regions borders societies and identities

8/19/2019 Regions Borders Societies and Identities

1/276

REGIONS, BORDERS, SOCIETIES, IDENTITIES

IN CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST EUROPE,

17th–21st CENTURIES


2/276


3/276

REGIONS, BORDERS, SOCIETIES, IDENTITIES

IN CENTRAL AND SOUTHEAST EUROPE,

17th–21st CENTURIES

Collected Studies

Editors

Penka PeykovskaGábor Demeter

Sofia–Budapest2013


4/276

Tis volume is relased by theHungarian–Bulgarian Joint Academic History Commission

and was realised within the ramework o the

Bulgarian–Hungarian joint academic project entitled“Central and Southeast Europe in the 19th–21st Centuries.

Regions, Borders, Societies, Identities”Bulgarian–Hungarian History Conerence

Soa, 16–17 May 2012

© Editors: Penka Peykovska, Gábor Demeter© Te authors

© Institute o History, RCH, HAS© Институт за исторически изследвания – БАН

ISBN 978-954-2903-10-9 (ИИИ)ISBN 978-963-9627-61-1 (Institute o History, RCH, HAS)

Cover: Te old Plovdiv. View rom Nebet tepe

Published by the Institute o History, Research Centre or the Humanities (RCH),Hungarian Academy o Sciences (HAS)

Responsible Editor: Pál Fodor (Director General)Prepress preparation by the Institute o History, RCH, HAS

Research Assistance eam; leader: Éva KovácsPage layout: Éva ihanyi Palovicsné

Cover design: Imre HorváthPrinted in Hungary, by Prime Rate Kf.

Leader: Péter omcsányi, dr.


5/276

5

able o Contents

Preace ............................................................................................................................................... 009

Приветствие от д-р Миклош Пек, временно управляващ посолствотона Р Унгария в София .................................................................................................................. 010

Приветствие от проф. д.и.н. Илия Тодев, директор на Институтаза исторически изследвания при БАН ................................................................................... 011

Dr. Ress Imre tudományos őmunkatárs, a Magyar–Bolgár örténészVegyes Bizottság elnökének megnyitóbeszéde .......................................................................... 013

Studies / Cтатии – съобщения / Ausätze .................. .................... .................... ................... 015

Villages, Peasants and Landholdings in the Edirne Region in the Second Halo the 17th CenturyS P ........................................................................................................................... 017

Стефка Първева, Села, селяни и поземлени владения в Одринска областпрез втората половина на ХVІІ век (Резюме) . .................... ...................... ................... 033

Borders o the Ottoman Empire: Teoretical Questions and Solutions in Practice(1699–1856)

M F. M ..................................................................................................................... 034F. Molnár Mónika, Az Oszmán Birodalom határai: elméleti kérdések,gyakorlati megoldások (1699–1856) (Összeoglalás) ................................................... 044

Migration and Assimilation: Some Social and Geographical Aspectso the Repopulation o Nógrád County afer the Ottoman Era (1704–1785)G D .......................................................................................................................... 045

Demeter Gábor, Migráció és asszimiláció: Nógrád megye újranépesedésének néhány társadalmi és öldrajzi aspektusa a török kiűzése után (1704–1785)(Összeoglalás) ....................................................................................................................... 061

Апостолическият мисионер Кръстю Пейкич (1665–1730)

†М Б ................................................................................................................................... 062†Bur Márta, Krisztoor Pejkics apostoli misszionárius (1665–1630) ..................... ... 066

Grenzgebiet an Alltagen. Das Wieselburger Komitat in der ersten Hälfedes 19. JahrhundertsG K H .............................................................................................. 067

Horváth Gergely Krisztián, Határ, joghatóság, mindennapok.Moson megye a 19. század első elében (Összeoglalás) ................................................ 077


6/276

6

(Some) Social Conflicts in the Sanjak of Skopje 1900–1911 (Kosovo vilaet)K C-D ............................................................................................. 078

Csaplár-Degovics Krisztián, ársadalmi konfliktusok a skopjei szandzsákban

1900–1911 (Koszovói vilajet) (Összefoglalás) ................................................................ 088

Te Role of Seasonal Labor Migration in the Divorce Patterns of the Bulgarian- population in Macedonia according to Data of the Bulgarian Exarchate (1892–1912)S S ......................................................................................................... 089

Станислава Стойчева, Ролята на сезонната трудова миграцияв бракоразводните модели на българското население в Македонияпо данни на Българската екзархия (1892–1912) (Резюме) .................. ................... 095

Грамотность болгар Рoссийской империи по данным Первой всеобщейпереписи населения 1897 годаИ М .................................................................................................................... 096

Инна Манасиева, Грамотността на българите в Руската империя споредданните на Първото всеобщо преброяване на населението през 1897 г.(Резюме) .................................................................................................................................. 102

Ethnodemographic Characteristic of a “Closed” Region in the First Halfof the 20th Century: Te Case of Prespa Valley S S, D M .......... ................... ................... ............ 103

Ст. Стойчева, Д. Мартиновски, Етнодемографска характеристикана един „затворен” регион през първата половина на ХХ в.: Случаятна Преспанската котловина (Резюме) ............................................................................ 110

Demographic Indicators of the Ethnic and Cultural Identity within

the Bulgarian Minority in Hungary at the End of the 20th

P P ....................................................................................................................... 111

Penka Peykovska, A magyarországi bolgár kisebbség etnikai és kulturálisidentitásának demográfiai mutatói a 20. század végén (Összefoglalás) ..... ................. 122

Българската общност в Унгария – от градинари-мигранти до местнанародностна общностТ Д ............................................................................................................................... 124

oso Doncsev, A mag yarországi bolgár közösség – bevándorló kertészekbőlnemzeti kisebbség (Összefoglalás) ....................................................................................... 131

Български селища в окръг Илфов, Румъния: история и теренни наблюденияМ Л .................................................................................................................. 132

Milena Lyubenova, Te Bulgarian Settlements in Ilfov County, Romania:History and Field Observation (Summary) ...................................................................... 140

Documentary Heritage of Felix Kanitz Preserved at the Bulgarian Academy of SciencesR. S, D. A, G. Y, D. I, . V ............. 141

Р. Симеонова, Д. Атанасова, Г. Йончева, Д. Илиева, Цв. Величкова,Документалното наследство на Феликс Каниц, съхранявано в БАН (Резюме) .... 148


7/276

7

Te Road of Photography from Paris to the Bulgarian Lands – from the DaguerreotypeInvention (1839) to the Liberation (1877/78)C V .......................................................................................................................... 149

Чавдар Ветов, Пътят на фотографията от Париж до българските земи –от изобретяването на метода „дагеротипия” (1839) до Освобождението(1877/78) (Резюме) ............................................................................................................. 152

Една дигитална „среща“ на българистиката и унгаристиката: база данниI V … ................................................................................................................. 153

Ina Vishogradska, A Digital “Cooperation” of Bulgarian and Hungarian Studies:a Database (Summary) .......................................................................................................... 159

Az interkulturális kommunikáció nyelvi vonatkozásairól magyar és bolgár nyelvianyag alapjánL L .............................................................................................................. 160

Лили Лесничкова, Езикови аспекти на интеркултурната комуникация(върху материал от унгарски и български език) (Резюме) ....................................... 165

Излазът на Егейско море в балканската политика на Австро–Унгария презпоследната четвърт на XIX в.П К ......................................................................................................................... 167

Peter Kamenov, Ausztria–Magyarország Balkán-politikájaa 19. század utolsó negyedében és az égei-tengeri kijárat (Összefoglalás) .................. 179

Регионализм и централизм между двумя войнами (на примере Югославии)Л Б .................................................................................................................................. 180

Bíró László, Regionalizmus és centralizmus a két világháború között:

Jugoszlávia példája (Összefoglalás) . ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... 190Границите на „българската национална територия” в Тракия (1913–1947)В С .......................................................................................................................... 191

Vanya Stoyanova, Te Borders of the Bulgarian “Nation’s erritory” in Trace(1913–1947) ................................................................................................................................. 204

Ethnic and Social Conflicts in Southern Hungary/the Vojvodina Regionduring World War IIÁ H .......................................................................................................................... 205

Hornyák Árpád, Etnikai és társadalmi konfliktusok a Délvidéken/Vajdaságbana II. világháború idején (Összefoglalás) ............................................................................ 211

Die Handelspolitik Deutschlands gegenüber Ungarn und Bulgarien,1933–1934M K .............................................................................................................................. 212

Мария Колева, Търговската политика на Германия в Унгарияи България, 1933–1934 г. (Резюме) ................................................................................ 218


8/276

8

Не отдать ли Марамуреш Украине? Прикарпатский уезд и устье Дунаяв советских планах 1945 годаА С. С ..................................................................................................... 219

Alekszandr Sztikalin, Leg yen-e Máramaros Ukrajnáé? A Kárpátaljaés a Duna torkolata az 1945. évi szovjet tervekben (Összefoglalás) ............................ 229

Te Socialist Federations J J .................. .................... ..................... .................... .................... ..................... ....... 230

Juhász József, A szocialista föderációk (Összefoglalás) .... ..................... .................... ..... 235

От обявяването на война към поставянето на основите на нови отношениямежду България и Унгария след 1944 г.К Г ...................................................................................................................... 236

Kosztadin Gardev, A hadüzenettől a bolgár–magyar kapcsolatok új alapjainakmegteremtéséig (Összefoglalás) .......................................................................................... 243

Te “Iron Curtain” as a Border: the Bulgarian CaseИ М ...................................................................................................................... 245

Илияна Марчева, „Желязната завеса“ като граница: българският случай(Резюме) .................................................................................................................................. 251

Bringing Western echnology to Bulgarian Regional Economic Planning inthe Years of Communist Rule: the Case of VratsaI G ........................................................................................................................ 252

Ирина Григорова, Въвеждането на западна технология в българското регионално икономическо планиране през комунистическите години:случаят с Враца (Резюме) ................................................................................................... 261

Lebanon in the Bulgarian Foreign Economic Policy in the 1960s and the Early 1970sN F ........................................................................................................................... 262

Надя Филипова, Ливан в българската външноикономическа политикапрез 60-те години и в началото на 70-те години на ХХ век (Резюме) ................. 269

In memoriam Dr. Márta Bur-Markovszka docens .................. .................... .................... ......... 270

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 275


9/276

9

Preface

Te current volume contains the papers presented at the Bulgarian–Hungarian historyconference Regions, Borders, Societies and Identities in Central and South-East Europe,17 th–21 st Centuries, held in Soa on May 16–17, 2012. It was organized by the Institutefor Historical Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Historyof the Research Centre for the Humanities at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences on theinitiative of the Joint Hungarian–Bulgarian History Commission with the cooperation ofthe Speciality of Hungarian Studies at the Faculty of Classical and New Philologies at St.Kliment Ohridski Soa University and kindly supported by the Hungarian Embassy in Soaand Hungarian Cultural Institute in Soa.

Te conference was carried out within the framework of the HAS and BAS joint

international research project entitled Central and Southeast Europe in the 19 th

–21 st

Centuries. Regions, Borders, Societies, Identities.Papers present the regions-, borders-, societies- and identities-orientated viewpoints of

scholars from Hungary and Bulgaria (and Russia as an invited guest) bringing together a variety of methodologies and utilising insights from 17th Century to the recent times andthus dealing with problems that are relevant for European citizens today.

Participants:

Institute for Historical Studies – BAS Institute of History at the Research Centre for the Humanities – HAS Speciality of Hungarian Studies at the Faculty of Classical and New Philologies at St.

Kliment Ohridski Soa University Institute of Literature at the Research Center for the Humanities – HAS Te Scientic Archives of the BAS Budapest University of Eötvös Loránd Pécs University Institute of Ethnographic and Folklore Studies with Ethnographic Museum – BAS Hungarian Cultural Institute in Soa Institute for Slavic Studies – RAS

Te editors


10/276

10

Приветствие

от д-р Миклош Пек, временно управляващ посолството на Р Унгария в София

Уважаеми господин Директор на института за исторически изследвания!Уважаеми господа Председатели на Българо-унгарската академична историческакомисия!Уважаеми участници от българска и унгарска страна!Уважаеми дами и господа!

В качеството ми на временно управляващ на унгарската мисия в София имам честта да

поднеса на участниците поздравите на Нейно Превъзходителство госпожа Юдит Ланг,която понастоящем отсъства от страната, както и да открия настоящия, трети поредбългаро-унгарски научен форум.

Едва ли е необходимо да се спирам подробно на отличните отношения междуУнгария и България във всяко едно отношение – политика, икономика, култура.Днешното събитие е поредното потвърждение на интензивния културен и наученобмен между двете страни, чиито съдби многократно се преплитат в отделни периодиот историята, както и през войните от второто десетилетие на ХХ-ти век, каквато е итемата на кръглата маса.

Казват, че народ, който не познава своята история, няма бъдеще. Това в пълнастепен важи и за региона, в който живеем. Централна и Югоизточна Европа са единпъстър регион, в който границите и идентичността придобиват нов облик в контекста

на европейската интеграция. Присъединяването на западните страни от Балканите,наричани не толкова далеч в миналото „барутния погреб“ на Европа, би било ощеедна крачка напред в стабилизирането на целия регион и би направило още по-силнаЕвропа, която е изправена пред новите предизвикателства на променящия се свят, накоито търси адекватен отговор.

Европейските национални държави вече не са толкова силни в икономически план,за да могат сами поотделно да се конкурират с много по-динамично развиващите се оттях големи централизирани сили, поради което трябва да бъдем още по-координиранив сътрудничеството помежду си. Рано или късно трябва и можем да достигнем доизграждането на обща европейска външна политика.

Днес в обединяваща се Европа нашата мисия би била, паралелно с усилията дасъхраним нашата независимост, самите ние да сме активни строители на бъдещетона Европа. Да участваме в изграждането на бъдещата визия на Европа не само катоикономически проект, но и като духовна и интелектуална общност на интереси,общност на християнски ценности, която да бъде равноправен и богат съюз награждани, нации, национални малцинства и региони.

Ползвам се от случая да поздравя организаторите и участниците в това начинание,което впечатлява с многообразието от аспекти, в които се разглежда предложенататематика и да пожелая успех на конференцията.

Благодаря за вниманието!


11/276

11

Приветствие

от проф. д.и.н. Илия Тв, Директор на Института заисторически изследвания при БАН

Уважаеми д-р Пек, уважаеми д-р Реш, уважаеми дами и господа,Позволете ми да приветствам вас и всички останали участници в тази научна срещана български и унгарски историци. Тя е резултат на отдавнашната ни съвместна работав областта на изследването на историята на нашите страни и народи, на българо-

унгарските политически, икономически и културни връзки и влияния, на ролята, коятоБългария и Унгария играят в двата важни европейски региона – Югоизточна Европа, вчастност Балканите, от една страна, и Централна Европа, от друга.

Както е известно, връзките между нашите два народа датират още от праисторическивремена, когато прабългарите влияят положително на маджарите с по-развитата сикултура и с държавотворческите си дарования и опит. Отношенията не прекъсват и по-сетне, при заселването на нашите деди в Европа. След трагичното Чипровско въстание,например, български въстаници начело с Георги Пеячевич се приютяват в Унгария.160 години по-късно, след крушението на революцията от 1848–49 г., унгарски

революционери начело с Лайош Кошут намират убежище в България. Тук, не безгордост, ние, българите, се сещаме и за полк. Стефан Дуньов, прославен участник в тазивеличава и трагична за унгарците борба. През модерните времена ролите се сменят –културтрегерството преминава в маджарски ръце, Унгария за българите става мост къмевропейската цивилизация. И затова, този път не без благодарност, в България помними видни унгарски изследователи на нашата страна и на нейното минало – като Феликс

Каниц и Геза Фехер. Българите се опитваме да следваме и дуалистичния държавотворенпример на Унгария. В 1867 г. наши възрожденци правят официална оферта на Високатапорта да преобразува по австро-унгарски пример унитарната Османска империяв Турко-българско царство. Разсъждавайки контрафактуално, сигурно ще може дасе каже, че ако султан Абдул-Азис се беше поучил от кайзер Франц-Йосиф, може биследващата история на Балканите щеше да бъде по-щастлива. Прочее, отношениятамежду България и Унгария имат дълга и богата история. В тях решително преобладаваприятелството – и това е стабилна основа за ползотворно сътрудничество днес, когатодвете страни са част от ЕС.

От своя страна, Комисията на българските и унгарските историци вече натрупазначителен опит. Имаше превратности – но благодарение на съвместните усилия тяможе да се похвали с безспорни постижения. Изключително успешни бяха нашите

разработки по проектите „Контактни зони между България и Унгария по р. Дунав ХVIII-ХIХ в.“ и „Централна и Югоизточна Европа през ХІХ–ХХІ в.: региони,граници, общества, идентичности“.

Проведените конференции, обмяната на публикации и срещи взаимно обогатяват,надявам се, учените от двете страни в усилията им да реконструират миналото, да

уловят както общото, така и специфичното в българското и унгарското развитиекато част от европейската история. Нашите контакти ни се отплащат не само с новиизследователски постижения, но и с взаимно запознаване с архивите. Ние правим


12/276

12

непознати прочити на познати исторически източници и търсим методологическинай-адекватните научни подходи към историческото знание за България, за Унгария,за Централна и Югоизточна Европа и за света. Те позволяват да се извлекат и уроци забъдещето – на първо място как успешно да си сътрудничим като равноправни страни вимето на общото благо.

Изтъквайки големите успехи в развитието на нашите връзки през последнитегодини, използвам случая да благодаря на ръководствата на Българската и Унгарскатаакадемии на науките, както и на директорите на двата института по история – на акад.Ференц Глац, бивш дългогодишен директор на Института по история при УАН, и наакад. Георги Марков, бивш директор на Института за исторически изследвания приБАН, които счетоха за необходимо да подновят работата на двустранната историческакомисия.

Сърдечна благодарност и към нейните идейни ръководители: д-р. Имре Реш от унгарска страна и проф. Валери Стоянов от българска, към неуморните й секретари

д-р Пенка Пейковска, д-р Габор Деметер и д-р Атила Шереш, към активните български участници доц. Илияна Марчева, доц. Благовест Нягулов, д-р Ваня Стоянова и към непо-малко активните унгарски участници доц. Арпад Хорняк, д-р Моника Молнар, доц.Атила Пандула.

Искрено се надявам, че и този наш научен форум ще допринесе за по-нататъшното развитие на нашите творчески контакти. Той е последен етап от споменатия вечесъвместен проект „Централна и Ютоизточна Европа през ХІХ–ХХІ в.: региони,граници, общества, идентичности“, одобрен от ръководствата на БАН и УАН запериода от 2010 до 2012 г.

Накрая, искам да се извиня за чисто церемониалната си роля в настоящатаконференция. Надявам се, че в някоя от следващите ни срещи ще мога да се представяв пълнокръвен научен вид – с доклад, участие в дискусиите и пр.

Благодаря ви за вниманието – и на добър час!


13/276

13

Dr. Ress Imre tudományos főmunkatárs,

a Magyar–Bolgár Történész Vegyes Bizottság elnökének

megnyitóbeszéde

Tisztelt Excellenciás uram,tisztelt Todev Igazgató úr,kedves kolleginák és kollégák!

A Bolgár–Magyar Történész Vegyes Bizottság tevékenysége hosszú és eredményes múltra te-kint vissza. Működésében az új évezred első évtizedében történt újjáalakulása után új fejezetkezdődött. Korábban a kapcsolattörténeti problematika állt tudományos együttműködésünk

előterében. A középkori bolgár–magyar dinasztikus összeköttetésektől kezdve a gazdasági éskereskedelmi kapcsolatok alakulásán át a nemzeti ébredés és a nemzeti kultúra párhuzamos jelenségeinek vizsgálatáig elődeink nagyszabású feltáró kutatást végeztek, amelyről jól ada-tolt tanulmányok egész sora látott napvilágot. Az ezredforduló utáni új kihívások azonbanszámos olyan jelenséget állítottak az érdeklődés középpontjába, amelyekre a korábbi kapcso-lattörténeti kutatások nem terjedtek ki. Az európai integráció kelet- és délkelet-európai ki-teljesedése és az ezredvég nagyszabású változásai szükségessé tették a térség korábbi birodal-mi kereteinek, szövetségi rendszerekbe történt betagolásának újragondolását és a többszörbekövetkezett politikai elitváltások elemzését. A bulgarisztikai és hungarológiai szempont

primátusa mellett ezért arra törekedtünk, hogy a regionális összefüggéseket feltárva és tágabbkeretben párbeszédet folytatva találjunk válaszokat és magyarázatot térségünk sajátos törté-nelmi útjára. Ennek szellemében alakítottuk a mostani tanácskozás tematikáját is, amelynek

sikeres lebonyolításához az akadémiai intézetekből és az egyetemi szférából kapcsoltunk betapasztalt és atal munkatársakat.

Előzetesen szeretném megköszönni a BTA Történettudományi Intézetének akonferencia előkészítésében végzett munkáját, és eredményes tanácskozást kívánok mindenrésztvevőnek.


14/276


15/276

STUDIES

CТАТИИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ

AUFSÄTZE


16/276


17/276

17

Villages, Peasants and Landholdings in the Edirne

Region in the Second Hal o the 17th Century

Stefa ParvevaInstitute or Historical Studies – BAS

In response to the changing reality rom the late 16 th century onwards, the Ottomanauthorities undertook a series o actions to reorm main sectors o the imperial economyand society.1 One o the changes that took place during the 17th century affected the survey

(tahrir) system. During this period, several campaigns were undertaken or registration othe residents and their landholdings in the settlements o various regions in the OttomanBalkans.2 It was as a result o these new survey campaigns that the defer s o 21 villages, twoseparate mezraas and two müsellem çifliks near Edirne were compiled. Tese defer s are keptat the Oriental Department o the National Library in Soa.3 Even though this type o landsurveys never became established practice in the Ottoman administration and remainedincidental campaigns o a limited regional scope, they represent a source o invaluableknowledge about the land and landholders. Tis paper presents the content and dating o theabove-mentioned documents. Based on the inormation in the documents, the paper drawsseveral conclusions regarding the structure o the agrarian and social space in the villageterritories and rural communities.

1 More about the Ottoman 17th century see: Inalcık, H., Military and Fiscal ransormation in the Ottoman Empire,1600–1700. – Archivum Ottomanicum, 6, 1980, pp. 311–338; idem, Centralization and Decentralization inOttoman Administration. – In: Studies in 18th Century Islamic History, Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress, 1977, pp. 27–52; Faroqhi, S., Crisis and Change, 1590–1699. – In: An Economic and Social History o theOttoman Empire, 1300–1914. Inalcık, H., D. Quataert (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 413–635 andthe literature quoted there; McGowan, B., Economic Lie in Ottoman Europe. axation, rade and the Struggle orLand 1600–1800. Cambridge University Press, 1981, pp. 80–120; idem, Te Age o the Ayans, 1699–1812. – In:An Economic and Social History o the Ottoman Empire, pp. 658–672, 713–723; Darling, L., Revenue–Raisingand Legitimacy. ax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1550–1650, Leiden–N.Y.–Köln: E. J. Brill, 1996; Demirci, S., Te Fuctioning o Ottoman Avâriz axation: An Aspects o the Relationship

Between Centre and Periphery. A Case Study o the Province o Karaman, 1621–1700. Istanbul, 2009; Цветкова,Б., Извънредни данъци и държавни повинности в българските земи под турска власт, С., 1958; Радушев, Е.,Аграрни институции в Османската империя през XVII–XVIII в., С., 1995.

2 See ootnote 47.3 Oriental Department at the Sts. Cyril and Methodius National Library (hereaer NLCM, Or. Dept.), Fond (F.) 1,

archival unit (a. u.) 15114 (or the villages o Büyük Ismailçа, Sökün, Omurca, Mihaliç, ekur (ekur) Dere otherwisecalled Pavlikân, Yürücekler, Hasköy, the mezraa Demirtaş); F. 89, a. u. 33 (the village o Kara Ağaç); F. 79, a. u. 1393(the village o Kâr Hacı); F. 86А, a.u. 12 (or the villages o Iâhanlı, Glavanlı, Ak Bunar, mezraa Köplüçe, Maraş,Koyunlu, Yüruş, Kemal); ОАК 182/10 (or the villages o Düdükçi Yenicesi, Düdükçi, Saltıklı, Ayntablı); F.1, a. u.15112 (the village o Kaba Oyuk).


18/276

18

SEFKA PARVEVA

SRUCURE AND CONENS OF HE DEFERS

Te subject o registration is the land possessed by each amily, as well as the common land inthe village territory. Te village surveys are structured as ollows:

Each starts with the name o the village ollowed by inormation about its statusand the administrative unit (nahiye) to which it belonged, as or example, in: “Villageo Sökün, together with the mezraa Karaca Süleymanlar belonging (tabi) to the nahiyeÜsküdar rom the vakı s o Sultan Bayezid Han in Edirne.” Over or below this headingis included a detailed description o the village boundary (sınır ve hudut). Ten ollowsa registration o landholders in the village territory: inhabitants o the village or peoplerom the neighbouring villages and Edirne. Te landed possession o each peasant or towndweller is registered under the rubric: zemin-i... (the land o...), ollowed by the sizes othe elds (tarla) under crop and the allow land4, vineyards, gardens, and meadows. Tesurvey ends with a calculation o the total areas or all type o land in the village territory:

sown and allow lands (tarla), vineyards, orchards and vegetable gardens, meadows, vacantland (arz-ı hâli) that was suitable or sowing, common pasture (mer’alı mevaşi) and orests.Te land was measured and recorded with the Arab unit o square measure, the cerib.5 Teregistrars used the margins o the documents or calculations. Tere they added up theareas o land in the village territory or entered notes with details about the use and statuso the village land.

SAUS OF HE VILLAGES

Te villages all under several categories:

Te villages o Mihaliç,6 Iâhanlı7 and the mezraa Köplüçe8 were registered as timar s. Te second group o villages were those belonging to vakı s ounded by sultans. Te villageo Maraş9 belonged to the vakı o Sultan Bayezid I.10 Te villages o Hasköy,11 Büyük

4 An exception o this rule are the surveys or the villages o Düdükçi Yenicesi, Düdükçi, Saltıklı, Ayntablı, Kara Ağaçand Kaba Oyuk, where the elds are not divided into sown and allow land.

5 For more details about the cerib and how it reers to the Ottoman unit, the dönüm, see: Parveva, S., Rural Agrarianand Social Structure in the Edirne Region during the Second Hal o the 17 th Century. – Études balkaniques, 3,2000, pp. 59–61.

6 oday, the village o Mihaliç, Svilengrad municipality (Bulgaria).7 oday, the village o Momkovo, Svilengrad municipality (Bulgaria).8 Te village o Mihaliç and the mezraa Köplüçe were recorded as kılıç timar s – a timar unit. For more details about it

see: Akgündüz, A., Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî ahlilleri, l Kitab, Osmanlı Hukukuna Giriş ve Fatih DevriKanunnâmeleri. Istanbul, 1990, p. 144; Inalcık, H., Te Ottoman State: Economy and Society, 1300–1600. – In: AnEconomic and Social History o the Ottoman Empire , p. 114.

9 oday, the village o Marasia, rigono municipality (Greece).10 For more details about the vakı o Sultan Bayezid I (1389–1402) in Edirne region, see: Gökbilgin, M. ., XV-XVI.

Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası. Vakıar-mülkler-mukataalar , Istanbul, 1952, pp. 177–181.11 oday, the village o Sladun, Svilengrad municipality (Bulgaria).


19/276

19

VILLAGES, PEASANS AND LANDHOLDINGS IN HE EDIRNE REGION

Ismailca ,12 Sökün,13 together with the mezraa Karaca Süleymanlar, Pavlikân (with anothername ekur Dere), Yürücekler,14 Koynlu,15 Yüruş,16 Kaba Oyuk 17 and Ayntablı18, belongedto the vakı o Sultan Bayezid II in Edirne.19

Te third group o villages were those belonging to vakı s o private or legendary persons:the village o Omurca20 – rom the vakı o the imaret and han o Hüsrev Kethüda21 inIpsala; the village o Kâr Hacı22 – rom the vakı o Eyyub-u Ansari;23 the villages o KaraAğaç24 and Kemal25 – rom the vakı o Gazi Murad Paşa;26 the village o Glavanlı27 – romthe vakı o Sinan Paşa;28 the village o Ak Bunar29 – rom the vakı o Balaban Paşa30 inEdirne; the villages o Düdükçi31 and Düdükçi Yenicesi32 – rom the vakı o MahmudAğa;33 the mezraa Demirtaş belonging (tabi) to the village o Etmekçi34 rom the vakı o the tekke o Haydar Baba.

Finally, the registration includes a village that belonged to the hases o ata[r] han-zade35 –Saltıklı .36

12 oday, the village o Büyükismailce, Edirne province (urkey).13 A village at 3.5 hours northwest o Edirne. Te village is marked as ruins in the map rom the Russo–urkish War(1877–1878). See: Карта части Балканского полуострова обнимающей весь театр войны 1877–1878. See also:Карайовов, Т., Материали за изучаване на Одринския вилает. – Сборник за народни умотворения, наука икнижнина, 19, 1903, с. 165.

14 Te villages o Pavlikân and Yürücekler are unidentied but their sınırnames bear witness to the act that they werelocated in the close vicinity o the villages o Mihaliç and Hasköy. See the Map.

15 oday, the village o Krios, rigono municipality (Greece).16 uday, the village o Diolos, rigono municipality (Greece).17 uday, the village o Handras, Orestiada municipality (Greece).18 Te village o Handapli, east o Ivaylovgrad, in Orestiada municipality, Greece, disappeared. See: Карайовов, Т., op.

cit., pp. 169–170.19 For more details about the vakı o Sultan Bayezid II (1481–1512) in Edirne region see: Gökbilgin, M. ., op. cit., pp.

363–365.

20 Unidentied. Te border marks in the sınırname o the village indicate that it was situated in close proximity andsouth o the village o Büyük Ismailca.21 Unidentied.22 Te village o Blaguntsi, Svilengrad municipality, expunged rom the list o population centres in 1963. 23 For more details about the vakı o Eyyub-u Ansari see: Gökbilgin, M. ., op. cit., pp. 315–316; Извори за

българската история, Том 16, С., 1971, с. 207–231. 24 oday part o the town o Edirne.25 uday, the village o Kemal, Edirne province (urkey).26 See: Gökbilgin, M. ., op. cit., рр. 335–337.27 uday, the village o Glavan, Galabovo municipality (Bulgaria).28 See: Gökbilgin, M. ., op. cit., рр. 453–455.29 uday, the village o Sarayakpınar, Edirne province (urkey).30 See: Gökbilgin, M. ., op. cit., рр. 223–224.31 A village neighbouring on Düdükçi Yenicesi, which probably disappeared or merged with it.

32 Düdükçi Yeniköy, today the village o Neochori, Orestiada municipality, (Greece)33 See: Gökbilgin, M. ., op. cit., рр. 437–438.34 oday, the village o Ekmekçi, Edirne province (urkey). Te mezraa o Demirtaş which ormed a mukataa with the

village was located to the north o its territory, and it is stated in its sınırname that the mezraa was in the immediate vicinity o the territory o the village o Omurca.

35 What is meant here are the Crimean artar Khans o the Ghiray dynasty. In 1484 they were subjected by SultanMehmed II and became Ottoman vassals. o avoid conicts among heirs to the khan’s throne in Crimea, some o themembers o the dynasty were moved to various parts o Rumeli. For more details about them see : Inalcık, H., “Giray”.– In: Te Encyclopaedia o Islam, 2nd Edition, Vol. 2, рр. 112–113.

36 oday, the village o Valtos, Orestiada municipality, (Greece).


20/276

20

SEFKA PARVEVA

One o the villages, Iâhanlı, belonged to the kaza o Cisr-i Mustaa Paşa37 and the restbelonged to the nahiyes Üsküdar38 and Ada,39 both in the kaza o Edirne. (See Map.)

Te marginal notes in the defer s o some villages indicate that they were included in thetax-arming (iltizam) system and their revenues ormed mukataas which were armed out.

DAING OF HE DEFERS

Te ront and last pages o the deers are missing and these are usually the places where thereason or and the date o compilation are indicated. However, the registrar has le suffi cientinormation about the time o compilation elsewhere. Tere is a reerence to the period in

which the survey was compiled in two marginal notes on the pages describing the villageso Omurca and Mihaliç. Te notes read as ollows: “According to inormation (ahbar) othe population (ahali) o the said village it was sold (üruht)40 in the year o 1080 or 7,000

akçe”; “According to statement (takrir) o the reaya the village was sold in the year o 1080 or18,000 akçe”. In addition, when a recapitulation was made o the lands o Hasköy a note wasadded, saying that the winter pasture (kışlak) included in its territory was “sold in the year o1080 or 2,000 akçe” .41 Tere is a similar note about the village o Ak Bunar, just above theheading: “Sold according to the statement (ba takrir ) o the population o the said village in1080 or 11 000 akçe.”42 Te peasants o Ak Bunar also reported that themezraa Köplüçe was“sold” in 1080 or 6 000 akçe.43

Based on the inormation in these marginal notes, we assume that the defer s o the villages o Büyük Ismailca, Sökün, Omurca, Mihaliç, Hasköy, Yürücekler, Pavlikân, mezraaDemirtaş, Iâhanlı, Glavanlı, Ak Bunar, Maraş, Koynlu, Yüruş, Kemal and the mezraa Köplüçe were compiled in 1080 AH / 1 June 1669 – 20 May 1670. Te sown and allow landsthat were registered indicate that most o the studied villages applied a three-eld system o

crop rotation. In other words, the registrar ound and described 1/3 o the elds sown whilethe rest were le “empty” (hâli). It means that the surveys were compiled aer the autumnsowing in 1669 and beore the spring sowing in 1670 when peasants had to sow the secondthird o their arable land. Te compilation o the surveys required measuring the individuallandholdings o the peasants and the land or common use by the rural community. It couldbe presumed that this measuring was carried out aer the autumn sowing and beore the

winter months as the latter would have hindered the work o the registration team. Tis is why we assume that the documents were compiled in the autumn o 1669.

37 oday the town o Svilengrad (Bulgaria).38 A nahiye located to the west o Edirne centered in the village o Üsküdar, today the village o Shtit, Svilengrad

municipality (Bulgaria).

39 A nahiye located to the southwest o Edirne, between the rivers Arda and Maritsa.40 Te word “üruht” (a selling; sale) does not apply to the village in its literal meaning but to the procedures related tothe unctioning o the iltizam system. It is one o several terms used by the administration to indicate the winning oan auction by the respective mültezim whereby he acquired the right to collect the revenue rom a given mukataa ora period o one, three or more years. Te defer s including details about the mukataas and their arming out were alsocalled mukataa üruht deferi. Darling, L., op. cit., p. 134, ootnote 39; Green, M. A, Shared World. Christians andMuslims in the Early Modern Mediterranean. Princeton, New Jersey, 2000, p. 36, ootnote 81.

41 NLCM, Or. Dept., F. 1, a. u. 15114, . 3, 5, 4.42 Ibidem, F. 86А, a. u. 12, . 5.43 Ibidem, F. 86А, a. u. 12, . 6.


21/276

21


Te defer s o the villages o Kâr Hacı and Kara Ağaç are not dated either, nor dothey have any marginal notes to suggest the year they were compiled. Te water mark on the

paper44, the similarities in the structure o the text, as well as the act that we nd perakende possessions o peasants registered in the inventories o Hasköy and Büyük Ismailça on theterritory o the village o Kâr Hacı, and o peasants rom Kâr Hacı on the territory oHasköy, lead to the conclusion that they were compiled at about the same time as the deerso the above-mentioned villages. Te same holds true or the villages o Düdükçi, DüdükçiYenicesi, Saltıklı, Ayntablı45 and Kaba Oyuk 46.

*A question naturally arises about the reasons that prompted the Ottoman authorities toundertake such registration or the villages in question. A clue or the answer could be theestablished practice or registration o the population on Crete and some other Aegean islands aer the all o Kandiye in September 1669 and the nal conquest o the island

by the Ottomans.47

What ollowed were actions that were usual in such circumstances. Inorder to organize the newly conquered territory, the authorities promulgated a law code(kanunnâme) and compiled a survey (tapu tahrir defer) o the population with its taxobligations. In October 1669 the Ottomans issued a kanunnâme which was rather differentrom the legislative texts in the other provinces. Its main aim was to apply the principles othe Muslim tradition and the şeriat to provide or the regime o landholding and taxation.According to these priniples, the land was considered “haraci” and remained the reehold

property o its previous owners. Tis a lso meant that it could be bought, sold and divided

44 Te paper o document F. 79, a.u. 1393 (the village o Kâr Hacı) has a watermark three crescents with dimensions38×8/70 mm and a countermark, the letters A(?)G with treoil. Paper with a three crescent watermark o similardimensions was used in a document o 1670 (No. 267 in the wa termark album – Tree crescents). Te paper o

document F. 89, a.u. 33 (the village o Kara Ağaç) has a watermark o three crescents (34×8/70) with a countermarko letters A(?)G with treoil. Documents written on paper with similar dimensions o the watermark bear dates 1661and 1670 (Nos 206, 267). Tese acts allow or the assumption that the two undated defer s were compiled at thesame time as the rest. See: Velkov, A., S. Andreev, Vodnite znatsi v osmanoturskite dokumenti. Vol. 1. Soa: ri Luni,1983, pр. 49, 52.

45 One o the olios (. 1/6) o the defer ОАК 182/10 has a watermark – three crescents measuring 39×11/80. Anotherolio (. 2/5) has a countermark with the Latin letters AG with treoil. A document on paper with a watermark osimilar size as the three crescents (No. 232, 39×11/81) is dated 1662. Te document with the said countermark onthe paper (No. 206) is dated 1661. Velkov, A., S. Andreev, op. cit., рр. 24–25. Tis allows us to assume that the timeo compilation o the defer was identical or close to that o the above-mentioned defer s.

46 Te act that several peasants o Kaba Oyuk cultivated land in Ayntablı, and several peasants o Ayntablı and Saltıklıare described as landholders in Kaba Oyuk, conrms that the registrations were carried out at the same time.

47 Μπαλτα, Ε., M. Oğuz, Το οθωμανικό κτηματολόγιο του Ρεθύμνου apu ahir 822, National Hellenic ResearchFoundation – Historical and Ethnographical Association o Rethymno, Rethymno 2007; Kolovos, E., Beyond

‘Classical’ Ottoman Deerology: A Preliminary Assessment o the ahrir Registers o 1670/71 Concerning Creteand the Aegean Islands. – In: Te Ottoman Empire, the Balkans, the Greek Lands: oward a Social and EconomicHistory. Studies in Honor o John C. Alexander. Kolovos, E., Ph. Kotzageorgis, S. Laiou, and M. Sariyannis (Eds.).Istanbul: Te Isis Press, 2007, pp. 201–235: Similar registrations or Cycladic islands see in Balta, E., Le rôle delinstitution communautaire dans la répartition verticale de lempôt: lexemple de Santorin au XVIIe siècle. – In:Idem, Problèmes et approches de lhistoire ottomane. Un itinéraire scientique de Kayseri à Eğriboz, Istanbul, 1997,

pp. 97–114; Kiel, M., Te Smaller Aegean Islands in the 16th–18th Centuries according to Ottoman AdministrativeDocuments. – In: Between Venice and Istanbul: Colonial Landscapes in Early Modern Greece. Davies, S., J. L. Davis(Eds.), Te American School o Classical Studies at Athens, 2007, pp. 35–54; Slot, B., Archipelagus turbatus: LesCyclades entre colonization latine et occupation Ottomane c. 1500–1718, Vol. 1, Istanbul, 1982.


22/276

22

SEFKA PARVEVA

upon inheritance. Te texts o the law provided that only those taxes that were in accordance with the şeriat would be collected rom the conquered population. As a result, a number onon-canonical taxes were not introduced.48

As a second step, the authorities undertook a land survey. Several defers rom thiscampaign have been preserved – one compiled in the period o 1669/70 (1080) – 1673/74(1084) and two others, compiled in 1705/6 (1117).49 Te new records did not resemble inany way those in the muassal defers compiled until the 16th century. Tey eatured recordso only those peasants who possessed land. Separate entries were made or each armer, withnotes about the type (eld, vineyard, garden and others) and the respective area.50 At theend o the village list there was a record o the village’s total o landholdings, as well as thetaxes due by the peasants in cash and in kind. Additions were also made about the area oabandoned, “empty land without an owner”,51 As the kanunnâme o Crete provided, thelands were measured with the Arab area unit – the cerib.52

Te reasons or the application o a different legislation in respect to the island and the

land survey are still in the realm o hypotheses. It is assumed that this new type o registrationreected the problems encountered by the Ottoman administration in the 17 th century inthe search o new institutional mechanisms in the area o taxation.53 In addition, the differentrules or compiling the registers probably also pursued the objective o assessing the potentialrevenue rom the newly conquered territories. It has also been pointed out that the Ottomanscould have borrowed the experience in this sphere rom their predecessors, the Venetians.54

Tere are several indications that the manner o compiling the registers o the Edirne villages was inuenced by the Cretan campaign. One nds similarities in the structure othe defer s, the way in which the inormation is organized, and the unit o measurementused – the cerib. At the same time, considerable differences exist between the two types oregistration. Unlike the Cretan defer s, the Edirne defer s include the area o land or commonuse – the common pastures and the orest, as well as a description o the village boundaries.

Unortunately the Edirne deers do not include an assessment o the peasants’ taxation – which we nd in the Cretan defer s.

Tis replication o the Cretan registers in the rural hinterland o Edirne could have been part o a new experiment undertaken by the Ottoman administration at a time o institutionalquests and changes during the 17th century. Although the Balkan lands were subject to themiri land regime, what the villages rom Crete and those around Edirne shared was that they

48 Green, M., An Islamic Experiment? Ottoman Land Policy on Crete. – Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 11,1996 June, No. 1, pp. 60–68; idem, op. cit., 2000, pp. 18–29.

49 Green, M. A., op. cit., 2000, p. 23, ootnote 38.50 Regrettably, we did not have the opportunity to work with these defers in the urkish archives, so that we can judge

about their contents and structure only by the inormation gauged by bibliographical means.

51 Te same or similar terms and structures one encounters in the Edirne village registers are used: arz-i hali / arz-i halibila sahibi. Green, M., op. cit., 1996, p. 71, ootnote 39; idem, op. cit., 2000, p. 48, ootnote 9.

52 Green, M., op. cit., 1996, pp. 68–77; idem, op. cit., 2000, pp. 23–25.53 Concerned by the problem created by the increasing amounts o abandoned arable land and the population leaving

its villages, the authorities aced the need to gradually relinquish the çif-hane system as a basis or taxation. Teytried to substitute it or the maktu system – determining a lump sum due by the peasant community or the urbanresidential quarter to the scal agents, local administrative offi cials or mültezim, as well as to introduce new practicesor the collection o revenue, also applied in other provinces. Green, M., An Islamic experiment, pp. 68–78; idem, op.cit., 2000, pp. 22–39.

54 Green, M., op. cit., 1996, pp. 68–78; idem, op. cit., 2000, pp. 22–39.


23/276

23


were included in the iltizam system and their revenues ormed separate mukataa.55 Tis typeo description o the land stock at the disposal o the village residents could probably havegiven a clearer idea about the potential revenue rom their agrarian activity and, respectively,about determining the value o the mukataa. Te act that defer s or only the Edirne villageshave been discovered to date indicates that these registrations were an isolated phenomenon

which did not become a common practice in Rumeli.

POPULAION

Te said villages had on register 681 men, who probably were heads o households (hane) which possessed and cultivated land. Te majority o the registered peasants had the status oreaya. Tere were also representatives o the ruling class (askeris ) among the villagers. Teir

presence was relatively insignicant: 59 men, or 9% o the registered village inhabitants. Four

o the studied villages56

were inhabited only by Christians and two others57

were Muslim-only. In the rest, which we would call mixed, people o the other aith – Muslim or Christian– were very ew in comparison with the total population numbers. Overall, more thantwo-thirds o the registered men in the villages were Christians – Bulgarians and Greeks.In addition to the local residents, the defer s have on register scores o peasants rom other

villages or townsmen rom Edirne who had landholdings in the territory o villages understudy. (See able 1.)

An analysis o the summarized gures or the individual villages and the region as a whole allows us to make the ollowing conclusions58:

1. Te sources indicate the existence among peasants o a pronounced interest in thecultivation o extensive amounts o land. Te defer s reveal an important degree o landreclamation at a time o adverse economic and political reality that could have had a negative

impact on agricultural activities. I the territories o 21 villages and 2 mezraas are consideredas a whole, 71% o the land that was suitable or sowing was reclaimed and cultivated.Aggregate data about the individual village territories show that in more than hal (67%)o the studied villages the process o land reclamation was considerably advanced (between65% and 97%), or had been completed. In the rest o the villages (1/3 o the total number)the share o reclaimed land was below 50% and ar lower compared to the villages rom therst group. (See able 2; Figure.) In act, most o these villages are situated in areas witha more mountainous relie, have large territories and common pastures which make themmore suitable or cattle-breeding. (See able 5.)

55 In 1080 (AH) a defer o the “sold” mukataa (” üruht-i mukata’a deferi 1080 …) on the island was compiled. Green,M., op. cit., 2000, p. 36, ootnote 81. We are quoting this act as the same year o “selling” them or tax arming isindicated in the defer o some o the Edirne villages. See ootnotes 41–43.

56 Te villages o Düdükçi Yenicesi, Kâr Hacı, Glavanlı and Pavlikân.57 Te villages o Ayntablı and Koyunlu.58 For a more detailed analysis o the sources, see: Първева, С., Земята и хората през ХVІІ – първите десетилетия

на ХVІІІ век. Овладяване и организация на аграрното и социалното пространство в Централните и ЮжнитеБалкани под османска власт, С.: Академично издателство “Проф. М. Дринов”, 2011, с. 107–139, 180–388.


24/276

24

SEFKA PARVEVA

Table 1. Inhabitants o the villages in 1669*

Villageotal number o male

inhabitants in the village

Non-Muslim reaya Muslim reaya Askeri

Düdükçi Yenicesi 75 75 – –

Maraş 72 58 11 3

Mihaliç 66 65 1 –

Kara Ağaç 54 50 – 4

Kemal 41 36 3 2

Kaba Oyuk 36 35 – 1

Kâr Hacı 34 34 – –

Yüruş 31 26 5 –

Hasköy 20 18 – 2

Ürücekler 19 18 1 –

Glavanlı 18 18 – –

Pavlikân 16 16 – –

Saltıklı 38 3 29 6

Iâhanlı 31 8 21 2

Ayntablı 30 – 18 12

Koyunlu 22 – 17 5

Ak Bunar 20 4 12 4

Büyük Ismailca 17 1 9 7

Omurca 16 1 10 5

Sökün 14 1 11 2

Düdükçi 11 2 5 4

otal 681 469 153 59

* Te defer s o 1669 recorded men, reaya and askeri landholders, who probably were heads o households.


25/276

25


Te scarcity o land in the villages was not an insurmountable obstacle to the economicactivity o armers. In close proximity to their villages they had an additional stock o land

which offset the land shortage in their own territory. Tat was the arable land o themezraas,the müsellem çifliks and the territory o neighbouring villages that contained still vacant andunreclaimed land. It was there that the strangers cultivated their scattered ( perakende) elds.

Te analysis o the distribution o land in the village territory also permits to establishthe inuence o the large consumer and market centre, Edirne, on the structure o agricultural

production in the rural hinterland. Data rom the sources indicate that the more distant

Table 2. Reclamation o the land suitable or cultivation

Village or mezraa

Land suitableor cultivation(cultivated and

vacant, in ceribs)

Cultivated land(elds, vine yards, orchards

and vegetable gardens,in ceribs)

Share o cultivated land

%

Kemal 5160 5160 100

Sökün + mezraa KaracaSüleymanlar 4,935.5 4,935.5 100

Maraş 3,564.5 3,564.5 100

Mihaliç 2,758.5 2,758.5 100

Ak Bunar 2,660 2,660.0 100

Mezraa Demirtaş 1,920 1,920.0 100

Omurca 1,877.5 1,877.5 100

Mezraa Köplüçe 1624 1,624.0 100

Büyük Ismailca 6,541.5 6,341.5 97Kâr Hacı 4,433 4,133.0 93

Saltıklı 3,162.5 2,779.5 91

Düdükçi Yenicesi 6,304 5,495.0 87

Ayntablı 2,000 1,650.0 82,5

Kaba Oyuk 4,032 3,275.0 81

Kara Ağaç 4,121.5 3,151.5 77

Düdükçi 1,011.5 661.5 65

Iâhanlı 3,927.5 1,800.5 46

Yüruş 10,203.0 4,386.0 43

Koyunlu 8,164 3,164.0 39Glavanlı 5,743 2,247.0 39

Hasköy 5,171 1,9480 38

Yürücekler 3,047.5 1,134.5 37

Pavlikân 3,205.5 1,083.5 34

otal 95,567.5 67,750.50 71


26/276


27/276

27


Table 3. Cultivated land included in askeri landholdings

Village and mezraa

otal area o arable

land in the village– elds, vineyards,gardens, meadows

(in cerib)

Area o arable land inaskeri landholdings

(in cerib)

Share o askeri

landholdings in totalarea o arable land in the

village(%)

Yürücekler 1,134.5 – –

Pavlikân 1,083.5 – –

Mihaliç 2,758.5 – –

Yüruş 4,386. 42 1

Kaba Oyuk 3,275. 68.5 2

Düdükçi Yenicesi 5,495. 123 2

Iâhanlı 1,800.5 114 6

Kâr Hacı 4,133 194 5

Glavanlı 2,247 143 6

Sökün + mezraa Karaca Süleymanlar

4,935.5 437 9

Hasköy 1,948 382 20

Maraş 3,564.5 763.5 21

Kara Ağaç 3,151.5 758 24

Saltıklı 2,779.5 929.5 33

Kemal 5,160. 1,832 36

Omurca 1,877.5 705.5 38Koyunlu 3,164. 1,333 42

Düdükçi 661.5 364.5 55

Büyük Ismailca 6,341.5 4,597 73

Ayntablı 1,650 1,199.5 73

Mezraa Demirtaş 1,910 1,501 78

Ak Bunar + Mezraa Köplüçe

4,284. 3,378 79

otal 67,740.5 18,869.5 28

Tis polarization is also evident in the comparison between villages when these are viewed as a community o landholders. Te average area o the peasants’ landholdings in eacho the studied villages is very indicative in this respect. It reveals that the difference betweenthe villages with the largest and the villages with the lowest average area o landholding perhousehold was several times. For instance, the difference between the average area o theelds cultivated by one household in the villages o Büyük Ismailca and Düdükçi – both

with a predominant Muslim population, was close to ve-old. Te rst village is at the topo the table and the second is close to the bottom. Te difference between the average area othe elds per household in the villages o Yüruş and Yürücekler – both with a predominant


28/276

28

SEFKA PARVEVA

Christian population, is nearly three-old. Comparing Muslim with Christian villages yieldssimilar ratios. (able 4.)

Tе polarization among the individual households and among the rural communitiesindicates that the Ottoman agrarian economy in the 17th century created preconditionsor the impoverishment o some peasants and their villages, as well as stimuli or protableinvestments in agriculture and, hence, or the economic stability o others.

