Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:54:38.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City, Bursa, 1600-1700

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Haim Gerber
Haim Gerber
Affiliation:
Herbrew University, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Popular belief, if not serious scholarship, maintains that the position of women in pre-twentieth-century Islamic society was an extremely depressed one. And although scholars were always cautious on this point, the popular belief, shared also, it would seem, by many Orientalists, is a stubborn one. The low status of women is said to have derived from the fact that the patriarchal family was supposedly the backbone of the social structure throughout Islamic society. Women, it was supposed, were often secluded in harems and, therefore, were barred from participating in public life, which meant that they could not pursue economic occupations, or go to court to defend their interests and legal rights. Moreover, it seems to have been generally agreed that women were frequently deprived of the benevolence bestwed on them by classical Islamic law, which mitigated the extremities of the pre-Islamic tribal law of Arabia. Thus, Islam reduced the number of women allowed to a man to four, in order to ensure their better treatment. Similarly, Islam denounced the usual deprivation of inheritance suffered by women, and assigned them a share in the estate of the deceased, although this was very much less than that assigned to male inheritors. It has generally been thought that even this modest improvement in the position of women was never, in fact, effected.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , November 1980 , pp. 231 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Author's Note: This study is based on the court records of seventeenth-century Anatolian Bursa. The Archive is housed in the Archaeological Museum of Bursa, and the work was done there from 1973 to 1975. Registers are cited according to series (A or B), and register number (e.g., B III/325). Specific documents are cited according to folio number and date. Dates are given as they appear in the original documents. Abbreviations are used for some of the Muslim months: CI, Cemazilevvel; CII, Cemaziyelahir; RI, Rebiulevvel; RII, Rebiulahir; ZH, Zilhicce; ZK, Zilkade. The names of the other months are shortened. I wish to express my gratitude to Professor G. Baer and Mrs. Ruth Roded, both of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for their kindness in reading an earlier draft of this study and commenting on it.

1 See, e.g., Levy, R., The Social Structure of Islam (Cambridge, 1965), chap. 2.Google Scholar

2 Baer, G., Population and Society in the Arab East (London, 1964), pp. 34–43.Google Scholar

3 Jennings, R. C., “Women in Early 17th-Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 18 (1975), 53–114.Google Scholar

4 ibid., p. 108.

5 These estates were, of course, only peripherally used in the present study. They serve as the basis for the author's Society and Economy in a 17th-Century Ottoman City, in preparation.

6 E.g., see B108/322, 34b, 18 Şaban 1097; B153/369, 109b, 5 Şevval 1108. The same conclusion was reached by Barkan concerning Edirne (Barkan, Ö L., “Edirne Askeri Kassamine Ait Tereke Defterleri,” Belgeler. 3 (1966), 13 f.)Google Scholar

7 Layish, A., Women and Islamic Law in a Non-Muslim State (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 290 ff.Google Scholar

8 BIII/325, 15a, II Muh. 1095.

9 B III/325, 14b, selh-i ZH 1094.

10 B150/366, 20a, 18CI 1104.

11 B73/274, 3a, Muh. 1059.

12 B45/239, 14a, evasit-i Muh. 1035.

13 B73/274, 3b, Muh. 1059.

14 B132/347, 12a, 13 ZK 1068.

15 B71/272, 44b. 10 Muh. 1059.

16 B154/370, 36b, evail-i RI 1010.

17 B75/276, 55b, 17 Muth. 1091.

18 See, e.g., B36/230, 197b, evasit-i RI 1027; B107/321, 105b, 12 Muh. 1093.

19 B71/272, 27b, 24 ZK 1058.

20 See, e.g., B42/236, 30a, evail-i Safer 1032; B75/276, 51 b, 26 ZH 1090; B137/382, 84a, 4 Muh. 1084.

21 B111/325,91a, 16 ZK1095; B87/289,7b,7 R 11, 1060; A161/255, 18a, evahir-i CI 1046; B59/253, 85a, evahir-i ZK 1044.

22 B130/345, 13a, evasit-i CI 1066; B /276, 30b, 15 Ram. 1090, where a woman bought two very large mills.

23 See, for example, B50/244, 87b, evasit-i Safer 1039.

24 B285/513, 42a, evail-i Muh. 1089; B17/197, 64a, CII 1007.

25 The borrower “sells” a house to the wakf, and immediately thereafter the wakf leases the house to the borrower. The “rent” in 17th-century Bursa, was invariably 10 percent of the price of the house. On all this see in more detail, Gerber, , Society and Economy, chap. 7.Google Scholar

