Preliminary Programme

Tue 13 April
    8.30
    10.45
    14.15
    16.30

Wed 14 April
    8.30
    10.45
    14.15
    16.30

Thu 15 April
    8.30
    10.45
    14.15
    16.30

Fri 16 April
    8.30
    10.45
    14.15
    16.30

All days
Go back

Tuesday 13 April 2010 14.15
Q-3 RUR10 Problems of Landownership and Landdistribution
Atelier R2, Pauli
Network: Rural Chair: Rosa Congost
Organizers: - Discussant: Rosa Congost
Aikaterini Aroni - Tsichli : Problems of Ownership in Agrarian Greece, 1821-1923
Following the successful termination of the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) against the Ottoman Empire an independent Greek state was created. In accordance with the three National Assemblies during the Greek War of Independence all the Turkish territories were appropriated by the Greek State in order to be distributed to ... (Show more)
Following the successful termination of the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) against the Ottoman Empire an independent Greek state was created. In accordance with the three National Assemblies during the Greek War of Independence all the Turkish territories were appropriated by the Greek State in order to be distributed to the Greeks as recompense for their participation in the War of Independence.
This scheme was adopted by the 1st Governor of Greece, Yoannis Kapodistrias (1828-1831), who wished to create a nation of small land-owners there for reducing the oligarchy of notables and chieftains. King Otto (1833-1862) and his governments also pursued the system of small land-owners, pushing it through at all levels, thus securing support of the monarchy from small land-owners.
However, there was very little distribution of land to the cultivators and their families. In fact, the problem of land distribution remained unsolved for 50 years, after the beginning of the Greek Revolution of 1821. The problem of the “national lands” continued to worry those populations that had been freed in 1821 for a long time. In fact, not until 1871 with agricultural reform, was a final solution found. At that point, almost all Greek peasants were given land.
However, new agrarian problems appeared each time borders of Greece were extended, due to the annexation of new land. These issues tended to vary because the regimes before annexation had been highly different from the independent Greek State. For example, in 1864, the Ionian Islands, which had been under the protection of Great Britain (1815-1864), were incorporated into the Greek state. The Agrarian Question of Corfu (as it was called) was an acute agrarian issue as the Ionian Islands had been run on feudalistic principles by the Venetians from the very early days of their rule. Since they had been in rule for approximately 600 years, this system was obviously well-entrenched. Of course, this problem, in comparison to the other agrarian issues, was not so great as at least it was limited to the Ionian Islands.
Especially acute was the agrarian issue which appeared after the annexation of Thessaly and a section of Epirus (Arta) in 1881. A similar problem also existed with the annexation of other parts of Epirus and Macedonia in 1913. These areas, which until then had been under the Ottoman rule, were large estates (tsiflikia), which were cultivated by dependent tenant farmers, according to the Land Laws of the Ottoman Empire.
The difficulties presented with the big estates (tsiflikia) in Northern Greece were finally resolved with the agrarian reforms which began in 1917 and were completed in 1923. (Show less)

Marina Monteiro Machado : Sides of the Frontier: indians and whites in the lands of Rio de Janeiro
The present paper analyzes land conflicts in areas considered as indigenous
possessions in the frontier regions of the province of Rio de Janeiro in the
19th century. This study pressupposes that frontier is more than a "divisory
line", being a space for social constructions and dispute among different
groups.
It is also a goal of ... (Show more)
The present paper analyzes land conflicts in areas considered as indigenous
possessions in the frontier regions of the province of Rio de Janeiro in the
19th century. This study pressupposes that frontier is more than a "divisory
line", being a space for social constructions and dispute among different
groups.
It is also a goal of this study to understand and consolidate "Fronteira" as
a concept to be investigated througout the research, making possible a study
of land occupation in Brazil with its conflicts and disputes. This text is
based on the discussions of historiography from the United States about this
concept, from the initial discussions on this theme by Turner (towards the
end of the 19th century) to the recent conclusions that seek to understand
the interior lands' occupation process from the actions of the European immigrants. (Show less)

