1.
Ivanović, Miloš
“Dobri ljudi” u srpskoj srednjovekovnoj državi [“Boni Homines” in Medieval Serbian State] Book
2017.
@book{nokey,
title = {“Dobri ljudi” u srpskoj srednjovekovnoj državi [“Boni Homines” in Medieval Serbian State]},
author = {Miloš Ivanović},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
urldate = {2017-01-01},
abstract = {The analysis of sources leads to the conclusion that persons giving statements about disputable land boundaries belonged to different social strata – from dependent peasants to the nobility. Knowing local circumstances was the primary characteristic that they needed to have. If there were priests among elders, they were mentioned in the first place, which means that they enjoyed special reputation as witnesses. The participation of noblemen was, however, important for the implementation of decisions. In a document from 1454, elders called themselves kmets, but this term also had several meanings. It is certain only that they were reputable inhabitants of settlements that they originated from. On the other hand, witnesses in disputes about lands in the territory ruled by the Crnojevićs were consistently designated as noblemen. The reason behind this is the social structure of this area with dominant military bands, whose members were considered the nobility. There was not much arable land there, which is why there was scarce dependent population. The analysis of the social status of “boni homines” in medieval Serbian towns must start from data from the Novo Brdo Legal Code. Its introduction contains the names of 24 expertpersons who compiled it. Two of them may perhaps be identified with persons mentioned in Dubrovnik documents, while others are not mentioned in other sources. However, professions are given next to some persons, indicating that they performed some mining activities. It cannot be excluded that this applied also to some other persons whose professions were not described. As the matter of fact, mining experts enjoyed autonomy also within towns where they worked and gathered at assemblies. However, neither this information enables us to place them into some of known social strata. It is also undisputable that “boni homines” who brought verdicts in disputes on coal pits had to have some expertise. Traders could also have been among them as they were the main investors in mining production.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
The analysis of sources leads to the conclusion that persons giving statements about disputable land boundaries belonged to different social strata – from dependent peasants to the nobility. Knowing local circumstances was the primary characteristic that they needed to have. If there were priests among elders, they were mentioned in the first place, which means that they enjoyed special reputation as witnesses. The participation of noblemen was, however, important for the implementation of decisions. In a document from 1454, elders called themselves kmets, but this term also had several meanings. It is certain only that they were reputable inhabitants of settlements that they originated from. On the other hand, witnesses in disputes about lands in the territory ruled by the Crnojevićs were consistently designated as noblemen. The reason behind this is the social structure of this area with dominant military bands, whose members were considered the nobility. There was not much arable land there, which is why there was scarce dependent population. The analysis of the social status of “boni homines” in medieval Serbian towns must start from data from the Novo Brdo Legal Code. Its introduction contains the names of 24 expertpersons who compiled it. Two of them may perhaps be identified with persons mentioned in Dubrovnik documents, while others are not mentioned in other sources. However, professions are given next to some persons, indicating that they performed some mining activities. It cannot be excluded that this applied also to some other persons whose professions were not described. As the matter of fact, mining experts enjoyed autonomy also within towns where they worked and gathered at assemblies. However, neither this information enables us to place them into some of known social strata. It is also undisputable that “boni homines” who brought verdicts in disputes on coal pits had to have some expertise. Traders could also have been among them as they were the main investors in mining production.
2017
Ivanović, Miloš
“Dobri ljudi” u srpskoj srednjovekovnoj državi [“Boni Homines” in Medieval Serbian State] Book
2017.
Abstract | Tags: central and eastern europe, medieval history, property relations, serbia, social structure
@book{nokey,
title = {“Dobri ljudi” u srpskoj srednjovekovnoj državi [“Boni Homines” in Medieval Serbian State]},
author = {Miloš Ivanović},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
urldate = {2017-01-01},
abstract = {The analysis of sources leads to the conclusion that persons giving statements about disputable land boundaries belonged to different social strata – from dependent peasants to the nobility. Knowing local circumstances was the primary characteristic that they needed to have. If there were priests among elders, they were mentioned in the first place, which means that they enjoyed special reputation as witnesses. The participation of noblemen was, however, important for the implementation of decisions. In a document from 1454, elders called themselves kmets, but this term also had several meanings. It is certain only that they were reputable inhabitants of settlements that they originated from. On the other hand, witnesses in disputes about lands in the territory ruled by the Crnojevićs were consistently designated as noblemen. The reason behind this is the social structure of this area with dominant military bands, whose members were considered the nobility. There was not much arable land there, which is why there was scarce dependent population. The analysis of the social status of “boni homines” in medieval Serbian towns must start from data from the Novo Brdo Legal Code. Its introduction contains the names of 24 expertpersons who compiled it. Two of them may perhaps be identified with persons mentioned in Dubrovnik documents, while others are not mentioned in other sources. However, professions are given next to some persons, indicating that they performed some mining activities. It cannot be excluded that this applied also to some other persons whose professions were not described. As the matter of fact, mining experts enjoyed autonomy also within towns where they worked and gathered at assemblies. However, neither this information enables us to place them into some of known social strata. It is also undisputable that “boni homines” who brought verdicts in disputes on coal pits had to have some expertise. Traders could also have been among them as they were the main investors in mining production.
},
keywords = {central and eastern europe, medieval history, property relations, serbia, social structure},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
The analysis of sources leads to the conclusion that persons giving statements about disputable land boundaries belonged to different social strata – from dependent peasants to the nobility. Knowing local circumstances was the primary characteristic that they needed to have. If there were priests among elders, they were mentioned in the first place, which means that they enjoyed special reputation as witnesses. The participation of noblemen was, however, important for the implementation of decisions. In a document from 1454, elders called themselves kmets, but this term also had several meanings. It is certain only that they were reputable inhabitants of settlements that they originated from. On the other hand, witnesses in disputes about lands in the territory ruled by the Crnojevićs were consistently designated as noblemen. The reason behind this is the social structure of this area with dominant military bands, whose members were considered the nobility. There was not much arable land there, which is why there was scarce dependent population. The analysis of the social status of “boni homines” in medieval Serbian towns must start from data from the Novo Brdo Legal Code. Its introduction contains the names of 24 expertpersons who compiled it. Two of them may perhaps be identified with persons mentioned in Dubrovnik documents, while others are not mentioned in other sources. However, professions are given next to some persons, indicating that they performed some mining activities. It cannot be excluded that this applied also to some other persons whose professions were not described. As the matter of fact, mining experts enjoyed autonomy also within towns where they worked and gathered at assemblies. However, neither this information enables us to place them into some of known social strata. It is also undisputable that “boni homines” who brought verdicts in disputes on coal pits had to have some expertise. Traders could also have been among them as they were the main investors in mining production.