Emergence and Development of Waqf Ciftl PDF

cinquante et unieme
annee
2015/4
Comité de rédaction
Raïa ZaÏmova (rédacteur en chef )
Liliana Simeonova, Galina Valtchinova, Rossitsa Gradeva,
Alexandre Kostov, Dobrinka Parusheva, Roumiana Preshlenova,
Malamir Spassov (secrétaire scientifique du Comité de rédaction)
Comité scientifique international

Fikret Adanır (Sabancı University), Ivo Banac (Yale University),
Ulf Brunnbauer (Universität Regensburg), Nathalie Clayer (CNRS, EHESS, Paris),
Nadia Danova (Académie bulgare des Sciences), Raymond Detrez (University of
Gent), Francesco Guida (University of Roma Tre), Wolfgang Höpken (Universität
Leipzig), Ivan Ilchev (Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”), Pascalis Kitromilidis
(University of Athens), Ana Lalaj (Albanological Studies Center, Tirana),
Ljubodrag P. Ristic (Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Sciences and
Arts), Elena Siupiur (Institutul de studii sud-est europene, Academia Română),
Vassilka Tãpkova-Zaïmova (Académie bulgare des Sciences), Maria Todorova
(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
ÉTUDES BALKANIQUES
• Revue trimestrielle éditée par l’Institut d’Études balkaniques &
Centre de Thracologie (Académie bulgare des Sciences)
• Adresse : 45, rue Moskovska, Sofia 1000, BULGARIE
• Tél./Fax : (+ 359 2) 980 62 97
• E-mail : etudesbalk@gmail.com
• URL : www.cl.bas.bg/Balkan-Studies
• Département d’échange international de livres de l’Académie
bulgare des Sciences : exch1@cl.bas.bg
• Bibliothèque en ligne : http://www.ceeol.com
Mise en page : FABER
ISSN 0324-1645
© Institut d’Études balkaniques & Centre de Thracologie
2015
ACADÉMIE BULGARE DES SCIENCES
INSTITUT D’ÉTUDES BALKANIQUES & CENTRE DE THRACOLOGIE
ÉTUDES BALKANIQUES
LІ / 4
Sofia ∙ 2015
ISSN 0324 – 1645
ÉTUDES BALKANIQUES
Sofia ∙ 2015 ∙ LІ ◆ 4
ACADÉMIE BULGARE DES SCIENCES
INSTITUT D’ÉTUDES BALKANIQUES & CENTRE DE THRACOLOGIE
Sommaire
Alexandru CIOCÎLTAN, Catholic Missionary Activity in 17th Century

Wallachia. New Findings in Bulgarian Archives.................................................... 5
Theodor DIMITROV, Fever-Demon or Plague-Demon?
Toward a New Interpretation of v. Sym. Styl. J. 23175 – 77..................................15
Ottoman studies
Stefka PARVEVA, On Some Features of the Portrait of
Çiftlik Hired Workers in the 17th – Mid-18th Century......................................23
Paulina ANDONOVA, Emergence and Development of Vaqf Çiftliks during
16th – early 18th Cenrturies. The Case of Sofu Mehmed Paşa and His Vaqf
Çiftlik in the District of Sofia...................................................................................75
Stefan DIMITROV, Transformation of the Byzantine Adrianople
into the Ottoman Edirne........................................................................................111
Ulrike TISCHLER-HOFER, Das andere Edirne.
Typische und bleibende Abweichungen...............................................................151
Comptes rendus
Bobi BOBEV, The Political Life of the Albanians: Realities, Trends and
Prospects (Veton Latifi, Shekulli i ri i politikës shqiptare. Tiranë, Toena,
2014, 199 f.)...............................................................................................................188
Yura KONSTANTINOVA, The Balkan Wars – an Attempt at Their
(Re-)Evaluation? (Hakan Yavuz, Isa Blumi (ed.), War and Nationalism.
The Balkan Wars, 1912 – 1913, and Their Sociopolitical Implications.
University of Utah Press, 2013, 884 p.)................................................................204
4
Notices bibliographiques
Наум Кайчев, Илирия от Варна до Вилах: Хърватското национално
възраждане, сърбите и българите (до 1848 г.). София, Парадигма,
2015, 253 с. (Irina OGNYANOVA)...................................................................211
Дамян Борисов, Справочник за селища в Северна Тракия през XVI в.
Част I (казите Филибе и Татар Пазаръ). Асеновград, Печатница
„Диков“, 2015, 404 с. (Mariya SHUSHAROVA)............................................215
Vie scientifique
Elmira VASSILEVA, The Ottoman Balkans: The Personal Dimension.
The Agent of Faith....................................................................................................218
Yura KONSTANTINOVA, The 11th International Congress of South East
European Studies Was Held in Sofia. Prof. Alexander Kostov, D.Sc. is the
New President of the International Association for the Study of Southeast
Europe.........................................................................................................................224
ÉTUDES BALKANIQUES, LІ, 2015, 4
EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF VAQF ÇIFTLIKS DURING

THE 16th – EARLY 18th CENRTURIES. THE CASE OF SOFU MEHMED
PAŞA AND HIS VAQF ÇIFTLIK IN THE DISTRICT OF SOFIA
Paulina Andonova
Abstract: Sofu Mehmed Paşa became a vezir during the reign of Sultan Süleyman I
(1520 – 1566). He served as beylerbey of Rumeli, Bosna, later – of Budin. He was
the founder of a vaqfwhich included a mosque, a medrese and an imaret in Sofia
to which he dedicated revenues from villages and mezraas in the regions of Pleven,
Drama and Dimotika, numerous buildings in Sofia, Edirne, Selanik. The vaqf
immovable properties included also a çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna, the kaza
of Sofia.
The case of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik is worth examining closely because it gives
a chance to trace the genesis and characteristics of that type of land-holding and its
transformation from mülk to askeri çiftlik via vaqf çiftlik. It means that the sour-
ces allow us to investigate the three çiftlik modifications – mülk, vaqf and askeri
çiftliks. This case demonstrates the possibility for a small plot of land to develop into
a market-oriented and profitable farm-estate in the course of time through the me-
dium of the religious foundation, vaqf, and other favourable conditions.
Keywords: Çiftlik, Vaqf, Mülk, Askeri, Sofu Mehmed Paşa
Sofu Mehmed Paşa was an Ottoman statesman during the reign of

Sultan Süleyman I (1520 – 1566). He served as beylerbey of Rumeli between
941/1534 – 35 and 944/1537 – 38. After that he became a second vezir. From
952/1545 – 46 to 954/1547 – 48 Sofu Mehmed Paşa was the governor of
Bagdad1. In 954 he was appointed berleybey of Bosna, later (958/1551) – of
Budin2. He founded two vaqfs – one in Sofia and another one in Istanbul. The
1 Аccording to Gülrü Necipoğlu the Turkish foundation inscription of the vaqf mosque
of Sofu Mehmed Paşa in Sofia confirms that during its inauguration in 1547 – 1548 he was a
vezir. G. Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. Princenton
and Oxford, Princenton University Press, 2005, p. 390.
2 M. Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani (The Ottoman National Biography). Istanbul, 1971, p.
113; E. Radushev, S. Ivanova, R. Kovachev (eds.), Inventory of Ottoman Turkish Documents

about Waqf Preserved in the Oriental Department at the St St Cyril and Methodius National
75
76 Paulina Andonova
foundation in Sofia included a Friday mosque, a medrese and an imaret. When

the data provided by the sources is compared, it is obvious that this külliye
consisted of a Friday mosque, a medrese with a mescid and a kütüphane (li-
brary), an imaret (soup-kitchen), a bimarhane (a hospital which comprised of
two buildings), a caravanserai and a hamam (bath-house), a baruthane (com-
missariat and latrines), a garden with a şadravan (fountain) and two çeşmeler
(fountains) – one in the imaret and another one in the Çuhaci Han. To that
vaqf complex Sofu Mehmed Paşa dedicated revenues from villages and mezraas
in the regions of Pleven3, Drama4 and Dimotika5. In addition, Sofu Mehmed
Paşa donated numerous buildings in Sofia, Edirne and Selanik 6 among which
were dükkâns (workshop), Çuhaci Han and Kurşunlu hamam in Sofia, a ca-
ravanserai in Edirne, Alaca Han in Selanik7. The annual revenue from Sofu
Mehmed Paşa’s vaqf properties for 1025 – 1026 (1616 – 1617) amounted to
312,278 akçe8 and for 1108 (1696) – 245,319 akçe9 which reveals it as one of
the big vaqfs founded by an Ottoman dignitary in Sofia.
Library (Part 1, Registers). Istanbul, IRCICA and St. Cyril and Methodius National Library,
2003, p. 234. In the biography given in ‘Sicill-i Osmani’ was noted that Sofu Mehmed Paşa
died in 1551 in Vidin. According to some authors he died in 1557. See Necipoğlu, The Age
of Sinan, p. 290.
3 Contemporary place names will be used in the research work. Only in the cases when
the identification of the contemporary place name is not possible the Ottoman names will
be given in the text. Pleven is town in Bulgaria.
4 Drama, town in Greece.
5 Dimotika, town in Greece.
6 Selanik, town in North Greece.
7 Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi-Ankara (hereafter VGMA), Defter nr. 988, s.
51 – 64, In: H. Eren (ed.), Balkanlar’da Osmanlı Vakıfları Vakfiyeler, Bulgaristan. 2 cilt.
Ottoman Waqfs in the Balkans: Waqf Deeds, Bulgaria. Istanbul, IRCICA, 2012, p. 525 – 551.
8 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi-Istanbul (hereafter- BOA), MAD.d 4945 (1025 – 1026 /
1616 – 1617)
9 St St Cyril and Methodius National Library-Sofia, Oriental Department (hereafter
НБКМ, ОрО), Fund (Ф.) 1, archival unit (а. е.) 15110 (1 Muharrem 1109 / 20.07.1697).
Some of the data included in the register is used by Vera Mutafchieva in her work on the
role of the waqf in the town economy, 15th – 17th centuries: В. Мутафчиева, За ролята на
вакъфа в градската икономика на Балканите под турска власт (XV – XVII в.), В: Eadem,
Аграрните отношения в османската империя XV – XVI в. София, Изд. на БАН, 1962,
с. 620. See also: В. Мутафчиева, Нови османски документи за вакъфите в България под
турска власт, Известия на Държавните архиви,1962, N 6, с. 269 – 274.
Emergence and Development of Vaqf Çiftliks During... 77
Between the 1540s and the first decade of 18th century the revenues of the
Sofia vaqf included also those of a çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna, the kaza
of Sofia. The documents which provide data about it cover a period of almost
three centuries – from 16th until the first decade of the 18th century. This gives
us the chance to investigate the nature and the specifics of the çiftlik, one the
most disputed and important landed category in Ottoman historiography.
The case of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik is worth examining closely because
it permits tracing the genesis of that type of land-holding and its transforma-
tion from mülk into vaqf çiftlik and eventually into askeri çiftlik. The sources
thus allow us to investigate the three landed categories – mülk, vaqf and as-
keri çiftliks in their interaction, their emergence and development, legal status,
character and specifics, characteristics and status of their owners or admin-
istrators from 16th until early 18th century on the example of Sofu Mehmed
Paşa’s çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna.
Sources
The earliest documents which offer data about the çiftlik of Sofu Mehmed
Paşa are the tapu-tahrir defters10, from practically the whole 16th century.
These are detailed inventories of timars, zeamets, hases and vaqfs in the kaza of
Sofia. Thanks to the frequency of their compilation and contents it is possible
to find evidence about the structure and the size of the çiftlik, its production,
taxation and the social status of the farm-holder.
For the 17th century there are two inventories of revenues and expendi-
tures11 of the vaqf of Sofu Mehmed Paşa and two other inventories of the
vaqf ’s revenues from the properties, rents and loans12. In these documents we
can also find the revenues from the çiftlik in Vrajdebna. The inventories offer
important information about the functioning of the vaqf, the income from
the moveable and immovable properties and from money-lending, about the
sums spent by the vaqf for the maintenance of the charitable institution, for
salaries of the employees and for other payments that the foundation made.
10 BOA, TT 409 (926 / 1519), f. 7; TT 130 (932 / 1525 – 1526), f. 25; TT 236 (951
/ 1544 – 1545), f. 45; TT 539 (973/ 1565 – 1566), f. 26; TT 492 (978 / 1570 – 1571),
f. 36; N. Genç, Yüzıl Sofya Mufassal Tahrir Defterin’de Sofya Kazası. Eskişehir, Anadolu
Üniversitesi, 1988.
11 BOA, MAD.d. 4945 (1616 – 1617); НБКМ, ОрО, Ф. 1, а.е. 15110, (20.07.1697).
12 BOA, TS.MA.d. 03819.0001.00 (1059 / 1649); TS.MA.d. 07411.0001.00
(1.M.1059 / 15.01.1649).
78 Paulina Andonova
The latest document concerning Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik is a written

petition (arzuhal) dated from 171113. It is the most important and the rich-
est source of information because it contains data about the çiftlik from its
emergence and development through the centuries until 1711. The arzuhal
includes also information about the administrator and the farm’s size, its
structure, taxation and inhabitants.
There is no data about the çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna in the copy of
the vaqfname (sûret-i vakfiyye-i) of 1285 (1868)14. Only one mezraa near the
village is mentioned in it. It is possible to assume that the çiftlik was recorded
as mezraa in the vaqfname. On the other side, in the tapu-tahrir defter from
1545 there is information about the mezraa of Bukofçe15 which was described
as a çiftlik component. Thus, it is possible that only this mezraa is mentioned
in the vakfiyye. The document includes also two other farms in Dimotika, wa-
ter-mills in Vize16 and Zıhna17, 91-room han and dükkâns in Sofia, 44-room
konak in Selanik and other immovable properties including villages located in
different districts in the Balkans which revenues were used to meet the needs
of the mosque, the medrese and the imaret in Sofia.
The Vaqf of Sofu Mehmed Paşa

According to the information given in the the sûret-i vakfiyye-i of 1868,
the first vakfname of Sofu Mehmed Paşa written in Arabic, was registered in
154818 when he was a second vezir. There the Friday mosque, the imaret and
13 Ibid. D – BMK – SMM (1122 – 12 – 27 / 21.01. 1711), Dosya: 3, Vesika: 121.
14 VGMA, Defter nr. 988, s. 51 – 64, in: Eren (ed.), Balkanlar’da Osmanlı Vakıfları
Vakfiyeler, s. 525 – 551.
15 BOA, TT 236, f. 45.
16 Town in Turkey.
17 Mod. Nea Zihni, town in Greece.
18 There is a later vakfiyye, recorded in 1554 – 1555, which refers to him as the sancak-
bey of Bosnia. It is dedicated to a Friday mosque, a caravanserai, and a hamam in Banyaluka.

The data is cited by Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, p. 290. See also M. Mujezinović, Iskamska
epigrafika Bosne i Herzegovine, vol. 3. Sarajevo, 1998, p. 196 – 197. The list of Sinan’s works
compiled by his friend Mustafa Sa’il includes the Friday mosque in Sofia, a mosque in Diyar-
bakır, the palace in the Hocapaşa quarter of Istanbul and the nearby medrese, his school of
Koran recitation, probably in Istanbul, and the palace in Bosnia which formed part of Sofu
Mehmed Paşa’s two foundations in Sofia and Istanbul. Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, p. 290.
Critical editions of all five texts along with transcriptions, annotated translations, and some
the medrese19 in Sofia20 are explicitly mentioned21. The data in the sources and
in the studies about Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s vaqf compound gives 954/1547 –
1548 as the date of completion for the mosque, the medrese, and the ima-
ret22. According to the foundation inscription of the mosque, preserved in
the Bulgarian Archaeological Museum the inauguration of the mosque was
in 95423.
Revenues from the Çuhaci Han in Sofia, a kapan in Kuystendil24, iron-
extracting furnaces (samokov) near Kostenets25, the villages of Macarlar near
Drama26, Kuzlice27 in the kaza Dimotika28, Duşoviçe29 in the nahiye of Pleven,
and the Kuru Çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna30 are mentioned in the docu-
ment concerning the vaqf revenues for the period between Muharrem and
Ramazan 1059 (15.01.1649 – 08.09.1649). The data shows that some of the
facsimiles with analyzes are included in H. Crane, E. Akin (authors), G. Necipoglu (ed.),
Sinan’s Autobiographies: Five Sixteenth-century Texts (Muqarnas, Supplements). Leiden, E.J.
Brill, 2006.
19 It was a Muslim school, the higher level in the two-graded organization of education
where religion, law and sciences were taught. Information about it is included in C. Baltacı,
XV – XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri. Istanbul, Irfan Matbaası, 1976, s. 420 – 421.
20 The Friday mosque and the hadith college (dâru’l hadîs-i) near his palace in Istanbul
were also mentioned in the vaqfname (that was his Istanbul vaqf foundation). About the
hadith college see Baltacı, XV – XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri, s. 601. There was also a
mosque in Köstemer included in the document (unidentified monument).
21 VGMA, Defter nr. 988, s. 51 – 64, H. Eren (ed.), Balkanlar’da Osmanlı Vakıfları Va-
kfiyeler, Bulgaristan. 2 cilt, s. 525 – 527.

22 I. Eren, Mimar Sinan’ın Sofya’da Bilinmiyen Eseri, In: Belgelerle Türk Tarihi dergi-
si, 8, 1968, s. 68, s. 70; Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, p. 290; Baltacı, XV – XVI. Asırlarda
Osmanlı Medreseleri, s. 420 – 421; M. Kiel, Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish
Period: The Palace of Turkish Architecture in the Process, In: K. H. Karpat (ed.), The Tur-
ks of Bulgaria: The History, Culture and Political Fate of Minority. Istanbul: Isis Press,1990,
p.118 – 119; R. M. Meriç, Mimar Sinan Hayatı, Eseri. I: Mimar Sinan’ın Hayatına, Eserleri-
ne Dair Metinler. Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1965, s. 25, 82 – 84.
23 Eren, Mimar Sinan’ın Sofya’da Bilinmiyen Eseri, s. 70.
24 Town in Bulgaria.
25 Town in Bulgaria, Sofia district.
26 Town in Greece.
27 Unidentified.
28 Town in Greece.
29 Unidentified.
30 Village, today part of Sofia.
80 Paulina Andonova
above-mentioned agrarian vaqf properties were rented (der -uhde)31 to mem-

bers of the Ottoman ruling class among whom there were vaqf officers – the
mütevelli, the collector of vaqf revenues (cabi) and the kâtib of the vaqf32.
The rent paid for the Çuhaci Han in Sofia which amounted to 30,006
akçe is the highest vaqf revenue included in the inventory of 1649. It was given
for use (der-uhde) to Mahmud Çelebi for the period from Muharrem until
Ramazan 1059 (15.01.1649 – 08.09.1649) or that means roughly 3,334 akçe
monthly paid as a rent to the vaqf.
Following the list of the vaqf revenues we can see that the second highest
sum, 13,000 akçe, was paid to the foundation by the cabi (the collector of the
vaqf revenues) as mukataa for the exploitation of the vaqf village Macarlar.
Probably this was a fixed sum paid as a rent for the period from Muharrem un-
til Ramazan 1059 (15.01.1649 – 08.09.1649). For the same period of time the
mukataa-i zemin paid by the vaqf mütevelli Mümün Ağa for the çiftlik in the
village of Vrajdebna amounted to 10,000 akçe. This data allows us to conclude
that the çiftlik brought to its holder a nice amount of money. This is confirmed
also by the fact that the vaqf mütevelli who controlled the exploitation and
administration of the vaqf immovable and movable property decided to leave
exactly this çiftlik under his own control.
In the inventories of the vaqf revenues and expenditures from 1616 – 1617
and from 1693 – 170933 we find revenues from the Çuhaci Han, a hamam and
a water-mill in Sofia, from a caravanserai in Edirne, from Alaca Han in Selanik,
from a kapan in Kiustendil34, from rent of dükkâns in Sofia and of houses in-
habited by Jews in Selanik, from kesim of samokovs in the district of Kostenets
and Dupnitsa, and others.35. The highest annual vaqf revenues which are in-
cluded in both registers were again those received from the Çukaci Han in
Sofia, followed by the rent of the dükkâns in Sofia. The expenditures of the
vaqf included expenses for food in the soup kitchen, for the maintenance and
repairs of the vaqf buildings, for salaries of different administrative, religious
31 M. Ursinus, The Çiftlik Sahibleri of Manastir as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to
Early Nineteenth Century. In: A. Anastasopoulos (ed.), Provincial elites in the Ottoman
Empire. Halcyon Days in Crete V. A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 10 – 12 January 2003,
Rhetymno, Crete University Press, 2005, p. 254 – 256.
32 BOA, TS.MA.d. 07411.0001.00 (1.M.1059 / 15.01.1649).
33 BOA, MAD.d 4945; НБКМ, Оро, ф. 1, а.е. 15110.
and other employees36. According to the documents the annual revenue of

Kuru çiftlik amounted to 53,985 akçe in 1616 – 1617 and in the period of
1693 – 1709 its revenues were between 6,000 and 7,200 akçe.
Some of the money was lent by the vaqf37. In addition, there is evidence
that one part of the immovable properties were sold with the purpose of lend-
ing the received money. The documents provide us with the information that
in 1695 the caravanserai in Edirne was sold for 11,000 akçe and the money
was lent at interest. Similar situation we observe with the 7,000 akçe received
from the sale of Kurşunlu hamam in Sofia38.
One of the inventories from the second half of the 17th century used in
our research includes a list of the sums which the vaqflent at interest. Some
of the debts were incurred by members of the askeri class from Sofia. Among
them we see kâtibs and imams, as well as askeri bearing titles of ağa, paşa, çavuş,
bey, efendi which means that among the debtors were both high-ranking and
low-standing Ottoman military, religious and administrative officials. The list
of the debtors includes also reaya – Muslims and Christians. Some debts be-
longed to the inhabitants of the Kuru çiftlik – the vaqf çiftlik of Sofu Mehmed
Paşa in the village of Vrajdebna. Thus, the vaqf debtors included both villagers
and representatives of the Ottoman ruling class39.
These facts are an indication that money-lending was one of the vaqf ac-
tivities during the second half of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th cen-
tury. The total sum of the debts mentioned in the document from the second
half of the 17th century amounted to 283,800 akçe. It is possible to conclude
that the investment in lending money was one of the most preferred sources
of making money which is demonstrated also by the sale of immovable prop-
erties in order to lend the received money at interest. So, the vaqf mütevelli
managed to adapt the economic activities of the foundation to the changes in
the economy in the Ottoman Empire as a whole and to the practice of money-
lending that was typical for the religious foundations in that period40.
36 The revenues and expenditures of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s vaqf in Sofia between 16th
and early 19th centuries are described in detail in my paper: P. Andonova, Faith and Wealth:
Sofu Mehmed Pasha as a Vaqf Donor in Sofia. [forthcoming].
37 НБКМ, ОрО, Ф. 1, а.e. 15110; BOA, TS.MA.d. 03819.0001.00.
38 НБКМ, ОрО, Ф. 1, а.е. 15110.
39 BOA, TS.MA.d. 03819.0001.00.
40 Here we shall mention only a few studies on money-lending and askeri çiftlik: S.
Faroqhi, Wealth and Power in the Land of Olives: Economic and Political Activities of
82 Paulina Andonova
As vaqf administrator he had control over the foundation’s money and

properties41. This made it possible for him to sell some of the urban proper-
ties – the hamam in Sofia and the caravanserai in Edirne. According to the
data included in the vaqf documents the administrator in 1649 was Mümün
Ağa42, in the 1690’s we find the name of Veli Efendi as mütevelli43. Maybe the
sale of the properties was on Veli Efendi’s initiative because the hamam and
the caravanserai were not as profitable as the rest of the urban vaqf properties.
The Çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna, the kaza of Sofia

The çiftlik of Sofu Mehmed Paşa is a case which provides a unique oppor-
tunity to contribute to the debate about the character and modifications of
the çiftlik in the Ottoman Empire – mülk çiftlik, its transformation into vaqf
çiftlik, and finally, the askeri çiftlik.
The earliest data concerning the farm in the village of Vrajdebna dates
from 1519 and 1525 when we find that it was granted as mülk to zaim Iliyas
Bey with a hükm-i hümayun (order) and a mukarrername44 of Sultan Selim
I (1512 – 1520). The tithes on the agricultural production were part of the
Müridzade Haci Mehmed Agha, Notable of Edremit, In: Ç. Keyder, F. Tabak (eds.), Land-
holding and Commercial Agriculture in the Middle East. Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1991; E. Gara, Moneylenders and Landowners: In Search of Urban Muslim
Elites inthe early Modern Balkans, In: A. Anastasopoulos, (ed.), Provincial Elites in the Otto-
man Empire. Rethymno, Crete University Press, 2005; B. McGowan, The Age of the Ayans,
1699 – 1812, In: H. Inalcık, D. Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Otto-
man Empire, 1300 – 1914. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994; Y. Nagata, Ayan
in Anatolia and the Balkans during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: A Case Study
of the Karaosman oğlu Family, In: A. Anastasopoulos (ed.), Provincial Elites in the Ottoman
Empire. Rethymno, Crete University Press, 2005; M. Ursinus, The Çiflik Sahibleri of Mana-
stir as a Local Elite, Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth Century, In: A. Anastasopoulos
(ed.), Provincial Elites in the Ottoman Empire. Rethymno, Crete University Press, 2005.
41 Е. Радушев, Аграрните институции в Османската империя през XVII – XVIII
век. София, АИ „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1995, с. 176 – 207; Moutafchieva, Agrarian

relations, p. 93 – 96.
42 BOA, TS.MA.d. 07411.0001.00.
43 Ibid. D – BMK – SMM (1122 – 12 – 27 / 21.01. 1711), Dosya: 3, Vesika: 121.
44 The mukarrername was an act, sometimes simply referred to as hüküm by which
every new sultan confirmed the mülk. Also, if a mülk changed hands because of purchase
and sale transaction, the new owner had to receive confirmation of his rights in the form of a
mukarrername. Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 67.
revenues which formed the has of Mehmed Paşa. The tithes were paid by
the çiftlik-holder in their cash equivalent (bedel-i öşür) as a fixed sum maktu
amounted to 200 akçe per year45.
A passage included in the tapu-hahrir defter of the 1540s shows that by
1545 Sofu Mehmed Paşa had become the new holder of the çiftlik. Not only
that, at the time of the registration he had already donated the revenues of the
farm to his vaqf in Sofia:
… çiftlik of Iliyas Bey with a water-mill, a field, a meadow, a forest and with
the hanes [households of people who are settled in the çiftlik], [now it is] a holding
of Sofu Mehmed Paşa with a hüccet of the kadı of Sofia and with hükm-i şahi by
the padişah [the sultan]. The çiftlik’s borders are described as mülk in the hüccet…
… to the çiftlik belong orchards (bahçeler), a vegetable garden (bostan), fields
(tarlar) and meadows (çairlar), with a hüccet given by the kadı and [they were
included] in his vaqf...46
The farm was also described as part of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s vaqf in the two
following registers dated from 1566 and 157147. The inventories of the foun-
dation’s revenues and expenditures which cover the periods between 1616
and 1617 and between 1698 and 1709, as well as the inventory from 1649
show that the farm was part of the vaqf properties48. Thus, it was a vaqf çiftlik
during the whole 17th century.
Another source from 1711 gives us very rich and useful information
about the development of the çiftlik. It is an arzuhal from the berat-holder of
the malikâne which included the ihtisab and ihzariye (market taxes) in Sofia.
The taxes from the çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna were included as a part of
the malikâne additions. According to the document the vaqf çiftlik had been
abandoned and remained uncultivated. Then the mütevelli Veli Efendi re-es-
tablished it and gained control over the çiftlik49. Probably he paid rent to the
foundation as mukataa-i zemin as was the case during the administration of
the previous vaqf mütevelli Mümün Ağa50.
45 BOA, TT 409 (926 / 1519), f. 7; TT 130 (932 / 1525 – 1526), f. 25; TT 236 (951
/ 1544 – 1545), f. 45.
46 Ibid. TT 236, f. 45
47 Ibid. TT 539, f. 26; TT 492, f. 36.
48 Ibid. MAD.d 4945; TS.MA.d. 07411.0001.00; НБКМ, Оро, ф. 1, а.е. 15110.
49 Ibid. D – BMK – SMM, Dosya: 3, Vesika: 121.
50 Ibid. TS.MA.d. 07411.0001.00.
84 Paulina Andonova
The data shows that Veli Efendi included into his farm the lands of anoth-
er vaqf çiftlik in the same village – Vrajdebna51. The revenues from that vaqf çiftlik
served for the maintenance of Mustafa Ağa’s religious foundation52 where the
above mentioned Veli Efendi was also mütevelli53. Thus, as an administrator of
the two vaqfs the latter managed to incorporate the lands of Mehmed Paşa’s
and Mustafa Ağa’s çiftliks in a big farm and became its holder54. The merge was
facilitated by the common border between the two çiftliks55.
In addition, the flight of the peasants from the village of Vrajdebna at the
time of the Austrian invasion during the War of the Holy League (1683 –
1699) gave the vaqf mütevelli an opportunity to add some rayyet lands to his
çiftlik56. Our idea of the size of the newly formed çiftlik in the beginning of the
18th century would be incomplete if we do not bear in mind its total area of
around 7,000 – 8,000 dönüms.
Thus, on the basis of the data in the sources the genesis of the çiftlik can be
related to the so-called gayr-i sahih (false) mülk – a land-holding on the miri
lands acquired with a mülkname or temlikname57, or as it was in this case, with
a mukarrername and a hükm-i hümayun. Such a practice when sultans gave
plots of land as ‘a gift’ to high dignitaries was widely used in the early Ottoman
Empire58.

52 Ibid. TT 409, f. 7; TT 130, f. 25; TT 236, f. 45; TT 539, f. 26; TT 492, f. 36.
55 Ibid. TT 539, f. 26; TT 492, f. 36.
57 The rights of the mülk sahibi are based on the temlikname or the mülkname – official
act for the issue of which there was a special procedure. Following an order from the central
government, the local kadı established the exact boundaries of the villages or the hamlets
mentioned in the decree in accordance with the evidence of local residents. The mülkname
was then issued on the basis of the kadı report to the capital. Moutafchieva, Agrarian relati-
ons, p. 66 – 67.
58 Мутафчиева, Аграрните отношения, 102 – 114; Eadem, Мюлк-сахибите, Исто-
рически преглед, 1961, N 4, с. 115 – 121; Eadem, Към въпроса за чифлиците в Османската

империя през XIV – XVIII век, Исторически преглед, 1958, N 1, с. 40 – 43; Б. Цветко-
ва, Поземлените отношения в българските земи под османско владичество до средата
на XVII век, Исторически преглед, 1950 – 1951, N 2, с. 164 – 165; Радушев, Аграрните
институции, с. 176 – 180; H. Inalcık, Fatih devri üzerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar. I. Ankara,
1954, p. 108, p. 219 – 223; Ö. L. Barkan, Social and Еconomic Аspects of Vakifs in the Ottoman
Empire in the 15th and 16th centuries. Jerusalem, 1979, p. 7 – 8; Eadem, Mülk Topraklar
The first çiftlik-holder who received the farm as a mülk was Iliyas Bey. His
honorary title59 and the fact that he was the holder of a zeamet can be in-
dicative as to his affiliation with the high ranking members of the Ottoman
provincial society in Sofia. According to the documents Iliyas Bey founded a
vaqf for a muallimhane (primary Muslim school) in Sofia probably in the first
decade of the 16th century60. The vaqf is included in a fragment of a register of
timars, zeamets, vaqfs and voynuks in the sancak of Sofia from the first half of
the 16th century. Its revenues came from a caravanserai and dükkâns in Sofia61.
There is no evidence for the revenues of the çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna
to have been included in that foundation.
It is obvious from the defter of 1545 that meanwhile Sofu Mehmed Paşa
had become the new çiftlik-holder. He had received it as a mülk granted by the
sultan with a hükm-i şahi on the basis of which the kadı of Sofia issued a hüc-
cet. The revenues of the farm went to his vaqf in Sofia.
Cases of transactions including mülk çiftliks are well known in the 16th
century62. Thus we can assume that Sofu Mehmed Paşa bought the çiftlik
in question and he received a confirmation of his rights in the form of mu-
karrername. But, bearing in mind that land mülks were the result of ‘a gift’
granted by the central government and every new sultan confirmed them with
a mukarrername and a hükm-i hümayun we may assume also that the new
Ottoman ruler may have granted the mülk çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna to
Sofu Mehmed Paşa taking it away from its previous owner – Iliyas Bey. Since
the available data is much too limited for us to be able to come to conclusions,
we can only note that both of the above mentioned procedures were possible.
The data included in different kind of documents demonstrates that in
the Ottoman Empire a vaqf could be created from any mülk property. The
ve Sultanların Temlik Hakkı, Türkiye’de Toprak Meselesi Toplu Eserler I, Istanbul, 1980,
p. 158 – 160; M. T. Gökbilgin, XV ve XVI. Asirlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası. Vakıflar-Mülkler-
Mukataalar. Istanbul, 1952, p. 184 – 193, p. 414 – 449.
59 G. Bayerle, Pashas, Begs, and Effendis. A Historical Dictionary of Titles and Terms in
the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul, The Isis Press, 1997, p. 19.

60 А. Велков, Б. Цветкова, В. Мутафичева, Г. Гълъбов, М. Михайлов, М. Стайнова,
П. Груевски, С. Андреев (съст.), ТИБИ т. 22 / 5. София, 1974, с. 137 – 140 (НБКМ,

ОрО, Сф 26 / 30, f. 4v – 7v).
61 ТИБИ т. 22 / 5, с. 137 – 140 (НБКМ, ОрО Сф 26 / 30, f. 4v – 7v).
62 Gökbilgin, XV ve XVI. Asirlarda Edirne, p. 260, 333, 341, 404, 518 – 519; Moutaf-
chieva, Agrarian relations, p. 68 – 73.

86 Paulina Andonova
mülks which had been received on the basis of a temlikname or mukarrername

were also made into vaqfs with the difference that the special permission and
confirmation of the central government was necessary. In addition, every new
sultan, on ascending the throne, confirmed by means of a mukarrername not
only the existing land mülks, but the land vaqfs as well63.
The mukarrername, hükm or the temlikname were documents related only
to the decision of the ruling sultan. Thus, with the necessary periodic confir-
mation of the possession, the central government retained control over the
mülk and the vaqf64. For that reason in some historians’ opinion through the
grant from the sultan the recipient had full ownership over the revenues but
not over the land which was a result of the fact that the land mülk descended
from the miri (state) land65. But in the case of the vaqf the bequeather and the
mütevelli had more freedom and control over the vaqf property’s revenues.
Furthermore, it was the vaqf founder who described in detail in his vaqfname
how the property in question should be administered66. This fundamental
feature of the vaqf explains the widespread practice of the Ottoman dignitar-
ies to convert their land mülks into vaqfs during 16th century67. Probably this
was the reason why Sofu Mehmed Paşa also dedicated the revenues from the
mülk çiftlik to his mosque and imaret in Sofia.
In the final analysis, the data about the status and development of Sofu
Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik reveals that the mütevelli of the vaqf Veli Efendi who
63 Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 92; Barkan, Mülk Topraklar, p. 161.

64 Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 65 – 67; Eadem, Мюлк-сахибите, с. 115 – 121;
Eadem, Към въпроса за чифлиците, p. 2, p. 36 – 37; Eadem, За ролята на вакъфа в градска-
та икономика на Балканите под турска власт (XV – XVII век), Известия на института
за история, N 10, 1962, с. 121 – 145; Цветкова, Поземлените отношения, с. 164 – 165;
Радушев, Аграрните институции, с. 176 – 180; H. Inalcık, The Ottoman State: Economy
and Society, 1300 – 1600, H. Inalcık, D. Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History
of the Ottoman Empire 1300 – 1914. Vol.1. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994,
p. 140; Eadem, Fatih devri üzerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar, p. 108, p. 219 – 223; Barkan, Mülk
Topraklar, p. 158 – 160; Gökbilgin, XV ve XVI Asırlarda Edirne, p. 184 – 193, p. 414 – 449.
65 Цветкова, Поземлените отношения, с. 164 – 165; Moutafchieva, Agrarian rela-
tions, p. 64 – 73; Eadem, За ролята на вакъфа, p. 121 – 145; Радушев, Аграрните ин-
ституции, с. 173 – 235; Inalcık, The Ottoman State, p. 103 – 119; p. 139 – 145; C. Imber,
Ebu’s-s-su’ud. The Islamic Legal Tradition. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1997,
122 – 128.
66 Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 92; Barkan, Mülk Topraklar, p. 161.
67 Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 68, 96.
re-established and enlarged the farm in the beginning of the 18th century con-
verted it into a typical askeri çiftlik. The latest modification of the çiftlik was
a different kind of land-holding and with a different structure as compared
to the mülk and the vaqf çiftlik of the earlier centuries. The askeri çiftlik in-
cluded ‘true’ mülk property68, miri lands and vaqf lands which derived from
the mülk granted by the sultan with a mukarrername. It was an extensive and
market-oriented farm, set up essentially for the purpose of profit69.
68 The ‘true’ (sahih) mülk – property within the boundaries of towns and villages – was
inherited according to the şeriat law, divided among the existing heirs, sold, given as a gift,
and made into vaqf, without any limitations because it was a freehold property of its owner.
It has already been mentioned that in the case of the mülk granted with a temlikname or a
mukarrername and the vaqf which derived from it a permission of the central government
was necessary. Thus, there are differences in the right of the possession between the two cat-
egories of the mülk properties. Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 61 – 68, 91 – 92; Imber,
Ebu’s-su’ud. The Islamic Legal Tradition, p. 122 – 128, 139 – 150; Inalcık, The Ottoman State,
p. 140; Цветкова, Поземлените отношения, с. 160.
69 There are numerous studies and books focusing on the askeri çiftliks in the Balkans:
А. Суческа, Влиjанието на оданочуваньето на раjaта со наметите “авариз-и диваниje, те-

калиф-и ьорфиje и текалиф-и шакка” връз развоjот на процесот на чифличеньето во Ма-
кедониja во XVII в., Гласник на институтoт за национална историjа. г. XIV, Скопиjе,
1970; A. Sućeska, O nastanku čifluka u našim zemjama, Godišnjak društva istoričara Bosne
i Hercegovine, godina XVIII, 1968 – 1969; B. МcGowan, Chiftlik agriculture and fiscal
practice in western Macedonia, 1620 – 1830, In: Eadem. Economic life in Ottoman Europe.
Taxation, Trade and the Struggle for Land 1600 – 1800. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1981, p. 121 – 172; M. Ursinus, The Çiftlik Sahibleri, p. 247 – 256; T. Stoianovich,
Land Tenure and Related Sectors on the Balkan Economy, 1600 – 1800, The Journal of
Economic History. XIII, N 4, 1953; Радушев, Аграрните институции, с. 135 – 147; Му-
тафчиева, Към въпроса за чифлиците, с. 34 – 57; Стр. Димитров, Към историята на чи-
фликчийството в Русенско, Исторически преглед, N 4, 1958; Eadem, Чифлишкото сто-
панство през 50 – 70-те години на XIX век, Исторически преглед, г. XI, N 2, 1955; Стр.
Димитров, Н. Жечев, В. Тонев (съст.), История на Добруджа. т. III, София, Изд. на
БАН, 1988, с. 114 – 116.; Хр. Гандев, Зараждане на капиталистическите отношения
в чифлишкото стопанство в Северозападна България през XVIII век. София, 1962; Хр.
Христов, Аграрният въпрос в българската национална революция. София, Наука, 1976;
Цв. Георгиева, Пространство и пространства на българите XV – XVII век. София,
ЛИК, 1999, с. 185 – 188; Eadem, Еничарите в българските земи. София, Наука и Изку-
ство, 1988, с. 173 – 192; Ст. Първева, Земята и хората, с. 140 – 160, с. 375; Пл. Митев,
Българското Възраждане. Лекционен курс. София, ЛИК, 1999, с. 20 – 21. On çiftliks in the
Anatolian provinces of the Ottoman Empire: Y. Nagata, Some Documents on the Big Farms
(Çiftliks) of the Notables in Western Anatolia. Tokyo, Institute for the Study of Languages and
Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1976, p. 269 – 290; H. Inalcık, The Emergence of Big Farms,
88 Paulina Andonova
The land law did not restrain the representatives of the askeri class from
possessing agrarian holdings70. In fact, according to the law the lands culti-
vated by the askeri were taxable71 which means that the existence of such lands
was a standard practice72. The timar system was one of fragmented possession
where the state, the sipahi and the peasant had simultaneous rights of control
over the land. The sipahi who held the timar had some rights of control over
the land, and was in this capacity termed sahib-i arz (‘master of land’). But
actually, the sipahi received from the state not the land itself but the right to
collect a fixed amount of state revenue from the reaya who cultivated the land.
The central government granted him the rights over the land in order to guar-
antee his income. In this Ottoman socio-economic model where the rights
and obligations of the state, the askeri and the reaya were strongly regulated,
the askeri members were those who served in the Ottoman military and ad-
ministrative institutions, enforced the state’s laws and controlled the cultiva-
tion and the transactions concerning the miri lands73.
Indeed, a large number of documents reveal that the askeri acquired agrar-
ian lands by sale transactions or by illegal methods. Thus, they founded exten-
sive and market-oriented farms, which we call askeri çiftlik. The documents
related to the çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna present a similar case which is
not unique both for the region of Sofia74 and for the Ottoman Empire as a
whole especially during late 17th – early 19th centuries.
Thanks to the position of an administrator of the two vaqfs the mütevelli
Veli Efendi assumed control over the two vaqf çiftliks – those of Sofu Mehmed
Çiftliks: State, Landlords and Tenants, In: Eadem, Studies in Ottoman Social and Economic
History. London, Variorum Reprints, 1985, p. 108 – 124; S. Faroqhi, Wealth and Power,
p. 77 – 96.
70 The representatives of the askeri class did not pay taxes with the exception of the cases
when they cultivated reaya çiftliks or lands. Първева, Земята и хоратa, с. 41.
71 ‘...if government officials or various military officers cultivated lands pertaining to a
timar they should pay öşur (tithe) and resm-i çift (land-tax)...’ – ‘Agrarian Law of 1609’, In:
Г. Гълъбов, Б. Цветкова (съст.) Турски извори за историята на правото по българските
земи. T 1. София, Изд. на БАН, 1961, p. 129.
72 Първева, Земята и хората, p. 41; Радушев, Аграрните институции, c. 142.
73 H. Inalcık, The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age (1300 – 1600). London,
Weidenfeld and Nicholson,1973, p. 109 – 110.
74 П. Андонова, Аскери чифлиците в българското пространство. Софийската каза
през XVI – началото на XIX век. Непубликувана дисертация. (CУ „Св. Климент Ох-
ридски“, 2013).
Paşa and Mustafa Ağa, and collected their revenues. In addition, the military
and political situation in the region of Sofia during the Austro-Turkish war
from the end of the 17th century gave an opportunity to the mütevelli to seize
lands abandoned by the peasants. Some passages from the arzuhal bear wit-
ness to the fact that it was the Austrian invasion which forced the peasants’
flight from the village of Vrajdebna:
‘…with the invasion of the kâfirs the reaya left the village…’75.
Both Silâhdar Mehmed Ağa’s History and the Chronicle of Priest Petur
from the village of Mirkovo make it clear that the Christian troops were not
the only ones to cause damage in the region of Sofia during the 1680s and
1690s. Another possible cause of the flight of the peasants could have been
Yeğen Osman Paşa’s revolt and the war in the vicinities of Sofia76.
The data included in the documents at our disposal does not give details
about the reasons of the peasants’ flight. It, however, permits us conclude
that the new çiftlik-holder Veli Efendi founded his çiftlik on vacant peasant
lands, which had remained uncultivated and thus enlarged it to 7,000 – 8,000
dönüms.
It turns out that the new çiftlik-ownerdid not pay the tithes for the period
between1118 and 1121 (1706 – 1710). As recorded in the old registers and
in the sultan’s hükm-i hümayun the tithes of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s vaqf çiftlik
amounted to 200 akçe paid as maktu and for Mustafa Ağa’s vaqf çiftlik – 160
akçe. The sums of those tithes were maavel maktu77 paid to the Ottoman state
treasury. Besides, the mütevelli settled 26 people who were obligated with
75 BOA, D – BMK – SMM, Dosya: 3, Vesika: 121.

76 Е. Вечева, И. Шварц, М. Георгиева, Нови документи за Чипровското въстание
и събитията на Балканите през 1688 г., В: Известия на държавните архиви, N 76, с. 194;
Й. Списаревска, Чипровското въстание и европейският свят. София, Наука и Изку-
ство, 1988, с. 122; И. Първев, Балканите между две империи. Хабсбургската мпонар-
хия и Османската империя (1683 – 1739). София, УИ „Св. Климент Охридски“, 1997,
с. 90; Дж. Иванова, „А царят нареди нефириам срещу него да се бие…“ (Османската
исторопис и една българска приписка за действията на султанската власт срещу Йе-
ген осман паша през 1688 – 1689 г.), В: Д. Драганов, Т. Попнеделев (съст.), Collegium
Historicum, Т. 2. София, УИ „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2012, с. 390 – 399; Eadem, Im-
pact of the 1683 – 1699 War on the Ottoman Rear: The Story of Silâhdar Mehmed Ağa
About the Haydut Raid of Kyustendil in 1689/90, In: P. Mitev, I. Parvev, M. Baramova,
V. Racheva (eds.), Empires and Peninsulas: Southeastern Europe between Karlowitz and the
Piece of Adrianopole, 1699 – 1829. Berlin, LIT Verlag, 2010, p. 220 – 223.
77 BOA, TT 539, f. 26; TT 492, f. 36.
90 Paulina Andonova
cizye tax (harac) but the latter remained unpaid just like the tithes78. Bearing
in mind all the facts known about the çiftlik we may conclude that Veli Efendi
not only created a large farm but also that he had at his disposal the means
to gather the work force needed for its cultivation. Furthermore, the çiftlik-
holder saved money when he defaulted to pay the taxes due to the state.
Çiftlik population and workers

However important it may be, the question concerning the çiftlik’s popu-
lation during the period of 1519 – 1525 when the çiftlik is recorded as Iliyas
Bey’s estate remains open for the time being. There are no inhabitants of the
çiftlik registered in the documents at our disposal for the above mentioned
period79.
The earliest information about the population in the farm dates from
1545. The mezraa of Bukofçe which was located near the çiftlik yaylаk (sum-
mer pasture) is mentioned in the tapu-tahrir defter as part of the çiftlik. Seven
Christian names typical for the local population are recorded as inhabitants of
the mezraa – Radoslav, Kolio, Mile, Dosio, Marko, Pavel, Radoy.80 As they are
not registered as haymanalar81, we can assume that they were peasants from
villages situated nearby who cultivated the lands in the mezraa. They probably
continued to cultivate the lands in the mezraa even when it was included in
the mülk çiftlik granted with a mukarrername to Sofu Mehmed Paşa.
The tapu-tahrir defter of 1566 registers twelve nefers as ‘gulâmlar-i va-
82
kf ’ . Four of them are recorded with their first names and an indication of
their origin – Macars (for example, Istvan ? Macar, Janos ? Macar, Nikolasz ?
(Nikolaus) Macar). The other eight gulâmlar are registered with their first and
family names83.
In the tapu-tahrir defter of 1571 we find again eight Macars (for example,
Goran ? Macar, Jonas ? Macar, Antal ? Macar) registered also as gulâmlar of the
79 BOA, TT 409, f. 7; TT 130, f. 25.
80 Ibid. TT 236, f. 45.
81 This term is used for persons of no fixed residence or for villagers who had fled, and
were seeking more favourable conditions of life and employment. Moutafchieva, Agrarian
relations, p. 118.
82 BOA, TT 539, f. 26.
83 Ibrahim Ali(r), Isa(n) Birmi, and others.
vaqf84. Some additional information about their family status is also provided
in this document. Two of the gulâmlar are indicated as mücerred (single, un-
married) which probably means that the rest had families.
It is important to mention that every mülk or vaqf owner was permitted
to manage his lands as he considered fit. As high-ranking dignitaries they fre-
quently settled slaves captured during their military campaigns. Some scholars
believe that in most cases such slaves were freed and only then given land to
cultivate in the mülks. They converted to Islam and adopted as a surname the
name of their former master, who had manumitted them. Persons of this cat-
egory were defined as ‘gulâmlar-i vakf ’. But, in the mülks and vaqfs the former
slaves did not receive full personal freedom and continued to have obligations
to the mülk or vaqf-owner. They were not included in the reaya and were de-
pendent on the mülk or vakf sahib-i. Furthermore, they paid their taxes to
him, and although they had converted to Islam, some of them continued to
pay ciziye85. Other historians connect some of the slaves who were settled in
the mülk and vaqf lands of the sultans and of the Ottoman dignitaries with
the deportation of people from different regions of the empire during 15th –
early 16th centuries. In these cases the slaves were called also ortakçılar or
kesimciler86.
By analogy we can assume that the population registered as ‘gulâmlar-i
vakf ’ in the çiftlik of Sofu Mehmed Paşa in 1560s and 1570s were also en-
slaved during his military campaigns or was deported from the newly con-
quered lands. The fact that four of them were recorded as Macars (Magyars)
in 1566 leads us to the conclusion that he had brought some of them from
Hungary during his campaigns87. The names of the other gulâmlar recorded
84 BOA, TT 492, f. 36.
85 Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 112 – 114; H. Inalcık, Servile Labor in the
Ottoman Empire, In: A. Ascher, B. K. Kiraly, T. Halasi-Kun (eds.), The Mutual Effects of the
Islamic and Judeo-Christian Worlds: The East European Pattern. Brooklyn College, 1979, p.
30 – 43; Eadem, The Emergence of Big Farms, p. 53 – 62.
86 С. Димитров, Из ранната история на ислямизацията в северните склонове на
Родопите, Векове, 1986, 3, с. 47 – 48; H. Inalcık, Servile Labor in the Ottoman Empire, In:
A. Ascher, B. K. Kiraly, and T. Halasi-Kun (eds), The Mutual Effects of the Islamic and Ju-
deo-Christian Worlds: The East European Pattern. Brooklyn, Brooklyn College Press, 1979,
p. 39 – 42.
87 G. David, Administration in the Ottoman Europe, In: C. Woodhead, M. Kunt
(eds.), Süleyman the magnificient and His Age: The Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern
World. London, Longman, 1995, p. 80.
92 Paulina Andonova
in 1566 (Kırsın (son of ) Darab, Ibrahim (son of ) Alir, Isan (son of ) Birmi,
and others) show that they might have been enslaved during the Persian cam-
paigns or have been deported in a result of the conquest.
According to the tapu-tahrir defter of 1571 servile labor was still used in
the farm. However, some changes can be observed between the two consecu-
tive registrations. In the defter from 1571 only Macars were included as inhab-
itants of the farm. Judging by their names it is obvious that they were not the
same people as those recorded in the 1560s. As the Macars registered in 1566
were settled in the çiftlik probably in the late1540s we cannot exclude the pos-
sibility that by 1571 they had already passed away. Sofu Mehmed Paşa died
in 1557 and there was no chance that he brought new slaves to the farm after
1566. Thus, the Macars of 1571 are very likely to be descendants of the Macars
who were probably settled in the late 1540s and registered in the defter of
1566. There are no Persian slaves registered in 1571. Probably those registered
in 1566 had already died in 1571 but unlike the Macars they had no descen-
dants. The documents give us further details about the gulâmlar of 1571– two
of them were recorded as mücerred. For this reason, it is possible for the rest,
six gulâmlar, to have had families at the time of the registration.
It is difficult to answer the question of until what time the vaqf çiftlik was
cultivated by servile labor. In the inventory of revenues and expenditures of
the vaqf dated 1616 – 1617 only the ‘ispenç for geberan’ is recorded. It was
paid as a fixed sum (maktu) and amounted to 320 akçe. This probably means
that at that time non-Muslims lived and cultivated the farm but the question
concerning their number and origin remains open88. It is possible that these
were hired-workers but the fact that they were recorded in the çiftlik and their
ispenç was paid together with the other taxes due for the çiftlik and its produc-
tion shows that they must have been permanent residents.
In another account book of the vaqf property from the second half of the
17 century the names of five men are listed as ‘gulâmlar of the Kuru çiftlik’89.
th
But probably those gulâmlar had a status different from that of the ‘gulâmlar-i
vakf ’ recorded in the tapu-tahrir defters from the previous century. Judging by
the names, the origin of the seventeenth-century gulâmlar can be associated
neither with the Hungarian nor with the Iranian population of the 16th cen-
tury. The names of Pervane, Iliycho, Tomcho, Nikola and Petre, mentioned as
88 BOA, MAD.d 4945.

89 BOA, TS.MA.d. 03819.0001.00.
debtors to the vaqf of Sofu Mehmed Paşa in the 17th century, are typical for
the local Bulgarian population.
The information in the document suggests that these inhabitants of the
çiftlik were not gulâmlar in the meaning of vaqf slaves as the population in-
cluded in the category of gulâmlar-i vakf in the 16th century. Other vaqfs of
military dignitaries provide information on some other categories of pop-
ulation who were also used in the cultivation of the land. Apart from the
gulâmlar, there were also ortakçılar, taallûkât90, haymanalar91, ırgatlar who
were settled on the mülk and vaqf lands92. In addition, devşirme were probably
also used as a work force in the estates of the ruling class93.
Only an approximate answer can be given to the question concerning the
origin and status of the population recorded as ‘gulâmlar of Kuru çiftlik’ during
17th century. They can be related to the groups of ortakçılar or kesimciler in the
meaning of sharecroppers94. On the other side, the gulâmlar in Sofu Mehmed
Paşa’s çiftlik in 17th century could be identified with the category of the ır-
gatlar95, as well. The question why the term ‘gulâmlar of the çiftlik’ was used to
90 Literally – ‘dependent persons’. Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 118.
91 Ibid, p. 118 – 119.
92 Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 118; Eadem, За приложението на робския труд
в османското стопанство през XV – XVI век, В: Аграрните отношения, с. 390 – 391.

93 Such people were recorded only with their proper name and the place where they
were taken away. For example, in the village Tuyca Oruzlu granted to Rum Mehmed Paşa as
mülk, among the gulâmlar are recorded the names of some Christians – Zdravko Vardarlu,
Nikola Arnaut, Aleksi Manastirlu and others. In fact, their names were recorded in the man-
ner characteristic of the acemoğlanlar. Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 118.
94 These two groups can be defined as sharecroppers who cultivated the vaqf land and
paid half the crops or other part of what they had produced to the vaqf or had to pay kesim
to the land-owner. In the earlier period each mülk or vaqf-holder arranged his dealings with
them in his own particular way but as it is obvious from the sources, with the passage of time,
their status and forms of exploitation of the land resembled more closely those typical for
the rest of the reaya. Ö. L. Barkan, Türkiye’de Toprak Meselesi. Toplu Eserler 1. Istanbul, 1980,
p. 575 – 577, 587 – 594, p. 612 – 631; Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 118 – 119; Дими-
тров, Из ранната история, с. 48 – 49.
95 The term in his later meaning is used for the ‘hired workers’ or the ‘farm workers’.
Радушев, Аграрните институции, с. 166; Гандев, Зараждане на капиталистически от-

ношения, с. 85; Христов, Аграрният въпрос, с. 125 – 127, с. 130 – 137; Eadem, Българ-
ските общини през Възраждането. София, Изд. на БАН, 1973, с. 31; Eadem, Аграрните
отношения в Македония през XIX и началото на XX век. София, Изд. на БАН, 1964,
с. 80 – 90; А. Матковски, Крепостнишството во Македониja. Скопиje, 1978, с. 204 – 205,
с. 227; Н. Тодоров, Д. Ангелов, Б. Цветкова (съст). Стопанска история на България
94 Paulina Andonova
describe the status of this population if the latter was related to the category of
hired-workers remains open. It is possible that the category of ‘gulâmlar of the
çiftlik’ be an indication of some kind of obligation and dependency on the vaqf
çiftlik and its owner and not be an indication of their slave origin.
As has already been mentioned, in the beginning of 18th century it was
harac reaya who cultivated the çiftlik. At that time the structure and the com-
ponents of the çiftlik had changed. It included the lands of Sofu Mehmed
Paşa’s çiftlik, those of the vaqf çiftlik of Mustafa Ağa, and a large amount of
peasants’ lands. It should be emphasized that the reaya was settled after the
re-establishment of the çiftlik and after the mütevelli had added the peasants’
lands. The flight of the peasants from the village of Vrajdebna, where the çiftlik
was situated, was as a result of the war with the Holy League. It cannot be de-
nied that their eventual later return to the village, when their lands had been
already included in the çiftlik, is also an explanation of the presence of harac
reaya in the farm. As data of their origin is lacking we may assume that they
could be peasants coming from other villages, probably nearby, also displaced
as a result of the war and the general turmoil in the region during that time.
They were described in the document as 26 nefer who were obligated with
harac. As the arzuhal was related mainly to the tithes from the peasants’ lands
included in the çiftlik which were actually miri lands and the cizye of the farm
inhabitants, the petitioner is likely to use the term nefer not as a number of the
inhabitants but in the meaning of tax-paying male adults (tax-paying units)96
and that some of them had settled in the çiftlik with their families. Thus we
may estimate the number of the çiftlik inhabitants in the first decade of the
18th century at around 50 including men, women and children97.
681 – 1981. София, Наука и изкуство, 1981, с. 166 – 167; Inalcık, The Emergence of Big
Farms, p. 117 – 123; McGowan, Economic Life, p. 164 – 168; Т. Arıcanlı, Property, Land,
and Labor in Nineteenth-century Anatolia, In: Ç. Keyder, F. Tabak (eds.), Landholding and
commercial agriculture in The Middle Middle East. Albany, State University of New York
Press, 1991, p. 132.
96 Е. Грозданова, За данъчната единица хане в демографските проучвания, В:
Исторически преглед, 1972, 3, с. 90; А. Adıyeke, N. Adıyeke and E. Balta. The Poll Tax in the
Years of the Cretan War: Symbol of Submission and Mechanisms of Avoidance. Tesaurismata
31, 2001. p. 339.
97 The coefficient used in the historiography for calculation of family size ranged
between 5 and 7,5 members. L. Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy. Tax Collection
and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560 – 1660. Leiden, E.J.Brill, 1996,
p. 101; M. Wagstaff, Family size in the Peloponnese (Southern Greece) in 1700, Journal
The çiftlik components and their size

