Social History

World Philosophy 53

CHALYI ANDRII,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Kyiv, Ukraine)
e-mail: [email protected], ORCID 0000-0002-4702-2560

PURCHASING THE LAND ESTATES IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

DURING 15th - 19th CENTURIES
The article is devoted to the problem of a landowning in the Ottoman Empire during the 15th
and 19th centuries. It has become conventional wisdom that due to a feudal structure of the Ottoman's
state there could not be any chance to own the land, purchase or rent, as all land was in solely
possession of a Sultan, who granted his guards, nobles and warriors small tenures in order to
maintain their loyalty. This system was known as a "timar system" and was used and still being
used for proving feudal origins and social core of the Ottoman Empire. The main problem was that
the scholars cycled only on the type of land possession which was one out of many. The Ottomans
combined many different types of landowning from a personal property to the religious endowments,
which were different in taxing, juridical aspects and so on. This order was constructed upon
Muslim views on the land and property, according to the Ottoman's popular Turk views and Ottoman's
laws. The Ottoman's law-books (kanunnameler) written upon Sultans Mehmet I (1451-1481), Selim I
(1512-1520) and Suleyman I (1520-1566) clarified the situation. Everyone in the Ottoman's state
could own, buy, sell, or rent a piece of land, which could be considered as a private property. That
was possible with no distinction of sex, race or religion. The state lands were used only in exchange
of army service and could not be privatized, but there were numerous accidents of semi-legal
actions of converting the timar land into a mьlk (basic property). That became easier to realize
after demolition of a timar system by the Sultan Mahmoud II in 1831 (1808-1839) and ratification of
the Land code in 1858 which created the land market of European-style in the Ottoman Empire.
Key words: Near East; the Ottoman Empire; land owning; the ottoman's land laws; feudalism.

Inrtoduction serfdom. Using violence as a lever, feudals exploit villagers

An issue of land property in the pre-industrial societies more and more. An economic side of this subjugation em-
was considered to be essential as agriculture gave ultimate bodied in list of rents: bondhold), natural or money tax. Feudal
income (Markova, 2014: 55). In lieu of the matter the land also could act as a law enforcement unit or even judge in
tenure had not only a private interest of everyday survival; relation to his peasants" (Muravieva, 2014: 55 - English
however it had a national interest of tax collecting in order translation is mine - A.C.)
to keep bureaucracy working. The theories interpreted land medieval property could
Due to accepted views in historiography, Medieval and be conditionally divided into three types: "the Asian mode
Early Modern world did have a land market as a judicial of production" (manufacturing goods and reciprocating
event (there was no right to buy, sell, lease, or bequeath land under a strict almost total state control), "the rent mode
land, to consider it as inalienable private property). In a of production" theory (in which private property prevails)
general scheme vassal got allotment, that could be used and mixed "the oriental feudalism" (Alaev, L.B., Ashrafyan,
as a "conditional private property" (Nureev, 2011: 96), in K.Z, 2002: 2-3). The Ottoman empire as an integral part of
case of fulfilling the feudal obligations (Blyskavyckyj, 2013: so called "Eastern civilization" absorbed stereotypical
40), a common peasant was only a temporary landholder views on a land question: all land, forests and wastelands
and could not execute his right to use land according to were sole property of a Sultan, which could be granted as
his own will. Such a thesis is considered as a postulate a tenure for the public service (first of all military and
both for "the West" and "the East". During the historio- bureaucratic one), its owners or rather managers had no
graphical processes aforementioned scheme became right to execute any economical deeds and acted as the
known as "feudalism", created in the 18th century and still tenants at best; moreover the land was not an object of
used as a motto with further prolixity (Pimenova, 2006: economic relations until the 19th century (Rubel, 2002: 8-
64). In post-soviet historiography the meaning of a term 9), when Islamic land legislation was codified and the first
feudal has been referred to Marx/Lenin's definition with pro-European cadastral registers were created, in parti-
almost no change: cular the Ottomans basically adopted the European land
"The feudal mode of production means such a state of and legislation system, which could be doubtfully proved
society, that held landowning as an economic concrete. after Ottoman Land Code of 1858 analysis 1. Nevertheless,
Productive relations of feudalism based on private property there are critical thoughts emphasizing the fact of rapid
on land held by feudal (means of productions) and semi-full
ownership of peasant (manufacturer). Manufacturer's ser-
1
vitude expended vastly till almost slavery or legally justified The Ottoman Land, 1892. London: William Clawson and Sons.

