Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:12:33.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Silk and Agrarian Changes in Lebanon, 1860–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Kais Firro
Kais Firro
Affiliation:
Department of Middle East HistoryUniversity of Haifa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The production of silk on Mount Lebanon dates back to the time of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian. From his reign in the 7th century until the 19th century, despite fluctuations in the production of silk, Mount Lebanon and parts of the Bekaa valley continued to produce “Syrian silk.” In the latter part of the 19th century, silk production on Mount Lebanon and elsewhere even expanded, as new areas for growing mulberry trees were added along the coast from Antioch to Sidon.

Studies on silk production in Syria, such as those of Gaston Ducousso, Dominique Chevallier, Roger Owen, and Boutros Labaki, focus on the silk industry and trade, treating silk as a cash crop and analyzing its impact on the 19th-century Syrian economy, and deal only indirectly with subjects such as the land-tenure system, the peasants' dependence on the silk merchants, the decline of the landlords, and changes in the mushāc system, or collective use of land.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 1990 , pp. 151 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 Roger, Owen, Cotton and the Egyptian Economy, 1820–1914: A Study in Trade and Development (Oxford, 1969), p. 247.Google Scholar

2 Donald, D. Quataert, “The Commercialization of Agriculture in Ottoman Turkey, 1800–1914,” International Journal of Turkish Studies, 1, 2 (Autumn, 1980), pp. 38–55.Google Scholar

3 Gilbar, G., “Persian Agriculture in the Late Qajar Period, 1800–1906: Some Economic and Social Aspects,” Asian and African Studies, 12/3 (11, 1978), p. 361.Google Scholar

4 Achard, , “Notes sur la Sync,” L'Asiefrançaise, Supplément 4 (1922), p. 97;Google ScholarFu⊃ād, Afrām al-Bustānī, ed., Lubnān, Mabāhith ⊂ilmiyya wa-ijtimaā⊂iyya, 2 vols. (Beirut, 1970), vol. 1, p. 472.Google Scholar

5 According to Martineau and Bourgaud, the Lebanese farmers grew grain among the mulberry trees in the belief that this would increase leaf production. Martineau, A., Le commerce français dans le Levant (Paris, 1902), p. 160;Google ScholarBourgaud, M., Lyon et le commerce des soies avec le Levant (Lyons, 1901), p. 33. However, it seems the farmers grew grain there (because most of the cultivable land was used for mulberry planting), in order to diminish their buying of cereals from Hawran and Bekaa.Google Scholar

6 Moniteur officiel du commerce (Beirut, 1897), pp. 344–45 (hereafter cited as M.O.C.).

7 This division is found in French consular reports dealing with Beiruti trade, as well as in works dealing with Syrian silk. See M.O.C., No. 196 (1894); M.O.C. (1897), p. 348; Bourgaud, , Lyon, p. 32;Google ScholarMartineau, , Le commerce français, p. 158;Google ScholarDucousso, G., L'industrie de la soie en Syrie (Paris, 1913; Beirut, 1918), pp. 82–84.Google Scholar

8 M.O.C., No. 196 (1894); M.O.C., No. 469(1905); M.O.C., No. 943 (1911); Ducousso, , L'industrie de la sole, pp. 102–3.Google Scholar

9 See Chehab, M., Le rôle du Liban dans l'histoire de la soie (Beirut, 1967), pp. 1–35.Google Scholar

10 Charles, Issawi, The Economic History of the Middle East, 1800–1914 (Chicago and London, 1966), p. 226.Google Scholar

11 Volney, F., Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte pendant les années 1783, 1784, and 1785, 2 vols. (Paris, 1787), Vol. 2, p. 58.Google Scholar It should be noted that mulberry trees live for 80–200 years, depending on where they are grown. In dry soil, the tree reaches maturity at 20–25 years and has a lifespan of 80–100 years. Mulberry trees grown on Mount Lebanon had a lifespan of up to 200 years. Martineau, , Le commerce français, p. 159;Google ScholarBourgaud, , Lyon, p. 33;Google ScholarDucousso, , L'industrie de la sole, p. 116.Google Scholar

12 Clerget, P., Les industries de la scoie en France (Paris, 1925), p. 178.Google Scholar

13 Boutros, Labaki, Introduction à l'histoire économique de Liban (Beirut, 1984), p. 27.Google Scholar

14 lbid., p. 29.

15 Clerget, , Les industries de la soie, pp. 59–63.Google Scholar

16 lbid., p. 176.

17 Emerit, M., “La crise syrienne et l'expansion économique française en 1860,” Revue Historique, 207 (01–03, 1952), pp. 224–25.Google Scholar

18 M. Similianskaya, “Razlozhenie feodalnikh otnoshenii v Sirii i Livane v seredine XIXv” (The disintegration of feudal relations in Syria and Lebanon in the middle of the 19th century), in Issawi, , Economic History, p. 229.Google Scholar

19 Labaki, , Introduction à l'histoire economique, p. 28.Google Scholar

20 Foreign Office Annual Series, Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, No. 1279 (Beirut, 1893), p. 2 (hereafter cited as D.C.R.).Google Scholar

21 Dominique, Chevallier, La societé du Mont Liban à l'époque de la révolution industrielle en Europe (Paris, 1971), pp. 211–12.Google Scholar

22 Ducousso, , L'lndustrie de la soie, pp. 132–56.Google Scholar

23 The native silk eggs, al-bizr al-baladī, were bred by the farmers. They were white or yellow. Mabāhith, p. 409.

24 Martineau, , Le commerce français, p. 364;Google ScholarDucousso, , L'lndustrie de la soie, pp. 63–71.Google Scholar

25 D. C. R., No. 25 (Beirut, 1883), pp. 1030–36.

26 Labaki, , Introduction à l'histoire economique, p. 35.Google Scholar

27 M.O.C., No. 196 (1894); D.C.R., No. 1626 (Beirut, 1895), p. 2.

28 Martineau, , La commerce français, p. 158;Google ScholarBourgaud, , Lyon, p. 32.Google Scholar

29 M.O.C. (1897), pp. 345–46.

30 Ducousso, , L'industrie de la sole, p. 117.Google Scholar

31 M.O.C., No.947 (1911).

32 Martineau, , Le commerce français, p. 159;Google ScholarBourgaud, , Lyon, p. 33.Google Scholar

33 Martineau, , La commerce français, p. 159.Google Scholar

34 Abū, Shaqrā (Husayn, Yūsuf, and ⊂Ārif) al-Harakāt fī Lubnān (Beirut, 1952), p. 15.Google Scholar

35 For more details, see Owen, , Cotton, pp. 140–51Google Scholar and idem, , The Middle East in the World Economy, 1800–1914 (London and New York, 1981), pp. 141–48, 229–33.Google Scholar

36 Gilbar, , “Persian Agriculture,” p. 339;Google Scholaridem, , “The Persian Economy in the Mid-19th Century,” Die Welt des Islams, 19, 1–4 (1979), pp. 193–95.Google Scholar

37 Quataert, , “The Commercialization of Agriculture,” pp. 38–55.Google Scholar

38 Latron, A., La vie rurale en Syrie at au Liban (Beirut, 1936), pp. 51–52.Google Scholar

39 Firestone, Y., “Production and Trade in an Islamic Context: Sharika Contracts in the Transitional Economy of Northern Samaria,” 2 parts, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 6, 2&3 (04 and 06, 1975), p. 189.Google Scholar

40 Martineau, , La commerce français, pp. 161–62;Google ScholarBourgaud, , Lyon, p. 35.Google Scholar

41 Latron, , La vie rurale, pp. 61–62.Google Scholar

42 Latron, A., “La production et la commerce de la soie au Levant,” L'Asie Française (02, 1935), p. 78.Google Scholar

43 Himl (p1. ahmāl) is a unit of weight. It is equivalent to the quantity of leaves one person can carry, or roughly 75 kilograms. The himl also measures the number of mulberry trees in a designated area, in which case it is called himi shilsh or sahm. Latron, , La vie rurale, 23;Google ScholarMabāHith, vol. 11, p. 409.

44 Chevallier, , Le societé du Mont Liban, pp. 137–38.Google Scholar

45 Firestone, , “Production and Trade,” Part 2, p. 309.Google Scholar

46 Latron, , La vie rurale, pp. 66–71.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., pp. 66–207.

48 Ibid., p. 208.

49 Owen, , Middle East in World Economy, p. 165.Google Scholar

50 According to Chevallier, land on Mount Lebanon became private property only around the mid-19th century, prior to which time the area was subject to the miri tax. Other writers, however, have defined land ownership on Mount Lebanon during the Ottoman period as mulk. Chevallier, , Le societé du Mont Liban, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar

51 Weulersse, J., Paysans de la Syrie et du Proche Orient (Paris, 1946), pp. 97–111.Google Scholar

52 Latron, , La vie rurale, pp. 185–200.Google Scholar

53 See Du⊂aybis, al-Mur, Kitāb ahkām al-arādī al-muttaba⊂a fī al-bilād al-⊂arabiyya al-munfas;ila mm l-Sulta al-⊂Uthmāniyya (Jerusalem, 1923), article 25, p. 12.Google Scholar

54 Owen, , Middle East in World Economy, pp. 135–40.Google Scholar

55 Radwan, S., Capital Formation in Egyptian Industry and Agriculture, 1882–1967 (London, 1974), pp. 240–41.Google Scholar

56 Owen, , Cotton, pp. 112–21.Google Scholar

57 Leila, T. Fawaz, Merchants and Migrants in Nineteenth-Century Beirut (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

58 Weakley, E., “Report on the Conditions and Prospects of British Trade in Syria,” in Issawi, , Economic History, pp. 280–85;Google ScholarDucousso, , L'industrie de la soie, pp. 179–81.Google Scholar

59 Chehab, , Le rôle du Liban, pp. 64;Google ScholarDucousso, , L'industrie de la soie, pp. 184–91.Google Scholar

60 Clerget, , Las industries de la soie, 64;Google ScholarLabaki, B., “La filature de Ia soie dans le Sanjak du Mont Liban,” Arabica, 29, 1 (1977), pp. 84–87.Google Scholar

61 Martineau, , La commerce français, p. 146.Google Scholar

62 Fawaz, , Merchants and Migrants, p. 67.Google Scholar

63 Labaki, , Lafilature de la soie, pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

64 Dominique, Chevallier, “Lyon et la Syrie en 1919: Les bases d'une intervention,” Revue Historique 224 (Paris, 1960), p. 295;Google ScholarDucousso, , L'industrie de la soie, p. 105.Google Scholar

65 Ducousso, , L'industrie de la soie, p. 106.Google Scholar

66 Ibid.

67 Fawaz, , Merchants and Migrants, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

68 Chevallier, , La Societé du Mont Liban, p. 235.Google Scholar

69 The average price on the Marseilles market was computed from reports of the Marseilles Chamber of Commerce, Compte rendue de la situation industrielle et commercielle, “Rubrique Cocoons The Years 1870–1914.” The price per kilogram in French francs on the Beirut market was based on the following: 1 oke = approx. 1,280 grams; 1 piaster = approx. 10/44 French francs.

70 Ducousso, , L'industrie de la soie, p. 112.Google Scholar

71 Ibid., p. 110. In addition to the gap between the brokers' buying price and the selling price in Beirut or at the spinning mills, the price was influenced by brokers' fees, freight rates, and ventilation charges, which amounted to more than I piaster per oke.

72 Fawaz, , Merchants and Migrants, pp. 85–102.Google Scholar

73 Documents from the private archives of the Jumblat family have been published in Selim, Hassan Hichi, al-Murāsalāt al-ijtimā⊂iyya wa-al-iqrisādiyya li-zu⊂amā⊃ Jabal Lubnān khilāla thalāthat qurūn, 3 vols. (Beirut, 1980 and 1981), Vol. 3, pp. 89, 98–105.Google Scholar

74 Ibid., p. 90.

75 “As a result of the debts, we proceeded to farm out portions of the property and pay the proceeds to the creditors… The properties to be farmed out have been auctioned Out amongst the farmers.” Translation from a letter from the wakīl (selling agent) of the Jumblat family to the British Consul in Beirut, Foreign Office, 195/760 (January, 1863).

76 D.C.R., No. 1418 (1894), pp. 2–3.

77 Martineau, , Le commerce français, p. 167.Google Scholar

78 D.C.R., No. 2116 (Beirut, 1898), pp. 10–12; D.C.R., No. 2286 (Beirut, 1899), p. 12; D.C.R., No. 2441 (Beirut, 1900), p. 13; D.C.R., No. 2662 (Beirut, 1901), p. 10; D.C.R., No. 2836 (Beirut, 1902), p. 14.

79 See Boutros, Labaki, “La soie dans l'économie du Mont Liban et de son environnement arabe, 1840–1914,” Peuples Médirerranéens 7 (04/06, 1979), pp. 128–29.Google Scholar

80 Thobie, J., interéts et imperialisme français dans l'Empire Ottoman (1895–1914) (Paris, 1977), p. 490.Google Scholar

81 lbid., p. 515.

82 Labaki, , Introduction à l'hisioire économique, pp. 152–61.Google Scholar