|Published (Last):||23 November 2013|
|PDF File Size:||12.12 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.80 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Published in Greece by Crete University Press.
Reflections on Murad I’s Final Years The theories of the great historians M. Wittl k, both put forward in the s, have recently been challenged. On the other hand, recent findings and subsequent studies have provoked further discussions with new arguments and provided additional expla- nations. The role of the dervishes in the formation of the Ottoman emirate has been stressed.
Coins have been found which shed new light on the humble beginnings of the fourteenth-century Turkish emirs. Texts relating to religion and the holy war have been discovered. Cadasters or land censuses have clarified early institutions. Thus a re-examination of the history of the emirate which was to develop into an empire became a desideratum.
Zachwriadou University of Crete was the first in Greece to initiate organised Turkish studies by creating two teaching posts in Turcology in The Institute for Mediterranean Studies, also situated in Crete, took afurther step by organising postgraduate studies in Turkish history, language and palaeography in An international symposium focusing on the birth of the Ottoman empire appeared to be another step in the development of Turkish studies in Greece.
Zachariaduo Symposium, organised by the Institute for Mediterranean Studies, took place in Rethymnon during the Halcyon Days of on the 11 th, 12th and 13th of January. The papers contained in the present volume were presented at that Symposium. Irene Beldiceanu-Steinherr and of Pro!
Jacques Lefort dealt with Bithynia, the cradle of the Ottoman empire, and its inhabitants. Halil Inalcik analysed the activities of Osman, the founder of the Ottoman state, while Dr Colin Imber examined problems related to the first three Ottoman sultans. Tuncer Baykara dealt with the city of Denizli, Dr Feridum Emecen with the emirate of Sarukhan and the editor of this volume with that of Karasi.
Dr Konstantin Zhukov threw light on Sarukhanid and Karasid coins. Finally, Dr lames Reid examined a variety of problems relating to Mongol rule. The papers of Pro! Irene Melikoff and of Pro! Speros Vryonis enlarged on the cultural and religious aspect by examining the socio-cultural structure offourteenth-century Konya. Christian activity directed against early Ottoman expansion was another topic.
Nikos Oikonomides drew attention to an early Serbo- Byzantine alliance, Pro! Anthony Luttrell reviewed Latin responses and Dr lanos Hovary discussed the attitude of Hungary, which was destined to become the main opponent of the Turks in the Balkans.
Vassilis Demetriades dealt with the “vexata questio” of the institution of the devshirme. Dr Steve Reinert gave a detailed account of sources relating to the s and their chronological problems.
One paper, that of Pro! Gyorgy Hazai, was devoted to the Osmanlz language. As this was the first international symposium on Turkish Studies to be held in Greece, we are first of all grateful to our colleagues who so warmly responded to our invitation and participated in the sessions of the Symposium.
We would also like to express our profound gratitude to Mr Ioannis Kefaloyiannis, the then Minister of Tourism, and to Mr Robert Taylor, the then Director of the British Council, for helping us with the travel expenses of the participants; also to the Mayor of Rethymnon, Mr Dimitris Archontakis, for his hospitality to our colleagues, and to the then Vice- President of the University of Crete, Pro!
Nicholas Faraklas, for his encouraging presence and help. Above all we wish to express our gratitude to the then Minister of Cultural Affairs, Professor Anna Psarouda-Benaki, for the substantial financial support provided for the organisation of the Symposium and particularly for the publication of the present volume. Aktan, and the then Consul General Mrs G. Dalyanoglu, for honouring the work of the Symposium by attending all the sessions so assiduously.
Mediterranean Historical Review MT: Continuity and change in late byzantine and early ottoman society, edd. L’un des Turcs dit alors: New Series, XX, Londres p. Je n’en veux pour preuve en conclusion, que les deux petits textes suivants.
L’acte date du avril Lorsqu’une population, venue d’ailleurs, s’installe dans un village, ils mentionnent son origine. Il contient en effet un tiers seulement des quartiers de Brousse. Le TT 23 n’est malheureusement pas complet. Nous diviserons la population en citadins et en villageois. La ville Les informations que nous avons pu glaner sur les villes de Bithynie sont rares en raison de la documentation lacunaire.
Brousse constitue une fois de plus une exception. En la ville comprend le quartier des Simaviyan.
Sur les 14 quartiers que comptait Brousse enle registre de n’en contient que 45 elziabeth un incomplet. Certains portent en effect des noms turcs ou persans.
Deux legs pieux, deux timariotes et le sultan se partageaient les contribuables. Jusqu’en les Ottomans disaient mahalle-i Manast1r der qal’e; cf.
Yani veled-i Martinos, Dimitri Les vignerons qui exploitaient son vignoble payaient au legs pieux de Yaqut pacha aspres. Malheureusement nous n’avons pas d’autres informations sur la ville. L’ensemble des vignerons payait au legs pieux de Murad 1 er une somme forfaitaire de respectivement et aspres. Le recenseur emploie le mot bid’at innovation illicite du point de vue religieux: Or ceci est contraire aux pratiques du fisc ottoman. Sur 81 contribuables Tchardaq comptait 30 affranchis TT 23, p.
Sarudja Birgoz TT 23, p. Le nombre des personnes pouvait varier entre quarante et cinquante. Plus tard Mehmed II soumit Mentions dans le TT Ceci est inscrit dans le registre ancien: Kirmasti est le nom du recenseur.
Voici les noms de quelques contribuables du village de Tchardaq. Encore un exemple curieux, la ville de Mekedje. Quant aux autres, il ne peut s’agir ni de populations autochtones grecques, ni de musulmans convertis. Le pourcentage de la population d’origine byzantine est cependant faible. Dieux 23 15 l4: Dieux 24 3 Notes de la liste 1. Les trois personnes figurent aussi dans la rubrique des domaines du sultan. Il s’agit d’une veuve. To me it seems that it has already been extensively and sufficiently investigated, l and nothing different could be said, at least until new evidence comes to light, confirming or refuting previous arguments.
I hope that my offering on this subject is sufficient to support a new approach to this topic. However, the document under investigation could be of some interest; at least it could prompt some thoughts on questions already posed in previous articles 2 and perhaps could lead to a re-evaluation of some other sources. I am speaking about a firman of registered in the sici! It is an order for a special tahrir of those who belonged to the ocak 1.
KARA, Budapest p, According to the suret of the Defterhane, which was annexed to the firman, the inhabitants of six villages in the area of Thessaloniki Arablu, Tekyelii, Bmarca, Yeni Koy, Kavalar, Ankara and three of Drama Kirlii, Arablu, Boyahk 4 were obliged to do this service “from ancient days” kadimu ‘l-eyyamdanas written in the “old defter” defter- i ‘atik.
In exchange, they were exempted from certain taxes: Korucu, according to J. At the beginning of the 17th century it was “the designation of those janissaries, who were discharged from active service in the army corps on account of their old age, completion of their years of service or invalidity. They did not participate in military expeditions, only performed guard duty in the janissary barracks when the janissaries were sent on military expeditions” PETROSIAN, op.
The term in the firman is applied to reaya without any connection with the janissary corps. The text runs as follows: The koruclyan, being part of their organization, enjoyed the same privileges. Mentioning both ispence and pencik oglam at the same document is another indication that those two levies were different from each other and not the same. It is also an indication that ispence was already demanded from the reaya, when the exemptions were granted to the korucIyan.
Elizabeth Zachariadou – Wikipedia
The timar system was already in force, existing as an institution from the time of Osman, the founder of the Ottoman state.
The tahrir was to be obtained in order to forbid that. Furthermore, each year those villages paid instead of various taxes only a fixed, lump sum of money maktu ‘ to the vakif and nothing else. The term “pencik oglanl” for the future janissaries was used only at the beginning of the institution, being later replaced by different terms, perhaps since the abolition of the collection of the real pencik in the first decades of the 16th century.
For Gazi Evrenos and his descendants see I.
For the vakIf of Gazi Evrenos see V.