ISSN 1728-9343 (Print)

ISSN 2411-3093 (Online)
SKHID No. 4 (162) July-August 2019
 54 Соціальна філософія
Всесвітня історія

changes that could be possibly interpreted as a creation aspects of land relations in the Ottoman Empire are
of private property in the Ottoman Empire long before the clarified.
19 th century (Cuno, 1980: 245). Even despite intense
criticism of traditional statements of the feudal theory with Results and Discussion
the vast and numerous examples from Ethiopia to Japan, It would be appropriate to begin with highlighting the
where acts of purchasing the land are also noticed and land system and land granting typology and its dynamics
documented (Khismatullin, B. R., 2014; Benti, A. H. and in the Ottoman Empire. Generally all lands, forests, water
Eleni, T. L. and Benti, A. P., 2016; Buluda, I., 1986; Sab- resources and other natural objects were divided into three
ra, A., 2004; Kulishenko, O. Yu., 2014; Krassov, O. Y., 2016), large groups of agricultural units:
soviet historiographical clichй about a rigid land system 1) Mьlk (mьlk arazi) - a private owned possession,
on the "the East" still exists, and an issue of existing which can be bought, sold, bequeath, or endowed (Pa-
"feudalsim" is still debatable among many researchers, kalin, 1998: 612).
who have made diametrically controversial and opposite 2) Vaqf (vaqf) - the land or another immovable property
statements upon the nature of Ottoman feudalism, namely, belonged to the endowment that could not be confiscated
on the one hand depicting it as a unique fact, and on the or taxed (Pamuk, 2005: 83-84).
other hand analyzing Ottoman feudalism throughout the 3) Miri (miri arazi) - both juridical and administrative
European analogues, having compared the elements in term, for indicating state property and income, which were
the light of their adaptation to the Islamic world (Matuz, put straight to the state treasury, (Somel, 2003: 192). The
1982: 281). term is almost comparable to a term "зift-hane" (a peasant
house holding with all the instruments and a couple of
The aim of this article is an endeavor to show the oxen, that plowed the land piece, estimating its size)
impropriety of Marxist-soviet interpretation of land relations (Somel, 2003: 68).
in the Ottoman Empire regarding to the new ideas and All these groups were divided into the smaller ones
theories in the state power and economics provided by distinguished from each other in a legal status, economic
European historians and according to the European data value and amount of collecting taxes.
(an epochal research of Medieval Europe and medieval In the Ottoman Empire as in any Muslim country all
land relations studied by Marc Bloch, Susen Reynolds, aspects of life from the state business to a private daily life
Richard Lachmann, Charles Tilly, Perry Anderson and were derived from Islam doctrines. The fact admitted the
others), and also based on Asian data that question an right of a human to exploit and use land goods, but not
ability of purchasing the land in the "the East" in general, provide a right of full possession. The status was formu-
and in the Ottoman Empire in particular. lated as a God-human connection. Truly ownership (ra-
qaba), land transferring or bequeathing depended on a
Methods spiritual connection and was legitimated by it (Sait, Lim,
The resource base of this research includes the Otto- 2006: 101). Simultaneously, property rights on land were
mans codes known as kanunname, the Ottomans land identified by Prophet's rules as well as by the contacts
registers and recollections of foreigners. between Muslim and non-Muslim world, especially with
Historiography of land tenure in the Ottoman Empire the Europeans; moreover the interactions prompted the
has been presented by the solid specialized researches fruitful thoughts of what the Muslim land Code would have
and also by the general articles with the substantial been if the Europeans have never had any impact on it
factography. Among the general studies, the monumental (Fachini, 2007: 9). Yet, the pragmatism, flexibility, ability
work edited by Ekmeledin Ihsanoğlu should be mentioned, and willingness to negotiate, adapted the existing institutes
where almost all sides of history and daily life of the Otto- for a new reality which permitted the Ottomans to preserve
man Empire are enlightened ( İhsanoğlu , 2006); never- their stable governmental status to the modern era, and
theless, there is a minimum amount of information dealing simultaneously was balanced by the limits of their system
with land tenure except the general data of land holding (Pamuk, 2009: 2). In concord with it the Ottoman's system
types and their quantity. The same descriptive article of of land usage had appeared long before the Ottoman's
Єevket Pamuk who is one of the leading expert in the state and collected Muslim principles as well as the
Ottoman economic history, scrutinized a village economy appropriate legacy heritage of their predecessors - Seljuk
in a broad context of the Ottoman economic system and Sassanid's countries and Turkic national tradition
(Pamuk, 2009). The property on land with a social back- (Biyik, Yavuz, 2003: 3).
ground is analyzed in the works of Kemal Karpat (1972), More or less the institutionalized division of land and
Norman Itzkowich (1972), Russian ottomanist Yuriy Pet- installation of rules were organized by the most profound
rosian (1992), the useful and combined material is given and glorious sultans - Мehmed ІІ Fatih (1451-1481) Selim
in the encyclopedias of Ottoman history, edited by Gabor І Yavuz (1512-1520) and Suleiman І Kanuni (1520-1566),
Agoston and Bruce Masters (2009) alongside with Selcuk who in the legal codes "Kanunname" combined the norms
Somel (2008). of a sharia law, Turkic customary law, and a compendium
Ukrainian historians have also involved in the investi- of sultan and government rescripts which could be used
gation. Among them Antonina Makarevich should be as the legal precedents. The earliest description of land
mentioned who deals with a unique form of land using usage can be found in a vaqf-name (a document, that
known as vaqf (Makarevych, 2016). The specialized works allowed some pieces of land or other property to be en-
are represented by a monography of Ismail Hьsrev Tцkin, dowed) issued by Ibrahim-bey a principality from Karaman
"Turkish village economy" (1972), where the social in 1432. The extract provides the following:
intercourses concerning land are analyzed on the basis of "…enlisted in the act pieces of land, plows, channels,
social history methods and throughout the extended farmstead with all it's revenues, dwellers, valleys, mountains,
historical period. Other proceedings are represented by meadows, trees, rivers, stones, hills, roads and all goods,
the articles in English and Turkish, where the various doors, sources with all internal and external rights from this

