Abstract
During the post-Byzantine period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in certain areas of Greece, back then, under Ottoman occupation, a particular form of cooperative organization was developed. Rural regions—networks of adjacent communities—having secured a special privileged status of community administration—were organised as a local production system designed to produce specific agricultural or craft products which were then destined for international markets. The present paper aims, first, to bring to light the Greek guild, its internal organization and its geographical impacts; and, second, to investigate the phenomenon of the cooperative community networks. In particular, it presents successful historical examples of cooperative organization, their deeper values and operational rules developed in Eastern Mediterranean during the post-Byzantine period. At the same time, it aims at the study and prominence of the deeper values and motives and main operational rules, firstly on regional micro-level of professional guilds and latterly on a peripheral macro-level of cooperative forms in between in the wider regions of Greek territory. Four historically successful cases of cooperative organization in the Greek territory thrived during the Ottoman occupation, aspects of which offer useful proposals for the founding and operation of today’s cooperative initiatives. The success of these cases is in line with the exploitation of specific political and socio-economic conditions; the parallel growth of an expansive, international commercial network; monopolies’ function; and the invention of innovative operation rules of cooperative organization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For an analytical presentation of the Byzantine roots of the institution of cooperatives, see Papageorgiou (1982: 17–19).
Societies and brotherhoods, i.e. institutions that had been operating since the Byzantine era, were also active during the period of the Ottoman sovereignty. Linked to the work of the Church, they were confined to religious and charity activities. Any Christian Orthodox from any social class and rank, whether man or woman, could become a member of the society. Their members addressed each other as “brother” or “sister” and paid annual dues according to their economic status. In cases where the income of the Society was not sufficient to cover its charity work, the wealthier members that were usually master-craftsmen offered more money and also covered any deficit from fundraising within the esnafs. Societies were founded throughout the period of the Ottoman Sovereignty in the Greek communities abroad as well, for example the Society of the Banner of Saint Nicholas and Saint George of the Greeks, mentioned since the first years of the Ottoman Sovereignty (Chatzimichalis, 1953).
It should not be forgotten that in many areas, the lower level of public finance unit was the guild. The Mufti, at his own, will set in every guild a total amount payable, and the master-craftsman was obliged to collect and render it to the community.
ICA (2002), “Statement on the Cooperative Identity” http://ica.coop/en/whats-co-op/co-operative-identity-valuesprinciples, enshrined in ILO Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation, 2002 (no. 193) www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:R193.
Ibid.
ICA (2016), Co-operatives showcase unique, innovative approach to 2030 Agenda implementation, 11.07.2016, Press Release, New York.
UNDP (2015), Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs_Booklet_Web, http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_Web_En.pdf, retrieved in 30.08.2016.
It is typical that there was an effort on the part of “legislators” to ensure that these were distributed evenly, quickly and fairly to all members of the guild in order to achieve a balanced development of all members’ productivity.
“Naturally, everyone cared for their personal interest, always being careful, though, not to harm the works of their colleagues. In every town, all the guilds had friendly bonds, unlike those of Western Europe” (Vourazeli-Marinakou, 1950: 87).
Photopoulos states that if the craftsman ceased the kalfas “he took them down from their stool”, the next day, the kalfa would see the wooden stool turned upside down and his workbench clear of tools, as an indication that he was unwelcomed. He would take his personal belongings from the drawer and his tools, if he had any of his own, wrapped in his apron and would leave without a single word (Photopoulos, 1979: 72).
Papageorgiou argues that in Constantinopolis, in the eighteenth century, there were between 120 and 150 guilds and with their subdivisions they reached the number of 600 guilds (Papageorgiou, 1982: 20).
See Ierapetritis, D.G., (2010), “The Geography of the Chios Mastic Trade from the 17th through to the 19th Century”, “Ethnobotany Research and Applications,” Vol. 8, North America, pp. 153–167. Available at: http://www.erajournal.org/ojs/index.php/era/article/view/372.
The 21 Mastic villages comprised the villages of Armolia, Pirgi, Mesta, Flatsia, Kalamoti, Kallimasia, Exo Didima, Mesa Didima, Agios Georgios Sikousis, Katarractis, Koini, Mermingio, Pagida, Patrika, Vessa, Elata, Neniτa, Tholopotami, Vouno, Lithio and Olympoi, see Fig. 1.
Ierapetritis, D. (2007), The Contribution of the Local Organization of Mastic Villages in Chios to the Management of the Spatial Planning, in the period 1566–1866 of the Ottoman Sovereignty, unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of Geography, Aegean University (in Greek), Ierapetritis, D.G., “Community administration networks in the Aegean: the case of Mastic Villages of Chios in the 19th century”, “Ta Historika” journal, 26 (51), 399–424 (in Greek), Ierapetritis, D., (2010), “Community and Space in the Aegean: the case of Mastic villages in Chios during the period of the Ottoman Sovereignty”, Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Historical Geography Historical Geography of Greece and Eastern Mediterranean, Aegean University, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mytilene 16–18 September 2010 (in Greek).
See Firman of the Sultan Osman III on renewing the firman issued by Mahmud I, regarding the taxation of the Mastic villages, 6/17 May 1755, Ch.B. Mavropoulos, Translated Turkish documents about the History of Chios, ibid. p. 211 (in Greek).
There are relevant references in notarial deeds issued in the period 1620–1640. See indicatively, General State Archives of Greece (G.S.A.)—Archives of Chios Prefecture, file 85r, Manuscript 19, Codex of Vessa (1623–1643).
See Firman of the Sultan Ahmed III on the census of the inhabitants of Chios and imposing the ispençe tax (quintile), 7/18 June 1719, Ch.B. Mavropoulos, Translated Turkish documents about the History of Chios, ibid. p. 189 (in Greek).
See Firman of Sultan Abdulmecid on abolishing immunity for the Mastic villages and incorporating them in the tax system, 30/10 May 1755, Translated Turkish documents about the History of Chios, ibid. p. 262. Regarding the mastic that had to be paid as tax-in-kind, G.A. Olivier (1801–1807) states that “This product reached on average more than fifty thousand okkas per year. Twenty thousand were given to the agha, the lessee of this product and were delivered by the farmers as payment of his personal tax. The remainder was paid for 50 para per okka (approximately 16 solidi per pound) and they were forbidden under severe penalty to sell or give to anyone else except the lessee” (in Argentis and Kyriakides, 1946: 849).
See G.S.A.—Archives of Chios Prefecture, MS 30, Codex of Vouno, 14 September 1782, pp. 502–503. The lessor of the mastic tax kept a register of all the trees of every producer in every village (Pougeois, 1869:243). Galland (1754) notes that: “In order to collect all this mastic, each one of the producing villages was charged with an amount of okkas proportional to the number of trees they have because they know approximately how much a tree can yield. And because all years are not similarly good or bad for all areas, where there are such trees, those that collect more than they are obligated to give, sell to those that have collected less than their obligation for 60 akçes per okka, because they help each other as much as they can; otherwise they would be obliged to buy from the customs officer for two piastres per okka”. B. De Monconys makes the same reference “… the owners were obligated to render (an amount), each according to the amount imposed to them and according to the number of trees they possessed or pay two piastres for every missing okka” (F.P. Argentis, St.P. Kyriakidis, 1946:199–200). Similarly, the Italian Geographer F. Piacenza writes: “… there are more than 100 thousand trees taking into account that each of these mentioned villages, which are no more than 22, is taxed for the total amount of crop with a certain amount of okkas proportional to the total number of trees they possess, because they do not know what each tree yields exactly, as not all crops are always the same. Moreover, it is not allowed in the island under death penalty to trade and store the crop except for the customs officer or the person to whom a license to buy has been granted…” (F.P. Argentis, St.P. Kyriakidis, 1946: 486–487).
The word “Paroikos” (Sojourner) is used for the inhabitant “the notaries repeatedly use the word paroikos instead of the more appropriate inhabitant …” (Paspatis, 1888: 275).
A typical example is the description of the tax allocation in community decisions of Kalamoti, see G.S.A.- Archives of Chios Prefecture, MS 69, Codex of Kalamoti (1696–1711), Historical Archive of Chios, 14 January 1708, p. 98.
See G.S.A.—Archives of Chios Prefecture, MS 30, Codex of Vouno (Mirmingi), (1768–1782), 22 July 1774, page 89r.
See Ierapetritis (2009). “Trading and Smuggling Mastic through the Aegean of the 19th Century, Workshop for the Analysis and Visualisation of Space and Time Data”. Working papers, no. 2, Aegean University, Mytilene (in Greek).
Long time ago, since the August of 1686, the representatives of Mastic villages had decided accordingly: “1686 of August, a contract circulated made at the meeting of all mastic villages providing that whoever buys any item, land or house from a mastic producer and this seller dies the buyer of the mastic shall bear the liability for the item bought under the contract […]” Manuscript (?) Codex of Kalamoti, p. 445, 15.08.1686 in Kanellakis, K.N., (1983: 382–383).
References
Baer, G., (1979). “Monopolies and restrictive practices of Turkish guilds”, in The economic structure of the Balkan countries in the years of the Ottoman sovereignty XV–XIX cen. Texts selected by S.I. Asdrachas, Melissa (in Greek).
Chloupková, J., (2003). European cooperative movement: background and common denominators, Unit of economics working papers, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Economics and Natural Resources, ISSN 1399–5154.
Defourny (2001). From third sector to social enterprise. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 1–28). London: Rutledge.
Enault, L., (1855). Cοnstantinοple et la Turquie Constantinople et la Turquie, Tableau Historique, Pittoresque, Statistique et Moral, De L' Empire Ottoman, Paris.
Hesse, H., Čihák, M., (2007). Cooperative banks and financial stability, IMF working paper s, monetary and capital markets department, WP/07/3.
ICA, (2002). “Statement on the cooperative identity” http://ica.coop/en/whats-co-op/co-operative-identity-valuesprinciples, enshrined in ILO promotion of cooperatives recommendation, 2002 (n° 193)www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:R193.
ICA, (2016). Co-operatives showcase unique, innovative approach to 2030 Agenda implementation, 11.07.2016, Press Release, New York.
Pougeois, M.L.A.A., (1869). Vansleb, Savant Oriental Iste et Voyageur, Sa Vie, Sa Disgrace, Ses Oeuvres, Paris.
Testevuide, A., (1878). L’ Isle de Chio (Turquie d’ Asie), Le Tour du Monde, Nouveau Journal des Voyages, Deuxieme Semestre.
The World Bank, (2007). Enhancing agricultural innovation, How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems, Agriculture and Rural Development, Washington DC.
UNDP, (2015). Sustainable development goals, SDGs_Booklet_Web, http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_Web_En.pdf. Retrieved in 30 Aug 2016.
Argentis, F. & Kyriakides, S.P. (1946). Chios as described by geographers and travellers, eighth to twentieth centuries, Estia Press, Athens.
Asdrachas, Sp., (1983). History issues, historical library. Themelio Publications, Athens (in Greek).
Vakalopoulos, A.E., (1976). History of the new Hellenism. The Turkish sovereignty (1453–1669). The historical roots of the modern Greek society and economy, Vol. B, 2nd edition, Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Vourazeli-Marinakou, E., (1950). Guilds of the Greeks in Thrace during the Ottoman sovereignty, scientific treatises, series of philology and theology, society of Macedonian studies, Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Galland, J., (1754), Recueil des rits et Ceremonies du Pelerinage de la Mecque Anquel on a Joint Divers Ecrits Relatifs a la Religion....Amsterdam.
Georgiou, E.P., (1951). The history and co-operative of Ampelakia, Athens (in Greek).
Holyoake, G.,J., (1875), The history of co-operation in England, its literature and its advocates, Volume I, The Pioneer Period - 1812 to 1844, London.
Ierapetritis, D.G., (2007). The contribution of local organisation of the Chios Mastic Villages in the management of space during the 1566 to 1866 period of Ottoman sovereignty’, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, [in Greek].
Ierapetritis, D. G. (2009a). Community administration networks in the Aegean: the case of mastic villages of Chios in the 19th century. “Ta Historica” journal, 26(51), 399–424 in Greek.
Ierapetritis, D., (2012). Community and space in the Aegean sea: the case of the mastic villages in Chios during the Ottoman rule. Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Historical Geography “Historical Geography of Greece and Eastern Mediterranean”, Aegean University, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mytilene 16–18 September 2010 (in Greek).
Ierapetritis, D., (2009b). Trading and smuggling mastic in the Aegean of the 19th century. Working Papers, Time-Space Data Analysis and Visualisation Laboratory, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, No. 2. Mytilene. [In Greek].
Ierapetritis, D.G., Fotaki, M., (2013). “Co-operative social entrepreneurship: the development of the retail shop network of the Chios Mastiha Growers Association and its impacts”, in S.Lioukas (Ed.) “Καινοτομώ-Επιχειρώ”, University of Economics and Business, Athens (In Greek).
Kavvadias, G.B., (1996). Revolution and social dynamics - 1821, Sakkoulas Publishing, Athens-Komotini, (in Greek).
Kalinderis, M.A., (1958). The guilds of Kozani during the Ottoman sovereignty, Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Klimis, A.N., (1985). Co-operatives in Greece, vol. 1, “I. Pitsilos” publishing, Athens (in Greek).
Kontogiorgis, G., (1982). Social dynamic and local government: the Greek communities during Ottoman rule, Athens: Nea Synora, A.A. Livanis Editions (in Greek).
Kordatos, G. (1955). Ampelakia and the myth about their guild. Athens: Polikos-Stratis & Co publishers in Greek.
Mavropoulos, Ch.B., (1920). Translated Turkish documents about the history of Chios, Athens (in Greek).
Moutsopoulos, N.K., (1966). Ampelakia of Thessaly, Introduction to their history, association and the mansions of the town, “Ios review”, Issue about “Thessaly” (in Greek).
Michalopoulos, F., (1941). Moschopolis. The Athens of the Ottoman sovereignty period (1500–1769), Athens (in Greek).
Drogoulis, G.B., (1985). The guilds of Larissa in the years of the Ottoman sovereignty, Larissa (in Greek).
Pantazopoulos, N.I., (1958). “Incorporations of the Greeks during the Ottoman sovereignty”, Gnoseis mag., Athens (in Greek).
Papaggelos, I.A., (1988). “The ‘Community of Mantemi’”, Proceedings of the “The Course in Time of Communalism in Macedonia” Conference, Thessoloniki History Centre (in Greek).
Papageorgiou, G., (1982). The guilds of Ioannina during the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century (beginning of 19th century until 1912), University of Ioannina, Ioannina (in Greek).
Papageorgiou, G., (1986), Apprenticeship in the Various Trades (16th-20th Century), Historical Archive of Greek Youth, No 3, Vol 1, General Secretariat for Youth, Athens (in Greek).
Papageorgiou, K., (2007). Sustainable co-operative economy, theory and practice, Stamoulis publishing, 2nd edition, Athens (in Greek).
Paspatis, A.G., (1888). The glossary of Chios or the language spoken in Chios, Library of Historical Studies, No 241, Athens (in Greek).
Salamanka, D., (1959). “Esnafs and Professions in the Ottoman sovereignty period in Ioannina”, Ipeirotiki Estia mag. Ioannina (in Greek).
Philaretos, G., (1927). Co-operative associations of Ampelakia, Hydra, Spetses, Psara, Athens (in Greek).
Photopoulos, K., (1979). “The Esnafs of Pap’tzes and Kontartzes in the old days at Ioannina”, Ipeirotiko Imerologio mag., Epirus Studies Society, Ioannina (in Greek).
Chatzimichali, A., (1953). Forms of co-operative organization of the Greeks during the Ottoman Empire: guilds—Esnafs, L’ellenisme Contemporain, Athens, (in Greek) available at: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/hantzimichali_syntehnies.html (12.11.2015).
Chatzimichali, A., (1983). Forms of the co-operative organization of the Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, Pan. Drakopoulos (Ed.), The temperament of the New Hellenism, Goulandris - Chorn Foundation, Vol. 1, Athens.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ierapetritis, D.G. Guilds and Cooperative Community Networks in the Eastern Mediterranean: Evidence from Greece Under Ottoman Occupation. J Knowl Econ 10, 1578–1596 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0428-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0428-y