’s empirical studies on income survey registers and his use of these sources to analyze the social and economic characteristics of the Ottoman Empire had a pioneering effect on the route to be taken by historians of later generations.181 Nevertheless, a large portion of the studies that followed often consisted of general descriptions of the specific areas under question. Also, the greater part of these works focused on the central towns of the districts rather than getting engaged with the rural society. Yet, a number of studies that were prepared lately considerably enlarged the previous scope incorporating into the analysis the questions of rural income inequality, commercialization of peasant production, and the relationship between economy and geography, often on the basis of statistical analysis.182
The present thesis explicitly combines the analysis of the çiftlik economy with the broader background of rural society through these sources. As such, it goes beyond the confines of the çiftliks and tries to analyze the rural configuration as a whole. While the concept of inequality constitutes a central concern of the present
180 For a general introduction to the capacity as well as the limits of the temettuat surveys for the studies on the economic history of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, see: Güran, "19. Yüzyıl Temettuat Tahrirleri”; Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlı Sosyal ve İktisadi Tarihi Kaynaklarından Temettü Defterleri”; Öztürk, “Türkiye'de Temettuat Çalışmaları”; Yükçü, Fidancı, & Soysal, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Temettuat Defterleri’nin Önemi ve Vergisel Açıdan Değerlendirilmesi: Tire Kazası Örneği”; Adıyeke, “Temettuat sayimları ve bu sayımları düzenleyen nizamname örnekleri”; Efe, “1845 Temettuat Sayım Sonuçları Ne Oldu”; Bizbirlik, & Atar, “XIX. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Tarihinde Temettuat Defterlerinin Yeri: Saruhan Sancağı Mütevelli Çiftliği Temettuat Defteri Örneği”; Bilirli, “Temettuat Defterlerinin Hazırlanmasında İmar Meclisleri'nin Rolü.”
181 See: Güran, “Ondokuzuncu Yüzyıl Ortalarında Ödemiş Kasabasının Sosyo-Ekonomik Özellikleri.”
182 Karaduman, & Tabakoğlu, “19. Yüzyıl Temettuat Defterleri’ne Göre Üsküp/Koçana Kazası’nın Lorenz Eğrisi ve Gini Katsayısı ile Gelir Dağılımının Analizi”; Yereli, Köktaş, & Selçuk, “Sorgun Kazası XIX. Yüzyıl Temettüat Defterleri Üzerinden Gelir Dağılımı ve Göreli Yoksulluk Üzerine Bir İnceleme”; Koyuncu, & Küçükkalay, “Global market orientation of the Ottoman agriculture sector: An interregional comparison (1844)”; Işık, “Tarihsel Coğrafya Açısından Temettuat Defterlerinin Değerlendirilmesi ve Aşağı Akçay Havzası Örneği.”
65
thesis as well, it is fashioned in the form of inequality in access to land in relation to the question of class relations, property structures as well as the concentration of means of production rather than income inequality per se. Also, the geographical scope under study is quite large as it consists of the rural inhabitants and landowners of three Balkan districts. Lastly, the large-scale data and the resulting statistical analysis are combined with GIS analysis to develop a broad-scale portrayal of rural society. As such, this thesis utilizes the income survey registers in a novel way to develop an analysis of the rural class structure in the Ottoman Balkans, including çiftliks and villages in their spatial dimension.
As these registers have revealed not only the existence of considerable çiftlik activity but also a complex network of property and production relations in the region, the main objective of the research has been two-fold. Firstly, the organization of production in the çiftliks and the composition of labour within them have been the main foci of interest. Secondly, the relationship between the çiftliks and the broader rural setting has come into the picture in relation to the question of whether these çiftliks, which are units of production consisting of landowners and mostly landless rural producers who work on the land, can be considered as part of an ongoing process of rural differentiation and dispossession accompanied by a separation between the owners of means of production and the rural producers themselves. As such, the analysis will include both the çiftliks and the villages in the region under study.
With regard to çiftliks, a general typology will be identified on the basis of forms of labour and evaluated with reference to factors such as the size of holding, type of produce, and social origins of the çiftlik-owners. In a similar vein, villages will be categorized with regard to not only their type of production, but also the
66
degree of respective inequality and stratification among the inhabitants with regard to landholding, income as well as relations of labour. As such, not only the çiftlik-owners from the higher echelons, but also those from lower socio-economic positions will be included into the picture and they will be compared to the richest segments of the peasantry holding significant tracts of land and hiring wage labourers and sharecroppers. The spatial distribution of different types of çiftliks and villages, the relationship between specialization of production and topographical conditions, and the reciprocal relations between different settlements in different topographies, such as lowlands and highlands, will be addressed.
While their enormous scope and detail make the income survey registers an invaluable source for Ottoman history-writing, like all archival material, they come with their own problems. First and foremost, one of the main handicaps of these sources is the absence of information on expenditure which would make an analysis of the net revenue of various production units possible; as such, they are not the best sources to consult for the purposes of an accounting perspective.183 However, the existence of information on immovable and some forms of movable property, the distribution of different forms of labour as well as the related information on wages, rents and sharecropping arrangements within the çiftliks and villages alike make up for the aforementioned handicaps of the income surveys by providing a rather broad-scale analysis. Accordingly, it is possible to draw the general contours of the rural landscape through these sources going beyond the confines of the çiftliks themselves.184
183 As such, these sources contain information on inflow (in terms of income and production) within a year (as well as the guesses for the following year) without much regard to the outflow (expenses), with the exception of taxes. It is only in rare instances that some expenses, such as “vakıf mesarifi”, or rent paid for agricultural land, are mentioned. These cases remain to be, however, exception rather than rule.
184 As such, the real strength of these sources is to be found on a relational level.
67
Another possible problem with the income survey registers is that they were produced by the state for specific purposes. As such, beyond the well-known problems with these sources already well-expounded in the literature, the particular mode of registration which defined a household with an identifiable patriarch as the main unit of economic activity and taxation, as a rule, ignores various forms of communal relations and activities long-established in the rural context; the standardization of the registration through the monetary expression of all calculations of economic activity, whereby the real-life difference between kind and cash becomes obscured, the so-called extra-economic relations between landowners and cultivators, between the wealthier peasants and the landless labourers, are lost from sight to a considerable extent, and maybe the most critical question -the question of the historical origins of the differentiation between “çiftliks” and “villages”- are left unanswered.185 Also, the large geographical scope of these sources is compromised by their temporal limitation. In order to enrich the resulting picture and include in the analysis the dynamics at work in rural society, a selection of additional archival sources, such as legal/administrative texts, petitions, and investigation reports, from an extended time period, will be combined with the analysis of the income survey registers of the mid-19th century. As such, various dynamics of the rural society, which were obscured in the income survey registers, such as restrictions on peasant mobility, instances of bonded labour, rural poverty, peasant indebtedness, appropriation of peasant land and turning of villages into çiftliks, and some instances of communal forms of land use, will be integrated into the analysis. As such, the present thesis can be seen as an attempt to portray the rural society of the Ottoman
185 In this way, the existing reality is organized and structured through the registration procedure and it is through the lens of such organization and structuring that the information on rural life reaches to the researcher. In other words, the data obtained from the income survey registers can be seen as a curious mixture of fact and fiction –which remains to be, in the end, the truth for almost all historical documents, even more so for those produced by official establishments.
68
Balkans from as many angles as possible by focusing on a selection of three districts -Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe.186
The analysis of the income survey registers constitutes a significant part of this thesis. Therefore, the research on the income survey registers started with structuring the data obtained from the sources. In the registers, the central division was based on settlement units; then, households were registered one by one in each settlement. For example, the part apportioned to the settlement of Bukovo in the relevant defter started with the general introductory statement of “kaza-yı mezbur kurasından Bukovo karyesinde mütemekkin reayanın emlak ve arazi ve hayvanat ve temettuatları mikdarı”. Entries of information for each household in the settlement followed this introduction.
Because a general coding system whereby all of the entries, i.e., households, could be indicated based on unique IDs was needed to prepare a master dataset, the following procedure was followed. Since settlement units are registered in big chunks of defters, a system of coding whereby each settlement is identified with reference to the defter it is registered in has been developed. For example, the settlement of Bukovo is registered in the defter titled ML.VRD.TMT.d.11445. Accordingly, the code of this defter (11445) constituted the beginning of the settlement code. Then, the order of the settlement in the defter it is registered in is added to the code of the defter. For example, Bukovo is the 34th settlement in the defter titled ML.VRD.TMT.d.11445. Thus, the general settlement code for Bukovo is 11445.34.
186 Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe were defined as districts (“kaza”), part of the eyalet of Rumelia in the income survey registers of the mid-19th century. These districts are located in North Macedonia today. For a brief overview of the geography, climate, and administrative division of “Vardar Makedonyası”: Hacısalihoğlu, "Makedonya.” Also see: İnalcık, "Rumeli"; Prifti, “Manastır”; Stoyanovski, XVII. Yüzyılın Sonuna Kadar Makedonya'nın Osmanlı Hakimiyeti Devrinde Idarî Taksimatı; Kiel, "İştip”; Kiel, "Pirlepe.”
69
During the research, it was observed that there were often multiple forms of rural organization in each settlement. Being in the rural universe, these “settlements” were almost always defined as villages (“karye”). In some cases, these settlements were perfect “villages” where only “independent” peasants resided, and no specific çiftlik-related activity existed. In other cases, a settlement perfectly corresponded to a çiftlik; in other words, the settlement itself constituted a çiftlik per se. Sometimes, multiple çiftliks coexisted within the same settlement. In the remaining cases, however, single or multiple çiftliks existed side by side with a body of “independent” peasants. As such, a settlement could be a pure village, a pure çiftlik, or a mixture of the two, while the majority of the çiftliks were embedded in villages and identified as part of a village in the districts under study. Accordingly, all of these forms of rural organization are broadly defined as “rural settlements,” and referred to in the remaining of the thesis simply as “settlements.”187 In order to differentiate between these different forms of organization within the same settlement as well as across settlements, village, and çiftlik formations have been identified with reference to the relations of property and labor they are engaged. For settlements with multiple sub-divisions, the households which displayed no relationship to a çiftlik-owner -whether it takes the form of sharecropping, wage labour, or renting out of land and house- have been assigned to the category of the village -which indicates, in this context, a certain degree of independent activity in terms of agricultural production and labour relations. In other words, the main division has been between çiftlik and non-çiftlik categories in rural society. In this sense, the rural landscape has been divided into çiftlik and non-çiftlik spheres of existence, the latter having been defined as “villages”
187 In “settlements” consisting of multiple forms of organization, some of the formulations of the settlement explanation are as follows: “Kaza-yı mezbur kurasından X karyesinin sahib-i alakasının arazisi ile mütemekkin reaya”; “kaza-yı mezbur kurasından X karyesi çiftliği sahib-i alakası”; “kaza-yı mezbur kurasından X karyesinde mütemekkin reayasıyla sahib-i alakası”; “kaza-yı mezbur kurasından X karyesi çiftliği emlağı ve mütemekkin reayası.”
70
for practical purposes.188 As such, the specific figures of çiftlik-owners, all of whom were landowners who utilized the productive capacity of their land under various forms of labour arrangements and resided in places other than their çiftlik, have been utilized as the main line of organization to identify the specific çiftliks of the districts.189 As such, a total of 1300 çiftliks have been identified with reference to the figures of çiftlik-owners in the three districts under study.190 Out of 400 settlements under analysis, 89 consisted solely of çiftliks, 142 were pure villages191, and the remaining settlements contained both forms. The settlement information of all the districts is indicated Table 1.
Table 1. Settlements of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe: Number of Çiftliks and Villages
188 “Karye (mostly but not exclusively) referred to independent cultivator settlements, whereas çiftlik referred to settlements of tenant cultivators. As such, usually the term karye referred to free villages, and çiftlik referred to bonded/tenant cultivators”: Terzibaşoğlu, “Landed Estates, Rural Commons and Collective Agriculture in Ottoman Niş and Leskofçe in the Nineteenth Century,” 356.
189 For some examples of the income survey registers, see: Appendix A.
190 In some cases, the çiftlik-owners were engaged in ownership of multiple çiftliks. Furthermore, a çiftlik-owner could own two çiftliks in the very same settlement, one of which being based on sharecropping and the other being based on wage-labour as specifically defined as distinct çiftliks in the registers. Accordingly, all of these çiftliks have been calculated as individual çiftliks. A considerable degree of interaction and permeability also existed between villages and çiftliks, as will be discussed in the following chapters. A number of odd figures, who fit in neither the çiftlik nor the village category, have been left out. However, it should be noted that this group often included landowners who resided in the town centre as well as in other districts, and obtained an income from their landholdings on the basis of various forms of arrangements of labour and as such, they can be considered to be, de facto if not de jure, çiftlik-owners themselves, as long as the focus of analysis remains on the property and labour relations, and not on legal categories. Nevertheless, for the purposes of definitional clarity and standardization of the usages during the course of comparison between different districts, this group has been treated separately from the legally defined çiftlik-owners of the region. As such, the greater part of the figures in this category represents forms of labour relations rather than smallholding peasant farmers. Lastly, a small number of registers of land and property owned by religious endowments have been excluded from the analysis. Nevertheless, these cases constitute a minority and do not change the overall picture.
191 These are pure villages in the sense that they did not contain any “çiftliks” or “çiftlik-owners”. As such, these are non-çiftlik settlements which occasionally included landownership by outsiders or property ownership of religious endowments. When these are excluded, the number of pure village settlements is further reduced to 115.
ManastırİştipPirlepeNumber of settlements104Number of settlements152Number of settlements144Number of çiftliks587Number of çiftliks361Number of çiftliks352Pure çiftliks (Çiftlik settlements)27Pure çiftliks (Çiftlik settlements)40Pure çiftliks (Çiftlik settlements)22Pure villages (Village settlements)25Pure villages (Village settlements)53Pure villages (Village settlements)64Mixed settlements (Çiftliks and villages)52Mixed settlements (Çiftliks and villages)59Mixed settlements (Çiftliks and villages)58
71
In order to indicate these different forms of settlements in the organization of the data, a letter is added to the general settlement code. For example, Bukovo is a pure village, and 11445.34a is the specific settlement code assigned to this village. After the establishment of this general rule of organization, the settlement type is indicated for each household with the letter V (for village) and Ç (for çiftlik).192 Table 2 displays the information on a household resident in settlement of Bukovo, which is the 34th settlement in the defter titled ML.VRD.TMT.d.11445. Bukovo is a pure village and hence, contains only one form. Therefore, the settlement code of the village of Bukovo is 11445.34a.193 In this village, the unique ID assigned to the 21st entry (or household)194 is indicated as 11445.34a.N21, with the settlement type of this household being a village (the letter V). Table 3 displays a sample of the resulting ordering of the dataset.
Table 2. The Coding System of Settlements and Households (Income Survey Registers)
192 The çiftlik-related households have been further categorized based on the type of labor employed, as will be discussed in detail in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
193 If there was a çiftlik registered after this village, it would be labeled as 11445.34b.
194 The households under question seem to be at least extended families. The problem with the registers in relation to population calculation is: In the cases where all the members of a registered peasant household are engaged in agriculture or animal husbandry, then only the existence of the household patriarch is indicated; it is only when other sources of income, such as engagement in wage-labour, transportation or crafts, enter the picture, then the existence of various members of the households under question, including sons, grandsons, sons-in-law, nephews etc., become visible. Accordingly, the household has been taken as the main unit of analysis.
The code of the defterML.VRD.TMT.d.11445General Settlement Code11445.34Settlement Code11445.34aID11445.34a.N21Settlement typeV
72
Table 3. Example of the Coding System of Settlements and Households (Income Survey Registers)
In the dataset, each entry -or row- constitutes a household, and the relevant data is registered accordingly. Therefore, the categories of information are organized in columns (a column for the number of oxen, a column for the rent obtained from leased-out stores, etc.). After the organization of the master dataset, the calculations mostly took the form of retrieving the dataset that will be used in the specific calculation, re-ordering of entries, and summing of columns. After the results are displayed in tables, charts and graphs have been created for a better visual representation.195 The resulting framework has constituted the backbone of the organization of the data retrieved from the income survey registers. The same procedure was repeated for the analysis of all three districts.
The following defters of income survey registers contain the information on the rural settlements of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe: For Manastır, the defters titled ML.VRD.TMT. d.11445 (1321 pages) and ML.VRD.TMT.d.17545 (818 pages), containing information on around 6300 households and 104 settlements with various subdivisions of villages and çiftliks; for the district of İştip, the defters titled ML.VRD.TMT.d.11422 (806 pages), ML.VRD.TMT.d.11423 (780 pages) and ML.VRD.TMT.d.11424 (696 pages), containing information on around 5300
195 In order to show how the raw data in the temettuat registers is processed, step-by-step examples of the calculation processes are provided in Appendix B.
IDSettlement CodeSettlement Type11445.34.N2111445.34aV11445.34.N2211445.34aV11445.34.N2311445.34aV11445.34.N2411445.34aV11445.34.N2511445.34aV11445.34.N2611445.34aV11445.34.N2711445.34aV11445.34.N2811445.34aV11445.34.N2911445.34aV
73
households and 152 settlements with various subdivisions of villages and çiftliks; for the district of Pirlepe, the defters titled ML.VRD.TMT.d.11448 (184 pages), ML.VRD.TMT.d.11449 (463 pages), ML.VRD.TMT.d.11450 (427 pages), containing information on around 4800 households and 144 settlements with various sub-divisions of villages and çiftliks. The resulting dataset contains information on around 16500 households and 400 settlements with various sub-divisions of villages and çiftliks. Therefore, the transcription, standardization, and analysis of these defters have constituted the main body of archival research and the main pillars of the design of the present analysis.
Lastly, the following discussion on the dynamics of rural processes has been conducted based on a wide range of archival materials. A compilation of sources, including legal cases, investigation reports, and bureaucratic correspondence, have been brought together and organized thematically with reference to the common processes going on in all three districts under study with varying degrees.
74
CHAPTER 3
AGRARIAN CLASS RELATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN BALKANS: ÇİFTLİKS AND VILLAGES, LANDOWNERS AND RURAL PRODUCERS IN MANASTIR (MID-19TH CENTURY)
The analysis of the district of Manastır, a kaza of the eyalet of Rumelia in the mid-19th century196, centers on the defters titled ML.VRD.TMT. d. 11445 and ML.VRD.TMT. d. 17545, which contain information on the rural settlements of the district.197 These two defters, comprising 2139 pages and containing information on more than 6000 households residing and producing in more than 100 settlements with various sub-divisions of villages and çiftliks, have been analyzed with the main focus being on patterns of ownership and forms of labour to develop an analysis of economic and social relations prevalent in the district of Manastır in the mid-19th century.
196 For a brief introduction to Manastır: Prifti, “Manastır.” For the classic study on the question of çiftliks of Manastır, see: McGowan, Economic Life in Ottoman Europe: Taxation, Trade and the Struggle for Land, 1600-1800. For a discussion on the economic and social characteristics of the çiftlik-owners of Manastır, see: Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth century”; Atuk, “Manastır Vilayetinde Yönetim ve Yerel Meclisler.” Also see: Çayırlı, “Osmanlı İdaresinde Manastır (Bitola)”; Çağ, 16. ve 17. yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Hakimiyetinde Manastır; Alimoski, Temettüat Defterlerine Göre Manastır Merkez Kazasının Sosyo-Ekonomik Durumu; Öztunç, Tanzimat Döneminde Ekonomik ve Sosyal Yönleriyle Manastır Şehri; Demirkol, XVIII. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Manastır. For a number of cases including inheritance, sale and transfer of property as well as land disputes in the sijils of Manastır in the 17th and 18th centuries, see: Özcan, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer’iyye Sicilinin (65-120 Varak) Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi; Erikçi, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer‘iyye Sicilinin (1-64. Varak) Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642); Gözcü, 25 Nolu Manastır Şer‘iyye Sicilinin Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642); Kavgacı, 63 Numaralı Manastır Şer’iyye Sicilinin Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi (1778-1782); Coşkun, 103 Numaralı Manastır Şer’iyye Sicilinin Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi (1835-1837).
197 While the first defter is located in the volume 7 of the ML.VRD.TMT.d collection, which contains registers of districts from Rumelia and remains to be the proper place for the registers of Manastır, defter 17545 has been found among the muhtelif section of the collection. This latter defter, however, has turned out to be very important for the research as it is the one that contains the majority of çiftlik entries of the district.
75
Figure 2. Dragor River, Manastır198
This chapter will start with a general introduction to the district, focusing on a series of comparisons between the çiftliks and villages of the region to draw a general portrait of the rural landscape. Then, the villages of the district will be examined in detail. Lastly, a general typology of the çiftliks will be introduced based on the forms of labour employed, to provide a detailed exposition of each type in a comparative perspective. Throughout this analysis, themes of property ownership and forms of labour will be the main pillars for the exposition of the data retrieved from the temettuat registers of the district of Manastır.
198 “Vue de Dragor a Monastir = Manastır'da Dragor Deresi boyu / edit: Anastase G. Zalli”: AK. KRT. 78/1906.
76
3.1 Çiftliks and villages: The socio-economic landscape of rural Manastır in the mid-19th century
3.1.1 Rural population and patterns of settlement
Figure 3 displays the distribution of rural population, calculated based on the number of households due to the nature of the survey registers, between çiftliks and villages. In the calculations, only local rural producers are taken into account while çiftlik-owners, who mostly reside in the central town of Manastır as well as in other districts, have been excluded. As such, this chart displays the distribution of the rural residents themselves.
Figure 3. Distribution of rural population between çiftliks and villages of Manastır
The temettuat registers display that around one-third of the whole rural population (1722 households) resided in 587 çiftliks in the district of Manastır in the mid-19th century.199 In contrast, 3962 households, constituting 69% of the rural population,
199 Ursinus estimates that “by 1710, at the very least, almost a third of the adult male population must already have been living on çiftliks … rather than in ‘free’ … villages”: Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth century,” 251. For 1710, Demirkol estimates the existence of 1247 non-Muslim çiftlik residents as against 2097 non-Muslim village residents under the obligation to pay taxes: Demirkol, XVIII. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Manastır, 39. In 1721, 285 çiftlik-owners are identified in the city-registers: Ibid, 41. In 1728, 426 çiftliks and 1005 çiftlik-residing families have been identified: Ibid, 198. In 1734, 1087 families working in 454 çiftliks have been identified: Ibid, 206. In general, the total number of çiftliks (240) in the beginning of 1700s seems to have almost doubled up to 450 by the 1750s: Ibid, 215. 30%
69%
1%
Distribution of rural population between çiftliks and villages
(number of households)
Çiftliks Villages Other
77
lived in the villages. As will be discussed in detail below200, because the group residing in the çiftliks consisted of mostly landless and often houseless rural producers201 - beyond the existence of a landless labour force in the villages - it seems safe to argue in the beginning that more than one-third of the rural population resident in the district of Manastır was dispossessed of their main tool of production, i.e. land, and are engaged in relations of labour arrangements different than those of small peasant farming which is ideally based on the exclusive use of family-labour and has a self-sustaining character. As such, the group of çiftlik-owners, as the holders of the main means of production, i.e. land, in an agrarian economy, directly controlled the labour-capacity of one-third of the district population which lacked such means.202
While the previous calculations of distribution of rural households among çiftliks and villages treated the data as totalities and the region as a spatially homogeneous entity, this is in fact far from the truth. On the contrary, specific loci of concentration regarding village and çiftliks formations in each settlement can be identified.
Table 4 demonstrates the relative weight of çiftliks, on the basis of the ratio of households engaged in production for çiftliks (i.e. number of çiftlik households / total number of households) within each settlement as indicated in a value range
200 See: Section 3.3.
201 With regard to landholding, this position of producers is especially striking concerning fields where grain production is conducted while most of the rural residents hold a small parcel of vineyard, mostly ranging from 0.5 to 1 dönüm. A detailed exposition of the patterns of landownership will be provided in the following parts. With regard to housing, of the 1722 households residing in the çiftliks, around 1500 have been found to have been specifically mentioned to dwell in the houses of their çiftlik-owners ("ağası hanesinde mütemekkin, X hanesinde mütemekkin etc.) while around 55 of these households are indicated to rent their houses. The tenants of houses are mostly wage labourers rather than sharecroppers in the case of which provision of free lodging seems to be the norm. Lastly, 133 households have been additionally noted to own no land, house or property whatsoever. Also, about 75 households residing in the villages are noted to dwell in the houses of other villagers or landowners working for the latter while around 500 households are noted to own no land and/or a house.
202 The mechanisms and processes behind the emergence of such dispossession will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
78
from 0 to 1. Here, 0 indicates non-existence of çiftliks and a “perfect” village while 1 indicates all-embracing çiftlik-activity and utter absence of independent farmers.203 The results of the distribution of these different types are displayed in detail in Figures 4, 5, and 6.
Table 4. Number of Settlements and Resident Households by the Level of Çiftlik Formation in Manastır
Figure 4 demonstrates the specific place assigned to each settlement in the district with regard to the level of çiftlik formation whereby perfect villages, perfect çiftliks and areas of transition in between are displayed. Figure 5 displays the distribution of settlements on the basis of their level of çiftlik formation. In the district of Manastır, 26% of all settlements can be defined as perfect çiftliks and 29% as çiftlik-dominated formations while 24% of them can be defined as perfect villages and 21% as village-dominated settlements. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the population among the settlements with different levels of çiftlik formation. In the district of Manastır, 10% of the rural population resided in perfect çiftliks and 18% in çiftlik-dominated
203 Even though the present calculations on çiftlik residents were made on the basis of number of households who were directly attached to a specific çiftlik-owner, there were some registers of çiftlik-owners which did not indicate any related sharecroppers’ or workers’ households. In such cases, the sharecroppers or wage-workers must have resided in the nearby villages and their labour relation must have had a subsidiary character to farming on their own land. Or they could have been engaged with other çiftlik-owners and could have been employed in more than one çiftlik. While this complexity of relations made the district very interesting in terms of configuration of class relations, it has made seemingly simple calculations -such as household distribution- much more difficult. As such, ignoring single-entry çiftliks as a whole would carry the peril of losing from sight a portion of çiftlik activity in the region, which would be especially problematical for its spatial representation. As a solution, such çiftlik-owner registers are counted only as çiftlik-owners in the calculations on the general distribution of çiftliks and villages while these entries are treated as single-household çiftliks in spatial representation in order to indicate the existence of çiftlik activity in a specific settlement. The observation that such entries were rather rare vis-a-vis proper çiftlik entries and they were mostly small operations performed by a single sharecropping household also enforced this choice of calculation. This procedure has been repeated for all the districts.
Level of çiftlik formationNumber of settlementsPercentageNumber of householdsPercentage12726%60310%0.5 - 0.973029%103418%0.02 - 0.472221%139324%02524%278148%
79
settlements while 48% resided in perfect villages and 24% in village-dominated settlements.
Figure 4. Distribution of settlements by level of çiftlik formation (number of households) in Manastır.
Figure 5. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the settlements of Manastır.
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
Level of çiftlik formation
Settlements
Settlements and level of çiftlik formation (Manastır)
26%
29%
21%
24%
Level of çiftlik formation and number of settlements
Level of çiftlik formation 1 Level of çiftlik formation 0.5 - 0.97
Level of çiftlik formation: 0.02 - 0.47 Level of çiftlik formation: 0
80
Figure 6. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the population of Manastır.
Regarding all of the calculations so far, the coexistence of different types of rural residents -villagers and çiftlik workers- within the same settlement raises the question of the processes of acquisition of land and çiftlik formation. Furthermore, the data under study indicates that there is a certain degree of polarization between village and çiftlik-dominated settlements in addition to the existence of a transitional area which displays mixed features of both forms. In the face of such polarization, generalizing on the basis of a whole district by taking averages can be misleading to understand the dynamics at work. This, in turn, raises the question of whether these settlements can be shown to cluster topographically in specific places following a pattern. To answer this question and indicate the geographical distribution of different categories of settlements, their level of çiftlik formation has been used as the main index. Table 5 displays the level of çiftlik formation of each settlement while Table 6 displays the colour-coding system used in the preparation of the map
10%
18%
24%
48%
Level of çiftlik formation and population (number of
households)
Level of çiftlik formation 1 Level of çiftlik formation 0.5 - 0.97
Level of çiftlik formation: 0.02 - 0.47 Level of çiftlik formation: 0
81
in Figure 7, which indicates the locations of different types of settlements in the district of Manastır in the mid-19th century.204
Table 5. Level of Çiftlik Formation (Number of Households) in the Settlements of Manastır
204 In the table below, entries highlighted in light gray indicate a degree of uncertainty of location while the entries highlighted in dark gray indicate settlements whose locations could not be found.
Level of çiftlik formationSettlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlement0Malovista0.02Veluşina0.50Kanina, Kanino1Rahotin, Rotino0Srpce-yi sagir, Srptsi malko0.03Mescidlu, Mesdzidli0.52Holeven, Oleveni1Esmilove, Smolevo0Capari0.04Gradeşnica, Graeşnitsa0.52Trn1Zabjani0Magarevo0.05Porodin, Berodim0.53Orahovo- Morihovo, Rahovo-Muslim1Çekrikçi, Lagovrdi0Ramna0.07Bareşani0.59Bistrica, Bistritsa1Ruvci paşa, Pashino ruvci0Trnova, Trnovo0.09Dihovo0.59Radobor1Novoselani0Lera0.14Kleştina-yı bala, Gorno Kleines, Ano Kleines0.61Vakuf eğri, Gorno eğri1Ahmed efendi çiftliği0Nizopolje, Nizepole0.17Trnovce0.62Beranci1Ak Geceli, Vostaverica, Vasharejca0Brusnik0.21Presil0.67Bukri Paşa, Bukri1Podmol0Aflahce, Lavtsi0.22Karaman0.77Nospal1Trap, Trab0Bukovo0.23Orta epri, Sredno eğri0.80Pehodin-i zir, Podine-yi zir1Çayırlı-yı bala, Cairlija grn0Rahovo, Orehovo0.26Vakufköj, Popolzani, Pappagiannis0.80Vodjani, Vogjani1Çayırlı-yı zir, Cairlija dl0Ostrec0.26Kristofor, Kristovo, Krstoar0.80Çekrikçi, Lagovrdi1Umerler0Zlokukjan0.26Pehodin-i bala, Podine-yi bala0.80Opticar1Vlaklar0Dolenci0.33Srpce Paşa, Stari Srpci0.83Kravari1Dobromir0Dragos0.37Kleştina-yı zir, Dolno Kleines, Kato Kleines0.84Obrşani, Obrsani1Grumazi, Goromas0Kişovo0.38Eğri Paşa0.84Mogila1Suhodol, Suhodol raja, Suvodol0Kazani0.42Klabucistina, Ployplatano0.85Loznani1Baltovica, Baldanice0Obshirina, Opsirino, Ethniko0.43Negocani, Niki0.88Sv. Todor, İsfotodor, Sveta Todori1Veljeselo, Velesil0Rakovo, Kratero0.44Sv. Petka, Sveti Petka, Agija Paraskevi0.88İvanovica, İvanjevtsi1Tepavci, Tepapce0Buf, Akritas0.46Bratindol0.92Dobruşova1Gniles, Gnilesh0Bitusa, Paroreio0.47Lazec, Lajets0.92Lopatnice ova, Lopatnica1Çengel0Gijavat, Gjavato0.92Novak, Novaci, Novatsi1Polak, Poljak0Kenali, Kremenica, Kremenitsa0.93Pozdeş, Poeşevo1Skocivir0Belacrkova0.94Paralovo, Paraluk1Slivica0.95Orizari-yi zir1Brdo0.96Dalbejler, Dalebelovci, Dalbegovci1Biljanik, Bjelani0.96Vranovci0.97Ribarci0.97Negotin, Gneotino
82
Table 6. Colour-Coding of the Level of Çiftlik Formation (Number of Households)
in (Figure 7)
Figure 7. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and distribution of
settlements in Manastır.
The general pattern identified in the distribution of different types of settlements
displayed on the map above (Figure 7) is the tendency of the çiftliks to concentrate
on the alluvial plains around the main river (Crna Reka, or Black River, which is a
branch of the greater river of Vardar) branching towards the valleys to the east of the
district and their conspicuous absence in the westernmost mountainous areas which
are heavily crowded by villages and village-dominated settlements, lying in a northsouth
direction. While there are a few villages on the river basin as well, most of the
Level of çiftlik formation Colour-coding
1 Red
0.5 - 0.97 Pink
0.02 - 0.47 Light blue
0 Dark blue
83
non-çiftlik formations in these locations seem to be of the village-dominated mixed-type in close proximity to the çiftliks and the çiftlik-dominated settlements, which may represent transitional forms between villages and çiftliks in their perfect forms.
Of all the settlements of pure çiftliks, 10 constitute single-çiftlik settlements while the remaining 17 settlements consist of multiple çiftliks. In the most extreme case, there are as many as 17 çiftliks in a single settlement of the pure çiftlik type. The relevant list can be seen in the table below.
Table 7. Pure Çiftliks of Manastır
The map in Figure 8 displays the distribution of rural population among the settlements of Manastır. In general, the population tends to concentrate on the hilly settlements in the southwest of the district where most of the villages are located. As such, the mountain villages of Manastır are areas of high population density, while the alluvial plains, under the ownership of çiftlik-owners, are much more scarcely populated.
Level of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlement1Rahotin, Rotino11Tepavci, Tepapce21Ak Geceli, Vostaverica, Vasharejca51Esmilove, Smolevo11Gniles, Gnilesh21Podmol61Çekrikçi, Lagovrdi11Polak, Poljak21Umerler71Ahmed efendi çiftliği11Ruvci paşa, Pashino ruvci31Vlaklar101Çayırlı-yı bala, Cairlija grn11Novoselani31Suhodol, Suhodol raja, Suvodol111Grumazi, Goromas11Trap, Trab31Zabjani141Veljeselo, Velesil11Baltovica, Baldanice31Dobromir171Çengel11Brod31Skocivir11Çayırlı-yı zir, Cairlija dl41Slivica11Biljanik, Bjelani4
84
Figure 8. Distribution of rural population among settlements (based on the number of households).
Then, how much of the agricultural land in rural Manastır do the çiftlik-owners have under their command? What is the proportion between the lands in the çiftlik domains and the lands in the village domains? What proportion of the cultivable land in the çiftlik boundaries are held by the rural producers rather than by the çiftlik-owners themselves? What is the situation for the corresponding distribution of draught animals between çiftliks and villages, çiftlik-owners and rural producers?
3.1.2 Ownership of agricultural means of production
The tables below (Table 8 and Table 9) display the information on landownership by villagers, çiftlik-owners, and çiftlik workers in Manastır. Table 8 displays the distribution of landownership for each category of land among the villagers, çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers. Table 9 displays the relative weight of landownership for different types of land within each group.
85
Table 8. Landownership by Çiftlik-owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers
(Manastır) (1)
Table 9. Landownership by Çiftlik-owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers
(Manastır) (2)
In terms of relative numbers, some points worth noting here are the dominance of the
çiftlik-owners in the holding of grain fields and meadows; the dominance of the
villagers in the holding of gardens, tobacco fields, hemp fields and flax fields in
addition to vineyards; and the humble presence of the çiftlik-workers in the holding
Villagers Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers TOTAL
Types of land Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Grain fields 26118.25 26% 71763 71% 3848.3 4% 101729.55 100%
Meadow 5477.63 37% 8079 55% 1253.375 8% 14810.005 100%
Vineyard 1878.5 55% 620.925 18% 905.415 27% 3404.84 100%
Flax field 379 60% 189 30% 62.75 10% 630.75 100%
Hemp field 169.25 85% 18 9% 12.75 6% 200 100%
Vegetable garden 63.75 100% 0 0% 0 0% 63.75 100%
"Bostan tarlası" 3 15% 11.5 56% 6 29% 20.5 100%
Madder root field 5 29% 8.5 50% 3.5 21% 17 100%
Onion field 0 0% 6 100% 0 0% 6 100%
Tobacco fields 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100%
Winter pasture 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 1 100%
Villagers Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers
Types of land Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Grain fields 26118.25 77% 71763 89% 3848.3 63%
Meadow 5477.63 16% 8079 10% 1253.375 21%
Vineyard 1878.5 6% 620.925 1% 905.415 15%
Flax field 379 1% 189 <1% 62.75 1%
Hemp field 169.25 <1% 18 <1% 12.75 <1%
Vegetable garden 63.75 <1% 0 0% 0 0%
"Bostan tarlası" 3 <1% 11.5 <1% 6 <1%
Madder root field 5 <1% 8.5 <1% 3.5 <1%
Onion field 0 0% 6 <1% 0 0%
Tobacco fields 1 <1% 0 0% 0 0%
Winter pasture 0 0% 1 <1% 0 0%
TOTAL 34095.38 100% 80696.925 100% 6092.09 100%
86
of vineyards and madder root fields, in addition their even humbler involvement in the holding of flax fields, meadows, hemps fields and grain fields. Nevertheless, when the question comes to absolute values, the miniscule amounts of land under the cultivation of hemp, flax, and the like, should make one cautious (even when a specific group displays complete monopoly of ownership) in making rash generalizations about the overall significance of these products for the economy as whole. This is because, as Table 9 demonstrates, the production of grains remains the backbone of the agrarian economy of the district of Manastır in terms of the size and percentage of land reserved for it, followed by meadows and vineyards, by all the groups under consideration.
Figure 9 displays the distribution of landownership of grain fields by çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers. In the district of Manastır, 70% of the cultivable grain fields are concentrated in the hands of a few landowners.205
Figure 9. Distribution of landownership in Manastır.
205 This is corroborated by other studies of the region. For example, with reference to reports, circulars, and accounts prepared by British consular officers and compiled in the body of parliamentary papers, Şevket Pamuk underlines: “Öte yandan, Selanik ve Manastır sancaklarında, büyük işletmeler ve çiftlik sistemi 19. yüzyıl boyunca egemenliğini sürdürdü Bir tahmine göre, 1859’da Manastır sancağındaki tüm topraklann dörtte üçü büyük toprakağalarının elindeydi”: Pamuk, Osmanlı Ekonomisinde Bağımlılık ve Büyüme 1820-1913, 113. 70%
4%
26%
Landownership in Manastır: Distribution of grain fields
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
87
Then, Figure 10 displays the distribution of oxen, which constitute one of the main means of production, between çiftliks and villages.206 Here, although the concentration of land is in favor of the çiftlik areas, the distribution of oxen between the two domains remains roughly equal. Furthermore, it should be added that almost all of the oxen of the çiftliks are owned by the landless producers, as will be discussed in more detail below.207
Figure 10. Distribution of oxen between çiftliks and villages in Manastır.
Figure 11 displays the distribution of factors of production, to the extent that they could be derived from the survey registers -namely, labour (in the form of potential workforce calculated on the basis of number of households), land and oxen- between çiftlik and village domains.
206 This distribution changes only by 1% in favor of çiftlik-owners vis-a-vis çiftlik workers when all the potential draught animals are included in the calculations. This category includes “öküz manda, manda öküzü, inek öküzü, erkek manda, kısır manda, manda, çift mandası, camuş, kısır camuş.”
207 See: Section 3.3. 4%
49%
47%
Oxen: Çiftliks versus villages
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
88
Figure 11. Means of production: Çiftliks versus villages (Manastır).
When the ownership of these factors of production is considered, the degree of their concentration in the hands of a few landholders strongly suggests the dispossession of a considerable part of the rural population (Figure 12 and Figure 13). These landowners also directly control around one-third of the total labour force in the district (i.e., çiftlik workers), who are mostly dispossessed (Figure 3). In contrast, about one-third of the population, i.e., çiftlik workers, hold around 4% of the land, indicating the dispossession of a sizeable part of the population. Yet the latter is left with the possession of half of the oxen of the district, possibly a relic from their past “peasantness,” at least for a part of the sharecroppers.208 Lastly, 69% of the rural population –that is, villagers- is left with only a quarter of the cultivable fields in the district while holding half of the oxen.
208 See: Chapter 6 Section 5. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All grain fields
Oxen (number)
Potential agricultural workforce (Household
number of rural producers)
Means of production: Çiftliks versus villages
Çiftlik Village
89
Figure 12. Concentration of landownership (1) (Manastır).
Figure 13. Concentration of landownership (2) (Manastır).
Figure 14 displays the ratio of cultivable fields owned by çiftlik-owners to all of the fields in each settlement in order to display the geographical distribution of settlements with varying degrees of çiftlik formation in terms of landownership. Here, an index has been prepared whereby the value of 0 indicates non-existence of çiftlik land and the value of 1 indicates all-encompassing existence of çiftlik land for each settlement. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Number of households
All grain fields (in dönüm)
Concentration of landownership (1)
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
Çiftlik-owners
Çiftlik workers
Villagers
Concentration of landownership (2)
Number of households All grain fields (in dönüm)
90
Figure 14. Ratio of çiftlik land to all settlement land (Manastır).
Each settlement is indicated in the map below in accordance with its level of çiftlik formation in terms of landownership. Here, the colour white indicates the non-existence of land owned by çiftlik-owners, the colour pink indicates the mixture of lands held by çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers, and the colour red indicates the all-encompassing presence of çiftlik-owner land. (Figure 15).
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
105
109
113
Ratio of çiflik-owners' land to all
settlement land
Settlements
Ratio of çiftlik land to all settlement land
91
Figure 15. Distribution of settlements by landownership: Çiftliks versus villages (Manastır).
The map below (Figure 16) displays the extent of cultivable land in conjunction with the distribution of ownership by çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers within each settlement. The size of the pie charts indicates the size of the cultivable fields in each settlement. Within the pie charts, colour red indicates ownership by çiftlik-owners, colour blue indicates ownership by çiftlik workers, and colour green indicates ownership by villagers. While çiftliks tended to concentrate in the alluvial plains around Crna River, both forms of settlement still remained quite intertwined in general.
92
Figure 16. Distribution of land: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers of Manastır.
So far, the data has been analyzed to demonstrate that there is a significant degree of concentration of land in the district of Manastır in the mid-19th century. Here, the main framework has been the division between the villages and the çiftliks of the region, even though they are located close to each other, often within the same settlement. As such they display interaction and permeability to a considerable degree, in addition to significant variations within them.
3.1.3 Sources of income
Table 8 demonstrates the rural income sources and their distribution in the district of Manastır as a whole, underlining the importance of agricultural production in general. Here, agricultural production and sharecropping encompass both peasant production (including peasant production with and without the employment of additional wage-
93
labour) and various forms of production in çiftliks Agricultural production is followed by animal husbandry, textile-related activities, and agricultural wage-labour.
Table 10. Income Sources of Manastır
The following tables (Table 11 and Table 12) display the distribution of different branches of agricultural activity in terms of different types of land (in dönüm) and income obtained from them (in kuruş) in aggregates on çiftlik and village lands. Here,
Income sourcesIn kuruşPercentageAgricultural production2074722.2540%Sharecropping (main)1773670.3934%Animal-husbandry353555.57%Textile-related activities2285454%Agricultural wage-labour2231684%Transport and/or provision of charcoal and wood1197852%Crafts / sale of items / services97257.52%Carpentry / construction618801%Transport531671%Rent48171.51%Trade406201%External sources of income38738.8751%Goldsmith277901%Other25053.75<1%Animal husbandary-related wage-labour21273.5<1%Professional positions20415.5<1%Milling20060<1%Military positions10211<1%Moneychanging3300<1%TOTAL5241384.77100%
94
the focus is on active production, and hence, only lands under cultivation, creating an income for the owner, have been taken into account.209
Table 11. Agricultural Production in Manastır: Çiftliks versus Villages (1)
As can be observed in Table 11, the grain fields located in the villages, constituting around three-quarters of all types of village lands registered in the sources, produce an income which comprises of the greater part of the total agricultural income of the villages. This is followed by meadows, and then by vineyards, flax fields, and hemp fields in terms of revenue generated by these lands. As for the çiftliks, 88% of all lands are constituted by grain fields, which produce 83% of the total agricultural income, and followed by meadows and then vineyards and flax fields.210 As such, the usual trinity of grain fields-meadows-vineyards is here completed by flax and hemp
209 Rented lands have been taken into account while leased out and uncultivated lands have been excluded since they do not produce agricultural revenue directly for the owner.
210 From 1789 onwards, the production of wheat took priority in agricultural production, which remained to be dominant into the 19th century in the district of Manastır, especially in the central plain area: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 134-135. Furthermore, "it seems likely that Manastır, aside from its own local needs, functioned economically within the Macedonian environment as an area which forwarded wheat surpluses to other zones" through export centers such as Salonica and Serres which were also “heavily involved in production of export commodities”: Ibid, 135. Furthermore, McGowan underlines that there is no evidence for the production of cotton or tobacco in the 18th century (Ibid, 134-135) which has turned out to be a trend to continue right into the mid-19th century as well.
VILLAGEÇİFTLİKTypes of landDönümPercentageRevenuePercentageDönümPercentageRevenuePercentageGrain fields20303.7576%1304692.7575%69154.588%1883882.7583%Meadow 4321.7516%18051910%7829.62510%200037.59%Vineyard1474.56%1487599%1104.2751%121584.55%Flax field379.51%83852.55%251.75<1%421252%Hemp field169.251%12287.51%30.75<1%4150<1%Vegetable garden61.125<1%176361%00%00%Madder root field5<1%1175<1%12<1%2150<1%"Bostan tarlası"3<1%800<1%23.5<1%3755<1%Tobacco fields1<1%150<1%00%00%Onion field00%00%6<1%400<1%TOTAL26718.875100%1749871.75100%78412.4100%2258084.75100%
95
production in both cases, which is understandable considering the prevalence of various forms of textile production in some of the settlements of the district.211
Table 12. Agricultural Production in Manastır: Çiftliks versus Villages (2)
Table 12 displays the distribution of both the amount of land and the income obtained from agricultural production among the çiftliks and the villages. In general terms, the grain fields in the villages generate a higher income per dönüm vis-à-vis çiftliks which, nevertheless, end up dominating the rural economy in terms of absolute values of agricultural production, as can be observed in Figure 17.
211 In the income survey registers, this general category of textile production includes “terzi, terzi kalfası, terzi çırağı, bezci, abacı, abacı terzisi, gipeci, gipeci terzi kalfası, gipeci terzisi, mutafçı, mutafçı kalfası, mutafçı çırağı, mutafçı hizmetkarı, çukacı, çulcu, dikici.” Weaving (“dokumacılık”) in particular and textile in general were important branches of economic activity for the town center as well: Alimoski, Temettüat Defterlerine Göre Manastır Merkez Kazasının Sosyo-Ekonomik Durumu, 14. Initially, flax and hemp were produced for medicinal use; later, they were produced to be used in textile production, dye-making and rope-making (“urgancılık”): Çağ, 16. ve 17. yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Hakimiyetinde Manastır, 276.
VILLAGEÇİFTLİKTypes of landDönümPercentageRevenuePercentageDönümPercentageRevenuePercentageTOTAL (Dönüm)TOTAL (Revenue)TOTALGrain fields20303.7523%1304692.7541%69154.577%1883882.7559%89458.253188575.50100%Meadow 4321.7536%18051947%7829.62564%200037.553%12151.38380556.50100%Vineyard1474.557%14875955%1104.27543%121584.545%2578.78270343.50100%Flax field379.560%83852.567%251.7540%4212533%631.25125977.50100%Hemp field169.2585%12287.575%30.7515%415025%200.0016437.50100%Vegetable garden61.125100%17636100%00%00%61.1317636.00100%Madder root field529%117535%1271%215065%17.003325.00100%"Bostan tarlası"311%80018%23.589%375582%26.504555.00100%Tobacco fields1100%150100%00%00%1.00150.00100%Onion field00%00%6100%400100%6.00400.00100%Chestnut trees (Kestane eşcarı)1*2000Blackberry trees (Eşcar-ı karadut)8*9500
96
Figure 17. Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages (Manastır).
With regard to engagement in animal husbandry, while the çiftliks once again dominate in general terms, it is the workers of the çiftliks rather than the çiftlik-owners that reap the highest benefit from this activity (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Income from animal husbandry: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers (Manastır).
Lastly, in order to assess the level of inequality in the distribution of land (in terms of access to land, rather than income) the following calculations were made:212 The
212 Such calculations are useful to the extent that they can be multiplied with many variations, making comparison across times and geographies possible. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that these are only tools that can be used only for specific purposes with various restrictions; by themselves, they can by no means explain everything. A number of studies measuring income inequality through income survey registers have been recently produced. Karaduman estimates the gini coefficient for the income distribution of Koçana based on temettuat registers as 0.44:
44%
56%
Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages
Villages Çiftliks
2%
57%
41%
Income from animal husbandary
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
97
population213 of the district was divided into four groups where the first group comprised the bottom 10%, the second comprised the top 10%, and the remaining population was divided into two groups, each of which comprised 40% of the rural population in terms of ownership of grain fields. On this basis, the Gini coefficient was calculated to be 0.77. The same calculation with the population divided into equal shares of 20% produced a value of 0.8. Furthermore, a calculation exclusively conducted for the village lands produced a value of 0.67 (which will be discussed in further detail in Section 3.2.2).
As such, the degree of rural inequality in terms of access to land is quite considerable in the district of Manastır in the mid-19th century even when one does not take the çiftliks into consideration. In this context, two points needs to be emphasized: Firstly, the relationship between the prevalence of inequality among the villagers in terms of distribution of land, the existence of a considerable body of landless agricultural wage-labour, and the specialization of some rural settlements, which are mostly large villages (karye) with many sub-divisions of quarters (mahalle) in textile-related activities, crafts and transportation, will be discussed in Section 3.2 on the villages. Secondly, Section 3.3.3 will discuss the presence of not
Karaduman, Temettuat Defterleri çerçevesinde Koçana/Üsküp kazasının sosyal ve ekonomik yapısı. Also see: Karaduman, & Tabakoğlu, “19. Yüzyıl Temettuat Defterleri’ne Göre Üsküp/Koçana Kazası’nın Lorenz Eğrisi ve Gini Katsayısı ile Gelir Dağılımının Analizi.” In the town of Sorgun in Sivas, a gini coefficient of 0.37 - 0.4 has been estimated for the inequality of income distribution: Yereli, Köktaş, & Selçuk, “Sorgun Kazası XIX. Yüzyıl Temettüat Defterleri Üzerinden Gelir Dağılımı ve Göreli Yoksulluk Üzerine Bir İnceleme.” In their study on the temettuat registers of a sample of villages in İzmir, Salonica and Akşehir, Koyuncu and Küçükkalay have come up with a Gini coefficient of 0.33 – 0.34 for the income distribution of inland regions and 0.42 – 0.43 for that of commercialized areas: Koyuncu & Küçükkalay, “Global Market Orientation of the Ottoman Agriculture Sector: An Interregional Comparison.” In the framework of the research project based on “tereke” registers, Canbakal refers to inequality levels of 0.70 for towns and 0.60 - 0.75 for the rural settlements in 7 areas of study from 1740 to 1840: Hülya Canbakal, “Erken Modern Dünya ve Osmanlı Topraklarında Servet ve Gelir Dağılımı”, 262-263. In this context, Canbakal also raises the question of the relationship between çiftlik formation, tranformation of agrarian structures and inequality in Manastır and Manisa: Ibid, 261.
213 Including çiftlik-owners and rural residents, i.e., everyone having an interest in the agricultural economy of the district. Outsiders holding scattered parcels of land in villages are excluded as they constitute a minority.
98
only old and established çiftlik-owning families of the region as well as artisans and professional groups of the town center but also çiftlik-owners with rural origins, whose meagre yet intriguing presence in the sources indicating, to some extent, the existence of rural inequality and peasant differentiation within and among the peasantry in the district of Manastır as a whole.
3.2 Villages, peasants and class relations: The question of inequality in a peasant society
3.2.1 Village population of Manastır
In order to have a general sense of the configuration of labour types in the villages, the distribution of income sources provides a point of start.214 The graph below (Figure 19) displays this distribution according to which engagement in agricultural production constitutes the main source of income, underlining the continuing importance of agricultural production for the economy of the villages of the district as a whole. This is then followed by textile-related occupations, animal-husbandry and agricultural wage-labour, in addition to the existence of a plethora of activities.
214 Because the official titles of occupation and labour assigned to the heads of the households by the compilers of the survey, such as erbab-ı ziraat, erbab-ı ticaret, hizmetkar, were not consistent and complete in the registers, they have not been used. Also, only income from the lands within the boundaries of the official places of residence have been taken into consideration.
99
Figure 19. Villages of Manastır: Distribution of income sources.
Additionally, half of the village households obtain the main part of their income from agricultural production, followed by agricultural wage-labour and textile-related activities, as can be observed in Table 13.215
215 42 households which did not have any income registered have been excluded from the calculations. Still, there is great variety of income, rangin from 20 kuruş to more than 7000 kuruş per household. 60%
8%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2% 2% 1% 1%1% 1% 1%
Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of income sources
Agricultural production Textile-related activities
Animal-husbandry Agricultural wage-labour
Transport and/or provision of coal and wood Crafts / sale of items / services
Other Sharecropping
Carpentry / construction Transport
Trade Rent
Goldsmith Professional positions
Milling
100
Table 13. Distribution of Village Households by Main Source of Income
Before moving to the details of these branches of activities, the weight of agricultural production in the villages of the district raises the central question of how agrarian production, the main source of income for the district of Manastır, is organized. In the idealized Ottoman agrarian universe, a village should mainly comprise small-holding farmers who rely on family labour and have a subsistence-oriented, self-sustaining outlook within comparatively similar conditions of life for the entire village community. How does this idealized picture compare with the actual rural conditions in the mid-19th century villages of Manastır? How can the general characteristics of the internal organization and composition of the villages be understood? The following charts and tables have been prepared to find an answer, or at least some hints at an answer, to these questions.
Main source of incomeNumber of householdsPercentageAgricultural production215755%Agricultural wage-labour42611%Textile-related activities3569%Transport and/or provision of charcoal and wood1714%Crafts / sale of items / services1674%Carpentry / construction1534%Transport822%Sharecropping (main)541%External sources of income521%Animal-husbandry511%Goldsmith481%Animal-related wage-labour431%Sharecropping (secondary)341%Misc321%Professional positions281%Trade261%Milling221%Rent9<1%Military positions7<1%Moneychanging2<1%TOTAL3920100%
101
3.2.2 Distribution of land and the question of rural inequality
Table 14 displays the distribution of all types of land held by village residents in terms of their size. Here, it becomes further visible that the holding of grain fields leads the way in terms of economic activity, followed by that of meadows and vineyards.216
Table 14. Distribution of Land Types among Villagers
Figure 20 below displays the distribution of land calculated on the basis of the ownership of grain fields among all the residents of the villages. Here, the greater majority of the farmers hold land below 20 dönüms while the same data also shows the striking difference between the small-holding peasantry as against two specific groups of landless villagers and bigger landowning peasants.
216 Revenue also follows this trend: Grains followed by meadows and vineyards. The following information has not been included in the aforementioned table due to differences in the units of measurement: 1 unit of chestnut tree (“kestane eşcarı”) held by 1 household; 8 units of blackberry trees (“eşcar-ı karadut”) held by 6 households; out-of-settlement meadows of 23 units (“kıta”) held by 17 households; fields of 8 units (“kıta”) held by 7 households; vineyards of 9 units (“kıta”) held by 9 households; garden of 1 unit (“kıta”) held by 1 household. The registers also indicate the existence of a single case of communal meadow “(karye-yi mezbur mülkü çayır”), which was quite intriguing since there is no similar case in the other districts. This should largely be related to the logic behind the compilation of the registers that excluded lands under common use from the survey. This issue is discussed in relation to the question of commons in Chapter 6 Section 5.
Types of landDönümPercentageGrain fields26118.2577%Meadow 5477.6316%Vineyard1878.56%Flax field3791%Hemp field169.25<1%Vegetable / fruit garden66.75<1%Madder root field5<1%Tobacco fields1<1%TOTAL34095.38100%
102
Figure 20. Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (1).
Table 15 treats the data on landownership in the villages in a way to demonstrate the respective part of all the grain fields held by each quarter of the village population. In the bottom group, 991 households do not hold any land. The second quarter holds either no land or land below 3 dönüms, totaling 1105 dönüms (4% of all land). The third quarter holds lands between 3 and 8 dönüms, totaling 5083 dönüms (19% of all land). Lastly, the top group holds land ranging from 8 to 137 dönüms, totaling 19930.25 dönüms (76% of all land). The graph following the table (Figure 21) visualizes this distribution.
Table 15. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Manastır (1)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Village households
Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (ownership of grain
fields)
Number of householdsRanges of land ownership (in dönüm)Total (in dönüm)Percentage 9910 - 000%9910 - 311054%9903 - 8508319%9908 - 13719930.2576%396226118.25100%
103
Figure 21. Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (2).
The table and the chart following the table below (Table 16 and Figure 22) display the same data yet exclude the completely landless 1331 households. In this slightly altered version, the bottom quarter holds land between 0.25 and 3 dönüms, totaling 1126 dönüms (4% of all land). The second quarter holds land between 3 and 6 dönüms, totaling 2776.5 dönüms (11% of all land). The third quarter holds land between 6 and 12 dönüms, totaling 5636.5 dönüms (22% of all land). The top quarter holds land between 12 and 137 dönüms, totaling 16579.25 dönüms of grain fields (63% of all land). As such, the top group here holds around 15 times the amount of land held by the bottom group.
Table 16. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Manastır (2)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 - 0 0 - 3 3 - 8 8 - 137
Total land (in dönüm)
Ranges of landownership (in dönüm)
Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (2)
Number of householdsRanges of land ownership (in dönüm)Total (in dönüm)Percentage 6580.25 - 311264%6583 - 62776.511%6586 - 125636.522%65712 - 13716579.2563%263126118.25100%
104
Figure 22. Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (3).
Lastly, the following table displays the data on landownership with different points of break, focusing on the ranges of ownership. Here, the results demonstrate that 1331 households have no land (34% of all households), 1231 households hold land between 0.25 and 5 dönüms (31% of all households), 638 households hold land between 5.5 and 10 dönüms (16% of all households), 719 households hold land between 10.5 and 50 dönüms (18% of all households), 40 households hold land between 51.5 and 100 dönüms (1% of all households), and only 3 households hold land above 100 dönüms. For each group of households, the number and percentages are indicated in the table below (Table 17).
Table 17. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Manastır (3)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0.25 - 3 3 - 6 6 - 12 12 - 137
Total dönüm
Ranges of landownership (in dönüm)
Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (3)
Number of householdsRange of landownership (in dönüm)Percentage in total number of households1331no land34%12310.25 - 531%6385.5 - 1016%71910.5 - 5018%4051.5 - 1001%3above 1000%
105
The table below has been derived from the same source of data used above in order to present a more detailed picture of landownership in the villages as calculations have been made in order to demonstrate the extent of the inequality of landownership among the village residents through the computing of a Gini coefficient based on the extent of landownership exercised by each group. The resulting Gini coefficient of 0.67 indicates the existence of a considerable degree of inequality in landownership in the villages.217 This distribution of land among villagers can be observed in Figure 23.
Figure 23. Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (4)
As such, the calculations above indicate a clear distinction between the lower and the upper segments of the village-residing rural society in terms of landowning in the mid-19th century Manastır. As such, the largest tracts of land were concentrated in the hands of fewer peasant families while the majority of the farmer households operated on much smaller fields, in addition to the presence of a specific group of
217 Even when the çiftliks and the landless population are completely excluded from the calculations, the Gini coefficient is 0.51, which is quite a considerable value considering all these “efforts” at calculations to minimize it. After the exclusion of the landless of the villages, the bottom 10% of the village households hold 253.25 dönüms of grain fields, while the top 10% of the households hold grain fields of 10127 dönüms, which is about 40 times the former. 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 0 0 0 - 1.5 1.5 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 7 7 - 10 10 - 18 18 - 137
Total land (in dönüm)
Ranges of ownership (in dönüm)
Villagers of Manastır: Distribution of land (4)
106
landless villagers. In light of the considerable weight of agricultural production for the income bundle of the villagers, this discrepancy between the landless workers, small-holding peasants, and bigger landowners, in addition to a group of the landless population getting away from traditional engagement in agrarian production and moving towards alternative activities such as textile-production and transportation in a rural context, can be translated into their economic and social positioning in the rural society as a whole, as will be discussed in detail in Section 3.2.4.
3.2.3 Patterns of settlement: Villages of Manastır
The tables and the maps below demonstrate the spatial distribution of specific factors among the villages of the district of Manastır. In the first group, a sample of villages where it was possible to identify a value of inequality in terms of the distribution of landowning was selected for calculations. While this list is far from being exhaustive due to various statistical restrictions, it may still provide a glimpse into the general patterns.218 The first table below (Table 18) demonstrates the sizes as well as values of Gini coefficient computed with regard to the inequality in the ownership of grain fields for a group of selected villages while the following table (Table 19) displays the color-coding used in the resulting map (Figure 24).
218 Here, only villages with the number of households above 50 have been taken into account. Also, some of the villages with a concentration of textile-related and transportation activities, which had either no land or only marginal amounts of land, have been excluded since they could distort the picture. Also, only grain fields within the settlements have been included in the calculations so far. As such, the list provided is far from being definite and exhaustive; rather, it should be considered as a sample of settlements whose levels of inequality in landowning have been calculated for purposes of demonstration of the complexity and variability of rural structures.
107
Table 18. Level of Inequality in Landownership in a Sample of Villages in Manastır
Table 19. Colour-coding of (Figure 24)
Size Gini Settlement
67 0.71 Lazec
190 0.66 Bukovo
65 0.65 Vakufköj
57 0.64 Kenali Kara Yusuf mahallesi
113 0.60 Porodin
59 0.57 Kenali Evcik mahallesi
62 0.56 Kleştina-ı Bala
51 0.55 Lahce / Lavci
67 0.52 Mesdzidli
87 0.49 Kenali Köse mahallesi
90 0.47 Veluşina
113 0.44 Gijavat
51 0.44 Dihovo
70 0.43 Kenali Kara Bekir mahallesi
51 0.41 Kazani
64 0.41 Gradeşnica
59 0.41 Dolenci
111 0.41 Capari
54 0.40 Zlokukjan
74 0.40 Dragos
53 0.39 Brusnik
73 0.39 Ostrec
63 0.38 Klabucista
108 0.37 Buf
72 0.34 Kişovo
64 0.28 Rakovo
Gini Colour-code
0.71 - 0.52 Red
0.49 - 0.40 Blue
0.39 - 0.28 Green
108
Figure 24. Inequality of the distribution of landowning in a sample of villages in Manastır.
On the basis of this sample, it seems safe to argue that villages with higher inequality tend to cluster in the alluvial plains around the river, which is also the general location of the çiftliks in the region. The villages tend to display relatively less inequality in the western zone, where the plains are joined by the mountains in southern and northern areas. Of the six villages with the least recorded inequality, four are located in the hilly regions to the west of the river plain.
Lastly, the graph below (Figure 25) indicates the extent of inequality between individual villages in terms ownership of grain fields. Some of the registered villages are completely cut off from agricultural activity, mostly focusing on textile production, crafts, sale of items and transport, as will be discussed in Section 3.2.4. The remaining “agricultural” villages also display quite a degree of divergence in terms of landownership.
109
Figure 25. Distribution of grain fields among villages of Manastır.
The map below (Figure 26) displays the settlements where the main source of income is non-agricultural. The colour-coding used in the map is displayed in the following table (Table 20).
Figure 26. Settlements based on non-agricultural income (Manastır).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Villages
Distribution of grain fields among villages (ownership-based)
110
Table 20. Colour-Coding of (Figure 26)
Table 21 displays all centers of textile-related activities and income obtained in each
from textile production. The following map (Figure 27) displays the loci of textile
production in rural Manastır. The size of the charts in the map indicates the total
income obtained from textile production in each settlement.
Table 21. Income from Textile Production in Manastır
Figure 27. Centers of textile production in Manastır.
Type of activity Colour-coding
Agricultural wage-labour Gray
Textile production Blue
Transportation Orange
Carpentry / construction Brown
Crafts, sale of items and services Pruple
Agriculture Green
Settlement Income from textile-related activity (in kuruş)
Magarevo 82795
Buf 60584
Trnova 34080
Rakovo 28720
Malovista 21666
Nizopolje 450
Dihovo 250
111
Combining the maps in Figure 26 and Figure 27, Magarevo emerges as the main center of textile activity. It is not only the settlement that generates the highest level of income from textile production in the district, but also the locus where textile is the most important source of income for the inhabitants. While Trnovo and Malovista are important textile centers as well, textile-production does not constitute the main source of income for the inhabitants.219 Rakovo and Buf emerge in the map on Figure 27 as examples of the co-existence of agricultural production and textile-related activities in the rural context.220 Textile production in Dihovo and Nizopolje is performed by a total of three households and it remains quite marginal.221
3.2.4 Forms of labour and the question of differentiation
The phenomenon of inequality in peasant societies is specific neither to the district nor the period under study. In predominantly agrarian societies, the need to provide for subsistence needs, seeds for coming cycles of production as well as payments of
219 Malovista consists of 4 quarters: 2 quarters are based on crafts and sale of items/services; 1 quarter is based on textile-prdocution; 1 quarter is based on transport. Magarevo consists of 6 quarters based on textile production. Trnova consists of 5 quarters: 2 quarters are based 2 textile production, 2 quarters are based carpentry and construction, 1 quarter is based on crafts and sale of items/services.
Palairet underlines that “the zone of industrial activity extended as far north as Monastir (Bitola), or more exactly to a group of hill villages outside Monastir (Bitola), rather than to the town itself”: Palairet, The Balkan Economies c.1800–1914: Evolution without Development, 77. In the 1860s, woollen clothes produced in Manastır were sold at Pirlepe as well other provinces. Palairet also underlines that northerwestern area of the region functioned as a market for textile from Bulgaria and southern Macedonia: Ibid.
220 For a brief survey of the literature on proto-industrialization and rural industries in the Balkans, see: 2.2.3.
221 Palairet underlines that “at Magarevo and Trnovo, two hill villages near Monastir (Bitola), domestic textile production survived at least till 1914”: Palairet, The Balkan Economies c.1800–1914: Evolution without Development, 77. In addition to Magarevo and Trnovo, Palairet also refers to the nearby settlements of Dihovo and Majadag of the 1880s as they “boomed in supplying the Ottoman army with 340,000 metres of sajak and a substantial quantity of aba, order which stimulated a partial transition to factory production”: Ibid, 347. As such, a lively center of textile production seems to have occurred in this hilly area in the late 19th century: “At Diovo in 1885, three merchants set up a mill to provide additional capacity for military orders which had been diverted from Bulgaria. Heading the group was one Bogo Anesti, merchant of Monastir, with financial assistance from Skopje and Salonica interests. The 120-250 Diovo factory workers, mainly women and children, were not Diovo peasants, but were mostly Vlachs from other villages whom the Diovo people considered as foreigners … In 1903 there was a steam-driven factory at Diovo, employing 150, and several smaller water-powered enterprises at nearby Magarevo, producing a similar range of goods. By about 1910, there are claimed to have been four such ‘factories’ at Diovo, with 250-300 workers each”: Ibid. Nevertheless, this was not a long-term development as Palairet underlines that “the factory building boom faltered because of labour shortages” in the 1910s: Ibid, 354.
112
taxation and rent dues to various claimants of the productive land, which often require a certain degree of monetization and push the traditional peasantry to a certain level of interaction with the market, also urge those on the lower segments of the rural society, due to the precariousness of their state of being, to resort to engagement in various forms of supplementary wage labour, beyond the existence of completely landless labourers, and hence, the question of the importance of wage labour for the village societies, in general, comes to the fore. In this context, the following tables and charts focus on the details of income sources of the villagers of Manastır in order to evaluate the significance of different forms of wage labour as well as various economic activities in rural society.
Table 22 demonstrates the details of the distribution of various sources of income in the villages. As a whole, while agricultural production retains its importance in general, a wide array of activities, considerable amount of which can be categorized under the rubric of wage labour, also comes into the picture. As such, before moving to the more meaningful question of who survives by doing what under this umbrella, a detailed exposition of this distribution is provided below.
113
Table 22. Income Sources of Villages of Manastır
In the chart below (Figure 28), main agrarian income sources are indicated.
Figure 28. Agrarian income sources of villages of Manastır.
Category Total income Percentage in total income Occupations
Agricultural production 1707934.25 60%
Textile-related activities 228545 8%
terzi, terzi kalfası, terzi çırağı, bezci, abacı, abacı terzisi, gipeci, gipeci terzi kalfası, gipeci terzisi, mutafçı,
mutafçı kalfası, mutafçı çırağı, mutafçı hizmetkarı, çukacı, çulcu, dikici
Animal-husbandry 143493.5 5%
Agricultural wage-labour 142805.5 5% hizmetkar, ırgat, aylakçı, aylakçı hizmetkarı, rençber
Transport and/or provision
of coal and wood 104835 4%
oduncu, oduncu ve kiracı, oduncu hizmetkarı, kömürcü, kömürcü hizmetkarı, keresteci, keresteci
hizmetkarı, tahtacı, hatab nakli/hatab ticareti/hatabcı, oduncu ve keresteci, hizmetkar ve oduncu, ırgat ve
keresteci
Crafts / sale of items /
services 97257.5 3%
kilimci, kilimci kalfası, kilimci hizmetkarı, hasırcı, urgancı, kazancı, kovacı, kaşık imali/kaşıkçı, çekmececi,
çıracı, babuşçu, babuşçu kalfası, babuşçu çırağı, babuş fırçacı, enfiyeci, enfiyeci kalfası, enfiyeci çırağı,
enfiyeci hizmetkarı, düğmeci, boyacı, boyacı çırağı, kalaycı, kalaycı kalfası, kalaycı hizmetkarı, bakırcı,
demirci, bıçkıcı, kalfa, çilingir, berber, hancı, hancı kalfası, hancı hizmetkarı, meyhaneci, meyhaneci kalfası,
bakkal, bakkal kalfası, bakkal çırağı, çırak, fırıncı, fırıncı kalfası, kasab, bahçevan, etmekçi, simitçi, ciğerci,
uncu, balıkçı, avcı, eskici, mısırcı
Carpentry / construction 61880 2% dülger, dülger kalfası, doğramacı, kaldırımcı, taşçı hizmetkarı
Transport 51767 2% kiracı, kiracı kalfası, kiracı hizmetkarı, kiracı tüccarı, bargirinden temettuu
Trade 40620 1% bazargan, tüccar/ticaret, tüccar hizmetkarı, zuhurat
Sharecropping (secondary) 40506.225 1% yarıcı, yarıcı ve ırgat, şerik ve ırgat, şerik
External sources of income 38738.875 1%
ticaret, abacı, dülger, hizmetkar, kuyumcu, terzi, terzi hizmetkarı, hancı, hancı hizmetkarı, şirket, bazargan
kalfası, meyhaneci, aşçı, bahçevan, bahçevan hizmetkarı, işkembeci, kileci, taşçı hizmetkarı, kalaycı
Rent 30433 1%
Sharecropping (main) 29396.725 1%
Goldsmith 27790 1% kuyumcu, kuyumcu kalfası, kuyumcu çırağı
Professional positions 20415.5 1%
hekim, imam, papaz, keşiş, mekteb hocası, hoca, imaret çırağı, daskal, daskal kalfası, kilise hizmetkarı,
kocabaşı, kahya, kethüda, yazıcı, korucu, bekçi
Milling 20060 1% değirmen, değirmenci ve hizmetkar, değirmenci ve ırgat
Misc 15005.75 1%
Animal-related wagelabour
13005 0% çoban, çoban hizmetkarı, sığırtmaç, hergeleci, hayvancılık
Military positions 10211 0% sipahi, süvari, tımar hasılatı
Moneychanging 3300 0% sarraf, sarraf kalfası
TOTAL 2827999.825 100%
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
Agricultural
production
Animal-husbandry Agricultural wagelabour
Sharecropping
Annual income (in kuruş)
Agricultural sources of income
Agricultural sources of income
114
In the chart below (Figure 29), main non-agrarian income sources are indicated. As such, even at this level, a high degree of occupational differentiation in the rural setting beyond the town center can be detected.
Figure 29. Non-agricultural income sources of villages of Manastır
As Figure 29 demonstrates, the greater part of the latter group consists of textile-related activities, followed by transport and provision of charcoal and wood, crafts in the form of production and sale of items and services, carpentry and construction-related activities and transport (as activities creating an annual income over 50000 kuruş). Then, how are these activities related to traditional agricultural production and small-holding peasantry? What is the nature of the relationship between peasant farmers and agricultural wage-workers? How can activities such as textile production be understood in a rural context?
In general, almost 200 households in the villages have been specifically indicated in the registers to have engaged in labour relations in the form of
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Annual income generated (in kuruş)
Non-agricultural sources of income
Non-agricultural sources of income
115
landowning, sharecropping, and wage labour while a number of these are involved in a multiplicity of such relations. While some of the landowners in these arrangements are çiftlik-owners and town residents, the relations noted in the village registers are mostly between the villagers themselves.
In addition to the employment of wage workers by a part of the peasantry, in the villages of Manastır, almost 60 specifically defined cases of sharecropping between the members of the peasantry have been detected. Furthermore, 122 households were indicated to obtain a supplementary income from involvement in sharecropping activity, sometimes in the form of multiple arrangements, in addition to their work as independent farmers.
Unfortunately, in the sources, it was possible to identify relations of wage labour only when peasant households were indicated as the specific employers of wage workers (mostly “hizmetkar”) and the latter was not only landless but also houseless and specifically indicated to dwell in the lodgings of their employers.222 As such, it was not always possible to trace the employers of the workers holding a dwelling or a piece of land and a few animals. Overall, 500 households were specifically indicated to lack land or housing or both.223 On the other side of the economic spectrum, more than 20 peasants were indicated to own çiftliks, more than 200 to have rented out houses and rooms, around 9 to have a share in an inn obtaining a rental income, almost 40 to have rented out stores, more than 100 to have rented out mills and 4 to have rented out oxen, in addition to the existence of a
222 Formulated in the clauses of “X hanesinde mütemekkin” as well as “ağası X hanesinde mütemekkin”. Also, sharecroppers are occasionally indicated to have come from another village; as such, mobility of labour is not exclusive to the çiftliks.
223 In such cases, the clauses of “emlak ve araziye bir nesnesi dahi olmayub”, “emlağa dair bir nesnesi olmayub” or “hanesinden başka bir nesnesi olmayub” are used. Nevertheless, such notes remain to be cursory.
116
number of land and property in the neighboring areas such as Pirlepe, Florina, and Ohri.
Even at this level of information, it is possible to detect that the relations between the members of the different segments of the peasantry are far from equality. Instead, there are considerable gaps between the members of the agrarian society -between a segment of land and property-owning, labour-employing peasantry, a group of small-holding farmers mainly relying on family labour while sometimes getting engaged in supplementary activities for additional sources of income, and the existence of a completely dispossessed group of rural residents. As such, there is indeed no single type of villager, and the existing networks and relations of labour between the members of the peasantry are quite complex.
In this context, the mere existence or the absence of wage labour as a source of income in a household, including agricultural and animal-husbandry related wage labour, does not indicate the economic position of the family under question since in an agrarian society, even some of the members of richer peasant households, such as the children and the grandchildren of the household patriarch, may frequently be working as wage-labourers in order to obtain an additional income to the household, rather than being idle.224 As such, there is not a simple and clear-cut separation between landownership and working for a wage. One way to get out of this conundrum is to measure the importance of wage-labour for the overall livelihood of a rural family. In other words, the weight of income obtained from non-agricultural sources in the sense of its importance for the overall livelihood of a peasant household remains determining for the economic character of different segments of the peasant society. Accordingly, some indirect methods have been employed in
224 The cases of children or grandchildren working as shepherds, for example, are relatively common among such cases.
117
order to assess the general characteristics of landowning and the frequency of resorting to engagement in different sources of income in the villages of Manastır. For this purpose, a number of relations between landownership (of grain fields) and involvement in various forms of economic activity have been established in the following tables. Here, the main purpose is to identify the degree of dependency on the food market.225
Table 23 displays the acquisition of different sources of income by the landless households of the district compared to all village households.
Table 23. Income Sources of Landless Villagers of Manastır
225 37 of 1331 landless households were engaged in production on rented lands. Because the main objective is to examine the villagers who cannot directly produce foodstuff in the form of grains without engaging in different types of labour relations, these are excluded from the calculations and 1294 households have been examined.
Income sourceIncome obtained by landless households (in kuruş)Percentage of the landless households in all village householdsIncome obtained by all households (in kuruş)Textile-related activities12668655%228545Crafts / sale of items / services82807.585%97257.5Agricultural wage-labour6459545%142805.5Carpentry / construction5888095%61880Transport4433786%51767Agriculture29915.52%1707934.25Goldsmith2669096%27790Transport and/or provision of charcoal and wood1690516%104835Trade1685041%40620External sources of income1572741%38738.875Animal-husbandry13811.510%143493.5Sharecropping12272.918%69902.95Rent1189739%30433Professional positions1184258%20415.5Misc978665%15005.75Animal-related wage-labour851065%13005Milling480024%20060Moneychanging3300100%3300Military positions186918%10211TOTAL561481.420%2827999.825
118
Foremost observations based on the table above are as follows: 1294 landless households, constituting around one-third of all village households, earn around half of the total income from engagement in agricultural wage-labour. As such, agricultural wages should have a primary character for this group while for the remaining it is likely to be a source of income supplementary to agricultural production (yet, the ratio between the two variables remains crucial for the general character of the peasants under question). The landless are also more prevalent in branches of animal-related wage-labour, earning 65% of the total income from this activity.
