Hakop David PapazyanBibliographical data Hakop David Papazyan Agrarian Relations in Eastern Armenia in XVI-XVII Centuries Is published
by the decision of Scientific Council of Maternadaran- Research Institute
of Ancient Manuscripts after Mesrop Mashtots Number of pages: 302 including index Annotation: The monograph based on the Persian archives and on Armenian and other foreign language historical sources thoroughly studies the institutions of feudal land ownership in Eastern Armenia in late Medieval times. This type of land ownership was tightly connected to the system of land ownership in Safavid Iran. The work analyses in details the problems of agrarian relations. Based on the new materials the author examines new methods of feudal exploitation and tax system. This study is of scientific importance of clarifying the issues on socio-economic relations not only in Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also in other countries of Near East. (Editor: K. Z. Ashrafyan) Table of Contents Chapter I: Scientific elaboration of the problem and main sources 5 Chapter II: Eastern Armenian under Safavid reign 46 Chapter III: The process of Armenian large land ownership elimination in XV-XVI Centuries 64 Chapter IV: Sharial legal norms and the problem of feudal ownership 81 Chapter V: State lands, land system and shah’s domain in XVI-XVII centuries 96 Chapter VI: Monastery land possessions and the essence of muafi donated to Armenian Church and Armenian Clergy 114 Chapter VII: Inherited and bought villages 152 Chapter VIII: State rent-tax and state duty of the peasantry 208 Conclusion: 248 Resume in English: 253 The list of sources and literature used in the book 281 Index: 289 The Author
Papazyan Hakob(Jak) Davit was born in 1919 in Tavris, Iran and died in 1997 in Yerevan, Armenia. H. Papazyan in an Armenian hisotrian, specialist of Armenian and Oriental Studies. Papazyan graduated from the Yerevan State University, the Department of Oriental Studies in 1950. From 1954 though 1959 Papazyan was a senior researcher in the Institute of History at the National Academy of Sciences of RA. Later, from 1959 through 1997 was the Head of the Department of Medieval manuscripts and divan documents at the Research Institute of Ancient Manuscripts after M. Mashtots. Papazyan got Ph.D. in history in 1968. Papazyan had researches on the political history, national liberation movements, Armenian-Persian relations and the socio-economic situation in Eastern Armenia in the Fifteenth though Eighteenth centuries. Papazyan had published many historical documents in Persian, Arabic and Turk languages together with the Armenian and Russian translations. Abstract of the Book The Agrarian Relations in Eastern Armenia In the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth Centuries Chapter 1 Scientific Elaboration of the problem and Its Main Sources The research of feudal agrarian relations in Eastern Armenia has a long history. Based on a few narrative sources and historical, geographic and ethnographic studies, a series of works appeared in the pre-Soviet period, in the middle and mainly at the end of the Nineteenth century. These works covered some aspects of the agrarian system in Eastern Armenia, and especially those of the period previous to Armenia’s integration into the Russian Empire. The most important among them are the works of I. Chopin, N. Tornau, S. Zelinski, M. Kuchaev and S. Eghiazarov. These works were the result of a thorough examination of the different social institutions and legal norms in Armenian rural communities preserved in Armenia before and after the reforms, as well as in the territories of Transcaucasia populated by Armenians. Despite the lack of methodological basis, these works have not lost their significance so far, as sources for the study of the economic and social live (particularly land relations) in Transcaucasia and Eastern Armenia during the second half of the Nineteenth century. The Marxist scientific research on the historical past of the Armenian nation started only during the Soviet period when major works were created. Works examining various aspects of the history and the ancient culture of the country are still being written. The peculiarity of the development of Armenian Studies in the Soviet period and during the last decade was an elaboration of the most cardinal problems of the political and social-economic processes that revealed the existing regulations and the characteristic features. Issues concerning the evolution of land relations attracted the attention of scientists. The problems of land relations are raised in a series of works with regard to the study of a monastery owned demesnes. The study was carried out by the authors mainly based on the famous work "Jambr" by Simeon Yerevantsi and the materials of catolicon’s divan (office) of Echmiadzin. One of these works is an important monograph by B. Harutyunyan, called "Large monastery-owned demesnes in Armenia from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth centuries," where the author took up to examine the land and water possessions, the structure of the landowners’ possessions and the trade and bank operations of Echmiadzin. Although the work was mainly dedicated to the study of a period when monastery-owned demesnes in Echmiadzin were prospering, that is to say the second half of the Eighteenth century, those parts of the monograph where the problems on land ownership and water possessions were briefly stated, turned out to be equally important. The work of S. Poghossyan is also dedicated to the study of the large land ownership of the monasteries and the problems of exploitation of hired labor on those lands belonging to Echmiadzin. The production of food and technical cultivation in internal and external markets are thoroughly examined in it. In the first part of his monograph called the "Liberation Movement of the Armenian Nation in the First Quarter of the Eighteenth Century" and in the introduction to the Russian version of "Jambr," P. Harutyunyan paid considerable attention to the coverage of some questions concerning the agrarian relations and drew a series of interesting conclusions. In an important jurisprudence work dedicated to the investigation of the mulk law, A. Yessayan considered the legal bases of land ownership in Armenia at the threshold of and during the period of Russian domination, particularly illustrating the peculiarities of mulk as a feudal institution. The noteworthy monograph called the "Agrarian Relations in Ararat Country" by S. Markossian included the circumstantial analysis of the above mentioned authors as well as other researchers’ opinions about the agrarian relations in Armenia in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, and especially the rights for private property and land ownership. Discussing the interpretation of the juridical content of a series of terms and institutions that were mentioned in "Jambr" and were done by several other researchers, S. Markossian presented his interpretation on the essence of the legal norms existing in feudal Armenia, and particularly the right for hereditary land ownership and other juridical norms connected with it. Several questions about the land relations in Armenia were covered in the works dedicated to the neighboring countries (Azerbaijan and Iran) or the states that Armenia used to be part of (particularly the Safavid State). These works refer mainly to the Eighteenth century (principally to its second half) and to a certain extent, to the Nineteenth century. Only an insignificant part of it refers to the Seventeenth century and an even smaller part, to the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries; the study of the latter is very important in order to understand the feudal system and the institutions of the following centuries. It is especially worth mentioning various works of I. P. Petrushevski dedicated to the investigation of feudal relations in Iran and Transcaucasia in the Fifteenth and at the beginning of the Nineteenth centuries. These works reveal the characteristics and present the history of the development of the basic forms of feudal ownership and the exploitation of peasantry. Petrushevski’s contribution to the research, the historical chronicles in Persian and the archival materials of the Fifteenth and Nineteenth centuries, is huge. He was the first researcher in the Soviet historiography to thoroughly examine almost all of the Persian sources of Safavid and the following periods. He analyzed the existing archival materials and described their scientific characteristics in a number of works. However, not all the issues of agrarian relations taken up in his works of 1930s and 1940s were similarly conclusive and thorough because, as the author declared himself, they did not include the solution to the questions regarding the land use and the condition of production resources. That gap was filled later by Petrushevski in his monograph published in 1960 that was dedicated to the land ownership and agrarian relations in Iran in the Thirteenth through Fifteenth centuries. Based on the works of historiography of the Ilkhan period and other sources, the monograph thoroughly examines the conditions and the peculiarities of agricultural production in Iran and in several neighboring countries, as well as the economic and legal conditions of peasants and the forms of their exploitation in the period prior to the one that our study examines. Thanks to the works done by Soviet historians, many problems of agrarian relations in Armenia in the Sixteenth through Eighteenth centuries found their solutions, although many questions remained debatable and were not studied so far. For instance, the historical conditions of expropriation of Armenian nobility and the large feudal properties owned by the military-feudal nobility of different Turk and other nomadic and seminomadic tribes, have not been a separate issue of special research so far. There is no complex research on the state and domain lands, as well as private feudal and monasterial -vaquf land properties, from the Fifteenth century, which is a very important time period in the history of the formation of land ownership. However, the Armenian manuscripts and archival materials that were unknown or almost not studied until recently, as well as the Persian narrative sources, contain a rather rich material for a detailed research. As it was already mentioned, a more detailed characteristics of Persian narrative sources had been given by Petrushevski. The honorable professor justly noted that those data were usually laconic and partly incomplete, contradictory and scattered mostly in the pages of multi-volume folios. The works of court historiography of Safavid period differ by their panegyric style and are dedicated to the eulogy of Shah’s autocracy. The political and social events are stated by annual chronicles of successive descriptions of the "heroic deeds" of their famous patrons. The data on social-economic relations and economic, social and legal situation of working people either do not exist at all or are not precise, are biased and extremely fragmented. Nevertheless, the information they contain refers to the system of central and local administrative management and the tax system and it sheds light on some aspects of the feudal land relations. In that respect, it is worth mentioning the works of feudal historiography previous to Safavid rules, such as the Seventh volume of a multi-volume general history of Mohammed-ibn-Havandshah Mirhond called "Rovzat-us-safa" (Joyful Garden) that was completed by the grandson of Mirhonda-Gias-ed-din ibn-Humam-ed-din-Handamir. The compilation chronicle "Hulasat-ul-Ahbar" (Collection of Information) and the last volume of the three-volume historic work entitled "Habib -us-siar" (Friend of Life Descriptions), written by the same author on the order of Alisher Navoy, are also very important. The famous chronicle "Tarih-e Shah Ismail-e Safavi" (The History of Safavid Shah Ismail) marks the beginning of Safavid historiography which lasted for almost two hundred years. An anonymous author narrates the struggle of Shah Ismail against the last padishahs of Ak-Koyunlu and the displacement of Kisilbash tribes to Azerbaijan and to the central and eastern regions of historical Armenia: however, the data on socio-economic situation are rather scarce. From the general twenty-volume history by Hasan-bek Rumlu, the court historian of Shah Tahmaspa the First, only the last two volumes are known. These volumes are entitled "Ahsan-uttavarih" (the Best of Histories) and they cover the period of Shah Ismail the First, Tahmasp the First and Ismail the Second before Sultan Mohammed Hudaband’s reign. This extensive work also dwells upon the political events and the description of military actions between Iranian shahs and Turkish sultans. The rebellion of craftsmen and the poor population of Tabriz in 1573 mentioned herein, is especially important for the civil history. Hasan bek presents data on the early history of tiyul, and the lands that were given to the leaders (amirs) of Kizilbash tribes. From the Perisan sources of the same period, the two-volume history by Sharaf-Khan of Bidlis, a Kurd historian of the end of the Sixteenth century, contains considerable information about Armenia. Narrating the history of the origins of Kurd tribes and following their displacement on the territories of Kurdistan and historical Armenia, Sharaf Khan presents interesting data on the soyurgal possession of big feudals and the socio-legal condition of their subordinate population: the working peasants. The history of the Sixteenth century is covered in detail by a prominent historian of the Sixteenth century Iskandar bek Turkeman, who had been the court secretary of the Shah Abbas the First and was known in Persian historiography as "Iskandar Munshi" (Secretary Iskandar). He wrote the history of Shah Abbas the First and his predecessors in two large volumes entitled "Tarih-e alamara-e Abbasi" (The Abbasian World Adorning History). In the first part of this meaningful work Munshi tells the earlier history of Safavid. The book presents in detail the important events that took place in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries. As it was mentioned in the introduction to the history, the author picked up the information on the period of Ak-Koyunlu supremacy and on the earlier history of Safavid from the work of Mevlan Ababakr Tehrani entitled "Tarih-e ahval-e salatin-e torkeman" (The History of Turkmenian Kings), from the works of Kazi-Ahmad Kaffari called "Tarih -e-Jahanara" (World Adorning History), from the "Ahsan-ut-tawarikh" by Hasan-bek-Rumlu’s and from the "Lubb-at-tawarikh". (The Core of the History) by the historian Ahibek and Mir-Yahia Seifi-Kazvini. Therefore, though Munshi lived at the end of the Sixteenth century and in the third half of the Seventeenth century, his works contained trustworthy information on the history of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries. The second and the third parts of "Tarih-e alamara-e Abbasi" are considered especially significant. They circumstantially describe the events that took place under the rule of Shah Abbas the First. Iskandar Munshi dedicated a considerable part of his work to the narration of histories of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. In separate chapters of his book he described many important events referring to the Armenian history, particularly to the history of campaigns that took place in 1605-1625 during the reign of Khan Amir-Guna and later Khan Tahmasghuli. His stories about the mass deportation of the population are of special interest. The importance of "Tarih-e alamara-e Abbasi" for the purpose of our research is particularly due to the fact that compared to the earlier histories, it contains more information on feudal institutions like "ikta," "soyurghl," "olka," "tiyul," "hass" or "hasse-ye sharief, the "vaquf" estates and their administration. Separately mentioned state land taxes and other taxes collected from farmers and trading population are similarly important as they reveal the character of the Safavid tax system. During the last years of his life Iskandar Munshi started to write the history of Abbas the First’s successor Shah Safi’s reign (1629-1642), on the request of his retinue. Five years later he died however and the work remained incomplete. In 1958 Suheyli Hansari prepared and published the book "Zeil-e Tarih-e- Alamara-ie Abbasi" (Continuation of the Abbasian World Adorning History) that covered the history of Shah Safi’s rule. The initial part of the book that documented the first five years of Shah Safi’s history, was written by Iskandar Munshi. The other part that covered the period till his death in 1642 was taken from the sixth part of the Eight volume of Mohammad-Yusuf’s "Hold-e-Barin" (Upper Paradise) dedicated to the history of Safavid dynasty. Together with the description of the Persian-Turkish wars, there are materials in the book regarding the internal life and socio-economic relations. The data referring to the administration and the economy of Ararat country or Chuhur-Sa’d vilayet are crucially important together with the data on the interrelations between khans and beglarbegs, the authority they exercised, the feudal hierarchy, the position of separate representatives of the supreme class and their privileges as feudal owners. These data are included in the last part of the book, in the lists and biographies of amirs, beglarbegs, vesirs, representatives of clergy and other high ranking people known under Shah Safi’s reign. The next noteworthy work of Safavid court historiography is the history of Shah Abbas the Second (1642-1667) entitled "Abbasname", written by Shah’s private secretary Mohammed-tahir Vahid Kazvini, who became the great vesir later on. The work refers to a comparatively peaceful period of Iranian history, that was marked by the end of bloody Iranian-Turkish wars: a considerable part of the book dwells on many questions about the internal political history, economic and administrative management. It reviews the financial-tax affairs, particularly the revenues of beglargegs and hakims, the abuses of their as functionaries who collected excessive taxes. A large part of "Abbasname" is dedicated to the history of Transcaucasia and Ararat country. The general history of Safavid "Hold-e Barin" (Upper Paradise) that narrated the events up to 1694 and included also the period of Shah Suleiman’s rule (1667-1694) was written by Mohammad Yusuf, the brother of Mohammsd-tahir Vahid. This significant source is not published yet (with the exception of above mentioned history of the last years of Shah Safi’s rule, published in "Zeil-e tarih-e-alamara-ye Abbasi"). The manuscript examples of this work are few. There is no other source which is contemporary to the period of Shah Suleiman’s rule. "Sil-silat-al-nasab-e safavie" (Geneology of Safavids) written by Sheikh Husein Abdl-al-Zahidi from the generation of Sheikh Zahid Gilani and was devoted to the genealogy of Safavid sheikhs. It is an important source of study of the vaquf land possessions and the large religious institution estates, as well as of the revenues from land ownership that were collected from these types of ownership. Several soyurgual and tiyul documents and vaquf acts are included in this work. But the main source for the study of the Safavid administration structure as