СХІД № 4 (162) липень-серпень 2019 р. ISSN 1728-9343 (Print)

ISSN 2411-3093 (Online)
Social History
World Philosophy 55
very moment becomes a vaqf possession and can't be sold, In Kanunname of Selim I Yavuz we can find additional
donated, mortgaged, or bequeathed" 2 (English translation proofs of peasants' personal freedom despite an eco-
is mine - A.C.) nomical domination of timar granted people:
Consequently, that vaqf as an Islamic form of a "If someone, who hadn't have зift according to defter, would
charitable trust could encompass all the possessions become owner of a зift and зiftlik (team of oxen and piece of
including land that after signing vaqf-name could not be land), should be done next: resmi- зift should be collect from
sold, taken, and become an object of legacy from a founder them. In this case all determine by land", When someone of
to the successors through the male line, and stayed under external rayats gets land and sipahi, coming to his land will
their direct control. Nevertheless, Vaqf possessions stayed say - you are stranger, -the land should not be leased to
under the State supervision and regularly provided the other. Only in case of dire need, rayat can get some land,
scrupulous accounts on their income and outcome. Each booked by another"
vaqf had their own bookkeeper, who did all paper work, "City dwellers can hold зiftlik only within the city "In case of
which was used to make the governmental reports. Any rayat death, and if he had five or six married or bachelor
attempt of infringement from the state power ultimately sons, but they are able to work let them hold father's land
provoked the objections of vaqf-owners motivated their with no partition and in common", "зiftlik is forbidden to be
rights violation as well as the massive popular revolts portioned. But if they want to divide it let them do it, they going
(Makarevych, 2016: 24). Needless to say that only private to inherit father's land" 5. (English translation is mine -
property could be arranged at vaqf, as a result the moment A.C.)
demonstrates the existence of private property for all kinds Based on the text extract a conclusion could be drawn
of property - movable or immovable. that rayats were to pretend on зift practically in each
The state lands in the Ottoman Empire, are generally occasion, could divide it or bequeath. "It's in the possession
associated with so called a timar system, which constituted of sipahi, who he is going to lend it, so be it" 6. (English
more than 87% of all lands in the end of the 16th century, translation is mine - A.C.)
and 40% in the middle of the 18th century (Agoston, Masters, - sipahi did not own the land as well as rayats; however
2009: 19-20). According to the concept, government granted controlled the way of its usage. It could be possible for
its military class "askeri" a right to collect taxes from the women to gain a зift, but in this case, the law became
appointed house holdings, particularly on their favor. The ambiguous:
division of such donations (timars) was based on the "If the land stays empty and woman will ask for it and
amount of revenues: under 20 000 akзe (silver coin) - timar, proclaimed - "I will pay what is required", - there are no
from 20 000 to 100 000 - zeamet, exceeding 100 000 - padishah's law to grant a land to a woman - " It's in the
hass (İhsanoğlu , 2006: 443). The system often called on possession of sipahi, who he is going to lend it, so be it".
the European manner "military-allod" had been con- Nevertheless: "But if woman obtain land in some way, and
structed for a hundred years and existed till the 19th century keeps зift unharmed, paying ushr (land tax), and other taxes
(Petrosian, 1992: 4-5). It was solely a Sultan's prerogative to sipahi, should not be any infringement and don't dare to
to order a timar-name, but there were many documented say that woman couldn't replace man and sipahi shouldn't
occasions, when people granted with a timar got their took the land from her" 7. (English translation is mine -
papers directly from their officers, despite an official A.C.)
prohibition. (Itzkowitch, 1972: 44): Consequently sipahi had no actual right to possess
"It has been said, that beylerbey gives to the sipahi some any kind of land except obtaining revenues from it
letters, in which prescribes kadiis (judges), that mention exploitation. Moreover, timar granted people had no right
sipahi can collect from rayat something more. Beylerbey to register the right of propriety selling, renting or be-
shouldn't do that. If they violate the law and wright it again, queathing; nevertheless there were distinguished excep-
kadii can cancel that order and no subpoena will happened" 3. tions: in the 16th - 17th centuries on the territory of Ahalciz
(English translation is mine - A.C.) paşalık (modern Georgia), timar lands as yurdluk and
In Kanunname of Sultan Mehmed II Fatih we find the ocaklık appeared both in the legal status of state lands
following statement: (azarı murıye ) and private (mьlk), and the smart owners
"…If sьvari (heavy armored cavalryman - A.C.) will forcely took care about keeping their timar rights safe and
dismiss rayat from his зift, in case of rayat returns tapu (land untouchable, bequeathing them to their successors. A
tax) should not be taken. If rayat will leave without permission procedure of a new owner's introduction was applied in
or keep his land untreated during the year, sьvari can act in the case of a former owner's death, who used a timar
the way he want. House and field of rayat-fugitive belongs to according to the other legal procedure (Zajcev, Oreshkova,
sьvari, but if sьvari driven him away, house and field still 2006: 326).
belongs to rayat" 4 (English translation is mine - A.C.) The same ambiguity could be traced in the 17th century
documents depicting a situation in Hotin district - nahiye
2
"Вакф-наме" Ибрагима Бея из княжества Караман. ["Wakf-
(modern Ukraine):
name" by Ibrahim Bey from the Principality of Karaman]. Retrieved "Lenkovci village, 29 inhabitants. Entrusted to Ali-agha,
from: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Turk/XV/1420- agha of left wing gцnьliyan. The same day (first draft on the
1440/Ibrahim-bey/vakuf_1432.htm (Accessed: 11.06.2019) margins): mьlk-name is given in march 27 1717 (second
3
Книга законов султана Сулеймана Кануни. [Book of Laws of
Sultan Suleiman Kanuni]. Retrieved from: http://www.vostlit.info/
5
Texts/Dokumenty/Turk/XV/Agrar_s troj/1/2.htm (Ac cess ed: Книга законов султана Селим-хана. [Book of the Law of Sultan
11.06.2019) Selim Khan]. Retrieved from: http://vostlit.narod.ru/Texts/
4
Книга законов султана Мехмеда ІІ Фатиха. [Book of the law of Dokumenty/Turk/XVI/1520-1540/SelimI/Kanun_name/text.htm
Sultan Mehmed II Fatih]. Retrieved from: http://www.vostlit.info/ (Accessed: 11.06.2019)
6
Texts/Dokumenty/Turk/XV/Agrar_s troj/1/1.htm (Ac cess ed: Ibid.
7
11.06.2019) Ibid.

ISSN 1728-9343 (Print)

ISSN 2411-3093 (Online)
SKHID No. 4 (162) July-August 2019
 56 Соціальна філософія
Всесвітня історія

draft): Cancelled by Sultan's firman May 16, 1718" another by first invaders and their successors, and never by written law,
one "Nesfoyo village. Desolate. Entrusted on the right of left codifying before conquer" 11, the authors of a brochure set
wing gцnьliyan to Kolchak Ilias-agha march 22, 1716 (first strictly negative tone for the land property's relation in the
draft on the margins): mьlk-name is given in march 27 1717. Ottoman Empire. Notwithstanding, the following citation
(second draft): Cancelled by Sultan's firman May 16, 1718" 8. is absolutely in discord with the previous one:
(English translation is mine - A.C.) "…we present literery translation of defterdar's Mohammed
In this manner, there was a specific procedure of getting Chelebi-efendi declaration, who was appointed by Sultan
mьlk-name (a privatization voucher) but the content and Selim II in 1566 to fix the financial laws and bring together in
peculiarities of such documents were unknown. An ad- one ultimate law: All lands in muslim state could be divided
ditional change appeared in 1695, when the Ottoman into a three classes. First one - paying tithe (Ersi-ashrige)
government installed an institute of malikane - a hereditary granted to Muslims and consists their full and uncontested
right to cultivate and use land allotment, nevertheless the private property which they can buy, sold, bestow, or
act, did not change the course of a rapid crisis between endowed, this manors are not pay haradge by Muslim laws.
power, peasants and land-holders. The same situation Second one - manors, that pays Ersi haradgie, after the
was with the зiftliks, that began to appear swiftly and in conquering can be kept after its prevous owners with
abundance in the documents of the Ottoman correspon- obligation to pay not only tithe but also a Haradgie Nuiwasaf
dence from the beginning of the 18th century. They were (land tax) and Haradgie mukdesseta (building tax) Lands of
deliberately oriented on the foreign markets, and could be a second type are as well as the first class are being in full
conventionally regarded as the first private ventures and and uncontested property of their possessors which they
their owners as entrepreneurs (Scott, 1998, s. 32). The can buy, sold, bestow, or endowed (English translation
Ottoman document of the time of Selim III reign (1789- and text selection are mine - A.C.).12
1809) gives evidence: Consequently, the foreigners admitted the ownership
"If some land and householdings belonging to the mo- of land even by the standards of their own countries. They
nasteries or individuals from the ancient times, were violently were equipped with the documents certified the estab-
confiscated, and till our time is called rayat lands, should be lished order of things since the 16th century; nevertheless
meticulously investigated. In case this land are held with they had still interpreted the land relations in the Ottoman
offences, it should be returned to previous and truly owners" 9. Empire as the medieval and feudal ones. Regarding to
(English translation is mine - A.C.) the state lands a situation was ambiguous:
Abovementioned extract also stated a respectful atti- "Ottoman land belonging to this class are called crown
tude to the private property, whatever it was and whoever it lands. They can't be privatized and while it's user is
possessed. It should be mentioned that our understanding cultivating an keeps it safe and profitable, paying all taxes,
and interpretation depend on the translation correctness the land can't be taken off. The land transpassing to the
and accuracy in some terms' interpretation which sound heritors through man's line, and even when man-owners
in a different way in Ottoman and therefore have another are dead, the land don't return to treasury. Generally it
juridical meaning different from the present one. can't be sold and every deal are treated as invalid, accor-
The evidences of foreigners in the Ottoman Empire ding to the law" 13. (English translation and text selection
concerning a land question and its legal structure contained are mine - A.C.)
the obvious contradictions; the most demonstrative would According to these statements, the inability of buying
be a document of 1826: and selling the state lands did not make their temporary
"As for most of the Ottoman country is consists of ap- owners dependent, instead allowed them getting revenues
panages, it should be shown the character of land property from the land in accordance with fulfilling their obligations.
and supreme power, not only by Muslim rule but also by The groundbreaking shifts in the land relations appeared
Osman in particular" 10. (English translation is mine - A.C.) only in the 19th century. The first strike was made by Sultans
In the very first lines only one type of landholding Mahmud II (1808-1839) and his son Abdulmecid (1839-
was emphasized, which was not a dominant one at the 1861), by laws of 1831, 1834 and 1839 which cancelled a
19 th century. There were further contradictions embodied timar system and permitted to register it as a private
and developed in some paragraphs: "It can't be no doubt, property - mьlk. In 1848 the new land law introduced the
that in Turkey as well as in the rest muslim states of Asia, real elements of a free-market (the land could be purchased at
and hereditary land right protected by law never exists, right of the auctions) but remained the small owners alone with
possession grounds on the direct ownership, which were granted the old land elite (Tцkin, 1972: 173). And the final redaction
of the Ottoman Land Code (Arazi Kanunnamesi) practically
brought the European practice of land use into the Ottoman
8
Турецкие документы о состоянии Хотинской округи (Yахие) Empire in 1858 (Tцkin, 197: 119). All land was divided into
в первой половине XVIII в. [Turkish documents on the state of 5 classes: Arazi Memluke (the private land), Arazi Miriye
the Khotyn district (Yakhiye) in the first half of the 18th century].
(the state land), Arazi Mevkufe (the rented land), Arazi
Retrieved from: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Turk/
XVIII/1700-1720/Dok-ty_Chotin_okr/frametext.htm (Accessed:
Metruke (abandoned or with an unidentified owner), Arazi
11.06.2019) Mevat (the wastelands) 14. For historical accuracy it should
9
Священный рескрипт. Сентябрь 1802 г. [Holy script. September be mentioned that a kind of the constructive change and
1802]. Retrieved from: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/ the process of defining an owner led to the further catast-
T urk/XIX/1800-1820/Selim_III/Dva_Ukaza_i_Sv_res kript/ rophic consequences: in the situation when 80% out of a
frametext3.htm (Accessed: 11.06.2019)
10
Государственные законы и постановления Оттоманской
11
Порты. [Ottoman Port State Laws and Regulations]. Retrieved Ibid.
12
from: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Turk/XIX/1820- Ibid.
13
1840/Gos_zakony_i_post_Ott_Porty/text2.phtml (Accessed: Ibid.
14
11.06.2019) The Ottoman Land, 1892. London: William Clawson and Sons.

СХІД № 4 (162) липень-серпень 2019 р. ISSN 1728-9343 (Print)

ISSN 2411-3093 (Online)
Social History
World Philosophy 57
total of population were rural inhabitants or were con- Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Dar es Salaam.
sumers of the agricultural products, 44% of total state Issue 2. pp. 29-42 (In English).
income originated from the agricultural products, 70% of Sabra, A. (2004). The Rise of a New Class? Land Tenure in
the most deprived Ottoman subjects paid 77% of all taxes Fifteenth-Century Egypt: A Review Article. Middle East Docu-
and 5% of the richest ottomans owned 65% of all land mentation Center. The University of Chicago, Issue 2. pp. 203-
fund in the Empire (Topses, 2017: 264-265). The fact 210 (In English).
additionally proves that the social institutes (ownership of Kulishenko, O. Yu. (2014). Pravo vlasnosti i pravo volodinnya
land in this case) are completely disastrous for any state zemleyu v Hetmanskij Ukrayini: kharakterystyka ponyat. Naukovyj
without an appropriate economic policy which leads to the visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Issue 9. pp.
rise of a constructive legal system that acts according to 167-169 (In Ukrainian).
the interests of all society. Krassov, O. Y. (2016). Systemy zemlevladenyya v stranax
Mahryba. Lex Russica. Issue 6. pp. 184-202 (In Russian).
Conclusion Alaev, L. B., Ashrafyan, K. Z. (ed.) (2002). Istoryya Vostoka:
The Ottoman's land system and the legal characte- In 6 vol. Moscow: Vostochnaya lyteratura, Vol. 2. Vostok v
ristics of the land relationships formed in medieval times sredniye veka. 716 p. (In Russian).
and existed with some changes till the mid-19 th century. İhsanoğlu, E. (ed.) (2006). Istoryya Osmanskoho hosudarstva,
The Ottomans combined different types of land using: obshhestva, cyvylyzacyy: In 2 vol. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura,
private, state and communal in the attempt to raise maxi- Vol. 2. 602 p. (In Russian).
mally a capital of the main source of state income. The Makarevych, A. S. (2016). Znachennya imaretiv v systemi
private lands were an object of the economic activity and vakfu Osmanskoyi imperiyi XIV-XVI st. Naukovi praci istorychnoho
could be bought, sold, rented, exchanged, bestowed and fakultetu Zaporizkoho nacionalnoho universytetu. Issue 45. pp.
endowed. There was no principal distinction who acted 147-150 (In Ukrainian).
as an economic actor whether a person was a man or a Markova, S. P. (2014). Ponyatye "feodalyzm" v sovremennoy
woman, a Muslim or a non-Muslim. The Vaqf land was issledovatelskoy interpretacyy. Vestnyk AHU. Issue 1. pp. 53-60
non-alienated and tax-free, and a Vaqf could be exclusively (In Russian).
created on the private land property. The state lands Muravieva, L. A. (2014). Ekonomika Zapadnoy Yevropy v
certainly could not be an object of economic activity despite period ranneho i klass icheskoho f eodalizma (V-XIV vv.).
the numerous facts proved the opposite and they fully Mezhdunarodnyi bukhalterskyj uchet. Stranycy istorii. Issue 3.
became the economic objects after the timar's system pp. 54-64 (In Russian).
abolishment by a Sultan Mahmud II in 1831. The Land Nureev, R. M. (2011). Feodalnoye obshhestvo kak vyshaya i
Code of 1858 introduced the European-based norms of posledniaya stadiya tradycionnoy ekonomiki. Khrystyanskyi typ
land usage. The problem of a discrepancy of the Ottoman kultury. TERRA ECONOMICUS. Issue 3. pp. 95-140 (In Russian).
land relationships consisted in the difficulty of adequate Zajcev, I. V., Oreshkova, S. F. (ed.) (2010). Osmanskyj mir i
translating the Ottomans' economic terminology in the osmanystika. Sbornyk statej k stoletyyu so dnya rozhdeniya A.
selection and analysis of the sources, and according to a S. Tverytynovoj (1910-1973). Moscow: IV RAN, 516 s. (In
Russian).
prejudiced view of the further Ottomans' contemporaries,
Petrosian, Yu. A. (1992). Osmanskaya imperiya: mohu-
who considered the land relationships in the light of feudal
shhestvo i hibel. Istorycheskye ocherky. Moscow: Vostochnaya
rudiments and emphasized only on the negative sides
literatura, 187 s. (In Russian).
which obviously presented. Nevertheless, according to the
Pimenova, L. A. (2006). Predstavlenyya o "feodalnom" v
economic data of labor productivity (see Appendix 3), the
dorevolyucyonnoj Francyy XVIII v. In.: Hurevych, A. Ya. (ed.),
crop-capacity of preindustrial Ottoman lands was
Odyssej: chelovek v istorii. Feodalizm pered sudom istorikov.
comparable to or in some cases exceeded the rates of the
Moscow: Nauka, pp. 63-77 (In Russian).
industrial states' crop capacity in the 19 th century (Coє-
Rubel, V. A. (2002). Istoriya Serednovichnoho Skhodu. Kyiv:
gel, M. M., 2004: 25). It cannot be explained by the climate
Lybid, 736 p. (In Ukrsinian).
or other natural reasons, disregarding socio-economical Adanır, Fikret (1998). The Ottoman peasantries, 1360-1860.
and institutional causes. The Ottoman's system land In: Scott T. (ed.), The Peasantries of Europe. From the Fourteenth
usage and land relations guaranteed the high levels of to the Eighteenth Centuries. London and New York: Longman,
productivity in general, having stimulated the peasants and pp. 269-310.
especially free people to work as the private owners, who Al-Ossmi, L. and Ahmed, V. (2017). Land, property and user's
were personally interested of working at their private land, rights according to Islamic-Ottoman reforms in Iraq. International
but an ineffective economic policy, the complex and Journal of Heritage Architecture. Issue 3. pp. 379-387 (In English).
branched legal system as well as the absence of industria- Bıyık , C. and Yavuz, A. (2003). The Importance of Property
lization did not secure prosperity for the peasant-owners. Ownership and Management System in the Ottoman Empire in
Point of Today. 2nd FIG Regional Conference Marrakech,
REFERENCES Morocco, December 2-5, P. 1-12 (In English).
Blyskavyckyj, A. A. (2013). Chastnaya sobstvennost na Coєgel, M. M. (2004). Agricultural productivity in the early
zemlyu, Zemelnyj vopros. Issue 9. pp. 39-49 (In Russian). Ottoman Empire. Economic working papers. Issue 35, pp. 1-37 (In
Khismatullin, B. R. (2014). Mezhevanye zemli v Kazanskom English).
khanstve (seredina XV - XVI vv.). Vestnyk Kazanskoho uni- Cuno, K. M. (1980). The origins of private ownership of land in
versyteta kultury i isskustv. Issue 4. pp. 108-111 (In Russian). Egypt: a reappraisal. International journal of Middle East studies.
Benti, A. H. and Eleni, T. L. and Benti, A. P. (2016). Historical Issue 12, pp. 245-275 (In English).
survey of land tenure system and women's right to resource Agoston, G., Masters, B. (ed.) (2009). Encyclopedia of the
access in Northern and Central Ethiopia. African journal of gender Ottoman empire. New York: Facts on File, 689 p. (In English).
and women studies. Issue 3. pp. 20-27 (In English). Facchini, F. (2007). Islam and private property. HAL, pp. 1-16
Buluda, I. (1986). Feudalsim in East Africa. Journal of the (In English).

ISSN 1728-9343 (Print)

ISSN 2411-3093 (Online)
SKHID No. 4 (162) July-August 2019
 58 Соціальна філософія
Всесвітня історія

Itzkowitch, N. (1972). Ottoman empire and Islamic tradition. Феодализм перед судом историков / ред. А. Я. Гуревич. Мос-
Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 125 p. (In English). ква: Наука, 2006. С. 63-77.
Karpat, K. H. (1972). The transformation of the Ottoman state, Рубель В. А. Історія Середньовічного Сходу. Підручник.
1789-1908, International journal of Middle East studies. Issue 3, Київ: Либідь, 2002. 736 с.
pp. 243-289 (In English). Хисматуллин Б. Р. Межевание земли в Казанком ханстве
Sait, S., Lim, H. (ed.) (2006). Land, Law and Islam Property (середина XV - XVI вв.). Вестник Казанского университета
and Human Rights in the Muslim World. London: Zed Books, 241 культуры и искусств. 2014. № 4. С. 108-111.
p. (In English). Adanır Fikret. The Ottoman peasantries, 1360-1860. The
Matuz, J. (1982). The nature and stages of the Ottoman Peasantries of Europe. From the Fourteenth to the Eighteenth
feudalism. Asian and African studies. Issue 16. pp. 281-292 (In Centuries / ed. Tom Scott. London and New York: Longman, 1998.
English). P. 269-310.
Pakalın, M. Z. (1993). Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve terimleri Al-Ossmi L., Ahmed V. Land, property and user's rights
sözlüğü . Cilt II. İstanbul: Milli eğitim basimevi, 870 s. (In Turkish). according to islamic-ottoman reforms in Iraq. International Journal
Pamuk, S. (2005). Osmanli-Turkiye Iktisadi Tarihi 1500-1914. of Heritage Architecture. 2017. No. 3. P. 379-387.
Istanbul: İletişim, 242 p. (In Turkish). Benti Alexandra Hailu, Eleni Tafari L., Benti Abule Paulos.
Pamuk, S. (2009). Changes in factor markets in the Ottoman Historical survey of land tenure system and women's right to
empire 1500-1800. Continuity and Change. Issue 24, pp. 1-30. resource access in Northern and Central Ethiopia. African journal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0268416009007048 (In English). of gender and women studies. 2016. No. 3. P. 20-27.
Somel, S. (2003). Historical dictionary of the Ottoman empire. Bıyık Cemal, Yavuz Ayşe . The Importance of Property
Lanham: Scarecrow press, 399 p. (In English). Ownership and Management System in the Ottoman Empire in
Tцkin, İ. H. (1990). Türkiye köy iktisadıyatı. Istanbul: İletişim Point of Today. 2nd FIG Regional Conference Marrakech, Morocco,
Yayınlan, 218 s. (In Turkish). December 2-5, 2003. P. 1-12.
Topses, M. D. (2017). The Socio-Economic and Political Struc- Buluda Itandala. Feudalsim in East Africa. Journal of the Faculty
ture of the Peasantry in the Tanzimat Reform Era. Sociology Study. of Arts and Social Sciences University of Dar es Salaam. 1986.
Issue 5. pp. 263-267 (In English). No. 2. P. 29-42.
Canbakal Hьlya, Filiztekin Alpay. Wealth and Inequality in
LIST OF REFERENCE LINKS Ottoman Lands in the Early Modern Period. Rice University
Блискавицкий А. А. Частная собственность на землю. Conference on the Political Economy of the Muslim World, 2013.
Земельный вопрос. 2013. № 9. С. 39-49. 32 p.
История Востока. В 6 т. Т. 2. Восток в средние века / ред. Coєgel Metin M. Agricultural productivity in the early Ottoman
Л. Б. Алаев, К. З. Ашрафян. Москва: Восточная литература, Empire. Economic working papers. 2004. No. 35. P. 1-37.
2002. Cuno Kenneth M. The origins of private ownership of land in
История Османского государства, общества, цивилиза- Egypt: a reappraisal. International journal of Middle East studies.
ции. В 2 т. Том. 2 / ред. Е. Ихсаноглу. Москва: Восточная 1980. No. 12. P. 245-275.
литература, 2006. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman empire / ed. G. Agoston, B. Mas-
Крассов О. И. Системы землевладения в странах Маг- ters. New York: Facts on File, 2009. 689 p.
риба. Lex Russica. 2016. № 6. С. 184-202. Facchini Franзois. Islam and private property. HAL. 2007.
Кулішенко О. Ю. Право власності і право володіння зем- P. 1-16.
лею в Гетьманській Україні: характеристика понять. Науко- Itzkowitch Norman. Ottoman empire and Islamic tradition.
вий вісник Міжнародного гуманітарного університету. 2014. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1972. 125 p.
№ 9. С. 167-169. Karpat Kemal H. The transformation of the Ottoman state,
Макаревич А. С. Значення імаретів в системі вакфу Ос- 1789-1908, International journal of Middle East studies. 1972.
манської імперії XIV-XVI ст. Наукові праці історичного фа- No. 3. P. 243-289.
культету Запорізького національного університету. 2016. Land, Law and Islam Property and Human Rights in the Muslim
№ 45. С. 147-150. World / ed. S. Sait, H. Lim. London: Zed Books, 2006. 241 р.
Маркова С. П. Понятие "феодализм" в современной ис- Matuz Josef. The nature and stages of the Ottoman feudalism.
следовательской интерпретации. Вестник АГУ. 2014. № 1. Asian and African studies. 1982. No. 16. P. 281-292.
С. 53-60. Pakalın Mehmet Zeki. Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve terimleri
Муравьева Л. А. Экономика Западной Европы в период sözlüğü . Cilt IІ. İstanbul: Milli eğitim basimevi, 1993. 870 s.
раннего и кла ссического феодализма (V-XIV вв.). Между- Pamuk Sevket. Osmanli-Turkiye Iktisadi Tarihi 1500-1914.
народный бухгалтерський учет. Страницы истории. 2014. Istanbul: İletişim, 2005. 242 р.
№ 3. С. 54-64. Pamuk Sevket. Changes in factor markets in the Ottoman empire
Нуреев Р. М. Феодальное общество как высшая и после- 1500-1800. Continuity and Change. 2009. No. 24. P. 1-30.
дняя стадия традиционной экономики. Христианский тип куль- Sabra Adam. The Rise of a New Class? Land Tenure in Fif-
туры. TERRA ECONOMICUS. 2011. № 3. С. 95-140. teenth-Century Egypt: A Review Article. Middle East Documen-
Османский мир и османистика. Сборник статей к столе- tation Center. The University of Chicago. 2004. No. 2. P. 203-210.
тию со дня рождения А. С. Тверитиновой (1910-1973) / Ред. І. Somel Selcuk. Historical dictionary of the Ottoman empire.
В. Зайцев, С. Ф. Орешкова. Москва: ИВ РАН, 2010. Lanham: Scarecrow press, 2003. 399 p.
Петросян Ю. А. Османская империя: могущество и ги- T ökin İsmail Husrev.. Türkiye köy iktisadıyatı. Istanbul: İletişim
бель. Исторические очерки. Москва: Восточная литература, Yayınlan, 1990. 218 s.
1992. 187 с. Topses Mehmet Devrim. The Socio-Economic and Political
Пименова Л. А. Представления о "феодальном" в доре- Structure of the Peasantry in the Tanzimat Reform Era. Sociology
волюционной Франции XVIII в. Одиссей: человек в истории. Study. 2017. No. 5. P. 263-267.

СХІД № 4 (162) липень-серпень 2019 р. ISSN 1728-9343 (Print)

ISSN 2411-3093 (Online)
Social History
World Philosophy 59

Чалий Андрій,
Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка (м. Київ, Україна)
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]; ORCID 0000-0002-4702-2560

КУПІВЛЯ І ПРОДАЖ ЗЕМЛІ В ОСМАНСЬКІЙ ІМПЕРІЇ

XV-XIX СТОЛІТЬ
У сучасній історіографії усталеною є думка про те, що в Османській імперії не існувало ринку землі в
сучасному економічному тлумаченні. Базуючись на створеній у XVIII столітті концепції феодалізму й розви-
неної в працях марксистсько-радянського штибу, було створено образ суспільства, що не знало приватної
власності на землю, яка належала обмеженій кількості юридично повноправних вельмож. Для "Сходу" й
для Османської імперії зокрема, ця теорія, органічно поєднуючись із концепцією "східного деспотизму",
створила хибне уявлення про земельні відносини, згідно з яким, неначебто, вся земля належала державі,
уособленням якої була постать султана, що роздавав земельні наділи в тимчасове користування. Користу-
вачі земельних угідь не мали права продати, купити, орендувати, заповідати, розділяти земельний наділ
тощо. Люди, що працювали на землі, були лише тимчасовими тримачами-орендаторами, які постійно перебу-
вали під економічним, а часто й під фізичним гнітом привілейованої частини османського суспільства (зде-
більшого військової), й ледь не на становищі рабів, прикріплених до тієї чи іншої ділянки. Навіть привіле-
йовані верстви володіли землею на час несення державної служби і моментально втрачали будь-які права
на землю після припинення служби. Згідно такої картини, приватної власності на землю не могло бути
апріорі. У статті здійснюється спроба довести на основі законодавчих актів, що в Османській імперії існував
вільний ринок землі, яка могла бути об'єктом економічних стосунків між усіма підданими Османської держа-
ви, що земля була поділена на велику кількість різноманітних типів в залежності від економічних та при-
родніх обставин, земельний наділ міг знаходитися в приватній власності, а типологія землі в Османській
імперії була зумовлена максимізацією прибутку держави. Кричуща невідповідність даних, базованих вже на
перекладених і доступних джерелах із історії османських земельних відносин ґрунтується на застарілому
радянському погляді, складності перекладу османських юридичних та економічних термінів та недотри-
манні принципу історизму при зіставленні османських соціоекономічних реалій із сучасними.

Ключові слова: Близький Схід; Османська імперія; земельні відносини; османське право; феодалізм.

© Chalyi Andrii
Надійшла до редакції: 27.06.2019
Прийнята до друку: 22.07.2019

ISSN 1728-9343 (Print)

ISSN 2411-3093 (Online)
SKHID No. 4 (162) July-August 2019