El principio-deber de buscar la verdad

3.6.1 An Historical Outline

The history and archaeology of the period of Otto- man domination in Greece have never received the attention they deserve, mainly because of the nation- alist ideology of the modern Greek state (Davis and Davies 2007, 3). Monumental architecture, such as mosques, baths, and Christian churches, is what has survived until modern times. A large number of sur-

viving written documents of the Ottoman period, however, are invaluable sources for the reconstruc- tion of economy and daily life in the South Balkan world. The tahrir defter or inventory of taxable re- sources of 1670 (BBOA, T.D. 800) was until very recently the only surviving inventory discovered in the Ottoman archives (Davis 1991, 143), relevant to the Cyclades and published by Slot (1982), providing a very good source for the economy of the period in question. Kiel (2007) has discovered and has recently published the 1570tahrir(BBOA, T.D. 484) contain- ing information on four islands of the Western Cy- clades. More data, however, need to be drawn from the Ottoman archives, a laborious work that can truly contribute immensely to the study of economy and society in Ottoman-dominated areas of present-day Greece. But before moving on to the discussion of economic trends in the Cyclades during the period of Ottoman domination, it is necessary to examine mat- ters concerning the historical background, adminis- trative organisation and population changes in the 250 years that followed the period of Venetian dom- ination.

The 16th century can be considered as a transitional period in the Cyclades. The coastal raids of Hayred- din Barbarossa (Fig. 3.7), Ottoman corsair from the island of Lesbos, as well as the levying of tax reve- nues on the islands by both the Portuguese-Jewish duke Joseph Nasi and Venice, had a negative effect on the Cyclades. Nasi delegated the administration of the islands to another Iberian Jew, Francesco Cor- onello, whose principal function was to wring from their inhabitants as much money as possible apart from the need to make a profit from the Duchy (Cheetham 1981, 254). At the same time the Eastern Mediterranean was convulsed by a new war (1570- 73) between the Ottomans and the combined forces of Venice and the Spanish monarchy. The most strik- ing events of this war were the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus and the crushing defeat of the Ottoman fleet off Lepanto by Don John of Austria (Cheetham 1981, 254-5). This period of instability and warfare was ended, temporarily, when the Cyclades were finally incorporated into the Ottoman Empire in 1579 (Tinos remained under Venetian protection until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1715). The Veneto-Turkish war of Candia in the years 1645-1669 caused more con- flict in the Aegean, and the Venetians dominated the

Cycladic area once more by regaining control of the islands for a short time. In the second half of the 18th century, another conflict in the Aegean, the first Rus- so-Turkish war (1771-1774) disturbed the already unsettled affairs in the area. During the Russian en- terprises in the Aegean, the Cyclades came under the control of Russia and Catherine II. The islanders promised faith and devotion to the Empress and the

‘blond nation’, carried away by the dream that Rus- sia, an Orthodox country, would help them revolt and regain their freedom.

Fig. 3.7 Hayreddin Barbarossa, corsair and Grand Admiral of the Ottoman fleet

3.6.2 Administrative Districts

The highly organised administrative, military and economic system in the Ottoman Empire during the period between 1450 and 1566 is believed to have given the Ottoman State a relative unity and stability (Stiles 1989, 66). Different regions, however, had their own resources and economic trends as well as a different administrative organisation, although the

central government (i.e. Istanbul and the Sultan) re- mained unchallenged. The Cyclades belonged to the province ofRumeliaand was part of the administra- tive sub-district oreyaletof the Aegean Archipelago (Cezair-i bahr-i sefid). These islands formed the ad- ministrative area orsancakof Naxos and the Small Aegean Islands and were under the authority of the

Kapudan PasaorKapudan-i Derya, the Grand Ad- miral of the Ottoman fleet. Kapudan Pasa co-ordi- nated all naval affairs of the Empire from his base in the Imperial Arsenal (Tersane-i Amire) at Istanbul (Davis 1991, 142-3). Some of the Cycladic islands were not under the authority of the Kapudan Pasa. Andros and Syros belonged tovelide sultana or the Sultan’s mother, while Tinos was the timar(tax area of a few family landholdings) of an Ottoman chief (Moschovakis 1998, 113), the so-calledsipahi orti- mar-holder and cavalryman.

3.6.3 The Formation of‘Koinotites’

The special position of the Cyclades within the pro- vince ofRumeliawas confirmed by certain privileges granted to them by successive Sultans. Such privi- leges were the imperial decrees or ahdname (Slot 1982, 78) under which the islands had originally been incorporated into the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century (Koukkou 1980; Davis 1991, 143), without resistance to the Ottoman regime. The origin of the Ottoman community system has been much debated and sought in the Greco-Roman tradition and the Byzantine past. It seems, however, that it was born and developed during the Ottoman period as a result of the special administrative arrangement for conquered peoples (Kontogiorgis 1982, 31). The first of these decrees was granted by Sultan Mur- ad III in 1580, and it was similar to the one granted to Chios. It was renewed (after the inhabitants of Naxos asked for it) in 1628/29 and then in 1646 by Sultan Ibrahim I (Dimitropoulos 1997, 29). Accord- ing to the terms of these documents, the islands re- tained substantial rights of self-administration and self-determination (Kontogiorgis 1982, 122-37; Da- vis 1991, 143). Among the most important of these were the protection of land-ownership of the Chris- tian population, allowance for Christians to build new, or restore old, churches and prevention of the practice ofdevşirme(i.e.recruiting of Christian male

children from their families to enter the Janissary

elite army division). The islanders were responsible for their economic management, without the central authorities (i.e. the Porte) being directly involved; petitioning the Porte, however, in the case of grie- vances was another privilege (Kontogiorgis 1982). It has been noted that these community decrees were developed in areas where the influence or presence of the central political administration was minimal, while local affluence was the result of the‘omission’ of a particular district by the central government. Communications between the inhabitants of the Cy- clades and the Kapudan Pasa were often mediated by the office of theDragomanof the Fleet, a high-rank- ing post always filled by a member of the Greek elite of the Phanari district in Istanbul (Davis 1991, 143). The Dragoman, in a sense, functioned as an inter- mediary between Aegean island communities and the Ottoman authorities, and facilitated communica- tion between Greek-speaking Christian communities and Turkish-speaking Ottoman officers.

The representatives of the Kapudan Pasa in the Cy- clades, from the 17th century onwards, were theVai- vodeorAgaorZambites, the local governor, whose task was the collection and forwarding of taxes to the Kapudan Pasa and the overseeing of the islands in his stead. It is noteworthy that there were cases where communities under the authority of the Kapu- dan Pasa were granted privileges that enforced the wider absence of any Ottoman element in the local administration of the region. The Vaivode was ap- pointed by the local population and was usually Greek.

From the 17th century onwards, decrees developed further in such a degree that local communities took- up control, almost replacing in a way the Istanbul- based Ottoman government (Kontogiorgis 1982, 124-5). In one of the followingahdname of Sultan Ibrahim (1615-1648) it was mentioned that during the reign of Süleyman I (1520-1566), the inhabitants of the islands could elect one of their own people as a

Bey (landlord). Apart from his police functions, the

Vaivodesometimes replaced theKadior judge, who may or may have not been resident on the islands. The system appears to have been modified later; in the case of Mykonos, it appears that around 1647, a new period for the organisation of the individual is-

land communities (koinotites) began, with the elec- tion of the firstarchontesorproestoi(also calledde- mogerontes,kotzambasidesorepitropoi) (Table 3.5). They were elected annually by the‘respectable’citi- zens and were responsible for raising the taxes from individual households and of other payments due to the Ottoman administration. The hierarchical system of administration (from the Sultan to the Christian population) remained unchanged and unchallenged throughout the period of Ottoman domination, with the Porte being outside the island administration and at the same time always approachable in case of grie- vances (Dimitropoulos 1997, 32).

Sultan

Kapudan Pasa

Dragoman of the Fleet

Vaivode & Kadi

Local-community governors (archontes, demogerontes etc.)

Christian population

Table 3.5 The governmental organisation of the Cyclades islands during the period of Ottoman domination

3.6.4 Ethnic and Religious Groups

The Ottomanmilletsystem administered subject peo- ples according to their religious beliefs, rather than their ethnicity. The Cyclades were still composed of different religious groups, the majority of which was constituted by Christians of the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Greeks of Byzantine ori- gin and Albanian newcomers followed the Greek Orthodox rite, while the small number of Latins es-

tablished after the Fourth Crusade still followed the Roman Catholic denomination. As it has been men- tioned above, Catholic Latins were gradually‘helle- nised’, especially after the end of the 16th century, as a result of the special economic, political and reli- gious privileges granted to Greek Orthodox commu- nities. The Orthodox Bishopric ofParonaxia(i.e.the Church administrative unit of Paros and Naxos) was re-established in Naxos in 1553 (Kambanellis 1991, 46).

Information on population comes mainly from for- eign travellers, with the exception of the 1670 (Slot 1982) and the newly discovered 1570 (Kiel 2007)

tahrir defterleri. Apart from the evidence for Ortho- dox and Catholic populations discussed earlier, it seems that there was a limited number of Muslims living on the islands in the 17th century. In an ac- count of Jesuit missionaries in Naxos, it is mentioned that in the years 1627-1643 there were about 70 Turks living on the island, that is, Muslims whose wives were mainly Greek-Orthodox (Laurent 1935, 337; Katsouros 1989, 717-8). It is not always clear, however, whether these people were originally of Turkish origin or previous Christians who later ac- cepted Islam. Tournefort (1718) mentions that when he had visited Naxos a few years earlier, ten to twelve families from the island had become Muslims. As is obvious, the term‘Turk’in the case of Naxos is identical with ‘Muslim’, although a Muslim might have been of Naxian origin (Vionis 2003, 202). Slot (1982, 14) further argues that among these Muslims of the islands, the Christians converted to Islam con- stituted the majority, but there were also immigrants from other parts of the Empire. The number of Mus- lims in the Cyclades must have been no more than 100-150 (who were socially isolated), while for Naxos, Slot (1982, 14) refers to the existence of a small Armenian community. It has been suggested that the few Turks or Muslims on the islands were never welcomed. By 1821 there were no Turks re- maining in Naxos. The few Turkish-sounding place names and material remains they left behind still at- test to their previous existence in Naxos (such as the spring ofHasan Again the interior of the island, built in 1759).

Although a limited establishment of Albanian popu- lations onto some of the Cyclades (e.g. Ios) during

the Ottoman period (around 1575) is a general his- torical tradition more or less in doubt by several scholars who contradict Hasluck’s (1908-09; 1910- 11) views, there may be some historical truth. It is certain that Albanians settled the northern part of An- dros, possibly as early as the beginning of the 15th century, while a document of 1521 mentions that a number of Albanians from Andros settled in Sicily (Giochalas 2000, 20). The tahrir defter of 1670 (BBOA T.D. 800) informs us that the principal Alba- nian village of Amolochos in Andros numbered 187 families (cf. Slot 1982). The villages of Arna and Gavreion in the Northern part of the island of Andros were also two equally important Albanian villages. These Albanian villages were distinguished by their lofty sites, widely spacedΓ-shaped and long-houses, while their inhabitants retained their dialect, which very much resembled that of Southern Euboea (Has- luck 1908-09, 225; Giochalas 2000, 18, 61).

A number of scholars have suggested the presence of Jewish populations on larger islands, but their exact number is not known. It is assumed that Jews invited by Josef Nasi (Duke of Naxos from 1566 to 1579) mostly occupied the neighbourhood of Evriaki in the town of Naxos. Josef Nasi’s economic power and in- fluence upon Sultan Selim II was renowned. One of Nasi’s aims was the acquisition of a big island to house all Jews of the Diaspora (Sarris [no date], 265- 6). Naxos and Cyprus were first on his list, but his wish was never accomplished.

3.6.5 Population Decline and Growth

Wagstaff and Cherry (1982, 148), discussing popula- tion change on the island of Melos during the Otto- man period (based on information given mainly by travellers) have concluded that it remained relatively stable with some slight increase down toca.1730. A sharp and continuous decline, however, is suggested for the second half of the 18th century, but the former level may have been regained before the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence. Comparing the in- formation given by foreign travellers and the 1570, 1670 (Graph 3.8) and 1734 tahrir defterlerifor the islands (Slot 1982, 290; Wagstaff and Cherry 1982, 148; Bennet and Voutsaki 1991, 369; Kiel 2007, 42), we can draw some general conclusions on population change throughout the Ottoman period.

Graph 3.8 Population figures on Cycladic islands ac- cording to the 1670tahrir defter(data source: Slot 1982)

A comparative example of population change on four islands of the Western Cyclades (Kea, Siphnos, Kyth- nos and Seriphos) on the basis of reliable data from the 1570, 1670 and 1734tahrir defterlerishows us a stable population increase throughout the period of Ottoman domination (Graph 3.9). It is also clear that population on Siphnos and Kythnos remained stable or decreased only slightly between 1670 and 1734.

Graph 3.9 Comparative population figures for the islands of the Western Cyclades throughout the Ottoman period according to the Ottomantahrir defterleriof 1570, 1670, 1734, and the 1828 census of the Greek state (data source: Slot 1982; Kiel 2007)

Aspects of population change and demography are not always easy to determine. It seems that popula- tion in the Cyclades slightly increased from the later 16th to the middle of the 18th century (Graph 3.10 and Table 3.6), with possibly a short period of population decrease during the years of the war of

Graph 3.10 Population change on ten Cycladic islands from 1470 to 1828 (data source: Slot 1982; Topping 1986; Kiel 2007)

Candia (1645-1669). Siphnos, for instance, must have contained sufficient numbers of population to explain the colonisation of smaller neighbouring is- lands, such as Kimolos, Sikinos and Pholegandros, in

the late 16th and early 17th centuries (Komis 1999, 300; Slot 2001, 60). It seems, however, that‘lost’po- pulations in the Cyclades were replaced by newco- mers from Crete and other littoral places in the

Aegean after the end of the war of Candia (Komis 1999, 300). A period of instability and population de- crease also occurred in the second half of the 18th century as a result of the Russo-Turkish war, while population recovered in the early 19th century, just before the Greek War of Independence. The average population density for most of the islands on the basis of the 1670tahrir defteris around 15-20 people per km2 (Graph 3.11). The islands of Paros (35 people per km2), Syros and Seriphos (27 people per km2), and finally Santorini (60 people per km2) were rather more densely populated. This was certainly a period of relatively improved conditions, if we consider the fact that in 1470 the average population density of the larger islands was between 8.5-15 people per km2.

Islands 1470 1570 1670 1734 1828 Naxos 5000 6320* 6270 5920* 7883 Andros 2000 2720* 6450 5230* 14,618 Paros 3000 4075* 7000 5432* 5884 Melos 2500 3400* 3530 2070* 1580 Kea 300 430 1080 2100 3202 Siphnos 1000 1750 1990 1970 4859 Kythnos 200 250 1420 1270 3865 Syros 200 270* 2340 2436* 20,197 Seriphos 200 230 485 912 1930 Santorini 300 410* 4600 2380 10,577 Table 3.6 Population figures for ten Cycladic islands from 1470 to 1828 (data source: Slot 1982; Kiel 2007). Figures with * are calculated on the basis of population densities in comparison to islands with known population figures for 1570 and 1734

It has previously been argued that the period follow- ing the Ottoman establishment in the Balkans was a time of general economic and demographic decrease. Recent and on-going documentary research into the Ottoman archives in Istanbul, Ankara and Sofia, however, as well as a number of surface surveys in Greece have proved that the 15th and 16th centuries, the so-called period ofPax Ottomanica, was a time of population increase and economic recovery. Thus, it seems that the Ottoman Empire did not move away from the extensive growth taking place in the rest of the Mediterranean and European world (cf. Faroqui and Erder 1979). Consequently, translated and pub- lished Ottoman censes records concerning the Cy- clades (Slot 1982; Kiel 2007), contradict traditional views about the total devastation and abandonment

Graph 3.11 Number of people per km2_{on the Cycladic}

islands in 1670

of many islands after Barbarossa’s attacks in 1537. Kea, Siphnos, Kythnos and Seriphos were certainly not deserted in 1570; rather, they had recovered their populations to a considerable extent (Kiel 2007). One has to examine various aspects that might have effects on population increase and decrease and other aspects of historical demography,e.g.familial beha- viour, illnesses and plagues, natural disasters and warfare, socio-economic systems (Komis 1999, 260- 1). Wagstaff (1982a, 68-9) has noted that the flour- ishing condition of the later 17th and early 18th cen- tury in Melos was replaced by a depression in the second half of the 18th century. Western travellers of that period reported that much abandoned land could be seen, that the whole face of the island had chang- ed, and that population had declined drastically. As Bintliff (1977, 554) has argued, the picture described above was the result of the earthquake that struck the main town of Melos in 1738, the subsequent diseases (due to inadequate burial of the dead), the collapse of sanitary conditions, and the sinking of land around the city (potential source of malaria). All this resulted in the abandonment of the town by the survivors and the founding of the island’s capital at Kastro in the vicinity of the ancient town of the island. Mean- while, the Russo-Turkish war that followed in the second half of the 18th century resulted in many is- landers following the Russians after their departure from the Aegean in 1774 (Komis 1999, 300). The same situation can be observed in the previous cen- tury, when the plague of 1647 and the war of Candia in 1645-1669 had negative consequences on econo- my and demography.

3.6.6 Production and Economy

The Cyclades were possibly producing the same kind of agricultural products as earlier throughout the pe- riod of Ottoman domination, perhaps with some var- iation between wartime and peacetime, according to