well as the tax-fiscal system is the famous work entitled "Tadhkinat al-Muluk" that was written by an unknown author in the 1720-s on the order of the Afghan ruler Ashsraf. The Persian and the English translation together with a large research were published in London in 1943 by a prominent specialist of Oriental studies V. Minorsky. This work that somehow concluded the Safavid court historiography, thoroughly described the state administrative and political structure of the vast Persian empire, as well as that of Eastern Armenia. In separate parts of the work there is information about the revenues of the clergy, amirs, court nobility and shah’s associates, senior and junior financial officials, court studios and services. It also includes information on the provincial management of the vilayets, the administrative system of the capital Isfahan (Espahan) and the revenues of beglarbeg’s including the olks. Although the information referring directly to Eastern Armenia is laconic and in several cases contradictory, the given characteristics of the administrative structure and especially the feudal institution formed in the Sixteenth-Seventeenth centuries substantially contribute to the explanation of many problems of feudal land ownership in Armenia and to the clarification of the significance and technical meaning of social-economic and administrative terms.
Conclusion The study of feudal reality in Armenian in the Sixteenth through Eighteenth centuries reveals a variety of existing forms of feudal land property. The historical material illustrates that the right of the feudal to be in charge of peasants’ land and sell his possessions at different stages of the development of feudal relations could have happened in any of the forms of feudal possessions. But those rights were not attributive , that is to say inalienable qualities of a feudal and were less developed at the earlier staged of feudalism than in the following periods of Middle Ages. The process of restricting the rights of peasants on the land they cultivated that had started at the end of the Seventeenth century became widely spread and stronger later on. That phenomenon characterizes a new stage in the development of feudal ownership, marketing, and decay. An insignificant number of villages in Eastern Armenia was included in the land fund of Shah’s domen (hass or hass-ye-sharife). Almost half of all cultivated lands were properties of the officials (tiyul). Their owners (tiyuldars) often received or inherited the tiyul possessions. Meantime, these officials held significant administrative and military power and exercised more cruel ways of non-economic coercion towards the population than did some other categories of feudal owners (maliki, particularly Armenian monasteries). The military-feudal nobility in Armenia in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries that represented large genteel land possessions belonged to the nobility of Turk, Kurd and some other nomadic or seminomadic tribes. The lands conquer by these tribes in Eastern Armenia started some centuries before the time period that we have researched. It was accompanied by severe struggle between the tribes and the Armenian feudals and amongst the tribes themselves. The large Armenian land ownership in the Sixteenth-Seventeenth centuries in Eastern Armenia was represented mainly by land possessions of the monasteries. These possessions were expanded by land donations of the representatives of local genteel feudals. the feudal tired to save their few possessions that survived conquest of nomadic nobility in similar ways. The other option for the monasteries was to buy villages or separate parts of villages. the monetary relations were developed and the monetary demand of the state and several feudals was increased in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries. The tax-collecting system (ijare, zabt) became widespread. According to this system, the tax collector received the right to levy all the taxes or parts of them from the population of a given territory in a definite period by making payment himself once. This was nothing but the specific form of feudal property typical of the later feudal community with its comparatively developed monetary economy. The taxation abuses have grown to excessive dimensions by the end of the century. The state found itself in a situation when the sum gathered from taxes could no longer growing expenses of the state and the court. In order to find a way out of this difficult situation the state formed new tax lists. General tax assessments became recurrent, the taxes imposed on the rayats were multiplied and new taxes were introduced . Nevertheless, under the existing conditions, the extraordinary tax burden only increased the incomes of major and minor officials and was unable to rescue the Safavid state from its impending collapse. |