Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part VI: administration and settlement in Venetian Navarino

Hesperia, Wntr, 2004 by Siriol Davis

The distribution and cultivation of land were matters of the utmost importance to the Venetian authorities. If one of the attractions of the Morea was its potential for producing agricultural surplus, then it was imperative to ensure that this was maximized as early as possible. Working out exactly how much land they had at their disposal was a complex and time-consuming process for the Venetians. In the early stages of the occupation, short-term measures were taken without proper information, creating a tangled web of tenancies and concessions, which successive administrators had to unweave.

The Ottoman Landholding System One must begin with a brief explanation of the system of land tenure and rural infrastructure under the Ottomans. In the period of the first occupation (ca. 1500-1688), virtually all arable land was owned by the state (miri). The basic unit of production was the cift-hane, the family farm that incorporated sufficient land to sustain a family with the labor of a pair of oxen. This was held under a type of lease (tapu) from the state in return for keeping the land under cultivation and paying taxes; the peasant had the usufruct of the land and could pass it on to his children. State revenues from arable land held in this way could be assigned to members of the military as timars; the timar-holder acted as an agent of the central government in supervising the possession, transfer, and rental of lands within his territory and collecting tax revenue, in return for military service. A timar was not necessarily made up of contiguous property, but could consist of property scattered among different villages. Arable land not already cultivated under the tapu system was rented out by the state. Farmlands with no permanent settled population, often cultivated by neighboring villages as reserve land, were designated as mezra'a. Once registered for a certain amount of revenue, these could be assigned as timars. Another category of land was that in which the revenue was assigned to a religious foundation, or vakf. There was also some limited freehold arable land (mulk), mainly acquired through Sultanic grants. (134)

While these are the basic characteristics of the classic Ottoman landholding system, the reality, particularly in outlying provinces of the empire, could vary enormously, depending on the physical environment and the nature of the socioeconomic regime at the time of conquest. In the late 16th and 17th centuries, the timar system was in some areas increasingly replaced by the development of tax farms and the creation of private estates, or ciftliks, cultivated by sharecroppers.

THE VENETIAN SYSTEM OF LAND DISTRIBUTION

The Venetians, as successors to the Ottoman empire in the Morea, inherited the revenues of all state land. Their primary concern was to ensure that cultivation was as extensive as possible and to find the means of collecting revenue from the land. As mentioned earlier, their reports state that the peninsula was underpopulated and vastly undercultivated. (135) While encouraging immigration, they first had to address the entitlements of the native population, both Greek Christians and recent Muslim converts to Christianity.