Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gerber OLC

    Uploaded by

    Lia Tarachansky
    4 views13 pages

    Original Title

    Gerber_OLC

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views13 pages

    Gerber OLC

    Uploaded by

    Lia Tarachansky

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    © CHAPTER FIVE * The Ottoman Land Law of 1858 and Its Consequences a In 1858, the Otoman government enacted a land law as one of the chief Jaws of the Tanzimat' It was destined to become one of the main pivots on ‘which most of the agrarian issues in the Middle East turned in the sub- sequent century, and it heralded the opening of a new chapter in the agrar- fan history of the region. In my view this law has given rise to a great many misconceptions emanating from the dichotomy in the historiography of the Middle East between the study ofthe nineteenth century and that ofthe pre- ceding centuries, For the most par, the land law divided the state's lands into five distinct legal categories: mule, land held in absolute freehold; mini, state land held on lease; wvagf, land that belonged to pious foundations; metruka, land ear ‘marked for public purposes; and mevat, waste and unused land: differentiation was berween mull and miri. The difference, of commensurate with what we have seen in the preceding chap land was supposed to be restricted to orchards adjacent to the bi rea of the village, and mini land was supposed to be equivalent to the outlying arable land. Doreen Warriner expressed some wonder at the ostensible meaninglessness of this law? Mulk and miri, she correctly observed, amounted to much the same thing insofar as the actual use of the land was concerned. ‘Another surprising fat is that these different divisions do not cover the leasehold tenancies between landlord and cultivator which are by far the ‘most general form of tenure, and which affect the actual tillers ofthe soil, ‘more closely than do any of these muddled and rather meaningless legal categories. The Ontoman Land Code apparently does none of the things that a land-tenure code oughtto do. The question arises therefore what the Purpose of these categories of land really was. So purposeless are they at ‘rst sight that itis easy to conclude that they represent simply some ori. ental amitude unintelligible to the West or Oo G. Baer put forward another theory. He uidimed that the purpose of the Ottoman land law was to reassert the state’ ‘Supposedly usurped in part or in toto by feudal the State was weak, and... its rights over its lands wer local powers. Therefore, the Ottoman law aimed these {fights of the State, mainly by imposing severe restrictions on holders of mat lands and by listing exacdy and in detail al rights held by them before go, enactment which could not be denied them, ‘The challenge Baer described was really only a challenge to Ottoman political authority* As has been previously indicated, neither multezimns nor this process” This quotation reveals the fallacy inherent in the whole argument —that Px ving the enactment of the land law to an attempt to prevent state lands Nineyards in order to recapture control of its own lands. Yet with all the changes that occurred in the late Otto only a tiny fraction of the lands were st this sense. There was never really ‘2 Question of usurpation of such land: at the most it could be misused Many of these misunderstandings were created by a fllure to place the 1858 land law in its historical perspective. In fact, this law was no more and ‘no less than a reenactment ofthe classical fiteenth and sixteenth century OTTOMAN LAND LAW o O Ottoman eanuens relating to agrarian maters, with some minor modifica: tions. These were partly a response to some small changes that had crept nitions of mari and mull land in this law were precisely the same as they had been since the fifteenth century? Thus, according to Article 78 of the land tas; land was acquired (other than through purchase or inheritance) by pos- session for a ten-year period, This accorded exactly with tradition,” as did the most important ruling whereby land not worked for three consecutive Years became mablu! (of lapsed ownership)." Basically the same applied to the right of succession to sown lands. The land law specified that both male. and female offspring could inherit in equality and without payment of tapu.* Although the classical kanuns were not entirely systematic on this Point, in many the same ruling was valid—equality between sons and

    You might also like