C1017620

1

The use of Hospitaller Manumission documents for slavery on Cyprus and Rhodes.

This essay will consider the use of Hospitaller manumission documents, what can be learned from

them and how representative they are compared to what is typically expected from manumission

documents. This essay is split into three parts, the first considers the role of manumission generally

and some of the aspects as well as considerations that occur. Secondly the works by Nicholas

Coureas and Anthony Luttrell in regard to these documents are considered and compared. Finally

there is an analysis of a selection of manumission documents. Sections of the documents in question

are included in the appendixes and will be referred to by date and folio number. The documents are

from the national library of Malta part of the Libri Bullarum although some transcriptions from

Anthony Luttrell have been included in the appendix as well.

Role of Manumission

Manumission can lead to a conceptual issue since it breaks the bonds between slave and master; it

reveals the slave to be human.1 Although troubling for historians this conceptual issue did not

damage the slave system, but was employed as a means of control by the master. 2 The master had

control since manumission was not a right, it could not be earned. Manumission was part of the

master’s power, although slaves often purchased themselves Orlando Patterson argues that it is

impossible for a slave to purchase anything since they cannot own anything, the payment the master

receives is in this context is a gift from the slave, an incentive to encourage manumission.3

The act of manumission is incredibly significant although it is also ambiguous. The Slave became free

but at the same time their freedom was restricted by conditions set by the master, there was still a

strong link between the exslave and the exmaster.4 Manumission would usually take place as a

result of good service by the slave. Manumission was flexible and freedom was not instantaneous

‘…dynamic nature of manumission and the gradual acquisition of freedom.’5 It has previously been

thought that manumission lead to the decline of slavery, but that is not the case; manumission was a

1 Marc Kleijwegt, ‘freedpeople: a brief cross-cultural history’, In Ed Marc Kleijwegt, The face of freedom, the manumission and emancipation of slaves in old world and new world slavery, (Brill, 2006), p. 19. 2 Kleijwegy, ‘Freedpeople: a brief cross-cultural history’, p. 20. 3 Orlando Patterson, slavery and social death a comparative study, (Harvard university press, 1982), p. 211. 4Cornelia Wunch, Freedom and Dependency: Neo-Babylonian Manumission Documents with Oblation and Service Obligations in M. Kozuh (ed.), Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper (Oriental Institute Press, 2014),pp. 337–345. 5 R zelnick- abramovitz, Not wholly free, The concept of manumission and the status of manumitted slaves in the ancient greek world,(Brill, 2005), p. 272.

C1017620

2

key part of the slave system. 6 Manumission like slavery changed over time; manumitted Greek

slaves became foreigners whereas manumitted Roman slaves became citizens.7

Another consideration is the extent to which that manumission was at times for the master’s

benefit; 15th Century Genoa had a hospital for elderly manumitted slaves.8 Often long service was

the reason for manumission, typically in such cases the mention of long service makes the

manumission seem like a reward, but the mechanism of manumission could easily be used by slave

owners to rid themselves of elderly slaves. The most common form was manumission by will. 9

This provided the master the benefit of continued service from their slave for the whole of their

life.10 Testamentary manumission has often been linked to the Christian church as evidence of

the church being against slavery. 11 Although the role of the church was important it was

unintentional and it was not encouraging abolition of slavery. 12

When looking at Hospitaller manumission, clauses mentioning long service are common and so too

is the manumission of slaves that severed deceased masters, seemingly in accordance to the

deceased masters will. Additionally slave manumissions often had continued service clauses. These

aspects are considered in depth in the final section. The fact Hospitaller manumission have some of

the expected characteristics of manumissions in general is important since it allows Hospitaller

manumission documents to be placed in a wider context of medieval slavery.

Secondary sources

The study of Hospitaller Manumission documents much like the study of Hospiatller slavery has not

been extensive. Anthony Luttrell produced an article, ‘Slavery in Rhodes’, in 1977. Nichoas Coureas

gave a talk on Hospitaller Manumission at the sixth international conference on the Military Orders,

September 2013. The focus by both historians has been on Cyprus and Rhodes. Each made

6 Bush M L, Serfdom and slavery, studies in legal bondage, (Longman, 1996), p. 77. 7 Marc Kleijwegt ‘freed slaves, self-presentation and corporate identity in the roman world’ In Ed Marc Kleijwegt, The face of freedom, the manumission and emancipation of slaves in old world and new world slavery, (Brill, 2006), p. 89 8 Steven A Epstein, Speaking of slavery, (cornell university press, 2001), p. 173 9Ahmet Usta, Evidence of the Nature, Impact and Diversity of Slavery in 14th Century Famagusta as Seen Through the Genoese Notarial Acts of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni da Rocha and the Venetian Notarial Acts of Nicola de Boateriis, Submitted to the Institute of Graduate Studies and Research (August 2011), p. 25. 10 Patterson, Slavery and social death, p. 220. 11 Marc block, ‘how and why ancient slavery came to an end’ in Slavery and serfdom in the middle age,. Trans. William R Beer, (university of California press, 1975),p. 3 12Ross Samson,The end of early medieval slavery, in J Frantzen and Dougles Moffat (eds.) The work of work: servitude, slavery and labour in medieval England (Cruithne press, 1994), pp. 109-111. ;C. R. Whittaker, ‘Circe‟s Pigs: From Slavery to Serfdom in the Later Roman World.’ in Finley, Moses I. (Ed.) Classical Slavery. (Taylor and Francis, 2003), p. 105

C1017620

3

assertions in regard to the scale of slavery within this context. Anthony Luttrell states that ‘…there

was little sign of plantation type slavery involving really large numbers of slaves…’ additionally he

argues that there is little evidence of Hospitaller slaves on Cyprus.13 Little evidence is not to say

there were no Hospitaller slaves on Cyprus, given that the Hospitallers were producing large

quantities of sugar from their properties on Cyprus a process that is common with the use of slaves

suggests the existence of slaves on Cyprus. The statues of the order can be seen to reflect the

agricultural role of slaves on Cyprus, as Nicholas Coureas notes the decree of 1311 stating that slaves

of a deceased brother should remain where they are rather then coming to the treasury.14 This

suggests private ownership of slaves within the institution. This decree can be interpreted to mean

that slaves should continue working, if these were domestic or household slaves with their master

dead there is no reason for them to remain which may suggest that they are agricultural workers,

although Nicholas Coureas does not make this assertion. Nicholas Coureas in other works has

asserted the link between sugar and slavery.15 The age of Anthony Luttrell’s article should be

considered, the study of crusader arachnology on Cyprus has been slow to develop, ‘ten years ago

who would have associated medieval sugar mills with Cypriot archaeology?’16 Although Anthony

Luttrell took part in the recent work, Documents concerning Cyprus, with K. Borchardt and E.

Schoffler.17 This work was not focused on manumission but it does contain several manumission

documents, the introduction states that ‘some slaves were probably employed in sugar production’

but also argues that given that sugar production was season it probably wasn’t economical to use

slaves, an argument that it then neatly dismisses a few pages later when detailing that the King of

Cyprus managed to support 1500 slaves for producing sugar.18

A key aspect in studying slavery through manumission documents is brought to light in Luttrell’s

article; most of the mid fourteenth century manumissions are for slaves with Greek names on

Rhodes, he suggests that this is because these slave were domestic and thus more likely to be

freed.19 This also fits with the Coureas article since most of the slave manumissions he considers are

13 Anthony Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’ in Latin Greece, the hospitallers and the crusades 1291-1440, (Variorum Reprints, 1982), p. 82. 14Nicholas Coureas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves on Fifteenth Century Rhodes and Cyprus, submitted for MO6, (2013), pp. 1-17. 15 Nicholas ‘Coureas, Economy’, in Angle Nicolaou-Konnari and Chris Schable (eds.), Cyprus society and culture 1191-1374, (Brill, 2005) 16, Marina Solomidou-Ieronymidou ‘The crusaders, sugar mills and sugar production in medieval Cyprus,’ in Peter Edbury and Sophia kalopissi-verti (eds.) Archaeology and the crusades, proceedings of the round table, Nicosia,1 february 2005, (Pierides foundation, 2007), p. 81. 17 Borchardt Karl, Luttrell Anthony, Schoffler Ekhard, ‘Documents concerning Cyprus from the hospital’s rhodian archives: 1409-1459’ Cyprus research centre Texts and studies in the history of Cyprus, LXVI,( Theopress Ltd, 2011). 18 Borchardt, ‘Documents concerning Cyprus from the hospital’s rhodian archives: 1409-1459’, pp. Lxxix - Lxxxv 19 Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’

C1017620

4

also domestic slaves.20 There may have been far more slaves that were not manumitted and thus

there is no evidence of them. Manumission documents are more common in regard to domestic

slaves generally then in regard to agricultural slavery within the study of slavery generally due to the

closeness of the relationship between master and domestic slave. The prevalence of Greek

manumission documents may reveal the pressure of the Catholic Church which was attempting to

discourage the enslavement of Greeks.21 Although the continued existence of Greeks within

manumission documents reveals that Greeks were still being enslaved. An additional consideration is

that the ethnic origin of names in the manumission may not be representative of those being

manumitted; a master’s ability to rename their slaves was part of their power.22 Ahmet Usta has

noted the existence of Muslim slaves with Greek names.23 A key point both Luttrell and Coureas fail

to mention.

Manumission is more common in regard to skilled labourers then unskilled.24 This can be seen in

manumission of Nichola de Metellino, December 15th 1358, who was a baker.25 In 1263 the

Hospitaller’s refused to exchange their Muslim slaves for Christian slaves with the Sultan Baybars

because they valued the skills of their Muslim slaves.26 The fact the Hospitallers had Muslim slaves

that the Sultan Baybars would have wanted should not be a surprise but both Anthony Luttrell and

Nicholas Coureas assert that the Hospitallers usually killed any Turks they captured.27 Nicholas

Coureas is so sure of this view that he argues that the Turkish slave Cusseo manumitted June 15th

1511 was most likely purchased.28 To take such an assertion at face value is wrong, military orders

are known for exaggerating their crusading zeal. Given the time difference between the two articles

it is surprising that the view in regard to Hospitallers killing any Turks they find remains the same.

Especially given the existence of Hospitaller decrees specifically in regard to Saracen slaves.29 The

manumission documents do sometimes reveal the origin of the slave in question but often that

information is not provided. It seems likely that Saracen slaves were less likely for manumission then

Greek slaves.

20 Coureas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves, pp. 1-17. 21 Coureas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves, pp. 1-17. 22 Epstein, Speaking of slavery, p. 24. 23 Usta, Evidence of the Nature, Impact and Diversity of Slavery in 14th Century Famagusta, p. 17. 24 Ronald Findlay, ‘Slavery, Incentives, and Manumission: A Theoretical Model’, Journal of Political Economy, 83:5 (Oct., 1975), p. 932. 25 Aom 316 included in the appendix, Nichola de Metellino, December 15th 1358. 26 Adrian J Boas, Domestic setting, sources on domestic architecture and day to day activities in the crusader states, (Brill, 2010), p. 155 27

Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’ , p. 87.; Coureas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves, pp. 1-17. 28 Coureas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves, pp. 1-17. 29 Anthony Luttrell, The town of Rhodes 1306-1356,(Techne press, 2003), p. 156.

C1017620

5

The servitudo marina ('slavery of the sea') is unusual; Anthony Luttrell asserts that these people

weren’t slaves by more like conscripts.30 Coureas emphasised servitude marina as the role of

enfranchised serfs31. Luttrell disagrees with this and sees the recruitment of exslaves in servitude

marina as an occasional occurrence rather than the norm.32 Luttrell justifies this by stating that

‘…galley slaves were almost completely unknown during this period for oarsmen were expected to

fight as well as to row and so had to be trustworthy; in any case the cost of slaves was extremely

high.’33 While reasonable that you would not want untrustworthy oarsmen it is interesting that the

Hospiatllers on Malta did use galley slaves provided through coastal raiding.34 Additionally the idea

that the Hospitallers didn’t enslave any captive Turks reveals a contradiction in Luttrells assertion

that servitudo marina could not be slaves since the oars men needed to be trustworthy.35 A Greek

slave for the Hospitallers would be unlikely to expect better conditions if captured by a Turkish ship.

The works by Nicholas Coureas and Anthony Luttrell have been the main consideration for this

section. Although written 40 years apart there is a lot of overlap. They agree more then they

disagree. Both historians have examined the manumission documents in question, Nicholas Coureas

in his article discusses the manumissions one by one, whereas Anthony Luttrell’s article takes a

broader view. When considering manumission it is easy to underestimate the significance since

manumission documents only reveal the manumitted slaves not those who remained enslaved.

Additionally with much a focus it is easy to make assumptions on the work and ethnicity of the

Hospitaller slaves from the information in the manumission documents, but again these documents

are not representative of all the Hospitaller slaves and must be considered in a wide context.

The Documents

Several points of the statues of master Hugh Revel, 1262, reference slaves directly and these statues

are of use for understanding Hospitaller manumission documents. It was decreed that a slave could

not be sold or give away unless old, sickly or has purchased his freedom for the price of two or three

slaves.36 This statue may explain why several manumission documents allow slaves to be freed

without payment due to long service. It was also decreed that no slave could be baptised without

30

Anthony Luttrell, ‘the servitude marina at Rhodes 1306-1462’ in The hospitallers in Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece and the west 1291-1440, (variorum, 1997), p. 53. 31 Coureas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves, pp. 1-17. 32 Luttrell, ‘the servitude marina at Rhodes 1306-1462’ ,p. 61. 33 Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’, p. 90. 34

John Francis Guilmartin, Gunpowder and galleys, (Cambridge university press, 1974), p. 117. 35 Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’, p. 90. 36 E J King, the rule statues and customs of the Hospitallers, (Methuen & co ltd, 1934), p. 48.

C1017620

6

special license of the master.37 This was probably linked to the previous statute since baptism was

often linked with manumission. The final decree of key importance states that no brother can

enfranchise without permission of the master.38 Although despite these statues there are examples

of slave gaining freedom through other means Nicola Courpi gained manumission October 15th 1347

by giving a slave to the Hospital in return for his own freedom.39 [Cod. 317, f. 241v]

Many of the documents fall into a standard pattern. Anthony Luttrell’s article provides a full

transcript of the manumission of Christodolo de lo Sicamino, 24 March 1348, [Cod. 317, f.226v], this

transcript has been provided in the appendix.40 Additional examples of this standard pattern can be

seen in the manumission documents of Nicolo de Monouassia and Philip of Hieti , August 20th 1358,

[Cod. 316, f. 308], Nichole de Metellono, December 15th 1358, [Cod. 316, f. 302v], which have been

included in the appendix. Ahmet Usta has examined the structure of manumission documents from

14th century Famagusta in his recent MA thesis. He sees the documents as structured in four parts.

The first states that the document is in the name god. The second part the master and the slaves are

introduced. The third part contains statements about the conditions on manumissions. These

conditions helped the master to secure some control over their exslaves future life. The final part

provides the date and the place as well as witnesses.41 This layout is similar to that of the Hospitaller

manumission documents.

The Manumission of October 5th 1421, [Cod. 346, f. 164r], Jani Serjencin and Anthony Soupy, is an

example of a note of manumission rather than being a full manumission in itself. In Cypriot law

manumission documents required signatures from 2 or 3 witnesses. 42Nicholas Coureas mentions

this manumission in his article as an example of two Greek slaves of the preceptory of Kos, being

freed at the request of the Hospitaller brother Jeno de Bys.43 Jürgen Sarnowsky has also transcribed

this extract on his website of Hospitaller sources.44 His transcription and translation agrees with the

work of Anthony Lutrell and Nicholas Coureas. The condition on this manumission was that the

manumitted slaves serve the order for the rest of their days like other manumitted slaves. The freed

slaves by this condition are tied to the order of the rest of their lives. This raises questions what did

the change mean? It might be that the slaves gained additionally freedoms when they weren’t

37 King, the rule statues and customs of the Hospitallers, p.49. 38 King, the rule statues and customs of the Hospitallers, p. 66. 39 Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’, number 5, cod 317 f242 ,p.93. 40Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’, Cod 317, f. 226v, p. 94. 41 Usta, Evidence of the Nature, Impact and Diversity of Slavery in 14th Century Famagusta, p. 65. 42 The Assizes of the Lusignan Kingdom of Cyprus, trans and ed N Coureas, (Cyprus Research Centre, 2002), P. 162. 43

Coureas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves, pp. 1-17. 44JürgenSarnowsky, 05.10. 1421, Hospitaller sources Available http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/hospitallers/sources/1400/Hospitaller1421.10.05.html (Accessed: 15/01/2014)

C1017620

7

working or perhaps this is an example of a slave become a serf. Although it would be wrong to use

this example to argue that the Hospitallers were manumitting all of their slaves to become serfs. The

condition for longer serve is included in other manumission documents, Anthony Luttrell notes that

a group of manumitted slaves from 1358 had to continue serving the master that freed them for the

rest of the masters life.45 This can be seen in the documents from 1358 by the clause ‘Sic tamen

dictam tibi facimus gratiam ut nobis quam diu in humanis agemus prout seruiuisti hactenus fideliter

et legaliter obserqui tenearis.’46 Since the manumission of October 5th 1421 is a permission it lacks

details. There is no clause about good service, nor is there any mention of the act of manumission

being for the good of the master’s soul or any mention of the manumitted persons regaining the

rights of a roman citizen. Although this is useful for understanding the relationship between the

statues and manumission, the statue said that no brother may manumit their slave without

permission of the Hospitaller master; this permission shows that the brothers still had personal

slaves into the 15th century.

Anthony Luttrell notes a manumission of July 6th 1381 in which a slave’s manumission had not been

written down so was repeated. The slave in question was named Georgio Bulgaro and had freed

with the masters licence. For a manumitted slave not having a clear manumission would have

caused issues, and most probably did for the manumission to be written down at a later date. This

reveals another consideration; if the freed slaves are having to serve the order for the rest of their

lives it is possible that the order sometime didn’t produce manumission documents for freed slaves

until it was necessary, although this is speculation.

The manumission of Strati de Casali Corsoto, October 8th 1413, [Cod. 339, f. 289v-290], is significant.

The slave manumission describes the slave as belonging to the master ‘sclauum noster’ but the slave

was on Cyprus and the petition for his freedom came from Brother John Clareti, the lieutenant in the

preceptor of Cyprus. The condition was that he bought a Christian slave to replace him. The fact that

the Hospital was encouraging the purchasing of Christian slaves is significant. The means by which

Strati was to purchase this slave in not detailed, perhaps the condition had to be fulfilled within a

time limit thus allowing him to purchase the slave once free. Or perhaps he had the money with

which to buy a slave, which would suggest he was being allowed to keep his peculium, since as a

slave he had no property. The condition is detailed enough to mention that the replacement slave is

to reside in the same casale after the manner of slaves and to take a wife. The encouragement to

take a wife is interesting, it maybe that this as a mean of discouraging the new slave from running

away.

45Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’, p. 90 46Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’, p. 95.

C1017620

8

Like slavery, servitudo marina was hereditary and exemption required a manumission document.

Jürgen Sarnowsky website on Hopsitaller sources provides three examples, the first is dated as the

26th of may 1383 ‘The Master Fr. Juan Fernández de Heredia to Dimitrios Calodiqui from Saloniki: he,

his wife Maria Avemina, and his sons and daughters are freed from the servitus marina’47 The second

example is dated of 20th of January 1422 and is very similar.48 The third example is of the 20th of July

1427 and is also specially mentioned by Anthony Luttrell, a Greek priest Costa Chirmeli from the

casale of archangel who had been a slave of the hospital but had been freed and had to secure a bull

preventing his children being pressed into marine service.49 This is significant since it shows that

Greek priests were enslaved by the hospital but also that his children were exempt from marine

service, what is not clear is whether this is the result of him being a priest or being an exslave.

Although Coureas argues that servitudo marina was part of the role of being an enfranchised slave it

is not a common condition within the manumission documents. The role of servitudo marina is very

odd, it seems like a form of force labour but not slavery although some of the aspects are similar.

Luttrell notes that people involved in servitude marina had to be freed to gain marriage rights.50

There are 2 cases in which to get exemption of Servitude marina, replacements were required.51 This

is reminiscent of Nicola Courpi having to purchase a slave in order to gain freedom.52 [Cod. 317, f.

241v]

Anthony Luttrell describes the manumission of fourteen slaves on September 26th 1347 [Cod. 317, f.

241v] as ‘exceptional’ 53 Although Luttrell lists the manumission of 15 May 1366 [Cod. 319, f. 295]

only a couple pages later, which details the manumission of a similar number of slaves. These

examples also mention the slave’s wives and children being freed with them. It might be that few

slaves have wives which are why so few are mentioned in the manumission documents. Or the

Hospitallers were intentionally freeing husbands but not wives as a means of control. This is just

speculation, but the Hospitallers didn’t seem to have concerns about break up families as seen from

the decree of April 1473 which ruled that all slaves less than twelve years old should be taken back

to their homelands.54 Although if this decree was followed this does lead to some questions in

47Jürgen Sarnowsky, 26.05. 1383, Hospitaller sources Available:http://www1.unihamburg.de/hospitallers/sources/1350/Hospitaller1383.05.26.html (Accessed: 15/01/2014) 48 JürgenSarnowsky, 20.01. 1422, Hospitaller sources Available:,http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/hospitallers/sources/1400/Hospitaller1422.01.20.html (Accessed: 15/01/2014) 49 Luttrell, ‘the servitude marina at Rhodes 1306-1462’ ,p. 61.; JürgenSarnowsky, 20.07. 1427, Hospitaller sources, Available: http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/hospitallers/sources/1400/Hospitaller1427.07.20.html 50Luttrell, ‘the servitude marina at Rhodes 1306-1462’ ,p. 62. 51 Borchardt ‘Documents concerning Cyprus from the hospital’s rhodian archives: 1409-1459’, docs 68, 82. 52

Luttrell ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’, number 5, cod 317 f242 ,p.93. 53 Luttrel, ‘Slavery at Rhodes, p. 89. 54 Coureas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves, pp. 1-17.

C1017620

9

regard to where Hospitaller slaves came from. It is possible that the Hospiallers purchased slaves on

Cyprus from the slave markets of Famagusta and Nicosia. Ahamet Usta’s work has very little to say

about Hospitaller slavery and gives the view that it was a closed system operated by captives. 55

Conclusion

The standard manumission template as provided by Anthony Luttrell and reproduced in the

appendix is one of the main issues with Hospitaller manumission documents. Although it is true that

most manumission documents from any given period or society follow a standard pattern the

examples from 1358 are almost identical, Luttrell describes manumission documents from the 15th

century as also following the standard pattern.56 But the exemptions to the rule can be very

informative, the mass manumissions for examples. Overall the level of standardisation might suggest

distance between the master and the slave since there is a lack of personalisation. Manumission

documents are only one type of document. Unfortunately slaves tend to leave behind little

evidence. From just the few examples discussed above problems can be found in the existing

secondary literature, Anthony Luttrell underestimated the extent of Hospialler slavery on Cyprus,

Nicholas Coureas although more aware of it doesn’t make the final leap to Hospitaller sugar

plantations. Both authors discount the Hospitaller use of captives as slaves. In regard to the wider

discourse on slavery the manumission documents are to some extent has expected, long service

clauses, often after the death of the master but the relationship these documents reveal is unusual,

typically a slave owners power over their slave is near total, but within the Hospitallers that was not

true. The master of the Hospitallers has power over an individual brother’s slave. This is seen by the

permission manumission documents. Manumission does not end the master slave relationship but

it does mark a turning point and for understanding the master, brother, slave relationship more

research is needed into day to day life. Crusader slavery has been almost entirely ignored,

Hospitaller slavery has gained some attention but the view put forward is often of a ‘softer’ form of

slavery which is not suggested in the documents.

55 Usta, Evidence of the Nature, Impact and Diversity of Slavery in 14th Century Famagusta, p. 47. 56 Luttrel, ‘Slavery at Rhodes, p. 99.

C1017620

10

Bibliography

Block Marc, ‘How and why ancient slavery came to an end’ in Slavery and serfdom in the middle

age,Trans. William R Beer, (university of California press, 1975), pp. 1-33.

Boas Adrian, Domestic setting, sources on domestic architecture and day to day activities in the

crusader states, (Brill, 2010).

Borchardt Karl, Luttrell Anthony, Schoffler Ekhard, ‘Documents concerning Cyprus from the

hospital’s rhodian archives: 1409-1459’ Cyprus research centre Texts and studies in the history of

Cyprus, LXVI,( Theopress Ltd, 2011).

Bush M L, Serfdom and slavery, studies in legal bondage, (Longman, 1996).

Coureas Nicholas, ‘Economy’, in Angle Nicolaou-Konnari and Chris Schable (eds.), Cyprus society and

culture 1191-1374, (Brill, 2005), pp. 103-156.

Coureas Nicholas, The Assizes of the Lusignan Kingdom of Cyprus, (Cyprus Research Centre, 2002).

Coureas Nicholas, The Manumission of Hospitaller Slaves on Fifteenth Century Rhodes and Cyprus,

submitted for MO6, (2013).

Epstein Steven, Speaking of slavery, (cornell university press, 2001).

Findlay Ronald, ‘Slavery, Incentives, and Manumission: A Theoretical Model’, Journal of Political

Economy, 83:5 (Oct., 1975), pp. 923-934

Guilmartin John, Gunpowder and galleys, (Cambridge university press, 1974).

King E. The rule statues and customs of the Hospitallers, (Methuen & co ltd, 1934).

Kleijwegt Marc ‘freed slaves, self-presentation and corporate identity in the roman world’ In Ed Marc

Kleijwegt, The face of freedom, the manumission and emancipation of slaves in old world and new

world slavery, (Brill, 2006), p. 89-115.

Kleijwegt Marc, ‘freedpeople: a brief cross-cultural history’, In Ed Marc Kleijwegt, The face of

freedom, the manumission and emancipation of slaves in old world and new world slavery, (Brill,

2006), pp. 3- 70.

Luttrell Anthony ‘Slavery at Rhodes 1306-1440’ in Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the crusades

1291-1440, (Variorum Reprints, 1982), pp. 81-100.

Luttrell Anthony, The town of Rhodes 1306-1356,(Techne press, 2003).

C1017620

11

Luttrell Anthony, ‘The servitude marina at Rhodes 1306-1462’ in The hospitallers in Cyprus, Rhodes,

Greece and the west 1291-1440, (variorum, 1997), pp. 50-65.

p50-65

Patterson Orlando, slavery and social death a comparative study, (Harvard university press, 1982).

Samson Ross, The end of early medieval slavery, in J Frantzen and Dougles Moffat (eds.) The work of

work: servitude, slavery and labour in medieval England (Cruithne press, 1994), pp. 95-125.

Sarnowsky Jürgen, Hospitaller sources, Available: http://www1.uni-

hamburg.de/hospitallers/hospitallers.html (Accessed 15/01/2014)

Solomidou-Ieronymidou Marina ‘The crusaders, sugar mills and sugar production in medieval

Cyprus,’ in Peter Edbury and Sophia kalopissi-verti (eds.) Archaeology and the crusades, proceedings

of the round table, Nicosia,1 february 2005, (Pierides foundation, 2007),pp. 63-82.

Whittaker C. ‘Circe‟s Pigs: From Slavery to Serfdom in the Later Roman World.’ in Finley, Moses I.

(Ed.) Classical Slavery. (Taylor and Francis, 2003), pp. 88-114.

Wunch Cornelia, Freedom and Dependency: Neo-Babylonian Manumission Documents with Oblation

and Service Obligations in M. Kozuh (ed.), Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W.

Stolper (Chicago: Oriental Institute Press, 2014),pp. 337–345.

Usta Ahmet, Evidence of the Nature, Impact and Diversity of Slavery in 14th Century Famagusta as

Seen Through the Genoese Notarial Acts of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni da Rocha and the

Venetian Notarial Acts of Nicola de Boateriis, Submitted to the Institute of Graduate Studies and

Research (August 2011).

Zelnick- Abramovitz R, Not wholly free, The concept of manumission and the status of manumitted

slaves in the ancient Greek world,(Brill, 2005).

C1017620

12

Appendix

Document references are from the national library of Malta or from the article ‘slavery at Rhodes’ by

Anthony Luttrell.

Document list.

26 September 1347 [Cod. 317, f. 241v]

24 March 1348 [Cod. 317, f.226v]

1358 [Cod. 316, f. 301v]

1 August 1358 [Cod. 316, f.302r]

20 August 1358 [Cod. 316, f. 308]

20 August 1358 [Cod. 316, f. 313v]

15 December 1358 [Cod. 316, f. 302v]

15 May 1366 [Cod. 319, f. 295]

14 October 1381 [Cod. 321, f. 243]

8 October 1413 [Cod. 339, f. 289v-290]

5 October 1421 [Cod. 346, f. 164r]

31 August 1439 [Cod. 354, f. 250]

C1017620

13

26 September 1347 [Cod. 317, f. 241v]

C1017620

14

24 March 1348 [Cod. 317, f.226v]

Anthony Luttrell’s transcription.

C1017620

15

1358 [Cod. 316, f. 301v]

1 August 1358 [Cod. 316, f. 302r]

C1017620

16

20 August 1358 [Cod. 316, f. 308]

20 August 1358 [Cod. 316, f. 313v]

C1017620

17

15 December 1358 [Cod. 316, f. 302v]

15 May 1366 [Cod. 319, f. 295]

C1017620

18

14 October 1381 [Cod. 321, f. 243]

8 October 1413 [Cod. 339, f. 289v-290]

5 October 1421 [Cod. 346, f. 164r]

Anthony Lutrell’s transcription of above extract

C1017620

19

31 August 1439 [Cod. 354, f. 250]