There is no detailed description of the çiftlik structure included in the
tapu-tahrir defters dated from 1519 and 1525 when Iliyas Bey had control
over the farm estate. It was noted only that it consisted of a meadow and a
forest at that time.
The components of the çiftlik when Sofu Mehmed Paşa had already dedi-
cated its revenues to his vaqf were described in detail – their number, extent
and borderlines in the 16th-century documents we have at hand.
Table 1. Çiftlik components in 1544 – 154598
Bostan Bahçe Fields Meadows

Borders Size Borders Size Borders Size Borders Size
- 8 - 9 Isfendiyar Bey’s field 5 Yeniçeri Hamza’s, -
- 10 - - Other fields and 3 Isfendiyar Bey’s
near the road and villagers’
- - - - In the territory 10 meadows, and
of Poduyane vegetable gardens
- - - - Near the road 10 in the territory
- - - - Near the road 30 of Chepintsi and
near the public
road.
- - - - Near the public road 4 - -
- - - - Other fields 4 - -
- - - - Other fields and 50 - -
near the road
- - - - Near the road to 150 - -
Malashevtsi and
near the çiftlik forest
of Family History, vol. 26, N 3, 2001, p. 339 – 346; М. Тодорова, Структура на населе-
нието, брачност, семейство и домакинство на Балканите, Исторически преглед, 1983, с.
98; Първева, Земята и хората, с. 142 – 143; О. Тодорова, Жените от Централните
Балканите през османската епоха, XV – XVII век. София, Гутенберг, 2004, с. 227 – 232.
98 The forest, the water-mill, the yaylak and mezraa Bukofche are not included in the
table.
96 Paulina Andonova
Table 2. Çiftlik components in 1566 and 1570 – 157199
Bostan Bahçe Fields Meadows

Borders Size Borders Size Borders Size Borders Size
- 9 - 8 Isfendiyar Bey’s 5 Hızır Çelebi’s, -
fields Yeniçeri Hamza’s
- 10 Nikola’s field and 3 and Isfendiyar
near the road Bey’s meadows,
- - - - Todor’s field and 30 Karaman’s fields
near the road and near the road
- - - - Bodur’s field 10
- - - - Nikola’s field and 4 Former Marko’s 5
near the road to meadow, in the
Malashevtsi hands of Sofu
- - - - Papas’ field 10 Mehmed
- - - - Bodur’s field 4 Delyo and Marko’s 6
- - - - Near the road to 150 field, fields of
Malashevtsi and Mustafa Ağa’s vaqf
near the çiftlik çiftlik in Vrajdebna
forest
- - - - Bodur’s, Papas’ 50
fields and near the
public road
- - - - Stoian’s and Nen- 21 Former Drago and 3
ko’s fields Radoi’s field, in
- - - - Former Dako’s 20 the hands of Sofu
field, now in the Mehmed Paşa
hands of Sofu Me-
hmed Paşa
In 1540s the farm consisted of 9 fields of between 3 and 150 dönüms,

a meadow without indication of its size, one bostan of 9 dönüms and two
bahçeler 8 and 10 dönüms). In addition, there were also a water-mill, a forest,
one yaylak and the mezraa of Bukofçe which was located nearby. The size of
the latter components is not indicated in the source. The total size of the fields
was 266 dönüms or more than 90 % of the total surface of the çiftlik agrarian
99 The forest, the water-mill and the yaylak are not included in the table.
lands, including fields, meadows, the bostan and bahçes which amounted to
293 dönüms 100 (Table 1).
According to the data from 1566 and 1571 the çiftlik included already 11
fields of between 3 and 150 dönüms and their total surface was 308 dönüms.
There were also four meadows (between 3 and 6 dönüms), two bahçes (8 and
10 dönüms), one bostan (9 dönüms), one yaylak, a forest and a water-mill, the
total surface of the çiftlik fields, meadows, the vegetable gardens and the or-
chard being 349 dönüms101 (Table 2).
The mezraa is not mentioned as a çiftlik component in the registers from
the 1560s and 1570s. Probably meanwhile it had evolved into a village as in-
dicated by the sources. Unlike the defters from the first half of the 16th century
those from 1566 and 1571 include the village of Bukofche recorded after the
village of Vrajdebna102.
There is no information in the documents at our disposal about the çiftlik
structure, its components and their size in the 17th century103; probably it
stayed more or less stable during this period.
The arzuhal of 1711 reveals an already large farm whose total size
amounted to 7,000 – 8,000 dönüms. It is clear that in 1706 the vaqf mütevelli
Veli Efendi transformed the farm into a big askeri çiftlik which consisted of
the two vaqf çiftliks (respectively belonging to Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s and to
Mustafa Ağa’s vaqfs) and half of the territory of the village of Vrajdebna. The
askeri çiftlik included fields, meadows, two water-mills and buildings (prob-
ably buildings for living and buildings for the cattle and for the storage of
the production). No number or size of these components is included in the
document104.
In the additional verification and checks made by the Defterhane (the
central financial office) two vaqf çiftliks’ components are identical with those
included in the documents from the 16th century. On the one side, it could
be just a repetition of old information. On the other side, it can be regard-
ed as a confirmation that the structure and the composition of the two vaqf
çiftliks remained unchanged during the whole 17th century. The information
in the arzuhal is not detailed and does not allow us to present data about the
100 BOA, TT 236, f. 45.
101 Ibid. TT 539, f. 26; TT 492, f. 36.
102 BOA, TT 539, f. 27; TT 492, f. 37.
103 Ibid. TS.MA.d. 03819.0001.00; BOA, TS.MA.d. 07411.0001.00; НБКМ, Оро,
фонд 1, ед. 15110.

104 BOA, D – BMK – SMM, Dosya: 3, Vesika: 121.
98 Paulina Andonova
number, size and borderlines of the askeri çiftlik components during the 1690s
and the first decades of 18th century.
Borderlines and location of the çiftlik components

There is no data about the borderlines and location of the çiftlik compo-
nents during the 17th and the first half of 18th century but in the 16th century
they were described in detail.
Figure 1. Borderlines and location of the çiftlik components in 1545
Legend:
Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik field Çiftlik meadow
Fields belonging to other people Meadows belonging to other people
Çiftlik bahçe Çiftlik forest
Çiftlik bostan Çiftlik yaylâk
Çiftlik water-mill Çiftlik mezraa
Borders of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik components:
1st field – the çiftlik forest and the road to the village of Malashevtsi.
2nd field – Isfendiyar’s field
3rd field – other fields (probably belonging to villagers)

4thand 5th fields – the public road (probably the road between Sofia and
Orhanie (Botevgrad)
6th, 7th, 8th fields – the road (probably the road to the village of Vrajdebna)
9th field – located in the village of Poduyane
1st meadow – located in the village of Chepintsi – it bordered on Yeniçeri
Hamza’s meadow, Isfendiyar’s meadow and the meadows of the village
There are no borders of the bostan and the two bahçes indicated.
The yaylak was near the mezraa of Bukofche
The mezraa of Bukofche was located near the yaylak
The forest bordered on the first field
Figure 2. Borderlines and location of the çiftlik components in 1560s and 1570s
Legend:
Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik field Çiftlik meadow
Fields belonging to other people Meadows belonging to other people
Çiftlik bahçe Çiftlik forest
Çiftlik bostan Çiftlik yaylâk
Çiftlik water-mill
100 Paulina Andonova
Borders of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik components:
1st field – the çiftlik forest and the road to the village of Malashevtsi
2nd field – Isfendiyar’s field
3rd field – Dako’s field
4thfield – Lidko’s (?) field
5th field – Papas’ field
6th field – Todor’s field
7th field – Bodur’s field and the public road (probably the road between Sofia
and Orhanie)
8th fields – Todor’s field and the public road
9th field – Niko’s field and the road (probably the road to the village of
Vrajdebna)
10th field – the road (probably the road to the village of Vrajdebna)
11th filed – Stan son of Petko and Nenko son of Lido (?)
1st meadow – located in the village of Chepintsi – it bordered on Yeniçeri
Hamza’s meadow, Isfendiyar’s meadow, Hızır Çelebi’s meadow and the mead-
ows of the village
2nd meadow – in Vrajdebna – bordered on Delyo’s field, Marko’s field and the
field of the Mustafa Ağa’s vaqf çiftlik also located in the territory of the village
of Vrajdebna)
In 1545 other fields without identification of their owners are mentioned

as bordering on the fields which belonged to Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s farm estate.
Only one çiftlik field borders on Isfendiyar Bey’s field105. The public road or
other country roads are recorded as boundaries in 55% of the total number of
the fields. One of the fields is located in the territory of Poduyane. One çiftlik
meadow is situated in the territory of Chepintsi and borders on the mead-
ows which belonged to Yeniçeri Hamza, to Isfendiyar Bey and to the villagers.
The public road is mentioned as one of the meadow’s borders. The mezraa of
Bukofche and the summer pasture had a common border. (Table 1 and Figure
1) The defters provide no data about the location of the water-mill and the
gardens. It can be assumed only that the water-mill was situated on the Iskur
River.
105
It is possible to identify Isfendiyar Bey whose meadows and fields were recorded in
the registers with the founder of the dynasty of the Isfendiyaroğulları (Candaroğulları) or to
one of his descendants. See Р. Ковачев, Евг. Радушев, Опис на регистри от истанбулския
османски архив към генералната дирекция на държавните архиви на Република Турция.
София, НБКМ, 1996 (Annotations of documents N 8, 19 – 41).
In 1566 and in 1571, eight çiftlik fields (72 %) bordered on the fields
which belonged to Christian villagers. The roads were mentioned as border-
lines of 45 % of the fields. One field was located next to Isfendiyar Bey’s field.
Another one was next to the çiftlik forest and near the road to Malashevtsi.
This means that the forest bordered on this field and was near the road to
Malashevtsi. The meadows of Isfendiyar Bey, Yeniçeri Hamza, Hızır Çelebi,
Karaman’s fields in Chepintsi and the road were the borderlines of one of
the çiftlik meadows. Another one bordered on the fields which belonged to
Marko and Delyo and on the fields of Mustafa Ağa’s vaqf çiftlik in Vrajdebna.
The last two meadows were recorded as former Christian meadows (Table 2
and Figure 2).
To conclude, during the 16th century the fields, meadows, the pasture
and the gardens were scattered in the territory of the village of Vrajdebna and
did not form an integral territory. They bordered on the fields and meadows
which belonged to Christians or Muslims, reaya as well as askeri. Only one of
the meadows was situated in Chepintsi and one field was in the territory of
Poduyane. Probably the location of the components of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s
çiftlik followed the structure of the land belonging to one village during the
Ottoman period which was a complex of scattered meadows, fields, vegetable
gardens and orchards, vineyards, pastures, and others106. All these facts show
that it was almost impossible the components of the çiftlik to have common
borders.
There were small fields but more than 50 % of the fields were between 20
and 150 dönüms. This data allows us to conclude that the production of the
askeri çiftlik aimed at the market. The size of the gardens also suggests that the
vegetables and the fruits were transported to the market in Sofia. The road was
the most important borderline because the production could be transported
easily and more quickly to the market when the distance was short and when
there was a well-kept road next to the agrarian lands. Thus, most of the fields
(55 % in 1545 and 72 % in the second half of 16th century) were located by
roads.
All these facts lead us to the conclusion that the farm probably brought
to its holder a nice amount of money which is confirmed not only by the fact
that the vaqf mütevelli decided to leave under his control exactly this çiftlik
106 Георгиева, Пространство, с. 201 – 208; Е. Грозданова, Българската селска об-
щина през XV – XVIII век. София, Изд. на БАН, 1979, с. 30; Първева, Земята и хората,
с. 110, 131.
but also by the fact that the çiftlik had existed for more than two centuries.
Moreover, in the beginning of the 18th century it was a large farm of a total
surface of 7,000 – 8,000 dönüms whose agricultural production was realized
on the market.
Eco-geographical factors
The eco-geographical factors were of a great importance for the effec-
tiveness of agriculture and livestock breeding. The location of the çiftlik under
study shows that the choice of the farm location was closely connected to the
local optimum concerning relief, soil and water-supply.
Table 3. Eco-geographical characteristics of the village of Vrajdebna, kaza Sofia,