Doina Simona Niculae : Forest property transformations in Transylvania in the XX th Century
The forest properties of Transylvania - a region with specific historical traits in comparison to the other Romanian provinces until 1918 - underwent many changes, especially during the last century. Before socialism forests existed as private and common properties. One type of common property was communal forest, administrated by the ... (Show more)
The forest properties of Transylvania - a region with specific historical traits in comparison to the other Romanian provinces until 1918 - underwent many changes, especially during the last century. Before socialism forests existed as private and common properties. One type of common property was communal forest, administrated by the representatives of each village. Any inhabitant of the village had the right to an allotted volume of timber each year established by a village committee in conformity to the rate of growth of the forest for a rational exploitation. Another type of common property was the 'composesorat' , a type found only in Transylvania (10% of Transylvanian forests), inherited from Austro-Hungarian administration before 1918. The owners were only a part of the villagers who own shares of this forest, a type of property that implied a complex administration. In 1948 all Romanian forests were nationalized. The scientific knowledge was applied in the management of public forests and the general perception was that forests were in significant better shape then than before nationalization. Later in the 90s this was the strongest argument against the return to former private ownership, that forest administration was best if kept centralized, supported by the evidence that in Romanian forests live the largest population of wolfs and the third of bears in Europe. After 1989, although there was adopted a law as a basis for restoration of private property, law 18/1991, in the case of forest it was significantly more difficult to apply it in comparison to the case of the agricultural land. If the agricultural land was restituted by 1996, and the main problem was related to finding and negotiating for the old location of the property, in the case of forests, they had to be first considered as natural resources that must have been administered under well established regulations by the private owners. This was perceived as an intrusion of the state in a matter in which they should have exclusive rights. However, mostly because these regulations on how to manage private properties were adopted only in 1996, only small individual properties were restituted, while the large properties such as the composesorat forests, only after 2001. The reason of this delay was that the owners received their properties only under the condition to organize their own private administration consisting of specialized personnel. This process was constantly undermined by the representatives of National Forest Administration (NFA), the manager of the state forests. For example, NFA accused private owners of being responsible for clearing their properties and for the current disaster of the Romanian forests. Concomitently, there were many official accounts of abuses on a large scale for which NFA was responsible, such as allowing big illegal cuttings from public forests to its political clientele. Using historical and ethnographic data, the paper investigates the processes of property transformation in the forestry sector in Transylvania during the last century and the role of the state in the management of forests regardless of the type of land ownership, hoping also to bring a contribution to the debate over the public versus private administration of forests. (Show less)

Ulla Rosén : Swedish emigrants landownership and landtransmission: Minnesota 1850-1950
This project focuses on the conditions for landownership and transmission of land for Swedish emigrants in Minnesota 1850-1950. The official statistics says that the share of tenant farmers in Minnesota increased from 9 % in 1880 to 35 % 1935. This is not in accordance to what we have learned ... (Show more)
This project focuses on the conditions for landownership and transmission of land for Swedish emigrants in Minnesota 1850-1950. The official statistics says that the share of tenant farmers in Minnesota increased from 9 % in 1880 to 35 % 1935. This is not in accordance to what we have learned on “the self-made man” and “the American dream”. The aim of the study is to find out how the Swedish emigrants in Minnesota succeeded as landowners and how, and if, land was transferred to the next generation or sold to non-kin. So far there has been little research on following up what happened to emigrants and their relatives. The studies of i.e. Robert Ostergren and Jon Gjerde focuses mainly on the first generation of emigrants.
Another interesting issue is how laws, restrictions and politics had an influence on the patterns of land transmissions. The studies of John Opie (The Law of the Land,1987) shows that the farmers and their claims were turned down in favour of big railroad companies and other capitalistic businessmen. Still the farmer embodies real American values and is (still) seen as one of the cornerstones for the American society. (Show less)

Jose Vicente Serrao : Lands over Seas: Property Rights in the Early Modern Portuguese Empire
In spite of the remarkable development it attained, the European rural historiography has not yet been able to overcome its dominant Eurocentric view. There is a clear deficit of “globalization” in this historiography, which is even more surprising when one considers that the European were responsible, under their colonial and ... (Show more)
In spite of the remarkable development it attained, the European rural historiography has not yet been able to overcome its dominant Eurocentric view. There is a clear deficit of “globalization” in this historiography, which is even more surprising when one considers that the European were responsible, under their colonial and imperial rule, for the development of agricultural models in all other continents. This is a situation that urges to be surpassed. The paper I am proposing steps in that direction.
It focuses on the agrarian structures of the Portuguese Empire (mainly in the early modern period, with some prospective extensions), addressing such fundamental questions as: how did the Portuguese manage the “land issue” – its appropriation, its (re-)distribution – in their Empire? How were key institutions like property rights of a Portuguese and European matrix transposed to several overseas contexts (e.g. India, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Brazil, just to mention some)? How did they merge there with local traditions and institutions of such different cultures as the Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, African or Amerindian ones? How were those institutions used for economic, political, sociological and ideological purposes? How did they survive the collapse of the Portuguese Empire and to what extent did those processes influence the post-colonial and present-day economies and societies of these countries? This is just a sample of the key questions I am intending to deal with.
The need to regulate the system of property rights (those institutions used for the property constitution and distribution, for the exploitation of land, for the transfer of rights between individuals or for the collect of rent) started often as a response to pressing circumstances. The occupation of free land or the problem of settlement, for instance, had to be solved, as well as the need to replace structures of power left empty by the transfer of sovereignty to Portuguese authorities. But that regulation of property rights soon became a powerful tool. Both the Crown and decentralized imperial authorities used it for political and social control, for securing sovereignty over a territory, for the payment of services, for the organization of economic activities or for tax collecting, among other purposes. On the other hand, seen “from below”, the reception and re-appropriation of those measures by the social agents in the field showed also a variety of tenors, degrees and goals.
The aim of this paper is precisely to discuss the diversity of the adopted solutions in dealing with the land issue across the Portuguese overseas empire, their sources, their purposes, their impacts and their reception. (Show less)



Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer