Governing property, making the modern state - PSI424

instance, one sub-group of eight shares (sub-group C in Figure 9.5) consists
of families which would be associated with the Shatnawis in 1933: Shuha and
Khatib with four shares (C1), Haddad with three (C2) and Da’ud al-Ahmad and
‘Abdul-Hadi’s daughter with one (C3). C2 and C3 together make up four shares.
But in six fields (3, 8, 10, 11, 15 and 19) C2’s plots are separated from those of
C3, in four cases dividing the plots of C1 in half. The relevant group for allotting
plots is thus of eight shares, not four. The core Gharaiba group of eight shares
(A) consists of Na’il Gharaiba himself (72), his cousin ‘Abdullah al-Ahmad (73),
his brothers Muhammad (74) and Mahmud (76), Muhammad’s son Qasim (77)
and Salim bin ‘Ali al-Mufakkar (75). In most fields the order of plots within this
group does not vary much: 72 and 73 are always together (making up a sub-unit
of four shares) while 74 is next to 73 in all but six fields (12, 19, 21, 23, 30 and
31). The eight-share group stands as a unit in relation to other eight-share groups
despite some variation in the order of plots internally.
Figure 9.5 shows the pattern. Within the Gharaiba half, reallotment over time
at any level would have been unnecessary since there was already sufficient variation
in the spatial distribution of plots. For instance sub-group A occupies the
first position in nine fields, the last position in twelve fields, and the intermediate
position in ten fields. The sub-group of four shares (B2) made up of ‘Ali Khlaif
and the Sabbahs occupies first position out of six in two fields, second position
in seven, third position in five, fourth position in five, fifth position in five and
sixth position in seven. This illustrates a synchronic form of equalization.
The pattern of holdings on the ground is thus regular for each half of the
village but in different ways. For holdings in the Shatnawi half, the listing of
order is formal implying regular diachronic redistribution. The Gharaiba half,
by contrast, is divided into sub-groups and the order of holdings varies from
field to field both for the sub-group in relation to other sub-groups and within
each sub-group. Both forms of allotment show collective organization, but what
does the difference signify?
Regular reassignment of plots among the 26 holdings in the Shatnawi half
implies a greater degree of collective organization and discipline, hence a greater
sense of equality. The group held together because they worked together, not
primarily because they were linked through ties of marriage or descent. If some
members of the group had limited resources, they might be expected to make
regular adjustments to the amount of land they cultivated as their household
labour rose or fell. The liability recorded in the tax register, then, might not
correspond exactly with their legal entitlement. Subdivision into smaller groups,
on the other hand, each of which had the same set of plots from year to year,
would imply greater inequality among members, more reliance upon labour
from outside their own households, and a closer correspondence between tax
liability and entitlement. Ties of marriage and descent played a greater role in
the formation of such groups.
There are two cases which reveal significant differences of organizing principle.
The first is the incorporation of two men, who never had title to land, into
147
Two plains villages