Table 4. Average area o peasant landholdings

VillageAverage area o the arable land (elds, vineyards, gardens, meadows)* per household

Area in cerib

Büyük Ismailca 147 elds

Yüruş 142 elds

Omurca** 129.5 elds + 0.9 vineyardKâr Hacı 122.4 elds + 0.2 vineyard

Sökün+ mezraa KaracaSüleymanlar**

118 elds

Mihaliç** 87 elds + 2.1 vineyard

Kaba Oyuk 84.6 elds + 1.4 vineyard

Koyunlu 80.3 elds + 0.24 vineyard

Düdükçi Yenicesi 73.6 elds

Glavanlı 70.2 elds + 0.2 vineyard

Kemal 66 elds + 1.7 vineyard

Hasköy** 66 eldsPavlikân 64 elds

Ak Bunar 58.4 elds

Iâhanlı 55 elds + 1.8 meadow

Saltıklı 51.6 elds + 0.4 vineyard

Yürücekler 54 elds

Maraş 37.8 elds + 1.5 vineyard + 1.9 garden + 0.5 meadow

Kara Ağaç 33.1 elds + 1.76 vineyard

Düdükçi 32.3 elds

Ayntablı 24.2 elds + 1 vineyard

* Te gures include only the landholdings o the peasants o reaya status – inhabitants o the villages.** Te peasants o Omurca, Sökün, Mihaliç and Hasköy also possessed and cultivated lands in the two neighbouringmüsellem çifliks. As the registrar recorded only the total area o the said çifliks and not the individual land possessionso the peasants in them, these additional areas are not included in the table. What can be said with certainty, withoutbeing able to quantiy it, is that in the case o these our villages the average area o the peasants’ landholdings given inthe table are lower than the actual gures.


29/276


30/276


31/276

31


Survey o the village o Mihaliç – F. 1, a.u. 15114, . 5, 6


32/276

32

SEFKA PARVEVA

Survey o the village o Sökün, together with the mezraa Karaca Süleymanlar –

F. 1, a.u. 15114, . 2, 9


33/276

33


СЕЛА, СЕЛЯНИ И ПОЗЕМЛЕНИ ВЛАДЕНИЯ В ОДРИНСКА ОБЛАСТ ПРЕЗ ВТОРАТА ПОЛОВИНА НА ХVІІ ВЕК

СТЕФКА ПЪРВЕВАИнститут за исторически изследвания – БАН

Резюме

В изследването са анализирани структурата, съдържанието, датирането и причините за съставяне насерия нетипични за практиката на османската администрация регистрации на населението и земитена 21 села и 2 самостоятелни мезри в хинтерланда на град Одрин. Представени са някои основниизводи, до които авторът е достигнал след анализ на изворовата информация, които се отнасят достепента и начините на овладяване и организация на земите в селското землище; до участието населяните и представителите на групата аскери в процесите на усвояване на земите за земеделие;до имуществената диференциация сред членовете на селските общности на базата на владяната отдомакинствата земя.


34/276

34

Borders of the Ottoman Empire: Teoretical uestionsand Solutions in Practice (1699–1856)

Mónika F. MolnárResearch Centre or the Humanities, Institute o Literature – HAS

INRODUCION1

“Ottoman history is one o constantly moving rontiers. In neither territorial nor politicalterms did the early Ottomans take over an existing state. Tereore, almost all regions which

ultimately comprised ‘the Ottoman world’ were at some time rontier areas, both horizontallyin terms o extending their authority through conquest and deense, and vertically in terms oconsolidating this authority through the pragmatic assimilation o local societies.”2

In spite o the act that in the last decade, in addition to the essays o, or example,Feridun Emecen, Gábor Ágoston or Colin Heywood,3 some important collections o essaysabout this issue have been published,4 the study o Ottoman rontiers is in its inancy, andthe quantity and quality o research and evidence vary massively according to region and

period. For instance, the Ottoman rontier with the Habsburg Empire is quite well known:the “military border” with the Habsburgs, who as early as 1522 began to organise it, whichdeveloped into an institution at rst in Croatia and later also in Slavonia and the Banat,and lasted until 1881, is the subject o numerous monographs and collective volumes.5 Te

1 Tis paper was supported by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship o the Hungarian Academy o Sciences and theOKA PD 105020.2 A review o the book: Woodhead, Christine, Te Frontiers o the Ottoman World. Peacock, A. C. S. (Ed.). Oxord,

2010. – In: English Historical Review, CXXVI (520), 2011, pp. 681–683.3 Emecen, M. Feridun, Osmanlı sınırları nerede başlar nerede biter. – In: Sosyoloji ve Coğraya. Eğribel, Ertan, Uuk

Özcan (Eds.). Istanbul, 2006, pp. 490–502; Ágoston, Gábor, A Flexible Empire: Authority and its Limits on theOttoman Frontiers. – In: International Journal o urkish Studies, 9, 2003 Summer, No. 1–2, pp. 15–31; Heywood,Colin, Te Frontier in Ottoman History: Old Ideas and New Myths. – In: Frontiers in uestion: Eurasian Borderlands,700–1700. Power, Daniel, Naomi Standen (Eds.). New York, 1999, pp. 228–250.

4 Such as: Ottoman Borderlands. Issues, Personalities and Political Changes. Karpat, Kemal, Robert W. Zens (Eds.). Wisconsin, 2004; Te Frontiers o the Ottoman World. Peacock, A. C. S. (Ed.). Oxord, 2010. (Tis is the rst majorcomparative study o the rontiers o the Ottoman Empire, one o the crucial orces that shaped the modern world.Te essays combine archaeological and historical approaches to contribute to a urther understanding o how thismajor empire approached the challenge o controlling rontiers as diverse and ar-ung as Central and Eastern Europe,

Anatolia, Iraq, Arabia and the Sudan.)5 Rothenberg, Günther Erich, Te Austrian military border in Croatia: 1522–1747. Illinois, 1960; Ágoston, Gábor,Te Ottoman–Habsburg Frontier in Hungary (1541–1699): a Comparison. – In: Te Great Ottoman, urkishCivilization vol. 1. Politics. Eren, Güler, Ercüment Kuran, Nejat Göyünç, İlber Ortaylı, Kemal Çiçek (Eds.). Ankara,2000, pp. 276–287; Ágoston, Gábor, Ottoman conquest and the Ottoman military rontier in Hungary. – In: AMillennium o Hungarian Military History. Király, Béla, László Veszprémy (Eds.). Boulder, Co., 2002, pp. 85–110;Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe. Te Military Connes in the Era o Ottoman Conquest.Dávid, Géza, Pál Fodor (Eds.). Leiden–Boston–Köln, 2000; Pálffy, Géza, Te Border Deense System in Hungary inthe 16th and 17th Centuries. – In: A Millennium o Hungarian Military History. Veszprémy, László, Béla K. Király,(Eds.). New York, 2002, pp. 111–135.


35/276


36/276

36

MÓNIKA F. MOLNÁR

I we analyse the treaties that resulted in loss o territories or the Ottomans rom the17th century onwards, we can see that they were generally made with a determinate periodin mind, and the Ottomans always tended to underplay or even genuinely underestimate theimportance or relevance o the treaties, leaving them a chance to regain the lost territories.Actually the reaty o Küçük-Kaynarca o 1774 (the pact signed at the conclusion o theRusso-urkish war o 1768–1774, ending undisputed Ottoman control over the BlackSea and providing a diplomatic basis or uture Russian intervention in internal affairs othe Ottoman Empire) was the rst that was signed as an “eternal peace” without any timelimitation.14

Behind the rhetoric, the Ottomans had a realistic view o what they called the serhad-imansura (=the victorious rontier). Te nature and direction o the serhad-i mansura’sexpansion and contraction was dictated less by ideology than by the nature o the threats toOttoman interests. “Ottoman pragmatism and exibility – considered one o the strengths othe ‘Ottoman methods o conquest’ in the 15th century – did not disappear in the ollowing

centuries. Te Ottoman government recognised the limits o its administrative possibilitiesand in act accepted the ormation o numerous administrative units o special status into theempire. A common eature o the rontier territories was the condominium, that is, the jointrule o the ormer power elite and the Ottoman authorities. While exhibiting signicantdifferences over time and according to place, this sharing o authority or a shorter or longer

period extended to areas such as taxation, public administration and justice.”15 Te political borderlines, created by negotiations between states, and based on actual

points xed by the treaties, meant that the Ottomans started to accept a new concept.Te reason or this shif lay in the military deeats o the Ottoman Empire suffered in thesecond hal o the 17th century, and this became obvious with the above-mentioned reaty oKarlowitz. Tis peace opened up a new era in the political relations between the Porte andChristian Europe: congress diplomacy, which had involved rapidly in Europe afer the end

o the Tirty Years’ War, was or the rst time applied to a settlement involving an Islamicstate.16 However, we know examples o similar processes o delimitation o the borderlinealso during the previous period, in the European territories, such the Venetian rontier,17 orin the north in the Polish–Lithuanian territories.18

18th Century: Patterns and rends. – In: Studies in 18 th-century Islamic History. Naff, T., Ed. Owen, J. Roger(Eds.). Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale (IL), 1977, pp. 88–107; Weigert, Gideon, A Note o Hudna:Peacemaking in Islam. – In: War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th–15th Centuries. Yaacov, Lev (Ed.).Leiden–New York–Köln, 1997, pp. 399–405.

14 Köse, Osman, 1774 Küçük Kaynarca Andlaşması. İstanbul, 2006.15 Ágoston, G., op. cit., 2003, pp. 18, 23; Inalcik, Halil, Ottoman Methods o Conquest. – Studia Islamica, 2, 1954, pp.

104–129.16 Heywood, Colin, Karloça. – In: Encyclopædia o Islam. 2nd Edition. Bosworth, C. E., E. van Donzel, B. Lewis,Ch. Pellat (Eds.). Leiden, 1978. Vol. IV, pp. 657–658; Özcan, Abdülkadir, 300. Yılında Karloça Antlaşması. – In:Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2000, No 4–5, pp. 237–257; F. Molnár, Mónika, Der Friede von Karlowitz und dasOsmanische Reich. – In: agungsband Salzburg – “Frieden mit dem Erzeind.” Das Osmanenreich als Partner in derFriedensgestaltung. Franz Steiner-Verlag, Stuttgart, 2012 (in print).

17 Pedani, Maria Pia, Dalla rontiera al conne (uaderni Studi Arabi). Venezia, 2002. p. 40; Pedani-Fabris, MariaPia, Te Ottoman–Venetian Frontier. – In: AA.VV. Te Great Ottoman–urkish Civilization. Ankara, 2000, pp.171–177.

18 Kołodziejczyk, Dariusz, Ottoman–Polish Diplomatic Relations (15th–18th Century). Leiden, 2000, pp. 57–67.


37/276

37

BORDERS OF HE OOMAN EMPIRE: HEOREICAL UESIONS AND SOLUIONS IN PRACICE

HE FRONIERS OF HE OOMAN EMPIRE

I. Te rontiers o the Ottoman Empire, like rontiers elsewhere in the early modern world, were not dened and represented in terms o linear boundaries. Tey were dened, instead,in terms o physical eatures, sovereign claims, units o taxation, the reach o armies, and thememories o elderly residents.

During the negotiations with the neighbouring Western countries, the Ottomanstended – i it was possible – to try to maintain the old rontiers, which were a point odeparture or them. Te problem was that the old documents attesting the borders were ofenlost, since the Ottomans did not pay as much attention to the written records as they didto historical memory.19 A good example o this problem is the delineation o the Polish–Ottoman border in 1703. During this negotiation, the juridical basis o the urther operationmay have been a source written seventy years earlier. Yusu Pasha, the governor o Ochakov(now in Ukraine), sent a certain Ibrahim Agha, as the one responsible or the border, to x

the Polish border ollowing the reaty o Karlowitz. Te participants reerred to a documento 1633, but the Ottomans did not have the original copy. Ibrahim Agha accepted the Polish version as authentic, but added that “or us the original documents have less value than [oral]testimony. And I had explicit orders to x the border with the help o the memory o theolder local people.”20

Bilateral written documents with Western states, the so-called descriptions o theborderline – in Ottoman urkish hududname or sınırname – have been conserved in ratherlarge quantities rom the end o the seventeenth and beginning o the 18th century.21

II. Te rst delineation in the modern sense o the Ottoman–Habsburg border wasmade – as mentioned above – ollowing the reaty o Karlowitz o 1699. As a consequenceo the military deeats in Europe, the Ottoman Empire had to start negotiations rom a

weak position. In spite o this act, i the Allied plenipotentiaries had anticipated that their

mission would be a simple diktat, they were due or a jarring disappointment. For neitherin its approach to the conerence nor in its deportment at the negotiation table was theOttoman delegation going to show weakness or subservience. Even i the negotiations andtreaty were not as ceremonial as they would have been in an elegant court, nevertheless thebasic etiquette and ormalities to ensure the equality o the parties were emphasised. Pompand circumstance attended the representatives o a still powerul potentate. Although neitherthe strategic nor the economic aspects o the nal rontier settlement can be ignored, theOttomans’ insistence was necessitated by two actors: its utility as a ace-saving mechanismto preserve the dignity and honour o the Ottoman dynasty, and the ull consideration o theinternal consequences o the territorial losses.

19 “… kemal-i mertebe meşhur ve ma’ru olmağın hududu bunda zikr olmadı” (Kołodziejczyk, Dariusz, Between thesplendour o Barocco and political pragmatism: the orm and contents o the Polish–Ottoman treaty documents o1699. – In: Te Ottoman Capitulations: ext and Context. Boogert, Maurits H. van den, Kate Fleet [Eds.]. OrienteModerno – Vol. XXII [LXXXIII], No. 3, 2003, pp. 671–679).

20 Ibidem.21 Kreiser, Klaus, Osmanische Grenzbeschreibungen. In: Studi preottomani e ottomani. Atti del convegno di Napoli

(24–26 settembre 1974). Gallotta, Aldo (Ed.). Napoli, 1976, pp. 165–172; Kütükoğlu, Mühabat, Hududname. –ürkiye Diyanet Vakı Islam Ansiklopedisi. Vol. 18, pp. 303–304; Gökçe, uran, 1699–1701 tarihli Bosna vilâyetihududnâmesi. – In: arih İncelemeleri Dergisi. XVI. İzmir, 2001, pp. 75–103.


38/276

38

MÓNIKA F. MOLNÁR

Since in the treaty both the Austrian and the urkish diplomats wanted to establisha rm rontier between the neighbouring empires on the basis o uti possidetis22 – this

phrase, taken rom a precept o Roman law, indicated to 17th-century politicians that theterm proposed or a truce or treaty between warring powers would entitle them to keepregions or strongholds that they held at the time, unless exceptions were specied. Exchangeso territories and ortresses were negotiable, but the undamentum pacis would remain uti

possidetis – even i it meant the sacrice by each party o outlying strongholds and enclavesin order to secure a viable boundary. For this purpose, they went on to suggest that, afer thetreaty had traced out the general direction o the new rontier, commissioners should deal

with problems o details by means o a careul inspection o the actual terrain. During thenegotiations on the basis o the above-mentioned principle o uti possidetis, the Imperials

wanted to indicate the boundary between the different territories among rivers, mountains,and other concrete geographical elements. Conversely, the Ottomans emphasised that themain purpose o the conerence would be to discuss the evacuation rom different territories,

the destruction o ortresses, and similar technical issues that would give them the opportunityto express their viewpoint. Furthermore, they stressed that they did not mean to x theconcrete border between the two empires, leaving this work to the commissaries that woulddescribe the boundaries ollowing the peace conerence. Te skilul method o negotiation othe Ottoman diplomacy – which was called “the urkish intrigue” by the Venetian delegateCarlo Ruzzini – was based on exibility, rather than being rigidly held to a strict observanceo a concrete commitment o terms. erms could be varied as needed or specic concessionson separate issues, an advantage that was to serve the Ottomans well with both the emperorand his allies.23 Concerning the issue o the possession o the territories, they introduced –distorting the principle o uti possidetis – the differentiation between “effective possession”and “possession o consequence”.24

Te signatories o the treaty stipulated that the commissioners should begin their work

as soon as possible, requiring them to be nominated by 22 March 1699, eight weeks later, andenjoining that everything should be completed in two urther months “or more quickly i possible”; as it turned out, however, two months became two years. Luigi Ferdinando Marsigliand the Ottoman commissioner Ibrahim eendi kapucı başı worked together, walking alongthe line, and signing – either making use o natural limning objects such as rivers, or buildingarticial cairns – rstly in the Croatian part (conni cisdanubiali) nished in July 1700, thenin the ransylvanian part (conni transdanubiali) concluded in February 1701.25

22 Uti possidetis, ita porro possediatis (in Ottoman urkish called alahalihi): rom the 19th century onwards this conceptis the well-known “status quo”. Stoye, John, Marsili’s Europe 1680–1730. Te Lie and imes o Luigi Ferdinando

Marsili, Soldier and Virtuoso. New Haven–London, 1994, p. 101.23 Ria’at A. Abou-El-Haj, Ottoman Diplomacy at Karlowitz. – Journal o the American Oriental Society, 87, 1967,No. 4, pp. 498–512; F. Molnár,