16th – 18th centuries107
Village Altitude Relief Soil River Public road* Distance**

Vrajdebna 530 Plain Alluvial- Iskur Sofia – Orhanie ca 15 km
meadow
* Б. Цветкова (ред.), Френски пътеписи за Балканите. XIX век, с. 267 – 282,

с. 255 – 266, с. 339 – 359.
** The distance between the village of Vrajdebna and the centre of Sofia (Banya Başı
Camii).
The relief, low altitude, high natural fertility of the alluvial-meadow soils
and the continental climate of Vrajdebna contributed to the rich crops108. The
Iskur River which was one of the boundaries of the çiftlik facilitated the irriga-
tion of the agricultural area. In addition, the river was a necessary condition
107
Карта части Балканскаго полуострова обнимающей весь театръ войны 1877 –
1878 г., НБКМ, Кр 702 (М 1: 126 000, 3 версти в 1 дюйм), Санкт Петербург.
108 В. Койнов, Е. Фотакиева (ред.), Почвено-географско райониране на България.
София, 1974, с. 74 – 75; География на България, Т. III, Физикогеографски и социално-

икономически райони в България. Изд. на БАН, София, 1989, с. 121; Георгиева, Прос-
транство, с. 99 – 100; Б. Груев, Б. Кузманов. Обща биогеография. София, УИ „Св. Кли-
мент Охридски“, 1994, с. 409.
for the water-mill109. All these factors contributed to the high yields of the
farm.
Another important pre-requisite for acquiring high revenues with mini-
mum expenses was a well-kept road that connected the çiftlik with a town or
city which meant opportunities for easy and quick realization of the çiftlik pro-
duction. Sofia as a center of the province of Rumeli was the residence of 1638
Muslim and non-Muslim households in 1571 – 1580110 with a regular trend
of population growth during the following years111 and a great number of mil-
itary and administrative officers112. The roads leading to Belgrade and Selanik
made a precondition for possible exportation of the çiftlik production113.
The distance of 15 km between Vrajdebna and the center of Sofia where
the local agricultural and animal markets were located could be approximate-
ly covered in 5 hours by horse or ox-cart114. The road Orhanie – Sofia not
only facilitated the transportation of çiftlik production but also allowed the
109 There were water-mills in the çiftliks of Sofu Mehmed Paşa and Mustafa Ağa. BOA,
TT 492, f. 36; BOA, D – BMK – SMM, Dosya: 3, Vesika: 121.
110 Първева, Земята и хората, с. 411.
111 According to the data included in the tapu-tahrir defter of 1571 the inhabitants of
Sofia were 1410 households (323 non-Muslims and 1087 Muslims). BOA, TT 492, f. 36.
112 Н. Тодоров, Из Социално–икономическия живот на София през XVI – XVII в.,
В: Известия на института за история, т. 14 – 15, 1964, с. 216 – 218.; Б. Цветкова, Со-

фия през XV – XVIII век, В: София през вековете, T I, София, Факел, 1989, с. 92 – 93;
Стр. Димитров, Занаяти и търговия в София през XVIII век, В: София през вековете,
Т 1, София, Факел, 1989, с. 97, 108; Георгиева, Пространство, с. 100 – 101; Eadem, Ени-
чарите, с. 116 – 165.
113 А. Иширков, Град София, В: Юбилейна книга на град София (1878 – 1928).
София, 1928, с. 4; Б. Груев, Б. Кузманов. Обща биогеография, с. 409; А. Антонов, Ин-

фраструктура на овладяното пространство. Османски документи за пътните станции
по Диагоналния път (Orta Kol) от XVI, XVII, XVIII век, В: Етнически и Културни
Пространства на Балканите. Част 1. Минало – исторически ракурси. Сборник в чест
на проф. Цветана Георгиева. София, УИ „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2008, с. 206 – 225;
Георгиева, Пространство, с. 99 – 100; R. Gradeva, Administrative System and Provincial
Government in the Central Balkan Territories of the Ottoman Empire, 15th century, In:
Eadem, Rumeli under the Ottomans, 15th – 18th centuries: Institutions and Communities.
Istanbul, The Isis Press, 2004, p. 25, p. 42.
114 A distance of 50 – 70 km was travelled by caravan for 15 – 18 hours. Първева,
Земята и хората, с. 53. For example, the distance betwen the menzils in Ihtiman and Sofia
which nowadays is about 50 km was covered for 12 hours by horse. The distance between
Sofia and Pazardjik (today 110 km) was covered in 24 hours. Антонов, Инфраструктура-
та на овладяното пространство, с. 206 – 225. Using these calculations and similar to them
we can assume that 10 km was travelled in approximately 3 – 3 ½ hours by horse or ox-cart.
transportation of heavy goods as grain because the main roads in the Ottoman
empire were usually maintained in good condition in service of state and mil-
itary deliveries115.
Production, harvest and surplus

The size of the fields leads us to the conclusion that during the 16th – early
18th century the grain production was the most developed agrarian sector in
Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik. It is not possible to specify the type of the cereals
during the whole period but it can be assumed that wheat was the main crop
as it was in other farms which existed in the district o Sofia at that time116.
Besides, tithes for wheat were paid in 1566 which also means that this was the
main grain production117. In the inventory of vaqf revenues and expenditures
from 1616 – 1617 wheat and oats were mentioned as the farm’s production118.
There, the quantity of the wheat was 1,5times more than the quantity of the
oats which proves that the wheat was the main crop cultivated in the çiftlik.
The sources at our disposal provide also valuable data about the size of the
fields included in the çiftlik under study which allows us to calculate the pos-
sible harvest and surplus.
Our calculations about the kiles of grain which were sown in one çiftlik
and about the expected average yield ration of one sown kile and yield ratio of
one çift draw on the research of Stefka Parveva on the agricultural productiv-
ity of the rayyet çiftlik in south-western Peloponnese in 18th century119.
According to St. Parveva the harvest and surplus received from one average
rayyet çiftlik in kaza Anavarin and kaza Arcadia amounted to the following:
115 Пл. Митев, Държавната регламентация на градското стопанство в българските
земи през XVIII век, В: Исторически студии, N 1. Създаване и развитие на модерни
институции в българското възрожденско общество. София, УИ „Св. Климент Охрид-
ски“, 1996, с. 69; Георгиева, Пространство, с. 300; Н. Тодоров, Д. Ангелов, Б. Цветкова
(съст.), Стопанска история на България. София, Наука и изкуство, 1981, с. 136 – 137.
116 П. Андонова, Аскери чифлиците в българското пространство. Софийската
каза през XVI – началото на XIX век. Непубликувана дисертация. (СУ „Св. Климент
Охридски“, 2013).
117 BOA, TT 539, f. 26.
118 Ibid. MAD.d 4945.
119 Първева, Земята и хората, с. 155 – 159; St. Parveva, Agrarian lands and har-
vest in South-west Peloponnese in the early 18th century, Études Balkaniques, 2003, N 1,
p. 98 – 111.
approximately 16,9 Istanbul kiles of grain were sown in one average çift (80
dönüms), the annual yield was of about 92,5 kiles or 5,5 kiles grain as annual
yield ratio were received from one sown kile120.
These calculations are valid for a region which was considered to be one of
the most fertile in south-western Peloponnese with the respect to the natural
and geographical features. During the 16th – 18th centuries the kaza of Sofia
was a region where the agrarian land was considered also very fertile. Besides,
the district of Sofia had eco-geographical features very similar to those of the
kazas of Anavarin and Arcadia. This allows us to step on the above mentioned
calculations of the harvest and surplus of grain for one average çift in south-
western Peloponnese and apply them on the grain production received from
one çift (80 dönüms) in the kaza of Sofiaas well.
The sources on the çiftliks in the kaza of Sofia during the period under
study indicate that one çift in this region was also equal to 80 dönüms121, but
the main measurement of the cereals was in Sofia kile. According to the Law of
the Sancak of Sofia of 1526’ one Sofia kile was equal to 52 okka or 66,56 kg. It
means that one average çift of 80 dönüms in kaza Sofia was sown with roughly
6,5 Sofia kiles wheat or other cereals. Thus, the annual yield ratio from the
sown seeds should be approximately 2,4 tons of grain.
To find out the possible surplus of the grain produced in the çiftlik under
study we have to deduct the quantity of sowing-seed, the grain needed for
the öşur and salariye (the tithe and the addition to the grain tithe)122 and the
amount of grain needed as a subsistence minimum for the family of the çiftlik-
holder and for the workers. Here 200 kg of grain will be used as a subsistence
minimum needed by one person for one year123.
The sources show that the total surface of the fields in Sofu Mehmed
Paşa’s çiftlik was 266 dönüms in 1544 – 1545 and 308 dönüms in 1560s and
120 In the study is used the Istanbul kile which was equal to 20 okka or 25,66 kg.
Първева, Земята и хората, с. 155 – 159; Parveva, Agrarian lands, p. 98.
121 For example in 1566 the çiftliks which belonged to Piri son of Sinan Bey and to
Ismail Yeniçeri in the village of Vrabnitsa consisted of two çifts of 80 dönüms (thus the total
extent of every çiftlik was 160 dönüms). BOA, TT 539, f. 103.
122 According to the ‘Law of the Sancak of Sofia’ the quantity is 1:7,5 kiles of harvest.
ТИИПБЗ, т. I, „Закон за санджака София от 1526 г.“, с. 247.

123 Първева, Земята и хората, с. 154 – 155; Luben Berov used in his research 220 kg.
Л. Беров, Ролята на задължителните държавни доставки във вътрешната и външната

търговия на българските земи през XVI – XIX век, В: Из историята на търговията в
българските земи през XV – XIX век. София, Изд. на БАН, 1978, с. 130.
1570s. Following the conclusions in the studies on the askeri çiftliks in the
district of Sofia during the 16th – early 19th centuries it is possible to assume
that the area occupied by the fields of the çiftlik under study during the period
between 1706 and 1711 presented about 70 – 80 % of the total extent of the
farm. Thus, the fields probably were about 5,000 – 6,000 dönüms at that time.
In Table 4 we try to reconstruct the quantity of the harvest and surplus
received from the agrarian lands in Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik during the
16th – early 18th centuries. Here one important thing needs to be emphasized.
The surplus included in the table should be considered as possible surplus
which was sold at the market but after that the value of some additional ex-
penses should be deducted from the profit received. There were other extra
taxes, state and military deliveries, expenses connected to the transportation.
Besides, part of the grain produced was used to provide for the domestic an-
imals in the farm. All these expenses cannot be calculated as fixed values124
which means that they will not be deducted from the grain surplus in the
following table.
124
About the extra taxes and expenses related to the grain production and its
commercialization see Димитров, Към въпроса за чифликчийството, с. 87 – 96; Б.
Цветкова, Към въпроса за пазарните и пристанищните мита и такси в някои български
градове през XVI век, Известия на института за история, т. 13, 1963, с. 183 – 193;
Eadem, Извънредни данъци и държавни повинности в българските земи под турска власт.
София, Изд. на БАН, 1958, с. 65 – 152; Мутафчиева, Аграрните отношения, с. 270.
Eadem, Към въпроса за поземлената рента в Османската империя (принудителните
доставки през XVII – XVIII век), В: Аграрните отношения, с. 209 – 218, с. 329 – 344; Св.
Иванова, Данъчното облагане на населението в българските градове и формирането на
неговите институции (XVII – XVIII в.), Известия на държавните архиви, N 65, 1993,
с. 75 – 84; Стр. Димитров, Н. Жечев, В. Тончев, История на Добруджа, т. 3, София,
1988, с. 57 – 60; Първева, Земята и хората, с. 227; Митев, Държавната регламентация
на градското стопанство, с. 58 – 64; А. Суческа, Влиjанието на оданочуваньето на раjaта
со наметите “авариз-и диваниje, текалиф-и ьорфиje и текалиф-и шакка” връз развоjот
на процесот на чифличеньето во Македониja во XVII в., В: Гласник на институтoт
за национална историjа, г. XIV, Скопиjе, 1970; McGowan, Economic Life, p. 121 – 172;
Ursinus, Тhе Çiftlik sahibleri, p. 247 – 256.
Table 4. The possible harvest and surplus of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik during 16th – early 18th centuries
Year Fields Fields Quantity Harvest Tithe and Food Food Surplus Surplus
/dönüm/ /çift/ of seeds /kile/ salarie / (farm- (work- /kile/ /tons/
/kile/ kile/ holder’s ers)
family) / /kile/
kile/
1540s 266 3,33 21,45 117,98 200 akçe 18 36* 42,53 ca 2,8
(paid as
maktu)
1560s – 1570s 308 3,85 25,025 137,64 200 akçe 18 24** 70,61 ca 4,7
(paid as
maktu)
1706 – 1711 5000 – 62,5 – 406,25 – 2234,38 – 297,9 – 18 180*** 1332,23 – ca
6000 75 487,5 2681,25 357,5 1638,25 88,673 –
ca 109
* The defter of 1544 – 1545 provides data that 12 people (gulâm) lived in the çiftlik at that time. Probably they cultivated the farm
lands.
Emergence and Development of Vaqf Çiftliks During...
** The sources show that during 1560s and 1570s there were 8 gulâm who cultivated the çiftlik.
*** The documents speak about 21 people (reaya) who were settled in the çiftlik. As I assume that some of them had families and
bearing in mind the size of the çiftlik fields of 5,000 – 6,000 dönüms, I suppose that the inhabitants were more than 21. If we assume that
between 30 – 50 % of those 21 inhabitants had wives and children it could be possible about 60 inhabitants to live in the çiftlik in the late
17th and in the beginning of the 18th century. In this case I assume that one family or household consisted of approximately 5 members.
See footnote 100.
107
We can thus summarize our data: During the 16th century the surplus was
between 40 and 50 % of the total grain production received in the çiftlik. The
surplus of about 2,8 tons of grain in 1545 and 4,7 tons in the second half of
16th century leads us to believe that: Originally, it was not as sizeable farm
as it had become by the beginning of 18th century but a surplus of approxi-
mately 3 to 5 tons of wheat or other cereals suggests that this farm produced
grain mainly for the market even during 16th century bringing a nice amount
of money to its owner. Moreover, the size of the vegetable gardens and the
orchard shows that vegetables and fruits were also put on the market in the
early period of the existence of the farm. Meadows and a summer pasture were
also included as çiftlik components in 16th century. Thus, if we consider the
livestock and the animal products which could be sold at the market, we can
assume that the çiftlik-holder probably made substantial profits from his agri-
cultural activities.
On the other side, the increase of the surplus from 2,8 to 4,7 tons of cere-
als within a period of 20 years leads us to the conclusion that the çiftlik-holder
tried to enlarge the grain production. It is also evident from the fact that dur-
ing this period the fields increased in number and in size.
The information in the sources does not allow us to speculate about the
grain production and the surplus in the 17th century. It is clear that the çiftlik
components stayed more or less stable during this period which leads us to
the assumption that during the 17th century the harvest and the surplus were
almost the same as those received in 16th century. It is obvious that it was a
profitable farm because in the 17th century two vaqf mütevellis in succession
kept the farm under their control. Not only that, the second one of them be-
came the actual çiftlik-holder and enlarged the farm estate to 7,000 – 8,000
dönüms which means a vast askeri çiftlik with a surplus equal to approximately
one hundred tons of grain.
The only data about the quantity of the grain production in 17th century
is included in the inventory of 1616 – 1617125. There 40 kile of oats and 64
kile of wheat are recorded. But it is not clear if the quantity represented the
whole production or only the part received by the vaqf. In the first case, if we
assume that it was the quantity of the whole annual crop harvest, it means that
there was no change in the çiftlik components and in the quantity of the grain
production as compared to the 16th century. If we accept the other option,
125 BOA, MAD.d. 4945.

that is104 kile of grain only as a part of the harvest, I can conclude that the
annual yield in the first half of 17th century was no less than the above men-
tioned 40 kile of oats and 64 kile of wheat. Thus, the minimum surplus was
about 2 tons in the first decades of 17th century.
In the beginning of the 18th century the çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna
produced not only for the local market. Its grain production received as a sur-
plus could have even been involved in the international trade, as well. In the
18th century the surplus increased by over 20 times in comparison with the
surplus received from the farm during the previous century. It means that the
person who controlled the çiftlik at that time made substantial profits from
the trade with cereals and gained important political and economic power.
Besides, the vaqf mütevelli Veli Efendi who was the çiftlik-holder in 1711
claimed (твърди) that it was a vaqf çiftlik and that vaqf reaya lived there. For
that reason he had not paid the taxes to the state for four years. All these facts
demonstrate that he saved a lot of money from the tithes, salariye and ispençe
although he was eventually forced to pay them later on. Thus, it is possible to
assume that the farm owner received significant revenues from the çiftlik pro-
duction drawing on the large quantity of the grain surplus and, possibly, the
illegal operations related to his agricultural activities in the early 18th century.
***
The case of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik during the 16th – early 18th century
presents data concerning the transformation of a farm founded on land given
by the sultan to a prominent military and administrative commander through
vaqf çiftlik to a vast askeri çiftlik used for personal benefit and wealth.
As the main purpose of the last çiftlik modification was related to accu-
mulation of capital most of the operations concerning its foundation and
functioning were illegal and under the cover of the vaqf foundation. Besides,
different factors such as eco-geographical location of the farm, vacant land, an
opportunity for its occupation and a possibility of hiding the violations of the
law facilitated all these actions and transformations.
We were thus able not only to trace the formation and characteristics of
the mülk, vaqf and askeri çiftlik but also to examine the role of the vaqf as a
source used by its founder and administrator to preserve the ownership over
the çiftlik and over its incomes and to disguise his illegal methods of making
money.
The case of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s vaqf demonstrated that there was a pos-
sibility for a small plot of land to develop into a market-oriented and prof-
itable çiftlik in the course of time. In this way the çiftlik-holder managed to
gain wealth, political and economic power which was not an isolated case for
the region of Sofia and for other Ottoman regions during 17th – early 19th
century.
ÉTUDES BALKANIQUES
Fondée en 1964
La revue trimestrielle est publiée par l’Institut d’Études balkaniques &

Centre de Thracologie (Académie bulgare des Sciences).
Elle propose des articles conceptuels et des travaux d’exploration dans le
domaine des études balkaniques, en français, en anglais, en allemand, en russe et
en italien.
La revue fournit de l’information sur différents événements scientifiques
d’actualité : recensions d’ouvrages récents, annonces et comptes-rendus de
congrès internationaux, colloques ou autres manifestations consacrées aux études
balkaniques.
Sa structure comprend également des études interdisciplinaires qui
contribuent à l’éclaircissement des phénomènes spécifiques du développement
socio-économique, politique et culturel des pays balkaniques, dans leurs aspects
les plus divers, ainsi que dans leurs rapports avec les aires plus larges : européenne
et méditerranéenne, depuis les époques les plus reculées jusqu’à nos jours.
La revue Études Balkaniques est un lieu de rencontre des chercheurs et
universitaires qui s’intéressent aux problèmes interbalkaniques.
Modalités d’abonnement :
Tarifs 2015
Abonnement (4 numéros par an)

Europe : 72 euros (20 € pour un seul numéro)
États-Unis d’Amérique, Canada, Japon : 90 euros (25 € pour un seul numéro)
Adressez vos chèques bancaires à l’adresse de l’Institut d’Études balkaniques

& Centre de Thracologie (E-mail : etudesbalk@gmail.com)
45, rue Moskovska

Sofia 1000
BULGARIE

Emergence and Development of Waqf Ciftl PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Emergence and Development of Waqf Ciftl PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

cinquante et unieme

Comité scientifique international

Mise en page : FABER

Alexandru CIOCÎLTAN, Catholic Missionary Activity in 17th Century

EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF VAQF ÇIFTLIKS DURING

Sofu Mehmed Paşa was an Ottoman statesman during the reign of

113; E. Radushev, S. Ivanova, R. Kovachev (eds.), Inventory of Ottoman Turkish Documents

foundation in Sofia included a Friday mosque, a medrese and an imaret. When

The latest document concerning Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik is a written

The Vaqf of Sofu Mehmed Paşa

bey of Bosnia. It is dedicated to a Friday mosque, a caravanserai, and a hamam in Banyaluka.

kfiyeler, Bulgaristan. 2 cilt, s. 525 – 527.

above-mentioned agrarian vaqf properties were rented (der -uhde)31 to mem-

and other employees36. According to the documents the annual revenue of

As vaqf administrator he had control over the foundation’s money and

The Çiftlik in the village of Vrajdebna, the kaza of Sofia

век. София, АИ „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 1995, с. 176 – 207; Moutafchieva, Agrarian

51 Ibid. D – BMK – SMM, Dosya: 3, Vesika: 121.

рически преглед, 1961, N 4, с. 115 – 121; Eadem, Към въпроса за чифлиците в Османската

the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul, The Isis Press, 1997, p. 19.

П. Груевски, С. Андреев (съст.), ТИБИ т. 22 / 5. София, 1974, с. 137 – 140 (НБКМ,

chieva, Agrarian relations, p. 68 – 73.

mülks which had been received on the basis of a temlikname or mukarrername

63 Moutafchieva, Agrarian relations, p. 92; Barkan, Mülk Topraklar, p. 161.

А. Суческа, Влиjанието на оданочуваньето на раjaта со наметите “авариз-и диваниje, те-

75 BOA, D – BMK – SMM, Dosya: 3, Vesika: 121.

Çiftlik population and workers

88 BOA, MAD.d 4945.

в османското стопанство през XV – XVI век, В: Аграрните отношения, с. 390 – 391.

Радушев, Аграрните институции, с. 166; Гандев, Зараждане на капиталистически от-

The çiftlik components and their size

Table 1. Çiftlik components in 1544 – 154598

Bostan Bahçe Fields Meadows

Table 2. Çiftlik components in 1566 and 1570 – 157199

Bostan Bahçe Fields Meadows

In 1540s the farm consisted of 9 fields of between 3 and 150 dönüms,

фонд 1, ед. 15110.

Borderlines and location of the çiftlik components

Figure 1. Borderlines and location of the çiftlik components in 1545

Borders of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik components:

3rd field – other fields (probably belonging to villagers)

Borders of Sofu Mehmed Paşa’s çiftlik components:

In 1545 other fields without identification of their owners are mentioned

Table 3. Eco-geographical characteristics of the village of Vrajdebna, kaza Sofia,

Village Altitude Relief Soil River Public road* Distance**

* Б. Цветкова (ред.), Френски пътеписи за Балканите. XIX век, с. 267 – 282,

София, 1974, с. 74 – 75; География на България, Т. III, Физикогеографски и социално-

В: Известия на института за история, т. 14 – 15, 1964, с. 216 – 218.; Б. Цветкова, Со-

София, 1928, с. 4; Б. Груев, Б. Кузманов. Обща биогеография, с. 409; А. Антонов, Ин-

Production, harvest and surplus

ТИИПБЗ, т. I, „Закон за санджака София от 1526 г.“, с. 247.

Л. Беров, Ролята на задължителните държавни доставки във вътрешната и външната

125 BOA, MAD.d. 4945.

La revue trimestrielle est publiée par l’Institut d’Études balkaniques &

Abonnement (4 numéros par an)

Adressez vos chèques bancaires à l’adresse de l’Institut d’Études balkaniques

45, rue Moskovska

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi