^{page 309 note 1} For the juridical provisions underlying the mugghârasa see Santillana, David, Istituzioni di diritto musulmano malichita, con riguardo anche at sisteina sciaflita, vol. 2 (Rome, 1938), pp. 317–23;Google ScholarMilliot, Louis, L'Association agricote chez les musulmans du Maghreb (Paris, 1922), pp. 52–62, cf. pp. 121–9;Google ScholarPesle, Octave, Les Contrats de louage chez les malékites de l'Afrique du Nord (Rabat, 1938, pp. 146–59);Google ScholarLa Société et le partage dans le rite malékite (Casablanca, 1948), pp. 49–52. For applications to the Levant in modem times seeGoogle ScholarLatron, A., La Vie rurale en Syrie et au Liban (Beirut, 1936), pp. 65–72.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 2} Latron, La Vie rurale, pp. 65–6.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 3} Despois, Jean, La Tunisie Orientate: Sahel et Basse Steppe (2nd ed., Paris, 1955), pp. 223, 342–57.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 4} In 1941 the annual consumption of olive oil in the hill region of Galilee and Samaria was found to be 33–55 lb per capita, three times as much as among Arabs in semi-urban areas such as the little town of Ramallah, according to a report filed early that year with the General Agricultural Council advising the government of Palestine (General Agricultural Council, Committee on Agricultural Economics and Marketing: Report of the Olive Subcommittee, Israel State Archives 7/465/3–Ag 49/3, p. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} Some idea of the expansion of horticulture in the late nineteenth century may be obtained by comparing two of the Ottoman registers preserved at the Land Registry Office in Jenin, which contains daimi books (journals of transactions) going back continuously to 1886 and earlier for all of Northern Samaria and pre-1890 yoklama books (schedules of parcels listed by owner) for most of the villages.The word is clearly a variant of yok-name, ‘rollcall list’.Google ScholarCf. Cvetkova, Bistra, ‘L'évolution du régime féodal turc de la fin du XVIe jusqu'au milieu du XVIIIe siècle’, Etudes historiques, vol. 2 (1960), p. 190Google Scholar.

The first of these two registers (catalogued as Jenin yoklama no. 5 by the Israeli authorities) contains i.a. a schedule of 540 entries from ‘Arrâbeh dated Tishrîn Awwal, 1299 Malia (Oct.–Nov. 1883). The second (Jenin yoklama No. 71) is a ward-by-ward survey of the village integrating into a single revised schedule of 1800 entries ten yoklanzas carried out between Shbat 1294 (Feb.–Mar. 1879) and Kânün Ath-Thâni 1307 (Jan.–Feb. 1892). It was presumably compiled in 1891–2.

In ‘Arrâbeh olive growing was mainly the preserve of residents of the western ward, which faces the hills. Indeed, of the zoo-odd parcel ownership entries listed for that ward in the survey of 1891–2, about 200 bear the notation ‘planted with trees’ (mushajjar). Some of these parcels, identified by the words ‘garden plot’ (hâkûra) or ‘village area’ (köy civari) were probably under fruit trees such as figs, mulberries, and pomegranates; but most of the planted land, located outside the village proper, was almost certainly under olive trees, perhaps with a sprinkling of almonds. The word ‘olive trees’ (zeytûn) often appears in the names of these parcels.

Comparison of the data for all parcels listed in the 1883 schedule and then, often with revisions, in the section for the western ward in the 1891–2 survey, yields the following information:

This increase in the number of entries, however, does not necessarily imply an increase in the area planted. The parcels varied greatly in size, and while the Ottoman registers do list an area for each entry, this was based on the owner's-declaration, which was made only for the sake of form and bore no relation to reality. And in the second place we do not know to what extent the revisions of 1891–2 reflect actual changes since the 1883 figures or represent corrections of erroneou reporting in 1883. For the chopping of trees for firewood see Rev. Wilson, C. T., Peasant Life in the Holy Land (London, 1906), p. 223.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 2} From Hâjj Mufîd Khâled Mahmûd of ‘Arrâbeh, 24 May 1971, and Mr Mahmûd Ahmad Mahmûd Qâsem of ‘Arrâbeh.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 1} From Mr Khalîl Qarra; Advocate, of Nablûs, 4 March 1971.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 2} From Mr Mahmûd Ahmad Mahmûd Qâsem, 13 June 1971.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 3} The annual average wholesale price of 100 kg of native olive oil rose from £P4.476 in 939 and £P6.443 in 1940 to £P12.138 in 1942, £P18.413 in 1943, and £P27.489 in 1944 (Palestine, , Office of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Palestine, 1944–1945 [Jerusalem, 1946], p. 112). See p. 319 n. 6 below.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 4} al-Tâher, ‘Alî Nasûh, Shajarat al-Zeytûni: Ta'rîhuhâ, Zira'atuhâ, Amrâduhâ wasin âatuhâ (Amman 1947), p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 5} Kindly lent by Mr Hilmî Muhammad ‘Abd-al Fattâh of Jenin.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 1} For the concept of at'âb—extra compensation to the working partner for his work see — Part I.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 1} Santillana, Istituzioni, vol. II, p. 320 Pesle, La Société, p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 2} Fifteen Nablus rotols of olives, or five rotols of oil (from Mr Muhammad ‘Abd al ‘Afû ‘Assâf of ‘Arrâbeh, II August 1970). The recovery ratio of oil from the fruit which this assumes is slightly higher than the range of 20–30 percent established in the 1941 report of the Olive Subcommittee (see above, p. 309, n. 4), p. 3; but as noted earlier, Samaria is one of the world's best oil-producing districts. In Tunisia olives give about one-fifth of their weight in oil (Despois, La Tunisie, p. 223).Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 1} From MrQâsem, Jamâl ‘Abd al-Hâdi of Jenin, 13 December 1970; cf. Santillana, Istituzioni, vol. II, p. 321.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 2} From Hâjj Salîm Muhammad Shâker of ‘Arrâbe, 20 Apil 1971.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 3} Santillana, Istituzioni, vol. II, p. 319; Pesle, La Société, pp. 49–50;Google ScholarMilliot, Louis, Introduction à l'étude du droit musulman (Paris, 1953), p. 668.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 4} From Hâjj Salîm Muhammad Shâker, 20 April 1971.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 5} On this he would be getting a customarily agreed share of the product under the quasi-sharika agricultural compact of musâqâ (see Hamilton's, Charles translation of al-Marghînânî's Hedâya (2nd ed. by Standish Grove Grady, London, 1870), pp. 584–7;Google ScholarSantillana, Istituzioni, vol. II, pp. 309–17). The usual payment for such tending in ‘Arrâbeh between the two World Wars was put by Mr Muhammad ‘Abd al-‘Afû ‘Assâf on II August 1970, at one-fifth of the crop. This would mean that the working partner tending a grove he had earlier planted under mughârasa got two-fifths of the crop of the entire grove as his share: his one-fourth of the whole product plus one-fifth of the remainder.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 6} Despois, La Tunisie, p. 352.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 1} Latron, La Vie rurale, pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 2} Ibid.. pp. 69–71.

^{page 315 note 3} Mejelle (Ottoman Civil Code), art. 1370–I.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 4} Latron does, however, report one type of mughârasa contract that includes precisely this kind of a grant of a share on loan, bringing the mughârasa into line in every respect with the form of sharika practiced in modern ‘Arrâbeh in the grain trade, in livestock raising and, as we shall see, in the carrying trade. This was in a district to which he refers as the Zewyé (La Vie rurale, p. 70), where it would seem from Latron's account, in the perspective we have by now gained on sharika contracts, that the worker was deeded his mugârasa share of the land in full property, on credit, before planting, and that the debt was cancelled when he had discharged his planting obligations.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 1} Weulersse, Jacques, Paysans de Syrie et du Proche-Orient (Paris, 1946), p. 130.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 2} From Hâjj Qâsem Hâjj Muhammad Qâsem ‘Abdal-Hâdî of Nablûs, 5 September 1967.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 3} From MrMuhammad, ‘Abd al-‘Afu ‘Assâf, II August 1970; and Hâjj Salîm Muhammad Shâker, 20 April 1971.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 4} See p. 311, n. 3 above. Speaking as a representative investor who had entered into a mugarâsa contract on his land in the period between the two World Wars — his erstwhile planter in mugharasa remains his partner in joint ownership of the grove to this day — Mr Sâdek ‘Alî Yûsuf Hamad of ‘Arrâbeh noted that since hill land yielded little grain it was well worth giving up one-third of the property in exchange for obtaining olive trees on the remaining two-thirds.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 5} From Mr Wahîd Masri of Nablûs, 30 January 1969.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 6} Latron, La Vie rurale, pp. 67–71.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 1} Milliot, L'Association, p. 249.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 2} Most of my information in this section of the article comes from the great store of knowledge of Hâjj Dhîb As'ad Hasan, veteran camel driver and historian of ‘Arrâbeh.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 3} There were nearly 100 camels in ‘Arrâbeh at the time (from Hâjj Dhîb and Mr Atmad ‘Alî ‘târî of ‘Arrâbeh), and 600–700 family heads: the Rural Property Tax registers for the village at the Tax Office in Jenin listed about 900 different persons owning land in the village's built-up area — i.e. owning a house or a share in it — about 1937. In 1948 the number had grown to 1,100, so in the early 1940s we may assume 1,000. This makes 1,000 family heads, since virtually each family owned at least a share in its house; but it is my guess that before 1948 at least one-third of families owning homes in ‘Arrâbeh lived in Haifa, Jenin, Zar'în in the Plain of Esdraelon, and other places.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 1} See p. 312, n. 1 above.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 2} Accounts of Nazmî Hâjj Tawfîk ‘Abd al-Hâdî, most kindly lent by his son Bâsem of Nablûs, vol. A IV, p. 439.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 1} Ibid.. p. 381.

^{page 319 note 2} Meyer, A. J., Middle Eastern Capitalism: Nine Essays (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 35–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 319 note 3} The case was reported to me by Hâshem.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 4} In the preceding period the two cousins had often been associated in similar arrangements: Mustafâ would borrow funds to purchase goods and the profits would be split upon resale.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 5} Hâjj Dhîb's accounts, and probably the cousins' figures as well, are based on the camel drivers' working year which ended in early spring, when the camels were put out to pasture for about a month before the summer-long toil of bringing in the harvest. In this they accord with the various Middle Eastern calendars and with the Ottoman fiscal year which began in March. Hâjj Dhîb's camels too, incidentally, were often financed by concluding a shcharika with some silent partner: in the early 1930s it had been Hâjj Nijî and his son Mahmûd (see Part I).Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 6} Palestine played a key role in Britain's lines of defense and of communications, as well as a supply and training center, during the Second World War. Demand was heavy for produce as well as for labor in war plants and military bases, in the construction of installations and in the civilian economy, creating an unprecedented prosperity and steep inflation. See p. 311, n. 9, and p. 316 above.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 1} The high profits of 1943 stemmed from various circumstances into which we shall not enter here. They could not have been reliably foreseen at the time the camel driver was hired.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 2} For the financing of one such truck see the accounts of Husayn Najîb ‘Atârî, kindly lent to me by his son Salim of ‘Arrâbeh, entries of 1939 relating to a vehicle on which young SalIm worked with his cousin. Bank loans and credit from vehicle and tractor manufacturers and agents assisted such investments. (From Mr Sâdek ‘Abd al-‘Azîz Hâjj Mas'oud of ‘Arrâbeh.) It is thought-provoking that the practice of the Tolai of New Britain to buy their assets jointly with other members of their lineage is ascribed to a dislike of personal lending based on suspicion that the borrower will invoke kinship obligations when the time comes to repay the loanGoogle Scholar (Epstein, Scarlett, ‘Personal Capital Formation among the Tolai of New Britain’, in Firth, Raymond and Yamey, B. S. (eds.), Capital, Saving and Credit in Peasant Societis [Chicago, 1964], p. 60).Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 1} Cf. the valuable contribution of Williams, Herbert H. and Williams, Judith R., ‘The Extended Family as a Vehicle of Culture Change’, Human Organization (1965), pp. 59–64,Google Scholar and Domhaire, Jean L., ‘Economic Change and the Extended Family’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 305 (05 1956), pp. 45–52.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 1} Milliot, L'association, pp. 70–I; Introduction, p. 669;Google ScholarBerque, Jacques, Les Nawâzil el muzâra'a du Mi’yâr Al Wazzânî (Rabat, 1940), pp. 21–51, 67–79; Pesle, La Société, p. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 2} Cf. English, Paul Ward, City and Village in Iran: Settlement and Economy in the Kirman Basin (Madison, Wisc., 1966), pp. 66–7. For the role of mutuality and solidarity, rather than outright exploitation, in the agrarian relationships of dependence and patronage embodied in crop-sharing institutions at 'Arrâbeh and at Zar'în in the Plain of Esdraelon between the two World Wars, see my forthcoming article in Middle Eastern Studies, ‘Crop-Sharing Economics in Mandatory Palestine’; but we cannot be sure that this had also applied in earlier periods, nor can we tell to what extent it was representative of districts that did not share the rather special traditions of landlordship that prevailed at 'Arrâbeh.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 3} See above, pp. 315–16 and esp. p. 315, n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 1} Berque, Les Nawâzil, pp. 78–9.Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 2} The Ottoman Commercial Code of 1850, a transplant of the French Code of Commerce, could only have been anathema to the traditional sector in view of Islam's denunciation of unearned gain (riba) and indeterminate transactions (gharar).Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 1} Redfield, Robert, Peasant Society and Culture (Chicago, 1956), pp. 67–104.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 2} See Part I of this article in IJMES, VI, a (1975), p. 200 and nn.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 3} An apposite question is whether the fanning-out relationship between enterpreneur and owner of resources had ever taken the form of a full-fledged sharika in the heyday of Islam. I know of nothing prior to the arrangement described in al-'Amal al-Fâsî that we noted in Part I of this article, and even that, in Pesle's opinion (La Société, pp. 80–3) was fictive. It is quite possible that in classical times the partnership in property in which one partner does the work that is described in the Mejelle either did not exist or was applied only to partnerships between property owners or between entrepreneurs, and not, as has become standard practice in modern times, to the farming-out relationship which was then almost certainly assumed to qualify only for the commenda or qirâd.Google Scholar