About one-fifth of the total income from sharecropping is obtained by the landless. As such, engagement in sharecropping seems to have a subsidiary character in the villages rather than being the exclusive activity of the completely dispossessed, as is the case in the çiftliks.
In terms of transport, the landless earn 86% of the total income indicating a tendency towards specialization in this branch while the transport/provision of wood and charcoal seems to have a largely supplementary character.
The landless earn 55% of all the textile-related activities. While the spatial concentration of textile production and the separation of communities from traditional engagement in agriculture remain considerable in some locations, still a certain degree of co-existence of the agrarian economy and textile-production can be observed in other cases. Practitioners of various crafts and carpenters are mostly landless as well.
The table below (Table 24) displays all the income sources of landless village population as the main source of income has been calculated for each landless village household. Here, textile-related activities constitute the main source of income for
119
22% of all landless households. Textile is closely followed by agricultural wage-labour. As such, almost half of the landless population is engaged in either textile production or agricultural wage-labour.
Table 24. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of Manastır (Number of Households)
The table below (Table 25) displays the relative weight of all the income sources obtained by the landless villagers. Here, textile-related activities, various forms of crafts as well as agricultural wage-labour constitute the bulk of the income bundle.
Landless village householdsMain source of incomeNumber of householdsPercentageTextile-related activities29122%Agricultural wage-labour26020%Crafts / sale of items / services15412%Carpentry / construction14711%Transport776%Transport and/or provision of charcoal and wood605%Goldsmith464%Agriculture433%External sources of income373%Animal-related wage-labour333%No income312%Misc252%Professional positions232%Sharecropping212%Trade131%Milling121%Animal-husbandry111%Rent60%Military positions20%Moneychanging20%TOTAL1294100%
120
Table 25. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of Manastır (Level of Income)
While the categorization of the data in the table above simply divides the rural population between the landless and the landowning, without regard to the extent and nature of the latter, the series of tables below aim to provide a more nuanced exposition of the relationship between degrees of landownership of grain fields and two specific forms of economic activity –agricultural wage-labour and textile-related activities.
Income sourceIncome (in kuruş)Income (percentage)Textile-related activities12668623%Crafts / sale of items / services82807.515%Agricultural wage-labour6459512%Carpentry / construction5888010%Transport443378%Agriculture29915.55%Goldsmith266905%Transport and/or provision of charcoal and wood169053%Trade168503%External sources of income157273%Animal-husbandry13811.52%Sharecropping (all)12272.92%Rent118972%Professional positions118422%Misc97862%Animal-related wage-labour85102%Milling48001%Moneychanging33001%Military positions18690%TOTAL561481.4100%
121
Table 26. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the
Villages of Manastır (1)
As Table 26 demonstrates, after the landless earn half of the total income from
agricultural wage-labour, households holding land between 0.25 and 6 dönüms (15%
of all land) earn 41% of total income from agricultural wage-labour, and households
holding land between 6 and 137 dönüms (85% of all land) earn the remaining 10% of
the income from agricultural wage-labour. There is no registered income obtained
from agricultural wage-labour for households holding fields over 52 dönüms.
Of the 591 households obtaining an income from agricultural wage-labour,
312 are completely landless while the remaining 279 households hold a total of 1160
dönüms of land which constitute 4% of all village land (4.15 dönüms per household)
indicating the existence of a degree of market dependency in the form of the erosion
of the traditional (and relative) peasant self-sufficiency. Here, the average income
from agricultural wage-labour per household is 241.6 kuruş. The relevant data is
displayed in the tables below (Table 27 and Table 28).
Table 27. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the
Villages of Manastır (2)
Grain fields
Ranges of ownership
(dönüm)
Number of
households
Total land
(dönüm)
Percentage
in total land
Income from agricultural
wage-labour (kuruş)
Percentage in total
agricultural wage-labour
0 - 0 1331 0 0% 70135 49%
0.25 - 6 1316 3902.25 15% 59005 41%
6 - 137 1315 22215.75 85% 13665.5 10%
TOTAL 3962 26118 100% 142805.5 100%
Agricultural wage-labour
Total landownership of land by earners
of agricultural wage-labour (dönüm) 1160
Total land (dönüm) 26118
Percentage 4%
122
Table 28. Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Manastır
The table below (Table 29) displays the percentage of income from textile-related
activities obtained by households in different ranges of landownership. Here, while
more than half of the textile-related income is obtained by the landless, we observe a
fall and then a rise through the following two groups. In other words, the landless
households which constitute more than one-third of the total number of households
resident in the villages earn 55% of the total income from textile production, the
following group (roughly another one-third) holding 15% of the land obtain 10% and
the last group holding 85% of the land obtain 35% of income from textile-related
activities. As such, there might have been a substantial difference between the top
and the bottom groups in terms of dependency on food market. As discussed in
Section 3.2.3, this difference has also a spatial correspondence.
Table 29. Landownership and Income from Textile Production in the Villages of
Manastır (1)
Of 519 households earning an income from textile production, 352 are completely
landless while the remaining hold 1647 dönüms of land amounting to 6% of grain
fields in the village domains (Table 30 and Table 31).
Agricultural wage-labour
Number of households 591
Income from agricultural
wage-labour (kuruş) 142806
Average per household
(kuruş) 241.63
Grain fields
Ranges of ownership
(dönüm)
Number of
households
Total land
(dönüm)
Percentage in
total land
Income from textile
production (kuruş)
Percentage in total
textile production
0 - 0 1331 0 0% 126686 55%
0.25 - 6 1316 3902.25 15% 22648 10%
6 - 137 1315 22215.75 85% 79211 35%
TOTAL 3962 26118 100% 228545 100%
123
Table 30. Landownership and Income from Textile Production in the Villages of
Manastır (2)
Table 31. Income from Textile Production in the Villages of Manastır
Lastly, based on the table below (Table 32), it is safe to argue that of all the rural
population in the district of Manastır, only 11% refrains from engagement in nonagricultural
activities, especially concerning production of grains (i.e., food), while
more than one-third is completely cut-off from it and pursue alternative directions.
Table 32. Dependency on Food Market in the Villages of Manastır
3.3 Çiftliks, landowners and producers: Land, labour, and agricultural production
3.3.1 Organization of labour and types of çiftliks
In the income survey registers, 3 main types of çiftliks have been identified on the
basis of the form of labour employed. The chart in Figure 30 displays the distribution
of çiftlik workers among different types of çiftliks. In Manastır, 57% of çiftlik
workers resided in çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-
Textile production
Total landownership of
land by textile
producers (dönüm) 1647
Total land (dönüm) 26118
Percentage 6%
Textile production
Number of households 519
Income from textile production
(kuruş) 228545
Average per household
(kuruş) 440.36
Number of households Percentage in all households
No income 42 1%
No non-agricultural income 422 11%
No grain fields 1294 33%
124
labour, 38% of çiftlik workers resided in çiftliks based on sharecropping, and 4% of çiftlik workers resided in çiftliks based on wage-labour. The chart in Figure 31 displays the distribution of individual çiftliks among different types of çiftliks. In Manastır, 63% of çiftliks are based on sharecropping, 24% of çiftliks are based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour, and 6% of çiftliks are based on wage-labour.226
Figure 30. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftlik workers (Manastır)
Figure 31. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftliks (Manastır)
226 7% of çiftliks that could not be included in either category properly has been excluded. These include cases of çiftlik-owners without any workers as well as inadequate information due to damaged registers. 4%
38%
57%
1%
Çiftlik types by number of çiftlik workers (number of households)
Wage-labour ("hizmetkar" only) Sharecropping ("şerik" only)
Sharecropping and wage-labour Misc
6%
63%
24%
7%
Çiftlik types by number of çiftliks
Wage-labour ("hizmetkar" only) Sharecropping ("şerik" only)
Sharecropping and wage-labour Misc
125
As such, it is evident that sharecropping constitutes the most prevalent form of labour arrangement in the district of Manastır. Çiftliks exclusively based on wage labour remains quite marginal. Lastly, the çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour constitute much larger operations than çiftliks based on sharecropping alone. The latter often tend to be more traditional and small-scale arrangements consisting of a few households based on the equal division of the shares between the parties.227
In the district of Manastır, the çiftliks based on the exclusive use of wage-labour consist of 64 households the majority of which are constituted by wage-labourers, or “hizmetkar”, who can be defined as wage workers engaged in long-term labour arrangements, rather than being temporary or based on the performance of a specific type of labour. Other than the predominance of “hizmetkar”, these çiftliks contain a few specialized workers as well as day labourers as well, including a few “aylakçı” and “çoban”.228 Besides the more permanent category of labourers, therefore, a number of temporary and specific labour types are also employed in the çiftliks based on agricultural wage-labour. The number of labourer households in the çiftliks based on wage labour range from 1 to 5, with a mean of 1.9 and a median of 2 (Figure 32).
227 McGowan underlines the dominance of sharecropping on çiftliks of smaller-scale, which also constituted the greater majority of the çiftliks in Manastır in the 17th and 18th centuries: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 171. In the context of Edirne of the 17th century, Parveva also refers to a comparable issue as she underlines that “in the vast majority of the cases, smaller çiftliks were the rule. Along with these, however, there were estates whose monetary value, produce and number of hired labourers were indicative of impressive proportions. The produce of these çiftliks was intended not only for the local markets but probably for export as well”: Parveva, Rural Agrarian and Social Structure in the Edirne Region during the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century, 49-50.
228 “Hizmetkar” is as a wage-labourer who works year round or for a period of 6 months and hence, has a permanent character. The categories of “gündelikçi”, “orakçı”, “harmancı”, “çapacı” and “ırgat” are forms of temporary labour force: Kütükoğlu, "Osmanlı Sosyal ve İktisadi Tarihi Kaynaklarından Temettü Defterleri,” 402-403.
126
Figure 32. Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourers’ households (Manastır).
The çiftliks exclusively based on sharecropping arrangements consist of 662 sharecropper households. Of these, only 28 households have no income source other than their shares from agricultural production under sharecropping. As such, 634 households obtain a meagre amount of income from independent agricultural production, animal husbandry, some sources of rent as well as various types of wage-labour. In the majority of çiftliks based on sharecropping, agricultural produce is divided in half after “aşar” is subtracted. Shares are mostly equal among multiple sharecroppers. The number of sharecropper households in this form of çiftliks ranges from 1 to 14, with a mean of 1.7 and a median of 1 (Figure 33).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Number of labourer households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourer households
127
Figure 33. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of sharecroppers’ households (Manastır).
The çiftliks of mixed labour types are mainly based on sharecropping with the additional employment of wage-labour, both in its permanent and temporary/function-specific versions. Of the 983 households resident in this type of çiftliks, more than 580 households consist of sharecropping families, the members of which are sometimes engaged in additional sources of income, while the remaining residents comprise wage-labourers (“hizmetkar”) in addition to a number of “ırgat”, “sığırtmaç” and “aylakçı” and a few other categories. In most çiftliks based on this combination, the general rule is that agricultural produce is divided in half after “aşar” is subtracted. Shares are often equal among multiple sharecroppers. Nevertheless, there are also more cases in this group whereby the division favors the landowner, while in a few cases it favors the sharecroppers. In some instances, there are also considerable variations regarding the share given to each sharecropper in a given çiftlik. The number of households in these çiftliks ranges from 2 to 61, with a mean of 6.9 and a median of 4 (Figure 34).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1
12
23
34
45
56
67
78
89
100
111
122
133
144
155
166
177
188
199
210
221
232
243
254
265
276
287
298
309
320
331
342
353
364
Number of sharecroppers' households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of sharecroppers' households
128
Figure 34. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Number of households (Manastır).
1722 households of çiftlik workers residing in 587 çiftliks, around 1520 have been indicated to dwell in the lodgings belonging to their landowners, while around 55 have been noted to reside in rented houses, the majority of the latter being wage-workers. Of these, 133 households have been additionally mentioned to own no house and land of their own.229 Lastly, one sharecropper from a çiftlik has been specifically registered to have his own shepherd working for him in addition to a wage-labourer hosting another laborer in his dwelling in the çiftlik of Skocivir.
In the registers, a few çiftlik residents have been mentioned to have originated from other settlements as well as from the town center (“Bareşani karyesinden”, “Manastır Gazab Bey mahallesi sakinlerinden”, “Manastır Zindancı mahallesinden” etc.), pointing towards the existence of a certain degree of labour
229 Other than various forms of land and animals, in terms of property, the list goes as follows: 57 çiftlik-owners and 1 sharecropper have rented out houses; 13 çiftlik-owners and 1 sharecropper have rented out inns (or shares in such inns); 3 çiftlik-owners and 2 sharecroppers have rented out stores; 10 çiftlik-owners and 28 çiftlik residents have rented-out mills (or shares in such mills); 1 çiftlik-owner obtains a rent of 400 kuruş from meadows of 1 dönüm; 1 labourer has a rented-out ox, generating 40 kuruş; 1 çiftlik-owner has a rented-out çiftlik, generating 600 kuruş; 4 çiftlik-owners are noted to own additional çiftliks while 1 çiftlik-owner holds 2 additional çiftliks; a few çiftlik residents have small pieces of land in Florina, mostly consisting of small parcels of vineyards. This list, however, may not be complete, at least with regard to cases of ownership of multiple çiftliks. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
Number of households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour:
Number of households
129
mobility while 4 cases of flight (“firar”), three to other çiftliks and one to the town center, have been specifically mentioned in the registers.230 Also, cases of 5 çiftlik-owners having sharecroppers working for them from other çiftliks while 10 çiftlik-owners having sharecroppers from nearby villages have been identified in addition to many incidents of engagement in double or triple sharecropping arrangements by the residents of çiftliks and villages alike. Furthermore, in the cases whereby the workers of çiftliks could not be specifically identified, it is highly probable that they were the residents of nearby villages. As such, villages and çiftliks, while treated as separate zones for the purposes of the present analysis, are quite intertwined in reality in terms of close proximity to each other, co-existence of different forms in the same settlements, and the existence of labour mobility between them.
Figure 35. Çiftliks and villages of Manastır.
230 McGowan refers to the employment of workers from villages in the bigger çiftliks due to peasant indebtedness: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 136.
130
The map above (Figure 35) displays the level of çiftlik formation on the basis of
population in the settlements of Manastır.231 Here, white dots and green stars indicate
perfect forms while the remaining settlements are mixtures of çiftliks and villages
(Table 33). As such, the resulting picture is quite interrelated and intricate.
Table 33. Colour-Coding of (Figure 35)
3.3.2 Patterns of ownership and agricultural production
The following charts have been prepared to demonstrate the distribution of
landownership across as well as within different types of çiftliks.
Figure 36. Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types (Manastır).
231 This map is a more detailed version of the map in Figure 7 (Section 3.1.1)
Level of çiftlik formation Colour-coding
0 White
0.21 - 0.26 Orange
0.33 - 0.47 Pink
0.5 - 0.77 Blue
0.8 - 0.97 Navy blue
1 Green star
4%
47% 46%
3%
Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types
Çiftliks based on wage-labour Çiftliks based on sharecropping
Çiftliks based on combination of labour types Misc
131
The chart on Figure 36 displays that the majority of the grain fields in the çiftliks of
the district is mainly concentrated under arrangements of sharecropping while only
3% is exclusively under wage-labour.
The two tables below (Table 34 and Table 35) display the basic information
of landownership for all types of land in different types of çiftliks. In Table 34,
percentages have been calculated with reference to the total amount of land for each
type of çiftlik; in Table 35, percentages demonstrate which part of each type of land
is apportioned to each type of çiftlik. Here, both calculations demonstrate the crucial
importance of grain fields in terms of landholding practices.
Table 34. Landownership in the Çiftliks of Manastır (1)
Table 35. Landownership in the Çiftliks of Manastır (2)
The following series of tables and charts display the landownership data for each
different type of çiftlik separately. The table below (Table 36) displays the
distribution of the ownership of all types of land between the çiftlik-owners and the
wage-labourers in the çiftliks based on wage-labour. In general, the majority of the
lands consists of grain fields, followed by meadows and then vineyards. Here, the
ownership of grain fields and meadows, followed by hemp fields and vineyards, are
almost completely monopolized by the çiftlik-owners.
Grain fields Meadow Vineyard Flax field
Hemp
field
Bostan
tarlası
Madder
root field
Onion
field
Winter
pasture TOTAL
Types of çiftlik Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Çiftliks based on
wage-labour 2573 86% 356.5 12% 31.725 1% 31 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2993.225 100%
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping 34815.75 86% 4778.5 12% 753.105 2% 156 0% 21.25 0% 5 0% 9.5 0% 0 0% 0 0% 40539.11 100%
Çiftliks based on
combination of
labour types 35759.05 88% 3962.875 10% 714.51 2% 56.75 0% 8.5 0% 12.5 0% 2.5 0% 6 0% 1 0% 40523.69 100%
Misc 2463.5 90% 234.5 9% 27 1% 8 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2733 100%
Grain fields Meadow Vineyard Flax field
Hemp
field
Bostan
tarlası
Madder
root field
Onion
field
Winter
pasture TOTAL
Types of çiftlik Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Çiftliks based on
wage-labour 2573 3% 356.5 4% 31.725 2% 31 12% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2993.225 3%
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping 34815.75 46% 4778.5 51% 753.105 49% 156 62% 21.25 69% 5 29% 9.5 79% 0 0% 0 0% 40539.11 47%
Çiftliks based on
combination of
labour types 35759.05 47% 3962.875 42% 714.51 47% 56.75 23% 8.5 28% 12.5 71% 2.5 21% 6 100% 1 100% 40523.69 47%
Misc 2463.5 3% 234.5 3% 27 2% 8 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2733 3%
TOTAL 75611.3 100% 9332.375 100% 1526.34 100% 251.75 100% 30.75 100% 17.5 100% 12 100% 6 100% 1 100% 86789.02 100%
132
Table 36. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour (Manastır)
Regarding all of the çiftliks based on wage-labour, the biggest agglomeration of
fields held by a çiftlik-owner in a single çiftlik comprises of 186 dönüms while the
average is 77.18 and the median is 70. The distribution of the grain fields among this
type of çiftliks is displayed in the chart below (Figure 37).
Figure 37. Çiftliks based on wage labour: Grain fields of çiftliks-owners (Manastır)
The table below (Table 37) displays the distribution of the ownership of all types of
land between the çiftlik-owners and the sharecroppers in the çiftliks based
exclusively on sharecropping. In general, the majority of the lands consist of grain
fields, followed by meadows and then vineyards. Here, the çiftlik-owners display
almost complete presence in the ownership of grain fields and meadows while they
also hold the greater part of flax and hemp fields, in addition to their humbler
Çiftliks based on
wage labour
Çiftlik-owner
(dönüm)
Çiftlik worker
(dönüm)
TOTAL
(dönüm)
Çiftlik-owner
(percentage)
Çiftlik worker
(percentage)
TOTAL
(percentage)
Grain fields 2547 26 2573 99% 1% 100%
Meadow 354 2.5 356.5 99% 1% 100%
Vineyard 26.75 4.975 31.725 84% 16% 100%
Hemp field 0 1 1 0% 100% 100%
Flax field 30 1 31 97% 3% 100%
TOTAL 2957.75 35.475 2993.225 99% 1% 100%
0
50
100
150
200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners
133
presence in the ownership of vineyards. Nevertheless, compared to the çiftliks based on wage-labour, the producers in the çiftliks based on sharecropping seem to have a slightly greater space of independent action, no matter how marginal it remains to be compared to the dominance of the çiftlik-owners, especially with regard to the ownership of grain fields, the backbone of the agrarian economy.
Table 37. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping (Manastır)
Regarding all of the çiftliks based exclusively on sharecropping, the biggest agglomeration of all fields held by the çiftlik-owner in a single çiftlik consists of 552 dönüms of land while the average is 91.35 with a median of 60.232 The distribution of the fields among this type of çiftliks is displayed in the chart below (Figure 38).
232 11 entries with the value of 0 are excluded.
Çiftliks based on sharecroppingÇiftlik-owner (dönüm)Çiftlik worker (dönüm)TOTAL (dönüm)Çiftlik-owner (percentage)Çiftlik worker (percentage)TOTAL (percentage)Grain fields329781837.7534815.7595%5%100%Meadow4097681.54778.586%14%100%Vineyard325.675427.43753.10543%57%100%Flax field106.549.515668%32%100%Hemp field129.2521.2556%44%100%Madder root field6.539.568%32%100%"Bostan tarlası"23540%60%100%TOTAL37527.6753011.4340539.10593%7%100%
134
Figure 38. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (Manastır).
The table below (Table 38) displays the distribution of the ownership of all types of land between çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers in the çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour. In general, the majority of the lands consist of grain fields, followed by meadows and then vineyards. Here, the çiftlik-owners hold almost all of the grain fields, and dominate the ownership of meadows, flax fields, hemp fields and “bostan tarlası”, in addition to onion fields, although this latter remains to be quite marginal. Where the çiftlik workers display relatively significant ownership is the vineyards and to a smaller extent, hemp fields, while they show only marginal presence in the ownership of meadows and grain fields, which constitute the backbone of the general landownership pattern.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1
12
23
34
45
56
67
78
89
100
111
122
133
144
155
166
177
188
199
210
221
232
243
254
265
276
287
298
309
320
331
342
353
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners
135
Table 38. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on the Combination of
Sharecropping and Wage Labour (Manastır)
Regarding all of the çiftliks based on a combination of sharecropping and wagelabour,
the biggest agglomeration of grain fields held by a çiftlik-owner in a single
çiftlik consists of 1770 dönüms, with an average of 248.61 and a median of 150.233
The distribution of the grain fields among this type of çiftliks is displayed in the chart
below (Figure 39).
Figure 39. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour:
Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (Manastır).
233 5 entries with a value of 0 are excluded.
Çiftliks based on
combination of labour types
Çiftlik-owner
(dönüm)
Çiftlik worker
(dönüm) TOTAL (dönüm)
Çiftlik-owner
(percentage) Çiftlik worker (percentage) TOTAL (percentage)
Grain fields 33811.5 1947.55 35759.05 95% 5% 100%
Meadow 3418.5 544.375 3962.875 86% 14% 100%
Vineyard 249.5 465.01 714.51 35% 65% 100%
Flax field 44.5 12.25 56.75 78% 22% 100%
"Bostan tarlası" 9.5 3 12.5 76% 24% 100%
Onion field 6 0 6 100% 0% 100%
Hemp field 5 3.5 8.5 59% 41% 100%
Madder root field 2 0.5 2.5 80% 20% 100%
Winter pasture 1 0 1 100% 0% 100%
TOTAL 37547.5 2976.185 40523.685
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
105
109
113
117
121
125
129
133
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on sharecropping and wage-labour: Grain fields of
çiftlik-owners
136
Lastly, the table below (Table 39) demonstrates that 83% of all the land held by the çiftlik residents are under the posession of 588 sharecropping households while the remaining 395 households share among themselves the remaining 17% of the land.
Table 39. Distribution of Land among Çiftlik Workers in the Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Labour Types (Manastır)
The table below (Table 40) summarizes the distribution of all types of land between çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers for all the çiftliks located in the district of Manastır whereby the majority of the lands, which consist of grain fields and meadows, is monopolized by the çiftlik-owners while the producers display their main presence in the ownership of vineyards.
Land types (dönüm)SharecroppersOther workersGrain fields1571.55376Vineyard398.3266.69Meadow476.37568Other19.250Total2465.495510.69Percentage83%17%
137
Table 40. Distribution of all types of land between çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers (Manastır)
All in all, the çiftlik economy of Manastır was mainly based on the ownership of grain fields and production of grains. Ursinus has underlined the importance of grain, and especially wheat production in the fertile plains around the Crna River, for the agricultural economy of Manastır:
For centuries the area forwarded substantial wheat surpluses to the region’s main commercial centres such as Siroz and Selanik, over and above supplying the local markets with the necessary foodstuffs. Consequently, the lowland districts near Manastır are among the first in Ottoman Rumelia to have witnessed the emergence, out of the ruins of the increasingly obsolete timar system, yet partly in co-existence with it, of a çiftlik economy.234
In a similar vein, McGowan has also underlined that “the latter day chiftlik dealt here was devoted to a single crop -a monoculture- which would be marketed to obtain a profit.”235 This is similar to Edirne, where “grain was the dominant crop in market-
234 Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth Century,” 250.
235 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 122.
Land types Çiftlik-owners (dönüm)Çiftlik workers (dönüm)TOTAL (dönüm)Çiftlik-owners (percentage)Çiftlik workers (percentage)Grain fields717633848.375611.395%5%Meadow80791253.3759332.37587%13%Vineyard620.925905.4151526.3441%59%Flax field18962.75251.7575%25%Hemp field1812.7530.7559%41%Bostan tarlası11.5617.566%34%Madder root field8.53.51271%29%Onion field606100%0%Winter pasture101100%0%TOTAL (dönüm)80696.9256092.0986789.015PERCENTAGE93%7%100%
138
oriented agricultural production.”236 While the production of grains is of utmost importance, however, grains other than wheat are also quite significant in the çiftlik economy of the mid-19th century Manastır. In the following charts, the respective amounts of income obtained from grain production on fields held by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik-workers are displayed in comparison.237
The chart below (Figure 40) displays the distribution of the revenue obtained from the production of grains on the fields of çiftlik-owners. Here, the main revenue originates from production of wheat, constituting 37% of total income obtained from grains, followed by barley, constituting 30%, and then by rye, constituting 26%. These are followed by corn (6%), oats (1%) and other insignificant categories.
Figure 40. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners (Manastır)
The chart below (Figure 41) displays the distribution of the revenue obtained from the production of grains on the fields of çiftlik-workers. Here, the main revenue originates from the production of wheat, constituting 46% of the total income
236 Parveva, “Villages, Peasants and Landholdings in the Edirne Region in the Second Half of the 17" Century,” 46.
237 Unit prices of grains (in kuruş per kile) as calculated on the basis of agricultural tax, are as follows: Wheat (“Hınta”): 10.5; Rye (“Çavdar”): 8; Barley (“Şair”): 7; Oat (“Alef”): 5; Corn (“Mısır”): 8; Vetch (“Burçak”): 8. 37%
30%
26%
6%
1% 0% 0% 0%
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Corn ("Mısır") Oat ("Alef") Vetch ("Burçak")
Kidney beans ("Börülce") Beans ("Fasulye")
139
obtained from grains, followed by rye and barley, each constituting 21%. These are followed by corn (10%) and other insignificant categories.
Figure 41. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik workers (Manastır)
The following series of charts display the same distribution for each specific type of çiftlik.238 While the specific percentages vary, the general pattern remains the same, in decreasing importance: wheat – barley – rye – corn (Figures 42, 43, and 44).
Figure 42. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wage labour (Manastır).
238 Çiftlik-owner’s land only. 46%
21%
21%
10%
1% 1% 0% 0%
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik workers
Wheat ("Hınta") Rye ("Çavdar") Barley ("Şair")
Corn ("Mısır") Kidney beans ("Börülce") Vetch ("Burçak")
Oat ("Alef") Beans ("Fasulye")
44%
24%
21%
9%
2%
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wagelabour
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar") Corn ("Mısır") Oat ("Alef")
140
Figure 43. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on sharecropping (Manastır).
Figure 44. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour (Manastır).
The graph below (Figure 45) combines the data given separately in the three charts above: 36%
30%
27%
6%
1% 0% 0% 0%
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Corn ("Mısır") Oat ("Alef") Kidney beans ("Börülce")
Vetch ("Burçak") Beans ("Fasulye")
38%
30%
26%
5% 1% 0% 0%
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on
combination of labour types
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Corn ("Mısır") Oat ("Alef") Vetch ("Burçak")
Kidney beans ("Börülce")
141
Figure 45. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik types (Manastır).
Lastly, the distribution of grains in terms of their amount is shown in the charts below (Figure 46 and Figure 47).
Figure 46. Grains from the fields of çiftlik-owners of Manastır
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Çiftliks based on wage-labour Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Çiftliks based on combination
of labour types
Income (In kuruş)
Çiftlik types
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik types
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
Beans ("Fasulye") Kidney beans ("Börülce")
35%
30%
27%
6% 2% 0%
Grains (in kile): Fields of çiftlik-owners
Şair ("Barley") Wheat ("Hınta") Rye ("Çavdar")
Corn ("Mısır") Oat ("Alef") Vetch ("Burçak")
142
Figure 47. Grains from the fields of çiftlik workers of Manastır
The tables below (Table 41 and 42) show the lands under cultivation and the revenue
obtained from them in the lands owned by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik-workers.
Table 41. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of
Manastır (1)
Table 42. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of
Manastır (2)
38%
26%
23%
11%
1% 1%
Grains (in kile): Fields of çiftlik workers
Wheat ("Hınta") Şair ("Barley") Rye ("Çavdar")
Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak") Oat ("Alef")
Çiftlik-owner Çiftlik worker Total
Agricultural produce Kuruş Percentage Kuruş Percentage Kuruş Percentage
Grains 1688477.25 92% 152883.5 8% 1841360.75 100%
Vineyard 47095 39% 73359.5 61% 120454.5 100%
Meadows 175465 90% 19492.5 10% 194957.5 100%
Hemp 2560 62% 1590 38% 4150 100%
Linen 28790 71% 11880 29% 40670 100%
"Bostan" 1675 45% 2080 55% 3755 100%
Onion 400 100% 0 0% 400 100%
Madder root 1400 65% 750 35% 2150 100%
Çiftlik-owner Çiftlik worker
Agricultural produce Kuruş Percentage Kuruş Percentage
Grains 1688477.25 87% 152883.5 58%
Vineyard 47095 2% 73359.5 28%
Meadows 175465 9% 19492.5 7%
Hemp 2560 <1% 1590 1%
Linen 28790 1% 11880 5%
"Bostan" 1675 <1% 2080 1%
Onion 400 <1% 0 0%
Madder root 1400 <1% 750 <1%
Total 1945862.25 100% 262035.5 100%
143
The present analysis of the means of production will be concluded with the
exposition of the data on the ownership of draught animals. The following tables
(Table 43, Table 44 and Table 45) and the graphs derived from them (Figure 48 and
Figure 49) demonstrate the distribution of draught animals between çiftlik-owners
and producers for each type of çiftlik. In relation to workforce and land, the çiftliks
with sharecropping and wage-labour contains most of the draught animals, followed
by çiftliks based on sharecropping and çiftliks based on wage-labour.239
Table 43. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour (Manastır)
Table 44. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping (Manastır)
Table 45. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping
and Wage Labour (Manastır)
239 Categories of animals include “öküz, öküz manda, manda öküzü, inek öküzü, erkek manda, kısır
manda, manda, çift mandası, camuş, kısır camuş, bargir, binek bargir, harman bargiri, hatabkeş
merkeb/bargir, hergele bargir, kiracı bargir, semerli bargir, yük bargiri, kömürcü bargiri, değirmenci
bargiri, merkeb, katır, kısrak, hergele kısrak, dölsüz kısrak.”
Çiftliks based on
wage-labour
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 84 84% 101 86% 35 71%
Çiftlik worker 16 16% 16 14% 14 29%
Total 100 100% 117 100% 49 100%
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 28 2% 33 2% 20 2%
Çiftlik worker 1643 98% 1732 98% 1111 98%
Total 1671 100% 1765 100% 1131 100%
Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour types
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 144 8% 182 9% 89 6%
Çiftlik worker 1695 92% 1775 91% 1295 94%
Total 1839 100% 1957 100% 1384 100%
144
Figure 48. Distribution of draught animals among çiftlik types in Manastır.
Figure 49. Ownership of draught animals by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers of Manastır.
The çiftliks based on wage-labour and sharecropping display quite different characteristics as long as production arrangements can be considered as different combinations of the modules of land, labour and draught animals, which constitute the only visible categories in the sources under study. In the former, the çiftlik-owners, in most cases, provide not only the land but also the draught animals, which constitute the main production tool in a traditional agrarian setting. In the latter, sharecroppers get the upper hand in contributing draught animals into the production
3%
51% 46%
Distribution of draught animals among çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour
Çiftliks based on sharecropping
Çiftliks based on the combination of labour types
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Çiftliks based on wage-labour Çiftliks based on sharecropping Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour types
Ownership of draught animals
Çiftlik-owner Çiftlik worker
145
process. As such, the ownership of draught animals, especially oxen, may constitute one of the main lines of the division between the possibility of a landless rural producer working as a sharecropper or a wage-worker. The unity of the land and oxen in the formulation of a “reaya çiftliği” (“nadas ve ekim işleri bir çift öküzle yapılabilecek büyüklükte”) in the traditional texts and codes on agriculture may also attest to the importance of the possession of all factors of production for the definition of a proper farmer.240 The frequency of the ownership of oxen by completely landless peasants is also striking and may indicate the possibility of an ongoing process of dispossession which would traditionally start from the appropriation of agricultural land.241
3.3.3 Çiftlik-owners of Manastır
In the first section of the present chapter, based on the data derived from the temettuat registers of rural Manastır, it has been demonstrated that the group of çiftlik-owners had control over one-third of the labour-force as well as 70% of the total amount of cultivable land within the district. As such, it has been argued that, in the district of Manastır in the mid-19th century, there was a considerable degree of concentration of the main factors of production in the hands of a group of landowners who did not themselves directly involve in agricultural production -in the fashion of small-holding farmers- but appropriated a part of the agricultural surplus due their monopoly over landownership, against the background of a mainly rural society a portion of which was completely dispossessed.
In this context, the question of the internal configuration of this specific group of landowners comes to the fore with renewed importance in the face of the existence
240 Barkan, “Çiftlik,” 789.
241 See: Chapter 6 Section 5.
146
of a degree of inequality and stratification in the villages and the cases of employment of the labour of fellow villagers by the richer segments of the peasantry as well as the instances of çiftlik-owners with rural roots in addition to the traditional members of the powerful ayan families and people of various urban backgrounds residing in the central town of the district. For the purpose of understanding the social and economic characteristics of a broad group labelled as “sahib-i çiftlik,” the temettuat registers of rural Manastır have been analyzed in combination with the temettuat survey of the central town of Manastır.242
To start with, the graph below (Figure 50) displays the distribution of the size of the çiftliks of Manastır on the basis of ownership of grain fields by çiftlik-owners for each specific çiftlik. The initial picture that emerges points towards the existence of considerable divergence in terms of çiftlik size.243
Figure 50. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks (Manastır) (1).
242 The temettuat survey of the central town of Manastır is registered in the defter titled BOA ML.VRD.TMT.d.11444.
243 Here, the calculations have been prepared on the basis of ownership of grain fields for each specific çiftlik. The lands under the possession of the çiftlik residents as well as 18 entries with the value of 0 have been excluded. 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1
18
35
52
69
86
103
120
137
154
171
188
205
222
239
256
273
290
307
324
341
358
375
392
409
426
443
460
477
494
511
528
545
562
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Çiftliks
Sizes of çiftliks (ownership of grain fields by çiftlik-owners)
147
The table below (Table 46) displays the general distribution of çiftliks according to their size, again with a focus on the extent of landownership by çiftlik-owners in individual çiftliks. In the first two columns of this table, the çiftliks of Manastır have been divided into ten equal parts, each of which consists of 57 çiftliks based on their size in ascending order. In the third column, specific ranges have been indicated for the sizes of each 10% portion of the çiftliks. The following columns express, in percentages and in average values, the size of each group of çiftliks under question. As the table demonstrates, the top 10% of the çiftliks encompasses more than 40% of the total çiftlik land in the district, while this latter value steadily decreases, reaching a minimum of 1% for the bottom 10% of the çiftliks operating in the region.
Table 46. Distribution of the Çiftlik Sizes of Manastır
Number of çiftliksPercentage in all çiftliksÇiftlik size (ranges in dönüm)Çiftlik land (total dönüm)Çiftlik land (percentage)Average land per çiftlik (dönüm)5710%3 - 27997.51%17.505710%27 - 351719.52%30.175710%35 - 4322343%39.195710%43 - 6029204%51.235710%60 - 703533.55%61.995710%70 - 9246286%81.195710%92 - 12059808%104.915710%120 - 160820711%143.985710%162 - 28511862.517%208.115610%285 - 17702968141%530.02Total569100%71763100%
148
The chart below (Figure 51) has been derived from the data in Table 46 in order to display the percentages of total land in each range of çiftliks.
Figure 51. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks (Manastır) (2).
All in all, the data under analysis so far not only demonstrates that there are many divergences among individual çiftliks in terms of organization of labour and size but also indicates that the title of “sahib-i çiftlik” is applied to a wide variety of landholder types: On the one hand, there is the group of bigger çiftliks the owners of which keep tremendous amounts of cultivable land under their control, and also control a considerable part of the labour-force of rural society and consequently attain significant levels of agricultural revenue. At the same time, there is even a larger number of çiftliks, the owners of which control much humbler amounts of land and revenue and are engaged in simpler configurations of labour relations.244
244 “A çiftlik sahibi in posession of just one or two former peasant holdings (which, perhaps surprisingly, constitutes the majority of cases) is in a completely different order of magnitude from a big landholder with several hunderd labourer households under his control”: Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth Century,” 250. 0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
3 - 27 27 - 35 35 - 43 43 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 92 92 - 120 120 -
160
162 -
285
285 -
1770
Total land per range (dönüm)
Ranges of çiftlik size (dönüm)
Distribution of çiftliks on the basis of size
Çiftlik land (total dönüm)
149
Regarding all of the çiftlik-owners in the district of Manastır, excluding around 20 owners about whom there is no information, the greater majority resides in the central town of the district, while around 19 çiftlik-owners have been indicated to be village residents and 38 çiftlik-owners have been noted to reside in other districts.
The urban-based çiftlik-owners consist of a diverse group, including people of official bureaucratic and military positions, in addition to various crafts and trades, as well as a number of farmers, labourers, orphans, and widows in the registers of the central town of Manastır.245 The wealthier part of this group earns their urban income mainly from the renting out of their property, holding of tımar as well as salaries from official bureaucratic and military positions.246 Other than these, quite a large number of farmers, artisans and people of various occupations constitute the remaining çiftlik-owners residing in the town centre while about 60 çiftlik-owners do not have any income from urban occupations other than what they get from their çiftlik activity. Interestingly, many çiftlik-owners registered as farmers (“erbab-I ziraat) do not have any income from farming while most of them have a vague “zuhurat” income.
The table below (Table 47) displays the information on the richest çiftlik-owners of the town center, based on their annual income (the çiftlik-owners earning over 10000 kuruş in the town of Manastır).247
245 BOA ML.VRD.TMT.d.11444.
246 Such as “kaymakamlık, eminlik, ketebelik, katiblik, nazırlık, müdürlük maaşı.”
247 4 out of 6 çiftlik-owners are shown here.
150
Table 47. The Richest Çiftlik-Owners of the Town Center of Manastır (Annual Income over 10000 kuruş)
While çiftlik-owning seems to be a common form of investment for these individuals who mostly hold official positions, it is by no means their main source of livelihood. Furthermore, their political power is not directly translated into economic power as landowners of the district. Nevertheless, many of the greatest çiftlik-owners of Manastır, such as the family members of Abdülkerim Bey, did not only have administrative and military duties, but also participated in local councils, as will be discussed below.
In the rural registers under study, there are many figures among the bigger çiftlik-owners who hold the titles of Paşazade, Bey, Ağa and Efendi, as well as figures with titles of religious and military connotations. All in all, they make up half of the total number of çiftlik-owners, yet having most of the land (Table 48).248
248 Ursinus underlines the existence of the great variety regarding titles based on the data obtained from the çiftlik survey registers of 1710 (ağa, sipahi, çelebi, effendi, kethüda, bey, beyzade, ağazade, efendizade, paşa, zaim, zaimzade, yazıcı, hoca, vaiz effendi, kapıcızade, şeyh, çuhadar ağa, bayrakdar, kadızade, muhtarbaşı, bakkal, sarraf etc.): Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth Century,” 252. Ursinus also adds, “however many diverse elements of society and members of different social strata they may include, they are united in the fact that they are in posession of one or more former peasant holdings worked by farm labourers for which they are fiscally responsible”: Ibid, 250. McGowan also emphasizes that, starting from the late 18th century onwards, a wealthy person without any title or claim to a special privilege could take hold of considerable amounts of land in return of money: McGowan, Economic Life in Ottoman Europe: Taxation, Trade, and the Struggle for Land, 1600-1800, 152.
Name (town register)Income source in townIncome (in kuruş)Identification in çiftlik registers (1)Çiftlik type (1)Çiftlik name (1)Çiftlik size (1) (grain fields)Identification in çiftlik registers (2)Çiftlik type (2)Çiftlik name (2)Çiftlik size (2) (grain fields)Mustafa Bey oğlu Mehmed Halid Bey ve karındaşı Numan Beyrent, income from holding of tımar17855.5Mustafa Bey oğulları Hacı Halid Bey ve Numan BeylerCombination of labour typesTepavci560Mustafa Bey oğulları Hacı Halid ve Numan Beyler ("iştiraken çiftliği")Combination of labour typesBrod500Abdullah oğlu Hacı Mehmed Beysalary from official job ("kaymakam maaşı")16200Abdullah oğlu Hacı Mehmed Bey (Asakir-i nizamiye ... kaymakamı) Wage-labourMogila60Adem oğlu () divan-ı hümayundan Besim Efendirent15360Atufetlu () Besim efendiCombination of labour typesKleştina-yı Zir296Abdullah oğlu Ali Ağasalary from official job ("bektaşi maaşı"), animal-husbandry13530Abdullah oğlu Ali AğaCombination of labour typesPozdeş100
151
Nevertheless, the group of çiftlik-owners without any title constitutes a remarkable
39%.
Table 48. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners of Manastır
The distribution of çiftlik size for each group indicated in Table 48 is displayed in the
graphs below (Figures 52, 53, and 54) in order to give a sense of the extent of çiftlik
size for each group under study. Here, the mean and the median values for the
distribution of çiftlik size for each group are as follows (in dönüm): For the çiftlikowners
holding titles, mean is 155.01 and median is 94; for the çiftlik-owners
without titles, mean is 90.165 and median is 58; for the female çiftlik-owners, mean
is 126.8 and median is 75. The following graphs visualize this data.
Figure 52. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners with titles (Manastır).
Çiftlik-owners
Number
of çiftliks
Percentage
of çiftliks
Grain fields
owned (dönüm)
Percentage of
grain fields
No title 231 39% 20467.5 29%
Title (Bey, Ağa,
Efendi, Hacı etc.) 292 50% 43559.5 61%
Women 64 11% 7736 11%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
118
127
136
145
154
163
172
181
190
199
208
217
226
235
244
253
262
271
280
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftlik sizes (1): Çiftlik owners with titles
152
Figure 53. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners without titles (Manastır).
Figure 54. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owning women (Manastır).
A major take-away here is the absence of a clear-cut, categorical separation between çiftlik-owners of title and no title as there are many divergences among the çiftliks owned by each group in terms of their size. As such, carrying a traditional family name does not automatically translate into the holding of the bigger çiftliks, and vice-versa. Nevertheless, on average, çiftlik-owners with titles indeed tend to hold more land than the çiftlik-owners without any title in general. 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1
8
15
22
29
36
43
50
57
64
71
78
85
92
99
106
113
120
127
134
141
148
155
162
169
176
183
190
197
204
211
218
225
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftlik sizes (2): Çiftlik owners without titles
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftlik size (3): Çiftlik-owning women
153
The following series of tables demonstrate the general characteristics of the owners of the biggest çiftliks in the district of Manastır. A number of these çiftlik-owners will be focused on in detail to delineate certain patterns of çiftlik-ownership in the mid-19th century Manastır.
Table 49. Largest 10 çiftliks of Manastır
Table 49 displays the main information on ownership for the largest 10 çiftliks of Manastır from all categories of labour. In this segment, most of the owners are from the upper echelons of the society, often practice ownership of multiple çiftliks, such as two members of the family of Ahmed Bey, in addition to joint ownership of individual çiftliks, such as various members of the family of Abdülkerim Bey, as will be discussed in detail below. Here, all of the owners of these çiftliks reside in various quarters of the central town of Manastır and the prevalence of the title of “Bey” among these figures attracts attention.
Largest 10 çiftliksOwnership of grain fields (dönüm)Çiftlik typeÇiftlik-ownerResidence of çiftlik-ownerIdentification in town registersStatus in the place of residenceSources of income in place of residenceIncome in place of residence1770Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesAbdülkerim Beyzade Halil Bey ve biraderleri Mahmud Bey ve Arif Bey (aleliştirak mutasarrıf oldukları)Manastır Emir mahallesi (Emir Çelebi)Abdülkerim Beyzadeler dergahı ali kapucubaşılarından Halil Bey ve biraderleri Mahmud ve Arif ve Sadık ve Celaleddin ve Tevfik Beylerincome from fields and vineyards, rent, animal-husbandry76401750Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesAbdülkerim Beyzade dergah-ı ali kapıcıbaşılarından Halil Bey ve Mahmud Bey ve Arif Bey ve diğer biraderlerinin aleliştirak mutasarrıf oldukları çiftlikManastır Emir mahallesi (Emir Çelebi)***1470Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesEmin oğlu İbrahim ve karındaşı HalilManastır Bali Voyvoda mahallesiThe only Emin oğlu İbrahim who could be identified as a çiftlik-owner in the registers of the town center was a resident in the mahalle of Hamza Çelebi (registered in household 116) while there was not any mention of a brother named Halil living with him. Rather, the brother-in-law of this person, named Abdullah oğlu Şerif efendi, has been indicated to reside in İbrahim's dwelling obtaining an annual income of 3000 kuruş from his rented-out property. Unfortunately, it is highly uncertain certain whether these are the same person.servant ("adi hizmetkar")servantry, rented-out property33001140MiscAhmed oğlu Hacı İbrahim AğaManastır Karaoğlan mahallesiDergah-ı ali kapucubaşılarından Ahmed oğlu Hacı İbrahim Ağa (a resident of the mahalle of İne Bey in the household numbered 25). Although the place of residence are different, these are most probably the same person.rent, animal-husbandry, income from "zuhurat"4901000Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesOsman Bey kerimeleri Nurşah ve Zeynebşah HanımlarManastır İne Bey mahallesiNot registered in the town book.840Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesAhmed Bey kerimesi Cevriye HanımManastır İne Bey mahallesiNot registered in the town book.838Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesMahmud Paşa oğlu dergah-ı ali kapucubaşılarından Şerif BeyManastır İne Bey mahallesiMüteveffa Mahmud Paşazade dergahı ali kapucubaşılarından atufetli Şerif Beyrent9376750Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesAhmed Bey oğlu Reşid BeyManastır İne Bey mahallesiAhmed Beyzade Raşid Beyfarmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")income from "zuhurat"2000720Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesMüteveffa Hacı Ahmed Ağa oğlu SüleymanManastır Firuz Bey mahallesiHacı Ahmed Ağa oğlu Süleyman Ağafarmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")rent2330700Çiftlik based on the combination of labour typesAbdülkerim Bey oğulları Halil ve Mahmud Bey (iştiraken çiftliği) Manastır Emir mahallesi (Emir Çelebi)****
154
In Table 49, there are various examples of multiple and joint ownership of çiftliks. Ahmed Bey has a daughter, Cevriye Hanım, who holds 5 çiftliks, amounting to grain fields of more than 1600 dönüms, and a son, Reşid Bey, who holds 4 çiftliks, amounting to grain fields of more than 1300 dönüms, in the district of Manastır, in addition to another son who has a çiftlik in Kesriye: As such, the family members of Ahmed Bey holds around 3000 dönüms of land in the district of Manastır alone. Likewise, Mahmud Paşa oğlu Şerif Bey holds 3 çiftliks consisting of 1236 dönüms; Ahmed oğlu Hacı İbrahim Ağa holds 2 çiftliks consisting of 1280 dönüms; two daughters of Osman Bey holds together 1 çiftlik of 1000 dönüms while Hacı Ahmed Ağa oğlu Süleyman has a single çiftlik himself. Such cases of multiple and joint ownership of çiftliks, furthermore, are not confined to the holders of the biggest çiftliks indicated in the table above, as there are many families the members of which hold multiple and joint çiftliks. An example is the family of Rüstem Bey, the members of which hold 17 çiftliks in total, the biggest being 552 dönüms, and totaling more than 3000 dönüms altogether. Another example is İbrahim Bey, who has two sons, Ali Bey and Hasan Bey, each of whom holds 2 çiftliks. This is not, furthermore, specific to the families with the title of “Bey”: For example, each one of the 9 children -sons and daughters alike- of a person named Abdülbaki holds one çiftlik, together amounting to a collection of 9 çiftliks in this single family while the son named Hacı Mehmed, who resides in the mahalle of Hamza Bey and is defined as a farmer in the town registers, holds the biggest one, consisting of grain fields of 160 dönüms.
In general, the members of the family of Abdülkerim Bey constitute the greater landowners of the district of Manastır in the period under question249 as they
249 Abdülkerim Bey, by the time of the compilation of the income surveys, was already a prominent figure in the life of Manastır: Atuk, “Manastır Vilayetinde Yönetim ve Yerel Meclisler,” 157-158. In
155
lead the way having not only considerable amounts of land totaling around 4700 dönüms in their çiftliks located in the settlements of Veljeselo, Orizari, Obrsani, Ruvci Paşa and Beranci, but also possessing the largest as well as the second largest çiftlik of all.250 Table 50 shows the information on the çiftliks of this family.
Table 50. Çiftliks of the family of Abdülkerim Bey in Manastır
Here, the largest çiftlik of the district, held by the members of the family of Abdülkerim Bey in the settlement of Beranci, located in the alluvial plains to the north of the town of Manastır, consists of grain fields of 1770 dönüms. Here, 20 sharecroppers and 9 labourers, completely landless, toil under the control of their landowners. In this çiftlik, the main division of the agrarian produce between the çiftlik-owners and sharecroppers is roughly equal as each sharecropper household
1830, he was the biggest “deruhdeci” of Manastır, holding “1227 chifts - almost a third of the district’s total- under his deruhde”: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 169. He was also a member of the local administrative body (“yerel meclis”). After his death, his son Halil Bey was appointed in his place in 1845: Ibid, 161. In the temettuat surveys under study, Halil Bey is mentioned as “aza-yı meclis”. There are also other examples of the involvement of çiftlik-owners in local affairs. For example, Şerif Efendizade Süleyman Efendi, another çiftlik owner, is indicated to be “kaza-yı mezbur mahallatından ve meclis azasından” in the temettuat registers. Other examples of the çiftlik owners of the temettuat registers who resurface as the members of “muhasıllık meclisi” include figures such as Şerif Ahmed Bey (Merhum Mahmud Paşazade dergah-ı ali kapıcıbaşılarından atufetlu Şerif Ahmed Bey), Elhac İbrahim Ağa, Mehmed Ağa, Kostantin etc.: Atuk, “Manastır Vilayetinde Yönetim ve Yerel Meclisler,” 157-158. Ursinus also underlines the continuity of family lineages in landownership as well as local administrative and fiscal positions from the 18th into the 19th century: Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth Century,” 253-254.
250 In addition to their income of 7640 kuruş from the town-center, they generate a gross income of almost 86000 kuruş from their çiftliks, which demonstrates the importance of çiftlik-ownership and the overarching weight of agrarian sources for the general configuration of income for this family.
Halil Bey has two çiftlik-owning sons as well: Halil Bey oğlu Eyüb Bey had a çiftlik of 120 dönüms in Sv. Todor; Halil Bey oğlu Yusuf Bey had a çiftlik of 126 dönüms in Obrsani. Various members of this family also owned the bigger çiftliks of Pirlepe.
Çiftlik nameGrain fields (total dönüm)Percentage in totalBeranci177038%Ruvci Paşa175037%Veljeselo70015%Orizari3006%Obrsani (2)1052%Obrsani (1)752%TOTAL4700100%
156
gets 1426.5 kuruş in addition to a relatively humble income from their small parcels of vineyards and meadows as well as engagement in animal husbandry, while the wage workers obtain their main income ranging between 100 and 200 kuruş from engagement in wage-labour other than an additional and quite meagre income from vineyards and animal husbandry for some of them. The second largest çiftlik, again held by the members of the same family and located in the settlement of Ruvci Paşa in the alluvial plains to the very north of the district, consists of grain fields of 1750 dönüms cultivated by 17 sharecroppers, obtaining a share between 1300 and 1800 kuruş, with the division between the producers and the çiftlik-owners being slightly in favor of the latter, in addition to 9 wage-workers having an income from their engagement in “hizmetkarlık” and “ırgatlık”. Both of these çiftliks exemplify the general model of the big çiftlik based on the mixture of sharecropping and wage-labour in the district of Manastır.
Most interesting, however, is the example of two çiftlik-owning brothers -“Emin oğlu İbrahim ve karındaşı Halil” - holding the third largest çiftlik of all. In this çiftlik located in the settlement of Paralovo (Paraluk) to the northeast of the town of Manastır, 11 households engaged in sharecropping and 4 households engaged in wage-labour251 cultivate the çiftlik lands consisting of grain fields of 1470 dönüms. Here, the agricultural produce is divided between the parties in the form of the çiftlik-owners getting a share of one-third and sharecroppers getting a share of two-thirds, while the specific share of each member of the latter group ranges between 410 and 1085 kuruş. Although the owners of the çiftlik of Paralovo (Paraluk) seem to be of much humbler origins compared to the old and powerful “Beyzade” families of Manastır, their distinction in having the third biggest çiftlik in the region seems to be
251 While the sharecroppers are indicated to dwell in the lodgings of the çiftlik-owners, the wage-workers are noted to be the tenants of their houses.
157
quite a formidable one. Simultaneously, however, it should be also remembered that they own only one çiftlik while the title-holding owners of the biggest çiftliks of Manastır often possess multiple ones.
In the previous table on the largest çiftliks of Manastır, while 9 of the largest of 10 çiftliks have turned out to be based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour,252 none of the çiftliks exclusively based on sharecropping or wage-labour have managed to enter the list. The following tables (Table 51 and Table 52) demonstrate the ownership information on the largest 10 çiftliks exclusively based on sharecropping and wage-labour, respectively.
Table 51. Largest 10 Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping in Manastır
In the table on biggest çiftliks based on sharecropping above (Table 51), there are only three titles of “bey” while the remaining consists of landowners with smaller titles of “ağa”, “efendi” and “hacı” in addition to two completely ordinary figures. All of these çiftlik-owners are residents of the town of Manastır, even though the members of the family of Feyzullah could not be identified in the town registers. Most interestingly, some of the occupational categories of farming in the town registers are specifically assigned to figures of “bey” by the compilers of the surveys,
252 1 çiftlik is assigned to the category of “Misc” simply due to the incompleteness of the registers as they were damaged.
Largest 10 çiftliks based on sharecropping (ownership of grain fields / dönüm)Çiftlik-ownerResidence of çiftlik-ownerIdentification in town registersStatus in the place of residenceSources of income in place of residenceIncome in place of residence (in kuruş)552Kaza-ı mezbur vücuhundan Rüstem Beyzade İbrahim BeyManastır İne Bey mahallesiRüstem oğlu İbrahim Beyfarmer ("erbabı ziraat")"zuhurat"500540Murtaza oğlu FerhadManastır Gazab Bey mahallesi(?) oğlu Ferhad (This identification is not certain)servant ("adi hizmetkar")"tebaalık"(?)250426Selim oğlu İbrahim AğaManastır Firuz Bey mahallesiSelim oğlu İbrahim ağaundefinedrent760425Abdullah oğlu Yusuf AğaManastır Yakup Bey mahallesiAbdullah oğlu Yusuf"erbab-ı ticaret""zuhurat"750420İsmail Bey oğlu Ömer BeyManastır Emir mahallesiİsmail oğlu Ömer Beyfarmer ("erbabı ziraat")rent, "zuhurat"553400Feyzullah oğlu Abdurrahman ve yeğeni Ataullah ve diğer yeğeni Salih ve diğer yeğeni ... (iştiraken)*****380Rüstem Beyzade Abdurrahman Bey ve biraderi Abdullah Bey (ber vech-i iştirak mutasarrıf oldukları çiftlik)Kaza-ı mezbur (Manastır) sakinlerindenRüstem Beyzade Abdurrahman ve Abdullah Beylerundefinedtımar6430.5370Zekeriya oğlu Abdülkerim AğaKaza-ı mezbur mahallatından Karadebbağ mahallesi sakinlerindenZekeriya oğlu Abdülkerim"erbab-ı ticaret"official job ("yazıcılık"), animal husbandry530350() oğlu Hacı YahyaManastır Firuz Bey mahallesi() oğlu Hacı Yahyafarmer ("erbabı ziraat")official job ("yazıcılık")350350İsmail oğlu Süleyman efendiManastır Hamzabey mahallesiİsmail oğlu Süleymanfarmer ("erbabı ziraat")"zuhurat"250
158
such as Rüstem Beyzade İbrahim Bey and İsmail Bey oğlu Ömer Bey who are defined to be members of the “erbab-ı ziraat” -a term mostly used to refer to simple farmers- as can be observed in the table above. Coupled by the fact that both of these figures of “bey” obtain some income from a vague source of “zuhurat”, this usage pushes one to suspect whether it might be implying the existence of a certain degree of involvement by these çiftlik-owners in the management of production and trading of agricultural produce from their çiftliks, in addition to one figure of “erbab- ticaret” (Abdullah oğlu Yusuf Ağa) and another specifically defined farmer (“erbab-ı ziraat”) with the humbler title of “efendi” also having an income from “zuhurat”.253 Other than these, the involvement of the çiftlik-owners in this group in the holding of tımar as well as various official positions attract attention in addition to the common practice of renting out of urban property. Lastly, we have another figure in this list, Murtaza oğlu Ferhad, who is defined as “hizmetkar” in the town registers, while this identification has a degree of uncertainty.
253 A similar situation can also be observed in the table on the largest 10 çiftliks whereby Ahmed Bey oğlu Reşid Bey is defined as a farmer obtaining an income of 2000 kuruş from “zuhurat” in the town registers. The same case holds true for Rüstem Bey oğlu Hurşid Bey holding a çiftlik in Pirlepe. While such assignments of occupation are not always correct and consistent in the surveys, the frequency of this very specific assignment of the occupation of farming to various beys (an unlikely combination), in addition the existence of an income in such cases from the vague category of “zuhurat”, inclines one to suspect that this might be more than an error and indicative of an active involvement of these figures in the organization of production and trading of their produce. At this level of information, however, this remains to be a mere speculation. At any rate, this specific and selective usage of “erbab-ı ziraat” for those among the biggest landowners of the district, holding the title of “bey”, remains to be intriguing.
159
Table 52. Largest 10 Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour in Manastır
The table on the biggest çiftliks based on wage-labour above (Table 52) demonstrates that 8 çiftlik-owners from this group were indicated to reside in the town center in addition to one figure whose place of residence has been left undefined and one çiftlik-owner residing in a village of Florina. Nevertheless, not all of these figures could be identified in the town registers. In this group, only one figure of Bey –İbrahim Bey oğlu Hasan Bey- attracts attention in addition to a few figures with the titles of “ağa” and “efendi” as well as çiftlik-owners without a specific title. The average size of the çiftliks in this group, furthermore, is much lower than not only the çiftliks of mixed-type, but also çiftliks exclusively based on sharecropping. Most interestingly, two designated farmers in this group do not get any income from farming whatsoever, but only a modest income from rent-taking and animal-husbandry in the town-center where they were registered as farmers in the first place. As such, one may either suspect that these figures have rural origins, being newcomers to the urban environment and not having shed their “peasantness”
Largest 10 çiftliks based on wage-labour (ownership of grain fields / dönüm)Çiftlik-ownerResidence of çiftlik-ownerIdentification in town registersStatus in the place of residenceSources of income in place of residenceIncome in place of residence (in kuruş)186Salih oğlu Halil AğaKaza-ı mezbur mahallatından Emir mahallesi sakinlerindenSalih oğlu Halilundefinedrent, salary from the official job of the çiftlik owner's son ("ketabetlik maaşı")4200170Ahmed oğlu Celaleddin Manastır Firuz Bey mahallesiAhmed oğlu Celaleddin efendiundefinedrent of individual property , rent of vakıf land and property ("vakf-ı mukataat-ı zemin")772.5 (after the subtraction of vakıf expenses)152İbrahim Bey oğlu Hasan BeyManastır İnebey mahallesiİbrahim oğlu Hasan Beyundefinedrent, income from holding of tımar6280150Abdullah oğlu Salih AğaKaza-ı mezbur mahallatından İne Bey mahallesi sakinlerindenAbdullah oğlu Salihundefinedrent, animal husbandry, craftsmanship of gunpower ("barutçu")914136Miço oğlu Hancı İzrani?Filorina () karyesi****120Raif efendi oğlu İbrahim ağaManastır Emir mahallesiİbrahim oğlu Hacı Raif (?)farmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")rent, animal husbandry270120() oğlu YusufKaza-ı mezbur mahallatından****114İsmail kerimesi Ayşe Hatun ve Hanife Hatunundefined****110Derviş Ağazade İsmail AğaManastır Zindancı mahallesi****103Ahmed oğlu HüseyinManastır Emir mahallesiAhmed oğlu Hüseyin farmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")rent144
160
yet, so-to-speak, or that they are directly involved in the management of their own çiftliks.254
Lastly, the existence of a number of village-dwelling çiftlik-owners seems to present a challenge to the usual treatment of çiftlik-owners as urban personae, even though town-dwelling çiftlik-owners constitute the majority in Manastır as well. Most importantly, in the face of stratification and labour relations among the members of the peasantry, the existence of such rural roots behind a portion of the çiftlik-owners in the district of Manastır -no matter how small that may be- raises the question of whether there was an emerging trend whereby a minority from among the ranks of the villagers were undergoing transformation as a social group, turning into landowners and employers of the labour of others, rather than functioning as farmers themselves. The village-dwelling çiftlik-owners are indicated in the table below (Table 53).
254 A good number of the designated farmers holding çiftliks do not have any income from agricultural production in the vicinity of the town center. Could this situation be indicative of rural origins or direct engagement in çiftlik production? There are also quite a good number of çiftlik-owners whose occupations have been just left empty. What is the reason for such selective usage?
161
Table 53. Çiftlik-owners residing in villages (Manastır)
Of the total number of 19 çiftlik-owners who were indicated to be residing in the rural settlements, 11 could be specifically identified in the temettuat registers of the relevant villages. Nevertheless, the specialization of economic activities in the rural context of Manastır should prevent one from automatically associating these figures with peasant çiftlik-owners per se, as the çiftlik-owners residing in the quarters of the settlement of Magarevo earn their main income from their activities as goldsmiths and tailors in addition to their modest degree of engagement in farming and animal-husbandry in a context whereby agrarian lifestyle was still intertwined with that of involvement in crafts and trades. The remaining çiftlik-owners, however, seem to be proper peasant figures.
Of these çiftlik-owners, only 1 specific peasant has been identified as an employer of 2 sharecroppers and 2 wage-workers in his village of residence. Nevertheless, this figure, İsmail oğlu Hacı Hamza, is the one with the greatest diversification of agricultural production among the village-dwelling çiftlik-owners, regarding his selection of produce including grains, flax, hemp and grapes, in
NameStatus in villageVillage name (residence)Gross income from village (in kuruş)Landownership in village (grain fields) (in dönüm)Employment of labour in villageSources of Income (Village)Çiftlik nameÇiftlik typeGross income from çiftlik (kuruş)Landownership in çiftlik (grain fields) (in dönüm)Employment of labour in çiftlikSources of Income (Çiftlik)Draught animalsAhmed oğlu OsmanundefinedKenali (Kara Yusuf Mahallesi)2553-grain fields (107.5 kuruş),animal husbandry (147.5 kuruş)Orta EğriSharecropping200.25231 sharecroppershare from grain fields and meadows under sharecropping2 oxen in the village of residenceİsmail oğlu Hacı Hamzafarmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")Kleştina-ı Bala3004.25702 sharecroppers ("şerik"), 2 wage-workers ("aylakçı")grain fields, meadows, flax fields and vineyard under sharecropping (2211.75 kuruş), rent (240 kuruş), animal husbandry (552.5 kuruş)Kleştina-ı ZirSharecropping and wage-labour1445343 sharecroppers ("şerik"), 2 wage-workers ("aylakçı")share from grain fields, flax field, hemp field and meadows under sharecropping6 oxen in the village of residence.Gorgi oğlu Nikola (ve şeriki Nikola oğlu Gorgi zımmiler)undefinedMagarevo (Büyük Papaz İstaryo Mahallesi)10760-goldsmithery (1000 kuruş), meadows (36 kuruş), rent (20 kuruş), animal husbandry (20 kuruş)BratindolSharecropping and wage-labour1077.75601 sharecropper, 1 servantshare from grain fields, vineyards and meadows under sharecroppingNo oxen.Nikola oğlu Gorgi zımmiundefinedMagarevo (Papaz Vangel Mahallesi)15504-tailoring (1300 kuruş), grain fields (160 kuruş), meadows (20 kuruş), animal husbandry (20 kuruş), rent (50 kuruş)BratindolSharecropping976.5351 sharecroppershare from grain fields, vineyards and meadows under sharecropping, animal husbandryNo oxen.Nikola oğlu Ziko zımmiundefinedMagarevo (Papaz Tohari Mahallesi)10500-tailoring (850 kuruş), vineyards (120 kuruş), meadows (30 kuruş), animal husbandry (20 kuruş), rent (30 kuruş)BratindolSharecropping537.75402 sharecroppershare from grain fields and vineyards under sharecroppingNo oxen.Mustafa oğlu Ali (ve Yanoş nam kimesneler)farmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")Porodin200-animal husbandryZabjaniWage-labour1240292 servantsgrain fields and meadows under wage-labour2 oxen in the çiftlik.Hasan oğlu Mehmedinfirm ("alil")Porodin400-animal husbandryKaninaOther5603undefinedincome from grain fields No oxenİbrahim (yazıcı) oğlu Bekirfarmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")Porodin200-animal husbandryZabjaniWage-labour1240291 servant grain fields and meadows under wage-labour2 oxen in the çiftlik.Mehmed oğlu Recebfarmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")Porodin4354-grain fields (415 kuruş), animal husbandry (20 kuruş)KaninaÇiftlik based on sharecropping with a sharecropper from the village in the same settlement353.25141 sharecoppergrain fields and meadows under sharecroppingNo oxen.Hacı Salih (Davran)? / Hacı Salih oğlu Müsli ve kardeşi (Davran)? Ali (alel iştiraken mutasarrıf oldukları çiftlik)undefinedZlokukjan664.54-grain fields (192.5 kuruş), meadows (112 kuruş), animal husbandry (228 kuruş), sharecropping ("Salih oğlu Manastırlı Müsli'nin şirketinden": 132)HolevenSharecropping1848.125361 sharecroppergrain fields under sharecropping, income from vineyards, meadows and flax fields1 ox in the village.Memed oğlu Hacı Talib (Mehmed Ali oğlu Hacı Talib)farmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")Zlokukjan909.58-grain fields (460 kuruş), meadows (237 kuruş), animal husbandry (212.5)HolevenSharecropping532.8755.51 sharecroppergrain fields under sharecropping, income from vineyards, meadows and flax fields2 oxen in the village.
162
addition to his income from meadows and engagement in animal husbandry. All in all, this person presents the figure of a çiftlik-owning farmer who has a total of 9 workers under his control in the lands under his possession, village and çiftlik alike.255
For some of these village-dwelling çiftlik-owners, engagement in çiftlik activity seems to have a subsidiary character, such as Nikola oğlu Gorgi and Mehmed oğlu Hacı Talib. For others, however, çiftlik-owning constitutes their main source of livelihood. For example, Mustafa oğlu Ali, residing in the village of Porodin, has only 1 cow from which he gains 20 kuruş in his place of residence, while he has 2 workers working for him in his çiftlik located in the settlement of Zabjani whereby he holds grain fields of 29 dönüms obtaining an income from farming and meadows. Furthermore, his two oxen are also located in this çiftlik for the use of the workers as he has no land in the village he dwells in. In a similar vein, Hasan oğlu Mehmed, also residing in the village of Porodin, has two cows from which he earns 40 kuruş in his place of residence, while he has grain fields of 3 dönüms in his çiftlik at the settlement of Kanina from which he earns a humble income. İbrahim (yazıcı) oğlu Bekir, again from the same village, constitutes another similar example. In all of these cases, the places of residence and çiftliks remain quite close to each other, sometimes in the lower and upper parts of the same settlement, and sometimes in neighboring villages. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, neither of these figures can be counted among the bigger and wealthier çiftlik-owners of the district, as the largest çiftlik held by a villager does not exceed 60 dönüms. In the district of Manastır, therefore, it is quite difficult to see these figures
255 He has 6 oxen in his village while the sharecroppers bring in the draught animals in the çiftlik.
163
as real competitors against the town-dwelling and often title-holding çiftlik-owners who possess the greater majority of the cultivable lands in the region. 256
3.4 Conclusion
The income survey registers of Manastır indicate quite a high degree of rural inequality, peasant dispossession, and concentration of land in the hands of a group of landowners in the mid-19th century. First and foremost, around one-third of the rural residents were landless and directly residing and working in çiftliks. The çiftlik-owners held 70% of the cultivable land in the district and controlled one-third of the rural labour force. Around one-third of the villagers were also landless. One-fifth of this landless village population mainly survived through engagement in agricultural wage labour, and the other one-fifth mainly relied on textile production. Of the villagers, only 11% exclusively relied on agricultural production, while the remaining combined agricultural production with various activities. The villages also displayed considerable inequality in terms of access to land and labour relations among the peasantry.
The agricultural economy of the district was largely based on çiftlik production in the lowlands coupled with rural textile production in the uplands. While the çiftliks tended to cluster around the central alluvial plains around Crna River and villages primarily concentrated in the hilly areas, these forms of settlement remained quite interrelated regarding geographical proximity and labour mobility between them.
256 This size is much smaller than that of İştip whereby a village-dwelling çiftlik-owner named Ahmed oğlu İbrahim held grain fields of 539 dönüms in his çiftlik, even though he did not work himself in his place of residence. Another Ahmed oğlu İbrahim was also a village-dwelling owner of a çiftlik consisting of grain fields of almost 200 dönüms and an employer of labour in his place of residence. In relational terms, the çiftliks of village-dwelling çiftlik-owners constituted less than 1% of all çiftlik land in the district of Manastır, which is much lower than that of İştip (See: Section 4.3.3).
164
In light of the data above, this first glance at the class configuration of rural Manastır of the mid-19th century demonstrates that a considerable part of the main factor of production, the land, was owned and controlled by a group of çiftlik-owners, indicating an almost a clear-cut separation between landowners and an agricultural labour force. As such, we witness a considerable concentration of productive land in the hands of those who did not directly engage in agricultural production themselves yet employed a significant group of –now dispossessed- rural population. This ongoing separation between the legal owner of the land and the actual cultivator, then, is crucial to understand the çiftlik phenomenon whereby the end result turned out to be a situation where “all good land was under legal control, whether cultivated or not, while at the same time many good men had no land and were obliged to labor.”257As such, it may be reasonable to argue that the extent of the “land grab” in the district by the çiftlik owners must have been significant while a part of the villagers with oxen and very small amounts of land under their possession left can be considered as potential sharecroppers of the future.258
In this context, the questions of whether çiftlik-ownership, in the form of a separation between landowners and landless rural producers, still constituted the result of an ongoing investment in agriculture by town-dwellers and upper echelons of the society or whether it indicated -albeit indirectly- the existence of a slow and gradual movement of the richer peasantry from the countryside to the central town and the extension of their previous rural networks into the urban sphere, were raised. In light of the present data on the district of Manastır, which confirms the existence of a very thin layer of village-dwelling çiftlik-owners holding very modest çiftliks as well as instances of labour-employing village rich as against the much more
257 McGowan, B. (1981). Economic Life in Ottoman Europe, 72.
258 See: Section 6.5.
165
pronounced group of landowners coming from the ranks of old and powerful families as well as urban personages from various crafts and trades, it might be reasonable to suggest that the possibility of an internal transformation of the peasant society might have been hindered, at least to a certain extent, by the relative strength of the landlord presence in Manastır, while dispossession of a considerable part of the rural population seems to have taken place rather unhindered and the concentration of land in the hands of a specific group of çiftlik-owners as against the remaining members of the rural society seems to have reached a significant level.
166
CHAPTER 4
AGRARIAN CLASS RELATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN BALKANS: ÇİFTLİKS AND VILLAGES, LANDOWNERS AND RURAL PRODUCERS IN İŞTİP
(MID-19TH CENTURY)
The analysis of the district of İştip, a kaza of the eyalet of Rumelia during the period under question259, centers on the defters titled ML.VRD.TMT.d.11422, ML.VRD.TMT.d.11423 and ML.VRD.TMT.d.11424, which contain income survey information on the rural settlements of the district. These three defters, comprising of more than 2280 pages and containing information on more than 5000 households residing and producing in 152 settlements with various sub-divisions of villages and çiftliks, have been analyzed with the main focus being on patterns of ownership and forms of labour in order to develop an analysis of economic and social relations prevalent in the district of İştip in the mid-19th century.
This chapter will start with a general introduction to the district as a whole focusing on a series of comparisons between the çiftliks and the villages of the region to draw a general portrait of the rural landscape. Then, the villages of the district will be examined in detail. Lastly, a general typology of the çiftliks, based on the forms of labour employed, will be introduced to provide a detailed exposition of each type in a comparative perspective. Throughout this analysis, themes of property ownership and forms of labour will be the main pillars for the exposition of the data retrieved from the temettuat registers of the district of İştip.
259 For a brief survey of the history of İştip: Machiel Kiel, "İştip.” Also: Ruşid, Salnamelere Göre XIX. Asırda İştip’te Sosyo-ekonomik ve İdari Durum; Evcil, XIX. Yüzyıl Ortalarında İştip Kazası’nın Sosyal ve Ekonomik Durumu; Pehlivan, İştip’de Ayanlık: Nazırzade Ailesi; Durdu, “191 Numaralı Şer’iyye Siciline Göre İştip Kazasında İdari, Toplumsal ve Ekonomik Yapı (1823-1825).”
167
4.1 Çiftliks and villages: The socio-economic landscape of rural İştip in the mid-19th century
4.1.1 Rural population and patterns of settlement
Figure 55 displays the distribution of rural population, calculated based on the number of households due to the nature of the survey registers, between çiftliks and villages. In the calculations, only local rural producers are taken into account while çiftlik-owners, who mostly reside in the central town of İştip as well as in other districts, have been excluded. As such, this chart displays the distribution of the rural residents themselves.
Figure 55. Distribution of rural population between çiftliks and villages of İştip.
The temettuat registers display that a quarter of the whole rural population (1235 households) resided in about 361 çiftliks in the district of İştip around the mid-19th century. In contrast, 3706 households, constituting 75% of the rural population, lived in the villages. As will be discussed in detail below260, because the group residing in the çiftliks consisted of mostly landless and often houseless rural producers261 -
260 See: Section 4.3.
261 With regard to landholding, this position of producers is especially striking concerning fields where grain production is conducted while most of the rural residents hold a small parcel of vineyard, mostly ranging from 0.5 to 1 dönüm. A detailed exposition of the patterns of landownership in çiftliks 25%
75%
0%
Distribution of rural population between çiftliks and villages
(number of households)
Çiftliks Villages Misc
168
beyond the existence of a landless labour force in the villages - it seems safe to argue in the beginning that a quarter of the rural population resident in the district of İştip was dispossessed of their main tool of production, i.e. land, and were engaged in relations of labour arrangements different than those of small peasant farming, which is ideally based on the exclusive use of family-labour and has a self-sustaining character. As such, the group of çiftlik-owners, as the holders of the main means of production, i.e. land, in an agrarian economy, directly controlled the labour-capacity of around a quarter of the district population which lacked such means.262
While the previous calculations of the distribution of rural households among çiftliks and villages treated the data as totalities and the region as a spatially homogeneous entity, this is in fact far from the truth. On the contrary, specific loci of concentration regarding village and çiftliks formations in each administrative settlement can be identified.
Table 54. Number of Settlements and Resident Households by the Level of Çiftlik Formation in İştip
Table 54 demonstrates the relative weight of çiftliks, on the basis of the ratio of households engaged in production for çiftliks (i.e. number of çiftlik households / total number of households) within each administrative settlement as indicated in a
will be provided in Section 4.3. With regard to housing, more than 1200 families who do not have their own dwellings and reside in the houses of their landowners have been identified on the district level. Of these, almost 160 are village residents. Of the 1235 households residing in the çiftliks, 1203 have been specifically mentioned to dwell in the houses of their çiftlik-owners ("ağası hanesinde mütemekkin, X hanesinde mütemekkin etc.). As such, the çiftlik producers, as a rule, are not only landless but also houseless.
262 The mechanisms and processes behind the emergence of such dispossession will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
Level of çiftlikizationNumber of settlementsPercentageNumber of householdsPercentage14026%60712%0.5 - 0.971812%4198%0.03 - 0.494127%178836%05335%215643%
169
value range from 0 to 1. Here, 0 indicates non-existence of çiftliks and a “perfect” village while 1 indicates all-embracing çiftlik-activity and utter absence of independent farmers. The results of the distribution of these different types are displayed in detail in the series of graphs below.
Figure 56. Distribution of settlements by level of çiftlik formation (number of households) in İştip.
Figure 56 demonstrates the specific place assigned to each settlement in the district with regard to the level of çiftlik formation whereby perfect villages, perfect çiftliks and areas of transition in between are displayed. The graph below (Figure 57) displays the distribution of settlements on the basis of their level of çiftlik formation. In the district of İştip, 26% of all settlements can be defined as perfect çiftliks and 12% as çiftlik-dominated formations while 35% of them can be defined as perfect villages and 27% as village-dominated settlements. 0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
Level of çiftlik formation
Settlements
Distribution of settlements by level of çiftlik formation
170
Figure 57. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the settlements of İştip.
The following graph (Figure 58) shows the distribution of the population among the settlements of different levels of çiftlik formation. In the district of İştip, 12% of the rural population resided in perfect çiftliks and 9% in çiftlik-dominated settlements while 43% resided in perfect villages and 36% in village-dominated settlements.
Figure 58. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the population of İştip.
Regarding all of the calculations so far, the coexistence of different types of rural residents -villagers and çiftlik workers- within the same settlement raises the question of the processes of acquisition of land and çiftlik formation. Furthermore,
26%
12%
27%
35%
Level of çiftlik formation and settlements of İştip
Level of çiftlik formation: 1 Level of çiftlik formation: 0.5 - 0.97
Level of çifltik formation: 0.03 - 0.49 Level of çiftlik formation: 0
12%
9%
36%
43%
Level of çiftlik formation and population of İştip
Level of çiftlik formation: 1 Level of çiftlik formation: 0.5 - 0.97
Level of çifltik formation: 0.03 - 0.49 Level of çiftlik formation: 0
171
the data under study indicates that there is a certain degree of polarization between village and çiftlik-dominated settlements in addition to the existence of a transitional area which displays mixed features of both forms. In the face of such polarization, generalizing on the basis of a whole district by taking averages can be misleading to understand the dynamics at work. This, in turn, raises the question of whether these settlements can be shown to cluster topographically in specific places following a pattern.
To answer this question and indicate the geographical distribution of different categories of settlements, their level of çiftlik formation has been used as the main index. The table below (Table 55) displays the level of çiftlik formation of each settlement while the following table (Table 56) displays the color-coding system used in the preparation of the map on Figure 59, which indicates the locations of different types of settlements in the district of İştip in the mid-19th century.263
263 In the table below, entries highlighted in light gray indicate a degree of uncertainty of location while the entries highlighted in dark gray indicate settlements whose locations could not be found.
172
Table 55. Level of Çiftlik Formation (Number of Households) in the Settlements of İştip
Level of çiftlikizationSettlementLevel of çiftlikizationSettlementLevel of çiftlikizationSettlementLevel of çiftlikizationSettlement0Hacıbeyli / Hadzibejli / Hadzibegovo0.031746032Penius / Penush0.5Gajranci1Krividol0Bekirli / Bekirlija0.036697248Nemanica / Nemanjitsa0.58333333Baltalı / Baltalija1Sirçeler/Serçijevo/ Sarchievo0Cumalı / Dzumali / Lozovo0.037735849Kiliseli / Sv. Nikola0.69230769Dinler-i zir / Dolno Crnilişte1Susevo / Sushevo0Karacalı / Karadzali0.040816327Antoya / Enis Oba / Janoshevo0.71428571Goricino / Gorachino1Sarı Hamzalı / Saramzalino0Torfalli / Durfulli / Durfulija / Dorfulija0.041666667Kişino / Kishino0.75Krnjevci1Divane Hasanlı / Hüseyinli 0Tatarlı / Milino0.046511628Balvan-ı bala / Gorno Balvan0.76470588Balvan-ı zir / Dolni Balvan1Hazerfanlı / Hadirfakli / Hadrafakovo / Kadrifakovo0Kara Osmanlı / Karatmanovo0.054054054Selce / Seltse0.76470588Sofilari1Ubova / Ubugo / Ubogo0Gorobinci0.060606061Damjan0.76923077Neokazi1Borilovci / Burilovci0Stanlujovci / Stanulovci0.0625Jagmurlar / Yağmurlar / Jamularci0.8Uljarci / Ulartsi1Patatino / Patetino0Dobrisani / Dobroshani0.070175439Barbarova0.8Cirvilve / Cirvere / Cebirve1Makres / Makresh0Maricino / Marchino0.071428571Sugurla / Suhogrlo / Suvo grlo0.81818182Torhali / Trohla1Strojimanci / Stroimanci0Strojisavci / Strisovtsi0.088235294Hacı Ahmedli / Haji Matovo0.81818182Buciste / Buchiste1Petrishino0Hadzi Yusuflu0.103448276Plesinci / Pleshantsi0.85Lipovdol1Toholo0Kara Sinanlı0.107142857Drenek / Drenok0.86666667Adzimirci / Dzimir1Puzderci0Çesmedere / Casica / Gradsko0.108108108Strmos / Strmosh0.94285714Varsakli / Varsakovo/ Vrsakovo1Kukovo0Doğanlı0.12195122Poçivalo0.95652174Ulanca / Ulanci1Zarabinca / Zarepinci0Hadzi Redzebli / Haji Rejepli0.153846154Testemelci0.96428571Karbinci1Çardaklı / Chardaklija0Pisica / Pishica0.157894737Köseler / Kjoselari0.97435897Krupişte1Gujnovci0Patrik0.166666667Sudik / Sudikj1Değirmen (çiftliği karyesi) / Dejirmen0Dragoevo0.166666667Kosevo / Koshevo1Vardar0Muzanci / Muşantsi0.172413793Meckujevci / Mechkuevci1Skandalica / Skandalci0Kara Hodzali0.173913043Bogoslovec1Toplik0Hadzi Hamzali0.1875Citakli1Jedekler / Edeklerci0Creska / Creshka0.19047619Dinler-i bala / Gorno Crnilişte1Ribnik0Sehoba / Sheoba0.2Lezovo1Caşka / Casika0Hacı Seyidli / Haji Seydeli0.205479452Radani / Radanje1Crkovci0Orta mahalle0.217391304Trogerce-i Bala / Gorno Trogerci1Kozjak-ı bala / Gorno Kozjak0Junuzlija0.259259259Trogerce-i zir / Dolno Trogerci1Kozjak-ı zir / Dolno Kozjak0Terzili mahallesi0.272727273Rurak / ruljak1Kalo Petrovci / Kalapetrovci0Kepekchelija0.275Beşirli / Beşerli / Beşirovo / Peshirovo1Vrteşka0Kalauzlija0.275862069Argulica / Argulitsa1Turtel0Dzumali0.323529412Prehod / Predo1Moyance / Mevyance / Boyanca0Bejtilli0.333333333Grizilovci / Grizlievci1Ljuboten0Kurfallı mahallesi / Kurfulli / Kurfalija0.35Knezce / Kneze / Knezhje1Tunatar / Tunadar0Hocalı / Hevaceli mahallesi / Odzhalija0.365384615Hamzabeyli / Hamzabejli / Hamzabegovo1Sopur / Shopur0Seyidli / Seyidili mahallesi0.379310345Stubla / Stubol 1Dolani0Hacı Yusuflu mahallesi0.4Arbsanca / Arbasanci1Karaorman0Leskonica / Leskovica / Leskovitsa0.434210526Erdzeli / Erdjelija1Mirahor0Kuçilat mahallesi0.434782609Rancinci / Ranciste / Ranchinci1Tarainci / Tajranci / Tarintsi0Gaber / Golem Gaber0.444444444Yeniköy 1Seher kösti0Kuçica / Kuchica0.492537313Mustafa Obası / Mustafino0 Pırnarlı mahallesi / Pernarlı / Prnalija0Muradlı mahallesi / Muratlija0Buçim / Buchim0Bres / Brest0Puhce0Şehsuvarlı / Şahsavarli / Shashavarlija0Topolnica / Topolnitsa0Piperova / Piperovo0Stepance0Crvilova / Crvulevo0Nikoman0Hebili mahallesi / Ebeplija
173
Table 56. Colour-Coding of the Level of Çiftlik Formation in (Figure 59)
Figure 59. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and distribution of
settlements in İştip.
While the settlement pattern of İştip is less clustered than Manastır, there is still the
slight tendency of the çiftliks to be located around the central, alluvial plains of İştip
while the “perfect” villages tend to cluster in the hilly areas towards the outer parts of
the district. Nonetheless, the settlements remain quite intertwined. Almost half of the
settlements are combinations of çiftlik and village forms while “perfect” çiftliks and
villages are often located side by side.
Of all the settlements of pure çiftliks, 17 constitute single-çiftlik settlements
while the remaining 23 settlements consist of multiple çiftliks. In the most extreme
Level of çiftlik formation Color-coding
1 Red
0.5 - 0.97 Pink
0.03 - 0.49 Light-blue
0 Dark-blue
174
case, there are as many as 8 çiftliks in a single settlement of pure çiftlik type. The relevant list can be seen in Table 57.
Table 57. Pure Çiftliks of İştip
The distribution of rural population is displayed in Figure 60. Just like in the case of Manastır, albeit with a lower degree of intensity, the population tends to concentrate in the villages towards the mountains rather than alluvial plains which were largely monopolized by çiftlik-owners.
Level of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlement1Ubova / Ubugo / Ubogo11Susevo / Sushevo21Gujnovci41Makres / Makresh11Hazerfanlı / Hadirfakli / Hadrafakovo / Kadrifakovo21Tarainci / Tajranci / Tarintsi41Strojimanci / Stroimanci11Petrishino21Krividol51Toholo11Vardar21Divane Hasanlı / Hüseyinli 51Kukovo11Ribnik21Puzderci51Zarabinca / Zarepinci11Kozjak-ı bala / Gorno Kozjak21Jedekler / Edeklerci51Çardaklı / Chardaklija11Sarı Hamzalı / Saramzalino31Crkovci51Değirmen (çiftliği karyesi) / Dejirmen11Patatino / Patetino31Ljuboten51Kozjak-ı zir / Dolno Kozjak11Skandalica / Skandalci31Karaorman51Kalo Petrovci / Kalapetrovci11Caşka / Casika31Sirçeler/Serçijevo/ Sarchievo61Vrteşka11Mirahor61Turtel11Borilovci / Burilovci81Moyance / Mevyance / Boyanca11Toplik81Tunatar / Tunadar11Sopur / Shopur11Dolani11Seher kösti1
175
Figure 60. Distribution of rural population among settlements of İştip (based on the number of households).
Then, how much of the agricultural land in rural İştip do the çiftlik-owners have under their command? What is the proportion between the lands in the çiftlik domains and the lands in the village domains? What proportion of the cultivable land in the çiftlik boundaries are held by the rural producers rather than by the çiftlik-owners themselves? What is the situation for the corresponding distribution of draught animals between çiftliks and villages, çiftlik-owners and rural producers?
4.1.2 Ownership of agricultural means of production
The following tables (Table 58 and Table 59) display the information on landownership by villagers, çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers in İştip. Table 58 displays the distribution of landownership for each category of land among the villagers, çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers. Table 59 displays the relative weight of landownership for different types of land within each group.
176
Table 58. Landownership by Çiftlik-Owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (İştip)
(1)
Table 59. Landownership by Çiftlik-Owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (İştip)
(2)
In terms of relative numbers, some points worth noting here are the absolute
dominance of the çiftlik-owners in the holding of sesame fields, wood grove, winter
pasture and rice fields (rice paddy). The villagers have 59% of grain fields of the
district while the çiftlik-owners have 40% and the çiftlik-workers have only 1%.
Villagers also dominate in owning of cotton fields, tobacco fields and gardens.
Nevertheless, when the question comes to absolute values, grain fields most
definitely dominated the landowning categories as the production of grains remains
Villagers Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers TOTAL TOTAL (Percentage)
Types of land Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Grain fields 141803 59% 95858.5 40% 1432 1% 239093.5 100%
Meadow 1217.75 65% 628 33% 31 2% 1876.75 100%
Vineyard 4106.775 81% 164.75 3% 790.5 16% 5062.025 100%
Onion field 9.5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 9.5 100%
Cotton field 708 77% 208.5 23% 3 <1% 919.5 100%
"Bostan" 492.25 72% 186 27% 4 1% 682.25 100%
Vegetable garden 32 55% 22 38% 4 7% 58 100%
Tobacco field 390.75 86% 57.5 13% 6.5 1% 454.75 100%
Rice field (rice paddy) 9 23% 30 77% 0 0% 39 100%
Sesame field 0 0% 77 100% 0 0% 77 100%
Wood grove (hatab korusu) 0 0% 40 100% 0 0% 40 100%
Winter pasture 0 0% 200 100% 0 0% 200 100%
Villagers Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers
Types of land Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Grain fields 141803 95% 95858.5 98% 1432 63%
Meadow 1217.75 1% 628 1% 31 1%
Vineyard 4106.775 3% 164.75 <1% 790.5 35%
Onion field 9.5 <1% 0 0% 0 0%
Cotton field 708 <1% 208.5 <1% 3 <1%
"Bostan" 492.25 <1% 186 <1% 4 <1%
Vegetable garden 32 <1% 22 <1% 4 <1%
Tobacco field 390.75 <1% 57.5 <1% 6.5 <1%
Rice field (rice paddy) 9 <1% 30 <1% 0 0%
Sesame field 0 0% 77 <1% 0 0%
Wood grove (hatab korusu) 0 0% 40 <1% 0 0%
Winter pasture 0 0% 200 <1% 0 0%
TOTAL 148769.025 100% 97472.25 100% 2271 100%
177
the backbone of the agrarian economy of the district of İştip in terms of the size and percentage of land reserved for it, followed by vineyards and meadows.
The chart below (Figure 61) displays the distribution of landownership of grain fields by çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers. In the district of İştip, 40% of the cultivable grain fields are concentrated in the hands of landowners.
Figure 61. Distribution of landownership in İştip.
Then, the graph below (Figure 62) displays the distribution of oxen, which constitute one of the main means of production, between çiftliks and villages.264 Here, although 40% of grain fields are located in the çiftliks and 59% in the villages, 27% of the oxen are located in çiftliks and 73% in villages. Furthermore, the contribution of oxen by çiftlik-owners to agricultural production is much higher than Manastır. As will be discussed below, the main reason behind this difference is the higher degree of the presence of çiftliks based on wage-labour, where çiftlik-owners provide the draught animals, in İştip than Manastır.265 Furthermore, the content of sharecropping arrangements in İştip seems to be slightly different from that of Manastır: Here, even
264 This distribution changes only by 4% in favor of çiftlik-owners compared to villagers when all the potential draught animals are included in the calculations. This categoriy includes “öküz manda, erkek manda, kısır manda, manda, çift mandası, kısır camuş.”
265 See: Section 4.3. 40%
1%
59%
Concentration of landownership: Distribution of grain fields
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
178
in çiftliks based on sharecropping, the çiftlik-owners usually contribute some draught animals to production, albeit on a smaller scale than çiftlik workers.
Figure 62. Distribution of oxen between çiftliks and villages in İştip.
The chart below (Figure 63) displays the distribution of factors of production, to the extent that they could be derived from the survey registers -namely, labour (in the form of potential workforce calculated on the basis of number of relevant households), land and oxen- between çiftlik and village domains.
Figure 63. Means of production: Çiftliks versus villages (İştip).
When the ownership of these factors of production is considered, the degree of their concentration in the hands of a few landholders strongly suggests the dispossession of a part of the rural population (Figure 64 and Figure 65). These landowners also
11%
16%
73%
Oxen: Çiftliks versus villages
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All grain fields
Oxen (number)
Potential agricultural workforce (Household
number of rural producers)
Means of rural production: Çiftliks versus villages
Çiftlik Village
179
directly controls around a quarter of the total labour-force in the district (i.e., çiftlik workers) who are mostly dispossessed (See: Figure 55). In contrast, 25% of the population, i.e., çiftlik workers, holds around 1% of the land, indicating the dispossession of a sizeable part of the population. Lastly, 75% of the rural population, resident in villages, is left with 59% of the cultivable fields while holding 73% of the oxen in the district.
Figure 64. Concentration of landownership (1) (İştip).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Number of households
All grain fields (in dönüm)
Concentration of landownership (1)
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
180
Figure 65. Concentration of landownership (2) (İştip).
The following graph (Figure 66) displays the ratio of cultivable fields owned by çiftlik-owners to all of the fields in each settlement in order to display the geographical distribution of settlements with varying degrees of çiftlik formation in terms of landownership. Here, an index has been prepared whereby the value of 0 indicates non-existence of çiftlik land and the value of 1 indicates all-encompassing existence of çiftlik land for each settlement. The resulting distribution is displayed in Figure 66.
Figure 66. Ratio of çiftlik land to all settlement land (İştip). 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
Çiftlik-owners
Çiftlik workers
Villagers
Concentration of landownership (2)
Number of households All grain fields (in dönüm)
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
Ratio of çiftlik-owners' land to all
settlement land
Settlements
Ratio of çiftlik-owners' land (grain fields) to all settlement land
181
Each settlement is indicated in the map below in accordance with its level of çiftlik formation in terms of landownership. Here, the colour white indicates the non-existence of çiftlik-owner’s land, the colour pink indicates the mixture of land held by çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers and villagers, and the colour red indicates the all-encompassing existence of çiftlik-owner’s land (Figure 67).
Figure 67. Distribution of settlements by landownership: Çiftliks versus villages
(İştip).
The map below (Figure 68) displays the extent of cultivable land in conjunction with the distribution of ownership by çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers and villagers within each settlement. The size of the pie charts indicates the size of the cultivable fields in each settlement. Within the pie charts, colour red indicates ownership by çiftlik-owners, colour blue indicates ownership by çiftlik workers, and colour green indicates ownership by villagers. While çiftliks tend to concentrate in the alluvial plains in central İştip, both forms of settlement remain quite intertwined.
182
Figure 68. Distribution of land: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers of İştip.
So far, the data has been analyzed to demonstrate that there is a certain degree of concentration of land in the district of İştip in the mid-19th century. Here, the main framework has been the division between the villages and the çiftliks of the region, even though they are located close to each other, often within the same settlement. As such they display interaction and permeability to a considerable degree, in addition to significant variations within them.
4.1.3 Sources of income
The table below (Table 60) demonstrates the rural income sources and their distribution in the district of İştip as a whole, underlining the importance of agricultural production in general. Agricultural production is followed by animal husbandry and agricultural wage-labour.
183
Table 60. Income Sources of İştip
The following series of tables (Table 61 and Table 62) display the distribution of
different branches of agricultural activity, in terms of different types of land (in
dönüm) and income obtained from them (in kuruş) in aggregates on çiftlik and
village lands. Here, the focus is on active production and hence, only lands under
cultivation, creating revenue for the owner, have been taken into account.266
Table 61. Agricultural Production in İştip: Çiftliks versus Villages (1)
266 Rented lands have been taken into account while leased out and uncultivated lands have been
excluded since they do not produce agricultural revenue directly for the owner.
Income sources In kuruş Percentage
Agricultural production 2867606 60%
Sharecropping (main) 937113.5 19%
Animal-husbandry 462488 10%
Agricultural wage-labour 214810 4%
Animal-related wage-labour 92724 2%
Transport 76181 2%
Transport and/or provision of wood 66335 1%
Rent 42666.5 1%
Other 56055.5 1%
TOTAL 4815979.5 100%
VILLAGE ÇİFTLİK
Types of land Dönüm Percentage Revenue Percentage Dönüm Percentage Revenue Percentage
Grain fields 124628 95% 2239403 88% 85179 98% 1251839 93%
Meadow 1030.5 1% 34636 1% 672.5 1% 17565 1%
Vineyard 3566.025 3% 206257.5 8% 684.25 1% 35872.5 3%
Onion field 9.5 <1% 660 <1% 0 0% 0 0%
Cotton field 708 1% 12475 <1% 218.5 <1% 5550 <1%
"Bostan" 498.25 <1% 10092.5 <1% 194 <1% 2897.5 <1%
Vegetable garden 29 <1% 3040 <1% 63.5 <1% 9445 1%
Tobacco field 390.75 <1% 40845 2% 122 <1% 12240 1%
Rice field (rice paddy) 9 <1% 650 <1% 31 <1% 2500 <1%
Sesame field 0 0% 0 0% 77 <1% 1250 <1%
TOTAL 130869 100% 2548059 100% 87241.75 100% 1339159 100%
184
As can be observed in Table 61, the grain fields located in the villages, constituting
95% of all types of village lands, also produce the greater part of the total
agricultural revenue of the villages. As for the çiftliks, 98% of all lands are
constituted by grain fields that produce 93% of the total agricultural revenue. In both
cases, grain fields are followed by vineyards.
Table 62. Agricultural Production in İştip: Çiftliks versus Villages (2)
Table 62 displays the distribution of both the amount of land and the revenue
obtained from agricultural production among the çiftliks and the villages. In general
terms, the grain fields in the villages generate a higher revenue per dönüm vis-à-vis
çiftliks. The distribution of agricultural revenue between çiftliks and villages can be
observed in the chart below (Figure 69).
Figure 69. Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages (İştip).
VILLAGE ÇİFTLİK
Types of land Dönüm Percentage Revenue Percentage Dönüm Percentage Revenue Percentage TOTAL (Dönüm) TOTAL (Revenue)TOTAL
Grain fields 124628 59% 2239403 64% 85179 41% 1251839 36% 209807 3491241.5 100%
Meadow 1030.5 61% 34636 66% 672.5 39% 17565 34% 1703 52201 100%
Vineyard 3566.025 84% 206257.5 85% 684.25 16% 35872.5 15% 4250.275 242130 100%
Onion field 9.5 100% 660 100% 0 0% 0 0% 9.5 660 100%
Cotton field 708 76% 12475 69% 218.5 24% 5550 31% 926.5 18025 100%
"Bostan" 498.25 72% 10092.5 78% 194 28% 2897.5 22% 692.25 12990 100%
Vegetable garden 29 31% 3040 24% 63.5 69% 9445 76% 92.5 12485 100%
Tobacco field 390.75 76% 40845 77% 122 24% 12240 23% 512.75 53085 100%
Rice field (rice paddy) 9 23% 650 21% 31 78% 2500 79% 40 3150 100%
Sesame field 0 0% 0 0% 77 100% 1250 100% 77 1250 100%
66%
34%
Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages
Villages Çiftliks
185
The chart below (Figure 70) displays the distribution of income from animal husbandry between villagers, çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers. While the villagers earn 63% of income from animal husbandry, the greater part of the income from animal husbandry is earned by the workers of the çiftliks. As such, while the villages dominate animal husbandry, workers of the çiftliks also display a considerable participation in this activity, especially when proportioned to the size of each group under question.
Figure 70. Income from animal husbandry: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers (İştip).
Lastly, in order to assess the level of inequality in the distribution of land (in terms of access to land, rather than income) the following calculations were made: The population267 of the district was divided into 4 groups where the first group comprised of the bottom 10%, the second comprised of the top 10%, and the remaining population was divided into two groups with 40% each of the rural population in terms of ownership of grain fields. On this basis, the Gini coefficient was calculated to be 0.62. The same calculation with the population divided into equal shares of 20% also produced the same value. Furthermore, a calculation
267 Including çiftlik-owners and rural residents, i.e. everyone having an interest in the agricultural economy of the district. Outsiders holding scattered parcels of land in villages are excluded. 2%
35%
63%
Income from animal husbandary
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
186
exclusively conducted for the village lands produced a value of 0.48 (which will be discussed in further detail in Section 4.2.2). As such, there exists a certain degree of rural inequality in terms of access to land in the district of İştip in the mid-19th century even when one does not take the çiftliks into consideration.
4.2 Villages, peasants and class relations: The question of inequality in a peasant society
4.2.1 Village population of İştip
In order to have a general sense of the configuration of labour types in the villages, the distribution of income sources provides a point of start. The graph below (Figure 71) displays this distribution according to which engagement in agricultural production constitutes the main source of income, underlining the continuing importance of agricultural production for the economy of the villages of the district as a whole. This is then followed by animal-husbandry and agricultural wage-labour.
Figure 71. Villages of İştip: Distribution of income sources.
81%
9%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
Villages of İştip: Distribution of income sources
Agricultural production Animal-husbandry
Agricultural wage-labour Animal-related wage-labour
Transport and/or provision of wood Transport
Rent Other
Sharecropping
187
Additionally, agricultural production constituted the main source of income for most households, followed by agricultural wage-labour, as can be observed in the table below (Table 63).268
Table 63. Distribution of Village Households by Main Source of Income
Before moving to the details of these branches of activities, the weight of agricultural production in the villages of the district raises the main question of how the agrarian production, the main source of income for the rural district of İştip, is organized. In the idealized Ottoman agrarian universe, a village should mainly comprise of small-holding farmers who rely on family-labour and have a subsistence-oriented, self-sustaining outlook within comparatively similar conditions of life for the entire village community. How does this idealized picture compare with the actual rural conditions in the mid-19th century villages of İştip? How can the general characteristics of the internal organization and composition of the villages be understood? The following charts and tables have been prepared to find an answer, or at least some hints at an answer, to these questions.269
268 14 households which did not have any income registered have been excluded from the calculations. There is still great variety, ranging from 5 kuruş to more than 10300 kuruş.
269 A detailed discussion on the types of labour and their concentration in specific villages will follow in Section 4.2.4.
Main source of incomeNumber of householdsPercentageAgricultural production287678%Agricultural wage-labour42912%Transport and/or provision of wood1123%Animal-related wage-labour902%Other892%Animal Husbandary371%Rent371%Transport17<1%Sharecroping5<1%TOTAL3692100%
188
4.2.2 Distribution of land and the question of rural inequality
The table below (Table 64) displays the distribution of all types of land held by village residents in terms of their size. Here, it becomes further visible that the holding of grain fields leads the way in terms of economic activity, followed by that of vineyards and meadows, for villages.270
Table 64. Distribution of Land Types among Villagers
The graph below (Figure 72) displays the distribution of land calculated on the basis of the ownership of grain fields among all the residents of the villages. Here, the greater majority of the farmers hold land below 50 dönüms while the same data also shows the difference between the smallholding peasantry as against two specific groups of landless villagers and bigger landowning peasants.
270 Revenue also follow this trend -grains followed by vineyards and meadows.
Types of land DönümPercentageGrain fields14180395%Vineyard4106.7753%Meadow 1217.751%Cotton field708<1%"Bostan"492.25<1%Tobacco field390.75<1%Vegetable garden32<1%Onion field9.5<1%Rice field (rice paddy)9<1%TOTAL148769.025100%
189
Figure 72. Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (1).
The table below (Table 65) treats the data on landownership in the villages in a way to demonstrate the respective part of all the grain fields held by each quarter of the village population. In the bottom group, 927 households hold either no land or land of 14 dönüms and below, constituting 3% of all land, totaling 4916 dönüms. The second quarter holds land between 14 and 30 dönüms, constituting 13% of all land, totaling 18992 dönüms. The third quarter holds lands between 30 and 50 dönüms, constituting 25% of all land, totaling 34961.5 dönüms. Lastly, the top group holds land ranging from 50 to 500 dönüms, constituting 58% of all land, totaling 82933.5 dönüms. The graph following the table (Figure 73) visualizes this distribution.
Table 65. Distribution of Land among Villagers of İştip (1)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Village households
Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (ownership of grain fields)
Number of householdsRanges of land ownership (in dönüm)Total (in dönüm)Percentage 9270 - 1449163%92714 - 301899213%92630 - 5034961.525%92650 - 50082933.558%
190
Figure 73. Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (2).
The table and the chart following the table below (Table 66 and Figure 74) demonstrate the same data yet excluding the completely landless 329 households. In this slightly altered version, the bottom quarter holds land between 1 and 17 dönüms, totaling 8662 dönüms (6% of all land). The second quarter holds land between 17 and 30 dönüms, totaling 20166.5 dönüms (14% of all land). The third quarter holds land between 30 and 51 dönüms, totaling 34147.5 dönüms (24% of all land). The top quarter holds land between 51 and 500 dönüms, totaling 78827.5 dönüms of grain fields (56% of all land). As such, the top group here holds 9.1 times the amount of land held by the bottom group.
Table 66. Distribution of Land among Villagers of İştip (2)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
0 - 14 14 - 30 30 - 50 50 - 500
Total dönüm
Ranges of landownership (in dönüm)
Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (2)
Number of householdsRanges of land ownership (in dönüm)Total (in dönüm)Percentage 8451 - 1786626%84417 - 302016614%84430 - 5134147.524%84451 - 50078827.556%
191
Figure 74. Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (3).
Lastly, the table below (Table 67) displays the data on landownership with different points of break, focusing on the ranges of ownership. As such, the results demonstrate that 329 households have no land (9% of all households), 136 households hold land between 1 and 5 dönüms (4% of all households), 320 households hold land between 5.5 and 10 dönüms (9% of all households), 684 households hold land between 10.5 and 20 dönüms (18% of all households), 1386 households hold land between 20.5 and 50 dönüms (37% of all households), 611 households hold land between 50.5 and 100 dönüms (16% of all households), 210 households hold land between 101 and 200 dönüms (6% of all households), 23 households hold land between 205 and 300 dönüms (1% of all households), and a total of 7 households hold land over 300 dönüms, 5 holding land between 305 and 343.5 dönüms, and 2 holding lands of 455 and 500 dönüms. For each group of households, the number and percentages are indicated in the table below (Table 67).
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
1 - 17 17 - 30 30 - 51 51 - 500
Total land (in dönüm)
Ranges of ownership (in dönüm)
Villages of İştip: Distribution of land (3)
192
Table 67. Distribution of Land among Villagers of İştip (3)
The table below has been derived from the same source of data used above in order to present a more detailed picture of landownership in the villages as calculations have been made in order to demonstrate the extent of the inequality of landownership among the village residents through the computing of a Gini coefficient based on the extent of landownership exercised by each group. The resulting Gini coefficient of 0.48 indicates the existence of a certain degree of inequality in landownership in the villages.271 This distribution of land among villagers can be observed in the graph below (Figure 75).
271 Here, the bottom 10% of the village households hold only 91.5 dönüms of grain fields while the top 10% of the households hold grain fields of 48005.5 dönüms, which is about 524.7 times of the former. When the landless are excluded the data demonstrates that the bottom 10% hold grain fields of 2019.5 dönüms while the top 10% hold grain fields of 45224.5 dönüms, which about 22.39 times of the former. When the landless villagers are completely excluded from the calculations, the Gini coefficient is 0.43.
Number of householdsRange of landownership (in dönüm)Percentage in total number of households329no land9%1361 -54%3205.5 - 109%68410.5 - 2018%138620.5 - 5037%61150.5 - 10016%210101 - 2006%23205 - 3001%5305 - 343.5<1%2455 - 500<1%
193
Figure 75. Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (4).
As such, the calculations above together indicate that there is a clear distinction between the lower and the upper segments of the village-residing rural society in terms of landowning in the mid-19th century İştip. As such, the largest tracts of land were concentrated in the hands a fewer number of peasant families while the majority of the farmer households operated on smaller fields, in addition to the presence of a group of landless villagers.
4.2.3 Patterns of settlement: Villages of İştip
The tables and maps below demonstrate the spatial distribution of specific factors among the villages of the district of İştip. In the first group, a sample of villages whereby it was possible to identify a value of inequality in terms of distribution of landowning was selected for calculations. While this list is far from being exhaustive due to various statistical restrictions, it may still provide a glimpse into the general patterns.272 The first table below (Table 68) demonstrates the sizes as well as values of Gini coefficient computed with regard to the inequality in the ownership of grain
272 Here, only villages with number of households above 50 have been taken into account. As such, the list provided is far from being definite and exhaustive; rather, it should be considered as a sample of settlements whose levels of inequality in landowning have been calculated for purposes of demonstration of the complexity and variability of rural structures. 0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
0 - 3 3 - 10 10 - 16 16 - 21 21 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 44 44 - 57 57 - 81 82 - 500
Total land (in dönüm)
Ranges of ownership)
Villagers of İştip: Distribution of land (4)
194
fields for a group of selected villages while the following table (Table 69) displays
the color-coding used in the resulting map (Figure 76).
Table 68. Level of Inequality in Landownership in a Sample of Villages in İştip
Table 69. Colour-coding of (Table 68 / Figure 76)
Settlement Size Gini
Penius 61 0.54
Gorobinci 89 0.50
Radani 58 0.48
Kiliseli (Sv. Nikola) 153 0.48
Selce 70 0.46
Strojisavci 124 0.46
Dobrisani 51 0.45
Durfulija 101 0.43
Kara Osmanlı (Karatmanovo) 65 0.43
Gaber (Gir) 54 0.43
Dragoevo 68 0.40
Nemanjitsa 105 0.39
Bekirlija 58 0.37
Damjan 93 0.36
Şehsuvarlı 86 0.36
Hacı Recepli 61 0.36
Leskovica 104 0.35
Muzanci 69 0.34
Topolnica 60 0.32
Tatarlı (Milino) 71 0.31
Creska 64 0.30
Bucim 53 0.30
Barbarova 53 0.29
Hacı Hamzalı 69 0.23
Gini Colour-code
>0.50 Red
0.49 -0.40 Orange
0.40 - 0.30 Blue
<0.30 Green
195
Figure 76. Inequality of the distribution of landowning in a sample of villages in İştip.
This sample demonstrates that villages with different levels of inequality co-existed in close proximity to each other, similar to the co-existence of çiftliks and villages. Also, villages with lower inequality displayed more presence in the hills compared to çiftliks. This tendency has also been observed in Manastır.
Lastly, the graph below (Figure 77) indicates the extent of inequality between individual villages in terms ownership of grain fields. Here, villages display a considerable degree of divergence in terms of landholding. Considering the overall significance of agricultural production in the rural economy of İştip, such divergence indicates the existence of inequality not only among individual villagers, but also between villages themselves.
196
Figure 77. Distribution of grain fields among villages of İştip.
The map below (Figure 78) displays the settlements where the main source of income is non-agricultural. The colour-coding used in the map is displayed in the following table (Table 70).273
Figure 78. Settlements based on non-agricultural income (İştip).
273 Animal husbandary is the main source of income Kepekcili (Kepekchelija) and transport and provision of wood is the main source of income in Pırnarlı/Pernalı and Muradlı/Muratlija. All three are located on hills. 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
105
109
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Villages
Distribution of grain fields among villages (ownership based)
197
Table 70. Colour-Coding of (Figure 78)
4.2.4 Forms of labour and the question of differentiation
The following tables and charts display the details of landownership and income
sources in relation to the extent of wage-labour in the villages of İştip. The first table
below (Table 71) demonstrates the details of the distribution of various sources of
income in the villages. As a whole, agricultural production retains its importance in
general, followed by animal husbandry and wage-labour. As such, before moving to
the more meaningful question of who survives by doing what under this umbrella, a
detailed exposition of this distribution is provided below.
Table 71. Income Sources of Villages of İştip
Type of activity Colour-coding
Animal husbandary Purple
Transport and provision of wood Brown
Agriculture Green
Category Income (in kuruş) Percentage in total income Occupations
Agricultural
production 2539683.5 81%
Animal-husbandry 290761 9%
Agricultural wagelabour
109655 4%
hizmetkar, orakçı, teroğlanı,
harmancı, dörtlemeci
Animal-related
wage-labour 47979 2% çoban, öküzcü, sığırtmaç
Transport and/or
provision of wood 45875 1% hatabkeş, oduncu
Transport 34481 1% kiracı
Rent 17548.5 1%
Other 37500 1%
Sharecropping 7985 0%
çömlekçi, dülger, sergici,
şürugancı, kahya, bekçi, imam,
terzi, terzi çırağı, nalband, hancı,
papaz, abacı, değirmenci, kömür
yakıcı/kömürcü, hatab ve kömür
yakımı, misc
TOTAL 3131468 100%
198
In the chart below (Figure 79), main agrarian income sources are indicated.
Figure 79. Agrarian income sources of villages of İştip.
In the chart below (Figure 80), main non-agrarian income sources are indicated. Here, the level of occupational differentiation is much lower than Manastır as the only formidable individual alternatives are transportation as well as transport and provision of wood.
Figure 80. Non-agricultural income sources of villages of İştip.
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
Annual income (in kuruş)
Agricultural sources of income
Agricultural sources of income
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Transport and/or
provision of wood
Transport Rent Other
Annual income (in kuruş)
Non-agricultural sources of income
Non-agricultural sources of income
199
Then, how are these activities related to traditional agricultural production and small-holding peasantry? What is the nature of the relationship between peasant farmers and agricultural wage-workers?
The labour relations noted in the village registers are mostly relations of wage-labour between the villagers themselves whereby agricultural and animal-husbandry related wage-workers are employed by their wealthier neighbors in the villages. Nevertheless, there are some cases of employment by çiftlik-owners as well. Unfortunately, in the sources, it was possible to identify relations of wage-labour only when peasant households were indicated as the specific employers of wage-workers (mostly “hizmetkar”) since the latter were not only landless, but also houseless, and were specifically indicated to dwell in the lodgings of their employers.274 As such, it was not possible to trace the employers of the workers holding a dwelling or a piece of land and a few animals. In the registers, the specific employers of around 160 worker households have been identified. Sometimes, multiple wage-workers were living in the household of a specific peasant family, indicating that the latter’s employment of wage-labour was relatively significant. Other than wage-labour, 3 relations of sharecropping have been observed in the registers. In these cases, one landowner was also the owner of a çiftlik and another one owned a winter pasture (“kışlak”). Overall, villagers are noted to own a total of 5 mills, 2 çiftliks and a winter pasture in the sources.275
Even at this level of information, it is possible to detect that the relations between the members of the different segments of the peasantry is far from being one
274 Formulated in the clauses of “X hanesinde mütemekkin” as well as “ağası X hanesinde mütemekkin”. Around 30 households are specifically indicated to lack land or housing or both. In such cases, the clauses of “emlak ve araziye bir nesnesi dahi olmayub”, “emlağa dair bir nesnesi olmayub” or “hanesinden başka bir nesnesi olmayub” are used. Nevertheless, such notes remain to be only cursory in the registers. Also, 3 people are noted to be missing (“nerede olduğu bilinmiyor”), implying flight.
275 These are also cursory notes. The number of peasant çiftlik-owners as identified in the registers of respective çiftliks turned out to be much higher than indicated in the village registers.
200
of equals. Rather, there are considerable gaps between the members of the agrarian society -between a segment of land and property-owning, labour-employing peasantry, a group of small-holding farmers mainly relying on family-labour while sometimes getting engaged in supplementary activities for additional sources of income, and the existence of a completely dispossessed group of rural residents, even though the relative weight of each group differs in the districts under study. As such, there is no single type of villager and the existing networks as well as relations of labour between the members of the peasantry are quite complex.
As discussed in relation to Manastır (See: 3.2.4), the mere existence or the absence of wage-labour as a source of income in a household falls short of properly indicating the economic position of the peasant family under question. Accordingly, a number of relations between landownership (of grain fields) and involvement in different forms of economic activity have been established in the following tables. Here, the main purpose is to identify the degree of dependency on the food market.276
The first table below (Table 72) displays the rate of acquisition of different sources of income by the landless families of the district compared to all village households.
Table 72. Income Sources of Landless Villagers of İştip
276 4 households with no income and 8 households that were engaged in production on rented lands have been excluded from the calculations. As such, 317 out of 329 landless households are included in the calculations.
Income sourcesIncome obtained by landless households (in kuruş)Percentage of the income earned by landless households in all village householdsIncome obtained by all households (in kuruş)Agricultural wage-labour3774534%109655Animal-related wage-labour899519%47979Other 34859%37500Animal Husbandary98693%290761Transport and/or provision of wood29056%45875Transport26508%34481Agricultural income7807.5<1%2539683.5Sharecropping86011%7985
201
Foremost observations based on the table above are as follows:
Around one-third of the total income from wage-labour is obtained by the landless households of the district. As such, agricultural wages should have a primary character for this group while it is likely to be a supplementary source of income to agricultural production for the remaining (yet, the ratio between the two variables is crucial for the general character of peasants under question). This is followed by animal-related wage-labour, sharecropping, transport, and transport/provision of wood.
The table below (Table 73) displays all the income sources of landless village population as the main source of income has been calculated for each landless village household. Here, agricultural wage-labour constitutes the main source of income for 67% of the landless; this is followed by animal-related wage-labour which constitutes the main source of income for 13% of the landless households. As such, engagement in agricultural wage-labour is the most significant source of income for the landless population of villages.
Table 73. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of İştip (Number of Households)
Landless village householdsMain source of incomeNumber of householdsPercentageAgricultural wage-labour21367%Animal-related wage-labour4013%Other 175%Transport and/or provision of wood155%Transport103%Agricultural income144%Animal Husbandary72%Sharecropping10%TOTAL317100%
202
The table below (Table 74) displays the relative weight of all the income sources
obtained by the landless villagers. Once again, income from agricultural wage-labour
constitutes the bulk of the income bundle.
Table 74. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of İştip (Level of Income)
While the categorization of the data in the table above simply divides the rural
population between the landless and the landowning, without regard to the extent and
nature of the latter, the series of tables below aim to provide a more nuanced
exposition of the relationship between degrees of landownership and the most
important form of economic activity after independent farming and animal
husbandry – that is, agricultural wage-labour.
Table 75. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the
Villages of İştip (1)
As Table 75 shows, the households in the bottom group, holding 7% of all village
land, earn 66% of the total income from agricultural wage-labour while 23% is
obtained by the households holding land between 18 and 40 dönüms (25% of all
Landless village households
Income sources Income (in kuruş) Income (percentage)
Agricultural wage-labour 37745.5 51%
Animal-related wage-labour 8995 12%
Other 3485 5%
Animal Husbandary 9869 13%
Transport and/or provision of wood 2905 4%
Transport 2650 4%
Agricultural income 7807.5 11%
Sharecropping 860 1%
All fields (dönüm)
Ranges of ownership
(dönüm)
Number of
households
Total land
(dönüm)
Percentage in
total land
Income from agricultural
wage-labour (kuruş)
Percentage in total
agricultural wage-labour
0 - 18 1236 9748.5 7% 71960 66%
18 - 40 1235 35214.5 25% 24705 23%
40 - 500 1235 96840 68% 12990 12%
TOTAL 3706 141803 100% 109655 100%
203
village land) and remaining 12% is obtained by the households holding land over 40
dönüms (68% of all land).
Of the 676 households obtaining an income from agricultural wage-labour,
229 are completely landless while the remaining households hold a total of 11883
dönüms of land which constitutes 8% of all land indicating the existence of a degree
of market dependency in the form of the erosion of the traditional (and relative)
peasant self-sufficiency. Here, the average income from agricultural wage-labour per
household is 162.21 kuruş. The relevant data is displayed in the tables below (Table
76 and Table 77).
Table 76. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the
Villages of İştip (2)
Table 77. Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of İştip
As Table 78 indicates in general lines, the households in the bottom group, holding
7% of all village land, earn 36% of the total income from engagement in animalrelated
wage-labour while 35% is obtained by households holding land between 18
and 40 dönüms (25% of all village land) and 29% is obtained by the households
holding land over 40 dönüms (68% of all village land). In general, therefore,
engagement in animal-related wage-labour has a largely supplementary character.
Agricultural wage-labour
Total landownership of land by
earners of agricultural wage-labour
(dönüm) 11883
Total land (dönüm) 141803
Percentage 8%
Agricultural wage-labour
Number of households 676
Income from agricultural wage-labour
(kuruş) 109655
Average per household (kuruş) 162.21
204
Table 78. Landownership and Income from Animal-Husbandry Related Wage
Labour in the Villages of İştip (1)
Of the 344 households obtaining an income from animal-related wage-labour, 61 are
completely landless while the remaining households hold a total of 12022 dönüms of
land which constitutes 8% of all land. Here, the average income from animal-related
wage-labour per household is 139.47 kuruş. The relevant data is displayed in the
tables below (Table 79 and Table 80).
Table 79. Landownership and Income from Animal-Husbandry Related Wage
Labour in the Villages of İştip (2)
Table 80. Income from Animal-Husbandry Related Wage Labour in the Villages of
İştip
Lastly, based on the data below (Table 81), it is safe to argue that of all the rural
population in the district of İştip, only 11% refrains from engagement in nonagricultural
activities, especially concerning production of grains (i.e., food), while
9% is completely cut-off from it and pursue alternative directions.
Animal-husbandary
related wage-labour
Ranges of ownership
(dönüm)
Number of
households
Total land
(dönüm)
Percentage
in total land
Income from animal-husbandary
related wage-labour (kuruş)
Percentage in total animalhusbandary
related wage-labour
0 - 18 1236 9748.5 7% 17370 36%
18 - 40 1235 35214.5 25% 16600 35%
40 - 500 1235 96840 68% 14009 29%
TOTAL 3706 141803 100% 47979 100%
Animal-husbandary related wage-labour
Total landownership of land by earners of animalhusbandary
related wage-labour (dönüm) 12022
Total land (dönüm) 141803
Percentage 8%
Animal-husbandary related wage-labour
Number of households 344
Income from agricultural wage-labour (kuruş) 47979
Average per household (kuruş) 139.47
205
Table 81. Dependency on Food Market in the Villages of İştip
4.3 Çiftliks, landowners and producers: Land, labour and agricultural production
4.3.1 Organization of labour and types of çiftliks
In the income survey registers, 4 main types of çiftliks have been identified on the
basis of the form of labour employed. The chart in Figure 81 displays the distribution
of çiftlik workers among different types of çiftliks. In İştip, 61% of çiftlik workers
resided in çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour, 19%
of çiftlik workers resided in çiftliks based on sharecropping, 14% of çiftlik workers
resided in çiftliks based on wage-labour, and 6% of çiftlik cultivators consisted of
tenant farmers. The chart in Figure 82 displays the distribution of individual çiftliks
among different types of çiftliks. In İştip, 46% of çiftliks are based on sharecropping,
30% of çiftliks are based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour, 20%
of çiftliks are based on wage-labour, and 4% of çiftliks are based on tenancy.
Figure 81. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftlik workers (İştip).
Number of households Percentage in all households
No income 14 <1%
No non-agricultural income 395 11%
No grain fields 329 9%
14%
19%
61%
6%
Çiftlik types by number of çiftlik workers (number of households)
Wage-labour ("hizmetkar" only) Sharecropping ("şerik" only)
Sharecropping and wage-labour Rent ("müstecir")
206
Figure 82. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftliks (İştip).
As such, it is evident that sharecropping constitutes the most prevalent form of labour arrangement while tenancy (“isticar”) remains to be the least common method. Furthermore, the presence of çiftliks exclusively based on wage-labour is much more prevalent than Manastır.
In the district of İştip, the çiftliks based on the exclusive use of wage-labour consist of 171 households in 69 çiftliks the majority of which is constituted by wage-labourers, or “hizmetkar”, who can be defined as wage workers engaged in long-term labour arrangements, rather than being temporary or based on the performance of a specific type of labour. Other than the predominance of the “hizmetkar”, these çiftliks contain a few specialized workers as well as day labourers as well, including a few “ırgat”, “orakçı”, “teroğlanı”, “çoban”, and “sığırtmaç”. Besides the more permanent category of labourers, therefore, a number of temporary and specific labour types are also employed in the çiftliks based on agricultural wage-labour.277 The number of labourer households in çiftliks based on wage labour range from 1 to 8, with a mean of 2.47 and a median of 2 (Figure 83).
277 In this category, the existence of two wage-workers obtaining a share from the çiftlik-owner (“ağasından aldığı hisse”) has been observed, even though these workers are specifically defined as “servants” in the registers and the lands in this çiftlik are not registered in the way lands under sharecropping are always registered. Is it possible that these workers have a responsibility of supervision? 20%
46%
30%
4%
Çiftlik types by number of çiftliks
Wage-labour ("hizmetkar" only) Sharecropping ("şerik" only)
Sharecropping and wage-labour Rent ("müstecir")
207
Figure 83. Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourers’ households (İştip).
The çiftliks exclusively based on sharecropping arrangements consist of 239 sharecropping households in 157 çiftliks. Of these, only 7 households do not have any source of income other than their shares from agricultural production under sharecropping. As such, 232 households obtain income from independent agricultural production, animal husbandry, as well as various types of wage-labour and activities of transport, carpentry, milling etc. In the majority of çiftliks based on sharecropping, agricultural produce is divided in half after “aşar” is subtracted while the division favors the landowner in a number of cases. Shares are mostly equal among multiple sharecroppers while a number of divergences have been observed as well. The number of sharecroppers’ households in this type of çiftliks range from 1 to 7, with a mean of 1.52 and a median of 1 (Figure 84).
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951535557596163656769
Number of labourer households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourer households
208
Figure 84. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of sharecroppers’ households (İştip).
The çiftliks of mixed labour type are mainly based on sharecropping with the additional employment of wage-labour, both in its permanent and temporary / function specific versions. Of the total number of 749 households resident in this type of çiftliks, 361 households consist of sharecropping families, the members of which are often engaged in additional sources of income. The remaining residents in this category of çiftliks mainly comprise of wage workers.278 In most of the çiftliks based on this combination, the general rule is also that agricultural produce is divided in half after “aşar” is subtracted. Shares are often equal among multiple sharecroppers. Nevertheless, there are also several cases in this group whereby the division proceeds in favor of the landowner. In some cases, there are also considerable variations regarding the share given to each sharecropper in a given çiftlik. The number of households in these çiftliks range from 2 to 60, with a mean of 7.2 and a median of 5 (Figure 85).
278 In this category, the existence of nine wage-workers obtaining a share from the çiftlik-owner (“ağasından aldığı hisse”) has been observed. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
156
Number of sharecroppers'
households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of sharecroppers'
households
209
Figure 85. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Number of households (İştip).
Of the total number of 1235 households of çiftlik workers residing in 342 çiftliks, 1203 households have been indicated to dwell in lodgings belonging to their landowners.279 Of these çiftlik workers, 2 wage-labourers have been noted to have rented out grain fields of 6 dönüms and 15 dönüms. As both of these wage-labourers were devoid of draught animals, that fact that they rented out their fields to work in çiftliks as wage-workers attests to the relationship between the owning of oxen and the formation of sharecropping arrangements. Of the sharecroppers of çiftliks, two households are noted to have rented out mills, from which they earn incomes of rent of 150 kuruş and 80 kuruş respectively. In general, the workers of 19 çiftliks of a total of 361 çiftliks were not registered. As such, it seems reasonable to assume that they might have been coming from nearby çiftliks and villages, which attests to the existence of labour mobility and interaction between different forms of settlement.280
279 Of these, 221 households are specifically noted to dwell in the houses of their “ağa”. 5 households are specifically indicated to dwell in their own houses.
280 Other than various forms of land and animals, in terms of property, the list goes as follows: 1 çiftlik-owner own a wood grove (“hatab korusu”) of 40 dönüm, 1 çiftlik-owner owns a winter pasture (“kışlak”) of 200 dönüm, 5 çiftlik-owners have rented-out inns generating a total rent of 1420 kuruş, 1 çiftlik-owner has a rented-out store generating a rent of 1250 kuruş, 4 çiftlik-owners have rented out mills and 1 çiftlik-owner has a mill. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
Number of households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wagelabour:
Number of households
210
The details of such co-existence can be observed in the map below (Figure 86)281. The colour-coding is indicated in Table 82.
Figure 86. Çiftliks and villages of İştip.
Table 82. Colour-Coding of (Figure 86)
4.3.2 Patterns of ownership and agricultural production
The following charts have been prepared to demonstrate the distribution of landownership across as well as within different types of çiftliks.
281 This map is a more detailed version of the map in Figure 59 (Section 4.1.1) Level of çiftlik formationColour coding0White0.03 - 0.28Orange0.32 - 0.49Pink0.5 - 0.77Blue0.8 - 0.97Navy blue1Green star
211
Figure 87. Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types (İştip).
The chart on Figure 87 displays that the majority of the grain fields in the çiftliks of the district are mainly concentrated under arrangements of sharecropping while 15% is exclusively under wage-labour.
The two tables below (Table 83 and Table 84) display the basic information of landownership for all types of land in different types of çiftliks. In Table 83, percentages have been calculated with reference to the total amount of land for each type of çiftlik; in Table 84, percentages demonstrate which part of each type of land is apportioned to each type of çiftlik. Here, both calculations attest to the importance of grain fields in terms of landholding practices.
Table 83. Landownership in the Çiftliks of İştip (1)
54%
28%
15%
2% 1%
Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types
Çiftliks based on combination of labour types Çiftliks based on sharecropping
Çiftliks based on wage-labour Money rent
Misc
Grain fieldsMeadowVineyardCotton fieldWinter pastureBostan tarlasıSesame fieldTobacco fieldWood groveRice fieldVegetable gardenTOTALTypes of çiftlikDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageÇiftliks based on wage-labour1483999%891%86.251%1.50%00%60%00%10.50%00%10%10%15034.3100%Çiftliks based on sharecropping2664898%248.51%2851%330%00%180%00%220%400%00%40%27298.5100%Çiftliks based on combination of labour types 52408.597%2891%563.251%1770%2000%1660%770%31.50%00%270%15.50%53954.8100%Money rent2311.599%110%161%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%30%2341.5100%Misc1083.597%21.52%4.750%00%00%00%00%00%00%20%2.50%1114.25100%
212
Table 84. Landownership in the Çiftliks of İştip (2)
The series of tables and charts below display the landownership data for each
different type of çiftlik separately. The table below (Table 85) displays the
distribution of the ownership of all types of land between the çiftlik-owners and the
wage-labourers in the çiftliks based on wage-labour. In general, the majority of the
lands consist of grain fields, followed by meadows and then vineyards. Here, the
ownership of grain fields and meadows are almost completely monopolized by the
çiftlik-owners.
Table 85. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour (İştip)
Regarding all of the çiftliks based on wage-labour, the biggest agglomeration of
fields held by a çiftlik-owner in a single çiftlik comprises of 626 dönüms while the
average is 212.63 with a median of 180. The distribution of the grain fields among
Grain
fields Meadow Vineyard
Cotton
field
Winter
pasture
Bostan
tarlası
Sesame
field
Tobacco
field
Wood
grove Rice field
Vegetable
garden
Types of çiftlik Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Çiftliks based on
wage-labour 14839 15% 89 14% 86.25 9% 1.5 1% 0 0% 6 3% 0 0% 10.5 16% 0 0% 1 3% 1 4%
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping 26648 27% 248.5 38% 285 30% 33 16% 0 0% 18 9% 0 0% 22 34% 40 100% 0 0% 4 15%
Çiftliks based on
combination of
labour types 52408.5 54% 289 44% 563.25 59% 177 84% 200 100% 166 87% 77 100% 31.5 49% 0 0% 27 90% 15.5 60%
Money rent 2311.5 2% 11 2% 16 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 12%
Misc 1083.5 1% 21.5 3% 4.75 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 2 7% 2.5 10%
TOTAL 97290.5 100% 659 100% 955.25 100% 211.5 100% 200 100% 190 100% 77 100% 64 100% 40 100% 30 100% 26 100%
Çiftliks based on
wage labour
Çiftlik-owner
(dönüm)
Çiftlik worker
(dönüm)
TOTAL
(dönüm)
Çiftlik-owner
(percentage)
Çiftlik worker
(percentage)
TOTAL
(percentage)
Grain fields 14672 167 14839 99% 1% 100%
Meadow 88 1 89 99% 1% 100%
Vineyard 27.5 58.75 86.25 32% 68% 100%
Cotton field 1.5 0 1.5 100% 0% 100%
Bostan 6 0 6 100% 0% 100%
Vegetable
garden 1 0 1 100% 0% 100%
Tobacco field 10 0.5 10.5 95% 5% 100%
Rice field 1 0 1 100% 0%
TOTAL 14807 227.25 15034.25 98% 2% 100%
213
this type of çiftliks is displayed in the chart below (Figure 88).282
Figure 88. Çiftliks based on wage labour: Grain fields of çiftliks-owners (İştip).
The table below (Table 86) displays the distribution of the ownership of all types of land between çiftlik-owners and sharecroppers in the çiftliks based exclusively on sharecropping. In general, the majority of the lands consist of grain fields, followed by meadows and vineyards. Here, the çiftlik-owners display almost complete presence in the ownership of grain fields and meadows while the greater part of the vineyards is held by çiftlik workers.
Table 86. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping (İştip)
282 In this category, 1 çiftlik owner is defined as “müstecir-i çiftlik” having rented grain fields of 108.5 dönüms under wage-labour. 1 çiftlik-owner rent fields of 38 dönüms in addition to his fields of 47 dönüms. 1 çiftlik-owner rents meadows of 5 dönüms. The çiftlik workers rent grain fields of 36 dönüms, gardens of 4 dönüms, and tobacco fields of 9 dönüms in addition to their work in the çiftliks. 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 3 5 7 9 111315171921232527293133353739414345474951535557596163656769
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners
Çiftliks based on sharecroppingÇiftlik-owner (dönüm)Çiftlik worker (dönüm)TOTAL (dönüm)Çiftlik-owner (percentage)Çiftlik worker (percentage)TOTAL (percentage)Grain fields25690.5957.52664896%4%100%Meadow222.526248.590%10%100%Vineyard 5223328518%82%100%Cotton field33033100%0%100%Bostan1711894%6%100%Vegetable garden31475%25%100%Tobacco field1842282%18%100%Wood grove40040100%0%100%TOTAL260761222.527298.596%4%100%
214
Regarding all of the çiftliks based exclusively on sharecropping, the biggest agglomeration of all fields held by the çiftlik-owner in a single çiftlik consists of 1482.5 dönüms of land while the average is 163.63 with a median of 126.5. The distribution of the fields among this type of çiftliks is displayed in the chart below (Figure 89).283
Figure 89. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (İştip).
The table below (Table 87) displays the distribution of the ownership of all types of land between the çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers in the çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour. In general, the majority of the lands consist of grain fields, followed by vineyards and then meadows. Here, the çiftlik-owners hold practically all of the grain fields, and dominated the ownership of meadows while the çiftlik workers display a significant presence in the ownership of vineyards.
283 In this category, 1 çiftlik owner is defined as “müstecir-i çiftlik” while the lands under cultivation are registered as his own. 1 çiftlik-owner rents tobacco fields of 0.5 dönüm. The sharecroppers rent grain fields of 36.5 dönüms, cotton fields of 2 dönüms, gardens of 4.5 dönüms, tobacco fields of 10.5 dönüms, and meadows of 10.5 dönüms. 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
156
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners
215
Table 87. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on the Combination of
Sharecropping and Wage Labour
Regarding all of the çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wagelabour,
the biggest agglomeration of grain fields under sharecropping arrangements
consists of more than 2500 dönüms with an average of 501.7 and a median of 399.
This category is where the biggest production operations are taking place, in addition
to the greater number of producers employed (Figure 90).284
Figure 90. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour:
Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (İştip)
284 1 çiftlik-owner rents grain fields of 40 dönüms, 1 çiftlik-owner rents gardens of 3 dönüms. The
çiftlik workers rent grain fields of 321.5 döüms, cotton fields of 5 dönüms, tobacco fields of 38
dönüms, meadows of 22.5 dönüms, and rice fields of 1 dönüm. Also there is one tenant among the
çiftlik residents renting grain fields of 135 dönüms, which constitute half of the fields of the çiftlikowner,
while the other half is under sharecropping.
Çiftliks based on combination
of labour types
Çiftlik-owner
(dönüm)
Çiftlik worker
(dönüm)
TOTAL
(dönüm)
Çiftlik-owner
(percentage)
Çiftlik worker
(percentage)
TOTAL
(percentage)
Grain fields 52185 223.5 52408.5 100% 0% 100%
Meadow 285 4 289 99% 1% 100%
Vineyard 78 485.25 563.25 14% 86% 100%
Cotton field 174 3 177 98% 2% 100%
"Bostan" 163 3 166 98% 2% 100%
Vegetable garden 12.5 3 15.5 81% 19% 100%
Tobacco field 29.5 2 31.5 94% 6% 100%
Winter pasture 200 0 200 100% 0% 100%
Sesame field 77 0 77 100% 0% 100%
Rice field 27 0 27 100% 0% 100%
TOTAL 53231 723.75 53954.75 99% 1% 100%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on the combination of labour types: Grain fields
held by çiftlik-owners
216
To sum up, the table below (Table 88) summarizes the distribution of all types of land between çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers for all the çiftliks located in the district of İştip whereby the majority of the lands, and mainly grain fields, is monopolized by the çiftlik-owners while the producers display their main presence in the ownership of vineyards.
Table 88. Distribution of All Types of Land among Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Workers (İştip)
All in all, the çiftlik economy of İştip was mainly based on the ownership of grain fields and production of grains. Grains were not confined to wheat, but it was practically the most significant product in the çiftlik economy of İştip of the mid-19th century. In the following charts, the respective amounts of income obtained from grain production on fields held by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik-workers are displayed in comparison.285
The chart below (Figure 91) displays the distribution of the revenue obtained from the production of grains on the fields of çiftlik-owners. Here, the main income originates from the production of wheat, constituting 51% of total revenue obtained
285 Unit prices of grains (in kuruş per kile) as calculated on the basis of agricultural tax, are as follows: Wheat (“Hınta”): 10; Rye (“Çavdar”): 6; Barley (“Şair”): 5; Oat (“Alef”): 3; Corn (“Mısır”): 6; Vetch (“Burçak”): 4.
Land types Çiftlik-owners (dönüm)Çiftlik workers (dönüm)TOTAL (dönüm)Çiftlik-owners (percentage)Çiftlik workers (percentage)Grain fields95858.5143297290.599%1%Meadow6283165995%5%Vineyard164.75790.5955.2517%83%Cotton field208.53211.599%1%Winter pasture2000200100%0%Bostan tarlası186419098%2%Sesame field77077100%0%Tobacco field57.56.56490%10%Wood grove40040100%0%Rice field30030100%0%Vegetable garden2242685%15%TOTAL (dönüm)97472.25227199743.2598%2%
217
from the production of grains, followed by barley, constituting 26%, and then by rye, constituting 19%. These are followed by oats (3%) and corn (1%).286
Figure 91. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners (İştip).
The chart below (Figure 92) displays the distribution of the revenue obtained from the production of grains on the fields of çiftlik-workers. Here, the main revenue originates from production of wheat, constituting 40% of total income obtained from grains, followed by rye, constituting 23%, and then by barley, constituting 21%. These are followed by corn (10%), vetch (4%) and oats (2%).
286 Millet (“erzen”) of 6 kiles is produced in only 1 çiftlik and it has not been included in the calculations. Also chickpeas of 296 kıyye have been excluded. 51%
26%
19%
3% 1% 0%
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
40%
21%
23%
10%
4% 2%
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik workers
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak") Oat ("Alef")
218
Figure 92. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik workers (İştip).
The series of charts below display the same distribution for each specific type of çiftlik.287 While the specific percentages vary, the general pattern is the same, in decreasing importance: wheat – barley – rye (Figures 93, 94, and 95).
Figure 93. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wage labour (İştip).
Figure 94. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on sharecropping (İştip).
287 Land of the çiftlik-owner. 21% 58%
17%
3% 1% 0%
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wagelabour
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
48%
25%
22%
3% 1% 1%
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
219
Figure 95. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour (İştip).
The graph below (Figure 96) combines the data given separately in the three charts above.
Figure 96. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik types (İştip).
Lastly, the distribution of grains in terms of their amount can be observed in the chart below (Figure 97 and Figure 98). 51%
27%
18%
3% 1% 0%
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftliks based on
combination of labour types
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
Çiftliks based on wage-labour Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour types
Revenue (Kuruş)
Çiftlik types
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik types
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
220
Figure 97. Grains from the fields of çiftlik-owners of İştip.
Figure 98. Grains from the fields of çiftlik workers of İştip.
The tables below (Table 89 and Table 90) display the lands under cultivation and the revenue obtained from them in the lands owned by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik-workers.
Table 89. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of İştip (1)
35%
35%
22%
7%
1% 0% 0%
Grains (in kile): Fields of çiftlik-owners
Wheat ("Hınta")
Barley ("Şair")
Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef")
Corn ("Mısır")
Vetch ("Burçak")
Millet ("Erzen")
26%
27%
24%
11%
7% 5%
Grains (in kile): Fields of çiftlik workers
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak") Oat ("Alef")
Çiftlik-ownerÇiftlik workerTotalAgricultural produceKuruşPercentageKuruşPercentageKuruşPercentageGrains1175376.594%76462.56%1251839100%Vineyard557016%30302.584%35872.5100%Meadows1412080%344520%17565100%Sesame fields1250100%00%1250100%Cotton fields522094%3306%5550100%"Bostan"268593%212.57%2897.5100%Vegetable garden111512%833088%9445100%Tobacco field580047%644053%12240100%Rice field235094%1506%2500100%
221
Table 90. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of İştip (2)
The present analysis of the means of production will be concluded with the
exposition of the data on the ownership of draught animals. The following tables
(Table 91, Table 92 and Table 93) and the graphs derived from them (Figure 99 and
Figure 100) demonstrate the distribution of draught animals between çiftlik-owners
and producers for each type of çiftlik. In relation to workforce and land, the çiftliks
based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour contains most of the
draught animals, followed by çiftliks based on sharecropping and çiftliks based on
wage-labour. 288
Table 91. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour (İştip)
Table 92. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping (İştip)
288 Categories of animals include “öküz, öküz manda, erkek manda, kısır manda, manda, çift mandası,
bargir, hatabkeş merkeb/bargir, hergele bargir, kiracı bargir, merkeb, katır, kısır inek, kısrak.”
Çiftlik-owner Çiftlik worker
Agricultural produce Kuruş Percentage Kuruş Percentage
Grains 1175376.5 97% 76462.5 61%
Vineyard 5570 <1% 30302.5 24%
Meadows 14120 1% 3445 3%
Sesame fields 1250 <1% 0 0%
Cotton fields 5220 <1% 330 <1%
"Bostan" 2685 <1% 212.5 <1%
Vegetable garden 1115 <1% 8330 7%
Tobacco field 5800 <1% 6440 5%
Rice field 2350 <1% 150 <1%
TOTAL 1213486.5 100% 125672.5 100%
Çiftliks based on
wage-labour
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 195 84% 401 90% 112 32%
Çiftlik worker 37 16% 45 10% 243 68%
Total 232 100% 446 100% 355 100%
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 293 38% 338 39% 91 11%
Çiftlik worker 472 62% 518 61% 773 89%
Total 765 100% 856 100% 864 100%
222
Table 93. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping
and Wage Labour (İştip)
Figure 99. Distribution of draught animals among çiftlik types in İştip.
Figure 100. Ownership of draught animals by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers of
İştip.
The çiftliks exclusively based on wage-labour and sharecropping display quite
different characteristics as long as production arrangements can be considered as
Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour types
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 423 34% 738 45% 170 11%
Çiftlik worker 813 66% 911 55% 1315 89%
Total 1236 100% 1649 100% 1485 100%
15%
56% 29%
Distribution of draught animals among çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour
Çiftliks based on sharecropping
Çiftliks based on the combination of labour types
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Çiftliks based on wage-labour Çiftliks based on sharecropping Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour types
Number of draught animals
Çiftlik types
Ownership of draught animals
Çiftlik-owner Çiftlik worker
223
different combinations of the modules of land, labour and draught animals, which constitute the only visible categories in the sources under study. In the former, the çiftlik-owners not only provide the land, but also the draught animals in the majority of cases, which constitute the main tool of production in a traditional agrarian setting. In the latter, sharecroppers contribute a significant part of draught animals to the production process. As such, the ownership of draught animals, and especially of oxen, may constitute one of the main lines of division between the possibility of a landless rural producer to work as a sharecropper or as a wage-worker. Nevertheless, an important difference between İştip and Manastır is the higher rate of the contribution of draught animals by the çiftlik-owners in çiftliks based on sharecropping and combination of sharecropping and wage-labour in the former than the latter, which implies that the content of sharecropping arrangements might have been slightly different in these districts.
4.3.3 Çiftlik-owners of İştip
In the first part of the present chapter, based on the data derived from the temettuat registers of rural İştip, it has been demonstrated that çiftlik-owners had control over a quarter of the labour-force as well as around 40% of the total amount of cultivable land within the district. As such, it has been argued that, in the district of İştip in the mid-19th century, there was a certain degree of concentration of the main factors of production, and especially land, in the hands of a group of landowners, who did not themselves directly engage in agricultural production -in the fashion of small-holding farmers- but appropriated a part of the agricultural surplus due their monopoly over landownership, against the background of a mainly rural society a portion of which was completely dispossessed.
224
In this context, the question of the internal configuration of this specific group of landowners comes to the fore with renewed importance in the face of the existence of a degree of inequality and stratification in the villages and the cases of employment of the labour of fellow villagers by the richer segments of the peasantry as well as the cases of çiftlik-owners with rural roots in addition to the traditional members of the powerful ayan families and people of various urban backgrounds residing in the central town of the district. For the purpose of understanding the social and economic characteristics of a broad group legally labelled as “sahib-i çiftlik”, the temettuat surveys of rural İştip has been analyzed in combination with the temettuat survey of the central town of İştip.289
To start with, the graph below (Figure 101) displays the distribution of the çiftliks of İştip on the basis of their size as the initial results indicate the existence of considerable divergence.290
Figure 101. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks (İştip) (1).
289 The temettuat survey of the central town of İştip is registered in the defter titled BOA ML.VRD.TMT.d.11425.
290 Here, the calculations have been made on the basis of ownership of grain fields by çiftlik-owners for each specific çiftlik.The lands under the possession of the çiftlik residents as well as one entry with the value of 0 have been excluded. 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1
12
23
34
45
56
67
78
89
100
111
122
133
144
155
166
177
188
199
210
221
232
243
254
265
276
287
298
309
320
331
342
353
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Çiftliks
Sizes of çiftliks (ownership of grain fields by çiftlik-owners)
225
The table below (Table 94) displays the general distribution of çiftliks according to their size, again with a focus on the extent of landownership by çiftlik-owners in individual çiftliks. In the first two columns of this table, the çiftliks of İştip have been divided into 10 equal parts each of which consist of 36 çiftliks on the basis of their size in an ascending order.291 In the third column, specific ranges have been indicated for the sizes of each 10% portion of the çiftliks. The following columns express in percentages and in average values, the size of each group of çiftliks under question. As the table demonstrates, the top 10% of the çiftliks encompasses almost 40% of the total çiftlik land in the district while this latter value steadily decreases, reaching a minimum of 1% for the bottom 10% of the çiftliks operating in the region.
Table 94. Distribution of the Çiftlik Sizes of İştip
291 1 entry with the value of 0 has been excluded.
Number of çiftlik unitsPercentage in all çiftlik unitsÇiftlik size (ranges in dönüm)Çiftlik land (total dönüm)Çiftlik land (percentage)Average land per çiftlik (dönüm)3610%4.5 - 481016.51%28.243610%50 - 702097.52%58.263610%74 - 952930.53%81.403610%97 - 12940114%111.423610%130 - 1605295.56%147.103610%163 - 21367407%187.223610%213.5 - 29088439%245.643610%290 - 39012014.513%333.743610%390 - 564.51758118%488.363610%570 - 25003532937%981.36Total360100%95858.5100%266.27
226
The chart below (Figure 102) has been derived from the data in Table 91 in order to display the percentages of total land in each range of çiftliks.
Figure 102. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks (İştip) (2).
All in all, the data under analysis so far not only demonstrates that there are many divergences among individual çiftliks in terms of organization of labour and size, but it also indicates that the title of “sahib-i çiftlik” is applied to a broad variety of landholder types: On the one hand, there is the group of bigger çiftliks the owners of which keep great amounts of cultivable land under their control, and also control a considerable part of the labour-force of rural society and consequently attain significant levels of agricultural revenue. At the same time, there is even a larger number of çiftliks the owners of which control much humbler amounts of land and revenue, and are engaged in simpler configurations of labour relations.
Regarding all of the çiftlik-owners in the district of İştip, excluding five figures about whom there is no information, the greater majority resides in the central town of the district, while 23 çiftlik-owners have been indicated to be village residents and 53 çiftlik-owners have been noted to reside in other districts. 0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
4.5 - 48 50 - 70 74 - 95 97 - 129 130 -
160
163 -
213
213.5 -
290
290 -
390
390 -
564.5
570 -
2500
Total land per range (dönüm)
Ranges of çiftlik size (dönüm)
Distribution of çiftliks on the basis of size
227
In the urban çiftlik-holding group, around 70 çiftlik-owners are exclusively defined as “sahib-i çiftlik” in the town registers. The remaining have income from rent as well as some official positions in addition to people of various jobs and trades, and a few military figures, labourers, farmers, orphans, and widows, in the registers of the central town of İştip.292
The çiftlik-owners who obtain the highest levels of income (over 1500 kuruş) in the town registers include 2 farmers (“erbab-ı ziraat”) who obtain income from agricultural production and rent, 2 specifically defined çiftlik-owners (“sahib-i çiftlik”) who obtain income from their respective occupations, rent and vineyards293, and 3 people of a trade (“erbab-ı ticaret”) who obtain income from their respective occupations294, rent and vineyards. While this group seems to present a lower profile compared to the çiftlik-owners of the town of Manastır, it should be added that the great diversity of the activities of certain figures, such as the members of the Nazırzade family, as will be discussed below, is lost from sight to a considerable extent in an exclusive focus on the town registers.295
292 The jobs of the çiftlik-owners residing in the town center includes “pabuççu, nalband, leblebici, muytab kalfası, bakkal, demirci.” Of the çiftlik-owners who were defined as members of the “erbab-ı ticaret” in their place of residence, the most common occupations are shoe-making (“pabucçuluk”), making of yarn (“muytabcılık”), tannery (“debbağlık”) and sale of tobacco (“duhancılık”). Also, the existence of a couple of “çiftlik kethüdası” and “çiftlik kahyası” as well as a specific trader of barley (“şair”) has been observed, even though there was no indication of “kethüda” or “subaşı” in the çiftlik registers of the district. Lastly, an interesting point to note is the existence of more than 10 çiftlik-owning wage workers (“adi hizmetkar”) in the registers of the town center, which might possibly indicate a process of migration from the countryside to the town centers: BOA ML.VRD.TMT.d.11425. Also, 71% of town residents owned land, mostly ranging from 1 dönüm to 10 dönüms, also indicating the possibility of the continuity of links to agriculture while half of the wage labourers were completely landless: Evcil, XIX. Yüzyıl Ortalarında İştip Kazası’nın Sosyal ve Ekonomik Durumu, 63.
293 One of these figures is a maker/seller of roasted chickpeas (“leblebici”) and the other is a steward (“kahya”).
294 Shoemaking (“pabuççuluk”), making of yarn (“muytabcılık”), and owning of a grocery store (“bakkallık”).
295 This also attests to the importance of establishing a complementary and comparative perspective in the study of income survey registers.
228
In the rural registers under study, while there are many figures among the
bigger çiftlik-owners who hold the titles of Paşazade, Bey, Ağa and Efendi, as well
as figures with religious and military connotations, all in all, they make up % 32 of
the owner of çiftliks while 68% do not hold titles at all (Table 95).296 This is
definitely a higher level of the presence of çiftlik-owners without any title in İştip
than Manastır.
Table 95. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners of İştip
Table 96 demonstrates the distribution of the size of çiftliks on the basis of whether
or not çiftlik-owners carry a traditional title. It shows that those çiftlik-owners with
traditional titles hold 53% of cultivable lands in the region under their possession as
their çiftliks tend to be operations of a larger scale.
Table 96. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Landownership (İştip)
The distribution of çiftlik size for each group indicated in Table 96 is displayed in the
graphs below (Figure 103 and Figure 104). Here, the mean and the median values for
the distribution of çiftlik size for each group are as follows (in dönüm): For the
çiftlik-owners holding titles, mean is 446.78 and median is 320; for the çiftlikowners
without titles, mean is 185.6 and median is 126.5. The following graphs
visualize this data.
296 7 women çiftlik-owners have been excluded from the calculations.
Çiftlik-units Number of çiftlik units Percentage of çiftlik units
No title 241 68%
Title (Bey, Ağa, Efendi,
Hacı etc.) 113 32%
Grain fields Dönüm Percentage
No title 44544 47%
Title (Bey, -zade, Ağa, Efendi) 50486.5 53%
229
Figure 103. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners with titles (İştip).
Figure 104. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners without titles (İştip).
A major take-away here is the absence of a clear-cut, categorical separation between çiftlik-owners with title and no title as there are many divergences among the çiftliks owned by each group in terms of their size. As such, carrying a traditional family name does not automatically translate into the holding of the bigger çiftliks, and vice-versa. Nevertheless, on average, çiftlik-owners with titles indeed tend to have bigger çiftliks than the çiftlik-owners without any title in general. 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
105
109
113
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftlik size (1): Çiftlik-owners with titles
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1
9
17
25
33
41
49
57
65
73
81
89
97
105
113
121
129
137
145
153
161
169
177
185
193
201
209
217
225
233
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftlik size (2): Çiftlik-owners without titles
230
In terms of labour type, it is the çiftlik-owners with titles that mostly rely on
bigger operations that combine sharecropping and wage-labour under their control,
which might be related to their larger capacity to mobilize labor as well as apply
coercion, while those who hold no title mainly rely on arrangements of
sharecropping often on a smaller scale. The related data is displayed in the table
below (Table 97).
Table 97. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Types (1)
Nevertheless, of the total number of çiftliks based on wage-labour in the district,
74% belong to the çiftlik-owners without a title. As such, this group leads the way
not only in sharecropping-based arrangements (78%), but also in exclusive reliance
on wage-labour in their çiftliks. The related data is displayed in Table 98.
Table 98. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Types (2)
The following series of tables demonstrate the general characteristics of the owners
of the biggest çiftliks in the district. A number of these çiftlik-owners will be focused
on in detail to delineate the general patterns of çiftlik-ownership in the mid-19th
century İştip.
Wage-labour Sharecropping Combination of labour types Money rent TOTAL
Number of
çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage Number of çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage Number Percentage
No title 49 21% 120 53% 51 22% 8 4% 228 100%
Title (Bey, Ağa,
Efendi, Hacı etc.) 17 16% 33 31% 53 50% 4 4% 107 100%
Wage-labour Sharecropping
Combination of
labour types Money rent
Number of
çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage Number of çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage TOTAL
No title 49 74% 120 78% 51 49% 8 67% 228
Title (Bey, Ağa,
Efendi, Hacı etc.) 17 26% 33 22% 53 51% 4 33% 107
TOTAL 66 100% 153 100% 104 100% 12 100% 335
231
Table 99. Largest 10 çiftliks of İştip
Table 99 displays the main information on ownership for the largest 10 çiftliks of İştip from all categories of labour. In this segment, most of the owners are from the upper echelons of the society, often practice ownership of multiple çiftliks in addition to joint ownership of individual çiftliks. Of the owners of these 10 çiftliks, 4 reside outside of the district while all the remaining are residents of the central town of İştip. Of the residents of İştip, various members of the Nazırzade family attract attention in addition to the prevalence of the title of “Bey” among these figures.297 Most interesting, however, is the existence of two brothers, who work as shoe-makers in the central town, holding the third largest çiftlik of all.
As can be observed in the table above (Table 99), the members of the Nazırzade family constitute the greater landowners of the district of İştip in the mid-19th century.298 The registers of the central town of İştip define
297 The history of this family goes back as early as the as 17th century while their presence in the district of İştip became visible from the 1730s onwards. Throughout their history, they were engaged in tax-farming, collection of jizya, arrangement of tevzi, vakıf activities and military campaigns: Pehlivan, İştip’de Ayanlık: Nazırzade Ailesi, 26-34. Murtaza Beyzade Ahmed Bey, the owner of the eight biggest çiftlik, was also an ayan in the early 1820s: Durdu, 191 Numaralı Şer’iyye Siciline Göre İştip Kazasında İdari, Toplumsal ve Ekonomik Yapı (1823-1825), 274.
298 The members of this family were heavily involved in the supply of grains to İstanbul as well as nearby cities in the 1760s and 1770s (“zahire mübayaacılığı”). As such, their involvement in çiftlik production around the plains of İştip in the mid-19th century can be understood in the context of their involvement in commercial agriculture, which had a history of more than 80 years: Pehlivan, İştip’de Ayanlık: Nazırzade Ailesi, 26-34. One of the most prominent ancestors of the family, Nazırzade Mehmed Ağa, bought wheat from İştip, Ustrumca and Radoviş, and sent it to İstanbul through the Port
Largest 10 çiftliks (ownership of grain fields / dönüm)Çiftlik typeÇiftlik-ownerResidence of çiftlik-ownerStatus in the place of residenceSources of income in place of residence2500Combination of labour typesNazırzade Abdülkadir BeyCuma Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard2130Combination of labour typesEmin Ağa oğlu Ali BeyDahl-i sancak bulunan Köprülü kazası sakinlerinden **1926Combination of labour typesAhmed oğlu Emin ve karındaşı HalilSinan Bey Mahallesierbab-ı ticaret / shoe-maker ("pabucçu")shoe-making, rent, vineyard, animal1550Combination of labour typesHüseyin oğlu Tayyib BeyDahl-i sancak bulunan Tikveş kazasına tabi Kavadar karyesi sakinlerinden**1490Combination of labour typesKüçük Ali Bey ve karındaşı Mehmed BeyDahl-i sancak bulunan Köprülü kazası sakinlerinden**1483Combination of labour typesReceb Paşazade Hasan BeyEsbak Köstendil kaymakamı (?)da sakin olan **1482.5SharecroppingAbdülkadir Beyzade Murtaza BeyCuma Mahallesi**1412Combination of labour typesMurtaza Beyzade Ahmed BeySinan Bey Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard1230Combination of labour typesNazırzade Ruşen BeyCuma Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard1200Combination of labour typesNazırzade Süleyman (Nazırzade İbrahim oğlu Süleyman)Tekye-i zir Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard
232
Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey as a çiftlik-owner (sahib-i çiftlik) residing in the mahalle of Cuma whereby he holds vineyards of 3 dönüms with an annual revenue of 60 kuruş in addition to stores and houses that generate a rent of 510 kuruş altogether. His real source of income, however, comes from his çiftlik-ownership in various locations in İştip, even though it is not registered in the income survey of the town of İştip.299 All in all, Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey has 9 çiftliks in the settlements of Dolani, Susevo, Erdzeli, Uljarci, Krupişte, Dejirmen, Radani, Kalo Petrovci and Tunadar under his sole control in addition to one çiftlik in the settlement of Ribnik in which he holds a share in conjunction with his brothers (Figure 105 and Table 100).300
of Salonica. In the early 1770s, Mehmed Ağa also personally went to Salonica where he had stores, cellars, and storage facilities, to export the grains he produced or bought: Ibid, 32-33, 81. As such, Salonica constituted an important center for the trading activities of this family: Ibid, 87. In the later 19th century, İştip functioned as an important transit point between Belgrad, Salonica, Serres and İstanbul, in addition to connecting Salonica and Sofia. Accordingly, it was an active center of trade in its proximity to the bazaars of Vinica and Konçe and the fairs of Prilep, Skopje, and Nevrekop. External trade with Vienne, Milano and Munich was also encountered. In the 1890s, commodities such as clothing, flammable material, salt, soap, coffee, and sugar, were brought from İstanbul and Salonica to İştip where they were re-distributed to Kochani, Radovishta, and Palanka, while a number of agricultural and animal products, such as grains, poppy, animal wool and hide, were exported. Lastly, there were a number of joint ventures with the tradespeople from Salonica as well: Ruşid, Salnamelere Göre XIX. Asırda İştip’te Sosyo-ekonomik ve İdari Durum, 41-42. For the detailed exposition of the information on the çiftliks of the Nazırzade family in the 18th and 19th centuries, including ownership, location, labor, and internal composition of the çiftliks, see: Appendix C.
299 These sources unfortunately lack activities of money-lending and usury as well as information on expenditures and various assets of wealth.
300 “Nazırzade Osman Bey karındaşı Abdülkadir Bey ve diğer karındaşı Hasan Bey ve diğeri Şakir Bey ve diğeri Ahmed Bey”.
233
Figure 105. Çiftliks of Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey in İştip.
Table 100. Çiftliks of Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey in İştip
Table 100 demonstrates the distribution of lands (grain fields) for each çiftlik held by Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey in İştip in the mid-19th century. Of these, the çiftlik of Dolani, which is the biggest çiftlik of the district of İştip, consisting of one-third of the lands under the control of Abdülkadir Bey, constitutes the most important locus of çiftlik production. Çiftlik nameGrain fields (dönüm)PercentageDolani250034%Susevo90012%Erdzeli86012%Krupişte6859%Kalopetrovci5798%Dejirmen5508%Uljarci5307%Tunadar5007%Radani1903%TOTAL7294100%
234
The çiftlik of Dolani contains 60 registered households, consisting of 23 sharecroppers’ households categorized under the title of “şerik”, and 37 wage-workers’ households categorized under the title of “erbab-ı ticaret”, all of whom are noted to dwell in the houses of the çiftlik-owner himself, just like in the greater majority of the çiftlik cases. While many of the settlements in the district comprise various sub-divisions of village and çiftlik structures, Dolani consists of the çiftlik of Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey alone.301 Here, all the grain fields, consisting of 2000 dönüms of cultivated and 500 dönüms of uncultivated land, are owned by Abdülkadir Bey, who does not provide any draught animals for agricultural production as all of the 49 oxen registered in the çiftlik are brought in by the sharecroppers, with a maximum of 6 oxen per sharecropper household, while the majority holds 2 oxen.302
In this çiftlik, almost all the residents hold a small parcel of vineyard, ranging from 0.5 to 2 dönüms with meagre revenue. While the majority of the households obtain some income from animal husbandry, the highest amount does not exceed 311 kuruş. Of the 23 sharecropping households, 21 obtain a supplementary income from transport/provision of wood (“odunculuk”) and shepherdry (“çobanlık”) in addition to their shares ranging from 200 to 765 kuruş, totaling 10121 kuruş, as well as 1810 kuruş from vineyards, 2799 kuruş from animal husbandry and 3050 kuruş from additional sources of labour. Of the 37 households defined as erbab-ı ticaret, 25 households function as reapers (orakçı), 5 as woodsmen (oduncu) while 2 are left unspecified, obtaining a total income of 4168.5 kuruş whose 1928.5 kuruş comes
301 Interestingly, registers from the 16th century indicates the settlement of Dolani to be a village which consisted of 15 registers (11 “hane” and 4 “bekar”) in 1519, 26 registers (22 “hane”, 3 “bekar”, 1 “dul”) in 1550 and 63 registers (35 “hane”, 25 “bekar” and 3 “dul) in 1570, all Christian. As such, this settlement seems to be quite an old one which was probably turned into a çiftlik at some point in time: Ruşid, Salnamelere Göre XIX. Asırd İştip’te Sosyo-ekonomik ve İdari Durum, 33-38. While Dolani, Dejirmen, Kalo Petrovci and Tunadar are single-çiftlik settlements (or “pure çiftliks), Susevo contains 2 çiftliks, Erdzeli contains a village and 15 çiftliks, Uljarci contains a village and 11 çiftliks, Krupişte contains 14 çiftliks, Radani contains a village and 3 çiftliks, and Ribnik contains 2 çiftliks.
302 This is interesting since the çiftlik-owners of İştip often tended to contribute draught animals to production.
235
from vineyards and animal husbandry. The çiftlik-owner, Abdülkadir Bey, obtains a share of 10125 kuruş from grain fields of 2000 dönüms under cultivation which produces revenue of 20250 kuruş in addition to vineyards of 6 dönüms generating 450 kuruş.303 In general terms, the çiftlik of Dolani constitutes a significantly large operation which would differ from the smaller sharecropping arrangements. Furthermore, in the face of the existing labour configuration in the çiftlik, the detailed arrangements of the specific shares for each sharecropping family, and the existence of large number of agricultural workers, temporary or not, with very well-defined functions, it may be reasonable to think that there exists a certain degree of coordination and central organization of production, with a quality different from that of smaller arrangements of sharecropping whereby a small number of families seem to work in relative independence regarding the production process.
Table 101. Income from Çiftliks of Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey
Lastly, Table 101 above demonstrates the distribution of agricultural revenue between Abdülkadir Bey and the relevant sharecroppers for each çiftlik. While the general rule of equal distribution after the subtraction of the aşar is applied in three
303 In the grain fields of 2000 dönüms, wheat of 1000 kiles, rye of 1000 kiles rye, barley of 1000 kiles, and oats of 500 kiles were produced, in addition to grapes of 4500 kıyyes from vineyards of 6 dönüms.
Çiftliks under sharecroppingRevenue from land under sharecropping (kuruş)Registered aşarIdeal aşarÇiftlik-owner's sharePercentage of çiftlik-owner after the subtraction of aşarDolani22500225022501012550%Susevo5250400525305063%Erdzeli6950300695530080%Krupişte5800300580415075%Uljarci447581447.5402392%Tunadar4500450450202550%Radani1090109109490.550%
236
cases (Dolani, Radani, and Tunadar), the remaining arrangements display a disproportionate advantage on the side of Abdülkadir Bey.304
The second case of focus will be the third biggest çiftlik, which is located in the settlement of Krividol305 and consists of grain fields 1926 dönüms belonging to the çiftlik-owners Ahmed oğlu Emin and his brother Halil, who reside in the fifth hane in the mahalle of Sinan Bey in the central town of İştip. In the registers of the central town, Ahmed oğlu Emin is defined as a member of the “erbab-ı ticaret” who obtains 200 kuruş from vineyards of 4 dönüms, 700 kuruş from stores rented out, 20 kuruş from animal husbandry and 800 kuruş from shoe-making (pabucçuluk).
In their çiftlik in Krividol (Figure 106), there are 6 registered sharecropping households in addition to one household whose patriarch is defined to be ill or infirm (“alil”). Here, the grain fields are completely monopolized by the çiftlik-owners while in terms of draught animals, the parties make a roughly equal contribution as the çiftlik-owners provide 15 oxen while the sharecroppers provide 18 oxen.
304 Most interestingly, these are also the cases whereby the general aşar rule of 1/10 of total produce is deviated from. Also, in all of these cases, a specific clause of “şirket ile ziraat olunan mezruat” is added to the calculations of “aşar”.
305 The settlement of Krividol contains 5 çiftliks.
237
Figure 106. Çiftlik of Krividol (Ahmed oğlu Emin and his brother Halil).
In terms of agricultural production, a revenue of 13265 kuruş is obtained from grain fields of 1900 dönüms. This share is divided equally between the çiftlik-owners and sharecroppers after the subtraction of an “aşar” of 10% of the total revenue (5969.25 kuruş for the çiftlik-owners and the sharecroppers, respectively).306 The distribution of this share among the sharecroppers themselves, however, is far from being equal as they obtain shares ranging from 260 kuruş to 1788 kuruş.307
In the çiftlik, each sharecropper household holds a small amount of vineyard, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 dönüms, with modest revenue of 320 kuruş in total. In addition to their shares of 5969.25 kuruş and revenue of 320 kuruş from their vineyards, sharecroppers obtain 2187 kuruş from animal husbandry as well as 1200 kuruş from supplementary sources of income such as wage-labour (hizmetkarlık), shepherding (çobanlık) and transportation (kiracılık). While the main occupation assigned to these çiftlik-owning brothers is shoe-making, generating an annual income of 800 kuruş, in addition to 700 kuruş they obtain from rented out stores, 200 kuruş from vineyards, and 20 kuruş from their animals, shoemaking constitutes only 10% of their total bundle of income, which mainly has agrarian origins based on their çiftlik-ownership.
While the owners of the çiftlik of Krividol seem to be of much humbler origins compared to the old and powerful ayan families of the district, their distinction in having the third biggest çiftlik in the region seems to be quite a formidable one. Nevertheless, they own only one çiftlik while
306 In the grains fields, wheat of 805 kiles, rye of 325 kiles, barley of 590 kiles, and oats of 105 kile swere produced.
307 The total income of the sharecroppers also diverged greatly, ranging from 377.5 kuruş to 3128 kuruş.
238
the Beys of the biggest çiftliks of İştip own multiple ones. The table below demonstrates the related information on çiftlik-ownership, including the number of çiftliks and the amount of lands held by the owners of the largest 5 çiftliks dwelling in the central town of İştip (Table 102).
Table 102. Largest 10 Çiftliks of Urban Dwellers of İştip
While 9 of the largest 10 çiftliks are based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour, and 1 depends on sharecropping alone, none of the çiftliks based on wage-labour managed to enter the list in Table 99. The following tables below demonstrate the ownership information on the 10 largest çiftliks exclusively based on sharecropping and wage-labour respectively (Table 103 and Table 104).
In the first table on the çiftliks based on sharecropping below, we have 2 village residents defined as farmers without any titles whatsoever. All in all, there are 5 çiftlik-owners who do not hold any titles in this list.
Name of çiftlik-ownerResidenceStatus in town registersNumber of çiftliks ownedTotal landownership of grain fields (dönüm)Nazırzade Abdülkadir BeyCuma Mahallesisahib-i çiftlik97294Nazırzade Süleyman (Nazırzade İbrahim oğlu Süleyman)Tekye-i zir Mahallesisahib-i çiftlik115103Nazırzade Ruşen BeyCuma Mahallesisahib-i çiftlik62940Murtaza Beyzade Ahmed BeySinan Bey Mahallesisahib-i çiftlik42877Ahmed oğlu Emin ve karındaşı HalilSinan Bey Mahallesierbab-ı ticaret11926
239
Table 103. Largest 10 Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping
The table on the çiftliks based on wage-labour below demonstrates that 1 çiftlik-owner in the list is a village resident without a title owning 2 çiftliks while only two çiftlik-owners in this case carry the title of “bey”. Also, we have in this group 3 members of the erbab-ı ticaret, engaged in the activities of tannery (“debbağlık”, “tabakçılık”) and butchery (“kasablık”), all related to animal products, and 1 military figure, in addition to the exclusive çiftlik-owners (Table 104).
Largest 10 çiftliks based on sharecropping (ownership of grain fields / dönüm)Çiftlik typeÇiftlik-ownerResidence of çiftlik-ownerStatus in the place of residenceSources of income in place of residence1482.5SharecroppingAbdülkadir Beyzade Murtaza BeyCuma Mahallesi**570SharecroppingMurtaza Beyzade Ahmed BeySinan Bey Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard570SharecroppingMustafa oğlu Paşoİştib / Village of Gorobincierbab-ı ziraatagriculture, animal husbandary550SharecroppingMustafa oğlu Osman (Hacı Mustafa oğlu Osman ve karındaşı Mehmed ve diğer karındaşı Said ve diğeri İsmail)Sinan Bey Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikvineyard545SharecroppingMahmud Bey oğlu Mustafa BeyCumasahib-i çiftlik510SharecroppingSeydi oğlu Mustafaİştib / Village of Mustafa Obasıerbab-ı ziraatagriculture, animal husbandary500SharecroppingNazırzade Süleyman (Nazırzade İbrahim oğlu Süleyman)Tekye-i zir Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard451SharecroppingAbdi oğlu YusufCuma Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard, "bakkal", animal393SharecroppingAli oğlu Yusuf ve karındaşı Emin oğlu Mehmed (Yusuf Mehmed'in vasisi; Müteveffa Emin yetimi Mehmed)Kerameddin Mahallesivineyard, animal390SharecroppingNazırzade Abdülhalil AğaTekye-i Zir Mahallesi**
240
Table 104. Largest 10 Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour
With regard to the çiftliks based on wage-labour alone, the largest çiftlik is located in the settlement of Hamzabeyli (Hamzabejli/Hamzabegovo)308 which consists of grain fields of 626 dönüms under the ownership of Tahir oğlu Abdurrahman who resides in the mahalle of Cuma in the central town of İştip. In the town registers, he is defined as a member of the “erbab-ı ticaret” whereby he obtains 80 kuruş from vineyards of 4 dönüms, 150 kuruş from renting out of a store and 650 kuruş from his job of tannery (debbağlık). In the çiftlik itself, 3 wage workers (adi hizmetkar), all of whom are indicated to reside in the house of the çiftlik-owner (“ağası hanesinde mütemekkin”) are registered. In this çiftlik, cultivated fields of 626 dönüms produce a revenue of 6850 kuruş for the çiftlik-owner, in addition to 10 kuruş from vineyards of 1 dönüm, 200 kuruş from meadows of 15 dönüms and 315 kuruş from animal husbandry, generating a total of 7375 kuruş of gross income for the çiftlik-owner309: As such, the income generated in the town center constitutes only 10% of the overall bundle. In terms of production tools, the çiftlik-owner provides 24 draught animals
308 This settlement contains a village and 9 çiftliks.
309 In grain fields, wheat of 500 kiles, rye of 100 kiles and barley of 250 kiles were produced in addition to hay (giyah) of 2000 kıyyse in meadows and grapes of 100s kıyye in vineyards.
Largest 10 çiftliks based on wage-labour (ownership of grain fields / dönüm)Çiftlik typeÇiftlik-ownerResidence of çiftlik-ownerStatus in the place of residenceSources of income in place of residence626Wage-labourTahir oğlu AbdurrahmanCuma Mahallesierbab-ı ticaret / tanner ("debbağ")tannery, rent, vineyard550Wage-labourNazırzade Abdülkadir BeyCuma Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard539Wage-labourAhmed oğlu İbrahimİştib / Village of Erdzeli sahib-i çiftlik539Wage-labourAhmed oğlu İbrahimİştib / Village of Erdzeli sahib-i çiftlik506Wage-labourİsmail oğlu İbrahimKerameddin Mahallesisahib-i çiftlik"muytab", rent, vineyard498Wage-labourEmin oğlu Hüseyin BeyDahl-i sancak bulunan Köprülü mahallatından () mahallesi sakinlerinden**450Wage-labourGoskar? Ahmed oğlu İbrahimCuma Mahallesierbab-ı ticaret / butcher ("kasab")butchery, rent, inn-keeping, vineyard390Wage-labourAhmed oğlu MehmedSinan Bey Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikrent, vineyard390Wage-labourMehmed oğlu İbrahimCuma Mahallesisahib-i çiftlikshoe-making, rent, vineyard360Wage-labourAhmed oğlu Mahmudİbrahim Bey Mahallesimilitary job ("tımarlı süvari, zabtiyede")rent, vineyard, animal
241
(2 oxen and 22 water buffaloes including 16 “erkek manda” and 6 “kısır manda”) while one wage labourer brings in 2 oxen.310 All in all, the çiftlik-owner pays 700 kuruş to the landless wage workers, in addition to 100 kuruş from shepherding which one of the workers’ households is engaged in for a supplementary income and 125 kuruş generated from animal husbandry. Compared to the classic cases of sharecropping whereby 1/10 of the total revenue is subtracted as the agricultural tax and the remaining revenue / yield is divided in half between the parties of the arrangement, the çiftlik-owner here is able to hold on to most of the produce from the land.
Of the total number of 22 çiftlik-owners indicated to be residing in villages, 16 have been specifically identified in the survey registers of the relevant villages. The data is displayed in the table below (Table 105).
Table 105. Çiftlik-owners residing in villages (İştip)
310 While the other two labourer households earn 150 kuruş per person from “hizmetkarlık”, the owner of the 2 oxen earns 250 kuruş.
NameStatus in villageVillage name (residence)Income from villageLandownership in village (grain fields)Employment of labour in villageSources of Income (Village)Çiftlik nameÇiftlik typeIncome from çiftlikLandownership in çiftlik (grain fields)Employment of labour in çiftlikSources of Income (Çiftlik)NotesAhmed oğlu İbrahimçiftlik-ownerErdzeli00*Grain fields, meadows and animal husbandry.Borilovci and KrividolWage-labour 18197.5 (both)10786 servants in Borilovci, 3 servants in KrividolGrain fields, meadows and animal husbandry.3rd biggest çiftlik based on wage-labour.Ahmed oğlu İbrahimfarmerStrojisavci?34782353 servantsGrain fields, vineyards, meadows and animal husbandryPuzderciCombination of labour types1416.251802 sharecroppers and 1 labourer ("erbab-ı ticaret / ırgat")Grain fields and meadowAli oğlu Hacı Hüseyinçiftlik-ownerKiliseli***KiliseliSharecropping1412.51002 sharecroppersGrain fields and meadowEmin oğlu TahirfarmerCrvilova2626.51581 servant, 1 sharecropperGrain fields, tobacco fields, vineyard, meadow, animal husbandryTurtelMoney rent70152 tenants ("müstecir")Rent from grain fieldsSüleyman oğlu HasanfarmerStrojisavci?130194*Grain fields, tobacco field, vineyard and animal husbandryPuzderciSharecropping481.25801 sharecropperGrain fields and meadowMustafa oğlu Mehmedfarmerİstaroncofce75040*Grain fields and vineyardPuzderciWage-labour 730.21201 servant, 1 labourer ("erbab-ı ticaret/ırgat")Grain fields and vineyardHüseyin oğlu TahirfarmerKalaguzli99122*Grain fields, tobacco fields, vineyard and animal husbandryRurakSharecropping263.25401 sharecropperGrain fieldsİsmail oğlu SüleymanfarmerHocalı1916*Grain fields and animal husbandryVrteşkaMoney rent1501504 tenants (only 70 dönüm rented)Rent from grain fieldsKula oğlu Taşo zımmiçiftlik-ownerBuciste?****BucisteSharecropping4501.752851 sharecropperGrain fields, tobacco fields, vegetable gardens, cotton fields, meadows, animal husbandry and wage-labourThe 3 sons of the household patriarch has income from shepherdy and transportation Yusuf oğlu Ahmedçiftlik-ownerKiliseli****KiliseliSharecropping31702501 sharecropperGrain fields and animal husbandryMustafa oğlu PaşofarmerGorobinci1065150*Grain fields, meadow and animal husbandryKnezceSharecropping30705704 sharecroppersGrain fields, cotton fields, "bostan", vineyard and meadow2nd biggest çiftlik based on sharecroppingÖmer oğlu YahyafarmerKiliseli3634220*Grain fields, vineyard, meadow and animal husbandryKnezceSharecropping1311.752601 sharecropperGrain fields, meadowsSeydi oğlu MustafafarmerMustafa Obası3062.51931 servantGrain fields, vineyard and meadow BogoslovecSharecropping2528.55104 sharecroppersGrain fields, vineyard5th biggest sharecropping based çiftlikAli oğlu AhmedfarmerPisica2087.5723 servants, 1 shepherdGrain fields, tobacco field, meadow and animal husbandryLezovoSharecropping4539.51401 servantGrain fields, meadow and animal husbandryBekir oğlu EminfarmerPisica4065.51182 servantsGrain fields, tobacco field, rice paddy meadow and animal husbandryLezovoSharecropping11111401 sharecropperGrain fields, meadow and animal husbandryAbdülkerim oğlu SalihfarmerHacı Yusuflu1208201 sharecropperGrain fields, vineyard, animal husbandry, wage-labour ("oduncu")KosevoSharecropping243201 sharecropperGrain fields
242
Of these, the biggest landowner is Ahmed oğlu İbrahim, who is a resident of the village of Erdzeli, where he is registered as a çiftlik-owner in the household numbered 31.311 In his place of residence, it has been noted that he has only a house in which he dwells while obtaining all his income from his çiftliks312 in the settlements of Borilovci ve Krividol, which are located in relatively close proximity to the village of Erdzeli, the former to its north and the latter to its south.
Ahmed oğlu İbrahim’s çiftlik in Borilovci is based on wage-labour and in terms of the extent of grain fields under the ownership of the çiftlik-owner, it shares the third place with his other çiftlik in Krividol in this category.313 Within the confines of this çiftlik, Ahmed oğlu İbrahim holds grain fields of 539 dönüms under cultivation, with revenue of 12050 kuruş, as well as an income of 682.5 kuruş from animal husbandry.314 Other than one distinctive wage-worker (“adi hizmetkar”) earning an income of 1590 kuruş in the form of “ağasından aldığı hisse”, there are 5 figures engaged in proper (so-to-speak) wage-labour (“hizmetkarlık”) in addition to supplementary income activities of shepherding (“çobanlık”) and transportation (“kiracılık”) as well as a total of 630 kuruş they obtain from vineyards, and vegetable gardens as well as 196 kuruş obtained from animal husbandry. Ahmed oğlu İbrahim’s other çiftlik, located in the settlement of Krividol, is also based on wage-labour315 whereby grain fields 350 dönüms under cultivation begets a revenue of 5375 kuruş and meadows of 2 dönüms of produce a revenue of 90 kuruş, in addition to uncultivated fields of 100 dönüms316 and additional grain fields of 89 dönüms located within the borders of the village of Dobrişani, which is located in close
311 “Kaza-ı mezbur kurasından Erdzeli karyesi sakinlerinden.”
312 “Merkumun ikamet eylediği hanesinden başka bir nesnesi olmayub ve ticarete hiç iktidarı olmadığından çiftlikat ile meşgul olduğu ve çiftlik-i mezburun hasılatıyla geçinmekte idüğü.”
313 Borilovci contains 8 çiftliks.
314 Production on grain fields: Wheat of 950 kiles, rye of 150 kiles, barley of 300 kiles, oats of 50 kiles.
315 Krividol contains 5 çiftliks.
316 “3 senede 1 defa zira.”
243
proximity in the south of Krividol.317 In this çiftlik, 3 worker households are registered. Just like in the case of Borilovci, one of these workers has an income of 911 kuruş in the form of “ağasından aldığı hisse” while other workers get 150 and 120 kuruş from “hizmetkarlık” in addition to their 343 kuruş of income from animal husbandry and a revenue of 30 kuruş from vineyards of 0.5 dönüm. That both of these çiftliks are based on wage-labour, hand in hand with the existence of figures distinct from the other wage-workers in the same category may indicate that the payment defined as “ağasından aldığı hisse” may be in part a payment for a supervisory function exercised by these figures. In all the cases above, the çiftlik workers are indicated to dwell in the houses of their çiftlik-owner.318
Another villager owning a çiftlik on the larger side is Ahmed oğlu İbrahim, a resident of the village of Strojisavci whereby he is registered in the household numbered 1 as a farmer (“erbab-ı ziraat”). In his village, he has grain fields of 210 dönüms under cultivation with a revenue of 2800 kuruş, in addition to vineyards of 3.5 dönüms with a revenue of 180 kuruş, meadows of 10 dönüms with a revenue of 180 kuruş and 25 dönüms of additional grain fields in the borders of the settlement of Barbarova whereby land of 12.5 dönüms is left uncultivated while the remaining half begets a revenue of 250 kuruş.319 In addition to agricultural production, Ahmed oğlu İbrahim also obtains a revenue of 318 kuruş from animal husbandry. Most importantly, while he is defined as a farmer, he by no means displays the portrait of a small-holding, self-subsisting one: In addition to his activity of çiftlik-owning,
317 Production on grain fields: Wheat of 500 kiles, barley of 75 kiles. Also, hay of 900 kıyyes from meadows.
318 “Ağası hanesinde mütemekkin.”
319 Production on grain fields: Wheat of 115 kiles, rye of 120 kiles, barley of 150 kiles, oats of 60 kiles. Also, grapes of 1800 kıyyes on vineyards and hay of 1800 kıyyes from meadows.
244
there are 3 wage-workers residing in his house in the village of Strojisavci, holding no land and mainly relying on their wage of 150 kuruş each, other than a meagre revenue from animal husbandry. Could this figure be representative of a transitional stage whereby a farmer, presumably still toiling with his family alongside some hired farmhands, is in the middle of a process of transformation into a çiftlik-owner per se, to be cut off from direct engagement in agricultural production in the manner of a smallholding peasant farmer?320 Similarly to Ahmed oğlu İbrahim, the existence of a total number of 6 çiftlik-owning and village-residing farmers who employ labour not only in their çiftlik but also in their villages, besides all the çiftlik-owners of peasant origin in the district, may be hinting at the existence of a general pattern beyond a singular exception, no matter how unspectacular it may be.321
4.4 Conclusion
The income survey registers of rural İştip indicate a certain degree of rural inequality, peasant dispossession, and concentration of land in the hands of a group of landowners in the mid-19th century, albeit on a lower level than Manastır. First and foremost, around a quarter of the rural population of İştip were landless and directly residing and working in çiftliks. The çiftlik-owners held 40% of cultivable land and directly controlled a quarter of the rural labour force in the district. Around one-tenth of the villagers were landless and mainly survived through engagement in
320 İbrahim’s çiftlik in the settlement of Puzderci, in close proximity to the village, is a relatively small one which contains grain fields of 180 dönüms under the labour of 2 sharecroppers and 1 wage-worker (ırgat).
321 Interestingly, all of these çiftlik-owners prefer to conduct agricultural production other than grains, such as cotton, tobacco and rice, in their place of residence, whereby they could arguably control the labour force more directly, rather than their çiftliks. It should also be noted that such identification of the employment of additional wage-labour in the villages has been possible only when the labourers under question were houseless and hence, dwellers in the houses of their employers, since it is only in these cases that the compilers of the surveys have noted the nature of their association. As such, the relations of labour identified in the villages may be representing only a fraction of the real processes at hand. Lastly, the total amount of grain fields owned by peasant çiftlik-owners constitutes 4% of all the çiftlik land of İştip. While this is still quite a humble amount, it is almost 10 times of its percentage in Manastır.
245
wage labour. Of the villagers, only 11% exclusively relied on agricultural production, while the remaining combined agricultural production with a variety of activities. There was also considerable inequality in terms of access to land among individual villagers as well as villages. The settlements of the district remained quite interrelated in terms of geographical proximity and labour mobility between them.
In terms of labour arrangements in the çiftliks of İştip and Manastır, some critical differences have been observed. First and foremost, the rural landscape of İştip did not only include çiftliks based on tenancy but also displayed a more substantial presence of çiftliks based on wage labour. The çiftlik-owners also contributed more draught animals to production than those of Manastır. The presence of peasant çiftlik-owners, who employed labour not only in their çiftliks, but also in the villages they resided, was also much more pronounced than Manastır. Likewise, the çiftlik-owners without any title also displayed more prominence in İştip than those of Manastır. In general, the level of çiftlik formation seems to be relatively lower in İştip than Manastır, while inequality in the villages persisted, and some of the peasants emerged as considerable çiftlik-owners of the district in the registers under study.
246
CHAPTER 5
AGRARIAN CLASS RELATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN BALKANS: ÇİFTLİKS AND VILLAGES, LANDOWNERS AND RURAL PRODUCERS IN PİRLEPE (MID-19TH CENTURY)
The analysis of the district of Pirlepe, a kaza of the eyalet of Rumelia during the period under question, centers on the defters titled ML.VRD.TMT.d.11448, ML.VRD.TMT.d.11449 and ML.VRD.TMT.d.11450, which contain income survey information on the rural settlements of the district. 322 These three defters, comprising of 1074 pages and containing information on more than 4800 households residing and producing in 144 administrative settlements with various sub-divisions of villages and çiftliks323, have been analyzed with the main focus being on patterns of ownership and forms of labour in order to develop an analysis of the economic and social relations prevalent in the district of Pirlepe in the mid-19th century.
This chapter will start with a general introduction to the district as a whole focusing on a series of comparisons between the çiftliks and villages of the region to draw a general portrait of the rural landscape. Then, the villages of the district will be examined in detail. Lastly, a general typology of the çiftliks, based on the forms of labour employed, will be introduced to provide a detailed exposition of each type in a comparative perspective. Throughout this analysis, themes of property ownership and forms of labour will be the main pillars for the exposition of the data retrieved from the temettuat registers of the district of Pirlepe.
322 For a brief survey of the history of Pirlepe, see: Kiel, "Pirlepe.” Also: Emecen, “Pirlepe'nin İlk Osmanlı Tahrirleri”; Koç, “Pirlepe kırsalında nüfus-vergi yükümlülüğü bağlamında ekonomik refah düzeyinin tespiti ve gelir dağilımı üzerine bir deneme”; Aral, “Temettuat Defterlerine Göre 19. Yüzyıl Ortalarında Rumeli Eyaleti Pirlepe Kazası’nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Durumu.”
323 While a couple of areas of “mezraa” were registered as well, these were used for scattered agricultural production rather than residence; thus, they have not been treated as settlements per se.
247
5.1 Çiftliks and villages: The socio-economic landscape of rural Pirlepe in the mid-19th century
5.1.1 Rural population and patterns of settlement
Figure 107. Distribution of rural population between çiftliks and villages of Pirlepe
Figure 107 displays the distribution of rural population, calculated based on the number of households due to the nature of the survey registers, between çiftliks and villages. In the calculations, only local rural producers are taken into account while çiftlik-owners, who mostly reside in the central town of Pirlepe as well as in other districts, have been excluded. As such, this chart displays the distribution of the rural residents themselves.
The temettuat registers display that one-fifth of the whole rural population (903 households) resided in 352 çiftliks in the district of Pirlepe around the mid-19th century. In contrast, 3352 households, constituting 74% of the rural population, lived in the villages. As will be discussed in detail below324, because the group residing in the çiftliks consisted of mostly landless and often houseless rural producers - beyond the existence of a landless labour force in the villages - it seems safe to argue in the
324 See: Section 5.3. 20%
74%
6%
Distribution of rural population between çifltiks and villages
(number of households)
Çiftliks Villages Other
248
beginning that more than one-fifth of the rural population resident in the district of Pirlepe was dispossessed of their main tool of production, i.e. land, and were engaged in relations of labour arrangements different than those of small peasant farming which is ideally based on the exclusive use of family-labour and has a self-sustaining character. As such, the group of çiftlik-owners, as the holders of the main means of production, i.e. land, in an agrarian economy, directly controlled the labour-capacity of more than 20% of the district population which lacked such means.325
While the previous calculations of distribution of rural households among çiftliks and villages treated the data as totalities and the region as a spatially homogeneous entity, this is in fact far from the truth. On the contrary, specific loci of concentration regarding village and çiftliks formations in each administrative settlement can be identified.
Table 106. Number of Settlements and Resident Households by the Level of Çiftlik Formation in Pirlepe
Table 106 demonstrates the relative weight of çiftliks, on the basis of the ratio of households engaged in production for çiftliks (i.e. number of çiftlik households / total number of households) within each administrative settlement as indicated in a value range from 0 to 1. Here, 0 indicates non-existence of çiftliks and a “perfect” village while 1 indicates all-embracing çiftlik-activity and utter absence of
325 The mechanisms and processes behind the emergence of such dispossession will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
Level of çiftlik formationNumber of settlementsPercentageNumber of householdsPercentage12215%3047%0.5 - 0.962819%63714%0.01 - 0.473021%113825%06444%244854%
249
independent farmers. The results of the distribution of these different types are displayed in detail in the series of graphs below.
Figure 108 demonstrates the specific place assigned to each settlement in the district with regard to the level of çiftlik formation whereby perfect villages, perfect çiftliks and areas of transition in between are displayed.
Figure 108. Distribution of settlements by level of çiftlik formation (number of households) in Pirlepe.
The graph below (Figure 109) displays the distribution of settlements on the basis of their level of çiftlik formation. In the district of Pirlepe, 15% of all settlements can be defined as perfect çiftliks and 20% as çiftlik-dominated formations while 44% of them can be defined as perfect villages and 21% as village-dominated settlements.
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
Level of çiftlik formation
Settlements
Settlements and level of çiftlik formation
250
Figure 109. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the settlements of Pirlepe.
The following graph (Figure 110) displays the distribution of the population among the settlements of different levels of çiftlik formation. In the district of Pirlepe, 7% of the rural population resided in perfect çiftliks and 14% in çiftlik-dominated settlements while 54% resided in perfect villages and 25% in village-dominated settlements.
Figure 110. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and the population of
Pirlepe.
Regarding all of the calculations so far, the coexistence of different types of rural residents -villagers and çiftlik workers- within the same settlement raises the 15%
20%
21%
44%
Level of çiftlik formation by settlements
Level of çiftlik formation: 1 Level of çiftlik formation: 0.5 - 0.96
Level of çiftlik formation: 0.01 - 0.47 Level of çiftlik formation: 1
7%
14%
25%
54%
Level of çiftlik formation by household numbers
Level of çiftlik formation: 1 Level of çiftlik formation: 0.5 - 0.96
Level of çiftlik formation: 0.01 - 0.47 Level of çiftlik formation: 1
251
question of the processes of acquisition of land and çiftlik formation. Furthermore, the data under study indicates that there is a certain degree of polarization between village and çiftlik-dominated settlements in addition to the existence of a transitional area which displays mixed features of both forms. In the face of such polarization, generalizing on the basis of a whole district by taking averages can be misleading to understand the dynamics at work. This, in turn, raises the question of whether these settlements can be shown to cluster topographically in specific places following a pattern.
To answer this question and indicate the geographical distribution of different categories of settlements, their level of çiftlik formation has been used as the main index. The table below (Table 107) displays the level of çiftlik formation of each settlement while the following table (Table 108) displays the color-coding system used in the preparation of the map on Figure 111 which indicates the locations of different types of settlements in the district of Pirlepe in the mid-19th century.326
326 In the table below, entries highlighted in light gray indicate a degree of uncertainty of location while the entries highlighted in dark gray indicate settlements whose locations could not be found.
252
Table 107. Level of Çiftlik Formation (Number of Households) in the Settlements of Pirlepe
Level of çiftlikizationSettlementLevel of çiftlikizationSettlementLevel of çiftlikizationSettlementLevel of çiftlikizationSettlement0Godijak, Gugjakovo0.011494253Kanatlar, Kanatlarci0.5Prilepece1Aşorioz0Galişta, Galishte0.013157895Desova0.5Crnicani, Crnichani1Ropotova0Staravina0.047619048Rilevo0.55Zagorani1Zabjani , Zhabjani0Budimirca, Budimirci0.047619048Dabnica, Dabnitsa0.555555556Dubijacani-i bala (gorno)1Slivje0Vrbecko, Vrbsko, Vrpsko0.047619048Carevik, Carevikj0.555555556Krusovjani, Krusheani1Lokveni0Zihovo, Zhivovo0.055555556Budakovo; Budaklar0.571428571Brajilovo, Berilovo, Brailovo1Turicko, Tursko, Podvis0Grunişta, Grunishta0.058823529Selce, Seltse0.6Puturos, Puturus, Potorovi1Mramorani-i Kebir0Polcista, Polchishte0.066666667Sekerce, Sekirtsi0.612903226Kadıköy, Kadinoselo1Dabjani0Vitolişta0.074074074Vrbovci, Vrboec0.616438356Oba-ı Kebir1Belopole0Zovik, Zovich0.074074074Debrişte, Debreshte0.633333333Bonce, Bonche1Kutlesevo0Manastırce, Manastir0.074074074Lazani0.65625Macovista, Mazhuchiste1Cumovo, Chumovo0Dunje0.080645161Elekler, Erekovci0.666666667Marul1Lak0Peştani0.083333333Zitovce (Zitose) reaya0.684210526Novoseljani?1Şerifeler, Sheleverci0Veprcani0.093023256Vrance0.6875Alinci1Pisokal0Kokre0.125Zirnek?0.727272727Sarandinovo1Makovo0Kaljani, Kalen0.136363636Senokos0.75Godivle, Godivje1Alioba, Alinci0Gradeşnica0.142857143Nebregovo0.769230769Borodin, Borotino1Cepigovo, Chepigovo0Melinica0.173913043Veselcani0.777777778Selbijek?1Dedebal, Dedebalci0Beşişta0.214285714Musa Oba, Musinci, Musintsi0.818181818Korenica1Armatus, Armatush0Drenovci0.222222222Mramorani-i Sagir (malko, malo)0.818181818Krusevica, Krushevica1Galicani0Slepce0.226190476Krivogastani0.857142857Dubijacani-i zir1Oba-ı Kebir (Golemo Konjari) 0Crnilista0.25Koşino0.875Vrbjani1Orle0Gostrac, Gostirazhni0.25Topolcani, Topolchani0.888888889Volkovo0Strovija0.260869565Sv. Mitran, Sveto Mitrani0.909090909Pesterica?0Dilkofca0.272727273Meglenci, Meglen0.928571429Zabrcani0Margarit, Margari0.311111111Peshtalevo0.941176471Ruvci, Pashino Ruvci0Botrik?0.333333333Kostinci, Kostintsi0.947368421Berovce, Berovtsi0Beluşin, Belushino0.421052632Nihomine?0.961538462İven, İveni0Nerovo, Norovo0.470588235Birina, Birino0.9677419350Trstenik0.47826087Stredorek, Sredorek0.960Adjanci, Haldance0Belce-yi bala0Belce-yi zir0Slanciko, Slansko0Borina0Jakrenovo0Sazdovo, Sazhdevo0Drenovo0Krapa0Ceresnovo0Zitovce (Zitose) müslim0Dolneni0Orehovec, Oreovets, Oreovec0Krstec, Krstets0Prisat, Prisad0Pletvar0Lenista, Lenishta0Dren0Beloşko?0Bucin, Alcomenae0Mireziçko?0Kalik?0Doşden?0Radobilj-i Sagir (mal)0Radobilj-i Kebir (golem)0Mramor0Drenovo-ı Kebir0Stavica, Shtavica0Canista0Novlak?0Rapes0Brnik0Klepac, Klepach0Trikrst, Trojktsti
253
Table 108. Colour-coding of the Level of Çiftlik Formation in (Figure 111)
Figure 111. Level of çiftlik formation (number of households) and distribution of
settlements in Pirlepe.
While the settlement patterns of both Pirlepe and İştip are less clustered than
Manastır, all three cases display the common tendency of çiftliks to be located
around the central alluvial plains while the “perfect” villages tend to cluster in the
hilly areas. As such, the inner region of Pirlepe is a space of a rather high degree of
çiftlik formation. Nevertheless, the rural landscape is marked by the co-existence of
çiftliks and villages within the same settlements and the proximity between “perfect”
forms. The distribution of rural population is displayed in Figure 112. Just like in the
case of Manastır and İştip, the population tends to concentrate in the villages towards
Level of çiftlikization Color-coding
1 Red
0.5 - 0.96 Pink
0.01 - 0.47 Light-blue
0 Dark-blue
254
the mountains rather than alluvial plains which were largely monopolized by çiftlik-owners.
Figure 112. Distribution of rural population among settlements of Pirlepe (based on the number of households).
Of all the settlements of pure çiftliks, 7 constitute single-çiftlik settlements while the remaining 15 settlements consist of multiple çiftliks. In the most extreme case, there are as many as 10 çiftliks in a single settlement of pure çiftlik type. The relevant list can be seen in the table below.
Table 109. Pure Çiftliks of Pirlepe
Level of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlementLevel of çiftlik formationSettlement NameNumber of çiftlik owners / çiftliks within the settlement1Ropotova11Zabjani , Zhabjani21Dabjani51Lokveni11Slivje21Orle51Şerifeler, Sheleverci11Kutlesevo21Turicko, Tursko, Podvis71Pisokal11Cumovo, Chumovo21Makovo81Cepigovo, Chepigovo11Mramorani-i Kebir21Belopole91Armatus, Armatush11Lak41Galicani91Oba-ı Kebir (Golemo Konjari) 11Alioba, Alinci41Aşorioz101Dedebal, Dedebalci4
255
Then, how much of the agricultural land in rural Pirlepe do the çiftlik-owners have under their command? What is the proportion between the lands in the çiftlik domains and the lands in the village domains? What proportion of the cultivable land in the çiftlik boundaries are held by the rural producers rather than by the çiftlik-owners themselves? What is the situation for the corresponding distribution of draught animals between çiftliks and villages, çiftlik-owners and rural producers?
5.1.2 Ownership of agricultural means of production
The following tables (Table 110 and Table 111) display the information on landownership by villagers, çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers in Pirlepe. Table 110 displays the distribution of landownership for each category of land among the villagers, çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers. Table 111 displays the relative weight of landownership for different types of land within each group.
Table 110. Landownership by Çiftlik-owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers (Pirlepe) (1)
VillagersÇiftlik-ownersÇiftlik workersTOTALTypes of landDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageDönümPercentageGrain fields10667769%46088.530%19701%154735.5100%Meadow 3652.7554%278842%2634%6703.75100%Vineyard2454.42581%1766%389.2513%3019.675100%Hemp field344.569%12.53%142.2528%499.25100%Tobacco fields13379%95%2615%168100%Corn field00%00%53.5100%53.5100%Vegetable garden41.5599%00%0.51%42.05100%Flax field00%3100%00%3100%Bean field0.5100%00%00%0.5100%
256
Table 111. Landownership by Çiftlik-owners, Çiftlik Workers, and Villagers
(Pirlepe) (1)
In general, the agricultural economy of Pirlepe, just like Manastır and İştip, is mainly
based on the production of grains, which is then followed by meadows and vineyards.
The villagers of the district have 69% of the cultivable land of the district under their
control while the çiftlik-owners have 30% and the çiftlik-workers have a mere 1%
(Figure 113).
Figure 113. Concentration of landownership in Pirlepe.
Villagers Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers
Types of land Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Grain fields 106677 94% 46088.5 94% 1970 69%
Meadow 3652.75 3% 2788 6% 263 9%
Vineyard 2454.425 2% 176 0% 389.25 14%
Hemp field 344.5 0% 12.5 0% 142.25 5%
Tobacco fields 133 0% 9 0% 26 1%
Corn field 0 0% 0 0% 53.5 2%
Vegetable garden 41.55 0% 0 0% 0.5 0%
Flax field 0 0% 3 0% 0 0%
Bean field 0.5 0% 0 0% 0 0%
TOTAL 113303.725 100% 49077 100% 2844.5 100%
69%
30%
1%
Concentration of landownership: Distribution of grain fields
Villagers Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers
257
Then, the graph below (Figure 114) displays the distribution of oxen, which constitute one of the main means of production, between çiftliks and villages.327 Here, 27% of the oxen are located in the çiftliks and 73% in the villages. Similarly to the case of İştip, the contribution of oxen by çiftlik-owners to agricultural production is relatively higher than Manastır.328 As will be discussed below329, this can be explained, at least to some extent, by the relative significance of çiftliks based on wage-labour in Pirlepe and İştip, on the one hand, and the possibility of local
variations regarding the content of labour arrangements, on the other hand.
Figure 114. Distribution of oxen between çiftliks and villages in Pirlepe
The chart below (Figure 115) displays the distribution of factors of production, to the extent that they could be derived from the survey registers -namely, labour (in the form of potential workforce calculated on the basis of number of relevant households), land and oxen- between çiftlik and village domains.
327 This distribution changes only by 1% in favor of çiftlik-owners compared to villagers when all the potential draught animals are included in the calculations. This category includes “öküz manda, manda öküzü, erkek manda, kısır manda, manda, çift mandası, camuş, kısır camuş, kara sığır.”
328 See: Sections 3.3 and 4.3.
329 See: Section 5.3. 8%
19%
73%
Oxen: Çiftliks versus villages
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
258
Figure 115. Means of production: Çiftliks versus villages (Pirlepe).
When the ownership of these factors of production is considered, the degree of their concentration in the hands of a number of landholders suggests the dispossession of a part of the rural population (Figure 116 and Figure 117), albeit on a smaller scale than Manastır and İştip. These landowners not only owns one-third of the cultivable land in the district, but also directly control around a quarter of the total labour-force (i.e., çiftlik workers) who are mostly dispossessed (See: Figure 107). In contrast, 20% of the rural population, i.e., çiftlik workers, holds around 1% of the land and 19% of the oxen in the district, indicating the dispossession of a part of the population. Lastly, 74% of the rural population, resident in villages, has 69% of the cultivable fields while holding 73% of the oxen in the district.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All grain fields
Oxen (number)
Potential agricultural workforce (Household
number of rural producers)
Means of rural production: Çiftliks versus villages
Çiftlik Village
259
Figure 116. Concentration of landownership (1) (Pirlepe).
Figure 117. Concentration of landownership (2) (Pirlepe)
The following graph (Figure 118) displays the ratio of cultivable fields owned by çiftlik-owners to all of the fields in each settlement in order to display the geographical distribution of settlements with varying degrees of çiftlik formation in terms of landownership. Here, an index has been prepared whereby the value of 0 indicates non-existence of çiftlik land and the value of 1 indicates all-encompassing existence of çiftlik land for each settlement. The resulting distribution is displayed in Figure 118. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Number of households
All grain fields (in dönüm)
Concentration of landownership (1)
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Çiftlik-owners
Çiftlik workers
Villagers
Concentration of landownership (2)
Number of households All grain fields (in dönüm)
260
Figure 118. Ratio of çiftlik land to all settlement land (Pirlepe).
Each settlement is indicated in the map below in accordance with their level of çiftlik formation in terms of landownership. Here, the colour white indicates the non-existence of çiftlik owner land, the colour pink indicates the mixture of çiftlik-owner, çiftlik worker, and villager land, and the colour red indicates the all-encompassing presence of villager land (Figure 119).
Figure 119. Distribution of settlements by landownership: Çiftliks versus villages (Pirlepe).
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
Ratio of çiftlik-owners' land to all
settlement land
Settlements
Ratio of çiftlik-owners' land (grain fields) to all land owned (by
settlements)
261
The map below (Figure 120) displays the extent of cultivable land in conjunction with the distribution of ownership by çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers and villagers within each settlement. The size of the pie charts indicates the size of the cultivable fields in each settlement. Within the pie charts, colour red indicates ownership by çiftlik-owners, colour blue indicates ownership by çiftlik workers, and colour green indicates ownership by villagers. In Pirlepe, the alluvial plain in the interior region is definitely a locus of çiftlik production. As such, attention to local variations remains crucial so that internal diversity within designated units of analysis will not be overlooked.
Figure 120. Distribution of land: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers of Pirlepe.
So far, the data has been analyzed to demonstrate that there is a certain degree of concentration of land in the district of Pirlepe in the mid-19th century, albeit lower than Manastır and İştip. Here, the main framework has been the division between the villages and the çiftliks of the region, even though they are located close to each other, often within the same settlement. As such they display interaction and
262
permeability to a considerable degree, in addition to significant variations within them.
5.1.3 Sources of income
The table below (Table 112) demonstrates the rural income sources and their distribution by activity in the district of Pirlepe as a whole, underlining the importance of agricultural production in general. Agricultural production is followed by agricultural wage-labour and animal husbandry.
Table 112. Income Sources of Pirlepe
The following series of tables (Table 113 and Table 114) display the distribution of different branches of agricultural activity, in terms of different types of land (in dönüm) and income obtained from them (in kuruş) in aggregates on çiftlik and village lands. Here, the focus is on active production and hence, only lands under cultivation, creating revenue for the owner, have been taken into account.330
330 Rented lands have been taken into account while leased out and uncultivated lands have been excluded since they do not produce agricultural revenue directly for the owner.
Income sourcesIn kuruşPercentageAgricultural production366024860%Sharecropping1087448.618%Agricultural wage-labour411037.57%Animal-husbandry3632206%Animal-related wage-labour181586.753%Transport and/or provision of wood and wood products1491852%Rope-making69914.51%Other560591%Transport and/or provision of coal332631%Rent325461%Transport28891.250%TOTAL6073399.6100%
263
Table 113. Agricultural Production in Pirlepe: Çiftliks versus Villages (1)
As can be observed in Table 113, the grain fields located in the villages, constituting
94% of all types of village lands, produce 90% of the total agricultural revenue of the
villages. As for the çiftliks, 93% of all lands are constituted by grain fields that
produce 90% of the total agricultural revenue. In both cases, grain fields are followed
by meadows and vineyards.
Table 114. Agricultural Production in Pirlepe: Çiftliks versus Villages (2)
Table 114 displays the distribution of both the amount of land and the revenue
obtained from agricultural production among the çiftliks and the villages. In general
terms, the grain fields in the çiftlik generate a slightly higher revenue per dönüm visà-
vis villages. The distribution of agricultural revenue between çiftliks and villages
can be observed in Figure 121.
VILLAGE ÇİFTLİK
Types of land Dönüm Revenue Dönüm Revenue
Grain fields 105854 94% 2915575.75 90% 47640 93% 1479182.5 90%
Meadow 3601.25 3% 127962.5 4% 3019 6% 111685 7%
Vineyard 2448.125 2% 129745 4% 543.75 1% 25002.5 2%
Vegetable garden 41.3 0% 4350 0% 0.5 <1% 250 <1%
Tobacco field 133 0% 23930 1% 35 <1% 6510 <1%
Bean field 0.5 <1% 30 <1% 0 0% 0 0%
Hemp field 344.5 0% 25830 1% 154.75 0% 13705 1%
Flax field 0 0% 0 0% 3 <1% 300 <1%
Corn field 0 0% 0 0% 53.5 <1% 1417.5 <1%
TOTAL 112422.675 100% 3227423.25 100% 51449.5 100% 1638052.5 100%
VILLAGE ÇİFTLİK
Types of land Dönüm Revenue Dönüm Revenue
TOTAL
(Dönüm)
TOTAL
(Revenue) TOTAL
Grain fields 105854 69% 2915575.75 66% 47640 31% 1479182.5 34% 153494 4394758.25 100%
Meadow 3601.25 54% 127962.5 53% 3019 46% 111685 47% 6620.25 239647.5 100%
Vineyard 2448.125 82% 129745 84% 543.75 18% 25002.5 16% 2991.875 154747.5 100%
Vegetable garden 41.3 99% 4350 95% 0.5 1% 250 5% 41.8 4600 100%
Tobacco field 133 79% 23930 79% 35 21% 6510 21% 168 30440 100%
Bean field 0.5 100% 30 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0.5 30 100%
Hemp field 344.5 69% 25830 65% 154.75 31% 13705 35% 499.25 39535 100%
Flax field 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 300 100% 3 300 100%
Corn field 0 0% 0 0% 53.5 100% 1417.5 100% 53.5 1417.5 100%
264
Figure 121. Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages (Pirlepe).
The chart below (Figure 122) displays the distribution of income from animal husbandry between villagers, çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers. While the villagers earn 72% of income from animal husbandry, the greater part of the remaining income from animal husbandry is earned by the workers of the çiftliks. As such, while the villages dominate in terms of engagement in animal husbandry, workers of the çiftliks also display a considerable participation in this activity, especially when proportioned to the size of each group under question.
Figure 122. Income from animal husbandry: Çiftlik-owners, çiftlik workers, and villagers (Pirlepe).
Lastly, in order to assess the level of inequality in the distribution of land (in terms of access to land, rather than income) the following calculations were made: The 66%
34%
Agricultural revenue: Çiftliks versus villages
Villages Çiftliks
3%
25%
72%
Income from animal husbandary
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Villagers
265
population331 of the district was divided into 4 groups where the first group comprised of the bottom 10%, the second comprised of the top 10%, and the remaining population was divided into two groups with 40% each of the rural population in terms of ownership of grain fields. On this basis, the Gini coefficient is calculated to be 0.54. Also, a calculation exclusively conducted for the village lands has produced a value of 0.47 (which will be discussed in further detail in Section 5.2.2). As such, there exists a certain degree of rural inequality in terms of access to land in the district of Pirlepe in the mid-19th century even when one does not take the çiftliks into consideration.
5.2 Villages, peasants and class relations: The question of inequality in a peasant society
5.2.1 Village population of Pirlepe
In order to have a general sense of the configuration of labour types in the villages, the distribution of income sources provides a point of start. The graph below (Figure 123) displays this distribution according to which engagement in agricultural production constitutes the main source of income, underlining the continuing importance of agricultural production for the economy of the villages of the district as a whole. This is then followed by animal-husbandry and agricultural wage-labour.
331 Including çiftlik-owners and rural residents, i.e. everyone having an interest in the agricultural economy of the district. Outsiders holding scattered parcels of land in villages are excluded.
266
Figure 123. Villages of Pirlepe: Distribution of income sources.
Additionally, most of the households relied on agricultural production as the main source of income, followed by agricultural wage-labour, as can be observed in the table below (Table 115).332
Table 115. Distribution of Village Households by Main Source of Income
Before moving to the details of these branches of activities, the weight of agricultural production in the villages of the district raises the central question of how the agrarian production, the main source of income for the rural district of Pirlepe, is
332 28 households which did not have any income registered have been excluded from the calculations. There is still great variety, ranging from 45 kuruş to more than 11000 kuruş. 80%
7%
6%
4% 3%
Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of income sources
Agricultural production
Animal-husbandry
Agricultural wage-labour
Transport and/or provision of wood and wood products
Animal-related wage-labour
Main source of incomeNumber of householdsPercentageAgricultural production 276083%Agricultural wage-labour32310%Animal-related wage-labour853%Transport and/or provision of wood and wood products602%Sharecropping351%Other321%Animal-husbandry50%Rent140%Rope-making60%Transport40%TOTAL3324100%
267
organized. In the idealized Ottoman agrarian universe, a village should mainly comprise of small-holding farmers who rely on family-labour and have a subsistence-oriented, self-sustaining outlook within comparatively similar conditions of life for the entire village community. How does this idealized picture compare with the actual rural conditions in the mid-19th century villages of Pirlepe? How can the general characteristics of the internal organization and composition of the villages be understood? The following charts and tables have been prepared to find an answer, or at least some hints at an answer, to these questions.
5.2.2 Distribution of land and the question of rural inequality
The table below (Table 116) displays the distribution of all types of land held by village residents in terms of their size. Here, it becomes further visible that the holding of grain fields leads the way in terms of economic activity, followed by that of meadows and vineyards, for villages.333
Table 116. Distribution of Land Types among Villagers
333 Yields also follow this trend: grains followed by meadows and vineyards.
Types of landDönüm (total)Dönüm (percentage)Number of householdsNumber of households (percentage)Grain fields104036.592%287586%Meadow3550.753%143643%Vineyard 2438.1252%187356%Grain fields under sharecropping16871%150%Out-of-settlement grain field7311%1143%Hemp field344.50%2146%Leased out grain fields147.50%120%Tobacco field1330%1264%Uncultivated grain fields750%90%Out-of-settlement meadow530%371%Meadow under sharecropping45.50%90%Vegetable garden41.30%863%Vineyard under sharecropping100%40%Out-of-settlement vineyard5.80%70%Leased out meadow3.50%60%Leased out vineyard0.50%10%Bean field0.50%10%Leased out vegetable garden0.250%10%TOTAL113303.725100%
268
The graph below (Figure 124) displays the distribution of land calculated on the basis of the ownership of grain fields among all the residents of the villages. Here, the greater majority of the farmers hold land below 50 dönüms while the same data also shows the difference between the smallholding peasantry as against two specific groups of landless villagers and bigger landowning peasants.
Figure 124. Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (1)
The table below (Table 117) treats the data on landownership in the villages in a way to demonstrate the respective part of all the grain fields held by each quarter of the village population. In the bottom group, 838 households hold either no land or land of 12 dönüms and below, constituting 3% of all land, totaling 2852 dönüms. The second quarter holds land between 12 and 25 dönüms, constituting 14% of all land, totaling 15056.5 dönüms. The third quarter holds lands between 25 and 45 dönüms, constituting 26% of all land, totaling 28134.5 dönüm. Lastly, the top group holds land ranging from 45 to 317 dönüms, constituting 57% of all land, totaling 60634 dönüms. The graph following the table (Figure 124) visualizes this distribution.
0
100
200
300
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Grain fields (dönüm)
Village households
Villages of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (ownership of grain
fields)
269
Table 117. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Pirlepe (1)
Figure 125. Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (2)
The table and the chart following the table below (Table 118 and Figure 125)
demonstrate the same data yet excluding the completely landless 456 households. In
this slightly altered version, the bottom quarter holds land between 1 and 16 dönüms,
totaling 7719.5 dönüms (7% of all land). The second quarter holds land between 16
and 28 dönüms, totaling 16118.5 dönüms (15% of all land). The third quarter holds
land between 28 and 50 dönüms, totaling 27601.5 dönüms (26% of all land). The top
quarter hold land between 50 and 317 dönüms, totaling 55237.5 dönüms of grain
fields (52% of all land). As such, the top group here holds 7.15 times the amount of
the land held by the bottom group.
Number of
households
Ranges of land
ownership (in dönüm)
Total (in
dönüm) Percentage
838 0 - 12 2852 3%
838 12 - 25 15056.5 14%
838 25 - 45 28134.5 26%
838 45 - 317 60634 57%
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
0 - 12 12 - 25 25 - 45 45 - 317
Total dönüm
Ranges of landowning (dönüm)
Villages of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (1)
270
Table 118. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Pirlepe (2)
Figure 126. Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (2).
Lastly, Table 119 displays the data on landownership with different points of break,
focusing on the ranges of ownership. As such, the results demonstrate that 456
households have no land (14% of all households), 122 households hold land between
1 and 5 dönüms (4% of all households), 193 households hold land between 5.5 and
10 dönüms (6% of all households), 671 households hold land between 10.5 and 20
dönüms (20% of all households), 1258 households hold land between 20.5 and 50
dönüms (38% of all households), 564 households hold land between 50.5 and 100
dönüms (17% of all households), 84 households hold land between 105 and 200
dönüms (3% of all households), 4 households hold land between 205 and 317
dönüms.
Number of
households
Ranges of land
ownership (in dönüm)
Total (in
dönüm) Percentage
724 1 - 16 7719.5 7%
724 16 - 28 16118.5 15%
724 28 - 50 27601.5 26%
724 50 - 317 55237.5 52%
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1 - 16 16 - 28 28 - 50 50 - 317
Total dönüm
Ranges of landowning (dönüm)
Villages of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (2)
271
Table 119. Distribution of Land among Villagers of Pirlepe (3)
The table below has been derived from the same source of data used above in order
to present a more detailed picture of landownership in the villages as calculations
have been made in order to demonstrate the extent of the inequality of landownership
among the village residents through the computing of a Gini coefficient based on the
extent of landownership exercised by each group. The resulting Gini coefficient of
0.47 indicates the existence of a certain degree of inequality in landownership in the
villages. This distribution of land among villagers can be observed in the graph
below (Figure 127).
Figure 127. Villagers of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (3).
As such, the calculations above together indicate that there is a visible distinction
between the lower and the upper segments of the village-residing rural society in
Number of households Range of landownership (in dönüm) Percentage in total number of households
456 no land 14%
122 1 - 5 4%
193 5.5 - 10 6%
671 10.5 - 20 20%
1258 20.5 - 50 38%
564 50.5 - 100 17%
84 105 - 200 3%
4 205 - 317 <1%
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0 0 - 9 9 - 15 15 - 19 19 - 25 25 - 31 31 - 39 39 - 50 50 - 66 67 - 317
Total land (in dönüm)
Ranges of ownership)
Villages of Pirlepe: Distribution of land (3)
272
terms of landowning in the mid-19th century Pirlepe. As such, the largest tracts of land were concentrated in the hands a fewer number of peasant families while the majority of the farmer households operated on smaller fields, in addition to the presence of a group of landless villagers.
5.2.3 Patterns of settlement: Villages of Pirlepe
The graph below (Figure 128) indicates the extent of inequality between individual villages in terms ownership of grain fields. Here, villages display a considerable degree of divergence in terms of landholding. Considering the overall significance of agricultural production in the rural economy of Pirlepe, such divergence indicates the existence of inequality not only among individual villagers, but also between villages themselves.334
Figure 128. Distribution of grain fields among villages of Pirlepe.
5.2.4 Forms of labour and the question of differentiation
The following tables and charts display the details of landownership and income sources in relation to the extent of wage-labour in the villages of Pirlepe. The first
334 For instances of income inequality between villages long before the 19th century, see: Koç, “Pirlepe kırsalında nüfus-vergi yükümlülüğü bağlamında ekonomik refah düzeyinin tespiti ve gelir dağilımı üzerine bir deneme.” 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
105
109
113
Grain fields (dönüm)
Villages
Distribution of grain fields among villages
273
table below (Table 120) demonstrates the details of the distribution of various
sources of income in the villages. As a whole, agricultural production retains its
importance in general, followed by animal husbandry and wage-labour. As such,
before moving to the more meaningful question of who survives by doing what under
this umbrella, a detailed exposition of this distribution is provided below.
Table 120. Income Sources of Villages of Pirlepe
In the chart below (Figure 128), main agrarian income sources are indicated.
Figure 129. Agrarian income sources of villages of Pirlepe.
Category Income (in kuruş) Percentage in total income Occupations
Agricultural production 3171080.75 76%
Animal-husbandry 260978 6%
Agricultural wage-labour 224469 5% hizmetkar, ırgat, aylakçı, rençber, çiftçi
Transport and/or provision
of wood and wood products 147310 4% keresteci, oduncu, tahtacı, çıracı
Animal-related wage-labour 133741.5 3% çoban, sığırtmaç, öküzcü, buzakçı
Sharecropping 52980.5 1%
Rope-making 49009.5 1% urgancı
Other 46015.5 1%
dülger, semerci, mermerci, papaz, değirmenci, ticaret,
kazancı, taşçı, değirmen taşçısı, katrancı, kiremitçi,
şıracı, fıçıcı, asiyabcı, kocabaşı, şerik hissesi, terzi,
çulcu, unspecified / misc
Transport and/or provision
of charcoal 33013 1% kömürcü
Transport 24511.25 1% kiracı, arabacı
Rent 21723 1%
TOTAL 4164832 100%
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
Annual income (kuruş)
Sources of income
Agricultural sources of income
274
In the chart below (Figure 130), main non-agrarian income sources are indicated. Here, the level of occupational differentiation is much lower than Manastır as the only formidable individual alternatives are transportation as well as transport and provision of wood, addition to the locally specific activity of rope-making (“urgancılık”).
Figure 130. Non-agricultural income sources of villages of Pirlepe.
Then, how are these activities related to traditional agricultural production and smallholding peasantry? What is the nature of the relationship between peasant farmers and agricultural wage-workers?
Similarly to Manastır and İştip, agricultural and animal-husbandry related wage-workers of the villages were mostly employed by their neighbours. Of the villagers, it was possible to identify around 130 peasant households as the specific employers of the wage-workers as the latter were not only landless, but also houseless, and were indicated to dwell on the lodgings of their employers. Overall, 217 households were indicated to lack land or house or both. 0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
Transport
and/or
provision of
wood and wood
products
Rope-making Other Transport
and/or
provision of
coal
Transport Rent
Annual income (kuruş)
Non-agricultural sources of income
Non-agricultural sources of income
275
Other than wage-labourers, 15 villagers have been specifically indicated as the employers of sharecroppers. While the greater part of the sharecropping arrangements took place between the fellow villagers, a few arrangements with çiftlik-owners of the district as well as the residents of other villages have also been observed. In the cases of in-village sharecropping, grain fields of 1687 dönüms were put under sharecropping, producing a revenue of 54072.5 kuruş to be shared between the parties of the arrangements after the subtraction of the aşar (calculated as 1/10 of the total produce). As for the sharecroppers, these arrangements occasionally co-existed with practices of independent agricultural production as well as engagement in animal husbandry and wage-labour. While the sharecroppers lacked the land and provided the oxen in most cases, there were also exceptions to this rule. In a sharecropping arrangement in the village of Nebregovo, the landowner who put grain fields and meadows under sharecropping arrangements also rented out his four oxen, most probably to his sharecroppers who lacked any draught animals of their own. There were also divergences in terms of the specific content of sharecropping agreements. In the village of Botrik (?), the landowner, lacking draught animals, gave land to a sharecropper who owned four oxen, and the sharing took place on an equal basis. In the village of Desovo, both of the parties had oxen - the landowner having four and the sharecropper having two animals - while the latter completely lacked land; in this case, the landowner got more than 2/3 of the total agricultural revenue. Still, the general pattern stands: Most of the sharecroppers owned and contributed oxen to the process of agricultural production as they lacked land on which these draught animals could be used for independent farming. As such, the ownership of draught animals once again functioned as a crucial determinant for the
276
formation of specific labour arrangements beyond its importance for independent farming.
On the other side of the economic spectrum, 9 villagers were indicated to own rented out inns or have shares in them, 124 villagers had income from rented out mills, and 6 villagers had rented out oxen335 in addition to the existence of a number of çiftlik-owning village residents.336 Beyond the relations between the villagers, some cases of employment of villagers by çiftlik-owners have also been observed in the registers.
Even at this level of information, it is possible to detect that the relations between the members of the different segments of the peasantry is far from being one of equals. Rather, there are considerable gaps among the members of the agrarian society -between a small segment of land and property-owning, labour employing peasantry, a larger group of small-holding farmers mainly relying on family-labour while sometimes getting engaged in supplementary sources of income, and the existence of a completely dispossessed group of agricultural wage-workers. In the village part of the settlement of Musaoba (Musinci), for example, 10 out of 24 resident farmers employed completely landless wage workers who resided in the dwellings of their employers. Also, it was possible to observe serious divergences among the farmers residing in this village in terms of landholding and income, the former ranging between 12 and 78 dönüms and the latter ranging between 265 and 1352.5 kuruş. In the village part of the settlement of Oba-ı Kebir, the head of the household numbered 9, lacking any draught animals of his own, rented out his grain
335 The level of per ox ranges between 60 and 100 kuruş. Of the total of 6 households renting out oxen, 4 are completely landless and 1 has land of only 5 dönüms, once again attesting to the importance of the relationship between land and draught animals. The 6th one rents out oxen to his sharecroppers, as mentioned above.
336 The ownership of çiftliks is mostly indicated in the çiftlik-registers, not in the village registers of Pirlepe.
277
fields of 53 dönüms to the head of the household numbered 10, who had 2 oxen under his control and obtained an income of 1035 kuruş from the rented land, in addition to some income from his own vineyards. In the same village, the head of the household numbered 7 put his grain fields of 53 dönüms and meadows of 1 dönüm under a sharecropping arrangement with the head of the household numbered 8, who owned two oxen but lacked any cultivable land of his own, acting as his “şerik,” on the basis of equal distribution of shares. As such, there is indeed no single type of villager and the existing networks as well as relations of labour between the members of the peasantry are quite complex.
As previously discussed, the mere existence or the absence of wage-labour as a source of income in a household, including agricultural and animal husbandry related wage-labour, does not really indicate the economic position of the family under question. For example, in the village part of the settlement of Kadıköy (Kadinoselo), one of the richest villagers of the district of Pirlepe resided in the household registered under number 27. Here, despite the existence of large amounts of land under their holding, and significant levels of income from agriculture and animal husbandry, the members of this family were also engaged in shepherding (“çobanlık”) and rope-making (“urgancılık”) while they also obtained an income from the sharecropping activity they performed for Ahmed oğlu Arif, who was a resident of Bayraklıbey Mahallesi, part of the central town of Pirlepe, and the çiftlik-owner of a small çiftlik located in the same settlement of Kadıköy. As such, there would not be a simple and clear correlation between landownership and engagement in wage-labour. Accordingly, just like in the cases of Manastır and İştip, a number of
278
relations between landownership (of grain fields) and involvement in different forms of economic activity have been established in the tables below. 337
The first table below (Table 121) displays the rate of acquisition of different sources of income by the landless families of the district compared to all village households. Here, 39% of the income from wage-labour is obtained by the landless households of the district. As such, agricultural wages should have a primary character for this group while it is likely to be supplementary to agricultural production for the remaining. This is followed by sharecropping and animal-related wage-labour.
Table 121. Income Sources of Landless Villagers of Pirlepe
The table below (Table 122) displays all the income sources of landless village population as the main source of income has been calculated for each landless village household. Here, agricultural wage-labour constitutes the main source of income for 59% of the landless villagers; this is followed by animal-related wage-labour which constitutes the main source of income for 17% of the landless. As such, engagement in agricultural wage-labour is the most significant source of income for the majority of the landless population of the villages.
337 The households with no income and those that were engaged in production on rented lands have been excluded from the calculations. As such, 415 out of 456 landless households are included in the analysis since the focus is on dependency on the food market.
Income sourcesIncome obtained by landless households (in kuruş)Income obtained by all households (in kuruş)Percentage of the income earned by landless households in all village householdsAgricultural wage-labour86792.522446939%Animal-related wage-labour25680133741.519%Other 681546015.515%Transport and/or provision of wood12372.51473108%Transport922.2524511.254%Agricultural income100253171080.750%Animal Husbandary10830.52609784%Sharecropping19189.62552980.536%Rent28202172313%Rope-making253549009.55%Transport and/or provision of charcoal1150330133%
279
Table 122. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of Pirlepe (Number of
Households)
Table 123 displays the relative weight of all income sources obtained by the landless
villagers. Once again, income from agricultural wage-labour constitutes the bulk of
the income bundle.
Table 123. Main Sources of Income for Landless Villagers of Pirlepe (Level of
Income)
Landless village households
Main source of income Number of households Percentage
Agricultural wage-labour 245 59%
Animal-related wage-labour 69 17%
Other 18 4%
Transport and/or provision of wood 38 9%
Transport 2 0%
Agricultural income 10 2%
Animal Husbandary 5 1%
Sharecropping 18 4%
Rent 3 1%
Rope-making 4 1%
Transport and/or provision of charcoal 3 1%
TOTAL 415 100%
Landless village households
Income source Income (in kuruş) Income (percentage)
Agricultural wage-labour 86792.5 48%
Animal-related wage-labour 25680 14%
Other 6815 4%
Transport and/or provision of
wood 12372.5 7%
Transport 922.25 1%
Agricultural income 10025 6%
Animal Husbandary 10830.5 6%
Sharecropping 19189.625 11%
Rent 2820 2%
Rope-making 2535 1%
Transport and/or provision of
charcoal 1150 1%
TOTAL 179132.375 100%
280
While the categorization of the data in the tables above simply divides the rural population between the landless and the landowning, without regard to the extent and nature of the latter, the series of tables below aim to provide a more nuanced exposition of the relationship between the degrees of landownership and the most important form of economic activity after independent farming and animal husbandry – agricultural wage-labour.
Table 124. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe (1)
As Table 124 indicates in general lines, after the households holding 0 and 15 dönüms (6% of all village land) earn more than half the total income from agricultural wage-labour, 21% is obtained by households holding land between 15 and 37 dönüms (26% of all village land) and the households holding land over 37 dönüms (% 68 of all village land) obtain 27% of agricultural wage. As such, the degree of dependency on food market as well as the importance of engagement in wage labor for the overall bundle of income of the household should have diverged greatly among these groups.
Of the 706 households obtaining an income from agricultural wage-labour, 269 are completely landless while the remaining households hold 16907 dönüms of land which constitutes 16% of all land indicating the existence of a degree of market dependency in the form of the erosion of the traditional (and relative) peasant self-sufficiency. Here, the average income from agricultural wage-labour per household
Agricultural wage-labourRanges of ownership (dönüm)Number of householdsTotal land (dönüm)Percentage in total landIncome from agricultural wage-labour (kuruş)Percentage in total agricultural wage-labour0 - 15111867656%11720252%15 - 37111727900.526%47280.521%37 - 317111772011.568%59986.527%TOTAL3352106677100%224469100%
281
is 317.9 kuruş. The relevant data is displayed in the tables below (Table 125 and
Table 126).
Table 125. Landownership and Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the
Villages of Pirlepe (2)
Table 126. Income from Agricultural Wage Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe
As Table 127 indicates regarding the relationship between landownership and
animal-husbandary related wage labour, the households in the bottom group, holding
6% of all village land, earn 26% of the total income from engagement in animalrelated
wage-labour while 22% is obtained by households holding land between 15
and 37 dönüms (26% of all village land) and more than half is obtained by the
households holding land over 37 dönüms (68% of all village land). In general,
therefore, engagement in animal-related wage-labour has a largely supplementary
character in contrast to agricultural wage-labour.
Agricultural wage-labour
Total landownership of land by
earners of agricultural wagelabour
(dönüm) 16907
Total land (dönüm) 106677
Percentage 16%
Agricultural wage-labour
Number of households 706
Income from agricultural wagelabour
(kuruş) 224469
Average per household (kuruş) 317.94
282
Table 127. Landownership and Income from Animal-Husbandry Related Wage
Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe (1)
Of the 497 households obtaining an income from animal-related wage-labour, 98 are
completely landless while the remaining households hold 21129 dönüms of land,
which constitutes 20% of all village land. Here, the average income from animalrelated
wage-labour per household is 269.1 kuruş. The relevant data is displayed in
the tables below (Table 128 and Table 129).
Table 128. Landownership and Income from Animal-Husbandry Related Wage
Labour in the Villages of Pirlepe (2)
Table 129. Income from Animal-Husbandry Related Wage Labour in the Villages of
Pirlepe
Animal-husbandary
related wage-labour
Ranges of ownership
(dönüm) Number of households Total land (dönüm)
Percentage in total
land
Income from animalhusbandary
related
wage-labour (kuruş)
Percentage in total
animal-husbandary
related wage-labour
0 - 15 1118 6765 6% 34855 26%
15 - 37 1117 27900.5 26% 29056 22%
37 - 317 1117 72011.5 68% 69830.5 52%
TOTAL 3352 106677 100% 133741.5 100%
Animal-husbandary
related wage-labour
Total landownership
of land by earners of
animal-husbandary
related wage-labour
(dönüm) 21129
Total land (dönüm) 106677
Percentage 20%
Animal-husbandary
related wage-labour
Number of
households 497
Income from
agricultural wagelabour
(kuruş) 133741.5
Average per
household (kuruş) 269.10
283
Lastly, based on the data below (Table 130), it is safe to argue that of all the rural population in the district of Pirlepe, only 15% refrains from any engagement in non-agricultural activities while 14% is completely cut-off from it and pursue alternative directions.
Table 130. Dependency on Food Market in the Villages of Pirlepe
5.3 Çiftliks, landowners and producers: Land, labour and agricultural production
5.3.1 Organization of labour and types of çiftliks
In the income survey registers, 4 main types of çiftliks have been identified on the basis of the form of labour employed. The chart in Figure 131 displays the distribution of çiftlik workers among different types of çiftliks. In Pirlepe, 42% of çiftlik workers resided in çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour, 26% of çiftlik workers resided in çiftliks based on sharecropping, 26% of çiftlik workers resided in çiftliks based on wage-labour, and 6% of çiftlik cultivators consisted of tenant farmers. The chart in Figure 132 displays the distribution of individual çiftliks among different types of çiftliks. In Pirlepe, 46% of çiftliks are based on sharecropping, 24% of çiftliks are based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour, 28% of çiftliks are based on wage-labour, and 2% of çiftliks are based on tenancy.
Number of householdsPercentage in all householdsNo income281%No non-agricultural income49715%No grain fields45614%
284
Figure 131. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftlik workers (Pirlepe).
Figure 132. Çiftlik types by the number of çiftliks (Pirlepe)
As such, it is evident that sharecropping constitutes the most prevalent form of labour-arrangement while tenancy (“isticar”) remains to be the least common method. Similarly to İştip, the presence of çiftliks exclusively based on wage-labour is much more prevalent than Manastır.
In the district of Pirlepe, the çiftliks based on the exclusive use of wage-labour consists of 231 households resident in 96 çiftliks. Here, the wage-labourers
26%
26%
42%
6%
Çiftlik types by number of çiftlik workers (number of households)
Çiftliks based on wage-labour ("hizmetkar" only)
Çiftliks based on sharecropping ("şerik" only)
Çiftliks based on sharecropping and wage-labour
Çiftliks based on renting out ("müstecir")
28%
46%
24%
2%
Çiftlik types by number of çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour ("hizmetkar" only)
Çiftliks based on sharecropping ("şerik" only)
Çiftliks based on sharecropping and wage-labour
Çiftliks based on renting out ("müstecir")
285
include both the permanent and temporary versions. The number of labourer households in the çiftliks based on wage labour range from 1 to 14, with a mean of 2.4 and a median of 2 (Figure 133).
Figure 133. Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourers’ households (Pirlepe).
The çiftliks exclusively based on sharecropping arrangements consist of 235 sharecropping households resident in 159 çiftliks. Of these, only 10 households do not have any source of income other than their shares from agricultural production under sharecropping. As such, 225 households obtain income from independent agricultural production, animal husbandry, as well as various types of wage-labour, transport, rope-making etc. In the majority of çiftliks based on sharecropping, agricultural produce is divided in half after “aşar” is subtracted while the division proceeds in favor of the landowner in a number of cases. Shares are mostly equal among multiple sharecroppers while a number of divergences have been observed as well. The number of sharecroppers’ households in this type of çiftliks range from 1 to 8, with a mean of 1.47 and a median of 1 (Figure 134). 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94
Number of labourer households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Number of labourer households
286
Figure 134. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of sharecroppers’ households (Pirlepe).
The çiftliks of mixed labour type are mainly based on sharecropping with the additional employment of wage-labour, both in its permanent and temporary / function-specific versions. Of the total number of 382 households resident in this type of çiftliks, 186 households consist of sharecropping families, the members of which are often engaged in additional sources of income. The remaining residents in this category of çiftliks mainly comprise wage workers. In most çiftliks based on this combination, the general rule is that agricultural produce is divided in half after “aşar” is subtracted, and shares are often distributed equally among multiple sharecroppers. Nevertheless, there are also several cases in this group whereby the division favors the landowner and considerable variations regarding the share apportioned to each sharecropper can be observed in a given çiftlik. The number of households in these çiftliks range from 2 to 34, with a mean of 4.7 and a median of 4 (Figure 135). 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
156
Number of households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Number of households
287
Figure 135. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour: Number of households (Pirlepe).
Just like in the previous cases, instances of labour mobility between villages and çiftliks, which either co-existed in the same settlement or existed side by side in their “pure” forms, have been observed. The details of such co-existence can be observed in the map below (Figure 136).338 The colour-coding is indicated in Table 131.
Figure 136. Çiftliks and villages of Pirlepe.
338 This map is a more detailed version of the map in Figure 111 (Section 5.1.1) 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79
Number of households
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on sharecropping and wage-labor: Number of
households
288
Table 131. Color-Coding of (Figure 135)
4.3.2 Patterns of ownership and agricultural production
The following charts have been prepared to demonstrate the distribution of
landownership across as well as within different types of çiftliks.
Figure 137. Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types (Pirlepe).
The chart on Figure 137 displays that the majority of the grain fields in the çiftliks of
the district are mainly concentrated under arrangements of sharecropping while 22%
is exclusively under wage-labour.
The two tables below (Table 132 and Table 133) display the main
information of landownership for all types of land in different types of çiftliks. In
Table 132, percentages have been calculated with reference to the total amount of
land for each type of çiftlik; in Table 133, percentages demonstrate which part of
Level of çiftlik formation Colour coding
0 White
0.01 - 0.09 Yellow
0.124 - 0.47 Orange
0.5 - 0.72 Blue
0.75 - 0.96 Navy blue
1 Purple
33%
42%
22%
2% 1%
Distribution of grain fields by çiftlik types
Çiftliks based on combination of labour types Çiftliks based on sharecropping
Çiftliks based on wage-labour Çiftliks based on money rent
Misc
289
each type of land is apportioned to each type of çiftlik. Here, both calculations attest
to the importance of grain fields in terms of landholding practices.
Table 132. Landownership in the Çiftliks of Pirlepe (1)
Table 133. Landownership in the Çiftliks of Pirlepe (2)
The series of tables and charts below display the landownership data for each
different type of çiftlik separately. The table below (Table 134) displays the
distribution of the ownership of all types of land between the çiftlik-owners and the
wage-labourers in the çiftliks based on wage-labour. In general, the majority of the
lands consist of grain fields, followed by meadows and then vineyards. Here, the
ownership of grain fields and meadows are almost completely monopolized by the
çiftlik-owners.
Grain
fields Meadow Vineyard
Hemp
field
Vegetable
garden
Flax
field
Corn
field
Tobacco
field TOTAL
Types of çiftlik Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Çiftliks based on wagelabour
10637 93% 766.5 7% 19.5 0% 1.5 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9.5 0% 11433.5 100%
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping 20171 93% 1213.5 6% 262.25 1% 81.75 0% 0.5 0% 3 0% 17 0% 10 0% 21758.5 100%
Çiftliks based on
combination of labour
types 15745 92% 971.5 6% 245.5 1% 71.5 0% 0 0% 0 0% 36.5 0% 15.5 0% 17085 100%
Çiftliks based on money
rent 921 90% 73 7% 32 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1026 100%
Misc 586 95% 26.5 4% 6 1% 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 618.5 100%
Grain
fields Meadow Vineyard
Hemp
field
Vegetable
garden
Flax
field
Corn
field
Tobacco
field
Types of çiftlik Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage Dönüm Percentage
Çiftliks based on wagelabour
10637 22% 766.5 25% 19.5 3% 1.5 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 9.5 27%
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping 20171 42% 1213.5 40% 262.25 46% 81.75 53% 0.5 100% 3 100% 17 32% 10 29%
Çiftliks based on
combination of labour
types 15745 33% 971.5 32% 245.5 43% 71.5 46% 0 0% 0 0% 36.5 68% 15.5 44%
Çiftliks based on money
rent 921 2% 73 2% 32 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Misc 586 1% 26.5 1% 6 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
TOTAL 48059 100% 3051 100% 565.25 100% 154.75 100% 0.5 100% 3 100% 53.5 100% 35 100%
290
Table 134. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour
Regarding all of the çiftliks based on wage-labour, the biggest agglomeration of
fields held by a çiftlik-owner in a single çiftlik comprises 560 dönüms while the
average is land of 115.25 dönüms with a median of 100.339 The distribution of the
fields among this type of çiftliks is displayed in the chart below (Figure 138).
Figure 138. Çiftliks based on wage labour: Grain fields of çiftliks-owners (Pirlepe).
The table below (Table 135) displays the distribution of the ownership of all types of
land between çiftlik-owners and sharecroppers in the çiftliks based exclusively on
sharecropping. In general, the majority of the lands consist of grain fields, followed
by meadows and vineyards. Here, the çiftlik-owners display almost complete
339 4 entries of 0 have been excluded.
Çiftliks based on
wage labour
Çiftlik-owner
(dönüm)
Çiftlik worker
(dönüm)
TOTAL
(dönüm)
Çiftlik-owner
(percentage)
Çiftlik worker
(percentage)
TOTAL
(percentage)
Grain fields 10603.5 33 10636.5 100% 0% 100%
Meadow 760.5 6 766.5 99% 1% 100%
Vineyard 14.5 5 19.5 74% 26% 100%
Tobacco field 7 2.5 9.5 74% 26% 100%
Hemp field 1.5 0 1.5 100% 0% 100%
TOTAL 11387 46.5 11433.5 100% 0% 100%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners
291
presence in the ownership of grain fields and meadows while the greater part of the
vineyards is held by çiftlik workers.
Table 135. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping
Regarding all of the çiftliks based exclusively on sharecropping, the biggest
agglomeration of all fields held by the çiftlik-owner in a single çiftlik consists of land
900 dönüms while the average is 120.9 with a median of 100. The distribution of the
fields among this type of çiftliks is displayed in the chart below (Figure 139).
Figure 139. Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (Pirlepe).
The table below (Table 136) displays the distribution of the ownership of all types of
land between the çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers in the çiftliks based on the
combination of sharecropping and wage-labour. In general, the majority of the lands
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Çiftlik-owner
(dönüm)
Çiftlik worker
(dönüm)
TOTAL
(dönüm)
Çiftlik-owner
(percentage)
Çiftlik worker
(percentage)
TOTAL
(percentage)
Grain fields 18984 1186.5 20170.5 94% 6% 100%
Meadow 1075 138.5 1213.5 89% 11% 100%
Vineyard 79.5 182.75 262.25 30% 70% 100%
Hemp field 6 75.75 81.75 7% 93% 100%
Corn field 0 17 17 0% 100% 100%
Tobacco field 0 10 10 0% 100% 100%
Flax field 3 0 3 100% 0% 100%
Vegetable garden 0 0.5 0.5 0% 100% 100%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
36
41
46
51
56
61
66
71
76
81
86
91
96
101
106
111
116
121
126
131
136
141
146
151
156
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on sharecropping: Grain fields of çiftlik-owners
292
consist of grain fields, followed by meadows and vineyards. Here, the çiftlik-owners
hold almost all of the grain fields, and dominated the ownership of meadows while
the çiftlik workers display a significant presence in the ownership of vineyards.
Table 136. Landownership in the Çiftliks Based on the Combination of
Sharecropping and Wage Labour
Regarding all of the çiftliks based on a combination of sharecropping and wagelabour,
the biggest agglomeration of grain fields under sharecropping arrangements
consists of 785 dönüms with an average of 185 and a median of 160. This category is
where the bigger production operations are taking place (Figure 140).
Figure 140. Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour:
Grain fields of çiftlik-owners (Pirlepe).
Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour
types
Çiftlik-owner
(dönüm)
Çiftlik worker
(dönüm)
TOTAL
(dönüm)
Çiftlik-owner
(percentage)
Çiftlik worker
(percentage)
TOTAL
(percentage)
Grain fields 14994 750.5 15744.5 95% 5% 100%
Meadow 870.5 101 971.5 90% 10% 100%
Vineyard 76 169.5 245.5 31% 69% 100%
Hemp field 5 66.5 71.5 7% 93% 100%
Corn field 0 36.5 36.5 0% 100% 100%
Tobacco field 2 13.5 15.5 13% 87% 100%
TOTAL 15947.5 1137.5 17085
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftliks based on the combination of labour types: Grain fields of
çiftlik-owners
293
To sum up, the table below (Table 137) displays the distribution of all types of land between çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers for all the çiftliks located in the district of Pirlepe whereby the majority of the lands, and mainly grain fields, is monopolized by the çiftlik-owners while the producers display their main presence in the ownership of vineyards, hemp fields, tobacco fields, and corn fields.
Table 137. Distribution of All Types of Land among Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Workers (Pirlepe)
All in all, the çiftlik economy of Pirlepe was mainly based on the ownership of grain fields and production of grains. Grains were not confined to wheat, but it was practically the most significant product in the çiftlik economy of Pirlepe of the mid-19th century. In the following charts, the respective amounts of income obtained from grain production on fields held by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik-workers are displayed in comparison.340
The chart below (Figure 141) displays the distribution of the revenue obtained
340 Unit prices of grains (in kuruş per kile) as calculated on the basis of agricultural tax, are as follows: Wheat (“Hınta”): 10; Rye (“Çavdar”): 7.5; Barley (“Şair”): 7; Oat (“Alef”): 3; Corn (“Mısır”): 7.5; Vetch (“Burçak”): 7.5.
Land types Çiftlik-owners (dönüm)Çiftlik workers (dönüm)TOTAL (dönüm)Çiftlik-owners (percentage)Çiftlik workers (percentage)Grain fields46088.5197048058.596%4%Meadow2788263305191%9%Vineyard176389.25565.2531%69%Hemp field12.5142.25154.758%92%Flax field303100%0%Corn field053.553.50%100%Tobacco field9263526%74%Vegetable garden00.50.50%100%TOTAL (dönüm)490772844.551921.595%5%
294
from the production of grains on the fields of çiftlik-owners. Here, the main income originates from the production of wheat, constituting 47% of total revenue obtained from the production of grains, followed by barley, constituting 26%, and then by rye, constituting 25%.
Figure 141. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners (Pirlepe).
The chart below (Figure 142) displays the distribution of the revenue obtained from the production of grains on the fields of çiftlik-workers. Here, the main revenue originates from production of wheat, constituting 39% of total income obtained from grains, followed by rye, constituting 30%, and then by barley, constituting 23%.
Figure 142. Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftlik workers (Pirlepe). 47%
26%
25%
2% 0% 0%
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik-owners
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
39%
30%
23%
7%
1% 0%
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik workers
Wheat ("Hınta") Rye ("Çavdar") Barley ("Şair")
Corn ("Mısır") Oat ("Alef") Vetch ("Burçak")
295
The series of charts below display the same distribution for each specific type of çiftlik. While the specific percentages vary, wheat production retains its significance (Figures 143, 144, and 145).
Figure 143. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wage labour (Pirlepe).
Figure 144. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on sharecropping (Pirlepe)
49%
25%
24%
2% 0%
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftliks based on wagelabour
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar") Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır")
46%
26%
26%
2% 0% 0%
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
296
Figure 145. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage labour (Pirlepe).
The graph below (Figure 146) combines the data given separately in the three charts above.
Figure 146. Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik types (Pirlepe).
Lastly, the distribution of grains in terms of their amount can be observed in the chart below (Figure 147 and Figure 148).
46%
28%
24%
2% 0% 0%
Agricultural produce from grain fields: Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour types
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Çiftliks based on wage labour Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour types
Revenue (Kuruş)
Çiftlik types
Agricultural revenue from grain fields: Çiftlik types
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
297
Figure 147. Grains from the fields of çiftlik-owners of Pirlepe
Figure 148. Grains from the fields of çiftlik workers of Pirlepe
The tables below (Table 138 and Table 139) show the lands under cultivation and the revenue obtained from them in the lands owned by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik-workers.
38%
30%
27%
5% 0% 0%
Grains (in kile): Fields of çiftlik-owners
Wheat ("Hınta") Barley ("Şair") Rye ("Çavdar")
Oat ("Alef") Corn ("Mısır") Vetch ("Burçak")
32%
32%
26%
8%
2% 0%
Grains (in kile): Fields of çiftlik workers
Wheat ("Hınta") Rye ("Çavdar") Barley ("Şair")
Corn ("Mısır") Oat ("Alef") Vetch ("Burçak")
298
Table 138. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of Pirlepe
(1)
Table 139. Agricultural revenue from land under production in the çiftliks of Pirlepe
(2)
The present analysis of the means of production will be concluded with the
exposition of the data on the ownership of draught animals. The following tables
(Table 140, Table 141, and Table 142) and the graphs derived from them (Figure 149
and Figure 150) demonstrate the distribution of draught animals between çiftlikowners
and producers for each type of çiftlik. In relation to workforce and land, the
çiftliks based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour contains most of
the draught animals, followed by çiftliks based on sharecropping and çiftliks based
on wage-labour.341
341 Categeories of animals include “oxen, öküz manda / manda öküzü, erkek manda, kısır manda,
manda, çift mandası, bargirl, harman bargiri/kısrağı, hatabkeş merkeb/bargirl, hergele bargir/kısrak,
binek bargiri/katırı, merkeb, dişi merkeb, kısrak, hergele / hergele kısrak, kısır/dölsüz inek.”
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers Total
Land type Revenue (in kuruş) Percentage Revenue (in kuruş) Percentage Revenue (in kuruş) Percentage
Grain fields 1384140 94% 95042.5 6% 1479182.5 100%
Meadow 98870 89% 12815 11% 111685 100%
Vineyard 8425 34% 16577.5 66% 25002.5 100%
Hemp field 1090 8% 12615 92% 13705 100%
Flax field 300 100% 0 0% 300 100%
Corn field 0 0% 1417.5 100% 1417.5 100%
Tobacco field 1800 28% 4710 72% 6510 100%
Vegetable garden 0 0% 250 100% 250 100%
Çiftlik-owners Çiftlik workers
Land type Revenue (in kuruş) Percentage Revenue (in kuruş) Percentage
Grain fields 1384140 93% 95042.5 66%
Meadow 98870 7% 12815 9%
Vineyard 8425 1% 16577.5 12%
Hemp field 1090 <1% 12615 9%
Flax field 300 <1% 0 0%
Corn field 0 0% 1417.5 1%
Tobacco field 1800 0% 4710 3%
Vegetable garden 0 0% 250 0%
TOTAL (dönüm) 1494625 100% 143427.5 100%
299
Table 140. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Wage Labour
Table 141. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on Sharecropping
Table 142. Draught Animals: Çiftliks Based on the Combination of Sharecropping
and Wage Labour
Figure 149. Distribution of draught animals among types of çiftliks.
Çiftliks based on
wage-labour
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 420 99% 447 99% 231 75%
Çiftlik worker 4 1% 4 1% 79 25%
Total 424 100% 451 100% 310 100%
Çiftliks based on
sharecropping
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 18 3% 22 3% 19 4%
Çiftlik worker 693 97% 717 97% 410 96%
Total 711 100% 739 100% 429 100%
Çiftliks based on the
combination of labour types
Oxen
(number)
Oxen
(percentage)
All potential draught
animals (number)
All draught animals
(percentage)
Pack animals
(number)
Pack animals
(percentage)
Çiftlik-owner 172 22% 184 23% 106 19%
Çiftlik worker 612 78% 629 77% 446 81%
Total 784 100% 813 100% 552 100%
22%
37%
41%
Distribution of draught animals among çiftliks
Çiftliks based on wage-labour
Çiftliks based on sharecropping
Çiftliks based on the combination of labour types
300
Figure 150. Ownership of draught animals by çiftlik-owners and çiftlik workers of Pirlepe.
The çiftliks exclusively based on wage-labour and sharecropping display quite different characteristics as long as production arrangements can be considered as different combinations of the modules of land, labour and draught animals, which constitute the only visible categories in the sources under study. In the former, the çiftlik-owners not only provide the land, but also the draught animals in the majority of cases, which constitute the main tool of production in a traditional agrarian setting. In the latter, sharecroppers contribute a significant part of draught animals to the production process. As such, the ownership of draught animals, and especially of oxen, may constitute one of the main lines of division between the possibility of a landless rural producer to work as a sharecropper or as a wage-worker.
5.3.3 Çiftlik-owners of Pirlepe
In the first part of the present chapter, based on the data derived from the temettuat registers of rural Pirlepe, it has been demonstrated that çiftlik-owners had control over one-fifth of the labour-force as well as around one-third of the total amount of cultivable land within the district. As such, it has been argued that, in the district of 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Çiftliks based on wage-labour Çiftliks based on sharecropping Çiftliks based on the combination
of labour types
Ownership of draught animals
Çiftlik-owner Çiftlik worker
301
Pirlepe in the mid-19th century, there was a certain degree of concentration of the main factors of production, and especially land, in the hands of a group of landowners, who did not themselves directly engage in agricultural production -in the fashion of small-holding farmers- but appropriated a part of the agricultural surplus due their monopoly over landownership, against the background of a mainly rural society a portion of which was completely dispossessed.
In this context, the question of the internal configuration of this specific group of landowners comes to the fore with renewed importance in the face of the existence of a degree of inequality and stratification in the villages and the cases of employment of the labour of fellow villagers by the richer segments of the peasantry as well as the cases of çiftlik-owners with rural roots in addition to the traditional members of the powerful ayan families and people of various urban backgrounds residing in the central town of the district. For the purpose of understanding the social and economic characteristics of a broad group legally labelled as “sahib-i çiftlik”, the temettuat surveys of rural Pirlepe has been analyzed in combination with the temettuat survey of the central town of the district.342
To start with, the graph below (Figure 151) displays the distribution of the çiftliks of Pirlepe on the basis of their size as the initial results indicate the existence of considerable divergence.
342 The temettuat survey of the central town of Pirlepe is registered in the defter titled BOA ML.VRD.TMT.d.11447. The transcription of this defter in (Aral, “Temettuat Defterlerine Göre 19. Yüzyıl Ortalarında Rumeli Eyaleti Pirlepe Kazası’nın Sosyo-Ekonomik Durumu”) has also been consulted.
302
Figure 151. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks of Pirlepe (1).
The table below (Table 143) displays the general distribution of çiftliks according to their size, again with a focus on the extent of landownership by çiftlik-owners in individual çiftliks. In the first two columns of this table, the çiftliks of Pirlepe have been divided into 10 equal parts each of which consist of 35 çiftliks on the basis of their size in an ascending order. In the third column, specific ranges have been indicated for the sizes of each 10% portion of the çiftliks. The following columns express in percentages and in average values, the size of each group of çiftliks under question. As the table demonstrates, the top 10% of the çiftliks encompasses almost one-third of the total çiftlik land in the district while this latter value steadily decreases, reaching a minimum of 2% for the bottom 10% of the çiftliks operating in the region.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1
12
23
34
45
56
67
78
89
100
111
122
133
144
155
166
177
188
199
210
221
232
243
254
265
276
287
298
309
320
331
342
Grain fields (in dönüm)
Çiftliks
Sizes of çiftliks (ownership of grain fields by çiftlik-owners)
303
Table 143. Distribution of the Çiftlik Sizes of Pirlepe
The chart below (Figure 152) has been derived from the data in Table 143 in order to
display the percentages of total land in each range of çiftliks.
Figure 152. Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks of Pirlepe (2).
All in all, the data under analysis so far not only demonstrates that there are many
divergences among individual çiftliks in terms of organization of labour and size, but
it also indicates that the title of “sahib-i çiftlik” is applied to a broad variety of
landholder types: On the one hand, there is the group of bigger çiftliks the owners of
which keep great amounts of cultivable land under their control, and also control a
Number of
çiftlik units
Percentage of
çiftlik units
Çiftlik size
(ranges in
dönüm)
Çiftlik land
(total dönüm)
Çiftlik land
(percentage)
Average land per
çiftlik (dönüm)
36 10% 0 - 45 970.5 2% 26.96
36 10% 46 - 61 1974 4% 54.83
35 10% 65 - 82 2522 5% 72.06
35 10% 84 - 95 3104 7% 88.69
35 10% 95 - 110 3487 8% 99.63
35 10% 110 - 130 4259 9% 121.69
35 10% 130 - 150 4909 11% 140.26
35 10% 150 - 170 5565.5 12% 159.01
35 10% 170 - 235 6779 15% 193.69
35 10% 242 - 900 12518.5 27% 357.67
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 - 45 46 - 61 65 - 82 84 - 95 95 - 110 110 -
130
130 -
150
150 -
170
170 -
235
242 -
900
Total land per range ( dönüm)
Ranges of çiftlik size (dönüm)
Distribution of the sizes of çiftliks
304
considerable part of the labour-force of rural society and consequently attain significant levels of agricultural revenue. At the same time, there is even a larger number of çiftliks the owners of which control much humbler amounts of land and revenue, and are engaged in simpler configurations of labour relations.
Regarding all of the çiftlik-owners in the district of Pirlepe, excluding around 18 owners about whom there is no information, the greater majority resides in the central town of the district in addition to quite a considerable number of landowners residing in the central towns of the nearby districts, such as Manastır.343 Among the çiftlik-holding group residing in the central town of Pirlepe, rent-taking is a rather common source of income for the majority. While the legal definitions are omitted for the occupation and status of this group in the registers, one can find people of various backgrounds on the basis of their income sources, including official bureaucratic and military positions, various crafts and trades as well as people presumably engaged in wage-labour. Other than these, there are also çiftlik-owners in the lower segments of income engaged in agricultural production and animal-husbandry. Of all these people, 19 çiftlik-owners do not have any sort of income from urban occupations other than what they get from their çiftlik activity while 24 çiftlik-owners obtain an income below 100 kuruş.
In the rural registers under study, while there are many figures among the bigger çiftlik-owners who hold the titles of Paşazade, Bey, Ağa and Efendi, as well as figures with religious and military connotations, all in all, they make up one-fifth of the owner of çiftliks while 79% do not hold titles at all (Table 144). Table 144 also demonstrates the distribution of the size of çiftliks on the basis of whether or not çiftlik-owners carry a traditional title. It shows that those çiftlik-owners with
343 Of 304 çiftlik-owners, 203 reside in Pirlepe while 83 are from other districts. Of the total of 23 village-residing çiftlik-owners, only 6 are residents of Pirlepe while a total of 197 çiftlik-owners are located in the central town of the district.
305
traditional titles hold one-third of cultivable lands in the region under their
possession while their çiftliks tend to be operations of a larger scale.
Table 144. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Landownership (Pirlepe)
The distribution of çiftlik size for each group indicated in Table 144 is displayed in
the graphs below (Figure 153 and Figure 154). Here, the mean and the median values
for the distribution of çiftlik size for each group are as follows (in dönüm): For the
çiftlik-owners holding titles, the mean is 205.87 and the median is 160; for the
çiftlik-owners without titles, the mean is 114.2 and the median is 100. The following
graphs visualize this data.
Figure 153. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners with titles (Pirlepe).
Number of
çiftlik units
Percentage of
çiftlik units
Grain fields
owned (dönüm)
Percentage of
grain fields
Average size
per çiftlik-unit
No title 277 79% 31635 69% 114.2057762
Title (Bey, Ağa,
Efendi etc.) 67 19% 13793.5 30% 205.8731343
Women 8 2% 660 1% 82.5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftlik size (1): Çiftlik-owners with titles
306
Figure 154. Sizes of çiftliks: Çiftlik-owners without titles (Pirlepe).
A major take-away here is the absence of a clear-cut, categorical separation between çiftlik-owners with title and no title as there are many divergences among the çiftliks owned by each group in terms of their size. As such, carrying a traditional family name does not automatically translate into the holding of the bigger çiftliks, and vice-versa. Nevertheless, on average, çiftlik-owners with titles indeed tend to have bigger çiftliks than the çiftlik-owners without any title in general. This holds true for all three districts under study.
In terms of labour type, it is the çiftlik-owners with titles that mostly rely on bigger operations that combine sharecropping and wage-labour under their control, in addition to exclusive reliance on sharecropping, while those who hold no title mainly rely on arrangements of sharecropping often on a smaller scale. The related data is displayed in Table 145.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
118
127
136
145
154
163
172
181
190
199
208
217
226
235
244
253
262
271
Grain fields (dönüm)
Çiftliks
Çiftlik size (2): Çiftlik-owners without titles
307
Table 145. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Types (1)
Nevertheless, of the total number of çiftliks based on wage-labour in the district,
81% belong to the çiftlik-owners without a title. As such, this group leads the way
not only in sharecropping-based arrangements (82%), but also in exclusive reliance
on wage-labour in their çiftliks. The related data is displayed in Table 146.
Table 146. Titles of the Çiftlik-Owners and Çiftlik Types (2)
The following series of tables demonstrate the general characteristics of the owners
of the biggest çiftliks in the district of Pirlepe. A number of these çiftlik-owners will
be focused on in detail to delineate the general patterns of çiftlik-ownership in the
mid-19th century Pirlepe.
Wagelabour
Sharecropping
Combination of
labour types Money rent TOTAL
Number of
çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage Number of çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage
No title 78 29% 131 49% 55 20% 5 2% 269 100%
Title (Bey, Ağa,
Efendi etc.) 15 23% 25 38% 24 37% 1 2% 65 100%
Women 3 38% 3 38% 2 25% 0 0% 8 100%
Wagelabour
Sharecropping
Combination of
labour types Money rent
Number of
çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage Number of çiftliks Percentage
Number of
çiftliks Percentage
No title 78 81% 131 82% 55 68% 5 83%
Title (Bey, Ağa,
Efendi etc.) 15 16% 25 16% 24 30% 1 17%
Women 3 3% 3 2% 2 2% 0 0%
TOTAL 96 100% 159 100% 81 100% 6 100%
308
Table 147. Largest 10 Çiftliks of Pirlepe
The table above (Table 147) displays the main information on ownership for the largest 10 çiftliks of Pirlepe from all categories of labour. In this segment, most of the owners are from the upper echelons of the society, often practice ownership of multiple çiftliks in addition to joint ownership of individual çiftliks. In this segment on the largest çiftliks, 4 çiftliks belong to the members of the family of Abdülkerim Bey from the district of Manastır344 while only 4 çiftlik-owners reside in the district of Pirlepe itself.
While the members of the family of Abdülkerim Bey are mostly based in Manastır, a new figure -Halil Bey oğlu Yusuf Bey, grandson of Abdülkerim- emerges in the registers as a resident of the town center of Pirlepe, owning 2 of the biggest 10 çiftliks of the district, in addition to 5 more çiftliks of various sizes and labour types. The data is displayed in Table 148.
344 See: Section 3.3.3.
Largest 10 çiftliksOwnership of grain fields Çiftlik typeÇiftlik-ownerResidence of çiftlik-ownerIdentification in town registersStatus in the place of residenceSources of income in place of residenceIncome in place of residence900Ç_SharecroppingDergah-ı ali kapucubaşılarından Abdülkerim Beyefendizade Halil Bey ve karındaşlarıManastır İnebey mahallesiAbdülkerim Beyzadeler dergahı ali kapucubaşılarından Halil Bey ve biraderleri Mahmud ve Arif ve Sadık ve Celaleddin ve Tevfik Beyler (registered in Emir Çelebi mahallesi)Undefinedincome from fields and vineyards, rent, animal-husbandary7640785Ç_Sharecropping and wage-labourAbdülkerim oğlu Halil BeyManastır İnebey mahallesi****585Ç_Sharecropping and wage-labourŞerif efendi oğlu Vecihi efendiManastır İnebey mahallesiŞerif efendizade müderris kiramından faziletlu Süleyman efendi ve karındaşı Vecihi efendiUndefinedrent8060560Ç_Wage-labourHüseyin oğlu Selim ve AhmedManastır [] mahallesiHüseyin oğlu Selim (Emir Çelebi mahallesi)Undefinedrent900510Ç_Sharecropping and wage-labourElhac Ahmed oğlu MehmedManastır Firuz Bey mahallesi500Ç_Sharecropping and wage-labourMehmed efendi oğlu OsmanPirlepe Evsat mahallesiMehmed efendi oğlu OsmanUndefinedrent640460Ç_SharecroppingÇiftlik-i emlak-ı hümayun412.5Ç_SharecroppingHalil Bey oğlu Yusuf BeyPirlepe Evsat mahallesiHalil oğlu Yusuf BeyUndefinedshare from grain fields under sharecropping, rent, income from tımar9956410Ç_SharecroppingHalil Bey oğlu Yusuf BeyPirlepe Evsat mahallesi****400Ç_Sharecropping and wage-labourHüseyin oğlu Hasan ve karındaşları (Yusuf) hisseleriPirlepe Evsat mahallesiHüseyin oğlu Hasan / Hüseyin oğlu Salih (Households numbered 18 and 19)Undefinedanimal husbandry, rent50385Ç_Money-rentRüstem Bey oğlu Hurşid BeyManastır İnebey mahallesiRüstem Beyzade Hurşid Beyfarmer ("erbab-ı ziraat")animal husbandry, income from "zuhurat"1530
309
Table 148. Çiftliks of Halil Bey oğlu Yusuf Bey in Pirlepe
Overall, Yusuf Bey owns in his çiftliks grain fields of 1677.5 dönüms under his control, in addition to vineyards of 2.5 dönüms and meadows of 108 dönüms as well as 26 oxen. These çiftliks are mostly located in close proximity to the town center of Pirlepe and positioned on the alluvial plains. While the arrangements regarding the contribution of the factors of production, i.e. land, labour and draught animals, display the similar characteristics of the other districts under study, it should be noted that in the specific case of the çiftlik in Zagorani whereby Yusuf Bey contributes 8 oxen and the sharecroppers contribute 6 oxen to production, the share between the parties proceeds in favor of the former. Overall, Yusuf Bey has the labour capacity of 36 households under his control. Furthermore, the gross income of Yusuf Bey from his çiftliks exceeds 40000 kuruş, while his income originating from tımar-holding, rent-taking and his share from grain fields under sharecropping in the town-center cannot even reach 10000 kuruş. Similarly to his relatives residing in Manastır, the weight of çiftlik-ownership and agrarian revenue remain crucial for the income bundle of Yusuf Bey. The locations of his çiftliks can be seen in the map below (Figure 155).
Çiftlik nameÇiftlik typeGrain fields (total dönüm)Grain fields (percentage)Other landOxen owned by çiftlik-owner (number)Oxen owned by workers (number)Sharecroppers (number)Wage-labourers (number)Misc (number)SlivjeWage-labour16010%vineyards of 1.5 dönüms, meadows of 2 dönüms10122SlivjeSharecropping412.525%-126Dubijacani-i zirSharecropping1207%meadows of 9 dönüms41CumovoCombination of sharecropping and wage-labour17010%meadows of 20 dönüm s831ZagoraniCombination of sharecropping and wage-labour23514%vineyards of 1 dönüms, meadows of 50 dönüms 8624GalicaniWage-labour17010%meadows of 15 dönüms84KrusovjaniSharecropping41024%meadows of 12 dönüms01631677.5100%264615212
310
Figure 155. Çiftliks of Halil Bey oğlu Yusuf Bey in Pirlepe.
The çiftlik-owners with presumably lesser social standing in this group are “Şerif efendi oğlu Vecihi efendi” and “Hüseyin oğlu Selim ve Ahmed” from Manastır, and “Mehmed efendi oğlu Osman” and “Hüseyin oğlu Hasan ve karındaşları” from Pirlepe, all from the town centres of the districts.
Vecihi Efendi, the receiver of a gross income of 8060 kuruş from rent-taking in the centre of Pirlepe345, owns a total of 3 çiftliks -Opticar, Pozdeş and Loznani- in Manastır in addition to the third biggest çiftlik of Pirlepe in the settlement of Vrbjani, all of which can be seen in the map below. All of these çiftliks, in Manastır and Pirlepe alike, are based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour while his ownership of grain fields reaches a minimum 444 dönüms in Manastır346 and a total value of 585 dönüms in Pirlepe, amounting to more than 1000 dönüms in total. In terms of the labour-force under his control, 24 households work in Vecihi Efendi’s çiftliks in Manastır while 12 households toil in his çiftlik in the settlement of Vrbjani in the district of Pirlepe. In three cases, the share between the çiftlik-owner and the
345 He has an impressive collection of stores of 57 units (“57 bab”), in addition a share in an inn.
346 This uncertainty is due to the fact that the amount of grain fields in Opticar was left unregistered.
311
sharecroppers remains equal while in only one case, in the çiftlik of Loznani in Manastır, it is slightly in favour of the former.
Among the humbler figures in the top group, “Hüseyin oğlu Selim ve Ahmed” and “Mehmed efendi oğlu Süleyman” come to the fore. In the former case, Hüseyin oğlu Selim, residing in the central town of Manastır, obtains an income of 900 kuruş from rent-taking347 in addition to their wage-labour-based çiftlik in the settlement of Cepigovo consisting of grain fields of 560 dönüms, meadows of 100 dönüms, 4 completely landless and propertyless wage-labourers and 12 oxen contributed by the çiftlik-owners. “Mehmed efendi oğlu Süleyman”, residing in the mahalle of Evsat in the central town of Pirlepe, obtains an income of 640 kuruş from rent-taking348 and 30 kuruş from vineyards, in addition to 2 çiftliks, both of which are based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour and located in Pirlepe. Süleyman’s çiftlik in Alinci consists of grain fields of 500 dönüms and meadows of 30 dönüms based on the labour of 6 sharecropping households and 3 wage-workers. All of the 16 oxen are owned by the sharecroppers and 2 farmers residing in the çiftlik. Süleyman’s çiftlik in Berovci consists of grain fields of 250 dönüms and meadows of 5 dönüms as well as 1 sharecropper and 2 wage-workers’ households. Here, 4 oxen are contributed by the çiftlik-owner while 2 oxen are provided by the sharecropper. In this case, Süleyman gets four times the share of the sharecropper.
Of the total number of 6 çiftlik-owners who were indicated to be residing in the villages, 4 have been specifically identified in the temettuat registers of the relevant settlements. In general, Pirlepe seems to be the
347 Rent from 10 stores and 1 inn.
348 Rent from a mill and a store.
312
district with the most insignificant presence of peasant çiftlik-owners in terms of their number. Nevertheless, at least three of these figures have been specifically indicated to employ sharecroppers and wage-labourers in their village of residence. For example, Haydar oğlu Süleyman Molla, who has a çiftlik based on the combination of sharecropping and wage-labour in the settlement of Stredorek, also employs 5 sharecroppers and 3 wage-labourers on grain fields of 270 dönüms in the village of Zitovce-yi Müslim where he resides. Another example is Feyzo oğlu Bekir, who has a çiftlik based on wage-labour where he employs 2 wage-workers, other than his grain fields of 110 dönüms where he employs 1 wage-worker and 1 shepherd in the village of Crnilista. Nevertheless, these remain to be rather isolated cases.
5.5 Conclusion
The income survey registers of rural Pirlepe indicate a certain degree of rural inequality, peasant dispossession, and concentration of land in the hands of a group of landowners in the mid-19th century, albeit on a lower level than Manastır and İştip. First and foremost, around one-fifth of the rural population of Pirlepe were landless as they were directly residing and working in çiftliks. The çiftlik-owners held one-third of the cultivable land in the district and directly controlled one-fifth of the rural labour force. Other than çiftlik workers, 14% of the village residents were also landless and mainly survived through engagement in wage labour. Of the villagers, only 15% exclusively relied on agricultural production, while the remaining combined agricultural production with various supplementary activities. There was also a considerable degree of inequality among individual villagers and villages in terms of access to land. Different forms of settlements in the district remained quite
313
interrelated in terms of geographical proximity and labour mobility between them while loci of concentration of “perfect” çiftliks and villages could also be identified.
Regarding labour arrangements in the çiftliks, Pirlepe seems to have resembled more to İştip than Manastır. In terms of labour employed, the çiftliks of Pirlepe not only included those based on tenancy, but also displayed a stronger presence of çiftliks based on wage labour. Yet, the level of the contribution of draught animals by çiftlik-owners was lower than İştip, even though çiftliks based on wage-labour were more prominent in Pirlepe. The role played by peasant çiftlik-owners remained quite marginal; yet, çiftlik-owners without nya title displayed considerable presence here. In general, the level of çiftlik formation as well as the level of inequality in the villages seem to be relatively lower than Manastır and İştip. Nevertheless, it would still be difficult to consider Pirlepe as a universe of peasant equality and homogeneity either.
314
CHAPTER 6
DYNAMICS OF RURAL SOCIETY: CLASS CONFLICT, LABOR RELATIONS AND PEASANT DISPOSSESSION IN THE OTTOMAN BALKANS
6.1 On aspects of the labour regime in the Balkan çiftliks
The analysis of the rural income survey registers of the districts of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe of the mid-19th century has treated the configuration of labour in the çiftliks as the main framework for the organization of the data under study. In the course of the analysis, the existence of different types of çiftliks, in conjunction with the considerable weight of sharecropping in the general labour composition, has become evident. This widespread employment of sharecroppers in the Balkan çiftliks has emerged as one of many axes of controversy over the nature of the socio-economic system under question. Furthermore, concerning the relationship between forms of labour and transformation of agrarian structures, the prevalence of sharecropping has been treated as an indicator not only of economic backwardness but also that of a failure on the side of capitalist agriculture to develop in the Balkans properly. Accordingly, a closer examination of what this form of labour organization entails is required.
In a document -a beyanname- from 1909, three types of arrangements through which çiftliks were put into operation in Manastır are distinguished in the form of the culmination of established traditions in the region.349 Here, the general framework employed in the analysis of the income survey registers, whereby three specific types of çiftlik -in the sense of non-labouring owners of cultivable land making use of sharecroppers, wage-labourers and tenants in order to bring the land
349 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Manastır vilayeti dahilindeki çiftlikat ve arazi sahibleriyle mezariler beyninde teamülen cari bulunan ve adet-i muhkeme hali almış olan usul ve kavaide mütedair beyannamedir.”
315
under question into agricultural production- have been identified, seems to have kept its relevance right into the beginning of the 20th century as well.350
In sharecropping (or “yarıcı usulu”), it has been argued that the agreement between the çiftlik-owner and the prospective sharecropper is supposed to be concluded in the presence of witnesses, having a binding character for a year-long term of production. While this agreement can be repeated for the following term unless a conflict arises between the parties, the sharecropper remains free to leave the çiftlik in search of employment in another one at the end of the specified term of production as long as no unpaid debt remains. As such, within the specific term of employment, neither the çiftlik-owner nor the sharecropper can terminate the agreement.351 This clause practically implies, albeit for a theoretically limited period, the existence of limits on the mobility of sharecroppers.
At the basis of this temporarily binding agreement, we find a specific form of payment advanced by the çiftlik-owner to the sharecropper in the beginning of the production term. This payment, upon which the aforementioned agreement proceeds,
350 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Alelumum çiftlikat ve arazinin idaresiyle ameliyat-ı ziraiyesinde cari ve … olan usul üç nevidir. Birincisi Kitab-ı Şirketin 1431 ve 1434 ve 1435. maddelerinde muharrer kuyud ve şerait dairesinde yarıcı tabir edilen çiftçilerle ziraat ve hıraset edilegelmekde olanlardır. İkincisi 512. maddesiyle mevad saire ahkamı mucebince hizmetkar tabir olunan ecir haseblerle? işletilenlerdir. Üçüncüsü Kitab ül Carinin? 525. maddesiyle mevad saire ahkamı mucebince bedeli-i maktu' ve yahud muayyen mikdarda hububat veya nakd virmek üzere kesim namıyla icara verilenlerdir.” In a British consular report from the 19th century, three distinct groups of agricultural workers were indicated in Manastır: Sharecroppers (“ortakçı”) toiled on the lands of peasants, tımar-owners as well as the Sultan, whereby the produce was divided in half after the subtraction of tax and seeds; wage-workers (“teroğlanları”) were paid in kind, mostly grains, at a pre-determined rate, sometimes in addition to remuneration in money; lastly, tenants (“kesimci”) paid a pre-determined rent to the landowners either in money or in kind without regard to the actual revenue from land: Öztunç, Tanzimat Döneminde Ekonomik Ve Sosyal Yönleriyle Manastır Şehri, 174-175.
351 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Kasımdan Şubat nihayetine kadar olan zaman yarıcı yerleştirmeğe mahsus bir mevsimdir. Bir çiftlik sahibinin arazisini işlemeğe talib bulunan yarıcı ile çiftlik sahibi muayyen olan mevsimde şuhud muvacehesinde akd-i mezari eyler. Akdin vukuunu müteakib çiftlik sahibi yarıcıyı [alub] çiftliğine yerleştirmeğe, yarıcı da söz verdiği çiftliğe gitmeğe mecburdur. Mevsim-i mahsusun gayrı zamanda yarıcının tebdili usul ve teamüle muhaliftir. Çiftlik sahibiyle yarıcı beyninde vaki olan akdin müddeti de tam bir seneden ibarettir. Akd-i mezru müddetinin hitamında tarafeyn birbirinden hoşnud olduğu halde akd-i vaki ibka edilir. Aksi halde beynlerinde olan alacak verecek gibi ilişkileri kat’ ile yarıcı bulunduğu çiftliği tahliye ederek dilediği mahale gidebilir. Müddet-i akd olan bir sene hitam bulmadıkça ne çiftlik sahibi yarıcıya yol verebilir ne yarıcı çiftliği terk edebilir.”
316
is called “söz bağı” and consists of an amount, as specified in the agreement, of draught animals (“çift hayvanatı”) and tools of production (“alet ve edavat-ı zirai”), in addition to the immediate subsistence needs of the sharecropper (“yemeklik zahire vesairesi”), supplied by the çiftlik-owner to the cultivator. It is this debt, therefore, created at the beginning of the labour arrangement under the title of “söz bağı” that has to be paid for the proper conclusion of the one-year agreement in question. Until its payment, the sharecropper remains indebted to the çiftlik-owner for a whole year. In the case that the cultivator leaves the çiftlik in question before the end of the term of the agreement, his belongings left in the çiftlik (“mevcud olan hayvanatı ve adavat sairesi”) are confiscated by the çiftlik-owner; if the value of such belongings does not adequately pay off the debt in question, the sharecropper as well as the new çiftlik-owner he is employed by, are held responsible for compensating for the difference.352 Here, the question of whether the sharecropper will be in a position to
352 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Çiftlik hayvanatıyla alet ve edavat-ı ziraiyi tedarik etmek veya bunların noksanını ikmal eylemek ve yemeklik zahire vesairesini temin eylemiş olmak üzere söz bağı namıyla beynlerinde kararlaştırılan bir mebaliğ ile zahire vesaire çiftlik sahibi tarafından bila faiz yarıcıya … olunur. Akd-i mezru hitamında yarıcı çiftliğinden çıkacağı sırada “söz bağı” namıyla olan borcunu çiftlik sahibine tediye ve ifa eyler. Çiftliğe geldiği zaman hazır yapılmış nadas olduğu ve böyle mukavele eylediği halde aynıyle ol mikdar nadas yapub bırakmağa mecburdur. Hilaf-ı usul-u salahiyet yarıcı çiftlik sahibine olan borcunu vermeksizin kaçtığı halde hesabına mukabil mevcud olan hayvanatı ve adavat sairesi heyet-i ihtiyariye marifetiyle takvim edilerek kıymet …ları çiftlik sahibinin alacağına badel husub fazla ve noksanı nazar-ı itibar ve hesaba alınır. Yani takdir olunan bedel borcunun tediyesine kifayet etmediği takdirde üst tarafını yarıcı ve yahud gideceği çiftlik sahibi bila tereddüd tediye ve ifaya mecburdur.” For a discussion of the creation of relations of indebtedness and dependency through the practice of “söz bağı” in sharecropping: Terzibaşoğlu, & Kaya, “19. Yüzyılda Balkanlar’da Toprak Rejimi ve Emek İlişkileri,” 91-92. In a different historical context, Blum, with reference to Russia of the 15th century, refers to the existence of a practice of lending of money or grains to sharecroppers in the beginning of a production term -a practice which is almost identical with “söz bağı”: “The sharecropper (polovnik) agreed to remain with the lord for an agreed upon number of years and to pay a fixed proportion of his crop to the lord as rental. The size of this share varied, ranging from one fifth to as much as one half. On his arrival, the polovnik received a loan of cash or of grain from the landlord in order to get started on his farming, and to carry over until he brought in his first crop … The fact that the sharecroppers were given loans, that they were willing to work on shares, the most oppressive type of rental agreement, and that they paid little or no taxes to the government, are indications that they must have been in very reduced circumstances”: Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the ninth to the nineteenth century, 100-101. There were also forms of sharecropping, such as “muzaraa” whereby the land under cultivation was provided by the cultivators: Ergenç, “XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Anadolu’sunda Tarım Üretiminde Yeni Boyutlar: Müzara’a ve Müraba’a Sözleşmeleri,” 131. In another form of arrangement, called “murabaa”, the cultivator worked as a sharecropper on the land he lost due to indebtedness for a limited period of time: Ibid, 135.
317
pay off his debt of “söz bağı” at the end of a term of production, as well as the repercussions of such a failure, are left unresolved. Furthermore, the specific conditions that might have led to the formation of this kind of labour arrangement in the first place are in no way implicated. As such, this formulation supposes that the parties of the arrangement are equals in the creation and the termination of the relationship –which remains to be, however, a rather dubious issue in the rural context in general, as will be discussed in detail in the following parts. Moreover, it is not only the fugitive sharecropper himself but also his prospective future employer that is burdened with the compensation of the previous debt of the former – a situation raising the question of labour scarcity and competition between landowners for labour force in the rural Balkans, which will be discussed below.
Within the agreement itself, while the sharing of the produce, after the subtraction of agricultural taxes from the revenue, mainly proceeds on the basis of a roughly equal division, the specific terms of share between the parties, concerning issues such as the provision of seeds and sharing of hay left in the field after harvest, vary following local customs and the specific terms of the agreement between the parties. In general, it is expected that the sharecroppers undertake specific responsibilities beyond the payment of rent in kind, such as transportation of the çiftlik-owner’s share of the produce as well as provision of the necessary means of travel for the çiftlik-owner when his presence is needed in the çiftlik. In turn, the provision and maintenance of infrastructure is generally supposed to be taken care of by the owner of the çiftlik.353 While the main body of the labour requirements in the
353 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Ekser mahallerde arazi ve tohum çiftlik sahibinin, bekr(?) ve amel yarıcının olmak üzere ziraat edilen araziden vuku bulan hasılat aşarı aynen bil ifraz arazi sahibi tarafından ahz ve kabz edilerek mütebakisi çiftlik sahibiyle yarıcı beyninde nısfiyeti taksim edilir. Bazı yerlerde de arazi ve tohumun nısfı çiftlik sahibinin ve tohumun diğer nısfıyla bekr(?) ve amel yarıcının olmak üzere ziraat edilen araziden hasılat-ı vakıadan öşr çıktıktan sonra küsuru beynlerinde münasafa taksim edilir. Hasılat-ı samanın nısfı hakken çiftlik sahibinin ise de zirde müfredatı taksir
318
çiftliks is supposed to be the responsibility of the sharecroppers -encompassing all the stages of agricultural production as well as transportation of the produce- when there is a need for additional labour, sharecroppers are supposed to contribute to the expenses advanced for the employment of extra hands.354 At the end of a production term, the official conclusion of the employment agreement marks the end of the possibility for further claims for the compensation of unpaid labour.355
Wage labourers (in the form of “hizmetkar usulu”) are also employed within the framework of a yearlong term and the agreement has a binding character for the duration of the employment.356 When the term of employment starts, wage labourers are responsible for going to the çiftlik, with their families if they desire to do so, whereby the çiftlik-owner is required to provide lodging for the newcomers.357 During their term of employment in the çiftlik, wage labourers are not only engaged
olunduğu vecihle yarıcının hizmet-i vakıasına mukabil-i rıza yarıcıya terk olunur. Çiftlik sahibinin aynı kaza dahilinde mübaya ve tedarik edeceği habtı (hatabı)? yarıcı kaç çift ile ziraat ederse ol mikdar araba ile senede bir defa nakle ve hasıl olacak giyah hasılatını merkez kazaya …ya mecburdur. Hasılat taksimi, hane tamiri gibi zaruret … ettiği halde çiftliğe gidub gelmek için yarıcı ashab-ı alakaya muktezi hayvanı verir. Yarıcının ikamet ettiği hane için virgüsüne muadil bir icar bedeli vermekle mükellef bulunduğu gibi hasılat vakıası … edilen mezru ve gayr-ı mezru arazinin virgü-yü mirisi alaka sahibi ile yarıcı tarafından münasafa ita edilir. Çiftlik hanesi ile müştemilatın tamir ve termimi çiftlik sahibine ait olub yarıcının inşaat ve tamirata hak ve salahiyeti olmadığından bir güna inşaat ve tamiratta bulunacak olsa bile o nam ile çiftlik sahibine hak ... yoktur.”
354 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Yarıcı ziraat etmiş olduğu arazinin ekib vakt-i hasadda biçub toplamağa harman idub dökmeğe ve hasılat vakıada çiftlik sahibinin hissesini pazar mahaline kadar nakletmeğe mecburdur. Mecburiyet-i muharrereden tehallüf eder ise vuku bulacak masraf yarıcıya ait olmak üzere çiftlik sahibi amele tutub mezruatı biçub toplamağa ve harman etmeğe ve kezalik hasılat vakıayı pazara nakl etmeğe salahiyetdardır. Bu uğurda vuku bulacak masrafa hasılat vakıadan yarıcının hissesi kifayet etmez ise üst tarafı yarıcıdan taleb ve istifa olunur.”
355 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Yarıcı muayyen olan müddette çiftlikten diğer bir çiftliğe nakil eylediği halde harmanda bulunan samanın nısfını alır. Nısf-ı diğeri ile …daki gübreyi sahibine bırakır. Kasabaya nakledilmemiş çiftlik sahibinin anbarında kalmış olan zahiresini nakletmeğe mecbur değildir. Şayet üste hasıl olan gübreyi tarlaya nakil etmiş bulunursa bunun için sahibinden bir şey istemeğe hakkı olamayacağı gibi evvelce rıza-yı sahib-i alakanın bazı hayvanatına bakmış veya sair hizmet hususiyesinde bulunmuş olmak gibi bahaneler ile der-miyan edeceği mutalibat ve hesabat nazar-ı itibara alınamaz.”
“Gerek yarıcı ve gerek müstecir tarafından çiftlikat ashabına karşu zehaire …dan, hayvanat reyinden ve hizmet-i saireden dolayı bir güna ücret ve masraf aramamak akd-i vaki iktizasındandır.”
356 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Her sene Kasım esnası çiftlik sahibi bir sene müddetle ve yıllık olmak üzere suret-i maktuada muayyen mikdarda hububat ve yahud nakid vermek şartıyla çiftçi, koyun çobanı, sığırtmaç mesellu hizmetkârlar ile şühud muvacehesinde akd-i mukavele eder. Akdin vukuundan sonra hitamına değin tarafeynden hiç birisi sözünden tekevvül etmek iktidarına haiz değildir.”
357 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Hizmetkârlar hizmetini deruhde eylediği çiftliğe Kasım günlerinde gitmeğe, çiftlik sahibi dahi onun ikametine mahsus bir hane ira’e etmeğe mecburdur. Hizmetkârlar arzu eylediği halde hanelerinde ailesi de beraber bulundurmağa salahiyetdardırlar.”
319
in agricultural production but also undertake various services and responsibilities.358 Other than yearlong wage labourers, more specialized types of labour, as well as extra hands, are also temporarily employed by the çiftlik-owners in times of need.359 Just like sharecroppers, full-time wage labourers are legally prohibited from leaving the çiftlik during their term of employment.360 The providers of specific and temporary types of labour are also limited in their mobility until their specific work is completed.361
The last method for the operation of çiftliks are specified as the leasing out of land to tenants for a fixed amount of payment (or “icar usulu”), also for a yearlong term.362 Here, not only land but also seeds are supposed to be provided by the çiftlik-owners in addition to necessary dwellings and infrastructure in return for a pre-determined payment in kind or in money to be delivered to the landowner at the end of the term of production. Here, all the taxes on agricultural produce are paid by the producers, who are also supposed to leave the land as they found it and return the seeds lent to them at the beginning of the production year in addition to other forms
358 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Çift hizmetkarı çift işinden maada bulunduğu çiftliğin ziraat ve felahatına müteallik bilcümle hizmeti ifaya mecbur olduğu gibi kendisine tevzi edilen çiftlik hayvanatı ile edavat vesaireyi muhafaza ile mükelleftir. Bir şeyin ziyanı halinde mesul ve zamindir. Hizmetkarların semi-i ameli ücret-i maktuaya mukabildir.”
359 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Biçim ve harman zamanlarında çiftlik sahibi haricden orakçı ve harmancı götürdüğü ve onları beslediği halde onların bulunduğu müddet zarfında çiftlik hizmetkarları da çiftlik sahibi tarafından beslenir.”
360 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Bir sene müddetle tutulan her nevi ziraat hizmetkarlarına gerek söz bağı namıyla ve gerek sair cihetle … aldıkları para ve zehaireyi tamamen tesviyeye mecbur oldukları cihetle bunu tediye etmedikçe çiftlikten mufarakat etmeğe salahiyeti yokdur.”
361 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Koyun çobanları ile sığırtmaçlar rey eylediği taahhüd eyledikleri hayvanatı otlatmak bakmak mevsiminde beslemek muhafaza etmek ziya halinde tazmin edilmek suretiyle mükelleftir. Orak zamanında orakçı harman zamanında harmancı olarak kat’ edilen ücretle ifa-yı hizmeti taahhüd eden amele sözünden tekevvül edemez. İfasını taahhüd eylediği hizmeti görüb ikmal etmeğe mecburdur. Şayed bu mecburiyetten tehallüf ederse alaka sahibine bundan dolayı tertib edecek zarar ve ziyanı …ya hacet kalmaksızın tazmin ile mükelleftir.”
362 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Çiftlikat Mart ve Eylül aylarının iptidasında icar edilir. Müddet-i icar bir seneden ibarettir. Hitam-ı müddette mucir ile müstecirin rıza ve muvaffakiyetiyle akd-i vaki ifa olunur.”
320
of services, such as the provision of wood and charcoal to the çiftlik-owner, as agreed upon in the specific agreement between the parties.363
In the document under question, the method of sharecropping (“ortakçılık”), in the form of sharing of agricultural produce between the parties of the agreement, is apportioned the most prominent place of elaboration, probably as the most common method of çiftlik production. As the general rule, the produce (or the amount of its money equivalent) is divided between the sharecroppers and the landowners. As such, the amount of the final product does not change the general rule of division whereby half of the labour time of the sharecropper is performed for the landowner’s benefit.364 In renting out of the çiftlik (“icar”), even though the usual association is made with rent in money, the main factor that shapes this specific form in practice is the pre-determined nature of the level of payment, independent of the production performance (i.e., determined in the very beginning of the production term), rather than its money form per se.365 Likewise, in the employment of wage labourers (“hizmetkar”), the payment, or “wage,” as the remuneration of labour (time-based or task-based), can be made either in the form of money or kind, as well as a
363 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “İcara verilen çiftlikte ekilen tohum demirbaş olarak bir defa olmak üzere mucir tarafından müstecire verilir. Çiftlik hanelerinde çiftçi müstecirler ikamet eder. Bunların sarf-ı inşaiyesi ve tamiriyesi çiftlik sahibine aiddir. Çiftlik haneleriyle müştemilatını inşa ve tamire müstecir salahiyetdar olmadığından bir güna inşaat ve tamirat icra edecek olursa o nam ile mücirden bir şey taleb-i istifa etmeğe hakkı yoktur ... Mucir ile müstecir beyninde kararlaştırılan muayyen mikdar hububat ve yahud nakid harman mevsiminde mucirin bulunduğu mahalde müstecir tarafından tediye olunur.”
“Çiftlik ve arazi vergisiyle aşarın tediye ve tesviyesi müstecire aiddir.”
“Çiftlik icara verildiği zaman ne mikdar arazi ekilmiş ve ne mikdar nadas yapılmış ve ne mikdar tohum olarak mucir tarafından zahire verilmiş ie müddet-i akdin hitamında müstecir ol suretle çiftliği mucire devir teslim etmeğe mecburdur.”
“Müstecir mucire karşu hatab ve kömür nakl etmek vesair taahhüd ettiği hizmet hususunu ifaya mecburdur.”
364 Landowners can also use the choice of form of rent to their advantage depending on the fluctuations of the market and prices of agricultural produce. In general, the balance of power between the landowner and the tenant remained crucial for the specific content of different labor agreements: Bharadwaj, & Das, “Tenurial conditions and mode of exploitation: A study of some villages in Orissa,” 225.
365 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “bedeli-i maktu' ve yahud muayyen mikdarda hububat veya nakd virmek üzere kesim namıyla icara verilenlerdir”.
321
combination of the two.366 As such, there can be found no linear line simply evolving from rent in labour into rent in kind and then into rent in money, even though the historical existence of each form comes with a bundle of specific limitations and possibilities for the landowners and the rural producers.367
A series of “layiha” drafts prepared around the same time period as the aforementioned “beyanname” also focus on the relationship between landowners and cultivators.368 Here, agricultural production is defined on three main lines: Firstly, agricultural land could be directly cultivated by the landowner himself; secondly, it could be cultivated by sharecroppers; thirdly, it could be rented out for cultivation to
366 BOA YB.021. 42/9, 1909: “Suret-i maktuda muayyen mikdarda hububat ve yahud nakid vermek şartıyla.” In the context of Vidin, Gandev underlined that the remuneration from work in the farms consisted of three components, which were free lodging (“le logement gratuity”), payment in cash (“la remuneration en especes”), and payment in kind (“quelques allocations en nature”), such as clothing, food, and a piece of land for the subsistence of workers: Gandev, “L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du nord-ouest au cours du XVIII siècle,” 213.
367 As Marx traces the transformation of the forms of pre-capitalist ground rent, from rent in labour into rent in kind and rent in money, he underlines that the nature of ground rent does not change from an economic point of view, even though a certain potential for later differentiation among rural inhabitants is gradually created through the changing forms of surplus expropriation: Marx, Capital 3, 925-938. In the Ottoman context, the original “çift akçesi” could entail a payment in labour form, as much as in kind or money: “Harac-ı muvazzaf nakid, ayn veya bir hizmetle tahsil olunacağı gibi bunu karşılayan çift akçesi de amıneye uygun tarzda bunlardan biriyle tahsil olunabilir”: Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri 1, 171-172.
368 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: “Çiftlik (veya) arazi sahibleriyle ortakçı yahud yarıcı itilaf olunan mezarilerin ve mezariler ile amele-yi ziraiyenin ve amele-yi ziraiye ile keza arazi sahiblerinin hukuk ve vezaifini mübeyyin kanundur (layiha).”
“Bir nizamname layihası tanzimi Meclis-i Vükela kararıyla 30 Mart 326 ba tezkere-yi sami emir ve izbar buyurulması üzerine layiha-yı mezkureye esas ittihaz olunmak üzere icab eden vilayattan istifsar mütalaa olunarak alınan cevablarda gösterilen teamül ve mütalaayı ve ahkam-ı esasiyemize nazaran ber vech-i ati layiha-yı kanune müsveddesi kaleme alınmıştır”: Ibid.
For the preparation of the drafts, a long series of correspondence took place between various state offices, including Dahiliye Nezareti, Tanzimat Dairesi, and Şura-yı Devlet, regarding Rumeli, Edirne, and Tekfurdağı, at least from 1908 to 1914: Ibid. Furthermore, a document that concerns Edirne from 1909 (1327) demonstrates that the drafting of these texts had been not only lenghty but also conflictual processes due to the difficulties encountered regarding the accomodation of general rules with local customs: “Her vilayette amele isticar ve istihdamı usul ve teamülü başka başka olub ... bir vilayatca münasib addedilen böyle mevadın vilayat-ı sairede tatbiki münasib veyahut mümkün olamayacağı”: BOA DH.MKT. 2879/ 81, 1327; BEO 3599/269906, 1327. A similar need for the regulation of the relations between landowners and cultivators was also raised for the Vilayet of Kosova: BOA. MV. 139/10, 1328.
322
a tenant farmer. Of these methods, sharecropping is singled out as the most common method used in the Balkan çiftliks.369
In the part of the text whereby the motives and the aims behind the drawing of the layiha are explained (“esbab-ı mucibe”), one of the main problems with the existing practice of sharecropping leading to conflict between the parties of the labour arrangement is singled out as the absence of a specific and uniform definition of the content as well as the duration of the employment agreement.370 As a result of the absence of a well-defined arrangement, it has been argued, sharecroppers whose livelihood and survival depended on agricultural production remained under the constant threat of evacuation at the slightest whim of the çiftlik-owner who, in turn, had to deal with the jeopardy of the flight of the workers from the çiftlik before the proper completion of cultivation and harvest; this, in turn, required the proper specification of the duration of the labour agreement.371
369 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: “Arazi işlenmekte, biri ashab-ı arazinin bizzat işletmesi, diğeri ortakçılık, üçüncü de icar usulleriyle ahere işletmekten ibaret olmak üzere mevcud olan üç usulden Rumeli’de en ziyade ortakçılık usulu revaç bulmuş ve ... çiftliklerde ekseriyen bu usul tatbik edilmekte bulunmuştur.”
370 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: “Zirde cari olan ortakçılık usulu ekseriyen kontratoya rabt ve müddet-i akd tayin edilmediğinden ve tarafeynin (bir diğere?) karşu caiz ve mükellef oldukları hukuk ve vezaif malum olmadığından arazi sahibleri ile ortakçılar beyninde ihtilaf ve münazaat daima tehaddüs etmektedir.” As such, the problems encountered in sharecropping arrangements are to be solved through regulations rather than complete abolishment of the practice: “İktizası ledel müzakere bu yarıcılık usulunun ahvalinin müstenid olduğu teamül-ü kadimin tağyirine mahal olmayub kamekan muhafazası”: BOA BEO. 1514/113476, 1318.
371 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: “Hayatı işlediği toprağa merbut olan bir ortakçıyı arazi sahibinin çiftliğinden çıkararak ...dan mahrum bırakabilmekteki istiklal-i mutlakı ortakçının da ziraatin tam devre-yi faaliyetinde işlemeğe mecbur olduğu araziyi terk edebilmesi ihtimalleri ve ihtimalat-ı saire arazi sahibleriyle ortakçılar arasındaki hukuk ve vezaifin ve fasl-ı mahsusunda ifade olunan esbaba bazı amele-yi ziraya ecirler ve müstecirler beynindeki münasebatın bir kanun ile tayini.” Nevertheless, the emphasis in the text mostly remains on the flight of the workers from the çiftliks hindering the continuity of agricultural production and causing financial damage on the landowners, as underlined by müsteşar Ali Bey (“Dahiliye Nazırı vekili namına”): “Dahl-i vilayatta bulunan zira’ teamül-ü kadim icabınca bir sene müddetle çiftlik ve arazi ashabının hizmetlerine girmekde ve ameliyat-ı ziraiyenin ... olduğu mevsimlerde kendilerini iaşe ettirib ücret-i seneviyelerinin kısm-ı ...sını birer vesile ile istifa eyledikden sonra ziraat ve hasad zamanlarında evvelce aldıkları mebaliğ nisbetinde iş görmeksizin ameliyatı tatil ile savuşmakta olduklarından dolayı arazinin bir kısım ... zira’ veya hasad zamanı mahsulat derç edilememekte olduğundan ve bu hal bilhassa birkaç seneden beri sahib-i sermaye olan ziraayı külli zarara uğratmakta olduğu”: Ibid. As such, the emphasis on the specification of duration (“ortakçılık müddetinin mukavelede tayini”) remains to be a rather marked objective.
323
In the text, a recurring point of emphasis is the importance of extending the duration of the sharecropping agreement beyond the generally practiced one-year term: Because shorter-term leases would fail to create any motives for the preservation of the long-term productive capacity of the land on the side of the sharecroppers, who would rather be inclined to make the ultimate gain out of the land under their command for a limited period, agricultural land would benefit from an expansion of the temporal duration of the sharecropping agreement beyond one year.372 In defense of this case, the example of England, where the duration of the tenancy period extends up to twenty-five years, is put forward.373 While a duration of ten years was initially agreed upon, in the later revisions of the text, this period was shortened to eight years due to several factors.374 As such, the extension of the duration of the sharecropping agreement seems to be a central motivation for the preparation of this “layiha” in the first place.
The general structure of the “layiha” itself consists of two main parts, whereby the first part focuses on the details of the relationship between çiftlik-owners and sharecroppers and the second part shortly deals with various forms of wage labourers.375 Initially, general rules are set for an array of issues, such as the preparation of the contract of employment, the details of the registration process, and the changes in the status of çiftlik workers in cases of the death of the owner and
372 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: “Müddet-i mezari kısa olur ise ortakçı arazinin kuvve-yi istihsaliyesini tezbid? edeceği ıslahat yerine az zaman içinde fazla intifa’ etmek maksadıyla toprağı yormağa çalışacağından ve ıslahat-ı ziraaiye icrasına müddet müsaid olmayacağından mezari müddetinin 10 seneden aşağı olmaması münasib görülmüştür.”
373 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: “Nitekim İngiltere’de arazinin müddet-i icarı 25 senedir.”
374 BOA ŞD. 32/41 1332. In the revised version of Article 1, it is stated that the agreement of sharecropping (“yarıcılık veya ortakçılık”) should be registered and specified in duration (“ber mukavele-yi tahririyeye merbut ve müddet-i muayyen”), which cannot be less than 8 years: “Müddet-i mezari 8 seneden akal olamaz”: Ibid. The reason for the shortening of the duration is explained as such: “Birinci maddede akd-i mezari için tayin olunan 10 sene müddetin hakk-ı karar ve mürur-u zamanı kat’ eylemesi mahzuruna binaen müddet-i mezkure 8 seneye tenzil”: Ibid. The older draft can be found in BOA HSDHADB. 5/1, 1330.
375 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332. Here, the category of wage labourers include “orakçı, harmancı, sığırtmaç, hizmetkarlar vesair namlarla tutulan amele”: Ibid.
324
transfer of the land. Then, specific instances of possible conflict between çiftlik-owners and sharecroppers are discussed in more detail.
Article 10 of the “layiha” focuses on the specific conditions whereby landowners can deport sharecroppers from the çiftlik. In general, it is a failure on the side of the sharecroppers to fulfill their duties, in the form of proper engagement in agriculture as well as sharing of the final product, that gives to the çiftlik-owner the right to terminate the agreement. As such, as long as production continues uninterrupted and the division of the agricultural produce between the parties proceeds without a conflict, the sharecroppers have the legal right to remain in the çiftlik of their employment agreement.376 This, however, is not simply the right to remain in the çiftlik but, more importantly, an obligation to do so. In Article 22 of the revised version of the text, it is proposed that in cases of flight from the çiftlik before the conclusion of the employment term, the offenders are to be judged with reference to the crime of fraud (“dolandırıcılık”).377 Furthermore, Article 23 states that those who have fled from çiftliks and deemed guilty of doing so cannot be employed by other çiftlik-owners until their penalty, in the form of compensation of the damage caused to the former çiftlik-owner, is fully completed; in the case that another landowner employs these workers with the knowledge of their flight, he is also to be punished for disobedience against the order of the state.378 Regarding the
376 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: “Yarıcı veya ortakçının bila özr-ü kanuni işini tatil ederek arazi sahibini menfaatinden mahrum etmesi veya mezruatdaki hissesini bila sebeb-i kanuni vermemesi ve varis veya vereseden cümlesinin sagir veya gaib olub arazinin işlenmesi mümkün olmaması hallerinde arazi sahibi akdi fesh edebilir.”
“Ahval-i selase-yi mezkure haricinde akd-i mezari fesh ve ortakçılar çiftlikten ihraç olunamaz.”
In some cases, the çiftlik-owners could also refrain from making the payments of the çiftlik workers:
BOA TFR.I.ŞKT. 15/1408, 1321; BOA TFR.I.ŞKT. 15/1426, 1321.
377 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: As Article 22 states, “ecirler bir özr-ü meşruya müstenid olmayarak mukavelenamede mukayyed olunan müddeti ikmal etmeksizin terk-i hizmet ettikleri halde dolandırıcılık cezasıyla mücazat ve müstecirleri hakkında tertib edecek hazar ve ziyanın tazmini ile mahkum olurlar.”
378 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: “Ceza ve hitemat (hidemat) ile mahkum olan ecirler mücazatın icra ve hitematın (hidematın) ifasından evvel aher bir şahsın hizmetine giremezler. Mahkum olan ecirleri mücazaatın icra ve hitematın (hidematın) ifasından evvel bilerek istihdam edenler hükümetin emrine
325
implementation of these articles, the central government is to be directly involved in the proceedings.379 In such a context (and beyond the assumed existence of an artificial dichotomy between the centrifugal and centralizing forces, between the state and the usurpers of power, held dear by the orthodox Ottoman historiography), even if the primary concern of the central state would simply be the uninterrupted continuity of agricultural production, the result could only turn out to be criminalization of rural mobility and emergence of forms of bonded labour.
The issue of flight from çiftliks is also visible among the clauses of a “Amele Nizamnamesi”, which deals with various types of agricultural workers to be employed in the çiftliks. While most of this text consists of a body of articles dealing with official procedures for a diversity of issues, such as the employment of the workers, including employment terms and registration processes, the bureaucratic steps for the official conclusion of the agreement, and the legal processes to be taken in case of conflict380, a specific article (Article 7) focuses on the issue of flight from çiftliks. Here, the proposed order of undertakings in case of a flight is as follows: In the initial attempt at flight, the runaway is to be captured on the order of local government by law enforcement and returned to his place of employment to continue
itaat etmeyenler hakkında muayyen olan ceza ile mücazaat olunurlar.” Terzibaşoğlu has pointed out the criminalization of actions that could interrupt agricultural production, such as theft of seeds by çiftlik workers, with reference to 1851 Criminal Code: Terzibaşoğlu, “The Ottoman Agrarian Question and the Making of Property and Crime in the Nineteenth Century,” 327. The same concern over the continuity of production on the side of the state is also visible in Article 72 of the Land Code (1858): “Bir karye veyahut kasaba ahalisi umumen veyahut bazısı bir özr-ü sahiha mebni terk-i vatan ettikleri halde mutasarrıf oldukları arazi müstahakk-ı tapu olmaz. Fakat bilâ-özür terk-i diyar ederek veyahut terk-i vatana mecburiyet veren özr-ü sahihin mündefi olduğu tarihden itibaren üç sene zarfında vatanlarına avdet etmeyerek arazilerini bilâ-sebep tatil ederler ise ol vakit müstahakk-ı tapu olur”: Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, 701.
379 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: Article 24: “İşbu kanunun icra-yı ahkamına Dahiliye ve Adliye Nezaretleri memurdur.”
380 BOA HSDHADB. 5/1, 1330. In contrast to the minute details of the registration process for each type of worker in this text, a much more flexible approach can be found in Article 1 of “Amele Tahririne Mahsus Nizamname” from the late 1880s: “Dersaadette ve bilâdı selâsede Şehremanetile, zabtiye Nezaretine ve taşralarda mahalli Hükümetlerine müracaatla mezuniyeti resmiye istihsal olunmadıkça her ne iş için olur ise olsun amele namile ve namı diğerle memaliki mahrusada adem tahriri külliyen memnudur. Fakat ebniye inşaatında ve bağ ve bahçe imalâtında ve çiftliklerde tahrir olunmaksızın alelade istihdam olunan dülger ve rençber ve çiftçi misillû amele işbu nizamname ahkâmından müstesnadır”: Düstur Tertib 1 Cilt 6, 407.
326
with agricultural production; in the case that this offense is repeated, a series of legal proceedings, under the general accusation of fraud (“dolandırıcılık”), is to be put into operation in a way to create obstacles for the future employment of the offender.381 As such, the transition from the initial, cruder solution proposed for the runaways -that is, their outright capture and forceful return to their place of employment by law enforcement- and the more elaborately formulated criminal character attributed to the repeated offense of flight -that of fraudulence- can be seen as the general priority of çiftlik-owners as well as certain orders of government for the uninterrupted continuity of agricultural production whereas the latter measurement also gains a cautionary character for the repeaters of the offense under question.382
Returning to the “layiha”, the greater part of the remaining articles in the text focus on various aspects of the obligations of the çiftlik-owners and the sharecroppers towards each other. The sharecroppers are primarily obliged to undertake all the stages of agricultural production.383 While it is expected that the general procedures for production, as well as distribution, are specified in the labour
381 BOA HSDHADB. 5/1, 1330: “Bir sene müddet ve seneden noksan bir müddet için nefsini icab eden amele vakt-i muayini gelmeksizin firar ederse ziraat odası yahud belediye ve nahiye meclisleri tarafından mahalli hükümete verilecek tezkire üzerine isbat-ı firarı tedkik edilmek için zabıta tarafından derdestle yerine teslim kılınması ve ikinci defa firar edenin dolandırıcılık cürmüyle mahkemeye teslim olunması ve bu husustaki dolandırıcılığın isbatı için tutulacak zabt varakasının kafi addedilmesi ve bu gibi firarilere verilecek hüsn-ü hizmet varakasında firarı muamelesinin tasrihi ve işbu hüsn-ü hizmet varakasını hamil olmayan efrad-ı amelenin hiçbir zira’ tarafından tutulmaması ve tutacak ashab-ı zira’ tarafından beşer lira-yı osmani ceza-yı nakdi ahzı ile ziraat odalarına irad-ı kaydı ve yeniden işe gidenlerin mahalleri heyet-i ihtiyariyesinden bir hüsn-ü hal varakası olması ve beytülzira işbu kaideye riayet etmeyenlerin ve nizamnameye mugayir hareket edenlerin ziraat odaları veya belediye ve nahiye meclislerince tahkikatı bila icra-yı mugayir-i ahval-ı hareketlerinden dolayı bu gibiler hakkında bir daha müracaatlarının nazar-ı dikkate alınmaması ve bu muamelatın pula tabi tutulması.”
382 For a discussion of the conflictual process whereby the issue of flight was gradually becoming the subject of court procedures in the face of the protests of landowners: Terzibaşoğlu, & Kaya, “19. Yüzyılda Balkanlar’da Toprak Rejimi ve Emek İlişkileri,” 91-97. For example: “Yarıcılık usulunun müstenid olduğu teamül-ü kadimin tağyirine mahal olmadığı cihetle kemakan muhafazasıyla çiftlik ve arazi sahiblerinin bu makulelerde matlubları olduğu halde mehakemeye müracaat etmeleri icab edeceği”: BOA DH. MKT. 2837/86, 1327, BOA ŞD. 2065/3, 1327. Also: BOA DH. MKT. 2866/82, 1327.
383 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: Article 11: “Araziyi sürmek, iska eylemek, ekmek, biçmek, harman etmek gibi mezruatın idrak ve istihsaline müteallik olan umur ile teharet ve nizafının temini hususları ortakçılara aiddir.”
327
agreement, the remaining issues are to be handled in accordance with local customs.384 Beyond the performance of agricultural production, sharecroppers are obliged to transport the share of the çiftlik-owner and work on the construction and repair of çiftlik roads while the çiftlik-owner has to provide the tools of production and necessary infrastructure.385 While the details of the relations between sharecroppers and çiftlik-owners are remarkably well-drafted, the second group of articles dealing with all other types of agricultural labour leaves the specific issues mostly undefined other than the recurring emphasis on the criminality of flight from the çiftlik.386
Another critical theme on the relations between the owners and the workers of çiftliks constitutes the focus of Article 16, which deals with the issue of corvee labour. In general, arbitrary imposition of work and obligations beyond the specifically defined duties and responsibilities of the cultivators, as well as subletting
384 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: Article 12: “Akd-i mezruatın şerait-i lazımesi ve mahsulat-ı arzıyenin keyfiyet-i taksimi ve öşrün suret-i ifası mukavelenameye derç edilecektir. Mukavelenamede münderiç olmayan şerait hakkında her mahalin teamülü nazar-ı itibara alınır.”
385 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332:
Article 17: “Yarıcı ve ortakçılar mahsulattan çiftlik sahibine aid hisseyi harman yerinden çiftlik anbarına kadar götürmeğe ve çiftliğin yollarını inşa ve tamir etmeğe mecburdur. Ve çiftlik sahibi de buna mukabil yarıcı veya ortakçıların gerek sükkanlarına ve gerek alet ve edavat ve hayvanat-ı zirailerine mahsus ebniyeyi ihzar ve teslim ile mükelleftir. Bu makule dahi ayrıca bir akd ile ... ve mukavelenameye derç olunur.”
Article 18: “Mahsulatın çiftlik anbarına kadar nakline mukabil yarıcı veya ortakçılara ber vech-i bala icar olunan ebniyenin tamir ve termimi dahi çiftlik sahibi tarafından icra edilir.”
The articles above seem to be products of a negotiation process between landowners and sharecroppers regarding the use of the expression of “mukabil”: A duty is assigned to one party in return for another duty assigned to the other party.
Some of the more specific rules are as follows:
Article 13: “Ortakçı veya yarıcı çifte koştuğu hayvanattan ve inek, bargir, düğe, tosun gibi büyük hayvanatın 12 tanesinden ve koyun ve keçinin 50 resinden maadasının çiftlik merasında reyi için ücret vermeğe mecburdur, bina-yı rey ile bu babdaki ücret ayrıca bir akd ile tayin ve mukavelenameye derç edilmek lazımdır.”
Article 14: “Çiftlik sahibi ortakçıya ailesinin ihtiyacını temine kafi sebze ve meyve yetiştirmeğe mahsus arazi iare edecek ve bu arazide husule gelen meyve ve sebze münhasıran ortakçı veya yarıcıya aid olacaktır. İşbu iare meselesi akd-i mezariye dahil olmayarak ayrıca tayin ve mukavelenameye derç olunur.
Article 15: “Arazi vergisi sahibi tarafından, bekçi ücreti ashab-ı arazi ile ortakçılar tarafından münasefe-yi tesviye olunur.”
386 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: Article 21: “Orakçı, harmancı, sığırtmaç, hergeleci vesair namlarla tutulan ecirler mahallerinin ihtiyacat ve adet ve muamelatına nazaran mecalis-i umumiye-yi vilayetçe tanzim edilecek talimatnamelere muvafık mukavelenamelerle istihdam edilecektir.”
328
of the collection of agricultural revenue, are practices legally forbidden.387 In this context, it is safe to argue that the need to forbid the practice of forced labour openly right into the early 20th century attests to the endurance of this practice in the rural setting, more than half a century after the Tanzimat Reforms, as will be discussed below.388
In the documents mentioned above, some recurring themes attract attention: Firstly, the ongoing obsession with the specification of the duration of the labour agreement comes up with significant implications on rural mobility; secondly, the ongoing obsession with developing a clear definition of the content of the labour agreement entails not only a formal rejection of forced labour, which seems to have continued right into the 20th century, but also the covert accommodation of this practice in specific clauses of the agreements under question.
6.2 Rural mobility and peasant flight
In the various drafts of the legal texts under study, the first recurring theme has been the banning of çiftlik-owners from arbitrarily deporting cultivators from the çiftlik; conversely, the çiftlik inhabitants have been forbidden from leaving their workplace due to the effectively limiting capacity of “söz bağı”.389 Indeed, the period from the late 19th into the early 20th century witnessed various cases of flight from çiftliks
387 BOA ŞD. 32/41, 1332: Article 16: “Yarıcı ve ortakçıların mükellefiyetleri haricinde angarya suretiyle arazi sahibi namına çalıştırılmaları, arazi sahiblerinin bazı mevasimde çiftliklerine gittiklerinde ortakçıyı veya yarıcıları ikamet ettikleri hanelerden ihraç ve taksim olunmayan mahsulattan yem ve yiyecek ahz ve hasılatın taksiminden evvel kendilerine aid hisseyi ahere ihale ve iltizam etmeleri memnudur. Ancak hasılattan hissesini taksim ve tefrik için tarafından birini vekil tayin edebilir.”
388 See: Kaya, & Peker, "Parga Çiftliği Kararnâmesi (1875): Çiftlik Sahipleri ve Çiftçi 'Ahâli' Arasında Mücadele"; Kaya, “Were Peasants Bound To The Soil in the 19th C. Balkans?"
389 BOA YB.021 42/9, 1909: “Beyan kılınan usul ve teamül dairesinde çiftlik sahibleriyle çiftçi ve hizmetkarlar beyninde akd edilen mukavelatın noksanı ve yahud muayyen olan müddetten gayrı bir zamanda çiftlik sahibleri tarafından yarıcı ve hizmetkarlara yol verilmesi ve yahud bunların bulundukları çiftlikleri terk etmesi gibi teamüle muhalif bir hal vukua getirildiği takdirde ve mutazarrır olan tarafın hükümet-i mahaliyeye vuku bulan müracaat üzerine meclis-i idarece tahkikatı lazıme bil icra tahkik eden hale göre teamüle tevfiken meclis-i mezkurca karar verilerek ol vecihle icabı ifa olunmakda ve bu merkezde muhafaza-ı hukuk edilmektedir.”
329
and the resulting demands of the çiftlik-owners for the compensation of their loss regarding the old custom of paying off of debts by a sharecropper before leaving a çiftlik.390 The general practice of restricting peasant mobility, furthermore, predates the 19th century in the Ottoman Empire, starting from the imposition of çift-bozan tax on peasants leaving their registered villages as well as forceful returning of “fugitives” to their place of origin.391
In rural Manastır, the existence of a constant stream of peasants fleeing from heavy impositions, including tax, rent and various obligations, amounted to, for the state, the impending erosion of its agricultural revenue base, initiating a series of official decrees restricting peasant mobility from the 17th into the 19th century.392 In this context, the time period allowed to a tımar-holder to forcefully return a fugitive to his village after flight fluctuated between 10 and 40 years, in addition to occasional annulment and cancelling of tax and previous debts to create incentives for the peasantry to return to the village of origin.393 Before the turning of the town of Manastır into a substantial alternative of destination, fugitives were often obliged to settle in çiftliks the owners of which would protect them against the claims of
390 For example:
“Manastır’da Sinan Bey mahallesi halkından ve ashab-ı alakadan Süleyman Ağa tarafından verilmiş arzuhalde Manastır kazasına tabi Nospal karyesinde mutasarrıf olduğu çiftliği arazisini yarıcılık suretiyle ziraat eden Beroyko veled Bofce ile oğlu Yuvan arazisini zira’ ve söz bağı namıyla olan 14 aded Osman lirası ve 2030 kuruş ve diğer bir kalem 5 lira ve 3 çarık ile 24 keyl mahlut zahire borçlarını tesviye etmeksizin hizmetkarlıkla çiftliklerde müstahdem kesanın zimmetlerini tesviye etmeksizin diğer mahalle gitmemeleri örf ve adet-i belde icabından bulunduğundan icra-yı icabı istida olunmuş”: BOA ŞD. 2038/7, 1318.
“O havalice çiftliklerde bulunan yarıcı ve hizmetkarların ashab-ı alakadan söz bağı namıyla ve suret-i saire ile akçe ve zehair almakta ve tediye-yi deyn ettiğinden sonra bulunduğu mahalden inkal etmekte olması müddet-ül kadim cari usul-u belde icabından olub”: BOA DH. MKT. 2290/106, 1317.
“Manastır havalisince çiftliklerde bulunan yarıcı ve hizmetkarların söz bağı namıyla ve suret-i saire ile akçe ve zehair almakta ve tediye-yi düyundan sonra bulunduğu mahalden inkal etmekte olması”: BOA DH. MKT. 2384/49, 1318.
391 Barkan, “Çiftlik,” 789; McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 53-54.
392 Matkovski, “La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre l'attachement a la glebe pendant la domination ottoman,” 705-707. As Matkovski also adds, “on peut conclure que le raya en Macedoine etait attaché a la glebe, mais a partir de la seconde moitie du XVIIe s. il detruisait arbitrairement la loi fondamentale de la feodalite—l'attachement a la glebe”: Ibid, 708.
393 Ibid, 705-707. On has and vakıf land, the time period allowed to bring back a fugitive often remained indefinite: Ibid.
330
traditional tımar-holders for want of labor.394 As such, the accelerating process of the appropriation of peasant land, which will be discussed in more detail below, were coupled by the employment of “a new discipline over the soil” in order to restrict rural mobility395 as the expansion of the çiftlik phenomenon entailed a process whereby “the peasants lost not only their land but also their mobility”, no matter how restricted the latter had already been.396 In principle, the official demand for the return of fugitives to the place of origin, as a common demand raised by the landowners of the realm, seems to have remained in place well into the early 20th century.397
Nonetheless, rural mobility continued. Peasant complaints about taxation and the resulting streams of flight were indeed frequently occurring phenomena from the 17th century onwards in the region under study as large-scale peasant flight, sometimes of whole villages due to heavy taxation and debt, had turned into a defining feature of the countryside.398 Flight from villages into other villages and
394 Ibid. Matkovski has also underlined that collective flight was more common than individual flight.
This practically meant that a collective movement of a body of peasantry into a new area was
accompanied by the transfer of tools of production and draft animals. This, coupled by relative
scarcity of labour, was the main reason that welcoming parties often protected the fugitives against
their older sipahis and çiftlik-owners: Matkovski, “La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre
l'attachement a la glebe pendant la domination ottoman,” 704-705.
395 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 64. McGowan argues that this situation was further reinforced by the practice of obtaining title deeds for reclaimed land since it “closed off the routes of escape for the fleeing peasant, obliging him to submit ultimately to one master or another”: Ibid.
396 Sadat, “Rumeli Ayanları: The Eighteenth Century”, 353-354. Sadat compares this process to the emergence of second serfdom in Eastern Europe: Ibid. These processes occasionally entailed the employment of armed men by the landowners of the Balkans: Stoianovich, “Land Tenure and Related Sectors of the Balkan Economy, 1600-1800,” 398-401. In another context, Kasaba also underlines that “when necessary, çiftlik owners did not hesitate to use forceful means to tie the peasantry to their estates” as they often resorted to use of armed forces. Kasaba further adds that “çiftlik owners used force not only to restrict peasant mobility but also to impose the cultivation of new crops on their estates”: Kasaba, The Ottoman Empire and the world economy: The nineteenth century, 25. Those who actually managed to escape could either go to mountains and forests to get engage in animal husbandry or join in bands of “robbers”: Matkovski, “La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre l'attachement a la glebe pendant la domination ottoman,” 704-705; Sadat, “Rumeli Ayanları: The Eighteenth Century,” 353-354.
397 See: Terzibaşoğlu, & Kaya, “19. Yüzyılda Balkanlar’da Toprak Rejimi ve Emek İlişkileri,” 91-97.
398 In this context, McGowan refers to cases whereby some villages were completely emptied: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 138-139. In the 1640s, when some villagers left their so-called ancient village (“kadim karye”) in
331
çiftliks, as well as other districts, continued well into the early 18th century, causing an increase in the burden of taxation apportioned on the remaining population.399 Similar cases were recorded towards the late 18th century as well. In 1780, for example, an investigation conducted in the village of Nemanica, located in the district of İştip and constituted a part of the malikane of Seyid Mustafa Efendi, demonstrated the existence of large-scale peasant flight, with the resulting demand by the malikane holder being the return of the fugitives to their old village (“kadimce sakin oldukları”).400 A similar case is the flight of the peasantry, who were living in the mukataa of Pirlepe and Morihova as part of a malikane, into the nearby districts of Manastır, Florina, Tikveş, İştip, Vodine, and Yenice-i Vardar, in order to evade
Florina and fled to the northern districts of Manastır and Pirlepe, their forceful return was officially sanctioned for a time period of 10 years: Özcan, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer’iyye Sicilinin (65-120 Varak) Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, 56, 169. The villagers of Popolzani, a settlement of alluvial plains located in southern Manastır, were tried in court due to their engagement in a practice of annual flight from the village (“Çavuş Bey vakfı olan Poplazanlı nâm karyenin her sene firar iden reâyâsı”): Ibid, 58, 176-177. A tımar-holder from the district of Pirlepe demanded the payment of previous unsettled taxes by two former villagers, who had by then settled in a village of Manastır, even though more than 20 years had already passed since their flight: Erikçi, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer‘iyye Sicilinin (1-64. Varak) Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642), 116, 297. In the 1680s, peasants were once again openly forbidden from leaving their villages in Pirlepe and the demand for the return of tthe fugitives to their place of origin within a period of 10 years was raised again: Gözcü, 25 Nolu Manastır Şer‘iyye Sicilinin Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642, 44, 150-151.
399 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 146; Demirkol, XVIII. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Manastır, 38, 169.
400 BOA C. DH. 300/14967, 1195. The results of the investigation that has been conducted in 1194 are presented in a report: Of the village population, 25 names (as household leaders) are recorded to have remained in the village while 24 are scattered in various places (5 in a çiftlik of Nazırzade Küçük Mehmed Ağa; 9 in a village of Kratova; 7 in various villages of İştip, such as Berilovci, Ranciste, Meckujevci, Kiliseli etc.; 3 in the district of Kumanova). Considering the strong possibility that not all of the fugitivies could be located, this amounts to the flight of at least half of the villagers in İştip of the late 18th century.
“Mukataa-yı mezbur senevi 3000 kuruş mal ile mumaileyhanın malikane uhdesinde olduğu ve malikane verilen mukataat ve maktuat ve kura ve mezaraanın ve defterde mukayed (raiyet ve raiyeti)? oğullarından bazısılar ile kadimi sakin oldukları yerlerinden kalkub aher mahallere perakende ve perişan olanlar hala oldukları mahallerde sakin olalı 10 sene mürur eylemeyub ve mücerred avarız hanesine kayıd olunmuş değiller ise kaldurulub kadimce sakin oldukları yerlerine nakil ve iskan ettirilir ama oturdukları mahallerde sakin olalı 10 sene geçub yahud avarızhanesine kayıd olunmuşlar ise ol makuleler kaldırılmak tekalifi ile rencide olunmayub oturdukları mahallerde üzerlerine edası lazım gelen rüsum-u raiyetlerini kanun-ı defter mucebince asl ve … kayıd oldukları zabitlerine eda eylemeleri iskan-ı şüruttan ettiği baş muhasebeden derkenar olunmuştur”: Ibid.
332
taxes in the 1790s.401 Here, the state not only declared as its aim the return of the fugitives to their place of origin within 10 years, but also used the language of protection concerning the remaining peasantry who would be crushed under taxation if the village population was to drop.402 Most interestingly, the idea of ancient village (“kadim karye”), which was employed not only by the state but also by the peasantry in their opposition to the forceful turning of villages into çiftlik, as will be discussed in the following parts, is used here for the control of rural mobility; in other words, the protection of the peasantry by the state practically amounted to the restriction of its movement.403
This story of rural movement and flight continued well into the 19th century. In a document on peasant mobility from the district of İştip, similarly to the previous one, the notion of ancient village (“kadim karye”) is employed to refer to the rightful place of residence while a period of 10 years has been proposed as the duration whereby the runaways could be returned to their respective villages.404 Furthermore, the movement of the peasants residing in various villages and çiftliks of the district into the town center turned out to be a matter of concern in the 1850s.405 Most intriguing, in this context, is the difference of the treatment reserved for movement
401 BOA AE. SSLM.III. 178/10639, 1207: “Mukataa-yı mezbure ahali ve reayasından bazıları hisse-yi tekaliflerini vermemek daisiyle kurb-u civarda vaki Manastır ve Florina ve Tikveş ve İştip ve Vodine ve Yenice-i Vardar vesair kazalar caniblerine müteferrik ve perişan.”
402 BOA AE. SSLM.III. 178/10639, 1207: “Firar edenlerin hisse-yi tekalifleri derun-u mukataada mevcud reaya fukarasına tahmil olunduğundan ... tahammül olamayub onların dahi perişan olacakları.”
403 BOA AE. SSLM.III. 178/10639, 1207.
404 BOA A.} MKT. MVL. 89/49, 1273: “Ber kasaba ve karyenin defterde mukayyed hristiyan ve hristiyan oğullarından biri kadimi sakin olduğu kasaba ve karyeyi terk ile varub oturdukları yerlerde hanesine kayıd olunmayub ve sakin olalı 10 seneyi geçmiş değilse o makulelerin kadimi karyelerine nakil ve iskan ettirilmesi ve 10 seneyi geçmiş olduğu halde kaldırılmaması kanun-ı kadim iktizasından olduğu divan-ı hümayun kelamından ... derkenarda gösterilmiş olmasına göre merkumelerden nefs-i kasaba-ı mezkureye nakil eyledikleri beyan olunanların müddet-i nakilleri 10 seneyi tecavüz etmemiş ise o makulelerin kadimi olan karye ve çiftliklerine iade ve iskanları ve 10 seneyi tecavüz etmiş ise bulundukları mahale ifaları.”
405 BOA A.} MKT. MVL. 89/ 49, 1273; BOA A.} MKT. NZD. 202/24, 1273. Such migration to major town centers had already emerged as a problem by the 18th century: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 146.
333
within the rural setting as against movement from the countryside into the urban areas from that point onwards: Villagers are allowed to move from their original villages into çiftliks as well as other villages located within the district of İştip, especially in the case that the productive capacity of the old village land is diminished, creating a potential threat regarding tax base406; migration into the town center, however, is now forbidden.407 This change of practice was most probably due to the increasing acceleration of migration into the town centers and the ensuing problems this movement created in relation to the agricultural revenue base as well as a possible crisis with regard to the availability of rural labour for landowners.408 A conflict related to migration from a village into the town center of Manastır around the same years also displays the ongoing confusion regarding the tax status of former peasants migrating into urban centers while being still registered in their old villages and holding property.409
Flight from çiftliks remained a recurring theme of complaint in the petitions written by the çiftlik-owners of the area under study towards the late 19th century. In the 1880s, a landowner named Halil Ağa from the village of Mustafa Obası, located
406 BOA. A.} MKT. MVL. 89/49, 1273: “Bilahare emr-i ziraatin tatilini muceb olacaktan nakl-i haneye mecbur olanların derun-ı kazada vesair (..)ları çiftliklerde iskan etmek üzere müsaade olunub.”
407 BOA. A.} MKT. MVL. 89/49, 1273: “Badezin bir karyeden diğer karyeye nakil ve iskan etmek isteyenlere müsaade gösterilib derun-ı kasabada ikamet etmek murad edenlerin men olunması hususunun suvb-ı saadetlerine bildirilmesi.”
408 McGowan underlines that acceleration of migration into the town of Manastır in the 1820s and 1830s can be seen as the result of a creation of an outlet for the fugitives: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 169.
409 BOA A.} MKT. UM. 165/92, 1271: “Manastır kazasına tabi Magarevo karyesinden çend nefer reaya birkaç sene mukaddem Manastır’a nakil ederek … gelince değin hisse-i virgülerini karye-yi mezkurede tediye edegelmişler ise de bu sene virgülerinin tediye-yi itasına mümanaat etmekte bulundukları ve bunların hane ve emlakları karye-yi mezkurede olarak virgülerinin vermemeleri karye-yi mezkure reayasına gadr-ı mucib olacağı beyanıyla bunların hisse-yi virgülerinin yine karye-i mezkurede ita ettirilmesi ve vermedikleri halde karye-yi mezkure defterinden bil tenzil Manastır vergisine zamm ve ilavesi ve yahud mersumların iadesi karye-yi mezkure kocabaşı İstaryo nam zımmi tarafından ba arzuhal inha ve istida olunması ve hakikat-i keyfiyet buraca meçhul olduğundan suvb-u düsturlarından istilamı meclis-i valadan ifade olmağla ber haval-i muharrer keyfiyetin bil tahkik iştarı hususuna himmet buyurmaları.”
334
in the district of İştip towards the north-west of the town-center,410 wrote a petition whereby he argued that his workers, Mano and his brother Yuvan and his other brother Koço, originally from the village of Meckujevci, located towards the north of the settlement of Mustafa Obası, fled from his çiftlik not only without paying off their debt but also stealing some animals and belongings of the çiftlik-owner.411 Beyond the issue of stealing, Halil Ağa argued that this flight had caused damage to his person due to the interruption of agricultural production and as such, his first and foremost demand turned out to be the return of his workers to his çiftlik.412 Around the same time period, another landowner named Lazo veled-i Gorco, holding a çiftlik in the village of Vardar, located around the alluvial plains towards the south-west of the town-center of İştip, complained in his petition to the “kaymakamlık” of the district that his two workers, originally coming from villages in the district of Tikveş, fled from his çiftlik, not only stealing some horses but also leaving their job unfinished. Having heard that these fugitives intended to enter the employment of a particular individual named “İştipli Koca Miladin” in Sofia, this çiftlik-owner demanded not only the return of his stolen animals but also the return of his workers to complete their job.413 After an initially unsuccessful attempt by the authorities,414
410 BOA HR. SFR.04. 701/97, 1890: “İştip kazasına tabi’ Mustafa Oba karyesi ashab-ı alakasından Halil Ağa.”
411 BOA HR. SFR.04. 701/97, 1890: “İştip kazasına tabi Mustafa Oba karyesindeki çiftlik hizmetkarlarımdan İştip Meckujevci karyeli 30 yaşında Mano ve biraderi 25 yaşlarında Yuvan ve 16 yaşlarında diğer biraderi Koço ba sened-i musaddak 75 lira nakidle 306 senesi Kasımına kadar dahi çiftlikte hizmete borçlu oldukları halde bundan beş gün evvel ... çiftliğimden ... firar eyledikleri.”
412 BOA HR. SFR.04. 701/97, 1890: “Firar ve ziraatimi yüzü üstüne terk eylemeleri hakk-ı acizanemde büyük özüre muceb olacağına göre ... salifülesam kesanın buraya iadeleri.”
413 BOA HR. SFR.04. 701/101, 1890: “İştip kazasına tabi Vardar çiftliği karyesinde mutasarrıf bulunduğum çiftliğimde hizmetkarlık etmekte olan Tikveş’in Risan karyesinden 25 yaşlarında Taşo ve kaza-yı mezkurun Bilişte karyesinden 23 yaşlarında Rano nam kimesneler şehr-i haziranda on beşinci Cuma günü ... mezkur çiftliğimden sirkatle Bulgaristan’a firar eyledikleri ve bunların Sofya’da hizmetkarlık etmekte olan İştipli Koca Miladin nezdine girecekleri istihbar kılınmağla bunların ... olarak işimi terkle firar ve bargirlerimi sirkat eylemeleri ... mezkur bargirler ile beraber salifülesam kesanın iadeleri.”
414 BOA HR. SFR.04. 701/114, 1890. The members of the law enforcement (“zabıta”) failed to find the fugitives in Sofia.
335
the fugitives were caught on the border415 and returned to İştip for the legal proceedings.416 As such, the çiftlik-owners in these examples claimed not only their stolen goods and animals, but also their çiftlik workers to be returned to complete their duties in agricultural production and hence, pay off their debt. Similar cases of flight also took place at the beginning of the 20th century, such as the case whereby an 18-year-old worker fled from a çiftlik located in the village of Peshtalevo, owned by Mustafa Bey, a resident of the Papa Nikola quarter of the town of Pirlepe, to the village of Dedebal, located in the alluvial plains towards the north-east of the town center of Manastır, to be employed as a worker.417 As such, competition among landowners for labour seems to have continued well into the 20th century.
To sum up, not only restrictions imposed on rural mobility but also resulting waves of flight from çiftliks and villages remained in place, with varying degrees of intensity, from the 17th into the early 20th century in the area under study. As rural inhabitants, privately or collectively, continued with their migration to cities or different tımars and çiftliks in conjunction with a process of dispossession, which will be discussed in more detail below, they gradually came to constitute a reserve of labour force for urban and rural wage-work as well as sharecropping.418 In general terms, the coexistence of continuous restriction of mobility and illegal movement seems to have marked the rural landscape.
In this context, the obsession with the specification of the duration of the labour agreement observed in the aforementioned legal texts can be understood in relation to the concern of the state and the landowners to control the mobility of rural
415 BOA HR. SFR.04. 701/116, 1890: “Merkumların esna-yı firarlarında hudud kordonları tarafından derdest olunmaları.”
416 BOA HR. SFR.04. 701/116, 1890: “Palanka kaymakamlığından buraya gönderilerek mahkeme-yi bidayete teslim kılındıkları.”
417 BOA YB. 021. 55/269 1321.
418 Matkovski, “La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre l'attachement a la glebe pendant la domination ottoman,” 704.
336
workforce in an environment of labour scarcity, which in turn resulted in competition among çiftlik-owners for labour force. The accompanying concern of the state to safeguard the livelihood of çiftlik workers in the form of granting security of dwelling and employment by putting checks on the potentially arbitrary acts of the çiftlik-owners can be seen as the other side of the same coin whereby agricultural production is to continue without interruption and increase in productivity, if possible, through the creation of longer-term incentives on the side of the producers to refrain from completely exhausting the cultivable land in a single term of production -hence, the example of the tenancy duration in England, the epitome of capitalist -and thus, efficient- agriculture. While it is true that short-term contracts can also be employed as tools of labour discipline by creating a situation of constant insecurity in certain contexts, the debt-based character of the longer-term contracts under question, hand in hand with the existing practice of restricting mobility, carries with it the imprint of labour bondage in an environment of unequal distribution of economic, political and legal power.419
6.3 The question of “angarya”
While the theme of the extension of the duration of labour agreement, as raised in the drafts of the “layiha” discussed above, is directly related to the restriction of rural mobility, often through the creation of indebtedness, which will be discussed in detail below, the other main theme of the “layiha” is the definition of the content of the labour arrangement with the focus being on the prohibition of “angarya”. In the classic literature on Ottoman economic history, not only limits on rural mobility but also the use of forced labour has been associated with the legal concept of serfdom,
419 “In a labor-starved world without free land, control over land and laws often leads to peonage”: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 72.
337
the existence of which has been rejected wholesale.420 In contrast, the Braudelian framework has evaluated the çiftlik phenomenon as part of the creation of bonded labour in a manner comparable to the emergence of second serfdom in Eastern Europe, explained as a result of trade opportunities.421 Beyond these frameworks, studies focusing on the class relations between landowners and rural producers have demonstrated formidable evidence for the existence of forced labor and instances of dependency in various localities of the Balkan countryside.422
The imposition of forced labour on the peasantry by the çiftlik-owners of the Balkans turned into a topic of general concern starting at least from the declaration of the Tanzimat reforms in 1839 onwards.423 Although the controversy over “angarya” was not entirely resolved, especially regarding the acceptance of its existence by provincial officials,424 the vocabulary and concerns of documents from various points
420 See: Barkan, “Türkiye’de “Servaj” Var Mıydı?” 721-724; İnalcık, "Village, peasant and empire"; İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants.”
421 See: Stoianovich, “Land Tenure and Related Sectors of the Balkan Economy, 1600-1800,” 402, 407-409; Sadat, “Rumeli Ayanları: The Eighteenth Century,” 353.
422 See: Güran, & Uzun, “Bosna-Hersek’te Toprak Rejimi: Eshab-ı Alaka ve Çiftçiler Arasındaki İlişkiler (1840-1875)”; İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi; Terzibaşoğlu, “Landed Estates, Rural Commons and Collective Agriculture in Ottoman Niş and Leskofçe in the Nineteenth Century."
423 “Rumeli canibinde olan mahallerin ekseri vücuh ve ... memleketlerinde bulunan reayayı kendu abd-i müşterekleri hükmünde tutub çiftlik hizmetlerinde vesair umur ve hususlarda cebren bila ücret kullanmak ve bazı umur-u ... vesairelerine müdahale ve taarruz etmek mesellu teaddiyat ictisar eyledikleri istihbar ve tahkik buyurulduğundan”: BOA C. DH. 196/9764, 1255.
“Rumeli eyaletinde bazı çiftlikler ashabı reayaya angarya kullanmakta olduklarından ne suretle men’ olunduğu”: BOA A.} MKT. MHM. 6/68, 1264.
“Rumeli eyaletinde bulunan bazı çiftlikat ashabı çiftliklerinde bulunan reayayı angarya işletib işletmedikleri bil tahkik ara sıra vuku’ bulduğu anlaşılmış olmasıyla da fimabad memnu olduğuna ve badezin mütecasir olanlar hakkında mecazat icra olunacağına dair”: BOA A.} MKT. UM. 66/36, 1267.
424 For example, the governor of Edirne (“vali-yi eyalet-i Edirne”) completely denied the existence of angarya in his domain: “İşbu angarya maddesinin buralarda vukuu olmayub saye-yi ... vaye-yi hazret-i padişahide efrad-ı ahali müsterih ül hal ve müreffeh ül ... oldukları halde kendu işleriyle meşgul ve ber muceb-i ... seniye hiç kimesnenin meccanen ve yahud ücretle ahaliden birini angarya hizmetlerde kullanmağa ictisar edemeyeceği”: BOA A.} MKT. UM. 286/34, 1273.
Almost 20 years before, Nazır Kapucubaşı Osman Ağa had also denied the existence of angarya in Drama: “Kaza-yı mezbur ahali ve reayasını bu ana kadar gerek kendusu ve gerek vücuh ve ashab-ı alakadan ... bila ücret cebren kendu hizmetlerinde istihdam vesair güna teaddi eylediklerin vuku olmayub ve bundan böyle dahi vukua gelmemesine ... dikkat olunacağı derkar olunmuş olub”: C. DH. 196/9764, 1255. In the document under question, the general obligations on the residents of the district are shortly listed (“ahali ve reaya-yı merkumenin ber mutad-ı kadim senede vaki olan hizmetleri”). One of these is the transportation of grains apportioned to the army and the imperial palace as well as the tax in kind on agricultural produce from the location of harvest as far as to the
338
of the 19th century indicate that forced labour was indeed a resilient practice in existence in and around the Balkans, even though it was legally forbidden after the Tanzimat.425
Banning of forced labour by the Tanzimat renders the aforementioned issue of mobility even more intriguing. In a state decree simultaneously addressed to the mutasarrıfs of places under Tanzimat regulations, including Rumeli, İvranya, Yanya, Silistre, Tırhala, Vidin and Selanik, the workers of çiftliks were allowed to change their location -as long as they remained within the boundaries of their respective districts and all movements were kept under proper registration- specifically in cases of arbitrary demands and forced labour imposed on them by çiftlik-owners (“angarya veya suret-i aherle zulm ve teaddi”). As such, controlling population movements rather than completely stopping them seems to be at the center of the efforts in the latter half of the 19th century while forced labour was shunned, not only due to the ethical (and practical) problems its existence created for the liberal-minded, modernizing as well as more traditional, patriarchal state officials, but also because of the underlying awareness that forced labour was positioned in the center of rural unrest and the redemption of the reaya from corvee, through permission to rural movement if necessary, was the only way out.426
port of Kavala (implicitly by small farmers). Then, it is stated that the landless who are employed on their free will in imperial çiftliks get half of the agricultural produce (“çift ve çubuğu olmayub acize makulesinden olanlar dahi emlak-ı hümayun çiftlikatına bil tav ül rıza ortakçı tutulub”) and hence, the alienation of half of the produce they cultivated is identified as the specific obligation of this group. According to Osman Ağa, these constituted all types of services expected from the rural inhabitants: “Marülzikr Drama kazası reayası ber minval-i muharrer hidemat-ı mezkureden başka bir güna angaryada istihdam olunduğu olmayub her halde teadiden himaye olunmakta bulunmuş olduğu”: Ibid. Nevertheless, peasant complaint regarding angarya seems to have persisted, reaching to the center in the end. As such, outright denial by officials should not be seen as an unexpected reaction.
425 Regarding the resilience of “angarya” even after it was legally forbidden, it was often argued that the legal prohibition of forced labour during the initial phase of Tanzimat were unfortunately reversed in the turmoils of the following decades: BOA A.} MKT. UM. 286/34, 1273.
426 “Zir irade-yi atufilerinde kain mahaller çiftlikatında mütemekkin yarıcı ve hizmetkar makulesinden bulunan reayanın biri mütemekkin olduğu çiftlik sahibinden angarya veya suret-i aherle zulm ve teaddiye giriftar olarak adem-i tahammülünden naşi li-ecli iskan aher yere çiftliğe gidecek olsa bu reaya çiftliğimin kadim reayasındandır hasb-el şürut mahal-i ahere salıvirmem diyerek çiftlik sahibi
339
The discussion on corvee continued well into the latter half of the 19th century. An article from Journal de Constantinople, published on September 13, 1860, dealt with the question of forced labour.427 Here, the discussion started as a polemic against the allegedly exaggerated accounting of the extent of corvee in the Balkans by a French newspaper.428 According to the writer of the article, the main problem with the criticized account stemmed from its misdating of corvee and feudalism: While the existence of corvee had indeed been a phenomenon under the feudal regime of the “beys” of the earlier periods, the article argued, the introduction of the Tanzimat reforms had already greatly diminished their power. The principal embodiment of the older feudal relations in the modern age of the 19th century, however, could be found in çiftliks which were mostly inherited from older feudal landowners and where attachment of the peasantry to the land seemed to continue. Nevertheless, it was argued that the measures created by Tanzimat were now modifying even the relationship between the çiftlik-owner and the cultivator, giving it the quality of a bilateral contract.429 In this argument, while the existence of a
bulunanlar çiftliğine iade ile esir gibi istihdam ve firarını ... ile hakkında istediği icraya ikdam etmekte ve o dahi halastan ümidini kat' ile ma...en iskan ve angaryaya razı olduklarından ve beynlerinde vuku bulan bazı fesad ve uygunsuzluklar ekseri bu mesellu zulm ve teaddiden ... etmekte idüğünden”: BOA. A.} MKT. UM. 290/24, 1273, BOA. A.} MKT. UM. 290/45, 1273. As such, movement within the district is allowed: “Çiftlikat reayasından gerek yarıcı gerek hizmetkar makulesi olsun biri ... mütemekkin olduğu çiftlikattan kalkub ahere bir çiftliğe gitmek istedikte dilediği mahale gitmesi ... aher kazaya gitmesi caiz olmayub fakat bulunduğu kazadan dışarı çıkmamak ve vergilerini temkin edeceği mahalden kaydı vechiyle istihsal kılınmak”: BOA. A.} MKT. UM. 290/24 1273, BOA. A.} MKT. UM. 290/45, 1273. The investigation on whether this was a locally acceptable solution had started by 1849: BOA A.} MKT. 236/26 1265.
427 I thank Berna Kamay for sharing this document with me.
428 Journal de Constantinople, September 13, 1860: “Nous nous proposons de donner aujourd’hui quelques details sur le system des corvees actuellement en vigeur dans quelque province de la Roumelie, afin de demontrer l’inexactitude de assertions du journal français l’Union qui, dans un article don’t nous avons deja en partie releve les erreurs, pretend que les corvees sont intolerable et pesent tour sur la portion chretienne des habitants de la Roumelie.”
429Journal de Constantinople, September 13, 1860: “Il semble que le journal français s’est trompe de date, et qu’au lieu de discuter l’etat de la Roumelie actuelle, il la decrit telle qu’elle existait sous le regime feudal des beys qui exerçaient autrefois un pouvoir preque absolu dans les provinces de l’Empire Ottoman. Alors, il est vrai, les villageois etaient assujettis par ces seigneurs a toutes sortes de corvess; mais depuis que leur autorite a ete annuee par l’introduction du Tanzimat, une modification complete a eu lieu egalement dans les relations qui existaient entre eux et la population des campagnes qu’ils administraient. Le seuls vestiges de ce system feudal sont les Tchiftliks on fermes appurtenant
340
certain degree of attachment to the land was not completely denied, a novel character was attributed to the relationship between the landowner and the cultivator. As such, the argument focused on a transition from the oppressive, corvee-based feudalism of the older Ottoman rule in the Balkans into a new economic form whereby even the çiftliks -the principle embodiment of the older feudal relations especially regarding the attachment of the cultivator to the soil- were also undergoing certain transformations. While the expression of the novel form of labour relation through the form of a bilateral contract remains to be a liberal understanding of agrarian societies, the analysis of the article seems to be part of a general effort of coming to terms with the contradictions indicative of a transitional context.430
The existing rule regarding sharing of the produce, the article argued, was such that the cultivators who supplied the draught animals themselves got half of the produce while they obtained only one-third if the çiftlik-owner provided the oxen. This, of course, is a gross simplification of local variations. However, the critical
pour la plupart aux descendants des anciens beys provinciaux et cultivees par des paysans qui son ten quelque sorte attaches a la glebe, quoique d’autre part, certaines stipulations qui interviennent entre le maître et les laboureurs donnent aussi a leurs relations le caractere d’un contrat bilateral.” Historically, the article relates the origins of these estates to the internal strife in the Ottoman Balkans whereby peasants fell under the control of the “beys” either for protection or as means to pay of their debts. Also, the political and legal power of these “beys”, it is argued, made it even easier for them to sentence the wrongdoers to work on their lands.
430 Journal de Constantinople, September 13, 1860. It was also added that the state itself sometimes had to resort to the use of unpaid work, especially when no other type of labor was available. Nevertheless, the article argued that such instances were mostly for undertakings beneficial to the whole community, such as public construction: “Outre ces corvees, que les particuliers peuvent exiger en vertu des stipulations et d’usages traditionnels, il e nest d’autres requises quelquefois par les employes du gouvernement. Celles-la se redusient a tres peu de chose et par des dispositions recemment emanees, les paysan qui y prennent part avec leurs betes reçoivent une certaine retribution qui s’eleve ordinairement a 30 paras par cheval et par heure. Le passage des troupes ne cause aux villageois aucun inconvenient, vu qu’elles vont Presque toujours s’etablir dans les grands khans et non pas dans les maisons des paysans comme l’affirment certains journaux europeens. Quelquefois, dans des cas exceptionnels, les habitants de quelques communautes Rurales sont requis de preter leur concours a des travaux d’utilite publique et avantageux pour le pays meme qu’ils habitent. Tels ont te par exemple les corvees que les habitants des districts de Seres, de Drama et de Zihna ont executes l’annee passee a l’embourchare du fleuve Strymon pour le deblayer et en regulariser le cours, et on doit seulement regretter que la crue des torrents grossis par les pluises d’automne aient completement detruit ces travaux au moment ou ils etaient presque acheves. Tels sont aussi parfois certains travaux indispensable pour l’etablissement des telegraphes dans certaines provinces. Au reste les requisitions extraordinaires don’t nous venons de parler ne se font que tres rarement et seulement lorsqu’il est impossible de se procurer d’une autre maniere la main d’oeuvre necessaire.”
341
point for the argument is that while this method of sharing made it possible for the cultivator to subsist and pay his taxes in a year of good harvest, the help of the landowner was often required in years of bad harvest.431 Although the argument was not developed any further, it is reasonable to suspect, based on the existing evidence, that the result of such an assistance provided by the landowner would be the creation of relations going beyond a simple bilateral contract and the gradual emergence of debt bondage, as will be discussed in detail below. Furthermore, the argument of the article regarding the coexistence of çiftlik workers and small peasants within the confines of the same settlement indicates an ongoing process of piecemeal land acquisition at work, as will be discussed in the following parts.432
About 20 years later, in a letter written in July 1883433, a certain Mr. Evans went on and about the rural life in the Ottoman Balkans as he recounted his travels around the northern end of the vilayet of Manastır, mainly in the area around Skopje, where he claimed to have visited more than 50 villages and witnessed onerous conditions:
Were there any reasonable prospect of a successful uprising, the motives for it are certainly very strong. Since the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin, the Christian population of Dardania has been tyrannized over as it never has been before within the memory of man. No words of mine can sufficiently describe the abject slavery in which the peasantry of this region is at present held … The most crying grievance, however, is the forced labour, or “angarya,” which is exacted here with merciless brutality … the manner of enforcing this “angaria” considerably adds to its oppressiveness. No
431 Journal de Constantinople, September 13, 1860: “D’apres les coutumes actuellement en vigueur, si les laboureurs cultivent le tchiftlik avec leurs boeuf, ils ont droit a la moitie du product; mais s ices animaux appartiennent au proprietaire du terrain, ils ne prennent que le tiers de la recolle. Dans les bonnes annees, cette quote part du laboureur lui suffit pour payer sa capitation et son bedelie et pour nourrir sa famille; mais dans les mauvaises il doit souvent reclamer l’assistance de son maître.”
432 Journal de Constantinople, September 13, 1860. Some villages completely consisted of çiftlik workers while the others were a mixture of çiftlik workers and landholding peasants: “Un village est quequefois entierement compose de paysans assujettis au travail des tchiftliks: quelquefoi il contient aussi des paysans proprietaries libres (rayahs); tandis que ces derniers sont requis parfois d heberger les mousafirs, (voyageur ou etranger), les laboureurs des tchiftliks sont dispenses de cette obligation.” These observations are also in line with the previous analysis of the income survey registers.
433 FO 424/136, Macedonia Correspondence: 1881-1884, “Correspondance No: 141, Some Observations on the present state of Dardania, or Turkish Serbia (including the Vilayet of Kossova and part of the Vilayet of Monastir)”, by Mr. A. Evans, 142-144.
342
consideration is shown for the necessities of field labour, and men are literally beaten in from the plough or the harvest field. In most villages here the “metayer” system prevails – half the produce being paid to the Turkish landholder; in some of the mountain villages, however, the land is the peasant’s own. It is, however, saddled with a land tax … in addition to the payment of the Sultan’s tithe … The taxation itself, I imagine is not so oppressive as the method of levying it and adding to it by irregular means.434
Admittedly, the dramatic tone of this narrative should be toned down through an evaluation with a much calmer demeanor; nonetheless, the first-hand observations on not only the existence of a process of peasant dispossession in the form of çiftlik formation and the widespread practice of sharecropping but also instances of forced labour, specifically put into action by the state in this case, as well as a situation of general agrarian unrest, are in line with other documentary evidence.
As these examples from the 19th century attest, while the very existence of the practice of the imposition of forced labour on the peasantry in villages and çiftliks had been under discussion by contemporaries and specific opinions on the issue varied, the persistent focus of the debate implies that instances of corvee indeed occured in a variety of localities despite the prohibition brought about by the Tanzimat reforms.435 As such, the ongoing obsession in the aforementioned “layiha” with the development of a clear definition of the content of the labour agreement revolved around the same issue –that is, corvee is forbidden. Therefore, the continuity of this concern attests to the resilience of forced labour even in the early 20th century when the legal prohibition of this embarrasing practice, which often emerged in rural context as a companion of restrictions on mobility and emergence of debt bondage, was still required. As such, the language employed by the state -that
434 FO 424/136, 143.
435 In this context, McGowan’s argument that the binding of peasant producers to land was viewed by the state as an “administrative convenience” which would “maximize the resources at the disposal of the sultans and their vezirs” whereby the peasantry remained “legally free”, even though their movement was practically restricted and corvee labor could be free-handedly imposed on them as they were “saddled with a stigma of inferiority”, seems to be questionable in light of the existing evidence: McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 52.
343
of protection of the peasantry- can be considered not only as a part of the discursive heritage of the ancient ideology of “circle of justice” embraced as a tool of legitimacy by political formations blooming on a rural tax base, but also as a more contemporary response to the peasant unrest multiplying around the mid-19th century in the Ottoman Balkans.436
Nevertheless, perceieved as a specific form of pre-capitalist ground rent (or rent in labour), one must be careful not to exaggerate the structural significance of this particular form. As Marx traces the transformation of pre-capitalist ground rent, from rent in labour into rent in kind and rent in money, he underlines that the nature of ground-rent does not change from an economic point of view.437 Furthermore, even in classical feudalism, the relationship between the landlord and the serf did not always take the form of rent in labour; historically, mixed forms of rent in labour, rent in kind and rent in money, in addition to the employment of wage-labour, which could also be mixed with various demands, were quite common.438 While rent in labour was most probably perceived as the most onerous form of imposition by the peasantry and could emerge as one of the first points of contestation in times of rural
436 Because corvee is often associated with a harsher form of feudalism and personal bondage, its existence probably created discomfort on the side of the modernizing state-officials as well as paternalistic-minded personae of the more traditional kind. It is also possible that the perception of this form as the most onerous obligation by the peasantry at large might have contributed the controversy over it: Alfonso, “Exploring Difference within Rural Communities in the Northern Iberian Kingdoms, 1000–1300,” 91-92; Melton, “Gutsherrschaft in East Elbian Germany and Livonia, 1500–1800: a critique of the model,” 335-336. Nevertheless, in the drafts of the “layiha” discussed above, whereas a specific penalty -that of fraud- is clearly defined for the cases of peasant flight, neither such specification nor cautionary measures can be found for possible cases of forced labour on the part of the çiftlik-owner other than a vague warning that it was forbidden from that point onwards.
437 Marx, Capital Vol.3, 925-938.
438 Bloch refers to “two forms of subjection: that which affected a man in his person, and that which affected him only as the holder of a certain piece of land”: Bloch, Feudal Society I: The Growth of Ties of Dependence, 242-243. He also underlines that, during the history of western European feudalism, "the form of dependence in which the subordination of man to man had found its most complete expression either disappeared or changed its character" in the sense that "it was conceived of less as a personal tie and more as an inferiority of class which by a sort of contagion could pass from the soil to the man. There would henceforth be servile tenements, the possession of which made a man a serf, and the abandonment of which sometimes set him free”: Ibid, 278- 279. Also see: Cerman, “Demesne lordship and rural society in early modern East Central and Eastern Europe: comparative perspectives.”
344
unrest, at the end of the day, there remains the fact that the landless peasant cultivating the land of the çiftlik-owner through sharecropping contract spends a portion of his labour-time for the benefit of the landowner, whether it be in the form of labour or produce. Furthermore, the banning of arbitrary demands, which was often used with reference to forms of “angarya”, beyond those responsibilities defined explicitly in the labour contract, mostly remains to be a case of legal formality: The obligation for the sharecropper to transport the produce of the çiftlik-owner, or the provision of charcoal and wood to the landowner by the tenant of a çiftlik, resemble more to “feudal” relics of the past than to practices of a relationship of equals as the allegedly “bilateral contract” between the parties, in reality, remains to be flexible enough to accommodate duties and responsibilities from different periods. In other words, the codification of such duties and responsibilities cannot, by itself, prevent the arbitrary imposition of anything, but it instead subsumes it in the fashion of a contract, especially in a context of economic, political, and legal inequality.
6.4 Rural poverty, peasant indebtedness, and bonded labour
In 1879, Lieutenant-Colonel Primrose addressed a letter to Sir H. Elliot from the town center of Filibe, which turned out to be the last stop in his journey through Rumelia, starting from Bosnia and following a route north of Manastır, through Uskub, Kumanova, Palanka and Kustendil into Bulgaria.439 In the letter under question, he recounted his travels through his route from Priepolje into Filibe starting with his observations on the characteristics of the landscape: “The country is, uninteresting, little cultivated, and consists chiefly of rolling alluvial plains bordered
439 FO 424/89, Affairs of Turkey - Further Correspondence Part 43, 1879 November, No.52, 40-53.
345
by ranges of hills of inconsiderable elevation.”440 He then went on with the general depiction of the conditions of the peasantry of the respective areas:
The difference from the dense forests and swelling woodlands of Bosnia to these barren and shadowless flats and solitary naked hills is as remarkable on the one side as the contrast given on the other by the cheerful and independent aspect of the Bulgarian peasants, their homes and their small gardens, to the timid and sullen appearance of the Christians of the Vilayet of Monastir, their miserable cabins and their rude if not degraded condition.441
The working conditions in the northern area of Manastır, Primrose continued, were not heartwarming either. With reference to agricultural production in the area around Skopje and Palanka, Primrose wrote: “labour was ... said to be dear, so much as 5 piastres a-day (about 10d.) being paid per man; but, as the tillage is chiefly done by Christians, who receive little or nothing in return but bread and salt, this grievance seems fictitious, or at least exaggerated”442 while regarding Kumanova where the working conditions were somewhat better, he recited that “the labourers get 20 paras a-day (1/2 d.) and food, that is, bread and occasionally vegetables, never meat; they also share in good harvests in the produce of the cultivation.”443
One of the most important corollaries of rural poverty, appropriation of peasant land, and generalized employment of sharecropping is the problem of peasant indebtedness.444 The endemic of rural indebtedness can be observed in many documents starting at least as far back as the 16th century. The sijil registers of Manastır and Pirlepe contain cases of individual debt, usually taken by villagers from
440 FO 424/89, 48.
441 FO 424/89, 48.
442 FO 424/89, 48-49.
443 FO 424/89, 49. These working conditions also found their echoes in the case of domestic labourers, as Primrose explained: “The condition of the household domestics (always Christian) in Turkish houses is very pitiable. They are literally slaves. They receive bread and salt, never meat or clothes, are beaten cruelly for every trifling fault, often imprisoned at the pleasure of their masters, and receive but scanty wages”: Ibid, 51.
444 The members of the military class obtained peasant land not only through purchase but also through creation of indebtedness: Ergenç, “XVIII. yüzyılda Osmanlı Anadolu’sunda Tarım Üretiminde Yeni Boyutlar: Müzara’a ve Müraba’a Sözleşmeleri,”137. “In many cases, farmers had to surrender de facto ownership to the moneylender, becoming sharecroppers or wage-labourers and, occasionally, they had to leave the land physically”: Aytekin, “Cultivators, creditors and the state: rural indebtedness in the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire,” 292.
346
town inhabitants or vakıf-owners.445 Most interesting, however, remains to be the abundance of cases of collective indebtedness, sometimes by several villagers and sometimes by whole villages, whereby peasants took up the role of the guarantor (“kefil”) for each other. In almost all cases, the payment of debts included payment of interest as well.446 The cases of failure in the payment of debt or interest could end up in forced sale of land as well as the appropriation of real estates such as houses and stores.447 Other than the usual cases of indebtedness by peasants to urban personages and landlords, there were also instances whereby relations of indebtedness, which could end up in the appropriation of land, were occurring among the villagers.448 While debts mostly took the form of cash, there were cases of indebtedness in grains as well.449 Furthermore, McGowan notes that some villagers of Manastır were collectively indebted to certain figures and were obliged to send workers to them annually in place of the payment of interest in the 17th century.450
The problem of indebtedness seems to have continued into the 18th and the 19th century with varying degrees of visibility in the sources.451 One of the ancestors of the biggest çiftlik-owning family of İştip in the mid-19th century, Nazırzade
445 Erikçi, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer‘iyye Sicilinin (1-64. Varak) Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642), 138, 145, 202.
446 For some cases of indebtedness, see: Erikçi, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer‘iyye Sicilinin (1-64. Varak) Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642), 145, 146, 148, 151, 152, 163, 164, 170, 178, 180, 182, 184, 187, 189, 190, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 216, 217, 220, 221, 226, 227, 233, 234, 242, 243, 247, 252, 253, 259, 260, 261, 267, 281, 288, 291, 295, 293, 299, 300, 303, 304, 309, 310, 311, 321, 330; Özcan, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer’iyye Sicilinin (65-120 Varak) Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, 89, 102, 104, 106, 110-11, 178-179. The restriction of mobility through collective debt often functioned as an important tool of control: Matkovski, “La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre l'attachement a la glebe pendant la domination ottoman,” 705-707.
447 Erikçi, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer‘iyye Sicilinin (1-64. Varak) Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642), 150, 238; Özcan, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer’iyye Sicilinin (65-120 Varak) Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, 102.
448 Erikçi, 8 Numaralı Manastır Şer‘iyye Sicilinin (1-64. Varak) Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642), 197.
449 Ibid, 160, 191, 324.
450 McGowan, Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the struggle for land, 1600-1800, 136.
451 Kavgacı, 63 Numaralı Manastır Şer’iyye Sicilinin Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi (1778-1782), 485; Matkovski, “La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre l'attachement a la glebe pendant la domination ottoman,” 704-706.
347
Mehmed Ağa, emerged as a figure who was heavily involved in lending of loans to his çiftlik-workers as well as inhabitants of a number of villages in the late 18th century.452 In the 1840s, the villagers of Magarevo and Trnova, both located towards the west of the town center of Manastır, complained in a petition that they had been indebted to certain Muslim and non-Muslim personages for 30 years. Although they never faulted in the payment of interest, they argued, their poverty pushed them to ask for a period of five to six years of delay for the interest payment.453 At the beginning of the 20th century, some common demands, including cancelling of some taxes and amelioration of certain issues, were raised in a series of petitions approved by the members of the local administrative body (“muhtar” and “aza”) of various villages in the district of İştip, part of the vilayet of Kosova at the time.454 The villages that contributed to the petition under question were dispersed around the north-west and southeast of the town center of İştip, implying that the problems raised in the petition constituted a generalized condition in the district, as can be seen in the map below (Figure 156).
452 Pehlivan, İştip’de Ayanlık: Nazırzade Ailesi, 73-78. Also see, BOA. C. ML. 363 / 14862, 1191: “zikr olunan 28 kıta çiftliğinde ortakçı tabir olunan reaya zimmetinde eğerce müteveffa-yı mumaileyhanın 2053 kuruş matlubu olub.”
453 BOA C. ADL. 98/5943, 1257: “Manastır sancağında kain Magarevo ve Trnova karyesi reayasının bazı ehl-i islam ve reayaya 30 seneden beru ba defter-i müfredat ve temessük () kuruş deynleri olub düyun-ı mezburun sene be sene iktiza eden güzeştesinin tediyesinde kusurları yoğ ise de bu husus perişani hallerine muceb olmuş olduğundan bahisle hallerine merhameten ashab-ı matlub kendulerine 5-6 sene bila güzeşte mahal vermeleri.” The petition under question travelled through various offices in the center, including Meclis-i Vala and Maliye Nezareti.
454 BOA. TFR.I. ŞKT. 56/5538, 1322. 25 villages are included in the formation of common demands: Prehod, Trogerci-i Bala, Trogerci-i Zir, Nemanica, Leskovica, Varsaklı, Balovan-ı Bala, Lezovo, Patatino, Dolani, Kalo Petrovic, Nikoman, Koshevo, Poçivalo, Ljuboten, Gorachino, Yeniköy, Tunadar, Shopur, Dinler-i Zir, Dinler-i Bala, Susevo, Krividol, Brest, Çardaklı.
348
Figure 156. Villages that participated in the signing of the petition concerning rural poverty.
At the beginning of the petitions, rural poverty was addressed as a major problem among the villagers of İştip, and certain changes in the existing practices were demanded.455 Here, one of the major complaints turned out to be the manner of tax collection and the related abuses by the “mültezim” that could potentially result, the peasants warned, in the complete abandonment of agriculture.456 The latter issue was raised once again when it was proposed that the cancellation of older debts of taxation could create an incentive for the fugitives to return to their villages.457 In
455 BOA. TFR.I. ŞKT.55 /5423, 1322: “İştip kazası halkından bulunub tebaa-yı şahanenin düçar olageldiği sefalet”; BOA. TFR.I. ŞKT. 56/5538, 1322: “İştip kazası halkından bulunduğumuzdan ahalinin fakir hali cihetiyle bazı müşkilatımızın kaldırılması zımnında.”
456 BOA. TFR.I. ŞKT. 56/5538 1322: “Aşarın Manastır vilayeti celilesi dahilinde emir buyurulan ve yahud diğer münasib bir usule tahviliyle mültezim mezaliminden ve terk-i ziraate badi olan birçok usulden vekaye buyurulması!”
457 BOA. TFR.I. ŞKT.55 /5423 1322: This is the third complaint and demand raised in the petition: “Üçüncüsü, 315 senesine değin tahsil olunmamış örf-ü bedel-i askeri ve temettu’ vergisiyle tarik-i bedel-i nakdi bakayasının … buyurulmasıyla müterakim vergiden dolayı firar edenlerin ve ötede beride perişan gezenlerin memleketlerine avdetine sebeb olması.”
349
addition, migration into town centers was identified as a serious problem for the productive capacity in villages and çiftliks alike due to lack of agricultural labour it caused.458 As such, the issue of flight was still a part of the reality of the countryside, hand in hand with rural poverty and indebtedness, right into the beginning of the 20th century.
From a general perspective, the problem of indebtedness is aggravated in agricultural societies when taxes assume money form, mainly due to the frequency of delayed payments for agricultural produce, low levels of productivity, and the relative shortage of cash in the economy as a whole. In this context, the peasant is, at one point or another, obliged to borrow money to fulfill the taxation demands of the state, even leaving aside the ground rent to be paid to landowners. In the Ottoman case, these general tendencies were further exacerbated by a series of famines and droughts that sporadically emerged from the 16th to the 18th century.459 Furthermore, constant war-making and financing of wars through provisioning and forced purchases of agricultural produce by the state below their market value turned out to be other factors which amplified requirement for cash and pushed to peasantry into indebtedness.460 As such, the relationship between usury and indebtedness can only be understood with reference to rural class relations: "The functioning of unorganised rural money markets is inextricably interwoven with personal power relations in the villages” whereby “the lender frequently enjoys considerable
458 BOA. TFR.I. ŞKT.55 /5423 1322: “Çiftçilik yalnız sürmekle olmayub envai' hizmetle olduğundan kura halkının ve çiftlik hizmetkarlarının ve çoban vesair hizmetçilerin temettu vergisinden muafiyetiyle bu yüzden kasabalara nakl-i mekan idub çiftlikatı hizmetkarsız bırakılmaktan olan ahvalden vekayesi!” It is quite interesting that this seems to be a demand shared by both çiftlik-owners and some farmers. As discussed in Section 6.2, the issue of migration into town centers had been already raised 50 years before the drafting of these petitions as a problem in İştip: BOA A.} MKT. MVL. 89/ 49, 1273, BOA A.} MKT. NZD. 202/24, 1273. Another issue related to capacity of agricultural production is the demand that taxation on draught animals should be cancelled: BOA. TFR.I. ŞKT.55 /5423, 1322.
459 Faroqhi, “Indebtedness in the Bursa area, 1730-1740,” 197-198.
460 Ibid, 204. Also see: Aytekin, “Cultivators, creditors and the state: rural indebtedness in the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire.”
350
personal power over the borrower.”461 As such, the landowner acts not only as the employer of rural labor, but also functions as a credit lender, creating a process that feeds upon itself:
Such interpenetration of markets not only increases the exploitative powers of the landlord but also has certain dynamic consequences. The freedom to take decisions or the area of feasible choices for the economically vulnerable sections shrinks and this may, overtime, mean the perpetuation of bondage whose form is not so obvious. Superficially, there are free markets and free choice but in practice the area of feasible choices is limited or can even be non-existent. In the case of a tenant who has to commit his labour to the landlord, the position may be virtually one of an attached labourer. Further such a situation wherein lease and labour are tied up, if it prevails generally, may have an effect at the macro level on the labour market itself.462
To put it differently, high levels of monetization of the economy, coupled by the relative lack of capital other than usurious capital, eventually ended up, in the Ottoman case, in a situation of generalized peasant indebtedness, which, in turn, led to the loss of peasant land.463 While dispossession through usury had been widespread from the 16th century onwards, a novel factor also came into the picture starting from the late 18th into the 19th century, as the gradual erosion of subsistence production by production for market started to create a certain degree of market-dependency for the previously self-sufficient rural producers. In the 19th century, the increasing prevalence of the practice of land mortgages made a further contribution to the transformation of the peasantry into a body of landless sharecroppers while a part of this dispossessed population found themselves entangled in relations of dependency, which were having a new life due to widespread indebtedness.464 In this context, landowners more often than not tended to create their own sharecroppers to
461 Bhaduri, “On the formation of usurious interest rates in backward agriculture,” 343.
462 Bharadwaj, & Das, “Tenurial conditions and mode of exploitation: A study of some villages in Orissa,” 224.
463 See: Oyan, Feodalizmden kapitalizme, Osmanlı'dan Türkiye'ye, 321-324; İnalcık, “The Emergence of Big Farms, Çiftliks: State, Landlords, and Tenants,” 22; Stoianovich, “Land Tenure and Related Sectors of the Balkan Economy, 1600-1800,” 400.
464 Oyan, Feodalizmden kapitalizme, Osmanlı'dan Türkiye'ye, 321-324.
351
work in their çiftliks through activities of usury, which was especially practical in the face of a rural background whereby land was relatively abundant, labor was scarce and wages were supposedly high465 while the existence of relations of dependency and bondage to the land was a crucial factor behind this situation of “scarcity of labor” and the resulting competition between çiftlik-owners to obtain adequate labor-force.466 Accordingly, as peasant indebtedness turned into a serious problem in the region under study and this, coupled by the weight of taxation, ended up in a constant flow of collective as well as individual peasant flight, many villages were left completely vacant and then agglomerated into çiftliks, which could further benefit from relations of dependency for the creation of a labour reserve.
6.5 Rural Conflict, Land Grab and Dispossession of the Peasantry
The discussion so far has focused on the intertwined processes of restrictions on the mobility of villagers and çiftlik-workers, and at least the occasional presence of bonded forms of labour in the context of rural poverty and peasant indebtedness. The present part will focus on the culmination of these processes in the formation and further expansion of çiftliks, which often took the form of appropriation of peasant land.
Controversy over land was a recurring phenomenon in the region under study throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th century. As far as sources are concerned, two main lines of rural conflict have been identified. As mentioned above, the first is the one that took place between the inhabitants of a settlement and an intruding party who tried to either appropriate the land of the former or impose obligations, such as rent, on the residents by claiming a form of ownership over the
465 Oyan, Feodalizmden kapitalizme, Osmanlı'dan Türkiye'ye, 319-320.
466 Terzibaşoğlu, & Kaya, "19. Yüzyılda Balkanlar'da Toprak Rejimi ve Emek İlişkileri,” 58.
352
area, whether it was agricultural land or an area under common use. As such, this often took the form of appropriation of peasant land and the turning of villages into çiftliks, and often represented a clash between two different systems of property ownership and land use as villagers came to defend their rights against landlords as collective bodies.467 The second form of conflict, which emerged in the cases of contestation over the use of common land by two or more villages that claimed an ancient right to the use of the land under question, mainly took place within the framework of older property relations which were at their demise by that time.
6.5.1 Appropriation of peasant land and turning of villages into çiftliks
In the rural setting of the Ottoman Balkans, class conflict took both overt and covert forms.468 In general, complaints raised by the residents of villages and towns against local notables and state officials had been an old story in the area under study.469
467 See: Terzibaşoğlu, “Landed Estates, Rural Commons and Collective Agriculture in Ottoman Niş and Leskofçe in the Nineteenth Century”; Terzibaşoğlu, & Kaya, “19. Yüzyılda Balkanlar’da Toprak Rejimi ve Emek İlişkileri,” 49-105.
468 For example: İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi; Kırlı, “Tyranny Illustrated: From Petition to Rebellion in Ottoman Vranje”; Aytekin, “Peasant protest in the late Ottoman Empire: Moral economy, revolt, and the Tanzimat reforms”; Kolovos, “Riot in the village: Some cases of peasant protest around Ottoman Salonica”; Pinson, “Ottoman Bulgaria in the first Tanzimat period‐the revolts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850).”
469 The family members of the Nazırzade family, the ayan of the district in the latter half of the 18th century, were often accused of misconduct, torture, and murder by the peasants of İştip: Pehlivan, İştip’de Ayanlık: Nazırzade Ailesi, 34-64. In 1793, the locals of Pirlepe accused a certain Osman Efendi for causing financial ruin for the peasantry by imposing completely arbitrary monetary exactions. While it was initially ordered that Osman efendi was to be exiled to Bozcaada, he was soon forgiven and sent to his birthplace of İştip: BOA AE.SSLM.III 405/23336, 1207. In the late 1790s, the residents of the district of İştip raised a complaint that their “naib”, Karaferyevi Fehmi Abdullah efendi, in a heinous collaboration with Turfullu Mehmed Sipahi, a troublemaker active in the region with his military entourage, imposed a number of unlawful exactions on the inhabitants and set out to appropriate the property of the villagers and the town dwellers alike: BOA AE.SSLM.III 204/12152, 1211. More than 40 years later, the name of Turfullu Mehmed Sipahi reemerged in the sources for organizing an open attack on the district of İştip with bands of Arnavud “eşkiya”, consisting of more than 2000 people, after he learned about the legal verdict for his imprisonement, causing sheer horror on the side of the inhabitants (“kazamızı cümlemizi esir mesellu … mehuselerine giriftar edecekler”; “cümlemiz terk-i vatan ve civar kazalara perakende ve perişan ve emval ve eşyalarımızı zabt etmeleriyle”): BOA C. DH. 34/1655, 1255. In the beginning of the 19th century, the residents of İştip, including a wide selection of people from various classes, complained about Palaslı Mehmed Paşa, the “mutasarrıf” of Köstendil at the time, who arrived at the district during his travels, accompanied by Arnavud soldiers, and harassed the locals through forceful acquisition of tremendous amounts of money, animals and belongings of the villagers during his stay in the district while his son Veli Paşa soon followed after him and copied the actions of his father: BOA HAT. 48/2308 1218. The petition
353
Agrarian conflict over the appropriation of land, however, constituted the central axis around which different classes contested over their respective rights.
While disputes over land occasionally took place between individual villagers,470 the main line of controversy in the rural setting turned out to be the one that ran between the villagers and the owners of çiftliks, often located in the same or nearby settlements. When cases of rural class conflict erupted between çiftlik-owners and villagers, it often centered on the issue of appropriation of peasant land.471 At least from the late 18th century onwards, the state displayed an increasing concern with the ongoing appropriation of peasant land and the turning of village land into çiftliks, and tried to establish a system of checks on it, such as ordering the local
under question included various groups of people (“ashab-ı alakalar”, “köy mutasarrıfları”, “imamlar” etc.). Comparable cases of forceful acquisition of money came not only from aspiring notables and self-indulgent state officials, but also from smaller çiftlik-owners. In the late 1790s, two town-dwelling çiftlik-owners from Manastır were accused of not only avoiding paying the taxes due from their çiftliks but also forceful exaction of money from the peasants -either çiftlik-workers or villagers living nearby: BOA C.DH. 120/5954, 1213.
470 Legal cases over land disputes and controversies over boundaries displayed an increase throughout the 19th century: Terzibaşoğlu, “Eleni hatun’un zeytin bahçeleri: 19. yüzyılda Anadolu’da mülkiyet hakları nasıl inşa edildi?” 124-129. Both villagers and town residents often got engaged in conflict over land, as visible in the considerable number of petitions of complaints. Often, the main question revolved around the issue of inheritance and the related disputes over rightful ownership through the holding of title deeds. Other common cases included controversy over the appropriation of land as well as gardens and water sources, in addition to shares, between villagers within the same settlement:
BOA AE.SABH.I. 194/13017, 1200; BOA A.} DVN.11/89, 1260; BOA A.} DVN. 29/41, 1263; BOA A.} MKT.UM. 130/3, 1269; BOA MVL 555/91, 1284; BOA TFR. I. ŞKT. 15 /1420, 1321; BOA TFR. I. ŞKT. 15/1449, 1321; BOA TFR.I.KV. 39/3833, 1321; BOA TFR. I. ŞKT. 15/1468, 1321; BOA TFR. I. ŞKT. 15/1479, 1321; BOA TFR. I. ŞKT. 15/1480, 1321; BOA FR.I.KV. 70/6947, 1322; BOA TFR.I.KV. 176/17503, 1325.
471 In this context, “the scattered nature of çiftlik land” is crucial to understand the mechanisms of accumulation of land by çiftlik-owners: Terzibaşoğlu, “Landed Estates, Rural Commons and Collective Agriculture in Ottoman Niş and Leskofçe in the Nineteenth Century,” 354-355. In the context of western Anatolia, Nagata has emphasized that “a typical çiftlik would consist of several parcels of cultivated land sparsely intermingled among pasture or fallow land”: Nagata, “Ayan in Anatolia and the Balkans during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: A Case Study of the Karaosmanoğlu Family,” 281-282. Based on the çiftliks of Hacı Hüseyin Ağa, Nagata puts forward the example of Burunören çiftlik which consisted of 17 parcels each of which was around 60 dönüms, rather than relying on the model of “plantation-like çiftliks” of İnalcık: Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 124. A defter from the 1760s, which demonstrates the boundaries of a çiftlik located in the settlement of Dinler in İştip, also provides evidence in this direction. In this defter, a total of 24 parcels of land, each in a specific location, are registered. As such, the cultivable fields do not constitute an undivided continuity. The defter also includes information on other elements of the çiftlik, such as houses for farmers (“çiftçi haneleri”), rooms (“odalar”), warehouse (“anbar”), tools of production such as oxen and plough iron, as well as vineyards and meadows: BOA TS. MA. d. 5913, 1181. For some examples of çiftlik layout, see: Appendix D.
354
judges (“kadı”) to refuse to officiate the transfer of peasant land to other groups, possibly indicating the acceleration of the dispossession of the peasantry around that time due to indebtedness.472
An illustrative example regarding the origins of çiftliks can be found in the story of the members of the family of Rüstem Bey.473 By the time some of these
472 BOA C.ML. 582/23920, 1210; BOA C.DH. 190/9454, 1211: “Kadim karyenin sonradan çiftlik ittihaz olunması mugayir-i defter-i hakani ve münafi-yi kanun olduğuna binaen.” As discussed in the previous parts, peasant indebtedness was identified as a crucial factor behind the sale of peasant land and the turning of villages into çiftliks: BOA C.ML. 582/23920, 1210; BOA C.ML. 253/10440, 1211.
BOA C.ML. 582/23920, 1210: “Edirne ve Keşan ve havalisinde ve sair bazı mahallerde kain bazı karye reayasının bazı murahabacı makulelerine deynleri olmağla reaya-yı merkum bazı mahkemelere varub bizim filan adama şu kadar deynimiz vardır ol deynimizi eda için mutasarrıf olduğumuz emlak ve arazimizi filan adama şu mikdar baha ile füruht ve kasrid eyledik ve nukuden şu kadar akçe aldık diyerek … fimabad kura reayası emlağı kimesneye füruht etmemeleri ve füruht etti deyu hüccet verilmemeleri ve kadimi kura bir vakitte çiftlik ittihaz olunmamak.” This concern was also formulated in the Article 130 of Land Code (1858): “Ahalisi mevcut olan bir karye çiftlik ittihazıyla arazisi müstakillen bir şahsın uhdesine ihale olunamaz”: Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, 712. Nevertheless, it is also added that villages abandoned by the villagers could be legally turned into çiftliks: Ibid. With reference to the çiftliks of the Karaosmanoğlu family in western Anatolia, Nagata underlines that among the Karaosmanoğlu çiftliks one can find those established on old village areas, vakıf, koru and mera lands as well as those purchased from other families: Nagata, Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerinde bir inceleme, 95, 192. Nagata also underlines that the sale of agricultural lands gradually became a common practice as bigger çiftliks started to take form: Ibid, 93. Throughout such processes, despite the theoretical existence of the miri land principle, it seems that town-dwellers gradually started to acquire the tapu or temessük of agricultural lands and started to pass them, as their own property, to their heirs: Ibid, 110-111. In general, the practice of
“purchasing” lands with the purpose of engaging in production for market as an outlet of investment by town-dwellers had been an already-existing practice. In the context of western Anatolia, Nagata refers to two kinds of capital transfer, from the city to the countryside and from the countryside to the city, while the Karaosmanoğlu family, in this context, can be seen as an example of the latter: Ibid, 90-91. In the context of the Balkans, Stoianovich argues in favor of the former as he underlines that “the shift of capital to the land is also frequent among the wealthier urban element, the class of provincial notables known as ayans”: Stoianovich, “Land tenure and related sectors of the Balkan economy, 1600-1800,” 400. According to Demetriades, a somewhat comparable process could be observed in the çiftliks of Gazi Evrenos Bey in Thessaly, where prominent families that accumulated wealth through tax-farming and usury tended to use landowning as an “outlet” of investment as well: Demetriades, “Problems of land-owning and population in the area of Gazi Evrenos Bey's wakf,” 52-53. For a discussion of the relationship between the Land Code of 1858 and the commodification of land, see: Aytekin, “Agrarian Relations, Property and Law: An Analysis of the Land Code of 1858 in the Ottoman Empire.” Also: Aytekin, “Hukuk, Tarih ve Tarihyazımı: 1858 Osmanlı Arazi Kanunnamesi’ne Yönelik Yaklaşımlar”; İslamoğlu, “Property as a Contested Domain: A Reevaluation of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858.”
473 Rüstem Bey himself took up various official positions in the early 19th century: BOA. AE. SMHD.
II. 72/5307, 1235; BOA. HAT. 902/39643, 1240. For the activites of Rüstem Bey as a deruhdeci, see:
Ursinus, “The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastır as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth
Century,” 253-254. While Rüstem Bey has been identified as a part of the Zaimzade family and
Abdülkerim Bey as a part of Mustafapaşazade family in the early 19th century (Ibid, 253), it is
possible that these families were related at some point, most possibly through marriage, as
Abdülkerim Bey is identified as a claimant to Kruşevo towards the mid-19th century in the sources, as
will be discussed below (BOA İ.MVL. 53/1015 1259: “Medine-yi Manastır kazasına tabi Kruşevo
karyesi reayasıyla medine-yi mezbur vücuhuyanından Abdülkerim Bey vesair müşterekleri
355
figures emerged in the income survey registers, they had already become central figures in a long-term controversy with the villagers of Kruşevo, located in the northern part of Manastır.474
Figure 157. The village of Kruşevo
The conflict between the villagers of Kruşevo and a number of landowners and local notables of Manastır emerged in the registers at least as early as 1837 (1253). By this time, the villagers had refused to pay the annual rent they were obliged to pay for eight years, causing an accumulation of debt totaling 96,000 kuruş. The controversy
meyanelerinde münazaa kayd olunan arazi”). Rüstem Bey himself had already died before the eruption of the controversy under question: BOA C.DRB. 27/1331, 1242.
474 For a discussion on Kruşevo from the perspective of labor mobility, see: Sefer, Yıldız, & Kabadayı, “Labor Migration from Kruševo: Mobility, Ottoman Transformation, and the Balkan Highlands in the 19th Century.”
356
over this debt, in turn, led to a series of investigations that revolved around the question of the legitimacy of the status of the land and property under question.475
In the late 1830s, the peasants of the village of Kruşevo wrote a petition complaining that Rüstem Bey and the members of his family had expropriated their village land, turning it into their own private property and çiftlik476 imposing a number of obligations which entailed not only forceful extraction of money but also the dragging of the peasants into a trap of indebtedness.477 In this petition, the peasants of Kruşevo underlined that the controversy between themselves and the family of Rüstem Bey had a rather long past, occasionally interrupted and then continued in tandem with the changes in the administrative positions. Historically, they argued, the initial assault of the family of Rüstem Bey, which caused flight on the side of the inhabitants478, came to a pause thanks to the efforts of Hurşid Paşa, who registered the settlement as a village.479 While the intentions of Rüstem Bey remained intact, as the peasants of Kruşevo argued, the following presence of Mehmed Reşid Paşa prevented the actualization of his plans for some time. Unfortunately -for the inhabitants of Kruşevo- the coming of Ahmet Zekeriya Paşa to the duty of the governorship of Rumeli marked the revival of the appropriation process.480 This marked the beginning of the controversy over the legal status and the
475 BOA C.DH. 184/9165, 1253. In a petition written by the villagers of Kruşevo a few years later, it was claimed that this controversy had a past of 80 years: BOA. İ. MVL. 34/586, 1257.
476 BOA İ. MVL. 34/586, 1257: “Karyemizi çiftlik ittihaz ile rencide ve teaddi olunmakta.”
477 BOA İ. MVL. 34/586, 1257: “Kendulerinden bi gayr-ı hak bir yük 34000 kuruş almış”; “senede on altışar bin kuruşa rabt-ı maktua aldıklarından maada nam-ı icare ve tekalif sair ve mesarif deyu 80000 kuruş dahi mutalebe ve cebren sarraflardan güzeştesiyle aldırub.”
478 BOA İ. MVL. 34/586, 1257: “Mezkur karyemizi zabt ve ... mülukanelerimiz ve çiftliklerimizdir deyu ... 80 seneye baliğ dest-i tasarruflarında esirleri gibi aciz ve naçar zulm ve teaddilerine adem-i tahammül ve iktidarlarımızdan birer ve ikişer firar ederek külliyen dağılmış olduklarımız.”
479 BOA İ. MVL. 34/586, 1257: “Dest-i mezalimlerden ve kayd-ı emlak ve çiftlikattan azade olarak sabığı vechiyle karye kayıd.”
480 BOA İ. MVL. 34/586, 1257: “Yine ber takrib ile karyemizi pençe-yi işkencelerine giriftar idub.” The villagers of Kruşevo pleaded: “maruz-u fukara reaya kullarıdır ki, karyemizi çiftlik ittihaz ile rencide ve teaddi olunmakta olduklarımızdan bu kullarının karyemiz öteden beru karyedir çiftlik değildir”: Ibid. The general outlines of the controversy have been explained as such:
357
legitimacy of the land and property held by the çiftlik-owners under question and the turning of former peasant land and villages into çiftliks.481
In the controversy, the notion that the status of a settlement being an ancient village (“kadim karye”) was largely employed by the peasants of Kruşevo against the claims of the heirs of Rüstem Bey to private ownership of the settlement482 under the guise of “ağalık.”483 As such, the peasants identified the existence of an act of transgression on their ancient rights in the very creation of this claim to private ownership.484 In turn, the family of Rüstem Bey put forth their claim to the land and
“Manastır kazasına tabi Kruşevo karyesi feth-i hakaniden beru defterhane-yi amire kuyudu üzere kaza-yı mezbura merbut iken karye-yi merkume emlak ve çiftlikatı ber takrib sonradan Manastırlı Rüstem Bey ve Kerim Bey taraflarından cebren zabt olunarak senevi on altışar bin kuruş maktu’ ve 80000 kuruş tekalif zulme tarh ve temil ile ahz ve tahsil olunmakta bulunmuş ve muahharen gerek müteveffa Hurşid Paşa ve gerek Mehmed Reşid Paşa zamanlarında kemafissabık kaza-yı mezbura tabi karye namıyla kayd olunub ol vecihle virgü-yü mezkur tevzi’ ve tahsil kılınmış ise de Rumeli müşiri esbak atufetlu Ahmed Zekeriya Paşa zamanında mir-i mumaileyhaya ber takrib karye-i merkumeyi zabt ve iltizampirle envai’ zulm ve teaddiyattan hali? olmadıkları ve mir-i mumaileyhadan birisi meclis azasından bulunmasıyla mahalinde ihkak-ı hak ... olacağı beyanıyla karye-yi merkumenin kemafissabık kaza-yı mezbura rabt ve ilhakı ve ber minval-i muharrer senevi almış oldukları mebaliğin ne mikdarı hazerat-ı şahaneye verilmiştir teyit eylemek üzere mir-i mumaileyhadan birisinin bu tarafa celile-yi meclis-i valada mehakemeleri hususu karye-yi merkume ahalisi tarafından ba arzuhal istida olunmuş olduğu ba tezkere ifade ve eşkar kılınmış olmağla icabı ledel mulahaza suret-i enhaya nazaran karye-yi merkume müteveffa Hurşid Paşa ve Reşid Paşa zamanlarında mir-i mumaileyhanın karye-yi merkumeye müdahaleleri icab etmeyeceği teyit ederek men’ olunmuşken muahharen bir suretle tekrar müdahaleye … ictisar eylemiş olduklarından”: Ibid.
481 BOA İ. MVL. 35/634, 1258: “Manastır beylerinin böyle hilaf-ı defter-i hakani ve mugayir-i kanun zikr olunan karyeye müdahaleleri bunların ecdadından beru ol karyede 2-3 menzilin arsasına mutasarrıf bulunmuş olarak sonradan vücuhdan bulunmak takribiyle bütün köy arsaları bizimdir şu vakitten beru icaresini alırız diyerek kadimden icare aldıklarını isbat ... olmadıklarından nişan edeceği ... olmuş ise de bu suret olsa olsa 3 - 5 hane arsası hakkında olabilub ... 1200 evli bir karyenin yeri arazi-yi miriyeden olarak”; “muahharen müşarünileyh Zekeriya Paşa zamanında ne vecihle sened olarak ber takrib bu canibden ferman tahsil etmişler ise de aldıkları sened usul-u şer ve kanuna münafi olacağına binaen itibara şayan olmayacağı.”
BOA İ. MVL. 50/958, 1259: “Bu makule müstakil karyenin çiftlik ittihazı hilaf-ı kanun olduğundan mumaileyhanın karye-i mezburede çiftlik ittihaz ile vaki olan müdahaleleri men ve karye-yi mezburenin ber vech-i malikane mutasarrıfıyla hazine-yi celile-yi maliye tarafından zabt.”
482 BOA İ. MVL. 50/958, 1259: “Karye-yi mezbur feth-i hakaniden beru kadim köy olduğu defterhane-yi amirede mukayyed olub.”
483 BOA İ. MVL. 50/958, 1259: “Senevi 16000 kuruş cebren fukaradan ağalık namıyla ahz etmek üzere iken.”
484 The repeated emphasis on the concept of “kadim karye” can be evaluated in relation to the concept of “hakk-ı karar”. For the latter concept, see: Terzibaşoğlu, “Eleni hatun’un zeytin bahçeleri: 19. yüzyılda Anadolu’da mülkiyet hakları nasıl inşa edildi?”
358
property under question with reference to the legitimacy of property and inheritance.485
As the case progressed, it became visible that there were a significant number of parties interested in the settlement under dispute. Many of these figures, furthermore, were the çiftlik-owners of the district of Manastır in the mid-19th century, as a number of their names were identified in the income survey registers. As such, there existed a considerable degree of coordination and network among the çiftlik-owners of Manastır, thanks to, in part, the familial bonds between these figures and, in part, the combination of their economic power with their activities in loci of political influence. 486
As a lenghty legal process unfolded, petitions and deputies having been sent back and forth between İstanbul and Manastır487, the flow of events took another interesting turn in 1843 when almost 150 people of local importance (“Manastır’da sakin bil cümle ulema ve suleha ve ihtiyarat kulları”), among whom those with the titles of “ashab-ı alaka, dergah-ı ali, müderris, imam” abounded, came forward as witnesses of the çiftlik-owners under question.488 As such, the upper classes of the
485 BOA İ.MVL. 35/634, 1258: “Manastır kazasına tabi Kruşevo karyesinde vaki ber vechi mülkiyet ecdadımızdan mürus olarak arsadan alel iştiraken hissedarat.”
BOA İ.MVL. 50/958 1259: “Ber vech-i mülkiyet eben-an-cedd mutasarrıflar olarak.”
486 BOA İ.MVL. 35/634 1258: “Manastır kazasına tabi Kruşevo karyesinde vaki ber vechi mülkiyet ecdadımızdan mürus olarak arsadan alel iştiraken hissedarat Abdülkerim Bey ve Raşid Bey ve Davud Bey ve Hurşid Bey ve Muhiddin Bey ve Abdurrahman Bey ve Âdem Bey ve Ahmed Bey ve Mehmed Bey ve Abdullah Bey ve hisse-yi mezkurdan ... Hanım ve Esma ve ... ve Şeyma ve Hafize hanımlar.” The status of çiftliks as inheritable property came to the fore in a later controversy between Abdurrahman Bey and his brother Abdullah Bey over the sale of their çiftlik of Çayırlı and Bucin, which they held jointly, by the latter during the absence of the former: BOA A.}MKT.UM. 342/66, 1275; BOA A.} MKT. DV. 192/14, 1277; BOA A.} MKT.DV. 192/94, 1277; BOA A.} MKT. UM. 480/77, 1277; BOA A.} MKT. DV. 202/18, 1278. A similar controversy occurred in another çiftlik located in Çayırlı in the same year whereby Mahmud Bey, being “vekil”, sold the çiftlik of Mustafa Bey (“pederimden ırsen müntakil mutasarrıf olduğum”) under its current value: BOA A.} MKT. DV. 166/35, 1277.
487 BOA İ. MVL. 50/958, 1259.
488 BOA İ.MVL. 50/958 1259: “Manastır kazasına muzaf Kruşevo dimekle maruf karyede reayasının mütemekkin oldukları ebniyelerinin malum ül taraf arsalarına beldemiz vücuhundan Abdülkerim Bey ve Raşid Bey ve Hurşid Bey ve Abdurrahman Bey ve Abdullah Bey ve Mehmed Bey ve Adem Bey ve Ahmed Bey ve Said Bey ve Şerif Bey ve Ömer Bey ve Davud Bey ve Muhiddin Bey ve Asma ve Afife hanımlar vesair hissedarat kullarıyla ber vech-i mülkiyet eben-an-cedd mutasarrıflar olarak
359
district, who were also the members of local administrative and legal bodies, showed support in favor of the landowners.
Another petition written by the villagers in 1843 made it even more visible how absurd the whole affair was. In their petition, the villagers of Kruşevo protested that even though the center and province had initially decided in favor of the villagers, officiating that Kruşevo was indeed an ancient village, the repeated application of the çiftlik-owners changed the final verdict. In their protest of the situation, the villagers implicitly indicated the absurdity of the coexistence of tax and rent imposed upon them: If Kruşevo was a village, then the claim of the heirs of Rüstem Bey and the payments they demanded were unjust; if Kruşevo was a çiftlik, then they wondered why they were expected to pay taxes that were supposed to apply to miri land that belonged to the state.489
It soon became visible that the whole situation was quite perilous for the state as well as the landowners of the Balkans in general. Because many of the settlements under dispute were initially appropriated by a number of powerful individuals whose ownership was officiated through the issuing of title deeds and inherited to the heirs, who in turn raised their claim with reference to their right to private property
reaya-yı mesfurun müstecirler olmalarıyla icare-yi …sını … ita edegelmişler iken muahharen beher hissedarlara gadr… sevdasında olarak icare-yi mezkureyi edadan istinkaf suretinde bulunduklarından bundan mukaddemlerde bu tarafta şer ile bil terafu işbu arsa-yı mezkure müştereken mumaileyhanın mülk-ü mürusleri olduğu ber vech-i şer’ badelisbat ve reaya-yı mesfurunun kendi ikrarlarıyla dahi zahir ve aşikar olduğundan ol vakit icare-yi malume-yi marifet-i şer ile mersumundan tahsil olunmuş ise de reaya-yı mersumun karye-yi mezkurede asla ve kata alakaları yoktur diyerek bundan akdemlerde hilaf-ı inha ile gadr… sevdasında olduklarından arsa-yı mezkure mumaileyhanın ez… mürusen bil iştiraken mülkleri olub reaya-yı mesfurunun müsteciren mütemekkinler oldukları malumumuzdur ber minval-i muharrer husus-u mezbura şahid olmamız.”
489 BOA İ.MVL. 50/958, 1259: “Yine Deraliye’ye vürud ve meclis-i vala-yı adliyede mahkeme olunarak hakpirlerimizde olduğunu teyit ederek mir-i merkum ve dava-yı mezkuru huzur-u şere havale ile başkatib efendi davamızı zabt ve emr-i ali ve buyurdukları tevkifpirle şimdiye kadar senevi 16000 kuruş vermişsiniz yine vereceksiniz sulh olacaksınız diyerek bizlere ibram ve ihafe virub virilub kenar köşe kaçmak üzere olduklarımızdan karye-yi mezburun emlak ve arazileri için bu kadar temettuat vergisi ve ... ve rüsum-u cizye ve zecriye ve aded-i ağnam senevi iki yüz bin kuruşu mütecaviz vergimiz olub bu kadim köydür padişahımızın mülküdür deyu ifade olunmaktadır … defterhanede mukayyed kadim köydür deyu iskana her bir tekalifatı ita ideyoruz köy olmayub emlak bunların ise terk-i öşrü ber mahal.”
360
inherited from their ancestors, any decision in favor of the peasantry would amount to a questioning of the existing status quo490 and in the end, the middle-ground solution designed to solve the controversy turned out to be the sale of the land and the property under dispute to the residents of Kruşevo in installments.491
Similar cases which carried many of the elements of the dispute between the villagers of Kruşevo and the heirs of Rüstem Bey, abounded in the mid-19th century in and around the region under study. In 1852, the villagers of Hoceste (Hostista) and Kosnica, part of the sanjak of Manastır at the time, as well as the villagers of Sorovic (Sorovicevo) in Filorina, located close to the southern end of the district of Manastır, in addition to a village from Yanya, raised similar complaints regarding turning of their villages into çiftliks.492 In the case of the conflict over the settlement of Kosnica
490 BOA İ. MVL. 50/958, 1259: “Reaya-yı mezkure bundan akdem mir-i mumaileyha karye-yi mezkurenin müdürü olmak mülasebesiyle uyuşub beher sene 16000 kuruş mülk icaresi olmak üzere ita eylediklerini ... olmağla mülkiyetini ikrar ettikten sonra inkâr etmek hilaf-ı şer-i ali olduğundan”;
“bundan 54 sene mukaddem mülkiyet üzere Kerim Bey pederinin emlak-ı karyeden 115 haneyi tazyiken ita eylediğini müşar hüccet-i şeriye Rumeli Valisi esbak müteveffa Zekeriya Paşa huzurunda verilmiş olan ilam-ı şere ifade olunarak 16000 kuruş icarın tadil ve tesviyesi ve bu suretle ıslah-ı zatül beyn-i tarafları tercih olunmuş ve ol havalide bulunan mukataat ve çiftlikatın ekseri bu usulde olmağla reayanın istidaları vechiyle olsa cümlesi davaya tasaddi ile usul-u mukataaya muris-i halel olduğu bazı ashab-ı vukuf taraflarından ihbar kılınmış olduğu.”
491 BOA İ. MVL. 53/1015, 1259. This solution was developed with the appointment of Edhem
Efendi as judge (“molla”) after Meclis-i Vala decided that the controversy was to be solved on the local level: “Tesviye-yi maslahatı mütezammın mahalli meclis ve efendi-yi mumaileyh taraflarından bil tevarüd meclis-i vala-yı mezkura ita olunan mazbata ve ilam-ı alilerine nazaran molla-yı mumaileyhin medine-yi Manastır’da akd eylediği meclis-i şer'-i şerifte tarafeyn ledel terafu reaya-yı mersumenin ikrarı vechiyle emlak-ı mezkure arsaları mumaileyhin emlak-ı muriseleri olmak üzere badel hakem zikr olunan arsalar 250000 kuruşa reaya-ı mersumeye bey’ ve temlik olunarak mebaliğ-i mezbur tekasit-i münasibeye rabt ve teşvik ile kat'-i münazaa olunmuş olduğundan keyfiyet-i mürafaa marülzikr emr-i ali kaydı bila senet şerh verilerek bundan böyle münazaa zuhurunda icra olunmak üzere bu suretinin emsal ittihaz olunması ve meblağ-ı mezburun vakt-i takasitinde mersumundan tahsil ve mumaileyhe teslimi zımnında Rumeli müşiri atufetlu paşa hazretlerine 1 kıta emr-i ali ısdar ve ısra ve keyfiyet-i malum olmak için hazine-yi celileye dahi ilm ü haberi ita kılınması.”
Most interestingly, it was openly stated that the judge under question was promised of promotion and relocation, most probably to Salonica, if he was to handle to issue successfully (which he did, at least from the perspective of the state): Ibid. In 1890, Kurşevo appeared in the sources in relation to this family one last time: BOA DH.MKT. 1741/3, 1307: “Manastır hanedanından merhum Kerim Bey'in çiftliği olduğu halde mübaya etmiş oldukları Kruşova kasabası hakkında 47 sene mukaddem istihsal olunan ferman-ı ali zayi olduğuna mebni kaydından 1 kıta suretinin celbi kasaba-yı mezkure muhtaratı tarafından istida’ olunduğu.”
492 BOA İ.MVL. 230/7968, 1268: “Manastır sancağında kain Hociste ve Kosniç karyeleri ahalisinin takdim eyledikleri arzuhallerinde kura-yı merkume filasıl karye iken devletlu İsmail Paşa ve müşterekleri taraflarından çiftlik suretiyle zabt ve taarruz olunduğundan maada haklarında ne suretle teaddi ve eza zuhura gelmekte olduğu … bahisle müdahale-yi vakıanın meni istida ve bu … olarak Filorina kazasında vaki Sorovic karyesi ahalisi Rumeli Ordu-yu Hümayunu erkanından saadetlu Abdi
361
against Şakir Bey and Emin Bey, sons of Sinan Bey, the villagers claimed that the settlement under question, which consisted of 116 households and fields of 1500 dönüms, was in fact a registered village and they had inherited the land from their peasant ancestors with title deeds.493 The villagers argued that behind the forceful turning of their village into a çiftlik laid a relationship which had initially started in the form of collection of money from the villagers by the father of the aforementioned Sinan Bey for providing protection against highwaymen (“eşkiya”) and then gained a different character when the person under question put a claim to the village for being his own çiftlik.494 After Sinan Bey started to treat the village as his own çiftlik which he inherited from his father, his sons -Şakir Bey and Emin Bey- came forward with the same claim yet also having the legal means to turn the village into their çiftlik at their disposal this time.495 The conflict that erupted in the village of Kosnica ended up with the death of four villagers who were arrested and imprisoned. While their death raised many suspicions on the side of other villagers, especially regarding the possibility that they were tortured to death, the authorities denied these accusations and claimed that these villagers had died of a fever from malaria they caught along with a few other prisoners.496 In the 1850s, Şakir Bey and Emin Bey reappeared in another conflict, this time with the villagers of Banica,
Paşa hazretleri ve Yanya sancağında Kondoros nahiyesinde vaki Berominco karyesi reayası dahi Hayreddin Beyden arz-ı istinkat etmişler olub.”
493 BOA MVL 125/52, 1269: “Kosnica karyesi ahali-yi rum reayası fukara kulları olub karye-yi mezkure toprağında eben-an-ceddlerimizden müntakil mülkiyet üzere ba hüccet-i şer mutasarrıf olduklarımız 116 haneden ibaret ve karyeyi mezkurun bil cümle hududunda tapu ve temessükle mutasarrıf olarak ziraat edegeldiğimiz 1500 dönüm tarla.”
494 BOA MVL 125/52, 1269: “Dergâh-ı ali kapucubaşılarından Sinan Beyin pederi Mahmud Paşa zamanında bu biçarelerini karye-yi mezkura gelub giden eşkiyadan korusun ve bu taraftan bir korucu niyazı ile beher haneden beşer kuruş virmekliğimiz ile müşarünileyh karye-yi mezkuru bütün bütün çiftlik ittihaz eylemesiyle şimdi oğlu Sinan Bey babamdan müntakil çiftliğimdir.”
495 BOA MVL 125/52, 1269: “Miri mumaileyhin … oğulları Şakir Bey ve Emin Bey zuhurpirle pederleri müteveffaya verilen cevaba âdem-i kanaatleriyle babamız müteveffanın çiftliğidir deyu emri ali tahsilleriyle bu kulları hazır meclis vekili iken bildiği gibi inha ve mazbatasını ahzıyla kura-yı mezkurenin bilcümle hududu dahilinde zikr olunan 1500 dönüm araziyle 116 hanenin 86 hanesini çiftliğimiz hanesidir … bütün bütün zabtla.”
496 BOA A.} AMD. 45/53, 1269: “Rumeli mutasarrıfı saadetlu paşaya tahrirat yazılmış ve öyle işkence ve eziyet vukuunun aslı olmadığının burada şikayet eden kesana dahi bildirilmiş.”
362
located to the east of the town of Filorina and near the western shore of Ostrovo Lake. In this case, Şakir Bey and Emin Bey claimed that their land and property in Banica, which they claimed to have been unjustly appropriated by the villagers, had been under the ownership of their family for 70 years and inherited from their ancestors.497 While the conflict was resolved with the decision of an annual payment of grains imposed on the villagers, Şakir Bey and Emin Bey pushed further and collected not only grains of almost twice the amount, but also money, in part due to the convenience their administrative position provided for them.498 In the 1850s, a similar controversy emerged between the inhabitants of Sorovic, located also in Florina, and Abdi Paşa, who had a çiftlik in the settlement, over land and property.499 Just like in the previous examples, the decisions fluctuated as the case was sent back and forth between the center and the local bodies.500 In the early 1850, the village of
497 BOA A.} AMD. 43 98, 1269: “Manastır sancağında Filorina kazasına tabi Banice karyesi hududu dahilinde kain bir kıta çiftlik arazisinden dolayı Priştineli Şakir ve Emin Beyler ile karye-yi mezkurda reayası beynlerinde tekevvün iden münazaa keyfiyeti.”
BOA MVL. 136/84, 1269: The petition written by Şakir Bey (“rikab-ı hümayun kapucubaşılarından miralay Şakir kulları”) goes as such: “Filorina kazası Banica karyesi hududu dahilinde 70 seneden beru eban-an-cedd mutasarrıf olduğumuz malum ül miktar emlak ve arazinin karye-yi mezkur
reayalarından Dersaadet’te bulunan bağçevan esnafından çend nefer reaya … zikr olunan emlak ve arazi-yi mezburu fuzuli zabt etmek meramında oldukları”; “reaya-yı mersume hoşnud ve kani olmadıklarından mahalinde tehdid-i hudud etmek üzere irade buyurulmuş ise de reaya-yı merkume ()da vaki olan mahkemeye mahalinden gelmiş olan ilam-ı şer ile meclis mazbatasına razı olmadıklarından başka mahalinde gidub tehdid-i hudud etmeğe dahi hoşnud olmadıklarından haksız oldukları teyit etmekle.”
498 BOA A.} MKT. UM. 163/57, 1270: “Florina kazası kurasından Banica karyesi reayasının bundan mukaddem takdim eyledikleri arzuhalleri karye-yi mezkûr arazisinden dolayı Bihleşte kazası hanedanından Şakir ve Emin Beyler ile olan münazaaları üzerine senevi 1000 () zehair verilmek üzere karar verilerek faslı olunmuş ise de mir-i mumaileyh kaza-yı mezkurda müdür bulunarak ol mikdar zehair ahzına kanaat eylemeyub kendilerinden cebren 1700 () zehair aldığından başka 3000 kuruştan mütecaviz akçe dahi tahsil eylemiş.” About 10 years before the eruption of this conflict, a hailstorm had arrived and destroyed all the produce of that year, pushing the villagers of Banica towards pleading to the state for the annulement of their taxes for a year: BOA İ.MVL. 10/158, 1256: “Banica nam karyenin … kaffe-yi mezruatı külliyen mahv ve telef olmuş.” While it was not possible to find any direct evidence, the conflict under question might have been related to the formation or an extension of a debt relation between the villagers and Şakir Bey and Emin Bey due to this previous disaster. The controversy under question seems to have continued at least for another 10 years: BOA MVL 466/3, 1281.
499 BOA A.} MKT. UM. 122/9, 1269: “Abdi Paşa hazretlerinin Manastır sancağında Florina kazasına tabi Sorovic karyesinde kain uhdesinde bulunan Sorovic çiftliği derununda temekkün idub bil isticar ziraat etmete olan reaya ile beynlerinde olan arazi nizaı.”
500 Initially, the decision was made in favor of Abdi Paşa: BOA A.} MKT. UM. 76/94, 1267. Then, the villagers protested: BOA MVL 157/99, 1271: “Manastır sancağında Filorina kazasında Sorovic
363
German witnessed a comparable dispute which was, similar to the case of Kruşevo, triggered by a forced payment of a sum of cash under the name of an alleged “ağalık”.501 In 1859, a çiftlik at the settlement of Sveti Todor, owned by a certain Mişo who worked as a translator for the councillorship of England, became a topic of controversy with the peasants of nearby villages when the former accused the latter of appropriating his çiftlik land.502 In the 1860s, a conflict erupted over land between the villagers of the settlement of Sofilari, located towards the southwest of the town
nam karyede olub Rumeli ordu-yu hümayunu erkanından saadetlu ferik Abdi Paşa hazretlerinin uhdesinde bulunan Sorovic çiftliği derununda müsteciren mütemekkin olub çiftlik-i mezkur arazisini bil isticar ziraat etmekte bulunan reaya ile paşa-yı müşarünileyh beynlerinde olan münazaa hakkında bil defaat olunan tahkikat ve icra kılınan mürafaalara reaya-yı merkume kani olmadıklarından mukaddeman vuku bulan istida”; BOA A.} MKT .UM. 163/18, 1270; BOA MVL 157/99, 1271: “Bu kere Hacı Hristo vesair taraflarından takdim olunan arzuhalde mahalinde icra-yı terafularında kenduleri haklı olduğu şeren tahkik ederek ilam olunuş olduğundan münazaaya … olan arazi hasılatından olub meclis marifetiyle der anbar olan zehairin taraflarına itası inha ve istida kılınmağla keyfiyet meclis-i valaya ledel havale bu hususu mahalinde ne suretle fasl ve ruyet kılınmıştır henüz buraca meçhul olmasıyla keyfiyetin bil tahkik işar kılınması.” As mentioned above, in the beginning of the 1850s, a certain Hristo wrote a petition in which he argued that Abdi Paşa had appropriated his land and property, as well as the property of other villagers of Sorovic, and joined them to his own çiftlik located in the same settlement. Hristo was even imprisoned on the pretext that he had left the district without permission, even though he was travelling for purposes of legal proceedings: BOA A.}MKT.UM.92/14, 1268.
501 BOA İ.MVL. 211/6907, 1267: “Manastır sancağında Prespa kazasında vaki German karyesinde bulunan bilcümle hane ve bağ ve bağçe vesaire karye-yi mezkure ahalisi uhdelerinde olub eşkiyadan halas için mukaddeman Arnavud beylerine ağalık ita eylediklerine ve muahharen eşkiya-yı merkumeden halas bulduklarından ağalık vermediklerine binaen zikr olunan beyler ile German çiftliği mutasarrıfesi Üsküb valisi atufetlu İsmail Paşa hazretlerinin müteveffiye halilesinin vekili tarafından davaya tasaddi olunarak mir-i mumaileyhanın ba sened bir şeyleri olmadığından aldıkları ağalık fuzuli demekte olduğu mahalinde bil teyit ol vechle taraflarına cevab verilmiş oldukda yine müdahaleden hali olmadıklarından meni hususu karye-yi mezkure ahalisi canibinden ba arzuhal istida.” The result was in favor of neither side in terms of ownership of land (“Manastır sancağında Prespa kazasında German çiftliği karyesi aslından karye olmayub emlak-ı hümayundan zabt-ı mukteza-yı irade-yi seniyeden olan çiftlikattan olduğu teyit eylemesine ve bu makule emlak-ı hümayun çiftliklerine sahib olmak iddiasında bulunanlara cevab verilmesi nizamı iktizasından bulunmasına mebni çiftlik-i mezkurun emlak-ı hümayun-u şahaneye idhalen kaydının tesviyesiyle ileride sair çiftlikat mesellu maktuen ihale olunmak üzere 67 senesine mahsuben mahalinde emaneten bil idare hasılatını mübeyyin defterinin gönderilmesi”); yet, the payment exorted from the peasants in the name of “ağalık” was annuled: BOA İ. MVL. 211/6907, 1267. Also see: BOA HR.SYS. 2934/56, 1851. Just like in the case of Kosnic, some villagers were imprisoned during this dispute as well: BOA A.} MKT. NZD. 74/88, 1269: “Manastır sancağı dahilinde kain German karyesi reayasının karye-yi mezkure toprağında vaki eben-an-cedd mutasarrıf oldukları emlak ve araziyi çiftlik diyerek 6 nefer kocabaşı ile reayadan sair ele geçenlerin haps olunmuş olduğundan.” This case was finally sent to “çiftlik komisyonu” to be handled with other similar cases: A.} MKT. MHM. 44/56, 1268.
502 BOA HR.MKT. 329/3, 1276: “İngiltere devlet … Manastır konsolatosu tercümanı Mişo’nun Florina kazası dahilinde ba mülkname-yi hümayun uhde-yi tasarrufunda bulunan Sveti Todor çiftliği merbutatından olub civar bulunan bazı kura ahalisinin yded-i zabtına geçmiş olduğu eda kılınan arazinin istirdadı hakkında vuku bulan istida.”
364
of İştip, and Kazım Bey, a local notable (“vücuh”) of the district at the time.503 In many of these cases of conflict, the officials openly expressed their concerns about a potential expansion of rural unrest around the Balkans if radical decisions were to be taken in favor of the peasantry.504
Figure 158. Villages of Hoceste, Kosnica, Sorovic, Banica, and German.
503 BOA MVL 976/51, 1280: “Üsküb sancağı dahilinde kain Koçana kazasında Sofilari karyesi ahalisiyle İştip kazası vücuhundan Kazım Bey beyninde olan arazi nizaı.” The case could not be resolved for some time due to the complications created by administrative divisions.
504 BOA İ.MVL. 50/958, 1259: “Ol havalide bulunan mukataat ve çiftlikatın ekseri bu usulde olmağla reayanın istidaları vechiyle olsa cümlesi davaya tasaddi ile usul-u mukataaya muris-i halel olduğu bazı ashab-ı vukuf taraflarından ihbar kılınmış olduğu.”
BOA İ.MVL. 230/7968, 1268: “Manastır ve Yanya sancaklarında kain malum ül esami çiftliklerin filasıl karye oldukları ve mutasarrıflarının envai ezasını gördüklerini mezkur çiftliklerde … reaya mütevelliyen eda ve beyan etmeleriyle eğerce tarafeyn vekilleri irsal olunarak fasl ve rüyet-i keyfiyet olunması huzur-u hazret-i fetvapenahiye ve meclis-i muhasebeye havale kılınmakta ise de bunlardan Beromonce çiftliği reayasının haksızlığı teyit etmişken yine istidayı sabıklarından hali olmadıklarına nazaran ileride bütün Rumeli çiftliklerinin reayası böyle edalara kalkışarak ihlal-i usule sebeb olacaklarından hem şu mahzurlar ber taraf olmak ve hem de gerek reaya-yı merkumeye ve gerek bundan böyle bu mesellu istidası vuku bulanlara ona göre cevab verilmek üzere.”
Similar controversies occured in neighbouring districts as well. For example; BOA A.} MKT. DV. 159/65, 1276: “Manastır sancağına tabi Köprülü kazasında İstefance karyesi ahalisi tarafından takdim olunan arzuhalde karyede vaki olub kadimden beru mutasarrıf oldukları ziraat … kimesne tarafından dahl ve taarruz icab etmez iken kaza-yı mezkur sakinlerinden Ali nam kimesne fuzuli müdahale”.
BOA A.} MKT. UM. 379/27, 1276: “Ohri kazasına tabi Esonişte karyesi ahalisinin karyeleri civarında bulunan orman derununda oldukları tarla ve meraların Manastır ahalisinden Malik Bey zabt daisinde bulunduğundan müdahale-yi vakanın meni hususu karye-yi merkume ahalisinin vekilleri tarafından istida olunmuş … yaylak ve arazi-yi mezkure kendu meraları iken Malik beyin validesi Emine Hanım fuzuli zabt ve kendisine mülk ittihazı muradında olduğundan bahisle müdahale-yi vakasının meni hakkında geçen sene vuku bulan dava.”
365
Figure 159. The village of Sofilari (İştip)
Comparable cases of conflict erupted around the late 19th and early 20th centuries as well. In Pirlepe of the late 1890s, Hurşid Paşa and the residents of the village of Krstec came against each other in a dispute over the involvement of watchmen (“bekçi”) in the controlling of the use of land and the grazing of animals by the latter.505 In the early 20th century, the workers of the çiftlik of Polina in Manastır challenged the ownership claim of the çiftlik-owners and were, as a result, forcefully evacuated from their houses.506 In the same period, the çiftlik-owners of Varsaklı - Mehmed Bey, Tayfur Ağa, Celal (Bey?) and Hacı İbrahim efendi- were accused of trying to expand their çiftlik land at the expense of the peasant land of the neighboring village of Serçe.507 The names of these çiftlik-owners reemerged in a
505 BOA BEO 1244/93242, 1316: “Manastır vilayetine tabi Pirlepe kazası dahilinde vaki olub ırsen ve sıraen taht-ı tasarrufumda bulunan malum ül hudud Dutluk Çiftliği arazisinden Borile nam mevkide hemcivar bulunan Krstec ahalisine idare-yi ita edildiğinden ve bu suret hükm-ü nizama mugayir ve hukuku tasarrufiyesini ... olduğundan bahisle mevki-yi mezburun istirdadı istidasını ve bazı ifadeyi havi süvari mirlivalarından saadetlu Hurşid Paşa tarafından şura-yı devlete verilen arzuhal”; “Paşa-yı mumaileyhanın ba tapu taht-ı tasarrufunda olan arazi bila hüküm hiç kimesneye tasarruf ettirilmeyeceği gibi sınır maddesi içinde mehakim-i aidesine müracaatla isbat-ı müddeileri lazım geleceği gösterilmiştir; “Paşa-yı mumaileyhin bir güna iddiası olduğu halde mehakemeye müracaatla ikame-yi dava eylemesi lazım geleceği.”
506 BOA DH.MKT. 2685/69, 1326; BOA DH.MKT. 2697/65, 1326. The early 20th century also witnessed many a number of instances of damage to property, including burning of buildings, meadows and agricultural produce, as well as stealing of animals from çiftliks: BOA TFR.I.KV. 32 3160, 1321; BOA TFR.I.KV. 34 3364, 1321; BOA FR.I.KV. 41/4008, 1321; BOA TFR.I.KV. 135 13483, 1324; BOA TFR.I.KV. 44 4367, 1321; BOA TFR.I.KV. 96 9530, 1323.
507 BOA TFR. I. KV. 21/2052, 1321: “Serçe karyesi hududunda vaki olan araziyi ziraat ve ihya
etmekte oldukları halde karye-yi mezkure civarında vaki Varsaklı çiftliği mutasarrıflarından Mehmed
Bey ve Tayfur Ağa ve Celal ile Hacı İbrahim efendi mezkur araziye müdahale.”
366
compilation of complaints prepared by the villagers from various villages of İştip.508 While this text contains very specific information on various personae as well as crimes and damage inflicted on a number of individual villagers509, it was also specifically mentioned that the land of some of the villagers was confiscated by the aforementioned çiftlik-owners -Mehmed Bey, Celal Bey and Tayfur (Bey).510
Figure 160. The village of Krstec (Pirlepe)
508 BOA TFR. I. KV. 22/2156, 1321: This compilation of complaints seems to have been prepared simultaneously with the one discussed in Section 6.4. While the greater majority of the village names are the same in both documents, a few new villages have also been identified here.
509 BOA TFR. I. KV. 22/2156, 1321. Cases of physical assault on the villagers abounded. In the accounting of instances of violence, Yüzbaşı Zekeriya Ağa and (polis?) İstoyan are the most often recurring names in addition to some watchmen (bekçi) of villages, some military personae (çavuşlar vs) who were accused of beating, torturing, and killing people. It is also mentioned that these figures dwelled in the houses of the villagers arbitrarily, and confiscated their belongings and animals.
510 BOA TFR.I. KV. 22/2156, 1321: “Köylülerinin ba tapu mutasarrıf oldukları araziyi Mehmed Celal
ve Tayfur Beylerin gasb etmiş olduklarına dair.” It is also mentioned that Christian villagers were
prevented from going to their fields and vineyards by Muslim villagers who sometimes reaped
the meadows of the former as well. Another village that seemed to be having trouble with landowners
is indicated to be Meckujevci (“Meckujevci ahalisinin alakalardan meşakkat çekmekte olduklarına dair”).
367
Figure 161. The villages of Varsakli and Serçe (Sirceler/Sercijevo) (İştip)
Figure 162. The villages that participated in the signing of the petition from 1903 (İştip).
A piece of evidence regarding the relationship between indebtedness and dispossession came from the imperial çiftliks (“emlak-ı hümayun”) of the district of Kavaye, part of Ohrid, located to the southwest of the district of Manastır in 1857. The workers of these çiftliks were indicated to have been left with only a pair of
368
oxen by that time (“birer çift öküzlerinden maada hiçbir şeye malik olmadıkları”), having succumbed to indebtedness. Moreover, some of them had even started selling their draught animals and tools of agriculture in order to pay off their debt, abandoning agriculture altogether.511 In conjunction with these processes, furthermore, it was underlined that land in the region was being appropriated piecemeal and taken out of the use of the peasantry.512 In general, the main focus of the state remained on the eroding tax base, and the payment of the accumulated debt through installments was proposed as a solution.513 As such, the long-term processes of peasant dispossession seem to have initially started from the appropriation of peasant land, after which the landless peasants would start to work as sharecroppers. This situation, however, could safely continue only as long as they had draught animals. When, due to indebtedness, these former peasants and current sharecroppers had to sell their oxen, the main prospect available to them seemed to have been resorting to urban or rural wage labour.
Other than cases of outright dispossession, landowners sometimes seemed to have forced or manipulated others to sell their land and property under their value. In 1857, a duo of brother and sister, Yusuf and Züleyha, wrote a petition complaining that Hüseyin Bey had bought the çiftlik they had inherited from their father and held jointly (“müştereken”), under its market value and demanded the correction of this wrongdoing.514
511 BOA A.} MKT. MHM. 153/16, 1275: “Ohri sancağına tabi Kavaye kazasında kain emlak-ı hümayun çiftlikleri çiftçilerinin … bazı muhtekir makulesine medyun ve zaten dahi kendileri fukaradan olarak birer çift öküzlerınden maada hiç bir şeye malik olmadıkları vechiyle ashab-ı matlub tarafından vuku bulan tazyikata mebni çift ve alatını füruht etmekte ve bir taraftan dahi ifa-yı deyne çare bulmak üzere oraya buraya savuşmakta olduklarından.”
512 BOA A.}MKT.MHM. 153/16, 1275: “Ve bir de mezkur çiftliklerin bir takım tarla ve arazisi bazı kesan canibinden fuzuli zabt ve hasılat vakıası ahz ve kabz olunmakta olub.”
513 BOA A.}MKT.MHM. 153/16, 1275: “Bu ise mezkur çiftliklerin harabetine ve bilahere hazine-yi celileye hasarı … olacağından cihetle düyun-u mezburenin hükümet-i mahaliye marifetiyle birer münasib taksite rabt olunarak kendilerinin yine mahallerine celb ve cem’ ettirilmesi.”
514 BOA A.}MKT.UM. 271/13, 1273.
369
Cases of conflict over land also occurred between the landowners themselves. In some occasions, the absence of landowners made it possible for others to appropriate their land directly. In Pirlepe of the 1850s, the land of a certain Hacı Abdullah was taken over by Muhiddin Ağa, a member of the local council, when his father had died during his absence.515 In Manastır, around the same time, the share of a deceased çiftlik-owner was unjustly taken over by another figure.516 In İştip of the 1890s, the very “kaymakam” of the district was accused of transgressing a çiftlik located at the settlement of Karbinci and causing financial loss for the owner.517 As such, various forms of controversy over land, in the form intra-class competition, also seem to have occurred between landlords to a certain extent, in addition to competition over labor force, as was discussed in the previous part on the restriction of rural movement.
6.5.2 Intervillage Conflict and the Question of Commons
Beyond the recurrent cases of conflict over the turning of village land into çiftliks, which often took the shape of the appropriation of peasant land by a çiftlik-owner, and sometimes individual, but mostly collective, opposition displayed by the village under threat, the other central axis of controversy which could be detected in the sources took place between the inhabitants of neighboring villages. As the income survey registers have displayed the existence of considerable permeability regarding the official boundaries of settlements and the abundance of cases of villagers owning land outside of their official place of residence, an occasional conflict between individual villagers over co-terminus land should not have been unexpected. However, the most crucial theme in the cases under study is that many instances of
515 BOA A.}MKT.DV. 131/52, 1275.
516 BOA A.}MKT.DV. 148/87, 1276.
517 BOA DH. MKT. 1799/63, 1308.
370
contestation took the form of infringement of the ancient rights of a specific village, mainly over an area under common use, by a body of intruding villagers. In the Ottoman Empire, the forms of property ownership displayed a long-term tendency towards the expansion of individual rights at the expense of rights over commons.518 In the 19th century, the main relic from the older communal forms turned out to be pastures and forests.519 As such, the villagers, on occasion, were not only acting as collective bodies in their opposition to the çiftlik-owners, but also against the villagers of other settlements, referring not only to their collective status of being an ancient village (“kadim karye”) against the forceful turning of their villages into çiftliks, but also to the specific existence of their respective rights to areas under
518 Barkan, “Türk Toprak Hukuku Tarihinde Tanzimat ve 1274 (1858) Tarihli Arazi Kanunnamesi”, 337-340; Tökin, Türkiye Köy İktisadiyatı, 26-27; Terzibaşoğlu, “Landed Estates, Rural Commons and Collective Agriculture in Ottoman Niş and Leskofçe in the Nineteenth Century”; Terzibaşoğlu, “The Ottoman Agrarian Question and the Making of Property and Crime in the Nineteenth Century”; Aytekin, “Agrarian relations, property and law: An analysis of the Land Code of 1858 in the Ottoman Empire.”
519 “Mera, bir veya birden fazla köy yahut kasaba ahalisine müstakillen veyahut müştereken kullanılmak üzere, yetkili makam tarafından tahsis edilen veya kadimden beri ilgili köy veya kasaba tarafından hayvanları otlatılan metruk araziye denir”: Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri 1, 186. Barkan differentiates between pastures under individual ownership and pastures under communal use: “Mamafih böylece bir köy veya kasabanın ihtiyaclarının müştereken tatmini icin terk ve tahsis edilmiş arazi-i metrukeden olan meralarla arazi-i miriye muamelesi gören ve tapuyla tasarruf edilip yalnız sahiplerinin hayvanlarının otlatılmasına mahsus olan meraları birbirine karıştırmamak lazımdır (madde: 99) ki, Osmanlı imparatorluğu'nda, bilhassa son zamanlarda bu nevi meralar ve ormanlar da çoğalmıştır.” Barkan, “Türk Toprak Hukuku Tarihinde Tanzimat ve 1274 (1858) Tarihli Arazi Kanunnamesi”, 338. In the income survey registers, only two cases of çiftlik-owners owning a pasture and a woodland were specifically recorded, probably because these areas were rented out and generated an income for their owners. Regarding meadows, only one case of communally owned meadow (“karye-yi mezbur mülkü çayır”) has been identified while the remaining meadows were registered for each household separately. In the income survey registers, therefore, it seems that the areas under common use did not enter into the picture, probably because they did not constitute any tax potential for the state. Accordingly, such sources should not be taken at their face value since they had a normative character as well. In relation to the question of commons, for example, Stahl, in his work on the Romanian village communities and historically specific ways in which feudalism developed, demonstrates how the “feudalization” of the peasant communes was accompanied by their registration for fiscal purposes in the form of “autonomous households” in order to make survey and surplus-appropriation easier for the landlords: Stahl, Traditional Romanian village communities: The transition from the communal to the capitalist mode of production in the Danube region, 168-170. Stahl calls this process the “individualization of peasant households”: Ibid, 170.
371
common use.520 In the sources under study, the common land under question turned out to be mostly pastures (“mera”), and occasionally forests.521
In the early 1840s, a conflict erupted between a group of farmers whose land near the central town of Manastır was confiscated by the state for the building of a military base and the villagers who refused to allow the former group to open up a space for agricultural production in their pasture. In the controversy, the former group argued that their previously held land, where they continued with agricultural production uninterrupted and paid their taxes to “sahib-i arz” annually, had been transmitted from their ancestors under title deeds. These farmers, who had lost their only source of subsistence, wrote a petition whereby they claimed that Ahmet Zekeriya Paşa, the governor of Rumelia (Rumeli valisi / müşiri ) at the time, had initially allowed them to convert a part of a pasture, apparently under the use of eight unnamed villages located close to the central town of Manastır, into agricultural land; yet, this permit was revoked with reference to the inappropriateness of turning ancient pasture under common use into arable fields after the taking of Ahmet
520 As Barkan underlines, “müştereken tasarruf edilen orman ve meralardan yalnız o köyün sakinleri istifade edebilir: Barkan, “Türk Toprak Hukuku Tarihinde Tanzimat ve 1274 (1858) Tarihli Arazi Kanunnamesi,” 338. Also see the Article 91 of the Land Code (1858): “Kadimden bir karyeye veya kasabaya ihtitâben (koru olarak) ve intifâen (yararlanmak üzere) mahsus olup baltalık tabir olunan koru ve ormanların eş cârim ancak ol karye ve ol kasaba ahalisi kat' edip, başka karye ve kasaba ahalisinin kat'etmeğe salahiyeti yoktur, ve müteaddit karyelere kezalik minel-kadim ihtitâben ve intifâen mahsus olan koru ve ormanların eşcârını dahi ol karye ahalisi kat'edip, sair karye ahalisi kat’ edemez. Ve bu makûle koru ve ormanların resmi yoktur”: Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, 705. Also see the Article 97 of Land Code (1858): “Bir karyeye minel kadîm (kadimden beri) mahsus olan mer'ada yalnız ol karye ahalisi hayvanatını ray' eder ve âher karye ahalisi ol mer’aya hayvanat süremez. İki veya üç ya daha ziyade karye ahalisi beyninde minel-kadîm müşterek olan mer’a her hangi karyenin hududu dahilinde bulunursa bulunsun, ol karye ahalisi hayvanlarını müştereken ray’ ettirip (otlatıp) yek diğeri ra’ydan men edemezler”: Ibid, 706. These patterns were not specific to the Ottoman Empire either. For example, in medieval England, “the village was united in its opposition to those from nearby settlements who encroached on their land and grazed their animals on the wrong side of the boundary”: Dyer, “The English medieval village community and its decline,” 419.
521 For some analyses of comparable processes of the expansion of manors at the expense of areas under the common use of the peasantry in Eastern Europe, see: Zytkowicz, “The Peasant's Farm and the Landlord's Farm in Poland from the 16th to the Middle of the 18th Century”; Topolski, “The manorial-serf economy in Central and Eastern Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.” Because areas under common use were often crucial for the survival of the peasantry, even the absence of outright and complete expropriation of peasant land did not indicate the security of peasant livelihood at large.
372
Zekeriya Paşa off duty and the villagers who had the common right to those pastures under question prevented them from settling. After they depicted their plight as such, these farmers concluded their petition by demanding either agricultural land of the same size as the ones they lost or the payment of the value of their confiscated land.522
In the mid-1850s, the villagers of the settlements of Kanina and Bareşani of Manastır became engaged in a legal battle over the use of a nearby pasture for their respective animals and the water of a river branch for the irrigation of their respective fields.523 In the controversy, the villagers of Kanina turned out to be the
522 BOA A.}DVN. 1/63, 1257. The petition goes as such: “Bu kulları Manastır kasabası sakinlerinden
olub kasaba-yı mezbure toprağında kain eben-an-cedd başka başka tapu temessükü ile mutasarrıf
olduğumuz malumat ül hudud arazilerimizi zabt ve beher sene ziraat ve öşr ve rüsumun sahib-i arza
eda idegelir iken asakir nizamiye-yi şahaneyi muhafaza ve ikametleri için kasaba-yı mezkurede bir
aded inşa olunan kışlak-ı hümayunun ahuruyla talim ve taallum olunacak meydanı tarlalarımıza inşa
ve tahsis olunub bu husus için arazi-yi mezkurun kadr ve kıymetinedir ve arazilerinize ne istersiniz
deyu bila sual zabt olunmuş olduğundan bu kullarının ibal-i evladlarımız ile … nakdilerimiz ancak
arazi-i mezburelerden olduğundan her vechile gadr(geli) olduğundan hal ... Rumeli sabık devletlu Ahmed Zekeriya Paşa hazretlerine ifadepirle müşir-i müşarünileyh hazretlerine kasaba-yı mezburun hududu dahilinde 8 aded karye ahalilerinin koyun vesair davarları rey olunagelen meradan herkese arazilerinin dönümleri mikdarı yer ita olunub söküb ziraat etmek üzere iken müşarünileyh hazretlerinin azli vukuuyla ahali-yi kura zuhurpirle ol mera yerleri cümleden mukaddem olmağla sökülüb ziraat olunmaz deyu tarih-i atik ile kanunnameler ihracıyla yerleri zabt ve ziraatten men(geli) ile men eylediklerinden ve husus-u mezburun ... ve hukukunu dahi mahalinden bil istilam tahkik buyurularak malum olanları buyuruldukda merahim-i aliyelerinden mercu ve mütezarridir ki arazi-yi mezburelerin kıymeti-i şerisi ber muceb-i kanun alıverilmek ve yahud ol yerlerinden gösterilen mera-yı kadimden söküb ziraatimize ahali-yi kuradan kimesnenin dahl ve taarruzlarının meni.” The formulation that included elements of inheritance (“eben-an-cedd”), holding of title deeds (“tapu temessükü ile mutasarrıf olduğumuz”) and the emphasis on the uninterrupted continuity of agricultural production and payment of taxes (“beher sene ziraat ve öşr ve rüsumun sahib-i arza eda idegelir iken”) display most of the components of the general claim to legitimacy of the time. See the Article 97 of Land Code (1858) regarding pastures: “Arazi-i mezrûa misillû bir kimse tarafından sökülüp ziraat ve hirâsete izin ve ruhsat verilmez ve ziraat eden olur ise men’ olunup her ne vakit olsa mer’a olmak üzere ibkâ kılınır”: Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı. Diyarbakır, 706.
See the Article 101 of Land Code (1858): “Defterhâne-i Âmirede mukayyet olup bir karye ahalisine müstakillen veyahut üç beş karye ahalisine müştereken minel-kadîm mahsus olan yaylak ve kışlağın otundan ve suyundan yalnız kendilerine mahsus olan karyeler ahalisi intifa’ eyleyip ecânibden bulunan digger kurâ ahalisi intifâ edemez. Ve bu makûle yaylak ve kışlağın otundan ve suyundan intifa’ eden ahaliden tahammüllerine göre cânib-i mîrî için rüsûmat-ı yaylakiye ve kışlakiye alınır. Ve böyle ahaliye mahsus olan yaylak ve kışlaklar alınıp satılmaz ve tapu ile bir kimseye müstakillen tasarruf ettirilemez ve ahalinin rızası olmaksızın ziraat ve hiraset dahi olunmaz”: Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, 707.
523 BOA A.}MKT.NZD. 220/79, 1273: “Manastır kazasına tabi Kanina karyesi ahalisinin kadimden
beru ve hayvanlarına mahsus ve müstakil meraya bir taraftan dahl ve taarruz olunması icab etmez iken
Bareşani karyesi ahalisi fuzuli mugayir-i hak zabt etmek daisiyle müdahale etmekte olduklarından
müdahalelerinin meni hakkında ahali-yi merkume tarafından mukaddeman selefleri devletli paşa
hazretlerine vuku bulan istida.” It is quite intriguing that the petition under question was signed by not only the peasants of the village of Kanina, but also the landowners of the settlement in 1857 (“karye-yi
373
allegedly rightful users of the pasture under question while the villagers of Bareşani were defined as the intruding party. As such, the peasants of each village entered into the contestation as collective bodies and defended their collective rights to the areas under question, which was claimed to have a long past (“Kanina karyesi ahalisinin kadimden beru ve hayvanlarına mahsus ve müstakil mera”). Therefore, in this clash of two neighboring villages, the identity of each party, having a claim to ancient roots, came to the fore, and the villagers defended their collective right not only to the çiftlik-owners who tried to appropriate common land but also against other villages.
Figure 163. The villages of Kanina and Bareşani, Manastır
Cases of this kind abounded in the region under study in the later 19th and the early 20th centuries. In 1849, the villagers of Dragos and Negocani of Manastır came against each other over the use of a common pasture.524 About five years later, the
merkume ashab-ı alakasıyla ahali-yi reaya kulları”): BOA A.} MKT. NZD. 220/79, 1273. Also see: BOA A.} MKT. UM. 264/47, 1273.
524 BOA A.}MKT. 165/29, 1265.
374
villagers of Dragos once again raised a complaint against the villagers of Negocani for trying to intrude the pasture under the use of their village.525
Figure 164. Villages of Dragos and Negocani, Manastır.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the villagers of Gorobinci and Guzumel of İştip came against each other over the use of meadows and trespassing of official boundaries.526 About two months later, it became visible that these two villages were, in fact, trespassing the boundaries of Knezce, which was located between them.527
525 BOA A.}DVN. 98/92, 1270.
526 BOA TFR.I. ŞKT. 15/1445, 1321.
527 BOA TFR.I. KV. 35/3453, 1321.
375
Figure 165. Villages of Gorobinci, Knezce, and Guzumel (İştip)
In 1908, the villagers of Patatino, Nemanica, and Barbarova, all located towards the northern plains of İştip, came against each other over the issue of boundaries between their respective common pasture areas.528 In the same year, the villagers of Orle entered into this dispute and strongly protested the villagers of Nemanica, who had not only entered into their pasture and forcefully cultivated it, but also cut the trees of a nearby grove.529
528 BOA TFR.I. KV. 197/19656, 1326: “İştip ve Kratova kaymakamlıklarına, İştip’e tabi Patatino karyesi ile Kratova’ya merbut Barbarova karyesi beyninde mütehaddes hudud münazaasında her iki kazadan tayin edilecek memurlar arifetiyle tedkik ve hali kararlaştırıldığı.”
529 BOA TFR.I. KV. 195/19486, 1326. The petition written by “heyet-i ihtiyar” of the village of Orle to Rumeli Vilayet-i Şahane Umum Müfettişliği goes as such: “Karyemizin müddet-ül-kadim merası bulunan Aktaş ve civarındaki … İştip kazasından Nemanica karyesinden üç yüzü mütecaviz ahali-yi hristiyan dünkü gün yüz elli kadar sabanla tecavüz ederek mezkur merayı sabahtan akşama değin suret-i cebriyede sürdükleri gibi 50 seneden mütecaviz … bulunan korunun ağaçlarını dahi kesmeğe kıyam eyledikleri.”
376
Figure 166. Villages of Patatino, Nemanica, Barbarova, and Orle (İştip).
In the district of İştip, the use of a grazing area turned out to be an issue of controversy among the villagers of the settlements of Balvan-ı Bala, Krupişte, and Casica/Caşka in 1901. This time around, the watchmen (“bekçi”) of the villages were also getting involved in the process, accusing the peasants of other villagers for trespassing the pasture boundaries and damaging agricultural land with their animals, and imposing punishment on the alleged trespassers, including fines as well as confiscation of personal belongings.530
530 BOA TFR.I.KV. 26/2524 1321 (1319?): “İştip’in Balovan-ı Bala karyesi ahalisine Casica ve
Krupişte karyeleri bekçileri ve yahud ahalisi taraflarından tecavüz vuku bulub bulmadığına bil
tahkik”; “Balovan karyesi muhtarı ile ileri gelenlerinden Efram veled () bil celb keyfiyet sual
olundukda birkaç ay mukaddem kendi karyelerinin hududu dahilinde hayvanatını rey iden Dufan
veled Anastaş’ın 20 kuruş kıymetinde kuşağı Casica bekçisi İbrahim tarafından ahz olunduğu ve
hayvanatları Casica hududuna geçmediği halde bazı defa hududu (tecavüz etti) ve mezruata zarar
eyledi diyerek ceza namıyla para taleb ettiğinin Balovan karyesi ahalisinden bazıları Casica karyesine
mahsus olan otlakta hayvanlarını rey ettikleri cihetiyle münasib ücret vermekte iseler de bu hususta
rızaları ... olduğundan şikayet etmediklerini ve başka bir güna tecavüzat vuku bulmadığı gibi Krupişte
bekçi ve ahalisinden dahi bir güna davaları olmadığı ... Keyfiyet bekçi-yi merkumeden istifar
olundukda merkum Dufan’ın hayvanatını Casica karyesi mezruatına tecavüz ederek zarar ika’
eylediğinden dolayı kuşağını aldığını ve mezkur kuşak elyevm hanesinde olduğunu ifade eylemekte.”
The watchman İbrahim under question was then taken off of his job and another watchman was
appointed to Casica while the villagers of Balovan-ı Bala changed their previous statement regarding
Krupişte (the involvement of the state might have encouraged them to change their position): “Ancak
377
The major blow to the commons, however, seems to have come not from the collective bodies of other villagers but mostly from individual peasants and çiftlik-owners, whereby different frameworks of property ownership clashed. In 1849, a villager from Nizopolje wrote a petition whereby he accused a certain villager from nearby Magarevo of trespassing the boundaries to their common pasture and adding it to his own summer pasture.531 In this case, a body of villagers came to defend their collective rights against the claim of a specific peasant to private ownership. The villagers also occasionally clashed with the çiftlik-owners of their region. For example, Abdurrahman Bey and his brothers, who were among the biggest çiftlik-owners of Manastır in the mid-19th century, appeared in sources for having been involved in a controversy over a grove in the later 1850s.532
Figure 167. Villages of Magarevo and Nizopolje, Manastır
Balovan-ı Bala karyesi muhtarıyla ileri gelenlerinden Efram veled () işbu … çakeraneme arz olunduğu üzere Krupişte karyesi ahalisinden ve bekçisinden bir güna tecavüz vuku bulmadığı … beyan eyledikleri halde bugün tebdil-i lisan ederek hudud meselesinden bazı Balovan-ı Bala karyesinde aid olan merayı zabt ederek hayvanlarını rey etmeğe ruhsat vermemekte olduklarından dolayı davaları olduğu ve bir ay mukaddem mezkur Krupişte bekçisi hayvanat zarar ika’ eyledi diyerek hayvanatlarından 24 kuruş para ve () ile çoban Başo’dan birer gipe ve Coko veled Maco’dan bir kıyye yapağı aldığı ve mukaddeman Casica karyesi ahalisiyle hudud meselesinden dolayı cereyan eden mehakeme neticesinde istihsal eylemiş bulundukları.” The watchman as well as the “muhtar” of Krupişte denied the validity of these accusations and accused, in turn, Balovan for trespassing, claiming that their pasture was larger than that of Balovan and hence, they did not need their land.
531 BOA A.}DVN. 56/73, 1266. The petition written by Abdülhalim bin İbrahim, resident of Nizepolje, goes as such: “Manastır kazasına tabi Nizepolje karyesi ahalilerinden olub müddet ül kadim karyemiz dahilinde bulunan mera hududuyla mahdud olan karyemizin merası iken kaza-yı mezbura tabi Magarevo karyesi mütemekkinlerinden () nam zımmi mera-yı mezkur kendi yaylağına ilave ile ... ederek bir gayrı hak fuzuli zabt murad etmekle.”
532 BOA A.} MKT. MHM. 200/23, 1277: “Manastır hanedanından Abdurrahman Bey ile biraderlerinin mutasarrıf oldukları koruya () karyesi sakinlerinden kocabaşı Reste vesair bazı kimesneler taraflarından vuku bulan müdahale.”
378
In 1903, two villagers from of settlement of Meckujevci of İştip raised a protest against the villagers of Strojisavci, who were using their land of 200 dönüms as pasture, even though the former figures claimed to have had it under their possession with title deeds for 20 years.533 As such, it was individual villagers against the villagers of a whole settlement this time. However, the question of the origins of this private ownership and whether there had been an act of appropriation of the common pasture of Strojisavci in the beginning is an issue left unanswered in the sources.
Figure 168. Villages of Meckujevci and Strojisavci, İştip
Another case of controversy occurred in the village of Tarainci (Tajranci) in İştip around 1906.534 This time, it was a çiftlik--owner --Hüsnü efendizade Hikmet-- who raised a complaint against other landowners of the settlement (“karye--yi mezkur ashab--ı alakalarından Bekir ve Talib ve Halil ağalar”), claiming that they were trespassing the boundaries of his property by grazing their animals in his çiftlik land. Most interestingly, the allegedly trespassing landowners justified their action by
533 BOA TFR. I. ŞKT. 15/1421, 1321; BOA TFR. I. KV. 26/2582, 1321.
534 BOA TFR.I.ŞKT. 100/9938, 1324: “Evvelce arz olduğu üzere İştip’den Tarainci’deki çiftliğimizde tapu ile mutasarrıf olduğumuz arazilerimizde karye-yi mezkur ashab-ı alakalarından Bekir ve Talib ve Halil ağalar hayvanatlarını cebren rey ettirmekte olduklarından.”
379
claiming that the çiftlik land of the aforementioned Hikmet was, in fact, part of the village pasture, implicating that is was legal not only for the villagers but also for them to graze their animals on it.535
The appropriation of not only pastures but also other areas under common use, including mountains and forests, by third parties, who parceled out the areas under question (“mukaddemleri cibal-i mübaha ve ormanlardan iken ber takrib ifraz kılınmış olan koru mahalleri”) seems to have become a concern of the government in the mid-1850s, along with the generalized obsession with title deeds for the legitimacy of landowning.536 Furthermore, the state seems to have become more and
535 BOA TFR.I.ŞKT. 88/8736 1324: “Tarainci dimekle meşhur çiftlikte ba tapu mutasarrıf olduğumuz malum ül mikdar arazi-yi mezruaya kadimden beru aben an ecdadımızdan bil intikal tarihi malum olmayan bir zamandan beru … ziraat ve temlik etmekte bulunduğumuz ... mezkur çiftlikte arazisi bulunan Bekir efendi ve Talib ve Halil ağalar güya araziyi mezrua-yı mezkuremiz karye merası olduğu beyanıyla müdahale etmek istemişler ise de mezkur araziye tasarrufumuz ba tapuya müstenid olduğu ve kadimden beru bila niza yedimizde bulunduğu mahalli hükümetce bil tahkik anlaşılması üzerine merkumanın müdahaleleri men edilerek.”
536 BOA A.}MKT.MVL. 82/46, 1273: “Cibal-i mübaha ve kadimden ahali-yi karyeye mahsus olan orman ve meralardan bil ifraz ittihaz olunmuş olan koruları gerek eban-an-cedd ve gerek suret-i uhra ile tasarruf bihakkın olmadığından bu mesellu koruların ber minval-i meşruh cibal-i mübaha ve kadimden ahali-yi karyeye mahsus orman ve meralardan ifraz olunub müstakilen koru ittihaz olunduğu maruf ve mütehakkık olduğu surette zikr olunan korulardan mutasarrıflarına kefayed? ettirilerek cibal-i mübaha ve orman ve meralara terk ve ilave kılınması ve bu mesellu koruların cibal-i mübaha ve kadimden ahali-yi karyeye mahsus olan orman ve meralardan ifraz olunduğu malum olmadığı takdirde eskiden icare-yi zemin kılıflı bir şey tahsis kıllınmış ise o makule koruların mahallerine ber minval-i muharrer ragabat-i …ya ragabat olunarak mukataa-yı zemin takdir ve tahsis kılınıb mutasarrıflarına dahi tapu senedi ita olunması ve varaka-yı mezkurenin bend başısında dahi o mesellu arazi sahiblerinin yedlerinde cedid sened bulunmadı deyu mutasarrıf oldukları arazi canib-i miri için zabt olunmak ber vecihle caiz olmayacağından tayin olunan müddet-i mezkurenin tadiliyle yalnız yedinde atik senedi bulunanlara tecdid ve tedil ettirilmesi ve yedinde asla senedi bulunmayanlar dahi taht-ı tasarruflarında olan araziye akall-ı 10 sene bila niza’ mutasarrıf oldukları karyeleri ahalisinden birkaç kimesneye ihbar ettirildikten sonra yerlerinde müceddeden ve meccanen tapu senedi verilmesi”; “suret-i hal tekrar taraf-ı vala-yı fetvapenahi ile bil muhabere gelen cevabda komisyon-u mezkurun vermiş olduğu karar kanunname-yi hümayunun mugayiri olduğu” ; “işbu bend-i evveldeki muharrer maddenin ber muceb-i mazbata icra-yı iktizası ve varaka-yı mezkurenin bend başında beyan kılındığı üzere 10 sene bila niza’ arazi-yi miriyeye mutasarrıf olanların yedlerinde gerek atik senede bulunub ve gerek bulunmasun mutasarrıf idegeldikleri arazinin zabtı muhalif-i kanun görünüb fakat 10 sene müddet tasarruf ile hakk-ı kararı sabit olmayarak ve yedinde bir güna ihticaca salih sened bulunmayarak arazi-yi emiriyeyi mutasarrıf dahi caiz olmayacağından o makulelere sarf-ı mahlul nazarıyla bakılub canib-i miri için zabt olunması ve bend-i saliste muharrer hususlar bazı tecdid ve ita-yı senedat ve mahlul çiftlikat hakkında icra olunacak muamelata dair fetvahaneden beyan olunan mütalaanın münasib ve yolunda bulunduğundan işbu hususların dahi fetvahaneden kaleme alınan varakada yazıldığı vecihle icabının ifası.” See the Article 92 in Land Code (1858): “Ahali-i kurâya mahsus koru ve ormanlardan bir miktarı ifraz ile koru ittihaz olunmak veyahut ziraat için açmak üzere bir kimseye tefviz ile bâ-tapu müstakilen veya müştereken tasarruf ettirilmez. Tasarruf eden olur ise, cemî-i zamanda ahalinin men'eylemeğe salahiyeti vardır”: Akgündüz, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, 705. For a detailed discussion on the contestations over the use of forests and the changing definitions and legal categories of the state, see:
380
more engaged in re-defining the status of commons throughout the 19th century. In 1891, the villagers of the settlement of Ribarci, located in the alluvial plains towards the west of the town of Manastır, became involved in a legal battle against the officials as they pleaded against the imposition of taxation for the hay they collected from the pasture under the use of their own village. In their complaint, the “muhtar” underlined that the nearby villages of Mogila, Trn, Radobor, Novak, Çekrikçi, Opticar, Eğri, and Karaman did not pay anything for the same practice and demanded equal treatment. Much to their dismay, however, the villagers of Ribarci were imprisoned for their disobedience, probably because they refused to pay the tax they claimed to be an unjust imposition in the face of their poverty.537 During the legal proceedings, however, the officials argued that the villagers of Ribarci were, in fact, selling the hay they collected from the pasture under question and obtaining an income. In this context, the final verdict was that villagers could only use the common pastures for their own needs while the remaining hay belonged to the state; if they were to obtain an income from the sale of the products from the land under question, they were obliged to pay the due taxes.538 As such, a strict line was drawn
Dursun, “Dispossession by concession: forest commons in the Ottoman Empire and early Turkish Republic.”
537 BOA BEO 135/10086, 1310: “Hayvanları için karyeleri merasından topladıları giyahtan akçe talebiyle hapsolunduklarına dair Ribarci karyesi muhtarı imzasıyla Manastır’dan gelen telegramname suretinde telgrafhaneden ahz ve mutalasıyla keyfiyetin bil tahkik işarı.” The petition written by the “muhtar” (“karye-yi mezkure ahalisi vekili muhtar-ı evvel-i karye-yi Ribarci”) in 1308 goes as such: “Meskun olduğumuz Ribarci karyesinin vergi ve aşarı vermekte olduğumuz meramızdan hayvanatımızın idaresi için topladığımız hasılata akçe taleb olunmakta ve bu gibi hasılat için karyemize civar olan Mogila Trn Radobor Novak Çekrikçi Opticar Negotin Eğri Karaman karyeleri ahalisi bir şey vermemekte oldukları cihetle muamele-yi mütesaviye icrası istida olunduğu halde dünkü güne karyemiz ahalisi mahpus ifa olunduğumuzdan acizleri efkar-ı fukaradan olub … tahsiline bir madde-yi mahsusa olmayan 1 akçe için töhmet-i tazyiğe alınmamıza rıza-yı padişahi olmadığından.”
538 In the following months, “meclis-i idare-yi vilayet”, the governor (“vali”) of Manastır as well as Maliye Nezareti got involved in this controversy over the status of pastures under the common use of villagers and the revenue obtained from them. BOA BEO 151/11280, 1310: “Hayvanat için karyeleri merasından topladıkları giyahtan akçe taleb edilmekte bulunduğunda dair Ribarci karyesi muhtarı imzasıyla varid olan telgrafname üzerine sebk eden istilama cevaben Manastır vilayetinden bil mürur leffen taraf-ı atufilerine irsal kılınan 12 receb sene 310 tarihli ve 50 numrolu tahriratta karye-yi mezkure ashab-ı alakası hasıl olacak mebaliğ köyün menafiine sarf olunmak üzere meradan bir kısmını bekledub? husule gelen saz vesaireyi civar karye ahalisine satmakta oldukları ihbar edilmiş ve
381
by the state between the immediate subsistence needs and the possibility of monetary gain for the peasantry regarding the lands under common use.
Figure 169. The villages of Ribarci, Radobor, Mogila, Trn, Karaman, Çekrikçi, Novak, Opticar, Negotin and Egri (İştip).
In 1894, the status of a grove raised by the residents of Magarevo,539 located in the common pastures of their village, became a point of contestation between the villagers and the state – and specifically, “Orman ve Maadin ve Ziraat Nezareti”. While the villagers claimed that it was them who had raised that very forest in the first place on their pasture and hence, they should have been entitled to its products freely, the ministry immediately claimed ownership over this forest and demanded due taxes putting forth the argument that while the previous status of pasture provided immunity from taxation to the villagers of Magarevo for grazing their animals, the income obtained through the trees growing in this forest was to be
karye dahilinde ihtiyac-ı ahaliden fazla olan meralardan nakden hasıl olacak menafaat hazine-yi celileye aid bulunması cihetiyle mezkur Ribarci baltasından kura-yı mütecavire ahalisinin çıkarmakta oldukları hasıla-yı esmanın hazineye ahzı meclis-i idare-yi vilayetçe kararlaştırılıb”; “her karye ahalisinden kendi sınırları dahilinde bulunan mera vesaireden meccanen istifadeye hakları olmasına göre karar vaki civar kura ahalisinin oradan toplamış oldukları giyah vesaireye münhasır olduğunun ve ol suretle muamele kılınmakta bulunduğunun cevaben arz ve izyarı meclis-i mezkurdan ba ilam ifade kılınmış ve karye-yi mezbure ahalisine bundan dolayı ilişilememekte bulunmuş olmağla.”
539 In the income survey registers, Magarevo emerged as a settlement consisting of 6 quarters with the main income originating from engagement in textile production.
382
included in the bundle of taxation due to the miri status of the forest under question.540 Once again, the state came forward to re-define the content and extent of the commons, in practice as well as in theory.
Figure 170. The village of Magarevo (Manastır)
6.6 Conclusion
The previous analysis of the income survey registers, mainly focusing on the general structure of the rural society of three selected districts in the mid-19th century, aimed at analyzing a complex reality in flux through a static picture to identify general patterns and structures. While the unparalleled richness of the sources in terms of information, as well as the immense geographical scope they encompassed, made
540 BOA BEO 393/29403, 1311: “Manastır vilayetine tabi Magarevo karyesi hayvanatına mahsus mera dahilinde yetiştirmiş oldukları koruya mahalli orman müfettişliğinden müdahale olunduğundan bahisle hakkında karyey-i mezbure ahalilerinden Nikola imzasıyla verilen arzuhal üzerine … eden işara cevaben varid olan tezkere-yi atufilerinde mezkur ormanın zikr olunan karye ahalisine müteallik olmayub miri ormanları idaresinde bulunduğu cihetle buna baltalık ve … verilemeyeceği ve yalnız mezkur ormanlarda köylünün ihtiyacat dahiliyesi mikdar kesilecek kerestelik ve tahtalık eşcar-ı resme tabi olduğu gibi rey ettirecekleri hayvanatlarından ber güna resm istihsal olunamayacağı nizamen muayyen bulunduğuna mebni salifülzikr ormanları hüsn-ü muhafazası ile beraber civarında bulunan karye ahalisinin ... nizamı dairesinde ihtiyaçları ref ettirilerek bu babda müşkilata mahal verilmemesi”; “mezkur ormanı kendileri yetiştirmiş olub mukaddeman dahi bu babda vaki olan müdahalenin menine dair yedlerine ferman-ı ali bulunduğu beyanıyla bazı ifade ve tekrar-ı istidayı havi mezkur karye muteberanından Panaki imzasıyla varid olan arzuhal dahi leffen savb-ı atufetlerine isbal.”
BOA BEO 458/34338, 1312: “Mağduriyetlerinden bahisle yedlerinde bulunan ferman-ı ali mucebince zikr olunan ormanın kendilerine terki istidasını havi merkum Panaki imzasıyla merkeze verilen arzuhal.”
A long bureaucratic process unfolded through the course of this controversy: BOA BEO 518/38829, 1312.
383
them an indispensable tool for the analysis of rural societies, they also came with certain restrictions, which were, for the purposes of this thesis, mainly temporal and methodological. In order to transcend these restrictions, a compilation of different sources has been incorporated into the analysis, and the time period under investigation has been extended.
This chapter has focused on a selection of petitions, investigation reports, and legal documents from the late 18th to early 20th century to incorporate into the picture of rural society some crucial dynamics which were left relatively obscured in the income survey registers due to the aim and scope of these sources. Accordingly, issues such as the nature of the relationship between landowners and peasants, the restrictions on mobility and imposition of corvee labor on the peasantry and çiftlik-workers in a context of rural inequality, poverty, and peasant indebtedness, as well as the turning of peasant land into çiftliks, have been addressed in order to present a multifaceted, dynamic and conflictual portrayal of the countryside of the Ottoman Balkans in the 19th century.
384
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
This thesis aimed to examine the property structure, class relations, and agricultural production patterns in the countryside of the Ottoman Balkans in the 19th century. For the analysis at hand, the çiftliks, or landed estates under the de facto ownership of personae from various socio-economic positions who organized agricultural production on the basis of different labor arrangements in the mid-19th century, have constituted the methodological entry point into the study of the rural economic and social structures.
As discussed in the previous chapters, the çiftliks of the Ottoman Empire, especially concerning the forms they took in the 18th and 19th centuries, had often been treated in the orthodox history-writing within the confines of the rigid framework drawn by the principles of miri land regime and çift-hane system whereby çiftliks either emerged on wasteland outside of the former or left the existing mode of smallholding peasant production intact as implied by the latter. The other prevailing view posited the çiftlik question through the lens of the expansion of the capitalist world market and the painful integration of the Ottoman Empire into this newly emerging system through the creation of bonded forms of labor, with the priority having been given to the transformative impact of trade on the forms of economic and social organization. Regarding the commercialization of agricultural production in general, the focus has mainly centered on the expansion of petty-commodity production on the basis of smallholding peasant producers whose integration into the markets proceeded in the fashion of voluntary participation. The
385
classic çiftlik debate, therefore, mainly developed within the confines of these frameworks.
The question of the transformation of traditional agrarian structures, especially from the 18th and the 19th century onwards, has occupied a critical place in the literature on agrarian history and development of capitalism as the processes of agrarian transformation are closely interlinked with a wide range of issues, including the changing class relations in the countryside, the transformation of the organization of agricultural production, the changing character of the relationship between urban and rural sectors and, of course, the development of industrial capitalism. This epoch of wide-scale agrarian transformations that begot far-fetching developments in the global context did not leave the Ottoman Empire intact either, as the latter also underwent considerable economic, social, and political changes in the same period. Most importantly, an agrarian question emerged as a rather broad-scale phenomenon, coming to include the Ottoman lands as well. In this general context, the landed estates, or çiftliks, of the Ottoman Balkans have the strong potential to open up a venue that can enable the addressing of the historically specific features of the Ottoman Empire with reference to globally prevalent issues of the time, such as the development of capitalism, nature of various forms of agrarian transitions, and processes of rural dispossession. In this context, the present thesis can be considered an attempt to transcend these frameworks and locate the Ottoman çiftlik question in the broader framework of agrarian class structure and labor relations in the Ottoman Balkans in the mid-19th century through an empirical study of the rural society.
The region under study comprised the districts of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe as administratively defined in the mid-19th century. The main research questions around which the framework of the present thesis has been constructed with regard to
386
the rural class structure in the districts under study are as follows: What is the extent of çiftliks vis-a-vis villages in the region under study, both in terms of landowning and residence of rural producers; what are the common characteristics of these forms of organization in the mid-19th century, and what are the main axes on which these forms varied; how can the property structure and internal organization of the villages be characterized; and what is the nature of the relationship between çiftliks and villages in the composition of the countryside in general?
In order to propose some answers to the questions posed above, the information on property ownership, organization of agricultural production, and forms of labor arrangements obtained from the income survey registers of the mid-19th century has been the main focus of the analysis. One of the main handicaps in the existing literature on the income survey registers has been the exclusive focus of each of these studies in a specific location -mostly a town center- and the heavily descriptive expounding of the results, which rendered the possibility for obtaining a wide-scale perspective significantly difficult. In contrast, this thesis has aimed at developing an analytical framework for answering the questions above in a way that would make the development of a comparative framework across different regions possible, especially due to the focus on the relational aspects of the factors under study. Furthermore, the handling of data on a region of quite a large scale makes it possible to go beyond the relatively restricted foci of monographic studies and have a sense of the general configuration of agricultural production, property structure, and labor relations on the district level and beyond, in addition to the variations within the boundaries of the districts themselves as well as the internal structures of çiftliks and villages respectively. The present thesis explicitly combines the analysis of the çiftlik economy with the broader background of rural society through these sources.
387
As such, it goes beyond the confines of the çiftliks and tries to analyze the rural configuration as a whole. Lastly, the large-scale data and the resulting statistical analysis are combined with GIS analysis to develop a broad-scale portrayal of rural society. As such, this thesis utilizes the income survey registers in a novel way to develop an analysis of the rural class structure in the Ottoman Balkans, including çiftliks and villages in their spatial dimension.
The general structure of this thesis consists of three main footholds. Here, the first one is centered on the relations between landowners and rural producers. As such, the first point of focus has been on the class relations that were formed around the phenomenon of Ottoman çiftliks which entailed a number of implications regarding the character of the economic and social system at hand, including the question of the ownership of landed property, the separation between the owner and the cultivator of agricultural land, market-oriented production, various forms of labor relations, appropriation of agricultural surplus by landowners, erosion of traditional peasant self-sufficiency and the related emergence of a degree of market dependency, as well as the appropriation of peasant land through various methods. Accordingly, regarding the rural society of the Ottoman Balkans, the çiftliks have been evaluated as the most visible proxy of class relations in the rural setting directly related to the disruption of the traditional peasant society.
Behind the first layer of rural inequality signified in çiftlik presence, the existence of some indications of stratification among the rural inhabitants has also been observed. Accordingly, the second main foothold of the thesis has centered on the relations among the rural population itself. In a traditional “peasant” society, the main form of inequality takes the form of inequality in access to land, which is often coupled with the hiring of the labor of the landless or poorer peasants by the
388
wealthier segments of the peasantry, both of which signify the existence of certain tendencies towards differentiation in the village society, hand in hand with the erosion of traditional peasant self-sufficiency and the emergence of a degree of market dependency. In this context, the extent of the presumed peasant self-sufficiency and homogeneity reigning at large in the relevant literature has been questioned in the Ottoman context.
Lastly, the third foothold of the thesis has centered on the question of space and geography in relation to the patterns of rural organization. Accordingly, this thesis has been formed in a dialogue with the concerns of environmental and spatial history with an emphasis on the importance of space as much as the concept of temporality in historical research. This engagement has been crucial not only for the spatialization of historical data but also for a proper appreciation of the diversity and complexity of forms of rural organization. As such, the corollary of one of the main aims of this thesis -namely, transcending the limits and problems that often arise with an exclusive focus on averages, especially regarding the internal composition of the peasantry- has turned out to be, on the dimension of space and geography, sensitivity towards diversity within relatively artificial units of analysis, such as the one also used in this study -a district. Accordingly, this thesis has aimed at integrating into the picture of the rural society a geographical and topographical expression of heterogeneity by indicating the specific loci of concentration of different forms of rural organization, which, in turn, can only be properly appreciated in their relation to each other. All in all, this thesis has focused on the central themes of çiftlik production and rural inequality with sensitivity to geography and space in historical analysis.
389
The study of income survey registers, focusing on the rural society of three selected districts in the mid-19th century, mainly tried to analyze a complex reality in flux through a static picture. Despite the large-scale body of information that these sources provided, their temporally and methodologically limited nature required that supplementary archival sources from an extended time period should be incorporated into the analysis to contextualize the snapshot obtained from the income survey registers. Accordingly, the study incorporated into the analysis a selection of petitions, investigation reports, and legal documents from the 18th to early 20th century in order to address some crucial dynamics which were left relatively obscured in the income survey registers due to the nature and logic of these sources. As such, a wide range of issues, including the nature of the relationship between landowners and peasants, restrictions on mobility, and imposition of corvee labor on the villagers and çiftlik-workers in a context of rural inequality, poverty, and peasant indebtedness, as well as the appropriation of peasant land, the turning of villages into çiftliks, and the resulting cases of contestation over land, have been addressed in order to present a multifaceted and dynamic portrayal of the rural society of the Balkans in the 19th century. As such, the present thesis tried to draw a general picture of the rural landscape as a space of inequality, stratification, dispossession, and class relations while positing the central theme of çiftlik question in this broader context.
In the selected area under study, the internal structures of çiftlik and village formations and the interaction between these forms have been examined. The results of the study implied that, beyond points of commonality, each of these districts was characterized by a different level of çiftlik formation, rural inequality, and various specificities of its own.
390
Overall, on the basis of the data expounded in this thesis, it seems safe to argue that the presence of çiftliks was, in fact, quite significant in the region under study. First and foremost, in the capacity that çiftlik formation signified a process of concentration of land in the hands of a group of landowners, all three districts displayed varying yet considerable presence of çiftliks: In Manastır, where the formation of çiftliks turned out to be the most advanced, the çiftlik-owners owned almost three-quarters of the registered cultivable land in the district and directly controlled the labor force of one-third of the rural residents; in the district of İştip, the çiftlik-owners owned two-fifths of land and controlled a quarter of the rural labor force; and in the district of Pirlepe, the çiftlik-owners owned one-third of cultivable land and controlled one-fifth of the labor force in the countryside, beyond the possible relations of labor, indebtedness, and contestation with the villagers. Considering the imbalance between the small number of çiftlik-owners and large number of rural inhabitants and workers, not only the extent of land concentrated in the hands of the former but also the amount of agricultural surplus channeled from the pockets of the latter into those of the former is quite considerable. The fact that the workers of the çiftliks were mostly landless, hand in hand with the existence of a substantial group of landless villagers, attests to the strong possibility of an ongoing process of peasant dispossession. Most importantly, such dispossession is likely to indicate the formation of a certain degree of market dependence in the area under study.
The çiftliks seem to have shaped not only the specific loci with which they came into direct contact but also the composition of the rural landscape in general. For one thing, the emergence of çiftliks entailed various techniques ranging from openly predatory methods, such as outright dispossession of peasant producers or
391
claiming of landownership and demanding of payments of rent, to more discreet mechanisms, such as the loss of the peasant’s land to a debtor as well as forceful or tricky purchase of land from villagers. In this context, the evidence under study indicates that the appropriation of peasant land and the turning of villages into çiftliks were by no means rare events in the 19th century, as attested by the existence of a body of legal cases of disputes over landowning claims.
The patterns of settlement whereby the relatively smaller numbers of single-çiftlik settlements and the prevalence of settlements with multiple çiftlik-owners, in addition to the large number of settlements where çiftliks and villages coexisted, rather than being distinct universes, point towards how interlinked these forms of settlement actually were. As such, the districts under study displayed a considerable degree of interdependence and interaction between the çiftliks and the villages, which were not antithetical entities but, on the contrary, considerably mingled together, with regard to their usual co-existence in the same settlement, as well as the proximity and labor mobility between the çiftliks and villages of separate settlements. As such, the data under analysis indicate that çiftliks had a crucial part in shaping of the rural landscape they were positioned in. Put differently, çiftliks can be seen as one of the critical proxies of the property and labor regime in the Ottoman Balkans at large.
One of the distinctive features, in terms of the organization of rural production in the district of Manastır has turned out to be the division between the concentration of çiftliks around the central alluvial plain around Crna River, and the tendency of the villages to cluster in the uplands. Moreover, some of these villages were loci of specialized textile production, in addition to villages where agricultural production coexisted with engagement in textile-related activities. The higher level
392
of çiftlik formation in Manastır, in terms of the absolute number of çiftlik-workers as well as the amount of land in the hands of çiftliks-owners, might have been closely related to the emergence of specialized loci of textile-production, as well as a variety of other branches of economic activity, due to the possibility that a labor reserve might have been created through the dispossession of the peasantry in the context of a developed çiftlik economy. In this regard, studies that would specifically focus on the history of these textile-based settlements as well as research focused on the general characteristics and activities of merchants, commissioners, and usurers active in the region could have been quite enlightening to understand the patterns of the development of rural industries. Furthermore, the fact that the çiftliks of Manastır displayed a more marked clustering around the central river plains can be explained with reference to the higher level of çiftlik formation in this district, while the pattern remained more dispersed in the districts of İştip and Pirlepe where the level of çiftlik formation was lower, even though it was still possible to observe a slight tendency towards the clustering of çiftliks around the central alluvial plains rather than the outside borders of the districts surrounded by hills and mountains crowded by villages. In other words, it is a possibility that Manastır displayed the portrait of a region in a developed stage of çiftlik formation whereas İştip and Pirlepe were still çiftlik landscapes in the making. As such, focused studies on the individual histories of rural settlements would be greatly enlightening to understand their different origins and patterns of development. This general pattern of settlement distribution also raises the question of the relative strength of the lowland and upland communities in terms of communal customs and collective action.
Regarding the internal composition of the villages, a significant degree of inequality in access to land, as well as certain lines of class relations between the
393
upper and the lower segments of the peasantry, in the form of the hiring of the labor of the landless villagers by the village rich, have been identified in the sources, albeit with varying degrees in the districts under study. Furthermore, the existence of a small number of peasant çiftlik-owners, who were still residing in their villages where they could be engaged in agricultural production, sometimes without the employment of any additional labor and sometimes on the basis of various labor arrangements, have also been observed in the sources, in addition to the strong possibility that some of the town-residing çiftlik-owners of the mid-19th century might have had rural origins, especially in the cases when they were identified as farmers. Within the villages, the households that obtained their income exclusively from engagement in agricultural production constituted only a minority, while most agriculturalists were engaged in supplementary forms of activity in addition to those completely cut off from agriculture and subsisted by working as wage-laborers as well as engaging in a plethora of activities, such as transportation and craftsmanship. As such, the specialization and division of labor in the economic organization of the rural society might have been complemented by a certain degree of dependency on the food market, at least for some parts of the rural population.
Regarding the reliability of the sources under study, the points that the income survey registers omitted are as important as the aspects of rural life articulated in detail. As these sources were prepared for the establishment of a uniform and direct tax relationship between the state and the producer household, mostly taxable property was included in the analysis, in addition to certain factors of production, such as draught animals, and relatively sporadic notes on real estates, such as houses dwelled in or stores owned. One missing factor in this regard has turned out to be areas under common use, such as pastures and forests, while various
394
supplementary sources from the 19th century have indicated the continuing yet precarious presence of these forms of land use in the region under study, even though the income survey registers remained almost utterly silent about them. As such, a comprehensive study on the extent of çiftliks formed in the areas under common use vis-à-vis çiftliks emerged on former peasant lands, and çiftliks established on wasteland, could be quite enlightening to understand different mechanisms behind the emergence of çiftliks in the Ottoman Balkans. Another critical handicap of these sources, that only information on inflow is indicated while outflow, in the form of expenditures, is almost wholly omitted as a rule, requires the combination of these sources with other historical material, the primary one being in this context accounting books of specific çiftliks.
In general, the results of the present study indicate that the concept of peasant society, conceived in a Chayanovian sense, and the notion of the prevalence of petty commodity production based on the family labor of the smallholding peasants fall short of explaining the great degree of diversity and complexity of the rural structure in the districts under study. For one thing, the considerable presence of çiftliks signified the disruption of the rubric of an idealized harmonious and homogeneous peasant society. Furthermore, beyond the presence of çiftliks, the internal configuration of the villages was also far from equality. In general, the countryside seems to have been a place of a high degree of controversy, conflict, and contestation over land and labor in the period under question. In this context, the generalized precariousness of rural life caused chronic poverty and indebtedness for a considerable part of the peasantry, which seems to have ended up in the emergence as well as further expansion of çiftliks, hand in hand with instances of bondage to land and elements of forced labor even after the Tanzimat reforms.
395
The outlook of the çiftliks under study varied significantly with regard to the size of the estate area, the number of çiftlik-workers, and specific form of labor arrangements. Nevertheless, the common point shared by all of the çiftliks of Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe was the complete separation between the owners and the cultivators of land. In this context, the degree of the commodification of land and labor comes to the fore as research topics of utmost significance. Beyond the heavy weight of çiftlik production in the form of the appropriation of agricultural surplus by a group of landowners in the districts under study, the question of how much of the produce of the direct cultivator, as well as that of the labor-employing and large-landholding villager, managed to find their way to the markets, needs closer attention. Furthermore, the channels through which the produce of the çiftliks and the villages reached internal and external markets, as well as the relationship between çiftlik-ownership, engagement in commerce and money-lending, and involvement in various forms of industrial pursuits, also await further consideration.
The data obtained from the sources also indicate the importance of contextualizing various forms of labor arrangements and putting them in their historical perspective rather than considering them as merely technical arrangements. As such, in the specific historical context under study, both sharecropping and wage-labor might have contained some elements of dependency rather than being the complete opposites of each other. From another perspective, the remuneration of wage labor could take the form of a payment in kind rather than being exclusively based on money form. In general, the outlook of the çiftliks of the 19th century admittedly displays many contradictions of coexisting imperfect forms indicative of transitional contexts. For future research, a focus on the different characteristics of different forms of çiftliks in terms of labor arrangements as well as the involvement
396
and entrepreneurship of çiftlik-owners or certain figures who were the direct representatives of the çiftlik-owners -such as the infamous figure of subaşı that was conspicuously absent in the sources under study- from a variety of geographies and times could be enlightening with regard to the inner workings of these forms of organization of agricultural production.
The present dissertation can be seen as an attempt to portray the organization of the agricultural economy and rural structure of the Ottoman Balkans in the long 19th century -the epoch of large-scale agrarian transformations, peasant activism, and the painful transition into a novel mode of existence commonly known by the name of capitalism- from as many angles as possible within the limits of the sources and the time at hand through focusing on a selection of three districts -Manastır, İştip, and Pirlepe. Simultaneously, questions of great curiosity in numerous areas of agrarian history await close and intensive research and investigation within the tempestuous sea of the rural society of the Ottoman Balkans. I can only hope that this dissertation points out some new routes of exploration.
397
APPENDIX A
SAMPLES OF INCOME SURVEY REGISTERS
398
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 17545: A sample page from the income survey registers of Manastır (“Kaza-yı mezbur kurasından Novak karyesinin sahib-i alakasıyla mütemekkin reayanın emlak ve arazi ve hayvanat ve temettuatları”). This page includes registers of three çiftliks owned by three specific çiftlik-owners (“sahib-i çiftlik”, “()nın karyeyi mezburda kain çiftliği”) along with the workers of the çiftliks under question. Other than four households which were not related to any çiftlik-owner and assigned to the category of “village”, this settlement (“Novak karyesi”) solely consisted of çiftlik registers. Overall, Novak includes 17 çiftliks.
399
BOA ML. VRD. TMT. d. 11448: A sample page from the income survey registers of Pirlepe (“Rumeli eyaleti dahilinde kain kazalardan Pirlepe kazasına tabi’ Dunje karyesinde mütemekkin reayanın emlak ve arazi ve hayvanatı ve temettuatlarını mübeyyin tanzim kılınan defterdir”). The village of Dunje consists of villagers only.
400
APPENDIX B
SAMPLES OF CALCULATIONS ON INCOME SURVEY REGISTERS
In order to show how the raw data in the temettuat registers is processed, step-by-step examples of the calculation processes are provided below.
A sample of 9 households is selected from the settlement of Bukovo, located in Manastır. This settlement is a pure village and hence, all of the households are village households. A number of calculations will be displayed below.
Objective 1: Calculate the total amount of different types of land under production for the whole village and display the resulting distribution in a pie chart.
Step 1: The relevant data categories are selected (the data on dönüm for each type of land) and total values are calculated for each category by summing the values registered for each household.
IDSettlement CodeSettlement Type11445.34.N2111445.34aV11445.34.N2211445.34aV11445.34.N2311445.34aV11445.34.N2411445.34aV11445.34.N2511445.34aV11445.34.N2611445.34aV11445.34.N2711445.34aV11445.34.N2811445.34aV11445.34.N2911445.34aV
401
Step 2: The results of the calculations are expressed in a table.
Step 3: In order to find the total amount of fields, vegetable gardens, vineyards and
meadows, the values of culivated field and rented cultivated field are summed. The
results are expressed in a table.
ID
Settlement
Code
Settlement
Type Cultivated Field
Rented
cultivated field
Vegetable
garden Vineyard Meadow
Dönüm Dönüm Dönüm Dönüm Dönüm
11445.34.N21 11445.34a V 3 0 0,125 0,5 1
11445.34.N22 11445.34a V 10 0 0,5 0,5 2
11445.34.N23 11445.34a V 2 0 0,25 0,5 0
11445.34.N24 11445.34a V 5,5 0 0,25 1 0
11445.34.N25 11445.34a V 8 0 0,375 2 3,5
11445.34.N26 11445.34a V 6 0 0,125 0,5 2
11445.34.N27 11445.34a V 3,5 0 0,125 0,5 1,5
11445.34.N28 11445.34a V 4 0 0,125 2 1
11445.34.N29 11445.34a V 0 1 0 0,5 0,25
TOTAL 42 1 1,875 8 11,25
Land types Dönüm
Cultivated Field 42
Rented cultivated
field 1
Vegetable garden 1,875
Vineyard 8
Meadow 11,25
402
Step 4: A table chart that displays the percentage of each type of land in the total
amount of land is created on the basis of the table in Step 3.
Objective 2: Calculate the percentage of village households to all of the household
types in the settlement (village households versus çiftlik households)
Step 1: Select the relevant data. Here, the focus will be on the third column title
“Settlement Type”.
Land types Dönüm
Grain field 43
Vegetable garden 1,875
Vineyard 8
Meadow 11,25
67%
18%
12%
3%
Grain field
Meadow
Vineyard
Vegetable garden
403
Step 2: The total numbers of village households and çiftlik households are calculated.
In this sample, there are 9 village households and 0 çiftlik households. These results
are expressed in a table.
Step 3: A table chart that displays the percentage of each type of household in the
total number of households is created on the basis of the table in Step 3.
ID
Settlement
Code
Settlement
Type
11445.34.N21 11445.34a V
11445.34.N22 11445.34a V
11445.34.N23 11445.34a V
11445.34.N24 11445.34a V
11445.34.N25 11445.34a V
11445.34.N26 11445.34a V
11445.34.N27 11445.34a V
11445.34.N28 11445.34a V
11445.34.N29 11445.34a V
Type of settlement
Number of
households
Village 9
Çiftlik 0
404
Objective 3: Display the distribution of grain fields under the direct “ownership” of the cultivators among the resident households.
Step 1: The relevant data is selected.
Step 2: The values of the data under question –cultivated field- is ordered from the smallest to the biggest value (in ascending order). 100%
0%
Village
Çiftlik
IDSettlement CodeSettlement TypeCultivated Field Dönüm11445.34.N2111445.34aV311445.34.N2211445.34aV1011445.34.N2311445.34aV211445.34.N2411445.34aV5,511445.34.N2511445.34aV811445.34.N2611445.34aV611445.34.N2711445.34aV3,511445.34.N2811445.34aV411445.34.N2911445.34aV0
405
Step 3: A bar chart is created using the data in the fourth column (grain fields /
dönüm).
In this sample, the number of landless households is 1. After the exclusion of the
landless household, the range is between 2 and 10 and the mean (average) is 5.25.
Objective 4: Display the distribution of grain fields under the direct “ownership” in
ranges of dönüm.
ID
Settlement
Code
Settlement
Type Cultivated Field
Dönüm
11445.34.N29 11445.34a V 0
11445.34.N23 11445.34a V 2
11445.34.N21 11445.34a V 3
11445.34.N27 11445.34a V 3,5
11445.34.N28 11445.34a V 4
11445.34.N24 11445.34a V 5,5
11445.34.N26 11445.34a V 6
11445.34.N25 11445.34a V 8
11445.34.N22 11445.34a V 10
0
5
10
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Grain fields
Dönüm
406
Step 1: The relevant data is selected.
Step 2: The values of the data under question –cultivated field- is ordered from the smallest to the biggest value (in ascending order).
ID
Settlement Code
Settlemen
t Type Cultivated Field Dönüm
11445.34.N21 11445.34a V 3
11445.34.N22 11445.34a V 10
11445.34.N23 11445.34a V 2
11445.34.N24 11445.34a V 5,5
11445.34.N25 11445.34a V 8
11445.34.N26 11445.34a V 6
11445.34.N27 11445.34a V 3,5
11445.34.N28 11445.34a V 4
11445.34.N29 11445.34a V 0
ID
Settlement Code
Settlement Type Cultivated Field Dönüm
11445.34.N29 11445.34a V 0
11445.34.N23 11445.34a V 2
11445.34.N21 11445.34a V 3
11445.34.N27 11445.34a V 3,5
11445.34.N28 11445.34a V 4
11445.34.N24 11445.34a V 5,5
11445.34.N26 11445.34a V 6
11445.34.N25 11445.34a V 8
11445.34.N22 11445.34a V 10
407
Step 3: A table is prepared in order to display (1) Selected ranges of land, (2) Total amount of land in each category of range, (3) Percentage of each category of range in total amount of land in the whole settlement, (4) Number of households in each category of range, (5) Percentage of the households in the total number of households in the settlement.
Here, the results display that,
1 household, constituting 11% of all households, hold no grain fields.
4 households, constituting 44% of all households, hold grain fields between 2 and 4 dönüms, totalling 12.5 dönüm (30% of all land).
3 households, constituting 33% of all households, hold grain fields between 5.5 and 8 dönüm, totalling 19.5 dönüms (46% of all land).
1 household, constituting 11% of all households, hold grain fields of 10 dönüms (24% of all land).
Ranges of ownershipTotal amount of land (in dönüm)Percentage in total amount of landNumber of householdsPercentage in total number of households000%111%2-412,530%444%5,5 - 819,546%333%101024%111%42100%9100%
408
APPENDIX C
THE ÇİFTLİKS OF THE NAZIRZADE FAMILY IN THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURIES (İŞTİP)
A compilation of detailed information on the çiftliks of the Nazırzade family in the 18th and the 19th centuries, including ownership, location, labor, and internal composition of the çiftliks, is provided in the series of tables and maps below.
The following tables and maps display the çiftliks of the Nazırzade family as registered in the years of 1777, 1778, 1795, 1800, 1823 and 1844-845. The maps following the tables show the location of these çiftliks.541
The first list of the çiftliks from 1777 has been retrieved from the muhallefat defteri compiled upon the death of Nazırzade Mehmed Ağa.542
541 3rd Military Mapping Survey of Austria-Hungary (A Monarchia III. katonai felmérése).
542 BOA D. BŞM. MHF. d. 12808, 1191.
Çiftliks of Nazırade Mehmed Ağa, 1777 Adzimirci/DzimirTunadarKalopetrovciPoçivaloRadaniRurakYağmurlarBorilovciErdzeli-yi balaHadrafakovoHamzabeyliVarsaklıSerçelerKöselerUljarciMirahorZarabincaBistricaKrupişteToholDolaniErdzeli-yi zirSusevo
409
MAP. Çiftliks of Nazırzade Mehmed Ağa, 1777
The defter under question also contains information on the working of these çiftliks. In general, a total of 28 çiftliks, most of which were located in İştip, are registered in this defter. In addition to çiftliks, the property of the Nazırzade family, including vineyards, mansions, mills, and rented out stores are also indicated.
The çiftliks in the defter were complex structures consisting of lodgings for the sharecroppers (“ortakçı odaları”), warehouses, barns, stables, and sometimes fountains, gardens, accommodation areas for gardeners, and a mansion (“köşk”) for the residence of the çiftlik-owners. Cultivable fields were often complemented by vineyards and meadows.
410
Some of the çiftliks of the Nazırzade family were based on wage-labour while most çiftliks relied on sharecropping arrangements. In general, most of the draught animals were noted to have been brought in by the sharecroppers (“öküzleri kendu malları olmak üzere ortakçı çifti”) while the draught animals used by wage-workers were owned by the çiftlik-owner (“öküzleri müteveffanın olmak üzere teroğlanı tabir olunur hizmetkar çifti”). Some of the wage-workers were registered as “beylikçi hizmetkar”. The defter also contained the debts owned by the çiftlik-workers to Nazırzade Mehmed Ağa.
After the completion of agricultural production, a portion of the registered grains was given to steward (“kethüda”) and the wage-workers to be used as food and mostly consisted of barley (“şair”) and rye (“çavdar”) while some wheat (“hınta”) was occasionally given to the steward. Then, a portion of the remaining grains were handed over to the steward and the wage-workers to be used as animal feed and mostly consisted of oats (“alef”). Lastly, a portion of the grains were put aside to be used as seeds (“tohum”) and handed over to the steward. There was also coordination among different çiftliks, such as the transfer of seeds from a çiftlik with high level of production to a çiftlik with a lower level of production.
The following lists display the names of the çiftliks owned by sons of Nazırzade Mehmed Ağa -Mahmud, Ahmed and Ali- as registered in the years of 1778, 1795, 1800 and 1823.543 The maps accompanying the lists indicate the locations of these çiftliks.
543 The names of these çiftliks have been compiled from: Pehlivan, P. (2022), İştip’de Ayanlık: Nazırzade Ailesi, MA Thesis, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, 109-119.
411
Çiftliks of Nazırzade Mahmud Ağa, son of
Nazırzade Mehmed Ağa, 1778
(Orta) Karaorman
Tairanji
Erdzeli
Ljubotin
Çiftlik of Nazırzade Ahmed Ağa, son of
Mehmed Ağa, 1795
(Çardak) Karaorman
Uljarci
Dejirmen
412
MAP. Çiftliks of Nazırzade Ali Ağa544, 1800 and 1823 (1800: square; 1823: circle)
The following list has been compiled from the income survey registers of 1844-45 as
discussed in Chapter 4 in detail. Here, various members of the Nazırzade family own
a total of 43 çiftliks amounting to 22478.5 dönüms of grain fields, making up almost
544 See: Durdu, “191 Numaralı Şer’iyye Siciline Göre İştip Kazasında İdari, Toplumsal ve Ekonomik
Yapı (1823-1825), 274. The çiftliks of Ali Ağa in 1823 includes lodgings for çiftlik workers (“aylakçı
odaları”, “ter oğlan odaları”, “çiftçi odaları”) in addition to facilities such as barns and wharehouses:
Ibid, 276. Ali Ağa was also the wealthiest figure in the “tereke” registers of İştip in 1823-1825: Ibid,
283, 294.
Çiftlik of Nazırzade Ali Ağa, son of
Mehmed Ağa, 1800 (joint ownership with
brothers)
Çardaklı
Dejirmen
Erdzeli
Hadrafakovo
Kalapetrovci
Köseler
Mirahor
Susevo (1)
Susevo (2)
Tunadar
Uljarci
Zarabinci
Çiftlik of Nazırzade Ali Ağa, son of
Mehmed Ağa, 1823
Skandalica
Ribnik
Trogerci-yi zir
Zarabinci
Radani
Sudik?
Susevo
413
one quarter of çiftlik lands in the district. Nazırzade Abdülkadir Bey leads the way having not only tremendous amounts of land in general, but also possessing the largest çiftlik of all.545
545 The biggest landowner of İştip of the 1840s -Abdülkadir Bey- is the son of previously mentioned Ali Ağa, born from the latter’s first wife Şemsiye Hanım: Pehlivan, P. (2022), İştip’de Ayanlık: Nazırzade Ailesi, MA Thesis, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, 115.
Çiftliks of Nazırzade family, 1844-1845Name of çiftlik-ownerÇiftlik typeGrain fields (in dönüm)Balovan-ı zirNazırzade Ahmed AğaCombination608.5Balovan-ı zirNazırzade SüleymanCombination608.5BorilovciNazırzade Ruşen BeyCombination1230DejirmenNazırzade Abdülkadir BeyWage-labour550DolaniNazırzade Abdülkadir BeyCombination2500ErdzeliNazırzade Ruşen BeyCombination650ErdzeliNazırzade Abdülkadir BeyCombination860GujnovciNazırzade Ahmed AğaSharecropping320KalopetrovciNazırzade Abdülkadir BeyMoney rent579KöselerNazırzade Hasan BeyCombination610Kozjak-ı balaNazırzade SüleymanCombination540KrupişteNazırzade Osman BeyCombination675KrupişteNazırzade Abdülkadir BeyCombination685KukovoNazırzade SüleymanCombination1200LjubotenNazırzade Ruşen BeySharecropping150MakresNazırzade SüleymanMoney rent290Mirahor Nazırzade Şakir BeyWage-labour350Mirahor Nazırzade Ahmed BeyWage-labour350Mustafa ObasıNazırzade Ruşen BeySharecropping250NemanicaNazırzade SüleymanSharecropping500PetrishinoNazırzade Şakir BeySharecropping250PetrishinoNazırzade Ahmed BeyCombination250PlesinciNazırzade Ruşen BeyCombination600PoçivaloNazırzade Ruşen BeyMoney rent60RadaniNazırzade Abdülkadir BeyCombination190
414
Members of the Nazırzade familyÇiftlik size (grain fields / dönüm)Number of çiftlik unitsNazırzade Abdülkadir Bey72949Nazırzade Süleyman510311Nazırzade Ruşen Bey29406Nazırzade Şakir Bey1788.55Nazırzade Osman Bey15752Nazırzade Ahmed Ağa928.52Nazırzade Hasan Bey7102Nazırzade Ahmed Bey6002Nazırzade Ahmed564.51Nazırzade Abdülhalil Ağa4902Nazırzade Osman Bey karındaşı Abdülkadir Bey ve diğer karındaşı Hasan Bey ve diğeri Şakir Bey ve diğeri Ahmed Bey4851
415
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLES OF ÇİFTLİK LAYOUT
BOA PLK.p. 2840 (1322): “Mujake’de vaki’ numunelik ittihaz olunacak [Bitak] çiftliğinin haritasıdır.” This map from Avlonya displays a central area of fields, divided into a number of parcels with strips, tightly surrounded by forests, swamps, and pastures, before the extension of the cultivable area into the surrounding landscape for the turning of the çiftlik of [Bitak] into a model farm.
416
BOA PLK. p. 376 (1316) (detail): Members of the same family often possessed shares in an inherited çiftlik, which was in turn conjoined by the lands of other personae. The plan above indicates cultivable lands, vineyards and gardens, as well as mansions (“köşk”) for the residence of the çiftlik owners (Üsküdar / İstanbul).
417
REFERENCES
ARCHIVES
Ottoman Archives (BOA), İstanbul
BOA, A.) AMD. 43/98, 45/53,
BOA, A.) DVN. 1/63, 11/89, 29/41, 56/73, 98/92
BOA, A.) MKT. 165/29, 236/26, 1799/63
BOA, A.) MKT. DV. 148/87, 159/65, 166/35, 192/14, 192/94, 202/18
BOA A.) MKT. MHM. 6/68, 200/23, 44/56,153/16
BOA, A.) MKT. MVL 82/46, 89/49
BOA, A.) MKT. NZD. 74/88, 202/24, 220/79
BOA, A.) MKT. UM. 66/36, 76/94, 92/14, 122/9, 130/3, 163/18, 163/57, 165/92, 264/471273, 271/13, 286/34, 290/24, 290/45, 342/66, 379/27, 480/77
BOA, AE.SABH.I. 194/13017
BOA, AE. SMHD.II. 72/5307
BOA, AE.SSLM.III 178/10639, 204/12152, 405/23336
BOA, BEO 135/10086, 151/11280, 393/29403, 458/34338, 518/38829, 1244/93242, 1514/113476, 3599/269906
BOA, C. ADL. 98/5943
BOA, C. DH. 34/1655, 120/5954, 184/9165, 190/9454, 196/9764, 300/14967
BOA, C.DRB. 27/1331
BOA, C.ML. 582/23920
BOA, C. ML. 253/10440, 363/14862, 582/23920
BOA, D. BŞM. MHF. d. 12808
BOA, DH.MKT. 1741/3, 2290/106, 2384/49, 2387/86, 2685/69, 2697/65, 2866/82, 2879/81
418
BOA HAT. 48/2308, 902/39643
BOA, HR.MKT. 329/3
BOA, HR.SFR (04) 701/97, 701/101, 701/114, 701/116
BOA, HR.SYS. 2934/56
BOA, HSDHADB. 5/1
BOA. İ. MVL. 10/158, 34/586, 35/634, 50/958, 53/1015, 125/52, 211/6907,
230/7968
BOA, İ. 50/958, 230/7968
BOA, ML.VRD.TMT. d. 11422, 11423, 11424, 11425, 11444, 11445, 11447, 11448, 11449, 11450, 17545
BOA, MV. 139/10
BOA, MVL 555/91, 136/84, 466/3, 157/99, 976/51, 89/49
BOA PLK. p. 376/2840
BOA, ŞD. 32/41, 2038/7, 2065/3
BOA, TFR.I. KV. 21/2052, 22/2156, 26/2524, 26/2582, 32/3160, 34/3364, 35/3453, 39/3833, 41/4008, 44/4367, 70/6947, 96/9530, 135/13483, 176/17503, 195/19486, 197/19656
BOA, TFR.I. ŞKT. 15/1408, 15/1420, 15/1421, 15/1426, 15/1445, 15/1449, 15/1468, 15/1479, 15/1480, 55/5423, 56/5538, 88/8736, 100/9938
BOA, TS. MA. d. 5913
BOA, YB. 021. 42/9, 55/269
Foreign Office (FO), London
FO 424/136, 424/89
IBB Atatürk Library Archives (İBB Atatürk Kitaplığı)
AK. KRT. 78/1906
419
NEWSPAPER / JOURNALS
Journal de Constantinople
SECONDARY SOURCES
Adanır, F. (1989). Tradition and rural change in southeastern Europe during
Ottoman rule. In D. Chirot (Ed.), Chirot, D. (Ed.). (1989). The origins of backwardness in Eastern Europe: Economics and politics from the Middle Ages until the early twentieth century, (pp. 131-176). University of California Press.
Adanır, F. (1985). The Macedonian question: the socio-economic reality and
problems of its historiographic interpretation, International Journal of Turkish Studies, 3(1), 43-64.
Adıyeke, N. (2000). Temettuat sayımları ve bu sayımları düzenleyen nizamname
Örnekleri, OTAM Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, 11(11), 769-823.
Akgündüz, A. (1986). Mukayeseli islam ve Osmanlı hukuku külliyatı. Diyarbakır:
Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Yayınları.
Akgündüz, A. (1990). Osmanlı kanunnameleri ve hukuki tahlilleri, 1. İstanbul:
Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı.
Akgündüz, A. (1990). Osmanlı kanunnâmeleri ve hukukî tahlilleri, 2. Istanbul:
Osmanlı Arastırmaları Vakfı.
Alfonso, I. (2007). Exploring difference within rural communities in the northern
Iberian kingdoms, 1000–1300, Past & Present 195(suppl 2), 87-100.
Alimoski, S. (2005). Temettuat defterlerine göre Manastır merkez kazasının sosyo-
ekonomik durumu. MA Thesis, Marmara Üniversitesi.
Anastasopoulos, A. (2002). Lighting the flame of disorder: Ayan infighting and
state intervention in Ottoman Karaferye, 1758-59. International Journal of Turkish Studies, 8(1-2), 73-88.
Anastasopoulos, A. (2005). The mixed elite of a Balkan town: Karaferye in the
second half of the eighteenth century.” In A. Anastasopoulos (Ed.), Provincial Elites in the Ottoman Empire, Halcyon Days in Crete V. A Symposium Held in Rethymno (pp. 259-268). Rethymno: Crete University Press.
Anastasopoulos, A. (2006). Building alliances: A Christian merchant in eighteenth-
century Karaferye. Oriente Moderno, 25(1), 65-75.
420
Aral, E. (2019). Temettuat defterlerine göre 19. yüzyıl ortalarında Rumeli Eyaleti
Pirlepe Kazası’nın sosyo-ekonomik durumu. MA Thesis, Karabük Üniversitesi.
Arel, A. (1986). Ege bölgesi ayanlık dönemi mimarisi hakkında bir ön araştırma.
In IV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı (pp. 39-77). Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü.
Arel, A. (1989). Foça bağ evleri ve kule-ev geleneği. In Vıı. Araştırma Sonuçları
Toplantısı Bildirileri (pp.43-71). Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü.
Arel, A. (1992). Ege bölgesi ayanlık dönemi mimarisi: 1986-1991 çalışmaları. In
X. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı Bildirileri (pp.231-248). Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü.
Atuk, M. V. (2018). Manastır vilayetinde yönetim ve yerel meclisler. Çağdaş Yerel
Yönetimler, 27(1), 147-169.
Ayers, E. L. (2010). Turning toward place, space, and time. In Bodenhamer, D. J.,
Corrigan, J., & Harris, T. M. (Eds.). (2010). The spatial humanities: GIS and the future of humanities Scholarship, (pp. 1-13). Bloomington and Indianapolis Indiana University Press.
Aytekin, E. A. (2005). Hukuk, tarih ve tarihyazımı: 1858 Osmanlı Arazi
Kanunnâmesi'ne yönelik yaklaşımlar. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, (5), 723-744.
Aytekin, E. A. (2008). Cultivators, creditors and the state: rural indebtedness in the
nineteenth century Ottoman Empire. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 35(2), 292-313.
Aytekin, E. A. (2009). Agrarian relations, property and law: An analysis of the Land
Code of 1858 in the Ottoman Empire. Middle Eastern Studies, 45(6), 935-951.
Aytekin, E. A. (2012). Peasant protest in the late Ottoman Empire: Moral economy,
revolt, and the Tanzimat reforms. International Review of Social History, 57(2), 191-227.
Bagchi, A. K. (1976). Cropsharing Tenancy and Neoclassical Economics. Economic
and Political Weekly, 74-83.
Banaji, J. (1977). Capitalist domination and the small peasantry: Deccan districts in
the late nineteenth century. Economic and political weekly, 1375-1404.
Banaji, J. (2010). Theory as history: Essays on modes of production and exploitation.
Brill.
421
Bardhan, P. K., & Srinivasan, T. N. (1971). Cropsharing tenancy in agriculture: a
theoretical and empirical analysis. The American Economic Review, 61(1), 48-64.
Bardhan, P. K., & Srinivasan, T. N. (1974). Cropsharing tenancy in agriculture:
Rejoinder. The American Economic Review, 64(6), 1067-1069.
Bardhan, P., & Rudra, A. (1980). Terms and conditions of sharecropping contracts:
An analysis of village survey data in India. The Journal of Development Studies, 16(3), 287-302.
Barkan, Ö. L. (1980). Çiftlik. In Türkiye'de toprak meselesi: Toplu eserler 1 (pp.
789-797). İstanbul: Gözlem Yayınları.
Barkan, Ö. L. (1980). Türkiye’de “servaj” var mıydı?. In Türkiye'de toprak
meselesi: Toplu eserler 1 (pp. 717-724). İstanbul: Gözlem Yayınları.
Barkan, Ö. L. (1980). Türk toprak hukuku tarihinde Tanzimat ve 1274 (1858)
tarihli Arazi Kanunnamesi. In Türkiye'de toprak meselesi: Toplu eserler 1 (pp. 291-375). İstanbul: Gözlem Yayınları.
Berktay, H. (1990). Batı ve Türk Ortaçağ tarihçiliğinin köylülüğe bakışının temel
deformasyonları. Toplum ve Bilim (48-49), 61-78.
Berktay, H. (1987). The feudalism debate: The Turkish end–is ‘tax–vs.–
rent’ necessarily the product and sign of a modal difference? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 14(3), 291-333.
Bernstein, H. (1996). Agrarian questions then and now. The Journal of peasant
Studies, 24(1-2), 22-59.
Bernstein, H. (2009) 'V.I. Lenin and A.V. Chayanov: looking back, looking
forward'. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 55-81.
Bhaduri, A. (1973). A study in agricultural backwardness under semi-feudalism. The
Economic Journal, 83(329), 120-137.
Bhaduri, A. (1977). On the formation of usurious interest rates in backward
agriculture. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1(4), 341-352.
Bharadwaj, K., & Das, P. K. (1975). Tenurial conditions and mode of exploitation: A
study of some villages in Orissa. Economic and Political Weekly, 10(5/7), 221-240.
Bharadwaj, K., & Das, P. K. (1975). Tenurial conditions and mode of exploitation:
Study of some villages in Orissa: Further notes. Economic and Political Weekly, 10(25/26), A49-A55.
Bilirli, T. (2018). Temettuat defterlerinin hazırlanmasında İmar Meclisleri'nin rolü.
İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(3), 2131-2141.
422
Bizbirlik, A., & Atar, Z. (2009). XIX. yüzyıl Osmanlı tarihinde Temettutât
Defterleri’nin yeri: Saruhan Sancağı Mütevelli Çiftliği temettutât defteri örneği. SAÜ Fen Edebiyat Dergisi 1, 37-57.
Bloch, M. (2004). Feudal society 1: The growth and ties of dependence.
London and New York: Routledge.
Blum, J. (1972). Lord and peasant in Russia from the ninth to the nineteenth century.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Bourin, M. (2007). Peasant elites and village communities in the south of France,
1200–1350. Past and Present, 195(suppl_2), 101-114.
Brass, T. (2013). Labor regime change in the 21st century: Unfreedom, capitalism
and primitive accumulation. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Brass, T. (2008). Capitalism and bonded labour in India: Reinterpreting recent (re-)
interpretations. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 35(2), 177-248.
Brass, T. (2003). Why unfree labour is not ‘so-called’: The fictions of Jairus Banaji.
Journal of Peasant Studies, 31(1), 101-136.
Braudel, F (1996). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of
Philip II, University of California Press.
Byres, T. J. (1983). Historical perspectives on sharecropping. The Journal of Peasant
Studies, 10(2-3), 7-40.
Byres, T. J. (2006). Rodney Hilton (1916–2002): In memoriam. Journal of Agrarian
Change, 6(1), 1-16.
Byres, T. J. (2006). Differentiation of the peasantry under feudalism and the
transition to capitalism: In defence of Rodney Hilton. Journal of Agrarian Change, 6(1), 17-68.
Byres, T. J. (2009). The landlord class, peasant differentiation, class struggle and the
transition to capitalism: England, France and Prussia compared. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 33-54.
Caballero, J. M. (1983). Sharecropping as an efficient system: further answers to an
old puzzle. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 10(2-3), 107-118.
Canbakal, H. (2020). Erken modern dünya ve Osmanlı topraklarında servet ve
gelir dağılımı. In U. Karakoç & A. Y. Kaya (Eds.), İktisat tarihinin dönüşü (pp. 235-270), İletişim.
Cerman, M. (2011). Demesne lordship and rural society in early modern East Central
and Eastern Europe: Comparative perspectives. Agricultural history review, 59(2), 239-258.
423
Chandra, N. K. (1974). Farm efficiency under semi-feudalism: A critique of
marginalist theories and some Marxist formulations. Economic and political weekly, 9(32/34), 1309-1332.
Cooper, A. (1983). Sharecroppers and landlords in Bengal, 1930–50: The
dependency web and its implications. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 10(2-3), 227-255.
Cora, Y. T. (2013). A muslim great merchant (tüccar) family in the late Ottoman empire: A case study of the Nemlizades, 1860-1930. International Journal of Turkish Studies (19)1-2, 1-29.
Cora, Y. T. (2015). Osmanlı taşrasındaki Ermeniler üzerine olan tarihyazımında
sınıf analizinin eksikliği, Praksis, 39, 23-44.
Cora, Y. T. (2018). Female labor, merchant capital, and resilient manufacturing:
Rethinking Ottoman Armenian communities through labor and business. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 61, 361-395.
Coşkun, Z. (2021). 103 numaralı Manastır şer’iyye sicilinin transkripsiyon ve
değerlendirilmesi (1835-1837). MA Thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi.
Cvetkova, B. (1969). Quelques problèmes du féodalisme ottoman à l'époque du
XVIe au XVIII siècle. In Actes du premier congres international des etudes balkaniques et sud-est europeennes. Sofia: Editions de l’academie bulgare des sciences, 709-720.
Çağ, G. (2010). 16. ve 17. yüzyıllarda Osmanlı hakimiyetinde Manastır. PhD Thesis,
Sakarya Üniversitesi.
Çayırlı, N. (2001). Osmanlı idaresinde Manastır (Bitola). Türk Kültürü (458), 371-
376.
Çiftçioğlu, F. (2017). XIX. yüzyılda Tırhala Sancağı’nda çiftlikler. Manisa Celal
Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(3), 105-128.
Daskalov, R. (2004). The making of a nation in the Balkans: Historiography of the
Bulgarian revival. Budapest: Central European University Press.
DeBats, D. & Gregory, I. & Lafreniere, D. (2018). Introduction: Spatial history,
history, and GIS.” In Ian Gregory, Don DeBats, & Don Lafreniere (Eds.), The Routledge companion to spatial history, (pp. 1-6). London: Routledge.
Demetriades, V. (1981). Problems of land-owning and population in the area of Gazi
Evrenos Bey's wakf. Balkan Studies, 22(1), 43-57.
Demirkol, M. (2021), XVIII. yüzyılın ilk yarısında Manastır. PhD Thesis, İnönü
Üniversitesi.
424
Divitçioğlu, S. (1981). Asya üretim tarzı ve Osmanlı toplumu. Kırklareli: Sermet
Matbaası.
Draganova, S. (2006). Tuna Vilayeti’nin köy nüfusu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Duchesne, R. (2003). Rodney Hilton and the peasant road to 'Capitalism' in England.
The Journal of Peasant Studies, 30(2), 129-145.
Durdu, M. (2022). 191 numaralı şer’iyye siciline göre İştip kazasında idari,
toplumsal ve ekonomik yapı (1823-1825). Erciyes Akademi 36(1), 270-296.
Dursun, S. (2007). A call for an environmental history of the Ottoman Empire and
Turkey: Reflections on the fourth ESEH conference. New Perspectives on Turkey, 37, 211-222.
Dursun, S. (2014). Çevresel (ekolojik) tarih lensinden Osmanlı tarihine yeniden
bakmak. In Gülsüm Aksoy-Aivalı, Marina Demetriadou, Yannis Spyropoulos, Katerina Stathi, & Yorgos Vidras (Eds.), New trends in Ottoman studies (Papers presented at the 20th CIEPO Symposium, Rethymno, 27 June – 1 July 2012 (pp. 56-69), Crete University Press.
Dursun, S. (2017). The history of environmental movements and the development of
environmental thought in Turkey, 1850-1980. In Hrvoje Petrić, Ivana Žebec Šilj (Eds.), Environmentalism in Central and Southeastern Europe: Historical perspectives (pp.111-131). Lanham, Boulder: Lexington Books.
Dursun, S. (2019). Dispossession by concession: forest commons in the Ottoman
Empire and early Turkish Republic. In Onur İnal & Yavuz Köse (Eds.), Seeds of power: Explorations in Ottoman environmental history. The White Horse Press. 260-284.
Dursun, S. (2019). Çevresel bağlantılar: Tarihi yeniden düşünmek. In M.
Fatih Çalışır (Ed.), Çevresel tarih nedir? (pp. 9-21). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Düstur. (1289). Tertib 1, Cilt 6. Matbaa-yı Amire.
Dyer, C. (1994). The English medieval village community and its decline. Journal of
British Studies, 33(4), 407-429 .
Dyer, C. (2007). The ineffectiveness of lordship in England, 1200–1400. Past and
Present, 195(suppl_2), 69-86.
Efe, A. (2016). 1845 temettuat sayım sonuçları ne oldu? Journal of History
Studies, 8(1), 19-35.
Emecen, F. M. (1997). Pirlepe'nin ilk Osmanlı tahrirleri. Güneydoğu Avrupa
Araştırmaları Dergisi, (12), 63-70.
425
Emigh, R. J. (1997). The spread of sharecropping in Tuscany: The political economy
of transaction costs. American Sociological Review, 423-442.
Ennew, J., Hirst, P., & Tribe, K. (1977). ‘Peasantry’as an economic category. The
Journal of Peasant Studies, 4(4), 295-322.
Ergenç, Ö. (2007). “XVIII. yüzyılda Osmanlı Anadolu’sunda tarım üretiminde yeni
boyutlar: Müzara’a ve müraba’a sözleşmeleri”. Kebikeç Dergisi, (23), 129-139.
Erikçi, E. (2019). 8 numaralı Manastır şer‘iyye sicilinin (1-64. Varak)
transkripsiyonu ve dDeğerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642). MA Thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi.
Evcil, F. N. (2010). XIX. yüzyıl ortalarında İştip Kazası’nın sosyal ve ekonomik
durumu. MA Thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi.
Faroqhi, S. (2005). Indebtedness in the Bursa area, 1730-1740. In M. Afifi, R. Chih,
B. Marino, M. Nicolas, & I. Tamdoğan (Eds.), Sociétés rurales ottomanes, Ottoman Rural Societies (pp. 197-213). Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Frangakis-Syrett, E. (1994). “Western and local entrepreneurs in İzmir in the 19th
and early 20th centuries”. In T. Baykara (Ed.), Son Yüzyıllarda İzmir ve Batı
Anadolu. İzmir: Akademi Yayınevi.
Gandev, C. (1960), L'apparition des rapports capitalistes dans l'économie rurale de
la Bulgarie du nord-ouest au cours du XVIII siècle, Etudes historiques, 207-217.
Garrabou, R., Planas, J., & Saguer, E. (2001). Sharecropping and the management of
large rural estates in Catalonia, 1850–1950. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 28(3), 89-108.
Garrett Jr, M. A., & Xu, Z. (2003). The efficiency of sharecropping: evidence from
the Postbellum South. Southern Economic Journal, 69(3), 578-595.
Gözcü, H. (2019). 25 nolu Manastır şer‘iyye sicilinin transkripsiyonu ve
değerlendirilmesi (H.1050- 1051/M.1640-1642). MA Thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi.
Gradeva, R. (2006). Villagers in international trade: The case of Chervena Voda,
seventeenth to the beginning of the eighteenth centuries. Oriente moderno, 25(1), 1-20.
Gratien, C., Polczyński, M., & Shafir, N. (2014). Digital frontiers of Ottoman
studies. Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 1(1), 37-51.
426
Gregory, I. N. & Geddes, A. (2014). Introduction: From historical GIS to spatial
humanities: Deepening scholarship and broadening technology.” In Ian N. Gregory and Alistair Geddes (Eds), Toward spatial humanities: Historical GIS and spatial history, (pp. ix-xix). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Gupta, D. (1980). Formal and real subsumption of labour under capital: the instance
of sharecropping. Economic and Political Weekly, A98-A106.
Güran, T. & Uzun, A. (2006). Bosna-Hersek'te toprak rejimi: Eshâb-ı alâka ve
çiftçiler arasındaki ilişkiler (1840-1875). Belleten, 70(259), 867-902.
Güran, T. (1983). Ondokuzuncu yüzyıl ortalarında Ödemiş kasabasının sosyo-
ekonomik özellikleri. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 41, 301-319.
Güran, T. (2000). 19. yüzyıl temettuat tahrirleri. In Halil İnalcık & Şevket Pamuk
(Eds.), Osmanlı Devleti’nde bilgi ve istatistik (75-94). Ankara: Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü.
Hacısalihoğlu, M. "Makedonya", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (available online at
https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/makedonya.)
Hadjikyriacou, A. & Kolovos, E. (2015). Rural economies and digital humanities:
Prospects and challenges. In Elias Kolovos (Ed.), Ottoman Rural Societies and Economies: Halcyon Days in Crete VIII: A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 13-15 January 2012 (pp.415-421). Rethymno: Crete University Press.
Hadjikyriacou, A. (2022). Economic geographies. In Ricardo Bavaj, Konrad, &
Bernhard Struck (Eds.), Doing spatial history (pp. 252-273), Routledge.
Hagen, W. W. (1985). How mighty the Junkers? Peasant rents and seigneurial profits
in sixteenth-century Brandenburg. Past & Present, (108), 80-116.
Haldon, J. (1993). State and the tributary mode of production. London; New York:
Verso.
Halim, F. (1983). The major mode of surplus labour appropriation in the West
Malaysian countryside: The sharecropping system. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 10(2-3), 256-278.
Hathaway, J. (1996). Problems of periodization in Ottoman history: the fifteenth
through the eighteenth centuries. Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, 20(2), 25-31.
Hilton, R. (2003). Bond men made free: Medieval peasant movements and the
English rising of 1381. London and New York: Routledge.
427
Hilton, R. (1987). A crisis of feudalism. In Aston, T. H & Philpin, C. H. E (eds.),
The Brenner debate: Agrarian class structure and economic development in
pre-industrial Europe (pp. 119-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilton, R. (1992). English and French towns in feudal society: A comparative
study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, P. T. (1984). The economic theory of sharecropping in early modern
France. The Journal of Economic History, 44(2), 309-319.
Hopkins, T., & Wallerstein, I. (1987). Capitalism and the incorporation of new zones
into the world-economy. Review (Fernand Braudel Center, 10(5), 763-779.
Ianeva, S. (2009). Financing the state? Tax-farming as a source of individual wealth
in the nineteenth century. Oriens, 37(1), 209-224.
Ianeva, S. (2012). The non-muslim tax farmers in the fiscal and economic system
of the Ottoman empire in the 19th century. In J. S Nielsen (Ed.), Religion, ethnicity and contested nationhood in the former Ottoman space (pp. 47-62). Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Fleet, K., & Ianeva, S. (2014). Ottoman economic practices in periods of
transformation: The cases of Crete and Bulgaria. Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Isenberg, A. C. (2014). “Introduction: A new environmental history.” In Isenberg,
A. C. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental history (pp.1-20) Oxford University Press.
Işık, Ş. (1999). Tarihsel coğrafya açısından temettuat defterlerinin
değerlendirilmesi ve Aşağı Akçay Havzası örneği. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 10, 239-280.
İnal, O. (2011). Environmental history as an emerging field in Ottoman studies: An
historiographical overview. Osmanlı Araştırmaları, 38(38), ???
İnalcık, H. "Rumeli", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (available online at
https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/rumeli).
İnalcık, H. (1992). Tanzimat ve Bulgar meselesi. İstanbul: Eren Yayıncılık.
İnalcik, H. (1969). Capital formation in the Ottoman Empire. The journal of
economic history, 29(1), 97-140.
İnalcık, H. (1991), The emergence of big farms, çiftliks: State, landlords, and
tenants. In Ç. Keyder & F. Tabak (Eds.), Landholding and commercial agriculture in the Middle East (pp. 17-34). State University of New York Press.
428
İnalcık, H. (1993). Village, peasant and empire. In H. İnalcık ve D. Quataert (Eds.),
The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire: Essays on economy and society (pp. 137-160). Cambridge University Press.
İnalcık, H. (1941). “Tanzimat nedir”, Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi (1),
237-263.
İslamoğlu-İnan, H. (1991). Peasants, commercialization, and the legitimation of
state power in sixteenth-century Anatolia. In Ç. Keyder & F. Tabak (Eds.),
Landholding and commercial agriculture in the Middle East (pp. 57-76). State University of New York Press.
İslamoğlu, H. (2000). “Property as a contested domain: A reevaluation of the
Ottoman Land Code of 1858.” In Roger Owen (Ed.), New perspectives on property and land in the Middle East, (pp. 3-61). Cambridge; Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press.
Kafadar, C. (1999). The question of Ottoman decline. Harvard Middle East and
Islamic Review, 4(1-2), 30-75.
Kamiński, A. (1975). Neo-serfdom in Poland-Lithuania. Slavic review, 34(2), 253-
268.
Karademir, Z. (2018). Statüleri ve mahiyetleri açısından Osmanlı ekonomisinde
büyük çiftlikler (18. yüzyıl). Cihannüma: Tarih ve Coğrafya Araştırmaları
Dergisi, 4(2), 15-43.
Karaduman, G. (2014). Temettuat Defterleri çerçevesinde Koçana. MA Thesis,
Marmara Üniversitesi.
Karaduman, G., & Tabakoğlu, A. (2021). 19. yüzyıl Temettuat Defterleri’ne göre
Üsküp/Koçana Kazası’nın Lorenz eğrisi ve Gini katsayısı ile gelir dağılımının analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 146-165.
Kasaba, R. (1987), Incorporation of the Ottoman Empire, 1750-1820. Review
(Fernand Braudel Center), 10(5), 805-848.
Kasaba, R. (1988). The Ottoman Empire and the world economy: The nineteenth
century. Suny Press.
Kasaba, R. (1988). Was there a compradore bourgeoisie in mid-nineteenth-
century western Anatolia?. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 11(2), 215-228.
Kavgacı, K. (2021). 63 numaralı Manastır şer’iyye sicilinin transkripsiyon ve
değerlendirilmesi (1778-1782). MA Thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi.
429
Kaya, A. Y. ve Peker, A. O. (2019). Parga Çiftliği Kararnâmesi (1875): Çiftlik
sahipleri ve çiftçi 'ahâli' arasında mücadele. In M. Öztürk ve A. Değerli (Eds.), Üçüncü İktisat Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri 1 (İzmir, 25-27 Nisan 2019) (pp. 1-13), İzmir.
Kaya, A. Y. (2020). Were peasants bound to the soil in the 19th c. Balkans? In
L. Papastefanaki and M. E. Kabadayı (Eds.), Working in Greece and Turkey, A comparative labour history from empires to nation-states, 1840–1940, Berghan Books.
Keegan, T. (1983). The sharecropping economy on the South African highveld in the
early twentieth century. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 10(2-3), 201-226.
Kelly, M., & Ó Gráda, C. (2014). Debating the little ice age. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 45(1), 57-68.
Keyder, Ç. (1991). Introduction: Large-scale commercial agriculture in the
Ottoman empire? In Ç. Keyder & F. Tabak (Eds.), Landholding and commercial agriculture in the Middle East (pp. 1-13). State University of New York Press.
Khoury, D. R. (1991). The introduction of commercial agriculture in the province
of Mosul and its effects on the peasantry, 1750-1850. In Ç. Keyder & F. Tabak (Eds.), Landholding and commercial agriculture in the Middle East (pp. 155-172). State University of New York Press.
Kırlı, C. (2015), “Tyranny illustrated: From petition to rebellion in Ottoman Vranje,”
New Perspectives on Turkey, no: 53, 3-36.
Kiel, M. "İştip", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (available online at
https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/istip ).
Kiel, M. "Pirlepe", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (available online at
https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/pirlepe).
Klíma, A. (1979). Agrarian class structure and economic development in pre-
industrial Bohemia. Past & Present, (85), 49-67.
Koç, Ü. (2014). Pirlepe kırsalında nüfus-vergi yükümlülüğü bağlamında ekonomik
refah düzeyinin tespiti ve gelir dağilımı üzerine bir deneme. Fırat University Journal of Social Sciences/Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(2), 295-317.
Kokdaş, İ. (2019). Osmanlı çiftliklerinde tek tip bir demografik yapı var mıydı?
19. yüzyıl Teselya çiftliklerinde sosyo-ekonomik dinamikler ve nüfus yapıları. Kebikec: Insan Bilimleri Icin Kaynak Arastirmali Dergisi, (48), 271-303.
Kokdaş, İ. (2022). Janissaries and conflicts over rural lands in the Vidin region
(1730-1810). Cihannüma: Tarih ve Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 101-127.
430
Kolovos, E. (2012). Riot in the village: Some cases of peasant protest around
Ottoman Salonica. In A. Anastasopoulos (Ed.). Political initiatives ‘from the
bottom up’ in the Ottoman Empire. Halcyon Days in Crete VII. A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 9-11 January 2009, (pp. 47-56). Rethymno: Crete University Press.
Kosminsky, E. A. (1956). Studies in the agrarian history of England in the
thirteenth century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Koyuncu, D. T., & Küçükkalay, A. M. (2016). Global market orientation of the
Ottoman agriculture sector: An interregional comparison (1844). Osmanlı
Araştırmaları, 48(48), 171-228.
Kurmuş, O. (1977). Emperyalizmin Türkiye’ye girişi, Bilim Yayınları: İstanbul.
Küçükömer, İ. (1977). Asyagil üretim biçimi, yeniden üretim ve sivil toplum.
Toplum ve Bilim, 2, 3-30.
Kütükoğlu, M. S. (1995). Osmanlı sosyal ve iktisadi tarihi kaynaklarından temettü
defterleri. Belleten, 59(225), 395-412.
Laiou, S. (2007). Some considerations regarding çiftlik formation in the western
Thessaly, sixteenth-nineteenth centuries. In Elias Kolovos, Phokion Kotzageorgis, Sophia Laiou and Marinos Sariyannis (Eds.), The Ottoman Empire, the Balkans, the Greek Lands: Toward a Social and Economic History. Studies in Honor of John C. Alexander (pp. 255-277). The Isis Press.
Lapavitsas, C., & Cakiroglu, P. (2019). Capitalism in the Ottoman Balkans:
Industrialisation and modernity in Macedonia. I.B. Tauris.
Lehmann, D. (1986). Sharecropping and the capitalist transition in agriculture: some
evidence from the highlands of Ecuador. Journal of Development Economics, 23(2), 333-354.
Lewis, M. W., Wigen, K. E., & Wigen, K. (1997). The myth of continents: A critique
of metageography. University of California Press.
Lyberatos, A. (2010). Men of the sultan: the beğlik sheep tax collection system and
the rise of a Bulgarian national bourgeoisie in nineteenth-century Plovdiv. Turkish Historical Review, 1(1), 55-85.
Mandle, J. R. (1983). Sharecropping and the plantation economy in the United States
South. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 10(2-3), 120-129.
Martínez‐Alier, J. (1983). Sharecropping: Some illustrations. The Journal of Peasant
Studies, 10(2-3), 94-106.
Marx, K. (1991). Capital 3. London: Penguin Books, in association with New Left
Review.
431
Matkovski, A. (1969). La resistance des paysans macedoniens contre l'attachement a
la glebe pendant la domination ottoman. In Actes du premier congres international des etudes balkaniques et sud-est europeennes. Sofia: Editions de l’academie bulgare des sciences, 703-708.
McGowan, B. (1981). Economic life in Ottoman Europe: taxation, trade and the
struggle for land, 1600-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melton, E. (1988). Gutsherrschaft in East Elbian Germany and Livonia, 1500–1800:
A critique of the model. Central European History, 21(4), 315-349.
Middell, M., & Naumann, K. (2010). Global history and the spatial turn: from the
impact of area studies to the study of critical junctures of globalization. Journal of Global History, 5(1), 149-170.
Mikhail, A. (2011). Nature and empire in Ottoman Egypt: An environmental
history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mikhail, A. (2015), "Ottoman Iceland: a climate history." Environmental history
20(2), 262-284.
Mironov, B. (1985). The Russian peasant commune after the reforms of the 1860s.
Slavic Review, 44(3), 438-467.
Moßbrucker, H., & Watt, A. (1992). Sharecropping: Traditional economy, class
relation, or social system? Towards a reevaluation. Anthropos, 49-62.
Moutafchieva, V. (1988). Agrarian relations in the Ottoman empire in the 15th and
16th centuries. Boulder: East European Monographs.
Müller, M. (2007). A divided class? Peasants and peasant communities in later
medieval England. Past and present, 195(suppl_2), 115-131.
Nagata, Y. (1997). Tarihte ayanlar: Karaosmanoğulları üzerine bir inceleme.
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Nagata, Y. (2005). Ayan in Anatolia and the Balkans during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries: A case study of the Karaosmanoğlu family. In A. Anastasopoulos (Ed.), Provincial Elites in the Ottoman Empire, Halcyon Days in Crete V. A Symposium Held in Rethymno (pp. 269-294). Rethymno: Crete University Press.
Owens, J. B. (2007). Toward a geographically‐integrated, connected world history:
Employing geographic information systems (GIS). History Compass, 5(6), 2014-2040.
Oyan, O. (2016). Feodalizmden kapitalizme, Osmanlı'dan Türkiye'ye. İstanbul:
Yordam Kitap.
432
Öncel, F. (2018). Agrarian relations and estate (çiftlik) agriculture in Ottoman
Thessaly (c. 1780 – 1880). PhD Thesis, Boğaziçi University.
Özcan, H. (2019). 8 numaralı Manastır şer’iyye sicilinin (65-120 varak)
transkripsiyon ve değerlendirilmesi. MA Thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi.
Öztunç, H. B. (2013), Tanzimat döneminde ekonomik ve sosyal yönleriyle
Manastır şehri. PhD Thesis, İstanbul Üniversitesi.
Öztürk, S. (2003). Türkiye'de temettuat çalışmaları. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür
Dergisi, (1), 287-304.
Pach, Z. P. (1966). The development of feudal rent in Hungary in the fifteenth
century. Economic History Review, 1-14.
Palairet, M. (1997). The Balkan economies c.1800–1914: Evolution without
development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pamuk, Ş. (2005). Osmanlı ekonomisinde bağımlılık ve büyüme 1820-1913.
İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Parker, G. (2008). Crisis and catastrophe: the global crisis of the seventeenth century
reconsidered. The American Historical Review, 113(4), 1053-1079.
Parveva, S. (2013). Villages, peasants and landholdings in the Edirne region in the
second half of the 17th century. In Penka Peykovska & Gabor Demeter (Eds.), Regions, Borders, Societies, Identities in Central and Southeastern Europe, 17th – 21st Centuries (Bulgarian-Hungarian History Conference, Sofia, 16-17 May 2012) (pp. 17-33). Sofia, Budapest.
Parveva, S. (2009). Rural agrarian and social structure in the Edirne region during
the second half of the seventeenth century. In Village, town and people in the Ottoman Balkans 16th-mid-19th century (pp.11-60). İstanbul: The Isis Press.
Patnaik, U. (1983). Classical theory of rent and its application to India: Some
preliminary propositions, with some thoughts on sharecropping. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 10(2-3), 71-87.
Pearce, R. (1983), Sharecropping: Towards a Marxist view. Journal of Peasant
Studies. (10):2-3, 42-70.
Pehlivan, P. (2022). İştip’de ayanlık: Nazırzade ailesi. MA Thesis, Çanakkale
Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi.
Perelman, M. (2000). The invention of capitalism: Classical political economy and
the secret history of primitive accumulation. Durham & London : Duke University Press.
433
Pertev, R. (1986). A new model for sharecropping and peasant holdings. The Journal
of Peasant Studies, 14(1), 27-49.
Petmezas, S. D. (1990). Patterns of protoindustrialization in the Ottoman empire:
The case of eastern Thessaly, ca. 1750-1860. Journal of European Economic History, 19(3), 575-603.
Petmezas, S. (2005). Christian communities in 18th and early 19th century Ottoman
Greece: Their fiscal functions. In M. Greene (Ed.), Minorities in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.
Petmezas, S. (2009). Agriculture and economic growth in Greece, 1870-1973. In
Pedro Lains and Vicent Pinilla-Navaro (Eds.), Agriculture and economic growth in Europe (pp. 353-374). London: Routledge.
Petmezas, S. (2015). Land tenure and land settlement in Vostizza from Ottoman to
Venetian rule: G.I.S. mapping of the Venetian cadastro of 1700.” In Elias Kolovos (Ed.), Ottoman Rural Societies and Economies: Halcyon Days in Crete VIII: A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 13-15 January 2012 (pp.423-459). Rethymno: Crete University Press.
Petmezas, S. (2016). Growth and crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean during the first
globalization: a view from Greece. In Alp Yücel Kaya, Aysegül Sabuktay & Dilek Akyalçin Kaya (Eds.), History Culture and Politics in the Mediterranean “The need for a plural and diverse unity” Symposium Papers, (pp. 74-83).
Pinson, M. (1975). Ottoman Bulgaria in the first Tanzimat period‐the revolts in Nish
(1841) and Vidin (1850). Middle Eastern Studies, 11(2), 103-146.
Prifti, K. “Manastır”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (available online at
https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/manastir--makedonya).
Rao, C. H. (1971). Uncertainty, entrepreneurship, and sharecropping in India.
Journal of Political Economy, 79(3), 578-595.
Rosdolsky, R. (1951). The distribution of the agrarian product in feudalism. The
Journal of Economic History, 11(3), 247-265.
Ruşid, B. (2016). Salnamelere göre XIX. asırda İştip’te sosyo-ekonomik ve idari
durum. MA Thesis, Uludağ Üniversitesi.
Quataert, D. (2003). Ottoman history writing and changing attitudes towards the
notion of “decline”. History Compass 1, 1-9.
Sadat, D. R. (1972). Rumeli ayanları: The eighteenth century. The Journal of Modern
History, 44(3), 346-363.
434
Schilcher, L. (1991). The grain economy of late Ottoman Syria and the issue of
large-scale commercialization. In Ç. Keyder & F. Tabak (Eds.), Landholding and commercial agriculture in the Middle East (pp. 173-195). State University of New York Press.
Sefer, A., Yıldız, A., & Kabadayı, M. E. (2021). Labor migration from Kruševo:
Mobility, Ottoman transformation, and the Balkan highlands in the 19th century. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 53(1), 73–87.
Skwarczyński, P. (1956). The problem of feudalism in Poland up to the beginning
of the 16th century. The Slavonic and East European Review, 34(83), 292-310.
Stahl, H. (1980). Traditional Romanian village communities: The transition from the
communal to the capitalist mode of production in the Danube region. Cambridge University Press.
Stanziani, A. (2014). Bondage, labor and rights in Eurasia from the sixteenth to the
early twentieth centuries. New York-Oxford: Berghahn.
Stoianovich, T. (1953). Land tenure and related sectors of the Balkan economy,
1600–1800. The Journal of Economic History, 13(4), 398-411.
Stoianovich, T. (1960). The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant. The Journal
of Economic History, 20 (2), 234-313.
Stoianovich, T. (1962). Factors in the decline of Ottoman society in the Balkans.
Slavic Review, 21(4), 623-632.
Stolcke, V., & Hall, M. M. (1983). The introduction of free labour on São Paulo
coffee plantations. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 10(2-3), 170-200.
Stoyanovski, A. (1974). XVII. yüzyılın sonuna kadar Makedonya'nın Osmanlı
hakimiyeti devrinde idarî taksimatı. Edebiyat Fakültesi Matbaası.
Şahin, C. (2007). Ondokuzuncu yüzyıl’da Samsun’da çiftlik sahibi
Hazinedarzadeler ile kiracı-köylüler arasındaki arazi ve vergi ihtilafı üzerine Bazı Gözlemler ve Sorular. Kebikeç, 24, 75-88.
Şahin, C. (2005). The economic power of Anatolian ayans in the late eighteenth
century: The case of the Caniklizades. International Journal of Turkish Studies, 11(1-2), 29-49.
Tabak, F. (2008). The waning of the Mediterranean, 1550-1870: A geohistorical
approach. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2001). Landlords, refugees and nomads: Struggles for land
around late-nineteenth-century Ayvalık. New Perspectives on Turkey (24), 51-82.
435
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2004). Land disputes and ethno-politics: North-western Anatolia,
1877-1912. In S. Engerman & J. Metzer (Eds.), Ethno-nationality, property rights in land and territorial sovereignty in historical perspective. London: Routledge.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2006). Eleni hatun’un zeytin bahçeleri: 19. yüzyılda Anadolu’da
mülkiyet hakları nasıl inşa edildi? Tarih ve Toplum, Yeni Yaklaşımlar (4), 121-147.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2013). “A very important requirement of social life”:
Privatisation of land, criminalisation of custom, and land disputes in 19th-century Anatolia. In V. Guéno and D. Guignard (Eds.), Les acteurs des transformations foncières autour de la Méditerranée au XIXe siè-cle (pp. 25-49), Paris.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2015). Ottoman legal revolution in the 19th-century Balkans:
The role of local councils and courts in the making of property and criminal law. In Stolleis, M. Konflikt und koexistenz. Die rechtsordnungen südosteuropas im 19. und 20 jahrhundert, Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, Frankfurt am Main.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2015). The Ottoman agrarian question and the making of
property and crime in nineteenth century. In Elias Kolovos (Ed.), Ottoman Rural Societies and Economies: Halcyon Days in Crete VIII: A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 13-15 January 2012 (pp.309-332). Rethymno: Crete University Press.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. (2022). Landed estates, rural commons and collective agriculture
in Ottoman Niş and Leskofçe in the nineteenth century, Turkish Historical Review, 13(3), 343-371.
Terzibaşoğlu, Y. & Kaya, A. Y. (2021). 19. yüzyılda Balkanlar’da toprak rejimi ve
emek ilişkileri. In U. Karakoç & A. Y. Kaya (Eds.), İktisat tarihinin dönüşü (pp. 49-105), İletişim.
Thorner, A. (1982). Semi-feudalism or capitalism? Contemporary debate on
classes and modes of production in India. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 17, No. 51, 2061-2066.
Topolski, J. (1974). The manorial-serf economy in Central and Eastern Europe in the
16th and 17th centuries. Agricultural history, 48(3), 341-352.
Topolski, J. (1981). Continuity and discontinuity in the development of the feudal
system in Eastern Europe (Xth to XVIIth centuries). Journal of European Economic History, 10(2), 373.
Tökin, İ. H. (1990). Türkiye köy iktisadiyatı. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
436
Ursinus, M. (2005). The çiftlik sahibleri of Manastır as a local elite, late
seventeenth to early nineteenth century. In A. Anastasopoulos (Ed.), Provincial Elites in the Ottoman Empire, Halcyon Days in Crete V. A Symposium Held in Rethymno (pp. 247-257). Rethymno: Crete University Press.
Veinstein, G. (1975). Ayan de la région d'Izmir et le commerce du Levant (deuxième
moitié du XVIIIe siècle). Revue des Mondes Musulmans et de la Méditerranée, 20(1), 131-147.
Veinstein, G. (1991). On the çiftlik debate.In Ç. Keyder & F. Tabak (Eds.),
Landholding and commercial agriculture in the Middle East (pp. 35-53). State University of New York Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1979). The Ottoman Empire and the capitalist world-economy: Some
questions for research. Review (Fernand Braudel Center),2(3), 389-398.
White, R. (2010). What is spatial history. Spatial History Lab, 1, 1-6.
White, S. (2013). The real little ice age. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 44(3),
327-352.
White, S. (2013). The climate of rebellion in the early modern Ottoman Empire.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yaycıoğlu, A. (2016). Partners of the empire: The crisis of the Ottoman order in
the age of revolutions. Stanford University Press.
Yereli, A. B., Köktaş, A. M., & Selçuk, İ. Ş. (2015). Sorgun kazası XIX. yüzyıl
temettüat defterleri üzerinden gelir dağılımı ve göreli yoksulluk üzerine bir inceleme. Sosyoekonomi, 23(23), 113-138.
Yükçü, S., Fidancı, A. G. N., & Soysal, U. U. (2014). Osmanlı Devleti’nde
Temettuat Defterleri’nin önemi ve vergisel açıdan değerlendirilmesi: Tire kazası örneği. Muhasebe ve Finans Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, (7), 170-199.
Yıldız, A. (2020). Politics, economy, and çiftliks: The history of four çiftliks in
Larissa (Yenişehir-i Fener). Turkish Historical Review, 11(1), 28-65.
Yıldız, A. & Kokdaş, İ. (2020). Peasantry in a well-protected domain: Wallachian
peasantry and Muslim çiftlik/kışlaks under the Ottoman rule. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 22(1), 175-190.
Żytkowicz, L. (1968). An investigation into agricultural production in Masovia in the
first half of the 17th century. Acta Poloniae Historica, 18, 99-118.
Zytkowicz, L. (1972). The peasant's farm and the landlord's farm in Poland from
the 16th to the middle of the 18th century. Journal of European Economic History, 1(1), 135-154.
437
ONLINE SOURCES
3rd Military Mapping Survey of Austria-Hungary / A Monarchia III. katonai
felmérése (available online at http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/topo/3felmeres.htm; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:3rd_Military_Mapping_Survey_of_Austria-Hungary).
GeoNames Geographical Database (available online at https://www.geonames.org/).
Index Anatolicus (available online at https://nisanyanmap.com/).