ARCHIVUM

OTTOMANICUM
Edited by György Hazai

with assistance of
P. Fodor, G. Hagen, E. İhsanoğlu,
H. İnalcık, B. Kellner-Heinkele,
H. W. Lowry, H. G. Majer,
Rh. Murphey, M. Ursinus, and E. A. Zachariadou

31 (2014)

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

ARCHIVUM OTTOMANICUM concerns itself primarily with Ottoman history
and Ottoman philology. However, the editors also welcome articles on subjects
related to Ottoman studies in the history and culture of Europe, including in
particular Danubian Europe, the Black Sea area and the Cau­casus, and in the history
and culture of the Arab and the Iranian lands, and Byzantium.
Authors of articles will receive a pdf-file of their contribution and a free copy of the
volume in which their article appears.
Contributors are invited to send articles in two copies to:
Professor Dr. György Hazai, c/o Twin Media, Váci u. 18, 1052 Budapest, Hungary
(e-mail: Dr.Hazai.Kinga@pronet.hu or Cecilia.Hazai@nextra.hu).
Secretary of the Editorial Board and technical editor:
Miklós Fóti (e-mail: fotimiklos@yahoo.com).

© Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2014

This journal, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright.
Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbid-
den and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, microfilms and storage
and processing in electronic systems.
Printing and binding by Hubert & Co., Göttingen
Printed on permanent/durable paper
Printed in Germany
www.harrassowitz-verlag.de

ISSN 0378-2808
 CONTENTS

György Hazai – Pál Fodor

Arminius Vámbéry (1832–1913) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

István Vásáry
Arminius Vámbéry, a pioneer of Turkic studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Jacob M. Landau
Arminius Vámbéry and Abdul Hamid II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Barbara Kellner-Heinkele
Visions of Bukhara – A comparative look at the travels of Arminius
Vámbéry and George Nathaniel Curzon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Ruth Bartholomä
The perception of Arminius Vámbéry and his journey in Central Asia
– in the past and present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Mustafa S. Kaçalin
Vámbéry and Chaghatay studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Ferenc Csirkés – Gábor Fodor

Vámbéry as a public figure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Miklós Sárközy
Newly discovered Vámbéry documents from the USA –
A preliminary report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

***

Dimitri Theodoridis
Scriptio detrectans. Stigmatisierende Anorthographie
nichtmuslimischer und kopfüber gestellte Schreibung verhasster
Namen bei den Osmanen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Theophilus C. Prousis
Strangfordʼs busy fortnight at the Porte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4

Phokion P. Kotzageorgis
The multiple certifications in Ottoman judicial documents
(hüccets) from monastic archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

H. Erdem Çipa
Sultan of a golden age that never was: The image of Selīm I
(r. 1512–1520) in Ottoman advice literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Ferenc Dávid – Péter Oláh

Hungarian foreign policy and the Caucasian region in the 1940s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Ilona Dorogi – György Hazai

Zum Werk von Ebū Bekr b. Behrām Dimişkī über die
Geschichte und den Zustand des Osmanischen Reiches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
 THE MULTIPLE CERTIFICATIONS IN OTTOMAN
JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS (HÜCCETS)
FROM MONASTIC ARCHIVES
PHOKION P. KOTZAGEORGIS

Several Byzantine Orthodox monasteries, which survived during the Ottoman pe-
riod, preserve a considerable number of Ottoman documents in their archives. By far
the largest section of these archives consists of judicial documents (hüccet).1 The
more powerful, big, and long-surviving were the monasteries, the richer their ar-
chives. This remark, however, is not a strict rule; rather it depends on various fac-
tors, which are not going to be analyzed here.
Quite a few such judicial documents have been preserved from 15th and 16th
centuries, i.e. from a period whose court registers (kadı sicilleri) have not survived
for most parts of the Ottoman empire. Having in mind this situation, many years ago
I started to collect evidence from documents now housed in the Athonite archives.2
Namely, I put in an Excel file the names and other data (e.g. titles) of the authorities
of the courts (e.g. kadi, müvella, naib, müfettiş), who certified these documents.
Therefore, I have created a database of about four hundred and fifty entries from
three courts (Selanik, Sidrekapsi, and Limni). My purpose is to reconstruct a more or
less complete list of the court personnel, to follow the judges’ tenure in office, and to
analyze aspects of the courts’ functioning. This database, which is in progress, could
be useful also for the study of the multiple certifications on the judicial documents,

 
1 The reason for this phenomenon is obvious: the monasteries attempted every time to certify and
strengthen their rights on estates or other kind of landed property. We have to keep in mind that
the monasteries were one of the more stable, and probably the most long-lasting, elements of
the Ottoman countryside in the Balkans (cf. J.C. Alexander, “The Turkish Documents of the
Orthodox Christian Monasteries as Sources for the Study of the Ottoman Period in Greece”, in:
Balkanlar ve İtalya’da Şehir ve Manastır Arşivlerindeki Türkçe Belgeler Semineri, Ankara
2003, 1–7). For the type of the hüccets and their certifications see: K. Hegyi, “The Terminology
of the Ottoman-Turkish Judicial Documents on the Basis of the Sources from Hungary”, Acta
Orientalia Hungarica 18 (1965), 191–203; V. Boškov, “Die hüccet-Urkunde – Diplomatische
Analyse”, in: Studia Turcologia Memoriae Alexii Bombaci Dicata, Napoli 1982, 81–87; A.
Velkov, “Signatures-Formules des agents judiciaries dans les documents ottomans à caractère
financier et juridique”, Turcica 24 (1992), 193–240; M. İpşirli, “İlmiye mensublarının imza ve
tasdik formülleri”, in: M. Kütükoğlu (ed), Tarih Boyunca Paleografya ve Diplomatik Semineri,
İstanbul 1988, 177–200· M. Kütükoğlu, Osmanlı Belgelerinin Dili, İstanbul 1998, 350–359.
2 The idea was put forward during the seminar in Ottoman history at the Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki by Professor John C. Alexander in the 1990’s. From then I tried to realize it.

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
118 P. P. KOTZAGEORGIS

as it will be discussed below. Since the material of the database comes from the
monasteries of Mount Athos, the database concerns mainly the registration of the
members of the courts of Selanik (Thessaloniki) and Sidrekapsi (a present-day
abandoned settlement in NE Chalkidiki), from which the majority of the collected
documents come.3
My sample for the present paper consists of judicial documents dated from the
end of the 15th century to the middle of the 17th. The only reason I chose this period
is the quantity of the documents, so that I can compare and match the information
from the documents with the database. The reason the sample goes no further than
the mid-17th century is that after this period, at least in the archives which I studied
for this analysis, the bulk of the judicial documents from the aforementioned courts
starts to decrease. On the other hand, the documents dated from the middle of the
17th century onwards come from a dispersed geographical setting;4 consequently, the
database cannot be useful for this period. Apart from the Athonite documents, in the
present paper I used similar material from the monasteries of Xanthi and from the
monastery of Haghios Dionysios in Olympos Mountain (near modern village
Litochoro).5 My sample consists of eighty hüccets, which had two or more certifica-
tions of judges.
Nicolas Vatin, in a paper delivered at the XX Congress of CIEPO (Rethymnon-
Crete, 25 June–1 July 2012), sets up the problématique of the multiple certifications
in the judicial documents from monastic archives. This problématique is completely
relevant with the case of the Athonite monasteries, as I will show below.6 In his

 
3 From the other two courts, in whose jurisdiction the Athonite monks held properties and thus
they had frequent relations with them, namely those of Siroz (Serres) and Limni (Limnos is-
land), the material I have collected is not sufficient for a quantitative analysis. However, occa-
sionally I have used in the present analysis the data from the court of Limni.
4 The number of the judicial documents I have collected in the database is very low compared
with that preserved in the Athonite archives. However, I suppose that the wide geographical
dispersion from the middle of the 17th century onwards is the result of the fact that the monas-
teries had consolidated their properties in the Chalkidiki peninsula and the Strymon valley, and
they started to expand their activities in distant places through the purchase and/or bequests of
properties. These deeds were certified by the relevant judges (for example in Eastern Thrace,
Asia Minor, Aegean islands etc.). Therefore, from the second half of the 17th century and
mainly during the 18th century until the beginning of the 19th century, the majority of the judi-
cial documents come from various regions of the Ottoman domain.
5 I limit my analysis to documents, of which I have access to the original; these are fewer than
those which constitute my prosopographical database. The documents of the present paper
come from the archives a) of the Athonite monasteries of Haghios Pavlos and Simonopetra; b)
of the Metropolitanate of Xanthi and Peritheorion; c) of the file on Limnos of the archive of the
Athonite monastery of Vatopedi; d) of the documents of the monastery of Haghios Dionysios of
Olympos Mountain, as it is preserved in the “Historical Archive of Macedonia” (Thessaloniki).
6 N. Vatin, “Hüccet à signatures multiples dans les fonds ottomans des archives du monastère de
Saint-Jean à Patmos et de la bibliothèque Kaireios d’Andros”. Vatin’s sample consists of 53 ju-
dicial documents from the monastery of St. John in Patmos Island and from the monasteries of
the Andros Island; the documents dated from the same period with mine. Thus, the two samples

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
 CERTIFICATIONS IN OTTOMAN JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS 119

conclusions Vatin summarizes the four reasons, for which more than one certifica-
tions exist on the judicial documents: “a) validation en droit par un juriste d’ une
acte émis par une personnalité moins compétente, ou du moins de niveau hiérar-
chique inférieur dans l’ ‘ilmiyye; validation postérieure – sans que se pose ici une
question de hiérarchie entre jurisconsultes – d’ un document plus ou moins ancient;
validation sur le terrain d’ un nâ’ib attestant l’application du document dans les
conditions locales; validation d’ un document à l’ occasion d’ une copie”.
The present paper attempts to combine the problématique of multiple certifica-
tions, as presented by Vatin, with the prosopographical database I have created. In
other words, I will attempt to approach the question of the multiple certifications
from a different view, in order to clarify it better. The phrasing of the certifications
of the judges or of the other courts’ officials in the documents does not differ from
what Vatin has already analyzed in his paper. Thus, I will skip that element.7 My
analysis will deal with topics regarding the practice or the policy the monasteries
followed in their relations with the courts and the functioning of the courts them-
selves.
The majority of the documents of my sample (54 out of 80) contain two certifi-
cations. A main problem concerning the judges’ signatures is their dating. Docu-
ments with two such certifications can be easily dated. At first, one may deduce
which certification corresponds to the scribe’s handwriting through the texts of the
certifications and the scribes’ handwriting; in a second stage, through the database or
other supplementary elements it can be found find whether the second certification
comes from the hand of a contemporary judge. The most standard form of first
certification in the documents of my sample begins with the words “al-amr kema
zabrahu (zukirahu, harrarahu, jara) fihi nammakahu …” (The order is as it is written
[exposed, drawn, compiled] on it. It is written …”).8 Apart from the handwriting, the
position of the certification plays a significant role: the first certification is often
placed in the middle of the document, just above the text. As a result, through this
methodology, the first signature can be identified in several documents; the other
ones can be dated through the database.
The analysis of the documents with two certifications shows that the monks usu-
ally got the document from a müvella, inferior member of the court9 and then they

 
are absolutely comparable in terms of the date of compilation and of their origin (from monas-
teries). For the mise en scène of the problem see: N. Vatin, G. Veinstein, E. Zachariadou, Cat-
alogue du fonds ottoman des archives du monastère de Saint-Jean à Patmos, Athens 2011, 25–
28.
7 Vatin, in his paper, gives the typical texts of judges’ certifications along with their variations as
well. For further variations in the texts of certification, one can consult the catalogue of the
standard phrasings in the article of A. Velkov, “Signatures-formules”, op.cit.
8 See for example Archive of the Monastery of Hagios Pavlos [hereafter: AMHP], DΤ/28; Ar-
chive of the Monastery of Vatopedi [hereafter: AMV], 2.54.167; AMHP, Κ/52. Variants of this
type see in: Velkov, “Signatures-formules”, nos 21–37.
9 In the certifications, the members of the court signed generally as müvella, while the kadi either

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
120 P. P. KOTZAGEORGIS

had it certified from the higher-ranking judge of the same court. For example, in
915/1509 the monks of Haghios Pavlos monastery took a hüccet for a dispute with
their Christian neighbors in their metochion in Kelemerye (western Chalkidiki). The
document, which contains a delimitation of the disputed area, was issued by the
müvella (acting judge) of the court of Selanik, İshak b. İsa, and certified by the
judge of Selanik and Avrethisar (Gynaikokastro, Kilkis), Derviş Ali b. İshak.10 How-
ever, in some cases we find the opposite procedure. In 901/1495 the judge of
Limnos, Piri, issued a document, with which the monastery of Haghios Pavlos ob-
tained a title-deed for a vacant area on the island. Simultaneously, the document was
also certified by the acting judge of Limnos, Mehmed b. Yusuf.11 Interesting enough
is the case, in which the second certification belongs to a judge of a neighboring and
high-ranking court. From the 15th century on, the court of Selanik was higher in
ranking than that of Sidrekapsi, to which Mount Athos belonged administratively
and judicially.12 It was usual for the judge of Selanik to have also the office of the
judge of Sidrekapsi, when for some reason the latter post was empty.13 It was also
 
as kadi or as müvella-kadı. If the müvella was always a kadi results he would have signed as
müvella-kadı. See: Historical Archive of Macedonia/Archive of Hagios Dionysios Monastery
[hereafter: AMHD], no. 57 (994/1586), where the second certification is made by Abdürreuf b.
Mehmed el-müvella el-kadı bi Selanik ve Karaferye. In AMHP, 26.Φ2 (953/1546) the certifi-
cation is by Elhac Ali b. Kasım el-müvella bi mahruse-i Selanik.
10 AMHP, f. 5α, Κ/32. The name of this müvella is found also in a document of the next year (E.A.
Zachariadou, “Ottoman Documents from the Archives of Dionysiou [Mount Athos] 1495–
1520”, Südost Forschungen 30 [1971], no. 11), while the name of the kadi could not be
matched with other persons from the database. If it could, it could have shown us whether the
monks went to the kadi for certification immediately or in a later time. For other documents, in
which the kadi of the same court certified a former certification of a müvella, see: AMHP, f. 2,
26 (953/1547), f. 5α, Κ/50 (989/1581), Κ/78 (1009/1600), Κ/68 (1014/1605), Κ/71(1037/1627),
f. 4, Π/6 (1057/1647); AMV, 2.80.193 (971/1563); Archive of the monastery of Simonopetra
[hereafter: AMS], 65 (992/1584), 80 (1009/1600), 104 (1044/1634).
11 ΑΜHP, L/5 (901/1495). The course of the certifications is deduced from their text and their
position on the document. The kadi’s certification is placed in the middle of the document, just
above the text, while that of the müvella further above in the left side. Unfortunately there is no
sufficient sample of documents from Limnos, in order to ascertain if the müvella was contem-
porary of the kadi or posterior. However, the handwriting of both certifications is similar. The
text of the first certification is: «ma-huwa ‘l-muharrar fihi mukarrar indi nammakahu Piri el-
molla al-kadı bi Limnos afi al-afi» (Whatever is deposited in the present document, it is de-
posed in front of me. It is written by me …), and that of the second as follows: «li-ma uriza ala
haza ‘l-kitab wajadtuhu muvafıkan li kanun al-münif harrarahu al-abd Mehmed b. Yusuf al-
molla bi kaza-i Limnos afir lahu» (I certify that what is mentioned in the present letter, it is
happened according to the Holy Law. The servant wrote …).
12 There is no published ranking list of courts for this period. My conclusion results from the
position every town and district had in the administrative system of the empire. Selanik was the
seat of the province (sancak) of Selanik, to which the district of Sidrekapsi belonged.
13 See for example the documents certified by a kadi of Selanik-Sidrekapsi: AMHP, S/18
(910/1505), Κ/21 (949/1542), 2.26 (953/1546), P/16 (954/1547)· E. Kolovos, “Peasants and
Monks in Ottoman Chalkidiki, 15th–16th c., v. 3: The Ottoman Documents of the Archive of the
Holy Monastery of Xeropotamou. Regestes: 1439-1800”, unpublish. PhD diss., Aristotle Uni-

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
 CERTIFICATIONS IN OTTOMAN JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS 121

usual that the monks, after they had got a document by a lower-ranking judge of
Sidrekapsi, went to a judge (kadı or müvella) of Selanik, in order to get a second
certification. The same happened, when during the 16th and mainly the 17th century
new courts were founded in regions, which fell under the interest of the Athonite
monks, and which were not seats of kadis but of naibs. The same practice is ob-
served in other monasteries of various regions as well. In 935/1528 İlyas b. Süley-
man, müvella of the vilayet of Kelemerye,14 issued a document, which was certified
by the contemporary müvella of Selanik Ali b. Emre.15 In 992/1584 the müvella of
the nahiye of Pazargah (present-day Apollonia),16 Hasan b. Ali, issued a document,
which the kadi of Sidrekapsi Mehmed b. Hüseyin17 certified immediately, while two
years later two other documents, which were issued by the court of Çitroz (near
Katerini) were certified in the same year by the kadi of Selanik-Karaferye,18
Abdürreuf b. Mehmed. The kadi of Selanik, Ahmed b. Süleyman, certified in
1011/1601 a document of a müvella of Kesendire (the present-day Kassandra penin-
sula in Chalkidiki),19 while similarly the kadi of Yenice Karasu (present-day

 
versity of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2000 [in Greek] [hereafter: Xeropotamou], nos 138
(983/1575), 142 (984/1576), 143 (984/1576). Some documents were also signed by müvellas of
Selanik-Sidrekapsi; see Xeropotamou, nos 24 (925/1519), 67 (950/1543), 71 (955/1548), 72
(957/1550), 73–4 (958/1551), 162 (991/1583), 181 (1000/1591); AMHP, P/10 (956/1549), 2.16
(958/1551), 6.2 (958/1551), Κ/19 (958/1551), Κ/66 (985/1577).
14 This is the area from the south of Thessaloniki till the peninsula of Kassandra. It was never a
district. The term vilayet, which was used in the judge’s certification, is a sign of the unclear
administrative character of the region.
15 AMHP, f. 5α, Κ/30. Ali b. Emre issued also the judicial document no. 17 of the file 2 of the
same archive, dated in 926/1520. Taking into account that the müvellas were not subjected to
frequent transfers in office, as the kadis were, I argue that it concerns of the same person. Of a
similar type are the following documents: AMHP, f. 5α, Κ/19 (958/1549), Κ/78 (1009/1600).
16 This is the then newly founded nahiye, which from the 17th century onwards would become a
kaza. The peninsula of Sithonia (Ott. Lonkoz) belonged to this kaza. For the foundation of
Pazargah see: M. Kiel, “Ottoman Building Activity along the Via Egnatia: The cases of
Pazargah, Kavala and Ferecik”, in: E.A. Zachariadou (ed.), The Via Egnatia under Ottoman
Rule (1380–1699), Rethymnon 1996, 146–149, where the foundation of the town is dated in the
1570s.
17 AMS, no. 65. The fact that the person of kadi belonged to the year of the issue of the document
is deduced from two other documents (Xeropotamou, no. 162; A. Fotic, Mount Athos and
Chilandar under Ottoman domination, 15th–17th c., Belgrade 2000 [in Serbian], 247). From the
same court with the certification of the kadi of Selanik are also the documents: AMHP, S/17
(1047/1637); AMS, no. 124 (1072/1662).
18 AMHD, nos 20 and 57. As we find kadis of Selanik-Sidrekapsi, equally we find kadis of
Selanik-Karaferye. See: AMHP, Κ/50 (989/1581), Κ/5 (995/1587), Κ/10 (996/1588);
Xeropotamou, nos 173–4 (996/1588). Furthermore, there is a case that the kadi had the title of
Selanik-Karaferye-Sidrekapsi (AMHP, 2.16 [958/1549]). Finally, there are cases where a per-
son signed as müvella of Selanik-Karaferye (AMHP, Κ/21 [949]) or Selanik-Karaferye-
Sidrekapsi (Xeropotamou, nos 171 [995/1587], 175 [997/1589]).
19 AMS, no. 83. The nahiye of Kesendire had the same history with that of Kelemerye. It appeared
in the 17th century as a subordinate to the kaza of Selanik.

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
122 P. P. KOTZAGEORGIS

Yenissea, Xanthi), Hüseyin, certified a document of the subordinated nahiye of

İsketye (Xanthi).20
Certifications by judges of the same ranking, either of two kadis of different
courts, or of two müvellas of the same court, are not rare either. This is due to the
fact that the monks either attempted to get certifications by two kadis of different
kazas for more prestige and power, or had their document certified by a certain
müvella at a later period, when a new (or a new phase of the) dispute arose regarding
the content of the document. The only case of certification by two kadis from
different kazas is in a document of 876/1469. In this document, Mara Brankovic, the
Serbian princess and Mehmed II’s stepmother, bequeathed to the monastery of
Haghios Pavlos the former metochion of the monastery of Esphigmenou in Provlaka
(Chalkidiki). The metochion had been purchased by the noble lady at auction. The
document, issued by the kadi of Siroz (Serres), Mehmed b. Mehmedşah, was certi-
fied the same year by the kadi of Selanik, Mehmed b. Mesud.21 In contrast, certifica-
tions by two kadis or müvellas of the same court are more frequent. In the case of
two kadis, if we could precisely date the second certification with the help of the
database we could know when and why the monks had to go again to the court for
the same issue. Such a case, however, could not be found in my sample. In 986/1579
the monks of the monastery of Haghios Dionysios in Olympos Mountain received a
document by the kadi of Alasonya (Elassona in Thessaly), Mehmed b. Ali; they had
it certified by another kadi of Alasonya, Mehmed b. Mehmed, in an unknown date.22
Similarly, the monastery of Archangeliotissa in Xanthi got in 990/1581 a document
certified by the kadi of Yenice Karasu, Ali b. Hüssam, which was certified by an-
other kadi, a certain Fazlullah, in an unknown later date.23 Numerous are the docu-
ments certified by two müvellas of the same court. In 992/1583 the müvella of
Selanik, Pir Mehmed b. Şerif Mahmud, issued a document, which was certified,
probably at a later time, by another müvella, Abdürrahim b. Amru. In 1053/1643 the
müvella of Kesendire, Abdüllah b. Muhiyeddin, issued a document, certified by
another müvella of Kesendire, a certain Osman.24 However, because the service of
 
20 AMV, 2.157.271 (1025/1616). Until the 19th century, Xanthi was the seat of a nahiye, subordi-
nated to the kaza of Yenice Karasu. It is not known when the nahiye was founded, although the
big size of the town indicates that from the beginning of the Ottoman period Xanthi constituted
a separate nahiye of the kaza (Ph. Kotzageorgis, Small Towns of the Greek Peninsula during the
Early Modern Period. The case of Xanthi (15th–17th c.), Xanthi 2008 [in Greek], 42–44).
21 AMHP, P/1. Edition of the document in: Ph. Kotzageorgis, “Two Vakfiyyes of Mara
Branković”, Hilandarski Zbornik 11 (2004), 321–323. The document was compiled in Arabic.
It is worth-mentioning that while the object of the bequest was located in an area belonging to
the jurisdiction of the kadi of Sidrekapsi, Mara preferred to go to the court of Serres, to which
the village where she lived (Ezova, present-day Daphni) belonged. The prestige of the person of
Mara interprets the unique case, as far as I know, in which the appropriate kadi of Sidrekapsi
was bypassed.
22 AMHD, no. 2.
23 Kotzageorgis, Small Towns, 268–9 (no. 5).
24 See the documents: AMS, nos 64 (992/1583), 69 (997/1588), 79 (1008/1600), 114 (1053/1643),

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
 CERTIFICATIONS IN OTTOMAN JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS 123

müvellas was not limited in time, it is not easy to discern at which date/year the
document was certified for the second time.
Documents bearing more than two certifications would be, in theory, those deal-
ing with an important issue and, because of that, requiring frequent certifications.
They were those that a monastery considered to be important for consolidating its
property or the boundaries of the monastery itself. A complete prosopographical
database would help us to clarify when and for what reason the monks went to the
court for a new certification of an old document. Since the database is still incom-
plete, I can only put forward some general comments. If the document referred to a
purchase or to an appeal securing a landed property, then it would be reasonable for
the monks to bring such a document whenever the status of the relevant property
was contested. For the Athonite monasteries, the par excellence case in which their
status was contested with the most official way (by the Sultan, Selim II, himself),
was the confiscation of their properties from the state and the re-purchase by them in
976/1568–9.25 Thus, it is not surprising that two judicial documents of 896/1491 and
902/1496 from the monastic archive of Haghios Pavlos bear certifications by both
the şeyhülislam Ebussuud, who issued the fetva for the confiscation, and the kadi of
Istanbul Mehmed b. Hüssam, who issued the vakifnames of the monasteries for the
foundation of their vakifs, in the aftermath of the confiscation decree. The topic of
the two documents was the delimitation of the area of the monastery of Haghios
Pavlos inside Mount Athos peninsula; its boundaries were frequently contested by
the neighboring monastery of Dionysiou. That the two documents bear six and seven
certifications respectively shows their significance for the justification of the bound-
aries of the monastery in the peninsula.26 As I can deduce from the identification of
the persons certifying the documents, matching them with the prosopographical
database, the monks sought to certify the content of the documents not only by both
the müvella and the kadi in the time of compilation of the document, but also at a
later time.27 Particularly for the document of 1496, it is interesting that its content

 
127 (1081/1671); AMHP, f. 4, 6 (1001/1592), Κ/78 (1008/1600); AMV, 2.140.254
(1002/1593); Kotzageorgis, Small Towns, 000 (nos 39 [1084/1674], 1 [1094/1683]). In three
cases (ΑΜS, no. 69; ΑΜV, 2.140.254; Kotzageorgis, Small Towns, 284–5 [no. 31]), the second
certification comes from the naib of the court; one wonders whether this certification functioned
similarly to the kadi’s certification put in müvellas’ documents; i.e., whether the naib certified a
document of a lower ranking müvella of the nahiye. This cannot be proved, however, because
the list of the naibs is extremely incomplete.
25 For this affair see the important articles: A. Fotic, “The Official Explanations for the Confisca-
tion and Sale of Monasteries (Churches) and their Estates at the Time of Selim II”, Turcica 26
(1994), 33–54; J.C. Alexander, “The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away: Athos and the
Confiscation Affair of 1568–1569”, in: Athos in the 14th–16th centuries, Athens 1997, 149–
200; E. Kermeli, “The Confiscation and Repossession of Monastic Properties in Mount Athos
and Patmos Monasteries, 1568–1570”, Bulgarian Historical Review 28/3–4 (2000), 39–53.
26 AMHP, f. 7, DΤ/28 (896/1491); f. 2, no. 20 (902/1496).
27 The document of 1491 (DΤ/28), issued by Hasan, müvella of Sidrekapsi, bears also certifica-
tions by the contemporary kadi of Sidrekapsi, Mehmed b. Ömer, by a later Mustafa, probably

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
124 P. P. KOTZAGEORGIS

was certified by two kadis of Sidrekapsi, around 1535 and 1580, and by a müvella of
Sidrekapsi around 1545. The dates may constitute indirect evidences that at these
dates the property of the monastery was contested by the neighboring monastery, or
that a census, in which such a document was useful, was in progress.28 Another
important document with seven certifications is that obtained by the monks of
Simonopetra and permitting them to rebuild their monastery, which had been dam-
aged by a fire in 1580. In this document all the certifications come from successor
kadis or müvellas, obviously for the monks to be protected from the intervention of
various officials during the period of the rebuilding of the monastery, immediately
after the fire.29
Most of the documents with three and four certifications (21 out of 80) do not
lead to a different conclusion, as it is difficult to identify the persons who certified in
the documents; moreover, the reasons of multiple certifications seem to belong ra-
ther to the interior history of the monasteries, than to any general event. For in-
stance, in 887/1482 the monastery of Haghios Pavlos got a judicial document for the
bequest of some landed properties in the town of Sidrekapsi; these properties were

 
successor of Mehmed – as it results from the document of 1496 – and by Derviş Mehmed b.
Kasım, who was in the office between 971–974/1563–1567. Obviously the last certification was
put on the occasion of the general census, which was going to take place (at least) in the prov-
ince of Pasha (Paşa sancağı). For the two well identified kadis see the documents, which they
also certified: a) Archive of the Monastery of Docheiariou [hereafter: AMD], no. 114 and
Xeropotamou, no. 12; b) Xeropotamou, nos 65, 66, 88, 89, 93, 94, 96, 105 and AMD, no. 136.
28 Censuses were implemented in the area in 1528, 1542 and 1568 and, therefore, they were very
close to the office dates of the kadis. However, it is a question whether the monks wished to
protect their area inside the peninsula, because the Ottoman state did not perform a census for
the properties inside Mount Athos, as it imposed only a lump-sum for the monastic properties
(H.W. Lowry, “A Note on the Population and Status of the Athonite Monasteries under Otto-
man Rule [ca. 1520]”, in: Idem, Studies in Defterology. Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and
Sixteenth Centuries, Istanbul 1992, 229–245). If we knew all the phases of the dispute between
Haghios Pavlos and Dionysiou monasteries, we would be able to date some certifications. For
some phases of the long-lasting dispute see: Ph. Kotzageorgis, The Athonite Monastery of
Haghios Pavlos during the Ottoman Period, ca. 1400–1830, Thessaloniki 2002 [in Greek], 59–
61.
29 AMS, no. 60 (989/1581). The document was issued by the kadi of Sidrekapsi, Abdülkerim b.
Ali, who at the same year certified also the documents: Xeropotamou, nos 155–156. The identi-
fications of the other officials are as follows: a) the kadi of Sidrekapsi Ali b. Elhac Hamza certi-
fied the Xeropotamou nos 123, 163 and 170–172, with an unquestionable tenure in the office in
the year 995/1587; b) the kadi and inspector (müfettiş) of Sidrekapsi, Mehmed b. Hüseyin certi-
fied the Xeropotamou no. 162 and is also found in: Fotic, Sveta Gora, 247, with an unquestion-
able tenure in the office in the year 992/1584; c) the kadi and inspector of Sidrekapsi, Süleyman
b. Pir Ahmed certified the Xeropotamou no. 175 with an unquestionable tenure in the office in
the year 997/1589. The kadi and inspector of Sidrekapsi, Ahmed b. Abdüsselam is found in a
document of Chilandar monastery, but together with other certifications, so as I cannot deter-
mine his tenure in office. The kadi Sunullah b. Hızır does not appear in any document of the
database. Finally, the müvella of Sidrekapsi Abdülkadır might be the same who signed the
Xeropotamou no. 177 with an unquestionable tenure in the office in the year 998/1590.

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
 CERTIFICATIONS IN OTTOMAN JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS 125

bequeathed by a Christian of the town. The document was certified by the müvella
of Sidrekapsi, while a second certification was made by Mahmud b. Yusuf, who
evidently was müvella of the town at least for the years 944–945/1538.30 For the
justification of this certification, as well as of the third one which is illegible, we
have to know the interior history of the monastery, since the year 1538 is not rele-
vant with any important event. In other documents the reason of their multiple certi-
fications might be of a ‘humble’ character. In 876/1471 Mara Brankovic, apart from
the aforementioned Arabic document, certified by the kadis of Siroz and Selanik
(see above fn. 21), obtained also another document, in Ottoman Turkish this time, in
which she declared that she bought at auction the metochion of the monastery of
Esphigmenou, which afterwards she bequeathed to the monastery of Haghios
Pavlos. Apart from the certifications of the kadis of Siroz and Selanik, another
certification was added, that of the müvella of Sidrekapsi, Hasan b. Yusuf, who
probably could not certify a document in Arabic.31
In theory one would expect that judicial documents with more than four certifi-
cations are those that the monks used most frequently in order to dispute or to pro-
tect a landed property. There would be the ‘important’ documents of the monastery.
From my sample we cannot come to this conclusion. Two documents with five certi-
fications have as a topic a common purchase of a vineyard in Xanthi and the delim-
itation of the boundaries of a metochion from the boundaries of a vakif village in
Chalkidiki.32 On the other hand, the two aforementioned documents from Haghios
Pavlos monastery of 1491 and 1496, which protect and ratify the boundaries of the
monastery inside Athonite peninsula, bear six and seven certifications.33 Another
document with seven certifications is that obtained by the monastery of Simonopetra
for the permission to reconstruct the monastic building after the disastrous fire in
1580.34 The same can be suggested for other two published documents with nine
certifications each. The one, of 1500, concerns a dispute between the monasteries
Chilandar and Vatopedi for a landed property near the Athonite peninsula.35 The two
powerful monasteries had many times disputed over this field, as can be seen by the
number of the certifications; the dispute extended well into the 16th century. The
 
30 AMHP, f. 12, PΚ/3 (887/1482). Mahmud b. Yusuf exists in the documents: Xeropotamou no.
58 and AMHP, f. 4, P/7.
31 AMHP, f. 4, P/25 (876/1471).
32 Kotzageorgis, Small Towns, 267–8 (no. 3 [973/1566]) and AMHP, K/21 (949/1542). The latter
document, however, coincides with a census year.
33 AMHP, DT/28 and f. 2, 20 respectively.
34 AMS, no. 60 (989/1581).
35 A. Fotić, “Dispute Between Chilandar and Vatopedi over the Boundaries in Komitissa (1500)”,
in: Institute for Byzantine Research (ed.), The Monastery of Vatopedi. History and Art, Athens
1999, 97–106. From the office-holders who certified the document the following persons have
been identified: a) Seyyid b. İsa, müvella of Sidrekapsi, who issued a document in 935/1528
(Xeropotamou, no. 46), b) Hasan b. Mehmed el-ibari müvella of Selanik-Sidrekapsi, who issued
documents between the years 955–957/1548–1552 (Xeropotamou, nos 71–74), and c) Ahmed b.
Hüssam, kadı of Sidrekapsi, who certified a document in 988/1580 (Xeropotamou, no. 151).

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
126 P. P. KOTZAGEORGIS

other document, of 1541, concerns the protection of a small-size field just outside
the Athonite peninsula; this land was bequeathed to the monastery Iviron by Mara
Brankovic.36 In conclusion, from my small sample a direct connection between the
general importance of the documents and the number of their certifications cannot
be deduced.
It is a challenge for the historian to be able to understand when the monks who
already held a document – and thus had won the lawsuit – went to the court for certi-
fying it. This could help us for clarifying the policy a litigant followed for the certi-
fication of a document (e.g. when he/she went, to whom, and why). Furthermore, it
could give information for the functioning of the court itself (e.g. when a document
was certified, by whom, and why). The certification of an existing document was
obviously a much cheaper solution than the issuance of a new one.37 Now, when did
the certification of an old document cease to be sufficient, so as that the monks had
to get a new one issued for the same topic? The certification of a judicial document,
in principle, took place in case of a new type of the dispute for the same topic. How-
ever, why were hüccets issued in different moments for the same topic, with the
same litigants and with the same verdict? The comparative study of judicial docu-
ments from non-monastic archives would give interesting insights for this policy and
would extend the thematic range of the documents. In the monastic documents, as
shown from the above analysis, the protection of landed properties was the basic
concern for which the monks went to the court and got a single document certified
twice, three times or more. What was the case as far as it concerns single individuals
and/or families? Were there other cases, in which a person went to the court for
getting successive certifications? Is there any typology regarding the multiple certi-
fications?
Eventually, the judicial document functioned as a multi-level text. It was issued
after a negotiation between litigants and the members of the court. Frequently, it was
brought in the court to strengthen the position of its possessor. Sometimes it was
certified by different judges. Sometimes, it was simply used to win a lawsuit, with-
out further certification. The discussion of multiple certifications shows that the
same document has its own story; it constitutes itself a history, a kind of a palimp-
sest, which could be extended in some centuries and which remains closed to us. It
remains to the historian to unlock it with the appropriate keys and to restore the story
of a hüccet.

 
36 V. Demetriades, “Ottoman Documents”, in: Treasures of Mount Athos. Catalogue of exhibition,
Thessaloniki 1997, 550–1 (no. 14.8). Unfortunately the photograph is illegible and I am not
able to read all the names of the certifiers. The six names I can read (out of nine) do not lead to
any matching with the database, as they do not bear any father’s names.
37 According to Mehmed II’s codex, the issue of a hüccet costed thirty two akçe, while the
certification of an existing one only twelve (G. Káldy-Nagy, “Kadi. Ottoman Empire”, Ency-
clopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., v. IV, Leiden 1972, 375).

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.
 CERTIFICATIONS IN OTTOMAN JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS 127

APPENDIX: PHOTOGRAPHS OF DOCUMENTS

1. Hüccet, Muharrem 902/18.9–17.10.1496 (Archive of the monastery of

Haghios Pavlos, file 2, no. 20).

 
 
2. Hüccet, I Zilkade 896/5–14.9.1491 (Archive of the monastery of
Haghios Pavlos, file 7, no. DT 28).

© Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2014

This PDF file is intended for personal use only. Any direct or indirect electronic publication
by the author or by third parties is a copyright infringement and therefore prohibited.