In Ottoman times Zdravikion

Το 1321 ο καστροφύλακας Ζιχνών Κων/νος Αρχιραίτης προσυπογράφει έγγραφα σχετικά με την μεταβίβαση κτημάτων στην Αθωνική Μονή Χελανδαρίου.

Coping with Extortion on a Local Level: The Case of Hilandar’s Metochion in Zdravikion (Draviskos, Strymon Region) in the Sixteenth Century

In Ottoman times Zdravikion was situated in the Edirne (Pasha)

sancak. In the fifteenth century it belonged territorially and administratively to

the vilayet of Keşişlik. Towards the end of the century, and from 1491 certainly,

it was in the nahiye and kaza of Zihne until the end of the sixteenth century and

probably even for some time afterwards.8

According to the imperial survey registers of 1454/5 and 1478/9, Zdravikion was the largest village in the area with more than 150 almost exclusively

Christian households. Even though the metochion of Hilandar almost certainly

existed even then, the imperial registers make no mention of it. In 1454/5 the

revenue of the village was divided among four timars. The village belonged to

timars for much longer afterwards. About 1535 it formed part of the timar of

Mustafa, nişancı of the Sublime Porte. In early 1539 the estate was still referred

to as the hass of the nişancı. Then it became an imperial hass, judging by the

firman of 1552. It was at that time (1549–1557) that a large charitable complex, the vakıf of sultan Süleyman the Magnificent, was being built in Istanbul.

Zdravikion was one of the villages the revenue from which was intended for the

maintenance of the famous Süleymaniye mosque and the imperial ‘imaret. In the

Ottoman documents from Hilandar it is referred to as part of Süleyman’s vakıf

in 1560, 1575 and 1576.9

The core estate was termed çiftlik and it encompassed three çifts. It was

an area of land which could be ploughed by three pairs of oxen (üç çiftleri yürir

imiş). If the average size of a çiftlik was between 60 and 150 dönüms, its area

should not have exceeded 450 dönüms, but a hüccet of 1492 is clear that the estate in Zdravikion was much larger, about 700 dönüms, or a little more than 64

hectares.10

In 1492 the çiftlik was bounded as follows: on the east – by the mülk (private property owned in freehold) of Yaso, son of Belumi (if the reading is correct?) and a ruined church; on the north – by papa Yani’s flourmill and the public road; on the west – by the field of Filato (?), son of Sotir, a boundary stone

and the fields of Kosta and Dimo; and on the south – by the public road and

the Zdravikion village boundary. The vakıfname of 1569 describes the boundary

in less detail: “on one side, the said village [Zdravikion], on one side, the stream

(mesil-ma), on one side, the mountain, and on one side, the public road.”11

Literally speaking, the term çiftlik denoted agricultural land. As on the

other çiftliks in the Strymon river valley, the most common crop was wheat. The

monks of Hilandar, however, did not grow grain crops only. In early 1490, the

large metochion also included vineyards. Between 1542 and 1567 certainly, and

probably even before, there were a vineyard (one or more), a flourmill (at least

one) and beehives. At the time of the confiscation and redemption of monastic

estates in 1568/9, and from then on until 1596, only vineyards and vegetable

gardens (bagat ve zemin-i bostan) were recorded in connection with the çiftlik.

Unlike the imperial survey registers, the vakıfname of March 1569 makes no

mention of vegetable gardens, and records only one two-dönüm vineyard.12

In 1569 there were on the çiftlik a house (ev), a stable, a barn and a hay

barn. At least this is what the vakıfname tells us. Information about livestock is

scarce, but there must have been some, as suggested by the stable and the barn.

As early as 1504 there was a shelter for (water) buffalos (su sıgır), and it is also

known that in 1537 the monks gave up oxes (kara sıgır öküz) in order to restore

possession of a vineyard. They raised sheep without having to pay taxes, at least

not until 1505.13

All the above concerns the large çiftlik and whatever came with it. Apart

from it, Hilandar owned some other real property within the village boundaries

of Zdravikion. First of all, a 40-dönüm crop field known as Şahin-oglu’s field. In

early January 1496 the monks of Hilandar exchanged their 50-dönüm field in

the village of Patos for it. Before the exchange it had been a freehold property

(mülk) of the zaim Mahmud Bey, son of ‘Osman Bey. If it had a common border

with Hilandar’s large çiftlik at all, they were separated by the public road. The

road bounded it on three sides, and the boundary marker on the fourth side was

a fig tree.14

Hilandar did not enlarge the estate further until November 1575. The

monks purchased a 12-dönüm field, whose boundary was “known to the neighbours”, from a certain papa Drāmetōn (?) for 400 akçes. Of course, they also had

to pay the title deed tax (resm-i ṭapu) to the cabi of the vakıf, Mustafa Çelebi.15

The following year the usufruct of a 3-dönüm vegetable garden and the flourmill

built by the monk Mardarije was transferred to the monks of Hilandar. The only

condition set for them to fulfil by the mütevelli Mehmed and Mustafa Çelebi,

emin of the mukata‘a of Zihne, in this case probably acting in his capacity as cabi

of the vakıf, was the regular annual payment of a 60-akçe for the rent (mukata‘a)

to the vakıf.

16

The obligations of the monks residing on the core metochion in Zdravikion to the “master of the land”, be it the sipahi, the hass emini or the mütevelli of

the vakıf, remained unchanged until 1569: instead of the tithe (bedel-i ‘öşür), they

paid the fixed annual lump sum of 600 akçes (ber vech-i maktu‘). The amount

had probably been set as early as 1481 when Wallachian voivode Bassarab III

Ţepeluş procured some privileges for Hilandar. At his express request, Bayezid

II exempted six major Hilandar’s metochia (çiftliks) from paying the tithe. And

that was not all. He cut by half the maktu‘ (annual lump sum) set for those estates. This was a precious privilege because the maktu‘ for most estates had not

changed for at least half a century. Hilandar was the first Athonite monastery on

behalf of which a Wallachian voivode requested that its metochia, and all of them,

be exempted from paying the tithe (‘öşr). As for the maktu‘ being cut by half, no

source can confirm such a privilege having been granted to any other Athonite 

monastery! By the way, tax payment in a fixed lump sum was first mentioned

only in a firman of 1503, which is explicit that the amount of 600 akçes is only

one half of the due amount, the other half being fully written off. All subsequent

sultans, Selim I, Süleyman the Magnificent, at first Selim II as well, confirmed

this privilege and did not raise the fixed tax despite a heavy decrease in the value

of the akçe.

17 After the “confiscation and redemption affair”, in January 1569, the

payment of taxes in a lump sum was supposed to be abolished and the monks

subject to paying the tithe, the salariye and all other taxes like the rest of the

re‘aya. Other examples show, however, that this measure was not strictly implemented and that lump-sum tax payment was kept here and there. As far as the

metochion in Zdravikion is concerned, documents cannot confirm either.

The “masters of the land”, ever dissatisfied with such low taxes, kept trying to introduce the tithe, sometimes asking permission from the Porte or from

the kadı of Zihne, but usually without asking anyone, but instead acting wilfully and enforcing coercion. Owing to firmans and other official documents

that the monks of Hilandar kept with care and produced as evidence in court,

they always won their case. Sometimes without any difficulty, sometimes only

after years of haggling and fighting against intrigues. At least, that is what the

surviving documents are telling us.

The earliest surviving document pertaining to one such case is a hüccet of

1490. Sipahis complained to the sultan, and he ordered that the case be looked

into and that both parties submit evidence. The kadıs of Serres and Zihne confirmed the monks’ privileges.18 Two years later the sipahis Koçi and ‘Ali worked

out a clever way to extort the tithe if not from all then from most of Hilandar’s

crop fields. In the fundamental and one of the most important fifteenth-century

orders of the sultan, the one issued in 1481, privileges had been granted to “six

pieces of their land” (altı pare yerleri), among which the estate in Zdravikion

figured as one piece. The timar-holders chose to bypass the facts by interpreting

the phrase “one piece of land” as meaning one field. Although well aware that

according to the imperial survey register the phrase referred to the whole çiftlik,

they manipulated the factual situation and wilfully collected the tithe from all

fields but one. The case was brought before the Imperial Divan but the interested parties kept interpreting the sultan’s decree in their own favour. When the

monk Grigorije, son of Sava, submitted to the kadı court of Zihne evidence for

the exact boundary of the çiftlik subject to the privileges, the sipahis defended

themselves by claiming that they had not known its exact size. A commission

composed of the kadı of Zihne, mevlana Emir Ishak, and four sipahis from near

by villages made an on-site inspection. They finally established that the monks

of Hilandar were in the right, and the kadı ruled that the timar-holders must

return the unlawfully collected tithe.19

When, in 1506, the monks turned some of their crop fields into vineyards, vegetable gardens and gardens, the sipahis tried to collect the tenth of the

produce at least from that land. However, the sultan ruled that the change of

land use within the çiftlik of Hilandar did not interfere with the prescribed lump

sum in any way, and banned the sipahis from extracting more than the amount

laid down in the imperial survey register. It seems that the sipahis, motivated by

the planting of new vineyards and vegetable gardens, were not ready to give up

their intention easily. Thus, in 1513, upon the accession of Selim I, the monks

renewed their right to lump sum payment and procured the order forbidding

the sipahis to disturb them on that account. They did the same in 1520. In 1529

they managed to obtain a general decree forbidding the sipahis to demand more

than prescribed, but it is not clear whether the reason for their action was the

metochion in Zdravikion or some other of the remaining five metochia that enjoyed the same privileges.20

The monks had much more trouble coping with the nişancı Mustafa after

their land within the village boundaries of Zdravikion became his hass. In 1535

this prominent court official managed to have the privileges enjoyed by the metochion revoked by the Porte and the tithe imposed. But the monks did not give up.

A year later, despite the fact that the nişancı had the sultan’s decree, the monks

Nikifor and Zaharije proved the monastery’s rights at the kadı’s court of Zihne

by submitting as evidence the earlier orders (hükms) issued by Bayezid, Selim

and Süleyman. Based on the kadı’s hüccet, they sent representatives to Istanbul

together with those of the well-known monastery of Kosaniçe (Panagia Ikosifinissa), whose property rights in Zdravikion had also been injured. Namely, the

monastery of Kosaniçe had a çiftlik, a vineyard and a church in Zdravikion. The

result of their joint efforts was the restoration of the earlier privileges. But the

nişancı’s men did not give up either: they demanded the tithe again, in 1538 and

1539, but, as it turned out, both times without success.21

The troubles with the “masters of the land” extracting more than the prescribed lump sum were the reason that the monks of Hilandar turned to the

Porte in 1542, to the kadı of Zihne in 1545, and again to the sultan in 1551,

1552, 1560, 1562 and 1567. In all these cases their privileges were confirmed, 

even when Zdravikion became an imperial hass, and then a vakıf village of Süleyman the Magnificent’s great imperial vakıf in Istanbul.22

It was not only sipahis that caused the monks troubles. As in any other

metochion of Hilandar’s, it was immediate neighbours that sometimes attempted

to grab some of its land. The earliest such case was an encroachment upon the

public road that the monks of Hilandar used to fetch water. In 1491 the neighbouring timar-holder Tatar Mahmud turned the public road and, as it seems,

a part of Hilandar’s crop field into his yard. It was only a sultan’s order that

enabled the monks to reclaim their land and the right to use the road as the

common good.23

Much later, in 1533, a certain Grdan and a few other Christians cast a

covetous eye on some of Hilandar’s land. To prevent damage and disturbance,

the monks were forced to seek protection from the sultan.24

Only a few months later, another dispute arose, this time with the Zdravikion villagers Yani, son of Paraskevo, Paraskevo, son of Dimo, and Kosta, son

of Paraskevo. They had planted a 100-dönüm vineyard on a crop field of Hilandar’s without permission, using the land unlawfully until January 1534 when the

monks forced them to pull out of their land based on the imperial order and the

resulting kadı’s hüccet.

25

In 1537 the monks were in a dispute with a certain Todor, a villager of

Zdravikion, who had been using the monastery’s vineyard for twenty years.

They were restored to the possession of their vineyard, but as a result of a settlement. They had to give Todor two oxen as compensation for the effort he had

put into embedding the poles.26

There were also cases of power abuse by specially assigned imperial officials. Thus, in 1589 they demanded, contrary to custom, that the monks hand

over grain surpluses, claiming that they were selling them, which was forbidden.

The monks kept proving that they used the grain for their own needs only.27

The Ottoman documents preserved in the archive of the Hilandar Monastery give us a picture of the ways in which its monks struggled to preserve their

privileges and protect their large metochion at Zdravikion. This paper presented

different arguments they used in the attempt to extort the payment of the tithe

and the monks’ firm attitude in defending their rights before the kadı’s court and

the Imperial Divan. Monks were able to prove their rights because they conscieven when Zdravikion became an imperial hass, and then a vakıf village of Süleyman the Magnificent’s great imperial vakıf in Istanbul.22

It was not only sipahis that caused the monks troubles. As in any other

metochion of Hilandar’s, it was immediate neighbours that sometimes attempted

to grab some of its land. The earliest such case was an encroachment upon the

public road that the monks of Hilandar used to fetch water. In 1491 the neighbouring timar-holder Tatar Mahmud turned the public road and, as it seems,

a part of Hilandar’s crop field into his yard. It was only a sultan’s order that

enabled the monks to reclaim their land and the right to use the road as the

common good.23

Much later, in 1533, a certain Grdan and a few other Christians cast a

covetous eye on some of Hilandar’s land. To prevent damage and disturbance,

the monks were forced to seek protection from the sultan.24

Only a few months later, another dispute arose, this time with the Zdravikion villagers Yani, son of Paraskevo, Paraskevo, son of Dimo, and Kosta, son

of Paraskevo. They had planted a 100-dönüm vineyard on a crop field of Hilandar’s without permission, using the land unlawfully until January 1534 when the

monks forced them to pull out of their land based on the imperial order and the

resulting kadı’s hüccet.

25

In 1537 the monks were in a dispute with a certain Todor, a villager of

Zdravikion, who had been using the monastery’s vineyard for twenty years.

They were restored to the possession of their vineyard, but as a result of a settlement. They had to give Todor two oxen as compensation for the effort he had

put into embedding the poles.26

There were also cases of power abuse by specially assigned imperial officials. Thus, in 1589 they demanded, contrary to custom, that the monks hand

over grain surpluses, claiming that they were selling them, which was forbidden.

The monks kept proving that they used the grain for their own needs only.27

The Ottoman documents preserved in the archive of the Hilandar Monastery give us a picture of the ways in which its monks struggled to preserve their

privileges and protect their large metochion at Zdravikion. This paper presented

different arguments they used in the attempt to extort the payment of the tithe

and the monks’ firm attitude in defending their rights before the kadı’s court and

the Imperial Divan. Monks were able to prove their rights because they consci

entiously kept, sometimes for centuries, all the necessary documents relating to

their land possessions, producing them as evidence in court proceedings.

The history of Hilandar’s metochion in Zdravikion can be followed in Ottoman documents continuously from 1481 to 1589. After that year there is no

further news about it. It does not figure in an extract from the 1598 imperial

survey register and neither do the other Hilandar’s metochia in the Strymon

region, except the one for Serres.28 The answer to the question as to what happened to Hilandar’s metochia in the Strymon region will have to wait until new

sources come to light.

2 A. Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar u Osmanskom carstvu (XV–XVII vek) (Belgrade:

Balkanološki institut SANU, Manastir Hilandar, Sveti arhijerejski sinod Srpske pravoslavne

crkve, 2000), 42–52; A. Fotić, “Sveta Gora u doba Selima II”, Hilandarski zbornik 9 (1997),

143–162; J. C. Alexander (Alexandropoulos), “The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away:

Athos and the Confiscation Affair of 1568–1569”, Mount Athos in the 14th–16th Centuries

(Athonika Symmeikta 4) (Athens 1997), 154–169.

3 To mention but a few referent titles: Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 241–396; A. Fotić, “Kassandra in the Ottoman Documents from Hilandar Monastery (Mount Athos), 16th–17th

Centuries”, Balcanica XL/2009 (2010), 57–73; E. Kolovos, “Chorikoi kai monachoi sten

othomanike Chalkidike kata tous 15o kai 16o ai” (PhD thesis, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 2000); E. Kolovos, “Negotiating for State Protection: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite

Monasteries (Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth C.)”, in Frontiers of Ottoman

Studies: State, Province, and the West, vol. II, eds. C. Imber, K. Kiyotaki and Rh. Murphey

(London, New York: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 197–209; Ph. Kotzageorgis, He athonike mone Agiou Paulou kata ten othomanike periodo (Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2002); Ph.

Kotzageorgis, “Agioreitika metochia ste Lemno kata ten othomanike periodo”, He exaktinose

tou Agiou Orous ston orthodoxo kosmo: Ta metochia. Praktika synedriou, ed. K. Chrysochoidis

(Thessaloniki: Agioreitiki Estia, 2015), 107–119.

4 Actes de Chilandar I: Dès origines à 1319, Archives de l’Athos XX, éd. diplomatique par

M. Živojinović, V. Kravari et Ch. Giros (Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1998), 67–68; M.

Živojinović, Istorija Hilandara, vol. I: Od osnivanja manastira 1198. do 1335. godine (Belgrade:

Prosveta, 1998), 218. The medieval history of the metochion has been studied in detail

by M. Živojinović, “Hilandarski metoh Zdravik i njegovi raniji posednici”, Zbornik radova

Vizantološkog instituta XX (1981), 85–98.

5 Hilandar Monastery Archive, Turcica (hereafter HMAT), 7/2 (published in V. Boškov,

“Dokumenti Bajazita II u Hilandaru (Sveta Gora)”, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju XXXI

(1982), 152–153).

6 Živojinović, “Hilandarski metoh Zdravik”, 85.

7 Topographic map of Greece, 1:50,000 (Army Geographic Service, 1949–1955); P. Bellier et al., Paysages de Macédoine, leurs caractères, leur évolution à travers les documents et les récits des voyageurs, présenté par J. Lefort (Paris: De Boccard, 1986), 260; E. Krüger, Die Siedlungsnamen Griechisch-Makedoniens nach amtlichen Verzeichnissen und Kartenwerken (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1984), 104, 170, 547, 561; Turski dokumenti za istorijata na Makedonija. Opširen popisen defter za vakafite vo Paša sandžakot od 1568/69 godina, t. XI, vol. I, transl., ed. and comment. by D-r A. Stojanovski (Skopje: Državen arhiv na Republika Makedonija, 2008), 257; HMAT, 1/1a, 1/8a, 7/12, 7/14, 7/16, 7/17, 7/18, 11/5, 6/3, 6/7, 6/9, 7/23). There are documents in which its name is severely distorted or some letters are omitted, such as, e.g., Erzenova, which used to be the cause of misidentification (HMAT, 7/19, summary in V. Boškov and D. Bojanić, “Sultanske povelje iz manastira Hilandara. Regesta i komentar za period 1512–1601”, Hilandarski zbornik 8 (1991), 179). 8 Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod. Opširen popisen defter od XV vek, IV, transl., ed. and comment. by D-r A. Stojanovski (Skopje: Arhiv na Makedonija, 1978), 304– 306, 308, 337, 339; H. Lowry, “Changes in Fifteenth-Century Ottoman Peasant Taxation: the Case Study of Radilofo”, in Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society, Papers given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, eds. A. Bryer and H. Lowry (Birmingham, England – Washington, USA: Univ. of Birmingham – Dumbarton Oaks, 1986), 36; H. Lowry, “The Fifteenth Century Ottoman Vilayet-i Keşişlik: its Location, Population and Taxation”, in Humanist and Scholar. Essays in Honor of Andreas Tietze, eds. H. W. Lowry and D. Quataert (Istanbul – Washington: The Isis Press – The Institute of Turkish Studies, 1993), 15–26; HMAT, 1/1a, 7/7a, 7/12, 7/15, 6/2, 6/14, 11/5, 12/7/7 etc.

9 Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 389–390; Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot

narod, 304–306, 308, 337, 339; Turski dokumenti za istorijata na Makedonija, 257; Lowry,

“Changes”, 36; Lowry, “The Fifteenth Century”, 24–25; HMAT, 1/2, 1/1a, 7/7a, 7/19, 1/24,

7/20, 1/26a, 1/29a, 7/23, 7/27, 1/58, 1/60a.

10 HMAT, 7/12, 7/14, 7/15, 7/16, 7/17, 12/7/7), 1/1a. Hüccet HMAT 1/1a was partially

used in Boškov, “Dokumenti Bajazita II”, 139, 142, 143, 145. Instead of 700 dönüms, as recorded in the hüccet, V. Boškov gave the wrong size of 100 dönüms (?!) (p. 142), which was

later quoted in the literature (Živojinović, “Hilandarski metoh Zdravik”, 96).

11 HMAT, 1/1a, 11/5.

12 HMAT, 7/44a, 1/2, 1/29a, 6/2, 6/3, 6/7, 6/9a, 6/14, 7/22, 7/23, 7/34, 12/37/57, 6/8,

6/10, 6/11, 6/12, 11/5; T. C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı, Osmanlı Arşivi,

Tahrir Defterleri 723, 1053; Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 390.

13 HMAT, 12/37/57, 6/8, 6/10, 6/11, 6/12, 11/5; 1/8a, 1/25, 7/9; Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 390–391.

14 HMAT, 1/4. The document was mentioned in Boškov, “Dokumenti Bajazita II”, 142, 145,

where the village name Pato was read as Panik.

15 HMAT, 1/58.

16 HMAT, 1/60a.

17 HMAT, 1/1a, 1/2, 1/24, 1/26, 1/29a, 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/7, 6/9a, 6/14, 7/2, 7/7a, 7/12, 7/13,

7/14, 7/15, 7/16, 7/22, 7/23), 7/25, 7/27, 7/34, 12/7/7, 12/7/18. The amount of 604 akçes

occurs two times, most probably by scribal error (HMAT, 1/26a, 7/17).

18 HMAT, 1/2; Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 392.

19 HMAT, 1/1a; Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 392.

20 HMAT, 12/7/7, 7/12, 7/15, 7/17.

21 HMAT, 7/19, 1/24, 7/20, 1/26, 1/26a; T. C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri

Başkanlığı, Osmanlı Arşivi, Tahrir Defterleri 723, 1050; Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 393.

22 HMAT, 7/22, 1/29a, 7/25, 7/23, 7/27, 12/7/18, 7/34.

23 HMAT, 7/5; Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 393.

24 HMAT, 7/18.

25 HMAT, 12/8/21.

26 HMAT, 1/25; Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar, 393.

27 HMAT, 7/44a

Bibliography and sources

Actes de Chilandar I: Dès origines à 1319. Archives de l’Athos XX, eds. M. Živojinović, V.

Kravari and Ch. Giros. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1998.

Alexander (Alexandropoulos), J. C. “The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away: Athos and

the Confiscation Affair of 1568–1569”. Mount Athos in the 14th–16th Centuries (Athonika

Symmeikta 4) (Athens 1997), 154–169.

Bellier, P. et al. Paysages de Macédoine, leurs caractères, leur évolution à travers les documents et

les récits des voyageurs, présenté par J. Lefort. Paris: De Boccard, 1986.

Boškov, V. “Dokumenti Bajazita II u Hilandaru (Sveta Gora)”. Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju

XXXI (1982), 131–154.

Boškov, V. and D. Bojanić. “Sultanske povelje iz manastira Hilandara. Regesta i komentar za

period 1512–1601”. Hilandarski zbornik 8 (1991), 167–213.

Fotić, A. “Kassandra in the Ottoman Documents from Hilandar Monastery (Mount Athos),

16th–17th Centuries”. Balcanica XL/2009 (2010), 57–73.

— Sveta Gora i Hilandar u Osmanskom carstvu (XV–XVII vek). Belgrade: Balkanološki institut SANU, Manastir Hilandar and Sveti arhijerejski sinod Srpske pravoslavne crkve,

2000.

— “Sveta Gora u doba Selima II”. Hilandarski zbornik 9 (1997), 143–162.

Hilandar Monastery Archive, Turcica (HMAT), 1/1a, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8a, 1/24, 1/25, 1/26,

1/26a, 1/29a, 1/58, 1/60a, 6/2, 6/3, 6/7, 6/8, 6/9, 6/9a, 6/10, 6/11, 6/12, 6/14, 7/2, 7/5,

7/7a, 7/9, 7/12, 7/13, 7/14, 7/15, 7/16, 7/17, 7/18, 7/19, 7/20, 7/22, 7/23, 7/27, 7/34,

7/44a, 11/5, 12/7/7, 12/7/18, 12/8/21, 12/12/15, 12/37/57.

Kolovos, E. “Chorikoi kai monachoi sten othomanike Chalkidike kata tous 15o kai 16o ai”.

PhD thesis, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 2000.

— “Negotiating for State Protection: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite Monasteries (Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth C.)”. In Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State,

Province, and the West, II, eds. C. Imber, K. Kiyotaki and Rh. Murphey, 197–209. London, New York: I. B. Tauris, 2005.

Kotzageorgis, Ph. “Agioreitika metochia ste Lemno kata ten othomanike periodo”. In He

exaktinose tou Agiou Orous ston orthodoxo kosmo: Ta metochia. Praktika synedriou, ed. K.

Chrysochoidis, 107–119. Thessaloniki: Agioreitiki Estia, 2015.

— He athonike mone Agiou Paulou kata ten othomanike periodo. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2002.

Krüger, E. Die Siedlungsnamen Griechisch-Makedoniens nach amtlichen Verzeichnissen und Kartenwerken. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1984. Lowry, H. “Changes in Fifteenth-Century Ottoman Peasant Taxation: the Case Study of Radilofo”. In Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society. Papers given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, eds. A. Bryer and H. Lowry, 23–38. Birmingham (England) – Washington (USA): The Univ. of Birmingham – Dumbarton Oaks, 1986. — “The Fifteenth Century Ottoman Vilayet-i Keşişlik: its Location, Population and Taxation”. In Humanist and Scholar. Essays in Honor of Andreas Tietze, eds. H. W. Lowry and D. Quataert, 15–26. Istanbul – Washington: The Isis Press – The Institute of Turkish Studies, 1993. T. C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı, Osmanlı Arşivi, Tahrir Defterleri 723. Topographic map of Greece, 1:50,000. Army Geographic Service, 1949–1955. Turski dokumenti za istorijata na Makedonija. Opširen popisen defter za vakafite vo Paša sandžakot od 1568/69 godina, t. XI, vol. I, translated, edited and commented by D-r A. Stojanovski. Skopje: Državen arhiv na Republika Makedonija, 2008. Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod. Opširen popisen defter od XV vek, vol. IV, translated, edited and commented by D-r A. Stojanovski. Skopje: Arhiv na Makedonija, 1978. Živojinović, M. “Hilandarski metoh Zdravik i njegovi raniji posednici”. Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta XX (1981), 85–98. — Istorija Hilandara. Vol. I: Od osnivanja manastira 1198. do 1335. godine. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1998.


Δημοφιλείς αναρτήσεις από αυτό το ιστολόγιο

Γιαγιά στην Καππαδοκία τραγουδά Ελληνικό παραδοσιακό (Βίντεο)

Τραγωδία στo Χαρωπό, νεκρό μωράκι 8 μηνών.

Η καταπράσινη Καστανούσσα το 2024 : Το χωριό που θυμίζει ενα τεράστιο γκαζόν με βίλες

Νέα

Φωτογραφία της ημέρας

Φωτογραφίες

Βίντεο

Πρόσωπα

Καταστήματα

Συνταγές

Χθεσημεραυριο

Μουσικές Επιλογές: Bουτιά στο παρελθόν

Ιστορίες

Τσιμεριτας

Ο χαζός του χωριού

Κλινικός Ψυχρολόγος