Governing property, making the modern state - PSI424

Part three | 10
out the land in Kufr ‘Awan, even if it was into thirds in 1884 but quarters in
1939. In other parts of the world where the common resources of a village were
organized on shares, it was usual for a cultivating body to be subdivided into
halves, thirds or quarters, before further subdivision either into smaller fractions
or according to the number of working ploughs or working men (zalama). A
system of subdivision of the whole village combined allotment of benefits with
the allocation of responsibilities, above all to pay government taxes. The term
for village section, hamula, from the root haml signifying burden, aptly conveys
the sense of collective liability. Under late Ottoman reforms the principle of coliability
for tax was gradually replaced by individual registration of tapu title and
individual liability for both vergi and miri tax. But the tradition of collectively
sharing resources remains evident in the pattern of allotment of plough land.
The division of the shareholding body of Kufr ‘Awan into three sections in 1884
bore close correspondence with the named social groupings of 1939 only in respect
of the first section. In 1939 villagers were affiliated to four groups, the Dahun, the
Dawaghira, the Khashashna and the ‘Amaira. In 1884, the Dahun comprised families
1 to 8, the ‘Amaira families 12 to 18 together with 28 and 29, the Khashashna
families 19 to 24, plus 27, and the Dawaghira families 9 to 11 together with 25
and 26. Roughly the Dahun made up the first section in 1884, the ‘Amaira the
second, and the Khashashna the third, while Dawaghira families were distributed
between all three sections. Since no named group had exactly 7¼ shares, some
adjustment would have been necessary in 1884 to obtain exactly equal sections,
as a result of which a group of families might be split between sections.
There was no basis of common descent tying all families of one group to a
common ancestor that we heard of during our interviews, although the topic
of origin was sensitive. Only in respect of the Dahun does there appear from
the land records to be some common grounds for grouping. The Dahun were
registered first in the list of musha‘ holdings (634 to 648, with 654 and a part
of 652). Their houses appear to have been all together in a distinct area of the
village site. This residential clustering is evident not so much from the numbering
of houses, although this is indeed sequential (houses 731 to 741, plus 748),
as from consideration of the borders specified for each house in the house list.
Other clusters of houses can be made out from the borders, notably 696 to 702
belonging to ‘Ali and Mansur ‘Ubaid, Qasim al-Muhammad, Salih al-Muqbil,
‘Abdullah al-Mustafa’s son Mustafa and brother’s son Ibrahim al-Muhammad,
and Mahmud al-‘Abid – all ‘Amaira families. Given the strong correlation between
residence in the village and holding a share in plough land, it would not be
surprising to find some correspondence between social groupings and residential
clusters. But house borders are not sufficiently precise to enable an exact map to
be drawn of the village site in 1884.
It is unclear how Kufr ‘Awan’s village sections in 1884 related to the layout of
fields. At a gross level the division of the plough land into two blocks in 1884 is
continuous with 1939 despite the minute subdivision of each block at the later
date. According to our informants the twofold division corresponded to biennial
164