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.
    – MCW
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 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". Commented Sep 8, 2014 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. Commented Sep 8, 2014 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. Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 22:25


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.