The Middle Division: Social Classes and Land Tenure
The social structure of the Middle Division was defined by a complex system of land ownership, taxation, and labor obligations. This hierarchy was divided into three primary groups: the taxpayer families, the householders, and the landless peasants. Each class operated under distinct legal frameworks regarding how land was inherited and how services were rendered to the district authority.
Key Facts
- Taxpayer families (treba) held hereditary estates and practiced polyandry to prevent land fragmentation.
- Householders (du-jung) held small individual plots with inheritance subject to the district authority's approval.
- Landless peasants (mi-bo) lacked heritable land rights but enjoyed greater mobility and the ability to engage in trade.
- Corvée services (unpaid, forced labor) were required from both taxpayers and householders, though the scope differed by class.
- Mi-ser was the underlying status of landless peasants, which their children inherited.
Taxpayer Families: The Corporate Landowners
The treba (also known as tralpa or khral-pa) represented the most stable economic tier of the Middle Division. These families functioned as "corporate family units," meaning they owned estates collectively rather than individually. These estates were leased from the district authority and were supported by formal land titles.
According to a review of the Gyantse district by Goldstein, a typical taxpayer family managed between 20 acres (81,000 m²) and 300 acres (1.2 km²) of land. To maintain these substantial holdings and avoid parceling the land among multiple heirs, these families frequently practiced polyandry (a marriage system where one woman has multiple husbands), ensuring a single marriage per generation.
In exchange for their comfortable standard of living, the treba bore the heaviest civil burdens. Their primary responsibilities included paying taxes and providing corvée services—mandatory labor provided to the district authority—which included both human and animal labor.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]
Householders: Individual Land Tenure
Below the taxpayer families were the householders, known by various terms including du-jung, dud-chung-ba, or duiqoin. Unlike the corporate structure of the treba, householders held small plots of land as individual possessions.
The legal nature of this land was precarious. The ultimate landowner was always the district authority—whether that authority was monastic, aristocratic, or governmental. Consequently, inheritance was not guaranteed; the district authority decided if a son would inherit his father's plot.
While their land security was lower, householders benefited from lighter tax obligations. Their corvée requirements were limited to human labor only, and these obligations applied solely to the individual rather than the entire family unit.
Landless Peasants: Mobility and the Mi-bo Status
The mi-bo were peasants who possessed no heritable rights to land. Despite this, they occupied a unique social position. While they remained tied to an "owning" estate under the status of mi-ser, they possessed a level of personal freedom unavailable to the land-owning classes.
Mi-bo were free to travel, engage in crafts, or participate in trade. When they wished to farm, they often leased land from taxpayer families, paying for the lease through labor. Any resources they used were for individual capacity and could not be inherited.
This relative freedom was typically maintained through an annual fee paid to their estate. This fee could increase if the mi-bo became prosperous, and the estate lord retained the right to demand special corvée labor for specific events. Furthermore, the estate owner could revoke mi-bo status at will.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]
Inheritance for this class was strictly limited. Children of mi-bo did not automatically inherit the mi-bo status; instead, they inherited the status of mi-ser. Upon reaching their early teens, they were either indentured into service or required to pay their own mi-bo fee to secure their freedom.
Comparison of Social Classes
| Class | Land Ownership | Inheritance | Labor Obligations | Mobility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxpayer (Treba) | Corporate Estates (20-300 acres) | Hereditary (via polyandry) | Human & Animal Corvée | Low |
| Householder (Du-jung) | Small Individual Plots | Subject to Authority | Human Corvée (Individual) | Low |
| Landless (Mi-bo) | None (Leased) | Non-heritable | Special Corvée / Fees | High |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a treba and a du-jung?
The primary difference lies in land ownership and obligation. Treba owned large estates as a family corporation with hereditary rights and provided both human and animal labor. Du-jung held small individual plots with uncertain inheritance and provided only individual human labor.
Why did taxpayer families practice polyandry?
Polyandry was practiced to maintain a single marriage per generation, which prevented the family's land holdings from being divided or parceled out among multiple heirs.
What was the mi-bo status?
Mi-bo was a status for landless peasants that allowed them greater mobility and the ability to trade or practice crafts, provided they paid an annual fee to the estate to which they belonged.
Did the children of mi-bo automatically become mi-bo?
No. They inherited the status of mi-ser. To become mi-bo, they had to either pay their own fee or they could be indentured into service during their early teens.
Who held the ultimate authority over land inheritance for householders?
The district authority, which could be governmental, monastic, or aristocratic, served as the ultimate landowner and decided whether a plot of land would be inherited by a son.