Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century
230
Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century
230Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Based on the Tapu registers in Istanbul and Ankara, this book provides to the academic world a collection and analysis of documents previously unavailable and unreadable except to a very small number of people. Translations and annotations of these texts illuminate and explain the terms and institutions found in Ottoman surveys of population and taxation. Professors Cohen and Lewis establish the fact that in the cities of Palestine, population and revenue showed a rather spectacular parallel development towards the middle of the sixteenth-century when the disruptive conditions of the conquest had disappeared and Ottoman administration had been well established. Then, in the latter half of the century, they find a recession again.
Originally published in 1978.
The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780691602837 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Princeton University Press |
| Publication date: | 03/08/2015 |
| Series: | Princeton Legacy Library , #1327 |
| Pages: | 230 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.10(w) x 9.10(h) x 0.70(d) |
Read an Excerpt
Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palentine in the Sixteenth Century
By Amnon Cohen, Bernard Lewis
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
Copyright © 1978 Princeton University PressAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-691-09375-8
CHAPTER 1
THE TAHRIR REGISTERS OF PALESTINE
The Ottoman tahrir was the latest form of an institution which can be traced back to classical Islamic times and beyond, to the bureaucracies of the ancient Middle Eastern empires. The term denoted the work of commissions sent to survey tax-paying population, lands, crops and revenues in the towns and villages for fiscal purposes. The data collected in this way was then recorded (tahrir — writing down, recording in writing) in registers. In early Islamic times this was known as the kanun, and fragments of such registers have survived among the Egyptian papyri. There are frequent references to them in the Arabic sources of the Mamluk period, and also in those of the Seljuq and Mongol regimes, though few examples, and those fragmentary, are known. The Ottoman state is the only one of the classical Islamic empires which survived into modern times — the only one, therefore, whose records, when no longer required for practical administrative purposes, were not scattered and destroyed like those of earlier, vanished Empires, but preserved, thanks to the enlightened care of a generation of scholars and officials who realized their value.
The commission which carried out the tahrir was called tahrir heyeti, and produced registers (defter), known as Tapu2 defterleri. The series as a whole was sometimes called the Imperial Register — Defter-i Hakani. These registers are of three main kinds: (a) Defter-i Mufassal ("detailed register"), which are the most interesting and valuable; (b) Defter-i Icmal("synoptic inventory") which give a summary based on the mufassal, omitting details like names of taxpayers/inhabitants and giving the taxes only in lump-sums for each territorial unit; (c) Defter-i der dest ("register of [matters] in hand") and Defter-i Ruznamce ("daybook"), respectively records of incoming information and deeds of grant (berat) copies as they occurred.
As far as we know the usual procedure was to make these in two copies. One was kept in the central registry (Tapu, Defterane); the other copy went to the province, to be kept together with the sijill registers in the sharia court. The only sample of these that has come to light in Palestine is a mufassal tahrir dated 997/1588-9, of the sanjak of Jerusalem. Identical with the copy left in the capital, it was kept intact (and because of its length was not copied like other official documents) at the shari'a court of Jerusalem.
Most of the surviving registers for sixteenth-century Palestine are in Istanbul, a few of them damaged, the rest intact. In the course of the classification of the Maliyeden müdevver (i.e., transferred from the Archives of the Ministry of Finance) series in the Basbakanlik archives in Istanbul, during the last few years, some additional defters have come to light. There may have been others which existed and are now lost. Some registers, mainly dating back to the second half of the century, are in the Cadastral Office in Ankara. This study is based mainly on mufassal registers, with some complementary information from the available icmals, most of them in Istanbul. Of the registers kept in Ankara we were able to use only nos. 515–516 (Jerusalem), 545 (Gaza) and 549 (Nabulus).
There is conflicting evidence with regard to the frequency with which tahrirs should have been, or actually were, earned out in the Ottoman Empire. Lutfi Pasha, who under Süleyman the Magnificent reached the post of Grand Vizier, and who previously served in many provinces, including Syria, was very specific about it: "A tahrir should be carried out [once] in [every] thirty years." The same figure is repeated in the following century by another high-ranking official, San Mehmed Pasha. It is on this evidence, apparently, that Barkan speaks of "les recensements de la population et de l'impôt, recensements qui etaient faits tous les 30 ou 40 ans, suivant une ancienne tradition administrative." An undated firman cited by Barkan adds formal support to the above-mentioned quotations from authoritative but informal "advice for rulers": "The tahrir of the Empire is a very necessary thing. [The carrying out of a] tahrir of the Empire once every thirty years is a kanun. It should be regarded as binding in this matter." On the other hand, Mustafa Nuri, in Neta'ic ül-vuku'at stresses the importance of carrying out a tahrir after the conquest of a province, but adds that it was "usually" accomplished once every century, and was in any case discontinued after the time of Selim II. There is even a version reducing the interval between the tahrirs to an impossible one year. Barkan not only found a tahrir made in Murad III's time, i.e. after the death of Selim II, but seems to have traced the reason for this administrative-fiscal initiative back to the inauguration of every new Sultan as part and parcel of the issue of new (or reaffirmed) official decrees and nominations. Tahrirs were still made at a comparatively late date for newly acquired provinces, e.g. seven registers compiled during the reigns of Ahmed III (1115–43/1703–30), and Mahmud I (1143–68/1730–54) of the new provinces added to the empire as a result of the Ottoman intervention in Persian affairs at that time.
Kaldy Nagy seems to disagree with Barkan's assumption, noting that only once did he find in the Hungarian provinces that a new register was compiled on the accession of a new sovereign. On this occasion the new tahrir was ordered by the Ottoman authorities only nine years after the previous one, a much shorter interval than that indicated by Lutfi or the undated firman. The view that a tahrir is determined by a specific cause rather than a fixed time-limit, is partly shared by Inalcik. A tahrir was made, he says, either upon the conquest of a new province of the Empire or upon the advent of a new Sultan or when substantial changes with regard to income occurred (the introduction of revenues previously extraneous to the register, fiscal reforms or unforeseen changes). In this respect Inalcik reflects Barkan's interpretation of the tahrirs as attempts made by the central administration to bring its existing information up to date, and in particular to increase its potential income by reappraising the yields of a given area in the light of its development. It was "in any case for the advantage of the State" that frequent tahrirs were carried out in the heyday of the Empire. This explanation seems more plausible than Lutfi's arbitrary assertion: "The dead and the sick being omitted there should be a re-registration and a comparison with the old register; the [number of] re'aya should not be smaller than [it was in] the old register." This oversimplified presentation can hardly be substantiated by the evidence in our registers. Although the copy of the previous register was given to the tahrir-takers, it did not serve, as far as we can deduce from our registers, as anything more than an important reference book. The firmans authorizing the tahrir are very explicit on this matter. In the Sanjak of Gaza, for instance, the tahrir was to be very carefully compiled as a "revised (tecdid) version of the old registers" after those responsible have "meticulously investigated ... the yields of that province" in accordance with both the Shari a and the Kanun. Similar terminology is used in the firman concerning the tahrir of the Sanjak of Safed.
What, in fact, can the historian hope to learn from these registers? Their value obviously lies in two fields, the demographic and the economic, in both of which they provide considerable quantities of detail, statistics and information extending over a significant period of time. Their value, however, in both respects, has been very differently assessed by modern scholars. For Barkan they offer "en un mot, tout ce qu'il faut à un historien économiste." For Kaldy Nagy, on the other hand, they "register the taxes and tithes which, as we believe, were not yet actually collected at the time of the census" and exhibit "the estimated income" as opposed to an account of the actual receipts. Cook's assessment of their value for historical demography is even more negative: "the demographic interest of this material is severely limited. It is in general totally uninformative as to the age and sex structure of the population. It does, however, purport to list the overwhelming majority of the adult male population, and to indicate which of them were heads of households. By comparing such lists for given areas at different times it is possible to derive crude indices of changes in population size."
Our own study of the defters relating to sixteenth-century Palestine lead us to adopt an intermediate position in both respects. Certainly they cannot be regarded as an "ideal form" as was once suggested. The figures given for the individual taxes represent global estimates of what is expected rather than statements of the amounts actually collected, and are moreover stated in a money of account. Often the global figure represents the purchase price agreed with a tax-farmer, and even with taxes directly collected by government commissioners the figure is notional rather than practical. In addition there are numerous technical deficiencies, such as faulty spelling of names (places and quarters as well as people), inconsistent terminology and usage (Arabic and Turkish forms interchanging, different names given for apparently the same taxes, variations in the grouping of revenues with a single total figure for several taxes) inaccurate transliteration, incomplete statistics, mistakes of arithmetic, and sometimes a time-lag behind the pace of events.
Nevertheless, despite these defects, the registers remain a most interesting and valuable source for certain aspects of the history of Palestine during almost the whole of the first century of Ottoman rule. The value of this information can be seen all the more clearly when we contrast it with what is available for earlier and even for later centuries. On the matters with which they deal, there is no period in the history of Palestine on which we have better information, until the time when historical study is facilitated, if that is the right word, by the bureaucratic activities of the modem state. It is sufficient to contrast the registers with the fragmentary and contradictory scraps of information gathered from European consular reports and travellers' accounts to see how valuable they are.
On the economic side some of the information in the registers is factual in that the figures given are related to amounts actually collected and remitted. Even when the figures are notional they are of value, and represent the latest development of a long bureaucratic tradition. Already in classical Islam, both in theoretical and documentary evidence, a distinction appears between asl and istikhráj, the first representing the initial assessment and estimate, the second the amount actually collected. The figures, therefore, represent a genuine stage in the process of financial administration and not random fantasy. The fact that we have a sequence of registers over a period of time, and some outside evidence to serve as control, enables us to use these figures to document the processes of development and change. They tell us little of events or individuals, for the movements they reflect are at a deeper level, and at a slower rhythm. Through them we can achieve some insight into the social and economic patterns of the time, the structure and movement of society and administration, the evolution of groups and institutions. More particularly we can draw both detailed information and more general conclusions on topics like numbers and distribution of population, taxation, land-tenure, religious minorities, towns, villages, and nomads. Any given register provides a general as well as detailed, though static, picture of these and other aspects at a given moment; the series of registers for the districts of Palestine, though sometimes incomplete, covers virtually the whole country and almost the whole century.
The same considerations apply to the demographic as to the economic data. For the eighteenth and most of the nineteenth century, not to speak of earlier times, the evidence available to us makes it impossible to answer (except by guesswork) even such simple and obvious questions as the number of inhabitants and their religious and ethnic distribution. While the registers cannot answer the modern demographer's questions on such matters as family size and age and sex structure, they nevertheless give useful indications on the composition and distribution of population, on the rise and fall of numbers, within regions and within identified groups, and also on the movements of nomadic groups from one place to another. These data are more difficult to extrapolate than age and sex structure, and the information provided is correspondingly more valuable. Even estimates and still more assessments are usually done with some reference to reality, and their recurrence or modification is always meaningful. When compared with each other and tabulated for the whole century they provide an indication of the major fiscal and demographic trends of development in this period.
A word may be pertinent at this stage with regard to the term Palestine. This term had already ceased to have any political or administrative significance before the arrival of the crusaders; it was revived with the establishment of the British Mandate, when it was officially adopted as the name of the country. It has, therefore, no precise geographical connotation but is here used to cover the western or cisjordanian part of the state set up under British Mandate, after the partition of Ottoman Syria. Under the late Mamluks this area was divided into the niyabas of Safed and Gaza, both under the authority of the Mamluk viceroy in Damascus. After the Ottoman conquest the country was divided into the four sanjaks (in Arabic, liwa) of Jerusalem, Gaza, Nabulus and Safed, the lastnamed including part of what is now southern Lebanon. In the earliest Ottoman period the central area around Jenin constituted a separate entity known as the ikta' of Turabay and enjoying a special status. Later this was abolished and this area incorporated in the ordinary Ottoman system most of it in the Sanjak of Lejjun.
The fifteen mufassals used in this work fall into six groups corresponding to six separate surveys conducted in the sixteenth century in Palestine. The dates of these surveys, with the sanjaks covered in the registers consulted are:
l. 932/1525-6 Jerusalem, Gaza, Safed
2. ca. 945/1538-9 Jerusalem, Gaza, Safed, Nabulus
3. 955/1548-9 Gaza, Nabulus
4. 961-4/1553-7 Jerusalem, Gaza, Safed
5. 970-ca. 975/1562-7 Jerusalem, Safed
6. 1005/1596-7 Jerusalem, Gaza, Nabulus
Unfortunately, the series is far from complete and even some of the available volumes are defective and lack important sections. The surviving registers from the first years of Ottoman rule in Syria suggest that tahrirs were carried out at very frequent intervals. The distribution of registers as tabulated above could mean that each date represents a year in which a general tahrir was conducted in the province of Damascus, including the four sanjaks with which we are concerned. If this is so, then tahrirs were carried out at far greater frequency than either prescribed by Lutfi or suggested by Barkan and Inalc1k, and the evidence relating to the tahrirs for Palestine imposes some qualification of the explanations cited above. They were not undertaken immediately after the occupation, but rather about seven years later, no doubt because of the unstable conditions prevailing in the early years. It may well be that tahrirs were commissioned by newly invested Sultans, and in point of fact we have examples of tahrirs dating from the reign of Süleyman, Selim II, Mel)med III; in the last two cases the tahrirs available were carried out a short time after their accession. But this was by no means the only occasion, nor was the ten year interval of Hungary 36 applicable to our case: sometimes, as shown by the above table, the interval was substantially shorter. It seems that the pace of events, economic development (due, no doubt, to such factors as greater security, better administration, Jewish immigration, and the advantages of incorporation in a large and thriving empire) was the main reason which dictated the frequency of tahrirs, though one should not exclude the possibility that reshuffles in the administration in Istanbul (and perhaps even Damascus) also had a bearing on it. The tahrirs did not stop with Selim II, nor does the quality of their findings, editing or compilation deteriorate after the time of Süleyman. From the evidence available with regard to sixteenth-century Palestine we cannot substantiate the claim that technically a correlation existed between the actual conditions in the country and the final form of the records left behind. Whereas this assertion seems right with regard to the first half of the century, during the heyday of the Empire, no significant deterioration in the standard of the defters can be traced when the economy and administration were declining. There seems, however, to have been a certain slowing-down in the pace and frequency in which tahrirs were conducted in the last twenty years of the century; this might have basically been a result of the general deterioration of administration and economy, and thus of both the need and the skill to carry out tahrirs as previously.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palentine in the Sixteenth Century by Amnon Cohen, Bernard Lewis. Copyright © 1978 Princeton University Press. Excerpted by permission of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
- Frontmatter, pg. i
- CONTENTS, pg. v
- LIST OF MAPS, PLATES, AND TABLES, pg. vi
- NOTE ON TRANSCRIPTION, pg. viii
- PREFACE, pg. x
- PART I. POPULATION AND REVENUE, pg. 1
- PART II. THE TOWNS, pg. 77
- CONCLUSION, pg. 170
- BIBLIOGRAPHY, pg. 173
- APPENDIX, pg. 183
- INDEX, pg. 189
- Plates, pg. 201