THE ROLE OF CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITARY COMMUNITY OF ZEMUN IN THE SECOND HALF OF 18TH CENTURY

Jelena ILIĆ

Abstract: This paper depicts the structure of the Zemun military community as represented in the Cadastral Book and Map from 1780. The distribution of the edifices and land owned or controlled by the central (military and cameral) authorities, local institutions (the Municipality) and private owners, testifies that the land in the Zemun district was used in a planned and organized manner. The circumstances in the Municipality in 1780 were seen as a result of the already completed process of spatial organization, whose origins are linked to the first years of the militarization of Southern Srem (1739–1745).

Key words: Habsburg Monarchy, Zemun, 18 th century, military community, 1780, spatial planning, central government, local government

The changes in the structure of the settlements in the territory of Southern Srem, all of which were previously feudal, were enabled with the establishment of the military jurisdiction (during Austrian-Turkish War 1737–1739) and the formal incorporation of this area into the Military Frontier of the Habsburg Monarchy (1739–1745).¹ The changes occurred since the inhabitants of these settlements, former feudal subjects, gained the status of military personnel with the right to freely use land property – with no feudal obligations. Therefore, the number of land owners and the area of fields, increased greatly over a short period of time. After Zemun was given the status of a free military community (befreiten Militar Communität) in 1754,² it had five times the number of households and several times more arable land compared to the feudal period in its history. There is no direct evidence showing that the central government (the State) or the local government (the Municipality) assumed key roles in the take-over, parcelling out and distribution of land. The more recent sources testify that these actions were definitely carried out in an organized manner. The changes in the structure of the district, namely the extensive growth and utilization of fields, can be seen through comparison of results from 1736, 1754 and 1780. censuses respectively.³

Table 1: Fields in the district of Zemun according to the Censuses from 1736, 1754 and 1780⁴

The consequences of spatial planning and an organised usage of land performed by the State, the Municipality and private owners, can be analyzed based on the data from the 1780 Cadastral Book and Map of the free military community of Zemun (Grund-Ausweis und Oekonomische Charte der Kays: König: befreiten militär Communitaet Semlin). These documents are the products of the first modern-like registering of land owners, surveying, as well as mapping of the land, which were being systematically carried out at the Military Frontier within the so-called Josephinische Aufnahme. That project reflected the strengthening of the central government, which was why the measuring of land was carried out by the representatives of the military authorities – the engineering officers, namely Theodor von Warthenpreis, Oberlieutenant of the Ogulin regiment, and Wentzl von Wohlgemuth, Fähnrich of the Second Banija regiment. The 1780 Cadastral Book, in which the property of more than 800 landowners was recorded in the form of a spreadsheet, consists of 78 sheets; whereas the 1780 Cadastral Map is divided into 22 chapters that displays in detail the than found state of affairs.⁵

According to the 1780 Cadastral measuring results, the district of the military community of Zemun spread over an area of 8.872 joch and 1.147 klafter or 5.101.4 hа (51.01 km2 ).⁶ On this territory there were some of state, municipal (common) or privately owned properties. The State owned buildings, land and forests for military and cameral purposes, which extended over an area of 249 joch and 837 klafter total, or 2.80% of the municipal territory. The municipal land comprised both the areas for common use, and the areas which were unfit for use – a total of 3.624 joch and 788 klafter or 40.84% of the district. The largest part of the district, a total of 4.903 joch and 1.455 klafter or 55.26% of the municipal territory, was in the property of private owners (4.851 joch and 105 klafter) and religious institutions (52 joch and 1.350 klafter).⁷

Graph 1:

Zemun was the largest and most important border settlement of the Syrmian part of the marches. In Zemun, the State used part of the land directly: 1. the military and cameral buildings at the Town of Zemun, 2. the military infrastructure of the various district areas and 3. the land under forests. The strategic position of Zemun, it being the bordering town on the dividing line between Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, made the presence of the State more palpable than in other settlements.

The State owned the „Kais: König: Gebaude“ (Imperial-Royal buildings) in the Town of Zemun: quarantine (Contumatz), magazine (Proviant Amt), commander’s apartment (Comendanten Wohnung), other possessions of the commander (Dem Comendanten gehörig), infantry barracks (Infant Cahserne), postal service (Post Amt), the main guardhouse (Haubt Wacht), guard-houses (Wacht Hauser), state shipping service (Kays: Schifamt), quarantine inspectorate (Contum: Inspectorat) and the powder magazine (Pulver Magazin).⁸ Aside from these facilities, the areas used for military infrastructure on the territory of the district outside the town of Zemun were also state-owned: the old trenches (Alte Reduouten), the guard-house (Wachthaus), the land for cavalry horse stables (Cavallerie Piquet) and „Deathwatch“ (Mrtva Straza Charday).⁹ The State’s interests within the military community of Zemun coincided with those of the War Council (Hofkriegsrat), a central government institution responsible for the Military Frontier territory. On the arable part of the district, the State owned a single plot (Grundstuck) – the meadow for the postal station (kaiserliches Post Amt), given under tenure to the post manager (Postverwalter).¹⁰ The branches of the central financial institution – the Court Chamber (Hofkammer), responsible for the monarchy incomes of the whole empire were also situated in the town area – independently from the network of military-marcher institutions. These cameral buildings (Cameral Gebaude) were – the salt and customs office (Cameral Saltz und Zoll Amt) with the apartments for their officials (Wohnungen der Saltz und 30ist-аmts Uberreuters).¹¹

The town area within the stockade included the residential, state, municipal, church buildings and town streets, and it took up only 1.17% of the district (104 joch and 1.464 klafter). The aforementioned buildings of the central government, both military and cameral, comprised 19.23% of the town area (20 joch and 172 klafter). It was not until the end of 18th century that the town itself started to extend beyond its former stockade. This took place when a plot with 30 hospital bungalows, built by the Austrian army during the Last Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791) and put on sale in 1792, was used to form the first suburb of Zemun called Gornji
grad (or Josephstadt).¹²

The State remained the owner of the forests that grew in its domain of Velika Ada Island (Veliko Ratno Ostrvo). The supervision over the island was maintained by the military authorities, but the forests were aerarian (der Theil der Inßel Welika Hadda so kayßerlich, enthaltet an ararial Waldung). The citizens of Zemun and other border-soldiers had the right of use in these forests. A testimony to this claim is the Petition of the Municipality of Zemun to the General Command in Petrovaradin from April 1770, which asks for postponement of the deadline by which the State allowed cutting the trees for firewood. Namely, this was important since the out-flowing of the Sava river had made the supply of wood, either from „Militarwaldung“ or „ex Turcico“, impossible.¹³ Although the other part of Velika Ada Island had the status
of ”neutral” territory, in-between two states, the surveyors had included it as a part of the Zemun district as well, so the right of citizens’ use was extended to it (der Theil gedachter Inßel so Neutral, und von Zeit zu Zeit ausgehauen und wovon der Holz-Schlag kayß:seits benutzt wird). The same applied to the entire, recently formed, island called Mala ada.¹⁴

Deforestation on the border presented a risk for public safety, which is why the State allowed the citizens only moderate and controlled right of exploitation.¹⁵ The supervision over the forests at the borderline area was primarily established to exert control over the access roads to Belgrade. A number of documents testifies that the Zemun Military Command demanded from the Municipality to organize the citizens for forest cutting, removal of the cut-down trees and clearance of the low vegetation so as to enable better visibility on Velika Ada. The State’s instructions from November 1772 emphasize that, because of the delicate position of Velika Ada Island, the cutting of trees should be entrusted to several citizens, performed without too much noise and disruption and under the supervision of guards and officers.¹⁶

The State also intervened when it came to the allocation of land that was not directly in its property or use, by determining the purpose and method of use for that land. Subsequently, the State surrendered the land to the jurisdiction of the local government or private owners. The state interventions were aimed at the creation of economically functional areas. An example of this was the process by which the flooded areas at the Military Frontier were dried of water. However, the proof that the military authorities did not perform this in the district of Zemun is the 1780 Cadastral Book in which, amongst other things, was recorded the existence of „meadows prone to flooding on the left bank of the Sava, which are occasionally used“.¹⁷

Although State’s intervention in spatial planning for economic purposes was less frequent at the Military Frontier territory than at the cameral estates, there is evidence that the State required from the Municipality of Zemun to set aside land for the cultivation of manufactural plants – cotton and mulberry. In October 1777, the Zemun Military Command gave the order to the Municipality to measure out enough land for testing wherever the expert for cotton cultivation, who had come from the Ottoman territory, thought optimal. Adding in the memo that the Court would undoubtedly allow further production if testing succeeded.¹⁸ Two plots of the municipal mulberry orchards (Maulbeerbaumgarten der Comunitaet) were, most likely, created at the State’s suggestion that the Municipality should use part of its land for industrial production.¹⁹

The initiative for the regulation of traffic also came from the central authorities, whereas the implementation was left to the municipalities – by the Norm for military communities the State stipulated that the maintenance of roads and bridges should be left in the Municipality’s jurisdiction and financed from the Municipality’s budget.²⁰ Since well organized and properly running lines of communication provided the basis for the functioning of the military and cameral institutions’ network, the central government was putting pressure on its municipalities to maintain it. In February 1763, for example, the Slavonian General Command ordered the Municipality to have people dig up a trench of 2.000 hvat in length, in a location previously determined by the engineer Grubert, so as to make a route from Zemun to Banovci on which the carriages for transportation of passengers and goods could circulate.²¹

The control over the district was also achieved through indirect measures: the State acted as the legislator and initiator in the preservation of the public order, namely by prescribing regulations on the citizens’ freedom of movement and public gatherings, as well as on the arrangement of social relations by establishing municipal funding for the support of hospitals, schools and the poor.²² The preservation of the public order on the border began during the Austro-Turkish War 1737–1739 with the creation of the sanitary cordon which lasted until the abolition of The Military Frontier in 1881.²³ The Contumaz of Zemun was one of the most important sanitary stations on the Habsburg-Ottoman border. Even the Town’s subsequent development was determined by the position of the Contumaz complex. As public order directly depended on the health conditions, the military authorities supervised all the activities within the Contumaz. The spreading of false notifications about an onset of an epidemic was punishable by law, as a threat against general security.²⁴ Similarly, with safety in mind, the Slavonian-Banatian General Command in Petrovaradin issued a document in October 1785, asserting that it expected the Municipality to resolve the question of accommodation of foreigners, the so-called Turkish subjects, so as to ensure easier supervision by arranging that they remain at one location in the town. This was a typical solution ensuring better control over foreigners in a border town, as can be seen in the document mentioning that the Municipality had sold an old house used for this purpose, without consulting the military authorities.²⁵ Finally, the military authorities retained the right to assert control over the deployment of population in the border area. The Slavonian General Command repeatedly urged the Municipality of Zemun to obey the orders of the War Council and not to allow the Turkish immigrants to settle in the vicinity of the border. One of such notifications to Zemun was signed by General von Papilla in Petrovaradin, in 1784.²⁶

In the 1754 Norm for Military Communities, the State legally defined the jurisdiction of local government by giving it the authority to organize and supervise the alocation of land in the district; control the distribution of undistributed land to new owners; take away the unused land from the neglecting proprietors or give it to the newly arrived citizens; survey the population and their property in order to gain insight into the demographics and the economic situation. The Norm confirmed direct jurisdiction of the Municipality in matters of land and property, i.e. the right of the Municipality to control the land and organize its use, whereas the State’s jurisdiction remained strictly limited to the facilities used for military, defence and state-monopolistic interests. Finally, the degree of the sovereignty of the local government allowed by the State depended on its success to maintain order within the boundaries of its district.²⁷

The largest part of the municipal land consisted of areas for common use: the common pasture (gemeinschafftliche Hutweide), community’s mulberry orchards (Maulbeerbaumgarten der Comunitaet), the municipal barn (gemeind Sallasch), areas reserved for the community plague cemetery (Zur Pesten Zeit), as well as the streets in town and roads in district.²⁸ The Municipality owned land envisioned for the City Hall (Stadt Haus)²⁹ and it also kept the land reserves under its supervision
– arable fields and meadows by the roads and borderline areas of the district which stood abandoned or undistributed to the citizens (Vacant und uneingetheilte Grunde).³⁰ And lastly, the Municipality also owned the unused land of the district – meadows which could only be used occasionally due to flooding, and the land which was unusable due to its properties or location, such as meadows on the borders of the district, areas under marshes and vegetation along the Sava, the branch of the
Danube and the right bank of the Danube itself.³¹ Overall, the municipality directly controlled the common land, the unused and unusable part of the district, which approximately made up 41% of its total area.³²

The Municipality retained certain rights over the land in private ownership. The privately owned estates composed approximately 56% of the Zemun district. The largest part of this area belonged to the citizens (tax payers enumerated from 1 to 800), who held as much as 54% of the entire district (die Individual Grunde).³³ The other 2% of municipal land was comprised of the land owned by the people listed at the end of the Cadastral book – the state officials, „foreigners“, tenants and religious institutions. The land in question was the possession of state officials – the Contumaz inspector Preizer (a garden), the postmaster Anton Voiczeck (yard, garden and vineyard) and the commander of Zemun colonel Von Sturm (who owned one of the largest yards, vineyards and orchards in town).³⁴ The property of „foreign“ owners referred to the
land owned by the four members of the company from the neighbouring military municipality of Dobanovci.³⁵ On the territory of Zemun they owned vineyards. The vineyards and gardens represented a lucrative form of land property, which is why, besides „foreigners“, 87 out of 97 tenant households in Zemun had a vineyard, 18 a garden, only three households an arable field, and just one a meadow.³⁶ Finally, the property of religious institutions was also registered as privately owned land. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches and the Franciscan monastery owned edifices in town and some district meadows. The cemetery plots were also recorded as the possession of the religious communities – Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Jewish.³⁷

The privately owned land included the arable land, meadows, vineyards and gardens, and each of these types of fields, in accordance with its purpose, occupied a special plot, i.e. part of the district.³⁸ The vineyards and gardens, as small and lucrative arable possessions, surrounded the town. Beyond those vineyards, at the central part of the district, there was a common pasture surrounded by arable land. Unlike the pastures and arable land that held the central position, meadows occupied areas at the edges of the district, by the border with the neighbouring municipalities of Bežanija and Surčin. The forests were situated, as was previously stated, on Veliko and Malo Ratno Ostrvo, towards Belgrade. The precise grouping of plot areas would not have taken place had the arable areas of the district been created spontaneously, i.e. had they spread from the town to the edges of the district by gradual deforestation. Further more, the position of arable areas was pre-determined by spatial planning within the boundaries of the district.

The purpose of individual plots was strictly defined and, therefore, even the unused municipal reserves of land could be used only in a way that was envisaged for the whole plot area.³⁹ The municipal land reserves consisted of the abandoned (allocated but vacant) and undistributed (ready for distribution to the new owners) arable land and meadows. These plots were considered as less desirable land, because they were, almost without exception, situated on the edges of the grouped plots of arable land and meadows, and they normally bordered roads and pastures.⁴⁰ It can be seen from the Map that, although there existed some vacant arable plots, they were never used as meadows or neighbouring pastures. These plots were being „saved” for future use, as was originally intended. The local government was the one that had the power to change the purpose of a certain plot. For this reason it was necessary that all the Municipality members – a judge and 12 councillors – sign the Petition of Paunko Dimitrijević and five other citizens of Zemun made in 1773, in which each of them requested to obtain land of 12 hvat in length to build a corn barn.⁴¹

The 1780 Map portrays a developed network of roads within the district, which provided the borderline for arable land and groups of plots within them. That suggests that the network of roads was formed simultaneously with the formation of the plot areas at the time of surveying, measuring out and distribution of the land. The division of land was carried out in a standardized way which is confirmed by the property-censuses conducted 1754–1762, which show that the citizens’ properties were already precisely determined – the plots of arable land of 100 klafter in length always had 20 klafter in width, those of 150 klafter in length always had 30 klafter in width etc, with the maximum size of a plot of 1.000 klafter in length and 200 klafter in width.⁴² The standardized size of the plots indicates that the arable part of the district was made available to the citizens only after a systematically conducted survey, parcelling out and division, and their distribution was not altered, which made it visible twenty years later on the 1780 Cadastral map.

The existence of plots „intended” for certain institutions – state, municipal and religious – supports the thesis that the arable part of the district was put to use in a planned manner. The only „kays: könig:” estate was registered as a meadow on the North-eastern border of Municipality, a plot intended for the postal station. On the other hand, the City Hall owned meadows, which was the largest land property owned by an institution in the district. In times of epidemics, the Municipality would put to use the land previously determined for that purpose. Similarly, the municipal barn and the mulberry orchard were also put to community’s use for economic purposes. The religious majorities in Zemun, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic, founded schools and hospitals (Hospital) for their own needs. In the 1776 and 1780 property censuses those buildings were registered as buildings with land.⁴³ The meadows and cemeteries, owned by church institutions and religious communities, can also be classified as the land with pre-defined purpose.

The individuals whose professions were of the general benefit for the community – like butchers (Fleischhacker), also owned the „intended” land. The pastures, as municipal possession, were available for all the citizens’ use, but could never be owned by anyone but the community (unlike the arable land, meadows, vineyards and gardens). This allowed for parts of the pastures to be given to the town butchers as tenants. In 1780 the parts of the pastures reserved for four butchers of the municipality had the area of 100 joch for each of them, i.e. a total of 400 joch (approximately one quarter of all the pastures in the district).⁴⁴ The exact location of the
butchers’ pastures cannot be determined, because the butchers’ tenure rights over the pastures were not mentioned in list of landowners.

The question arises whether the community determined the order of planting as a three-field system of cultivation. The indication that there existed the fallow land (serbian: ugar; german: Brach) in agriculture is the fact that individuals owned arable plots scattered in different parts of the district. This phenomenon can most easily be seen in the case of arable plots in the property of farmers (Ackermann), because they owned the largest privately owned areas of arable land (between 20 and 57 joch each).⁴⁵ In fact, one farmer rarely owned neighbouring plots or those concentrated in the neighbouring plot areas and, given the fact that the farmers made their living from their work on fields, they had the interest to own plots in different parts of the plot area an thus avoid municipal limitations in terms of the order of sowing. Three-field system of cultivation was widely used, although it was rarely mentioned in the sources. Just as a comparison, in the 1770 Urbarial book of Kovin it was described that the arable land was divided into three separate plot areas (Ort-plätze), so that their owners planted seeds of the winter or summer type of crops or left them fallow (Brach). The author of the Urbarial book pointed out that this manner of cultivation was necessary in order to ensure the fertility of land and better yields.⁴⁶

The state and municipal governments, and the individual owners used up to 80% of the territory of the Zemun district for their personal needs. This proves that the municipality’s arable land was largely spatially planned. Such a level of purposeful use of land is notably high for the agricultural circumstances of the 18th century. In 1780 the 80% of land which was put to a specific use had the following structure: 1. Land for the residential buildings and yards (45 joch and 751 klafter or 0.50% of the district), 2. Land for state needs – for the cameral and military buildings and military infrastructure (121 joch and 757 klafter or 1.36% of the district), 3. Land for town streets and district roads (178 joch and 1.176 klafter or 2.01% of the district), 4. Land for agriculture – the arable land, gardens and vineyards (3.223 joch and 184 klafter or 36.32% of the district), 5. Land for animal farming – the meadows and pastures (3.353 joch and 85 klafter or 37.79% of the district), 6. Land for industrial plants – mulberry orchards (14 joch and 996 klafter or 0.16% of the district), 7. Land for religious institutions – churches, schools, hospitals and cemeteries (21 joch and 50 klafter or 0.23% of the district).

The remaining 20% of the district land was not directly used: 1. Municipal reserves and sporadically used land – abandoned and undistributed plots, forests on the islands and meadows prone to flooding (399 joch and 358 klafter or 4.49% of the district), 2. The unusable land – marshes, meadows along borderline, river’s branch and banks (1.366 joch and 766 klafter or 15.39% of the district). The total area of the unused and unusable land was 1.765 joch and 1.124 klafter and made 19.89% of the district.⁴⁷

Graph 2:

The State’s role was strictly limited to the military-defence and cameral-financial interests, which may be partly explained by the fact that the municipality of Zemun had the status of the military community in which the autonomy of the local government was legally guaranteed. However, the Municipality was responsible for the implementation of the suggestions made by the State, in terms of how the land would be used, and the responsibility to supervise land-ownership. The structure of the district, analysed on the basis of the sources from the second half of the 18th century, above all the 1780 Cadastral book and Map, indicates that a division of jurisdiction between central and local authorities existed in the spatial organisation of the military community Zemun.

Image 1: The Structure of the District of Zemun in 1780

Јелена Илић
ЦЕНТРАЛНА И ЛОКАЛНА УПРАВА У ПРОСТОРНОЈ
ОРГАНИЗАЦИЈИ ВОЈНОГ КОМУНИТЕТА ЗЕМУН
У ДРУГОЈ ПОЛОВИНИ XVIII ВЕКА
Резиме

Подаци о структури атара војног комунитета Земун према земљишној књизи и карти из 1780. године чине основу за анализу удела државног, општинског и приватног земљишта на територији ове општине. Држава је била власник 3% атара општине Земун, локална управа је задржала непосредно власништво над 41% атара, док је приватни посед грађана и црквених установа заузимао 56% атара.

Милитаризована општина у Војној граници имала је нужно већу површину у државном власништву од општина у цивилном подручју, али она је и овом случају била строго ограничена на стратешке војне и економске интересе државе – на војне и коморске објекте распоређене на територији градског језгра, површине под војном инфраструктуром на широј територији атара и шумом на острвима. Осим земљишта у непосредном власништву, централна управа исказивала је своје присуство применом права надзора и интервенције на територији војног комунитета – контролом сече шума, иницирањем стварања површина за узгајање мануфактурних култура – памука и дуда, (не)спровођењем поступка исушивања земљишта, инсистирањем на резервисању објеката за смештај странаца, или, пак, сиромашних и болесних.

Реализовање државних иницијатива и власништво над овако уређеним земљиштем препуштани су општини и појединцима. У општинско земљиште убрајане су површине за заједничко коришћење (пашњак, дудињак, салаш, кужно гробље), резерве напуштеног и неподељеног земљишта, неискоришћено и неискористиво земљиште (плавно подручје, ливаде на границама атара, мочваре, рукавац Дунава и обале Дунава), као и земљиште резервисано за издржавање градске већнице и за саобраћајну инфраструктуру. Над земљиштем приватних лица, општина је задржала право надзора, у виду права да парцеле које су приватни власници занемаривали додели новим власницима.

Ангажованост локалне управе у организацији и планирању простора у атару огледа се у чињеници да је земљиште било груписано према намени у потесе (оранице, ливаде, виногради, баште и пашњак), да су границе потеса строго поштоване (парцеле нису мењале намену иако су стајале као упражњене резерве), да је парцелизација земљишта спроведена према прецизно одређеним стандардима, да су постојале парцеле резервисане за вршиоце занимања од опште користи заједници (месаре), за поједине установе (градску већницу, цркве) или за заједничке потребе (болнице, школе, гробља, површине за време куге). Насеље је било концентрисано строго унутар палисада (на свега 1,17% атара), а уочљиво је одсуство спонтаног насељавања и заузимања земљишта – захваљујући чему је атар Земуна попримио структуру плански организоване целине. Искоришћеност атара је, на овај начин, достигла чак 80%, што је за прилике 18. века био практични максимум.

Кључне речи: Хабзбуршка монархија, Земун, 18. век, 1780, војни комунитет, просторно планирање, централна управа, локална управа

1. С. Гавриловић, Обнова славонских жупанија и њихово разграничавање са Војном границом (1745–1749), Зборник Матице српске за друштвене науке 25 (1960), 49–93. ↩︎
2. In the period 1748–1754 the status of military community was given to the following municipalities of the Slavonian-Syrmian Military Frontier – (Nova) Gradiška, Brod, Zemun, Karlovci, Petrovaradin, with the aim, above all, to ensure their economic prosperity. In this way, the the military communities were legally made even with market towns (trgovišta) on the feudal estates owned by the state (cameral land) or private persons, thus becoming their counterparts on the marcher territories. ↩︎
3. Д. Поповић, Срби у Срему до 1736/7, Београд 1950, 163; Историјски архив Београда (ИАБ), фонд Земунског магистрата (ЗМ), књ. 629 (1754); Österraichische Staatsarchiv (ÖStA), Kartensammulung (KS), B IX a 906 A (1780). ↩︎
4. All the land is presented in the measuring unit of Joch (acre) – 1 joch consists of 1.600 klafter; 1 joch equals 0.57 hа. Cf. М. Влајинац, Речник наших старих мера – у току векова, II, Београд 1964, 318–328. ↩︎
5. ÖStA, KS B IX a 906 А (1780) ↩︎
6. District (serbian: atar) is a whole territory of an settlement, part of which is used for production (e.g. the district of Zemun) and part as a populated area (e.g. the Town of Zemun) ↩︎
7. Ibidem ↩︎
8. Ibidem; On the total area of 19 joch and 557 klafter, of which the Cotumaz occupied as many as 11 joch and 1.592 klafter ↩︎
9. Ibidem; On the total area of 1 joch and 1.075 klafter ↩︎
10. Ibidem; The meadow is marked on the Map as the possession of the postal service and it occupied a large area of 30 joch and 800 klafter. The same plot was recorded under the name of the post manager А. Voiczeck, which means he was the tenant of this estate. ↩︎
11. Ibidem; On the total area of 1.215 klafter. ↩︎
12. ÖStA, KS, Inland C VII a 7 (1791). ↩︎
13. Т. Ж. Илић, Београд и Србија у документима архиве Земунског магистрата од до 1804. год, књ. I (1739–1788), Београд 1973, 283 (document number 114 from 1770). ↩︎
14. ÖStA, KS, B IX a 906 А (1780); On the map it is marked the „imperial“ and „neutral“ half of Velika Ada (Veliko Ratno Ostrvo) – Velika Hada oder (kaiyserl:/neutral) Kriegs Insel – and in the interior of the island, on the border between state and neutral part, a trench was drawn – merkmahle einer Verschantzug. The area of the Velika Ada island belonging to the State had 107 joch and 500 klafter, and the neutral part of the island 43 joch and 350 klafter. The island of Mala Ada, described as „der Inßel Mala Hadda so sich inlangst formiret hat, und gleichfals mit Streichwerks beweissen ist“, was drawn along Veliko Ratno Ostrvo, on the Banatian side, with area of 46 joch and 430 klafter. The total area of both islands with forests was 196 joch and 1.280 klafter. ↩︎
15. Л. Ћелап, Земунски војни комунитет (1717–1881), Београд 1967, 7. In the article 25 of the Norm for the military communities from 1754 it was emphasized that the imperial interest requires that the border forests should be preserved, so the communities ask for a special permit for the use of forests and for cutting primarily other types of vegetation. ↩︎
16. Т. Ж. Илић, op. cit., 351–353 (doc. no. 152, 152 а/1772). These were the instructions of Von Sturm, the commander of Zemun, given to the town magistrate Јоsеph Wеgling, for cutting of vegetation on the island. The municipal authorities should engage the citizens and one official who would make sure that no disorder occurs, that huts are made within the trench for overnight accommodation, that the guards patrol, that the view from the side of Belgrade is blocked, that ships do not sail to or around the island and that the works are supervised by the commander personally or his officers. After the cutting was done, the General Command ordered the employment of 50 citizens daily to clear out the area, under the supervision of municipal officials. ↩︎
17. ÖStA, KS, B IX a 906, А; On the Map it is noted that the plot number 3.580, situated in the part of the district by the Sava river, is occasionally prone to flooding (Zumahlen der Uberschvemung untervorfen). The surface of this area was 44 joch and 200 klafter (25.5 ha). ↩︎
18. Т. Ж. Илић, op. cit., 447 (doc. no. 189/1777) – the instruction that Von Sturm, the commander of Zemun, sent to the town magistrate Wegling, noting that „Sollte diese Erzeugung gut vonstatten gehen, so ist nizht zu zweifeln, dass die hiesige Comunitet die allerhöchste Genehmigung des Hofes zu gewarten durfte“. ↩︎
19. ÖStA, KS, B IX a 906, А; The smaller mulberry orchard of 2 joch and 850 klafter was located among the gardens in the vicinity of the town centre, and the larger of 12 joch and 116 klafter was at the very border between the vineyards and pasture, but it was noted that it had already become barren (so bereits eingegangen). The total area reserved for the mulberry orchards was 14 joch and 996 klafter (8.4 ha). ↩︎
20. Л. Ћелап, op. cit., 6 (Norm for the military communities from 1754, article 25). ↩︎
21. Т. Ж. Илић, op. cit., 156 (doc. no. 63/1763) – „nach dem von hier bis in die Hauptcontumaz zu Banofze […] Graben zu mache erforderlich ist, …“. ↩︎
22. Ф. Ш. Енгел, Опис Краљевине Славоније и војводства Срема, Нови Сад 2003, 377–382; Л. Ћелап, op. cit., 7–8 (Norm for the military communities from 1754, articles 32 and 34). ↩︎
23. С. Иванић, Борба против куге у Србији у време аустријске владавине (1717–1740), Prilozi za istoriju zdravstvene kulture Jugoslavije i Balkanskog poluostrva V – Miscellanea 1, Beograd 1937, 15–42. ↩︎
24. Т. Ж. Илић, op. cit., 388–391 (doc. no. 168, 168 а, 168 b/1774). ↩︎
25. Ibidem, 602–603 (doc. no. 260/1785). ↩︎
26. Ibidem, 553 (doc. no. 223/1784). ↩︎
27. Л. Ћелап, op. cit., 6–8 (Norm for the military communities from 1754, articles 26 and 27. ↩︎
28. ÖStA, KS, B IX a 906 A (1780); The municipal pasture occupied the area of 1.614 joch and 200 klafter (with equals 928 ha, i.e. 18% of the district); the municipal barn is recorded as an building on 100 klafter inside the town stockade. The area under the mulberry orchards was 14 joch and 996 klafter (8.4 ha). It goes without saying that the plague cemetery, marked as the plot for the needs „in time of the plague“, on 1 joch and 1.465 klafter, was intended for common use. For traffic infrastructure: unoccupied spot for the alleys and streets inside the town stockade on 37 joch and 76 klafter (die lehre Plätze Gässen und Strassen in den Verpallisadierten Umfang der Stadt Semlin); roads and streets outside the stockade 141 joch and 1.100 klafter (die Weege und Strassen) ↩︎
29. Ibidem; The City Hall is recorded in the main list of enumerated landowners in the town, under number 1, as the owner of three plots of gardens in the vicinity of the town stockade and of vast meadows, а total area of 151 joch and 710 klafter (86 hа). With this area in its ownership, the city hall was the largest landowner in the district. ↩︎
30. Ibidem; The land which was divided in plots, but abandoned or not given to the citizens occupied a total of 156 joch and 1.131 klafter and made 1.75% of the district. ↩︎
31. Ibidem; The land which was unused and unusable was listed in following groups: flooded meadows along the Sava river which can occasionally be used on 44 joch and 200 klafter (die der Inundation unterworfene Weißen an den Sau Strom so nur zumahlen benutzet werden kan); flooded meadows along the Sava river on 99 joch and 400 klafter (die beweissene Gegend an dem Sau Strom); marshes on 456 joch and 300 klafter (Möraste); the parts of land along the Danube on the border with Timisoara Banat and the Kingdom of Serbia on 864 joch and 1.300 klafter (die heltte des Donau und Sau Strohms nach den angezeigten Grantze mit dem Temesvarer Bannat und Königreich Servien); the small branch of the Danube called the Old Sava on 2 joch and 100 klafter (der kleiner Außfluß der Donau, Stara Sava genandt); the bank of the Danube on 36 joch and 400 klafter (das Ufer der Donau); unused meadows along the borderline on 7 joch and 340 klafter (Abschlag bei denn Weißen wegen der Gräntze). ↩︎
32. Approximately half of the municipal land was reserved for the pastures, while the other half mostly consisted of the lands that could not be used. ↩︎
33. ÖStA, KS, B IX a 906 A (1780); Privately owned land occupied a total of 4.920 joch and 791 klafter (which equals 2.829 ha, i.e. 55.45% of the district). ↩︎
34. Ibidem; The commander of Zemun, Von Sturm, possessed an usually large house yard of 1 joch and 1.125 klafter – outside the town stockade, in the area of gardens along the road to Ugrinovci. He also had 3 joch and 830 klafter of vineyard, one of the largest in the district, and an orchard of 1 joch and 450 klafter – also one of the largest in the town. It is noteworthy that the house yards and possessions of the officials were situated outside the town stockade. Only the Contumaz inspector Preizer, probably lived inside the spacious complex of the Contumatz, which is why he had no evidenced house yard. ↩︎
35. Ibidem; This group of owners are called „ foreign proprietors from the village of Dobanovci, belonging to the company of commander Von Dodović from the Petrovaradin Infantry Regiment“ (fremde besitzer aus dem dorf Dobanovtze des löbl:Peterv: Inf: Regiments Haubts: v: Dodovics Comp:). According to this, the land owners could also be the citizens of another municipality, although it was contrary to the article 26 of the Norm for the military communities from 1754 by which the land was reserved exclusively for the citizens of community ↩︎
36. Ibidem; The land owned by 97 tax payers-tenants (Unter der Nahmen Zihnsleuthe Grundstucke besitzende Contribuenten, so in der Comunitaet nicht Posehsionirte seind) was registered in a separate list. ↩︎
37. Ibidem; The church buildings in the town centre, with schools and hospitals (hospital), occupied 19 joch and 700 klafter. Outside the town centre, the Orthodox Church and the Franciscan monastery owned 31 joch and 1.300 klafter of meadows. The Roman Catholic Cemetery was noted on the plot of 1.200 klafter, Orthodox on 740 klafter, аnd of Jewish community on 200 klafter ↩︎
38. Ibidem; Private property – die Individual Grunde, occupied a total of 4.920 joch and 791 klafter. The largest part of this area was under arable land (2.453 joch and 81 klafter), followed by meadows (1.706 joch and 1.390 klafter), vineyards (570 joch and 403 klafter), gardens (131 joch and 649 klafter) and houses with yards (45 joch and 282 klafter). This land consisted of not only the privately owned land, but also of land of the institutions – the city hall and the churches. ↩︎
39. Plot area (serbian: potes) is a group of plots with the same purpose – arable land, pastures, meadows, vinyards and gardens plot area in the district. ↩︎
40. Ibidem; The list of vacant plots mainly consists of arable fields (22 enumerated plots with total area of 110 joch and 38 klafter), and much more rarely of meadows (total number of 3 enumerated plots with total area of 46 joch and 751 klafter). ↩︎
41. Т. Ж. Илић, op. cit., 373 (doc. no. 159/1773) – After the authorities found out that these citizens plan to build barns for corn in collaboration with trade partners who were „Turkish subjects“ (turkische Unterthanen), by the document of September 1773, it was ordered that they should not cooperate with the „ foreign“ persons, under the threat of 150 forints fine. ↩︎
42. Istorijski arhiv Beograda (IAB), Zemunski magistrat (ZM), vol. 629 (1754); 630 (1755); 631 (1756); 632 (1757); 633 (1759); 634 (1760); 635 (1761); 636 (1762). The
    census displays the following types of plots: 100 klafter of length х 20 klafter of width (0.71 ha); 150 х 30 (1.61 ha); 200 х 40 (2.87 ha); 250 х 50 (4.49 ha); 300 х 60 (6.47 ha); 350 х 70 (8.81 ha); 400 х 80 (11.51 ha); 450 х 90 (14.56 ha); 500 х 100 (17.98 ha); 550 х 110 (21.76 ha); 600 х 120 (25.89 ha); 700 х 140 (35.25 ha); 1.000 х 200 (125 joch or 69.69 ha). ↩︎
43. ИАБ, ЗМ, књ. 870 (1776); КА, B IX a 906, A (1780); Hospitals were noted as hospital or milde Stiftung, and their role was to secure lodging for the abandoned, rather than to care for the ill. ↩︎
44. IAB, ZM, vol. 870 (1776); Beside the right to use the pastures, the Fleischhaker also owned other land property, primarily meadows – Dimčo Nasto Miloš owned 37 joch of meadows, Sofronije Živanović 15 joch of meadows, Mitar Stojaković 20 joch of meadows and Dimitrije Dimčo Padagrajić 2 joch of other kinds of land. ↩︎
45. Ibidem; In the census of 1776, a total of 84 landowners declared themselves as professional farmers (Ackersmann). Their households possessed the largest plots of arable land in the district (between 20 and 57 joch, or 11.5 and 32.77 hа), with greater number of household members (8–22 people in comparison with the municipal average of 5.6 per household) and cattle (an average of 2.5 horses, 3.5 oxen and 2 cows per household). ↩︎
46. Urbarium von Kubin (1770) – the land book of Kovin, being the military municipality of Banatian Military Frontier, in which, after surveying and mapping of the land, division of new areas and settlement of the Germans was carried out in 1770/1771, under the supervision of the military authorities ↩︎
47. ÖStA, KS, B IX a 906 А (1780). ↩︎