26 B91/296, 71a. 4 Muh. 1082.

27 B142/357, 33b, 18 Muh. 1093.

28 See, e.g., B45/239, 41b, evahir-i RI 1035; B118/332, lola, evail-i Muh. 1028; B118/332, 57a, evahir-i Şaban 1027; A195/800, 134a, evasit-i CII 1002.

29 E.g., B142/357, 63a, II RII 1094; B204/428, 86b, 22 Ram. 1089; B204/428, 85a, 22 Ram. 1089; B 142/357, 125b, 22 ZK 1095. Such examples in the estates amount to several hundreds, so one must conclude that this pattern was very widespread.

30 B36/230, 87b, evahir-i ZK 1025.

31 B103/316, 8a, 2 ZK 1085.

32 B111/325, 117, 8 RII 1096.

33 B91/6, 5b, selh-i RII 1079.

34 B137/382, 57a, 25 RII 1086. See also B72/273, 45a, evasit-i CI 1057.

35 B144/359, 35a, 29 RII 1095.

36 B45/239, 69a, evasit-i CI 1035.

37 B59/sol;253, 149a, evahir-i Ram. 1045.

38 B137/382, 26b, II RI 1085.

39 Barkan, Ö. L., “Türk Toprak Hukuku Tarininde Tanzimat ve 1274 (1858) Tarihli Arazi Kanunnamesi,” Tanzimat (Istanbul, 1938), pp. 344 ff.Google Scholar

40 B111/325, 130b, 3 CII 1096.

41 B35/229, 26b, evasit-i Şevval 1025.

42 B75/276, 51b, 26 ZH 1090.

43 A195/800, 91a, evasit-i ZH 999.

44 A156/207, 116b, 10 Şevval 1012.

45 A156/207, 72b, 4 Receb 1012.

46 A156/207, 105b, 8 Ram. 1012.

47 B144/359, 35b, I CII 1095. For other examples see B102/315, 83a, 8 ZK 1112; B51/245, 113a, evasit-i ZK 1040; B42/236, 68b, evahir-i CI 1032; B83/284, 49b, 7 Receb 1056.

48 B42/236, 40a evasil-i RI 1032.

49 B111/332, 86b, evasit-i ZH 1027. See also: A161/255, 189a, 13 Muh. 1048.

50 Zer ettirdüm, meaning, of course, that it was not she personally. See B112/326, 53b, 24 ZK 1089.

51 Tarlalartm ziyade olmağla– B150/366, 43b, 14 Şevval 1104.

52 B91/296, 71a, 4 Muh. 1082.

53 B152/368, 88a, 5 Receb 1107.

54 B149/364, 19a, 18 RI 1099.

55 Hisse may be translated as “a share.” But what it really means is that production of this commodity was limited by (customary) law to 51 “shares.” No one who had no “shares” could produce candles at all; and anyone who had “shares” could produce only according to the number of “shares” he had. See on this Gerber, H., “Guilds in 17th-century Anatolian Bursa,” Asian and African Studies, 11 (1976), 78.Google Scholar

56 B53/247, 105a, evahir-i Şevval 1042.

57 B143/358, 44a, 21 RI 1093.

58 See, e.g., KuLischer, J., Allgemeine Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, Vol. 2 (Munich, 1965), pp. 113 ff.Google Scholar

59 B103/316, 6b, ZK 1019.

60 B112/326, 6b–7b, CII 1089.

61 Başbakanlik Arşivi, Istanbul, , Maliye, Defterleri 9506, p. 158, 7 CI 1134.Google Scholar

62 Ordinarily the free practice of trade was restricted in Bursa by various privileges of the guilds. See Gerber, , “Guilds,” pp. 74 ff.Google Scholar

63 B111/325, 12b, ZH 1094– el-kadim yutrak ala kidamihi fehvasinca. This saying is often cited in legal cases in the court records of Bursa, as a legal basis for decisions, and it can definitely be said to constitute the main basis for the customary law of the Ottoman Empire. The origin of this saying is not wholly clear. Nevertheless, it may be noted that it recurs among the famous “general principles” which appear in the preamble of the Mecelle (principle 6), in which context it is generally traced back to Ibn Nujaim, a 15th-century Egyptian theologian. See: Öztük, O., Osmanh Hukuk Tarihinde Mecelle (Istanbul, 1973), pp. 122–123. But it seems to be so vital a part of the Ottoman customary law that it is doubtful whether its roots do not lie much deeper than that.Google Scholar

64 B111/325, 46a, 4 CI 1095.

65 Examples: B134/349, 33b, 15 Muh. 1077; B149/364, 63b, 5 Safer 1100; B129/344, 93a, evail-i CII 1067; B187/410, 27b, 18 CII 1109; B153/369, 12a, 27 Muh. 1106.

66 A. 161/255, evail-i ZK 1046; B73/274, I I9a, evail-i RII 1060; B50/244, 85b, 15 Safer 1039.

67 B71/272, 116b, evasit-i RII 1059.

68 B142/357, 79a, 25 ZH 1094.

69 B204/428, 98a, evail-i RI 1076. See also: B142/357, 33b, 18 Muh. 1093.

70 For purposes of clear presentation the tables include only averages. The complete details and analysis concerning the estates owned by men are given in my forthcoming Society and Economy in a 17th-Century Ottoman City. The figures serve here only for purposes of comparison, we may note the following: N for the first third of the century is 14; for the second third 46; and for the last third 63. By “real” figures we mean that the estates contain, of course, nominal figures. In order that these figures be comparable with each other, they have been deflated on an index of wheat prices, derived from the estates of over 2,000 people who died during the century. Wheat was chosen because it constituted then, as it does today, the basis of the Anatolian diet. Taking the middle third of the century as 100, this price index was 77; 100; 129. Admittedly, this is avery approximate procedure but, nevertheless, we think it does much to cancel out the distortion inherent in the nominal figures due to inflation.

71 Examples: B103/316, 41a, 28 CI 1086; B112/326, 93a, 28 Safar 1090; B111/325, 15b, 16 Muh. 1095; B111/325, 70b, 6 Şaban 1095, where six women together were brought to trial!

72 This was, for example, Max Weber's view (see Weber, M., The City [New York, 1968], pp. 80–81).Google Scholar Cf. also Lapidus, I. M., “Muslim Cities and Islamic Societies,” in his (ed.) Middle Eastern Cities (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), p. 51. Undoubtedly for some areas and periods this view is correct; for Bursa it seems unwarranted.Google Scholar

73 See Jennings, R. C., “Zimmis (Non-Muslims) in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 21 (1978), 226.Google Scholar

74 Thus, there were no Jews in Izmir in the 16th century, but a massive immigration there began as the city started to grow at the beginning of the 17th century.

75 See Jennings, R., “Loans and Credit in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 16 (1973), 177–180.Google Scholar

76 See Jennings, , “Women,” p. 6; also p. 113 for a second example.Google Scholar

77 ibid., p. 99.

78 ibid., p. 114.

79 In a random sample of 200 estates it was found that the average number of children per family was 2.15.

80 Thus, in 1684 there was a plague that wiped out as much as a quarter of the population or more. For further details, see Gerber, , Society and Economy, chap. 1.Google Scholar

81 Laslett, P., ed., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 5 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar