7

What property relations existed between peasants and those who took from peasants in early Ottoman rule (1300-1450) in Anatolia?

How was social surplus extracted from peasants, by who, with what conception of property? Was property extraction ethnically or religiously different? Was there a concept of legality? Were there extra-legal extractions? Was extraction as cash, crops, or labour? Were peasants here free or unfree, in what way?

I'm following Banaji (citation below) on peasants as:

  1. Agricultural producers, including husbandry
  2. With some level of social autonomy: land-boundness perhaps as demonstrative of the difference between a peasantry and a slave, peasants aren't unencumbered property
  3. In marxian "Feudal" or "Tributary" societies
  4. Involving self-reproduction through subsistence
  5. (I've not got up to Banaji on what he considers distinctive in peasant relations of labour and relations of exploitation; but, he is very strong on something approximating a Marxist conception of peasantry as being present across feudal and tributary ("Asiatic" despotic) relations of extraction post-antiquity; including early capitalisms.)
  • Excellent question. Not a region where I'm particularly well read. At least for me, the last question is the most important and interesting. – Mark C. Wallace Sep 8 '14 at 12:38
  • 1
    Define "peasants". If you are talking about the way Turkish pashaluks used to rob everybody in their area, then pretty everybody except the pasha was a "peasant". – Tyler Durden Sep 8 '14 at 14:28
  • 1
    You seem to be using European feudalism as some kind of model for the Ottoman rule, which was nothing like it. The Turks were a pastoral/nomadic society. They have no notion of "peasants". The legal nuances of Turkish society revolve around husbandry, the keeping of sheep and horses, not peasantry. – Tyler Durden Sep 8 '14 at 14:35
  • 1
    Jairus Banaji Theory as History: essays on modes of production and exploitation Brill 2010/Haymarket 2011 pp17-41 seems to think that "peasant" is a meaningful category by at least mid Ottoman society, and was a meaningful category in the late Byzantine--but I assume that his category peasant includes animal husbandry, and it is safe to say my category includes pre-existing populations. I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that such persons lived there. Regarding robbing everyone, Banaji suggests this wasn't the only method of extraction. – Samuel Russell Sep 8 '14 at 22:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.