Barkan and Inalcik (Turkish historians) incline to suppose that
ciftlik is the only type of big farm formed through the collapsing process of the
timar system (the main land system of the Ottoman Empire) and incline to consider
gospodarlik as a local name (more especially in Bulgaria) of the
çiftlik and to identify the former with the latter.
Gospodarlik is one of the most unexplored fields of research in Turkey. The most comprehensive and well-documented study in Turkey on
gospodarlik is H. Inalcik,
Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi (Ankara, 1943) that describes generally matters of
gospodarlik up to the autumn of 1851, when
Zarif Pasa proceeded to the vâlî's (governor) post of
Vidin eyâleti (province) in northwestern Bulgaria.
On the other hand, Gandev and Kosev (Bulgar historians) maintain that there were distinct types of management among big farms. They regard
gospodarlik as a feudal type and
çiftlik as a capitalistic one. It seems that with regard to
gospodarlik's management a slight difference of opinion exists among the historians mentioned above. Therefore, I suppose that there was a variety of
çiftlik.
The main document introduced in this paper is
Zarif's Lâyiha (memorandum) concerning
gospodarlik. This document, bearing the date of 1852, is classified
IRA, no. 15687,
dâhilîye at Basvekâlet Arsivi (Archives of the Office of the Prime Minister) in Istanbul.
It is obvious that Inalclk deals chiefly with the method of
gospodarizk's formation in relation to
iltizam (tax farming) system, but his explanation of
gospodar's (owner of
gospodarlik) origin is not clear.
Zarif maintains in his
Lâyiha that the
mutasarrif (possessor), who got a
tapu (title deed) in return for some dues from the
mültezim (tax farmer), became a
gospodar. In the presesent paper, I try to present some problems concerning
gospodarlik by dealing with
gospodarlik as a type of various çiftliks and
criticizing mainly Inalcik's view.
抄録全体を表示