Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Series Historia et Sociologia, 29, 2019, 3 UDK 009 Annales, Ser. hist. sociol., 29, 2019, 3, pp. 345-530, Koper 2019 ISSN 1408-5348 KOPER 2019 Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Series Historia et Sociologia, 29, 2019, 3 UDK 009 ISSN 1408-5348 (Print) ISSN 2591-1775 (Online) ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 ISSN 1408-5348 (Tiskana izd.) UDK 009 Letnik 29, leto 2019, številka 3 ISSN 2591-1775 (Spletna izd.) UREDNIŠKI ODBOR/ COMITATO DI REDAZIONE/ BOARD OF EDITORS: Roderick Bailey (UK), Simona Bergoč, Furio Bianco (IT), Alexander Cherkasov (RUS), Lucija Čok, Lovorka Čoralić (HR), Darko Darovec, Goran Filipi (HR), Devan Jagodic (IT), Aleksej Kalc, Avgust Lešnik, John Martin (USA), Robert Matijašić (HR), Mateja Matjašič Friš, Darja Mihelič, Vesna Mikolič, Luciano Monzali (IT), Edward Muir (USA), Vojislav Pavlović (SRB), Peter Pirker (AUT), Claudio Povolo (IT), Marijan Premović (ME), Andrej Rahten, Vida Rožac Darovec, Mateja Sedmak, Lenart Škof, Marta Verginella, Špela Verovšek, Tomislav Vignjević, Paolo Wulzer (IT), Salvator Žitko Glavni urednik/Redattore capo/ Editor in chief: Darko Darovec Odgovorni urednik/Redattore responsabile/Responsible Editor: Salvator Žitko Uredniki/Redattori/Editors: Urška Lampe, Gorazd Bajc Prevajalci/Traduttori/Translators: Petra Berlot (it.) Oblikovalec/Progetto grafico/ Graphic design: Dušan Podgornik , Darko Darovec Tisk/Stampa/Print: Založništvo PADRE d.o.o. Izdajatelja/Editori/Published by: Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper / Società storica del Litorale - Capodistria© / Inštitut IRRIS za raziskave, razvoj in strategije družbe, kulture in okolja / Institute IRRIS for Research, Development and Strategies of Society, Culture and Environment / Istituto IRRIS di ricerca, sviluppo e strategie della società, cultura e ambiente© Sedež uredništva/Sede della redazione/ Address of Editorial Board: SI-6000 Koper/Capodistria, Garibaldijeva/Via Garibaldi 18 e-mail: annaleszdjp@gmail.com, internet: http://www.zdjp.si/ Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena 1. 9. 2019. Sofinancirajo/Supporto finanziario/ Financially supported by: Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije (ARRS), Mestna občina Koper, Luka Koper d.d. Annales - Series Historia et Sociologia izhaja štirikrat letno. Maloprodajna cena tega zvezka je 11 EUR. Naklada/Tiratura/Circulation: 300 izvodov/copie/copies Revija Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze / La rivista Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia è inserita nei seguenti data base / Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in: Clarivate Analytics (USA): Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) in/and Current Contents / Arts & Humanities; IBZ, Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur (GER); Sociological Abstracts (USA); Referativnyi Zhurnal Viniti (RUS); European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Elsevier B. V.: SCOPUS (NL). Vsi članki so v barvni verziji prosto dostopni na spletni strani: http://www.zdjp.si. All articles are freely available in color via website http://www.zdjp.si. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 Izidor Janžekovič: Izvor in prenos ideje ravnotežja moči iz Italije v Evropo ......................... 345 L’origine e trasferimento dell’idea dell’equilibrio di potere dall’Italia all’Europa The Origin and Transfer of the Balance- of-power Idea from Italy to Europe Avgust Lešnik: Komunikacija sociologije in zgodovine v zgodnji dobi sociološke misli: v znamenju metodološkega spora. Ob 180-letnici Comtovega poimenovanja sociologije za »znanost o družbi« .......................... 363 Comunicazione tra sociologia e storia nei primi tempi del pensiero sociologico: all’insegna del conflitto metodologico. 180 anni dalla designazione di Comte della sociologia come «scienza dell’umanità» Communication Between Sociology and History in the Early Age of Sociological Thought: Indication of the Methodological Dispute. The 180th Anniversary of Comte‘s Designation of Sociology for »The Science of Society« Boris Golec: Extinct Medieval Boroughs in Southern Slovenia .............................. 373 Borghi medievali scomparsi nella Slovenia meridionale Ugasli srednjeveški trgi v južnem delu Slovenije Tone Ravnikar: Usnjarstvo v srednjeveških mestih slovenske Štajerske ..................................... 393 Concerie nelle città medievali della Stiria slovena Leather Tanning in Medieval Cities of today‘s Slovenian Styria Tomaž Kladnik: Maribor in vojaška infrastruktura od sredine 19. stoletja do konca prve svetovne vojne ................................405 L‘infrastruttura militare a Maribor. Dalla metà dell‘Ottocento fino alla fine della Prima guerra mondiale Maribor Military Infrastructure from the Middle of the 19th Centuryn to the End of the First World War David Hazemali, Uroš Turnšek & Simon Očko: Nemška zasedba Rige in operacija Albion: prispevek k razumevanju vzhodne fronte prve svetovne vojne na Pribaltiku ........................... 425 L‘occupazione tedesca di Riga e l‘operazione Albion: contributo alla comprensione del fronte orientale durante la Prima guerra mondiale nelle regioni Baltiche The German Occupation of Riga and Operation Albion: a Contribution to the Understanding of the Eastern Front of the First World War in The Baltics Aleš Maver, Nataša Maver Šoba & Darko Friš: Med pobožnostjo in gradnjo socializma: Celjski koledar Družbe Sv. Mohorja med letoma 1945 in 1956 .................................... 437 Tra la devozione e la costruzione del socialismo: il Calendario della Società di S. Ermagora di Celje tra il 1945 e il 1956 Between Piety and Building of Socialism: the Calendar of the St Hermagoras Society in Celje during the Years from 1945 to 1956 Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies VSEBINA / INDICE GENERALE / CONTENTS UDK 009 Volume 29, Koper 2019, issue 3 ISSN 1408-5348 (Print) ISSN 2591-1775 (Online) ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Aleksandar Knežević: Maternji jezik kao determinanta etničkog identiteta u popisima stanovništva Srbije .................................. 455 Lingua materna come determinante dell’identità etnica nei censimenti della popolazione della Serbia Mother Tongue as a Determinant of Ethnic Identity in Population Censuses of Serbia Polona Tratnik: Umetnost kot investicija. Institucija umetnosti v službi umetnostnega trga ................................................. 473 Arte come investimento. L‘istituzione dell‘arte al servizio del mercato dell‘arte Art as Investment. Institution of Art in Service of the Art Market Duje Kodžoman: Pobuđivanje emocija dizajnerskim proizvodima: interakcija korisničkog iskustva s emocionalnim dizajnom ........................................ 487 Suscitare emozioni con prodotti di design: interazione dell’esperienza utente con il design emozionale Evoking Emotions with Design Products: Interaction of User Experience with Emotional Design Andrea Matošević: Pulski navozi moderniteta. Analiza dokumentarnog filma o brodogradilištu Uljanik na prelasku iz šezdesetih u sedamdesete godine XX stoljeća ............................ 499 Scalo di costruzione polesano e modernità. L’analisi del documentario girato nel cantiere Scoglio Olivi a cavallo tra gli anni Sessanta e Settanta del ventesimo secolo Building Berths of Pula and Modernity. Analysis of Uljanik Shipyard Documentary Movie at the Turn of the Sixties into the Seventies of the Twentieth Century Lada Marinković, Violeta Zubanov & Jasna Potočnik Topler: Assertiveness Scale as a Teamwork Aptitude Predictor ................................ 511 La scala di assertività come indicatore predittivo della prontezza a lavorare in un team Lestvica asertivnosti kot napovednik pripravljenosti za timsko delo Kazalo k slikam na ovitku ...................................... 522 Indice delle foto di copertina ............................... 522 Index to images on the cover ................................. 522 Navodila avtorjem ................................................ 523 Istruzioni per gli autori .......................................... 525 Instructions to Authors ........................................... 527 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 373 received: 2018-08-17 DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2019.25 EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA Boris GOLEC ZRC SAZU, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa, Novi trg 2, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija e-mail: bgolec@zrc-sazu.si ABSTRACT In this contribution, the term extinct medieval boroughs applies to: 1) boroughs of medieval origin which lost their borough status; and 2) boroughs which not only lost their status but (almost) physically disappeared. The reasons for this were economic in nature, with political circumstances also playing a more or less important role. All of the discussed boroughs were located in the southern part of what is today Slovenian territory, in the Duchy of Carniola (Slow. Kranjska), which in the Early Modern Period was generally characterised by strong dynamics in the emergence and extinction of boroughs. In this period, between the 16th and 18th centuries, the borough functions and the title of ‘borough’ gradually ceased to exist in four boroughs of medieval origin: Svibno, Senožeče, Šentvid pri Stični and Trebnje. Keywords: boroughs, Svibno, Senožeče, Trieste, Trebnje, Šentvid pri Stični, Višnja Gora BORGHI MEDIEVALI SCOMPARSI NELLA SLOVENIA MERIDIONALE SINTESI Nel presente contributo con l’espressione borghi medievali scomparsi si intendono: 1) i borghi di origine medie- vale che hanno perso il titolo di borgo; 2) i borghi che non solo hanno perso il proprio titolo, ma che sono anche fisicamente (quasi) venuti meno. I motivi di un tale declino furono per lo più di natura economica, ma sono stati anche il riflesso, in misura maggiore o minore, della situazione politica. Tutti i borghi in questione erano situati nella parte meridionale dell'area slovena, nel Ducato di Carniola, caratterizzato in generale nella prima età moderna da una vivace dinamica di genesi e scomparsa di borghi. Le funzioni e il titolo di borgo tra il '500 e il '700 vennero progressivamente a decadere per quattro borghi di origine medievale: Svibno, Senožeče, Šentvid pri Stični, Trebnje. Parole chiave: borghi, Svibno, Senožeče, Trieste, Trebnje, Šentvid pri Stični, Višnja Gora ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 374 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM In this contribution, the term contained in the title – extinct medieval boroughs – carries two meanings; namely: 1) boroughs of medieval origin which lost their borough status already in the Middle Ages or in the Early Modern Period; and 2) boroughs which not only lost their status but (almost) physically disappeared. The reasons for this were economic in nature, with political circumstances also playing a more or less important role. All of the discussed boroughs were located in the southern part of what is today Slovenian territory, in the Duchy of Carniola, which in the Early Modern Period was generally characterised by very strong dynamics in the emergence and extinction of boroughs. Those boroughs that were transferred to another location already in the Middle Ages and a functionally extinct borough at its original location that was given a typical different name of Stari trg, ‘Old Borough’ (cf. Kos, 1930, 160–173), shall be left to one side. Moreover, two boroughs in Lower Carniola, i.e. Kronovo and Otok, which already fell into oblivion in the Middle Ages will only be touched upon. The focus shall be on those which ceased to exist in terms of function and name between the 16 th and 18 th centuries when the dynamics of the extinction of old and the emergence of new boroughs in Carniola were generally very high. The borough title gradually fell into disuse in that period in four medieval boroughs but, on the other hand, nearly a dozen settle- ments only then started to be referred to as boroughs and, for some of these, the title was soon abolished or was never even completely accepted (Golec, 1999, 236 ff.). In two medieval boroughs, Svibno in Lower Carniola and Senožeče in Inner Carniola, the borough settlement nearly completely disappeared in the first half of the 18 th century. In the other two, Trebnje and Šentvid pri Stični, both in Lower Carniola, the new name Stari trg (Old Bor- ough) grew in popularity in the 16 th and 17 th centuries to describe the entire settlement, as a remnant of the former borough, but without a new borough emerging in the vicinity. (ALMOST) PHYSICALLY EXTINCT BOROUGHS Already in the Middle Ages, two boroughs ceased to exist in the vicinity of Novo mesto which was founded in 1365 and soon became the largest and most important town in Lower Carniola. The Kronovo borough is known only from two brief mentions in the 14 th century (1308 and 1352), when it was probably already in decline. It is highly likely it was located close to the present- day Kronovo village on the islet that sits in the lower stream of the Krka River, bearing the meaningful name Tržič, i.e. ‘small borough’. It is no coincidence that the Kronovo borough cannot be found in historical sources after the emergence of Novo mesto, which was only a few kilometres away (Golec, 2001, 273). The second borough along the lower Krka River, named Otok (Gutenwerd) and located on the estate of the Bishops of Freising, persisted for a longer time and was first mentioned in primary sources already in 1251. The borough saw its peak at the end of the 13 th and in the 14 th centuries, when in some respects it was considered a counterbalance to Kostanjevica, the only Lower Carniolan town at the time. The chief reason for its decline was the political, military and economic consolidation of the Habsburgs in this area, especially the establishment of their town settlement of Novo mesto, which they strongly supported. The structurally impaired Otok received the final blow in 1473 when it was burned down during one of the many Ottoman incursions into Slovenian territory. The invaders killed some of the borough’s population and placed some of them in captivity, while later there were not many possibilities or any great need to rebuild the settlement (Gestrin, 1972, 34–37). Over time, even the location of the razed borough went into oblivion, taking half a millennium before the settlement was excavated by archaeologists (Šlibar, 1972, 37 ff.). As opposed to bor- oughs found in the Western Balkans and Pannonia, Otok is the only example of a borough on Slovenian territory that was completely demolished in war and ceased to physically exist. By analogy with Otok, a blow from the outside could cause the destruction of another borough, namely Pusti Gradec in Bela krajina (White Carniola). Nothing is known about this mysterious borough of medieval or Early Modern Period origin that lasted up until the end of the 17 th century. From then on, it was described in docu- ments simply as a rural hamlet, yet with the meaningful title of ‘borough’ (Slov. Terch, Germ. Markt) (Golec, 2010, 612–623). The Pusti Gradec borough may date back to the Middle Ages and may also have fallen victim to the Turkish raids in the 15 th or 16 th centuries. Another explanation might be that the borough fell into ruins after a long economic downturn, namely no later than during the second half of the 17 th century. Its similarity with the medieval borough of Svibno near Radeče is that the latter also exists by way of only modest remnants from the mid-18 th century. Given the settlement’s radical decline, Svibno can also be classified as a physically extinct borough. Like in Pusti Gradec, a small rural settlement remained after the borough, whereas the title of borough was eventually removed due to the complete ending of the settlement’s functional roles. Were it not for many 15 th and 16 th century historical sources referring to Svibno, the question of what happened to the settle- ment would remain unanswered, namely: Where did Svibno obtain its title of borough and why was the title used at all given that, in the 18 th century, it was merely a negligible settlement of an evidently rural character? According to the Theresian Cadastre from the mid-18 th century, the land ownership/possession ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 375 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 arrangements of Svibno and Pusti Gradec were sur - prisingly similar. Although the two were called bor - oughs, historical records show only three landowners for them both. Moreover, the landowners were not distinguished from the local serfs in terms of type of property or legal status. In Pusti Gradec (Marckht Gra- dez), two landowners each held one-half of a huba (Germ. Hube; i.e. a farm run by a peasant family) and one had three-quarters of a huba, whereas they were all granted possession of the estate by the seigniory of Krupa under the less favourable law regulating leases (Miethweis) (Golec, 2010, 617). The picture of the Svibno borough (Markht Scharfenberg) was very similar. In 1754, three landowners enjoyed one- third of the leased huba each, with one of them, the blacksmith, also engaging in a non-agricultural activ- ity. Unlike other serfs, they did not do forced labour but had to transport letters and food, spin flax, thresh grain and do the laundry for the Svibno seigniors. 1 1 ARS–174, 126, RDA, N 176, No. 10, 6. 9. 1754;ARS–174, 81, BT, N 176, No. 8, s. d. 2 NŠAL–100, KAL, 119/11 (Svibno). The Theresian census of 1754 clearly confirmed the smallness of Svibno: only 15 (!) people were living in the borough. 2 Without knowing prehistory, one would be surprised at the title of borough for Svibno being the same as the borough title of Pusti Gradec because only farmers with hubas are revealed in the records for both settle- ments. However, Svibno was then considerably larger and more important. It emerged at the foot of a castle that bears the same name and was first mentioned in 1175; namely, next to the parish church, i.e. the seat of an ancient parish mentioned in primary sources after 1282 (Höfler, 2015, 190). The borough’s origin dates at least to the 14 th century and is first mentioned in the rent roll of the Svibno seigniory that emerged before 1439, when the seigniory was provincial princely. Back then, the borough included 32 landowners who possessed 27 houses, two small homesteads (Hofstatt), three granaries and two smithies. Almost half of them (15) carried crafts- Map 1: Extinct medieval borougs in southern Slovenia. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 376 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 man and other occupational titles, thus indicating the activities performed by the people of the borough were distinctly non-agrarian. 3 The legal status of burghers (Bürger) and the commercial/legal (kaufrechtlih) nature of the borough estate are attested to in the only sale and purchase contract dated 1439 for real estate in the borough that is today preserved. 4 When comparing this situation with the next rent rolls from 1570 and 1571, the borough’s descent is clearly visible in all respects. The number of landowners dropped from 32 to 20, with only 16 holding a small homestead (Hofstatt) in their possession. The total of 21 Hofstatts shows the past situation concerning land ownership/possession, while in the meantime some individuals merged two or even three of these small homesteads. 5 Good knowledge of the situation concerning land ownership/possession and the population in the first half of the 15 th century is thus even more important because exclusive reliance on later historical sources could easily allow the wrong conclusion that Svibno was simply a failed attempt 3 ARS–1074, 79u, urbar Svibno prva polovica 15. stoletja, s. p. – The rent roll can be dated based on the mention by the burgher Hans Angrer in a document from 1439 (see the next note). Angrer is stated in the rent-roll as one of the landowners, but there is no mention of Katarina to whom he sold the house and the garden based on the abovementioned document. 4 ARS–1063, št. 555, 1439 IV. 24., s. l. 5 ARS–1, 108, I/61, lit. S XIX–3, urbar Svibno 1570, fol. 337–340; ARS–1, 108, I/60, lit. S III–6, urbar Svibno 1571, fol. 161v–164. 6 ARS–1, 108, I/61, lit. S XIX–6, 8. 6. 1575. 7 ARS–1074, II/22u, urbar Svibno 1602, s. p. to establish a borough which, not only in subsequent periods but also in the Middle Ages, was not large, densely populated or very important. In the 1570s, the borough was only a pale shadow of the former Svibno. When examining the situation in the Svibno seigniory in 1575, the provincial princely commission established, for example, that the place was named a ‘small borough’ (ain märkhtl) but lacked weekly or any other fairs. 6 Over the three decades between 1571 and 1602, the rent rolls show the situation concerning land ownership/ possession in the borough further deteriorated, namely the number of landowners dropped from 20 to 15, who overall held possession of 14 small homesteads. 7 The borough therefore waned and became functionally extinct already in the 16 th century. While this dwin- dling settlement was still called a borough, the title of burgher (Bürger) gradually fell out of use, while the only known individual title of burgher is seen in the already mentioned sales and purchase document from 1439. Burghers as such (die burger) were mentioned in the Image 1: Svibno according to Valvasor’s sketch book, 1678–1679 (Valvasor, 2001, image 235). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 377 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 1570, 1571 and 1602 rent rolls in connection with the possession of an abandoned huba. 8 The fact that in the Svibno seigniory (1602) the invited assessors in criminal procedures were not local burghers or assessors from the nearby towns and boroughs, 9 as was customary in the province, but village heads i.e. župans, also speaks for itself. On the contrary, one-quarter of a century ear- lier (1576), the neighbouring seigniory of Radeče, had also invited, besides burghers from the local Radeče borough, some men (etliche rattsfreundt) from urban settlements to become assessors, among which Svibno was explicitly stated, besides Krško. 10 Unfortunately, no information is available about the later practice in criminal procedures. For a century and a half, namely from the start of the 17 th to the mid-18 th centuries, there are few sources concerning the borough. After 1620, when the Svibno seigniory ceased to be governed by the provincial prince and passed into the private hands of the nobility (Smole, 1982, 474), rent rolls, deeds and other relevant documents for this period are missing. The most one can learn about this in-between period comes from the writings of the polyhistor J. V. Valvasor (1689). Although Valvasor included Svibno in the list of Lower Carniolan boroughs (Valvasor, 1689, II/175) and even depicted its (supposed) coat of arms (Valvasor, 1689, IX/175), he dedicated some modest but meaningful words to it in his description, implying the borough was already a thing of the past: “Not far away from here (i.e. from the new castle replacing the old one at a lower location) stand a parish church and a few small houses which ear- lier (!) formed a borough” (so ehedessen einen Marckt formirten) (Valvasor, 1689, IX/499). The settlement and its borough status were preserved throughout the 17 th century. In the registers of births, marriages and deaths of the Svibno parish, only 14 fami- lies were recorded in the 1663–1703 period, located either in Svibno or explicitly in the borough. Compared to the situation in 1602, there were no material changes in the number of homes. 11 The borough therefore fell into ruins during the early decades of the 18 th century, yet the depopulation process cannot be described in detail due to the gaps in the parish registers of births, marriages and deaths as well as the lost rent rolls. The final vacating of the small homesteads (Hofstatt) only completed a much longer natural process. The final blow perhaps came when a fire broke out, after which 8 ARS–1, 108, I/61, lit. S XIX–3, urbar Svibno 1570; ARS–1, 108, I/60, lit. S III–6, urbar Svibno 1571;ARS–1074, I/22u, urbar Svibno 1602, s. p. 9 Any changes in the status 30 years earlier cannot be established because the 1570 and 1571 rent rolls do not include any statements about the judiciary (see note 8). 10 ARS–1, 107, I/60, lit. S X-1, urbar Žebnik ali Radeče 1576, s. p. 11 NŠAL, ŽA Svibno, Matične knjige, R 1653–1658, R 1659–1671 (P 1659–1671), R 1671–1684, R 1685–1701, R 1701–1713. 12 ARS–1, 108, I/61, lit. S XIX–3, urbar Svibno 1570, fol. 337–340;ARS–1, 108, I/60, lit. S III–6, urbar Svibno 1571, fol. 161v–164. – ARS– 1074, II/22u, urbar Svibno 1602, s. p. 13 ARS–174, 126, RDA, N 176, No. 10, 6. 9. 1754;ARS–174, 81, BT, N 176, No. 8, s. d. 14 NŠAL, ŽA Svibno, R 1800–1833, R 1834–1882, P 1800–1836, P 1836–1899, M 1800–1837, M 1838–1889. the already few inhabitants did not renovate their homes. There were even fewer reasons to continue living in the remote and economically weak Svibno when inland navigation along the Sava River started in the period of Emperor Charles VI (1711–1740) (Umek, 1986) with the outcome that there was much less transport moving along the valley of Sopota via Svibno. In the first half of the 18 th century, the former borough featured – besides a mansion and a sexton’s cottage (the presbytery was moved to the succursal church of St. John the Baptist) – only three landowners who divided the former com- mon borough farm among themselves. The rent rolls for 1570, 1571 and 1602 show it was a desolate huba (Hube) cultivated by burghers, 12 whereas in 1754 each of the three landowners held one-third. 13 Denoting Svibno as a borough was already an anachronism in the Theresian Cadastre by virtue of the fact the physically almost ruined borough was termed as such by the local landowning nobility. The broader environment no longer perceived it as a borough. Un- like Valvasor (1689), the cartographer J. D. Florijančič did not consider it a borough and his map of the Duchy of Carniola from 1744 only features the sign of a castle and the sign of a parish seat at the location of Svibno (Florijančič pl. Grienfeld, 1995, s. p.). The official lists of boroughs and settlements in Carniola, starting at the end of the 18 th century, did not denote Svibno as a bor- ough, merely a village (e.g. Schematismus, 1795, 187; Alphabetische Tabelle, 1819, G 2). Likewise, it was not included among boroughs on the 1796 Lower Carniola map in Kindermann’s atlas of Inner Austria (Kindermann, 2005, No. 11). The borough title was recorded sporadi- cally only in the registers of births, marriages and deaths of the local parish, for the last time in 1840. 14 In the Early Modern Period, the Svibno borough not only functionally ceased to exist but also disappeared physically. It clearly underwent a serious economic and demographic crisis already at the turn of the Modern Period, and then hobbled along for about two centuries with modest craftsmanship and without any fairs or hope for better days. Based on everything that is known from historical sources and the circumstances, the reasons for the borough’s downfall mostly seem to be the changed economic conditions. The location’s altitude and remoteness from any important major roads would not necessarily be the cause of the decline of non-agrarian activities and, eventually, people leaving the waning ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 378 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 borough if it were not for the vicinity of a competitive borough, i.e. Radeče. That borough near the Sava River became a serious rival to Svibno after 1456 when the Radeče seigniory, previously an estate of the Counts of Celje, passed into the hands of the provincial prince (cf. Golec, 2001, 513). A similar situation regarding land ownership as in Svibno – the image of almost vanished settlement – was also seen, according to the Theresian Cadastre, in the Senožeče borough in the Karst in the mid-18 th century, the last urban settlement along the main road between Ljubljana and the port town of Trieste, which as a free port in that century (as of 1719) started its rapid rise to become a metropolis. While the downfall of Svibno can, according only to some indices, partly be ascribed to competition from the nearby Radeče borough, Senožeče provides some direct evidence that it had succumbed to the rapidly growing Trieste. The small borough of Senožeče was a peculiarity in many respects. First, because it had emerged near a village with the same name where the seat of the old parish was; second, because it was surrounded by a wall (bor - oughs only exceptionally included such walls); third, because it was almost completely depopulated by the mid-18 th century and, finally, because at the start of the 19 th century it merged with the village whereby the already extinct borough title was then transferred to the entire settlement. 15 The place consistently had a markedly transit char- acter, which is why there was a tollhouse already in 1217 (Gestrin, 1965, 201) whereas a village together with a castle was described in historical records for the first time in 1275 (Bianchi, 1847, 144) as well as a fair (ad nundinas in Senosezach) in 1352 (Šumrada, 1986, 50). As it was physically separated from the older vil- lage by a wall, the borough was recognised as a new settlement already by its appearance. Its emergence could be due to the lords of Duino in the 14 th century, although the borough was first mentioned in the period when the lords of Walsee ran the Senožeče seigniory. The earliest mention of the borough as a kaštel, i.e. castle (in dem Chastell ze Senaseczschach) in 1443 shows the complex was surrounded by walls and clearly separated from the village (Senoseczschach inn dem dorff) (Kos, 1902, 117). It had emerged at least a few decades earlier, whereas it was explicitly termed a borough (markcht) for the first time in the oldest rent roll of the Senožeče seigniory dated 1460. The bor - ough’s landowners were distinguished from the serfs 15 For details about the development of the Senožeče borough: Golec, 2006, 366–378. 16 ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–21, Ordnung der phleg Senosetschach, 3. 3. 1499. 17 ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–4, 5. 2. 1532. – StLA, Kammer–Reg., 1530–1535, fol. 98, 21. 7. 1531. 18 ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–19, urbar Senožeče 1524, fol. 49–49v;ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–20, urbar Senožeče 1568, s. p.; StLA, I. Ö. HK–Sach, K 91/17a, Urbar Senosetschach 1576, fol. 69–69v;ARS–1, 106, I/60, lit. S V–1, urbar Senožeče 1586, s. p. 19 ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–4, 20. 8. 1644. 20 ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–20/2, 21. 2. 1571. 21 ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–4, s. d. (1577), 29. 5. 1577. by their privileged status as they did not pay the basic rent roll duty (Kos, 1954, 201, 204). As testified by the provincial princely order for the Senožeče seigniory (1499), before the end of the Middle Ages the borough bore the attributes of a mature borough. The provincial princely order named the inhabitants burghers (burger) who owned their houses (aigen haws), unlike the serfs who held their houses in possession. 16 In 1532, the burghers were granted the provincial princely right to an annual fair marking the festival of St. Helene (18 August) and the weekly fairs held on Mondays. 17 How many houses there were in the Senožeče borough unfortunately remains unknown for a long time period. Namely, like the 1460 rent roll, all rent rolls of the Senožeče seigniory from the 16 th century merely mention a borough solely in relation to other issues, without denoting any relevant subjects. 18 Then, the report by the Count of J. F. Portia, the leaseholder of the seigniory, mentions ten houses only in 1644. 19 The borough was evidently extremely small as it was walled off, yet it was by no means insignificant. After having acquired its fair privileges (1532), Senožeče en- joyed a strong economic upturn in the following dec- ades. Its useful location along the main road running towards the sea ensured high and, in particular, regular income from trading. In 1560, Senožeče is described as an important place for rural freight transporters trad- ing in cereals and salt (Vilfan, 1963, 7, 11). Even after the court chamber in Graz banned the weekly fairs several years later for unknown reasons, the locals of Senožeče failed to comply with the ban. They contin- ued to sell large quantities of cereals that were after- wards trafficked to Italy for sale (auf das Welisch vnd Venedigisch), which is why in 1571 the court chamber threatened them with drastic measures, 20 and then the Count of Portia as a lienor of the seigniory, on behalf of the burghers, applied in 1577 for the regranting of the fair privileges from 1532 and for the two rival weekly fairs in Postojna and Razdrto to be brought to an end. 21 Precisely at that time, towards the end of the 16 th cen- tury, the small borough reached its economic peak. It became a stepping stone for traders from the Italian Bergamo, enabling them to earn profits and acquire the status of nobility. The story of a small borough’s sud- den rise to a well-known trading centre was recounted by the Count of J. F. Portia in his 1644 report for the provincial vicedom (deputy of the provincial prince) in Ljubljana. In his words, a few traders from Bergamo had recently settled in the borough, most from the ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 379 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 same family, opened nine stores in a short time and, instead of small houses, built themselves large and beautiful ones. Portia’s report was basically correct and is now a very valuable narrative source. His revelation that the provincial vicedom imposed on the traders 60 years earlier, i.e. around 1584, a high annual tax of 80 gulden, also shows the Italian colony was in full bloom. 22 The presence of people from Bergamo in the borough was briefly mentioned in the 1586 account of the rent-roll duty (der walischen hanndlsleyth im Markht Sanaschetsch), 23 whereas a note on the land- owning nobility’s revenues from around 1600 refers to a collective tax of about 60 gulden on “burghers and other Italian small-scale tradesmen here in Senožeče” (der burger vnnd annderer wällischen cramer alda zu Senosetsch). 24 Another particularly valuable record is the 1576 provincial princely rent roll of the Senožeče seigniory that points to the considerable emancipation of the 22 ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–4, 20. 8. 1644. 23 ARS–1, 106, I/60, lit. S V–1, urbar Senožeče 1586, s. p. 24 StLA, I. Ö. HK–Sach, K 91/15, s. d. 25 StLA, I. Ö. HK–Sach, K 91/15, Urbar Senosetschach 1576, fol. 69–69v. 26 StLA, I. Ö. HK–Sach, K 91/15, Urbar Senosetschach 1576, fol. 76. borough community relative to the seigniory, which may be ascribed to the Italian newcomers. The burgh- ers’ only rent-roll obligations included ensuring the borough was guarded and the castle was kept in good repair. 25 Worth noting is the fact that the borough (die castell oder markht) even had modest judicial autono- my, something that practically had not existed earlier in history. The rent roll explicitly stated the borough did not have its own jurisdiction (kainen aignen pur - khtfrid) and that the judge was appointed by the lienor of the Senožeče seigniory (der richter alda allwegen durch ainen innhaber der herschafft gesezt), 26 with this already representing a great achievement compared to other boroughs in Inner Carniola. Of all Inner- Carniolan boroughs of medieval origin, Senožeče was the only one that consistently had its own borough judge in the Early Modern Period, even if only for a short period when it had reached its economic peak (Golec, 1999, 403). Image 2: Senožeče according to Clobucciarich in the early 17 th century (Sapač, 2005, 113). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 380 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 As reported by the Count of Portia in 1644, nearly all the newcomers from Bergamo were of the same descent. This was a merchant family of Garzarollis that was later elevated to nobility. It was probably brought to Senožeče by the Portia family and played a prominent role in the borough until the first half of the 20 th century (Dolenc, 1994, 24–26). Valvasor mentioned their house in 1689 as the most beautiful building in the borough, placing it alongside the old decayed castle and the new castle that the Counts of Portia, as the seigniory’s new owners, had built right above the small borough (Valvasor, 1689, XI/523). Thanks to the new administrative seat of the seigniory being located much closer to the borough than the old castle, as well as Garzarolli’s house and the homes of other Bergamo newcomers, the Senožeče borough as a whole acquired a much more luxurious image. The oldest known depiction of Senožeče in the book of sketches by J. Clobucciarich (1601–1605) shows a situation that is basically very similar to the depiction provided by J. V. Valvasor 75 years before (Sapač, 2005, 113). It all seems that at the end of the 16 th century the Senožeče burghers knew how to further boost the standing of the borough’s initially modest (self-)govern- ance. Given the strong economic hinterlands vis-à-vis the small number of burghers, “judge in the borough” gradually became “borough judge” and assumed the position of head of the borough municipality also for external matters. Thus, in 1620, the Senožeče locals turned to the Inner Austrian government in Graz, identifying themselves as the ‘judge and council in Senožeče’ (n. richter und rath zu Senosetschach), as was customary in towns and boroughs enjoying con- siderable autonomy. 27 Such hardly known borough autonomy with an own judge only lasted a good half a century. The small borough was stricken by poverty and, in the words of the Count of Portia, in 1644 it was made up of ten houses only (in ainem von zehen heusern bestehenden markht). In the abovementioned report, the Count supported the Senožeče inhabitants’ plea to reduce their tax liabilities, which was signed merely by ‘poor burghers’ (arme burgerschafft deß markhts alhie zu Sennesetsch) and not, as one would expect, by the judge and the council or at least the judge with the community of burghers. 28 The borough’s demographic and economic rise and downturn are well described in Portia’s report (1644), which in some aspects is exaggerated but basically correct. Its rise, related to the settlement of traders from Bergamo in the second half of the 16 th century, was followed by a sharp decline during the 27 StLA, I. Ö. Reg., Copeien, Cop 1620–VII–141. 28 ARS–1, 113, I/64, lit. S XXXVII–4, 20. 8. 1644. 29 This was undoubtedly Prosper Garzarolli, promoted to nobility in 1621, and perhaps also the brothers Janez Jakob and Elija, who were promoted to nobility a year before (Frank, 1970, 71). first decades of the next century. Among others, Portia reported that ‘poor burghers’ had suffered consider- ably from the rural trade following the emergence of new weekly fairs in Postojna and Šentvid near Vipava, whereas, in his opinion, the main reason for the downturn was that one of the Garzarollis ceased trading 29 and his tax liabilities were then imposed on other burghers. Some burghers fell into complete ruin under the weight of this tax burden, whereas some grew rich and abandoned trading altogether, which is why only two traders were left in 1644. Despite this indisputable economic decline, the general situation in the borough in the second half of the 17 th century was not that bad. Senožeče continued to be an inter - esting trading place, undoubtedly and mainly due to the abolition of the exclusive rights to sell salt, called apalt, in 1661 (Valenčič, 1981, 263). It is noteworthy that Valvasor (1689) does not speak of an economic downturn or a desolate borough, which he often em- phasised while describing other towns and boroughs. Likewise, he does not highlight its smallness or pov- erty, as he does with many other boroughs. According to Valvasor, the borough lay right beneath the new castle, it featured some beautiful houses, especially that of the Garzarolli lords, it was crossed by a pro- vincial road from Trieste to Ljubljana and also featured a warehouse of salt which was supplied for sale from Trieste every week. On a copperplate engraving made at the end of the 1670s, the borough is presented as a settlement of solid, built houses, some of which stood outside of the walls. Besides the image of a storied house without a roof, there is another clue that the Senožeče borough was no longer what it once was in a sentence that did not have any realistic basis: “Some time ago it was a town (eine Stadt), but now it is only a borough because it was heavily damaged in frequent wars and was completely destroyed” (Valvasor, 1689, XI/522–523). P. Rosetti, a companion of the Bishop of Trieste, who visited Senožeče in 1693, was more critical about the borough in his diary notes. He mentioned Portia’s mansion and other grand houses in the walled bor - ough (Borgo), along with 12 stores (botege) that had been destroyed by fire. Only the Monday fair for cere- als and salt continued (Durissini, 1998, 142). Rosetti’s statement indicating up to 12 stores in the borough refers to an indefinite past, probably the period before mid-century, and the main culprit for them ceasing to exist was certainly not fires. Namely, not much later, Senožeče was afflicted by the government economic policy, much more than any blazing fire. One of the hardest economic blows, likely the decisive one, was the reintroduction of the salt apalt soon after 1700 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 381 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 (Valenčič, 1981, 264–165), which deprived the bor- ough of its lively weekly trade. The next blow impact- ing the walled borough came in the period of Charles VI (1711–1740) when the main road leading to Trieste was re-routed around it. The small borough then lost its primary function as a transit trading and fair centre, which in the following few decades nearly led to the whole population leaving. In his 1754 description, the administrator of the Senožeče seigniory rightly associ- ated the obvious decline and emptying of the borough with the rise of Trieste. 30 The borough’s strong economic and demographic downturn started, as stated earlier, during the first half of the 18 th century. The situation concerning land own- ership/possession, as shown in the Theresian Cadastre around 1750, was utterly catastrophic. The borough had only six landowners of whom the only craftsman, a locksmith, lived outside the walled borough (ausßer dem markh Senosetsch). Besides empty houses in ru- ins that nobody even wanted to lease, there were just three houses in the borough to which some gardens up to three-quarters of a huba belonged. Several va- cated houses had completely collapsed, whereas the existing ones were mostly uninhabited and decaying. 31 The Cadastre explicitly emphasised in another place that the borough only contained three houses (markht, welich leztere in dreyen häusern besteht), 32 thus con- sisting of: one noble house (Garzarolli’s), one for the administrator and one for the craftsman, which stood outside the walls. 33 An extract from the rent roll, as part of the Theresian Cadastre, reveals a quite different picture of recent historical time: in relation to three-quarters of a farm and 15 small homesteads (Hofstatt) 23 landowners were recorded, but only 8 were still existing, whereas the remaining 15 estate units were abandoned, non- cultivated farms called pustotas. In 1754 they all had known owners, obviously meaning that the latter managed the borough in the first half of the century. It may be concluded for just 17 householders that they also possessed a house, whereby six potential houses belonged to members of the Garzarolli family. 34 The process of the borough houses becoming vacated can only be established indirectly, namely, especially after 1718 from the oldest register of deaths that listed deaths of some people known to be the householders of pustotas who were included in the 1754 census. 35 30 ARS–174, 39, RDA, P 148, No. 24, 26. 11. 1754. 31 ARS–174, 16, BT, P 148, No. 1, s. d. 32 ARS–174, 16, BT, P 148, No. 7, s. d. 33 ARS–174, 16, BT, P 148, No. 1, s. d. 34 ARS–174, 16, BT, P 148, No. 23, 10. 5. 1757. 35 Župnijski arhiv Senožeče, register of deaths 1718–1782. 36 ARS–1, 196, I/60, lit. S V–1, urbar Senožeče 1586, s. p. 37 ARS–174, 39, RDA, P 148, No. 24, 26. 11. 1754. 38 ARS–174, 39, RDA, P 148, No. 24, 26. 11. 1754. 39 ARS–6, RK, 88, fasc. XXVIII, 4. 12. 1752. One thing is certain: the borough was not destroyed by fire and was not suddenly vacated, but gradually became extinct over a few decades. Contrary to the borough, the village of Senožeče (Dorff Sennosetsch) grew considerably compared to the situation at the end of the 16 th century. In 1586, there were 50 homes 36 and about 150 years later, in 1754, there were 120 private landowners of small homesteads (Hofstatt) and parts of hubas, while to- gether with smaller landowners and 13 pustotas this amounted to 149 estate units. 37 Compared to the vil- lage, the borough was almost in complete ruins by the mid-18 th century. The decline to just three inhabited houses meant that a mere one-sixth of the former homes remained in contrast to some 17 houses in the first half of the century. In this respect, the Senožeče borough cannot be compared with any other place in Slovenian territory, especially due to the abrupt end to the formerly successful borough along the main arte- rial road leading to Trieste. In this respect, it cannot even be compared with the Svibno borough because the latter also shrank from the end of the 17 th century to the mid-18 th century from a dozen homes to just three. However, the qualitative difference with Senožeče is obvious. There must have been several reasons for this in- credible downfall of the Senožeče borough. In 1754, the administrator of the Portia princes ascribed this to the rise of Trieste, a free port since 1719, and com- mented that the remaining houses in the borough were also to be vacated. 38 Confirmation of the economic downturn – not only of the borough but of the entire Senožeče – can be found in a two-year older report by the Inner Carniolan district head on the status of craftsmanship and artisanship in Inner Carniolan bor- oughs. The 1752 report places Senožeče in the second of the two classes, namely in a meaningful last place, and deals with it in only one sentence: “Senožeče does not have any craftsmen and the annual fair takes place in autumn, on Ember Sunday”. 39 While the an- nual fair was at least preserved, the weekly fair as a lively venue for salt resale had become extinct since the times of Valvasor (1689). The biggest culprit for the collapse of the Senožeče borough must thus be seen in the termination of the weekly exchange of cereals and salt following nationalisation of the salt trade which was then conducted differently (cf. Valenčič, 1981, ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 382 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 264–265). The borough’s downfall was certainly due to the new commercial road, constructed during the time of Charles VI, which by-passed the borough, even though its route was just a stone’s throw from the walls (Rajšp, 1997, section 211). It is not surprising that Senožeče as a borough was no longer included in Florijančič’s map of the Duchy of Carniola from 1744 and that, as was the case with Svibno, only the sign of a castle and the sign of a parish seat were marked at its location (Florijančič pl. Grienfeld, 1995, s. p.). Senožeče cannot be found in the official 1795 list of Carniolan boroughs (Sche- matismus, 1795, 187) nor the list of Inner Carniolan boroughs from the same year in Kindermann’s atlas of Inner Austria (Kindermann, 2005, No. 11). However, in 1817 it was officially a borough again, with 134 houses and 870 inhabitants (Haupt-Ausweis, 1817, 66). In the meantime, the defunct borough title was transferred to the entire settlement, again a unique phenomenon not seen anywhere else in Slovenian territory. LOSS OF THE BOROUGH TITLE AND THE PHENOMENON OF STARI TRG (OLD BOROUGH) Two boroughs in Lower Carniola lost their borough title in the Early Modern Period, namely Šentvid pri Stični and Trebnje which, as opposed to Senožeče and Svibno, Valvasor (1689) had already excluded from the list of boroughs of Lower Carniola (Valvasor, 1689, II/175). They are a peculiarity because – as remnants of the former borough – they were both named ‘Stari trg’ (Old Borough), without any new borough having emerged in the vicinity to which the borough func- tions could be transferred. There are three cases in Slovenian territory where a borough was relocated already in the Middle Ages and the dying settlement on the previous location was named Stari trg. It is worth noting that later on a town developed from all three relocated boroughs: first, Slovenj Gradec in Car- ynthia (later Styria) which is first referred to as a town in 1267 (Kosi, 2008, 139–141; Curk, 1991, 126–127, 131) and then Lož (Kranjc, 1977, 44–45) and Višnja Gora in Carniola (Golec, 2008, 109–112) that were elevated to the status of town in 1477 and 1478, respectively. The belief was the successor of Stari trg in Bela krajina (White Carniola), originally a borough named Poljane, was the settlement of Predgrad, yet more recent studies show that borough functions were 40 ARS–1063, št. 5704, 1335 XI. 25., Krško. 41 ARS–1063, št. 4351, 1386 VII. 29., Celje. 42 According to the register of fiefs for the Celje estate that was written upon its transfer to the Habsburgs (1456), the Trebnje borough was a fief of two landlords. Bernard Kozjakar had, besides the castle (den Turn zu Trefn) and various lands in the vicinity, 12 small home- steads (Hofstatt) in the borough, whereas Baltazar Weispriach had 10, referring to the deed of enfeoffment of his spouse (ARS–1073, I 3r, fol. 3, 17v–18). 43 ARS–1063/prepisi, 1464 II. 3., Wiener Neustadt. 44 1463: ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, Urbar Schönberg 1463, fol. 4v–5. 1467: Bizjak – Preinfalk, 2009, 453. not transferred permanently here as the insignificant rural borough retained its written medieval privilege up until the mid-18 th century, which was unique in Carniola (Golec, 2010, 595–601). Šentvid pri Stični and Trebnje do not belong to either of the two types of places named Stari trg. Namely, with these two places there were no new boroughs in the close vicinity and they both failed to preserve their borough attributes – the same as Stari trg in Poljane. Like in Senožeče, their downfall can be associated with the rise of the nearby town set- tlement. The emergence of Novo mesto (1365) was fatal for the further, long-run development of Trebnje, whereas for Šentvid pri Stični this role was played by the advance of Višnja Gora whose status was elevated from borough to provincial princely town a good 100 years later (1478). The former Trebnje borough, later the village of Stari trg (which is currently part of Trebnje), is a peculiarity because it did not emerge in the vicinity of a castle bearing the same name nor a parish church in the present-day Trebnje, located just one kilometre away. At the first mention of the borough (ze Treuen in dem marchkt) and a group of burghers (purgern die zu Treuen in dem marchkt gesezzen) in 1335, Trebnje was a well-developed borough in the hands of the seigniors of Svibno (the burghers were subject of a sale between two brothers of Svibno), 40 which in 1386 was sold to the Counts of Celje together with the nearby castle (tower) of Trebnje. 41 When the Counts of Celje fell into oblivion in 1456, the seigniory of Treb- nje became provincial princely but soon passed into private hands of the nobility (Smole, 1982, 502). The borough’s fate took a separate way from the nobility already when it was under the Counts of Celje who granted individual estate units in the borough as fiefs. Soon after 1456, 22 small homesteads (Hofstatt) were recorded in the register of fiefs of the former estate of the Counts of Celje, which was divided between two landlords, Bernard Kozjakar and Baltazar Weispriach, 42 the latter of whom handed over his estate to Wolfgang Apfaltrer in 1464. 43 Another 10 must be added to these 22 small homesteads as the former were in the hands of the Auerspergs, i.e. their seigniory of Šumperk, at the time (1463 and 1467). 44 In 1467, the Trebnje borough included at least 31 houses, because Viljem Auersperg, the landlord of the abovementioned 10 small homesteads, was granted – when the Auerspergs’ estate was divided up – the right to collect tithes from ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 383 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 that number of borough houses (auf markht zu Treuen auf ainvnddreyssigk hewseren) (Bizjak & Preinfalk, 2009, 456). Trebnje was one of the most divided medieval boroughs in Slovenian territory and its fragmentation was a reason for the gradual loss of its borough func- tions. In the borough belonging to several landlords, single borough (self-)governance could not survive, if it ever existed at all. Upon the borough’s first mention in 1335 – in a sales and purchase document entered into by the said two brothers from Svibno – the court in the borough was mentioned together with the toll- house, but it is not clear enough for it to be considered an autonomous borough court (den tayl an der maut vnt an dem gericht in dem ebenantem marchkt ze Treuen). 45 It is worth noting that thereafter none of Trebnje’s inhabitants was expressly termed burgher (Bürger). This applies to the well-to-do Tomaž Kramar, who (judging from his surname) was a trader but was also the one empowered to levy the tithe in the bor - ough and the surroundings (1436) (Bizjak & Preinfalk, 2009, 267–269) as well as the buyer of a house in Novo mesto (1451) (Baraga, 1995, 75–76). Although Trebnje lay on an almost ideal junction of roads, it did not become a fair centre, while in the Middle Ages regular fairs were a basic indicator that a settlement was a borough. Along the main Lower Carniolan road leading from Novo mesto to Ljubljana, there was ever less space for a successful borough already in the mid-15 th century, as Trebnje lay half way between two towns that were protected by the Habsburg provincial princes. In 1442, Frederick III confirmed town privileges on Novo mesto (Golec, 2003, 604) and in 1444 borough privileges on Višnja Gora, whose status was then elevated to a town in 1478 (Otorepec, 1978, 281–283). It seems that the turbulent period of the Turkish incursions at the end of the 15 th and in the first half of the 16 th centuries deprived Trebnje of its last economic functions of a borough. As reported by Valvasor, the Turks raided this area in 1528 (Valvasor, 1689, XI/586). Developments in the second half of the 15 th cen- tury are poorly documented in historical sources. In the 16 th century, an estate in the Trebnje borough was recorded only in the rent roll of the Mirna seigniory for the 1563–1570 period where Trebnje was still entitled as a borough (Markh Trefen). Judging from the frequency of the surname Parfueß and the mentioned nine small homesteads (Baraga, 2010, 89–90), this was the former Auersperg’s estate of ten small homesteads, i.e. Hofstatts. A little less than two centuries later, in 45 ARS–1063, št. 5704, 1335 XI. 25., Krško. 46 ARS–174, 137, RDA, N 220, No. 5, 7. 11. 1749 47 ARS–174, 137, RDA, N 220, No. 9, s. d.; No. 12, s. d.; No. 13, 19. 7. 1755. 48 NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Razne knjige, fasc. 1, urbar župnije Trebnje 1617, s. p. 49 NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Matične knjige, R 1644–1660, R 1660–1674. – The identity of the places can be ascertained based on an analysis of the names of the parents and godfathers of the baptised children. the mid-18 th century, the former borough was termed a borough for the last time (Marckht Treffen, Marckt Tref - fen) in the Mirna seigniory, namely in the Theresian Cadastre, which was an exception, 46 otherwise it was only denominated as Trebnje. 47 Trebnje was first mentioned as Stari trg in 1617 in the rent roll of the Trebnje parish (Im Alten markht), which collected the tithe from the summarily listed 33 small homesteads; only one landowner in the undoubtedly same place (Marckht) was also its serf. The nearby parish place named Trebnje, which was then completely subordinate to the parish, was called Videm in the rent roll, which is a typical term for an ecclesiastical estate . 48 Unfortunately, no information is available about the legal situation of the borough nor whether the borough’s inhabitants had to attend the neighbouring seigniories for any criminal procedure. The alternative toponym ‘Trg’ (Markt, oppidum), which besides the toponym ‘Stari trg’ (Altenmarkt, Antiquum oppidum, Antiquum forum), can also be found for Stari trg in historical sources, lost its mean- ing as a ‘borough’ and slowly denoted only a proper name. The new name ‘Stari trg’ gradually gained ground, competing with the name ‘Trg’ well into the 18 th century. Undoubtedly, both names were used by people and these were written in the parish registers of births, marriages and deaths in the Latin, Ger - man and Slovenian languages. In the oldest baptism registers for the 1644–1660 and 1660–1674 periods, Oppidum and Antiquum oppidum or Antiquum forum were often used as synonyms 49 for the somewhat less Image 3: The Trebnje borough’s first mention under the new name Stari trg in 1617 (NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Various books, folder. 1, 1617 rent roll of the Trebnje parish, s. p.). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 384 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 frequent Slovenian names ‘Trg’ (Targ , Terk, is Terga) and ‘Stari trg’ (de Stare Targ, is Stariga terga, is Stariga Targa) and their German equivalents ‘Markt’ (Margkh, Markh) and ‘Alten Markt’ (Altmargt, Altenmargt, Alten Markh). 50 The neighbouring village of Trebnje is mostly termed as ‘ex pago Treffen’ 51 and only ex- ceptionally as ‘ex oppido Treffen’, 52 whereby the title ‘oppidum’ did not automatically mean a borough since it was also occasionally granted to villages. 53 A similar practice of writing both toponyms – Stari trg and Trebnje – in the baptism registers was also seen in the first half of the 18 th century. Especially in the first quarter of the century, there was a strong tendency to write Slovenian names. Namely, at the beginning only Trg (Terh, Terch) was mainly used for Stari trg and, in the second decade, Stari trg (Stare Terh, Stari tergk) and German Alten Markt, but no longer simply Markt. 54 The sole remains of the former borough included its type-based land subdivision 55 and small home- steads (Hofstatt) as typical estate units of non-agrarian settlements. The rent roll of the Trebnje seigniory, which encompassed a major share of the settlement, addressed the estate in Stari trg as: “Hoffstetter im Alten Marckht Tröffen, dern sein 22”. 56 The number of small homesteads, i.e. Hofstatts (22), was exactly the same as held by the Kozjakar and Apfaltrer landlords together in the 1460s, thus allowing the conclusion that, in the meantime, their estates had merged while in the hands of the Trebnje landowning nobles. In fact, in 1652 there were only eight householders in Stari trg who were subordinate to the nobles and pos- sessed one to four small homesteads i.e. Hofstatts. Proper farms developed from Hofstatts, but were not named hubas (Germ. Hube) in the rent roll solely due to their genesis. The merging of small estate units to form larger ones demonstrates the borough’s strong ruralisation. M. Kos assumed the former Trebnje borough was transferred from Stari trg to the parish church in Treb- nje (Kos, 1930, 163), although there is no evidence whatsoever of such a transfer of the borough title and, 50 NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Matične knjige, R 1644–1660, 20. 9. 1644, 3. 11. 1644, 24. 12. 1645, 8. 3. 1646, 20. 8. 1646, 22. 8. 1646, 1. 9. 1647, 9. 9. 1654, 5. 9. 1657, 26. 1. 1660; R 1660–1674 12. 1. 1661, 27. 3. 1663, 31. 10. 1665, 16. 10. 1668, 17. 2. 1670, 16. 12. 1671, 17. 12. 1671, 21. 3. 1672. 51 NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Matične knjige, R 1644–1660, 27. 9. 1654, 21. 10. 1655, 21. 9. 1656, 21. 2. 1658, 9. 12. 1659, 12. 4. 1660. 52 NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Matične knjige, R 1644–1660, April 1646, 4. 10. 1646; R 1660–1674 12. 5. 1662, 26. 5. 1662, 19. 1. 1668. 53 F.i. Lukovek (26. 5. 1646) and Nemška vas (20. 8. 1655). 54 NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Matične knjige, R 1705–1725, R 1737–1752. 55 ARS–176, N 312, k. o. Trebnje, mapa (1825). 56 NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Razne knjige, fasc. 1, urbar gospostva Trebnje 1652, s. p. 57 At the end of the 16 th century, the place did not run any weekly fair since in 1593 the Novo mesto locals expressed their fear that it would be among those places that would certainly ask for it if the weekly fair were granted to Šentvid pri Stični (ARS–1, 65, I/37, lit. S XXI–6, 10. 1. 1593). 58 ARS–174, 58, BT, N 36, No. 8, 18 4. 1752. 59 ARS–174, 85, BT, N 193 (gospostvo Trebnje), No. 5, s. d.; ARS–174, 93, BT 220 (gospostvo Mirna), No. 2, s. d.: 73, BT, N 151 (gospostvo Rakovnik), No. 1, s. d. 60 ARS–174, 105, RDA N 36, No. 6, štiftregister, 20. 1. 1757, s. p.;NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje, Razne knjige, fasc. 1, štiftregister, 4. 2. 1757, s. p. thus, the emergence of the Stari trg toponym. The par - ish settlement of Trebnje, where a strong fort sprung up around the church as a defence against the Turks (Fister, 1975, 163), was never termed ‘borough’ in the parish registers of births, marriages and deaths nor the rent rolls. However, the main economic functions of the collapsed borough at the location of Stari trg were transferred to the parish church even without the bor - ough title. With time, the parish centre put the former borough in the shade, with memories of the former borough at the location of Stari trg having faded away already by the end of the 17 th century to such an extent that Valvasor erroneously located the former borough at the location of the present-day Trebnje (Valvasor, 1689, XI/586). He described that relocated place as a clayish, dirty and muddy village (Valvasor, 1689, II/183), whereas his description of the parish did not mention any fairs (Valvasor, 1689, VIII/815–816). As far as is known, Trebnje never ran any annual or weekly fairs. 57 However, by the mid-18 th century, it had expanded in demographic terms and had many more craftsmen than Stari trg. Among all the parish serfs in Trebnje, i.e. 17 small landowners according to the Theresian Cadastre, a good half (9) of them were engaged in modest craftsmanship. 58 On the other hand, the fact that serfs in Stari trg made a living only from the land also speaks for itself. Just two craftsmen lived in this former borough: a weaver, subordinate to the Trebnje nobility, and a tanner, subordinate to the Mirna nobility, whereas all the others were termed ‘without a profession’ (ohne Profession). 59 According to the Theresian Cadastre from the mid- 18 th century, Stari trg stagnated in terms of the situa- tion concerning land ownership/possession compared to the period 100 years earlier, whereas the number of parish serfs in Trebnje, all being small landowners, increased. The estate in the village of Trebnje differed from farms called hubas in other villages in two basic characteristics: its small landowners, 17 in total, were genuine owners (aigenthumblich), whereas in other places only leased hubas were known. 60 Stari trg was thus divided among three seigniories, as was already ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 385 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 the case in the 15 th century: 13 estate units belonged to the Trebnje seigniory – namely, after the merger of the former Hofstatts, one encompassed 3/4 of a huba, five less than one-half of a huba and four landown- ers were without any land 61 ; the Mirna seigniory had two Hofstatts and one huba, 62 whereas the Rakovnik seigniory had four one-third hubas. 63 It all seems that the estate of the Trebnje seigniory in Stari trg was only under lease, 64 whereas all Rakovnik serfs and the majority of Mirna serfs enjoyed the estate based on sales law (Kaufrecht). 65 The rare remnants of the former borough included: the more favourable legal position of part of an estate, the name Stari trg, the partly preserved estate unit called Hofstatt and the type-based land subdivision. In the mid-18 th century, Šentvid pri Stični 66 had long ceased being a borough, yet one can see from its lively non-agrarian activity that it was the true opposite of Stari trg pri Trebnjem. The unique characteristic that not the whole but only a small part of the settlement was considered a borough connects it with Senožeče. In the case of Šentvid, the borough was that part of the village that belonged to the Višnja Gora seigniory and even today is still known as Stari trg. This was a bor - ough street in the close vicinity of the parish church, first mentioned in 1136 (Höfler, 2015, 175), and an old village that was divided between the local parish church and the nearby Cistercian monastery in Stična. This peculiarity of Šentvid was pointed out already in 1900 by K. Črnologar, who was also the first to establish that Šentvid was still a borough in 1475, i.e. the time just before the nearby Višnja Gora borough, located just an hour’s walk away, was elevated from borough to town in 1478 (Črnologar, 1900, 135 ff.). The rise of Višnja Gora was, as mentioned earlier, the main reason for the fact that Šentvid failed to hang on to its borough status; however, the place’s division among three seigniors also played a role. It resembled Trebnje in this respect. Already at the time of its emergence, the Šentvid borough belonged to the Višnja Gora seigniory and seigniory court, i.e. Landgericht. Allegedly, the borough was first attested to in historical records in 1326, namely in a document that is known only from a regest (i.e. brief summary of a document), which mentions the first Šentvid burgher (Grebenc, 1973, 55). Seven years later, there was no doubt whatsoever about the borough’s existence. In a copy of a 1333 sales and purchase contract, five Šentvid burghers were designated as testifiers (Grebenc, 1973, 58). 61 ARS–174, 130, RDA, N 193, No. 10, urbar gospostva Trebnje, s. d. 62 ARS–174, 137, RDA, N 220, No. 5, 7. 11. 1749; No. 9, s. d.; No. 12, s. d.; No. 13, 19. 7. 1755. 63 ARS–174, 116, RDA, N 151, No. 23, s.d.; No. 5, s. d. 64 ARS–174, 105 in 130. 65 ARS–174, 73, BT, N 151, No. 1, s. d.; 93, BT, N 220, No. 2. 66 For details about the development of Šentvid pri Stični, see: Golec, 2017. 67 ARS–1, 123, I/70a, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1460, fol. 16v. When the borough appeared in written sources, its seigniors were the Counts of Gorizia and then the Counts of Ortenburg and the Counts of Celje (Otorepec, 1978, 278; Smole, 1982, 533), whereas after the mid-14 th century the Carniolan provincial princes of Habsburg were strongly against it. In the mid-14 th century, when Šentvid was an important fair place, the traders from Ljubljana, for example, negotiated in 1360 with the Duke Rudolf IV of Hab- sburg a ban on trading in Šentvid on Sundays and holidays (GZL, 1958, s. p., 1360 II. 20.). The ban on the Šentvid fair was one of a set of measures that a few years later led to the establishment of Novo mesto (1365), this being the primary goal of Rudolf’s political and economic aspirations in Lower Carni- ola (Gestrin, 1969, 132). The most important rival for Šentvid was the Višnja Gora borough which was first mentioned only in 1386 and was obviously of more recent origin than Šentvid. Particularly unpleasant for Šentvid was the fact it had a common landlord with Višnja Gora, i.e. the Višnja Gora seigniory. When the seigniory passed in 1431 from the Counts of Celje into the hands of the provincial princes, the Šentvid borough was already in the shadow of Višnja Gora. An inventory of pro- vincially princely revenues from the 1438–39 period shows Višnja Gora enjoyed five times higher revenues compared to other two boroughs in the Višnja Gora seigniory, namely Litija and Šentvid (Golec, 2008, 106–108). Šentvid increasingly also lagged behind in possessory and demographic terms. The following situation concerning land ownership/possession was recorded in the 1460 rent roll for three boroughs in the Višnja Gora seigniory: Višnja Gora counted 51 small homesteads and one-quarter of a small homestead, Litija 30 and Šentvid (Der Markht zw Sannt Veit) only 16, 67 yet it must be considered that only part of Šentvid was referred to. At that time, the Višnja Gora borough saw impor - tant changes: transfer to a new, safer location beneath the castle (before 1459) and acquiring of the first privileges that led to the final legal transformation from borough to town (1478) (Golec, 2008, 108–111). On the contrary, Šentvid was not awarded any provin- cial princely benefits. Even more, the deed concerning Višnja Gora’s the elevation to a town ordered that three annual fairs, which had previously taken place in the Šentvid parish, be transferred along with all the rights and privileges to Višnja Gora (Mauring, 1894, 31). This was a direct blow for Šentvid where at least ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 386 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 one of the abovementioned three fairs had been taking place, if not all three. Vital testimony comes from a slightly earlier pe- riod concerning the Šentvid borough’s administrative position prior to the emergence of the town of Višnja Gora. This is a deed from 1475, which was also the last document of a secular nature to still call Šentvid a borough. The deed about a pledge on a field, sealed by the Višnja Gora borough judge and council for a cer - tain Doroteja from Šentvid, reveals the administrative non-autonomy of Šentvid, even if – in a bureaucratic style – it speaks about the borough rights of Šentvid (markchtrechtn czu Sand vaytt). 68 The provincial prince as a landlord thus did not allow Šentvid, as opposed to Višnja Gora, to establish its own borough autonomy. Concurrently with the decline of the Šentvid borough, a community of burghers with full status can be found only in the first half of the 14 th century, and never again later. The year 1478 can justifiably be seen as a turning point in Šentvid’s further development. A landlord’s abolition of the official borough title is a clear sign of the provincial princely policy whose prior - ity goal was to support the newly-founded town of Višnja Gora. Yet this does not necessarily mean the extinction of all the previous borough functions. In practice, the Šentvid borough had succeeded in protecting nearly all of its modest rights it had en- joyed in the second half of the 15 th century. Thus, in 1573, nearly 100 years after it had acquired town rights, the town of Višnja Gora complained that the 68 NŠAL–101, 1475 I. 2., s. l. 69 ARS–1, 284, I/145, lit. W I–6, 27. 11. 1573, s. d. 1574. 70 ARS–174, 134, N 205, No. 35, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1578, s. p. (Malefiz rechtens furderung). 71 ARS–174, 134, N 205, No. 36, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1619. 72 ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–XI–2, Konv. 1, Weixelberg, Auszug aus den Landgerichtsprotokollen über die anhängigen Prozesse 1662– 1682;ARS–781, Spisi, fasc. 13, protokol deželskega sodišča Stična 1685–1690. 73 ARS–1, 65, I/37, lit. S XXI–6, 3. 12. 1592, 10. 1. 1593. Prim. Mlinarič, 1995, 450, 451. 74 ARS–1, 123, I/70a, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1460, fol. 16v. 75 ARS–1, 124, I/70a, lit. W XXIII–3, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1566, s. p. 76 ARS–174, 134, RDA, N 205, No. 35, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1578, s. p. three Šentvid fairs mentioned in the 1478 deed had not been transferred to Višnja Gora at all. 69 In the Early Modern Period, Šentvid retained, besides its economic characteristics, at least one legal attribute of a borough. The 1578 Višnja Gora rent roll granted it the right to provide assessors for the trials of the criminal court in Višnja Gora. Given that, according to the same rent roll, Stari trg, as part of Šentvid, was an ordinary feudal settlement and not a borough, it may be concluded that the practice of assessorship was older, i.e. inherited from the Middle Ages. The Višnja Gora rent roll appointed domestic townspeo- ple as assessors and – what is worth noting – some invited burghers (!) from Šentvid and Litija (etlich Burger von der Luthey vnnd S: Veitt). 70 This notion is only known from the rent roll provision which was already left out in the subsequent 1619 rent roll. 71 There is no way of knowing the extent to which it was implemented in practice, and until which year. In the later judicial proceedings of the seigniory courts of Višnja Gora and Stična, assessors from Šentvid were no longer referred to. 72 As regards the end of the 16 th century, when legal remnants of the former borough barely existed and Stari trg in Šentvid was equated with other feudal settlements in the rent roll, two opinions of the town administrations of Novo mesto and Višnja Gora speak volumes; namely, that Šentvid was an ordinary village and its inhabitants were serfs, not burghers. 73 The landowning nobility treated the former borough as an ordinary feudal settlement. Demographic decline was also visible compared to 1460 when the borough counted 16 small homesteads. 74 According to the subsequent rent roll of 1566, Šentvid (Sanct Veith) only had seven owners of small homesteads, two us- ers of fields and three possessors of newly built small houses on common pasture called gmajna. 75 The 1578 rent roll that was the first to document the microtopo- nym Stari trg (S: Veitt im Altenmarckht vndter Sittich Hoffstetter vndt Vndtersassen) had almost the same status, except that landowners in gmajna were stated separately as ‘cottagers near Šentvid’ (Vndtersassen bey S: Veitt). 76 While the hamlet of cottagers was expanding, over the next two centuries the former borough kept more or less the same demographic picture. In Stari trg (S: Veitt im Altenmarkht vnter Sittich) – until 1619 when Image 4: The Šentvid borough in the 1460 rent roll of the Višnja Gora seigniory (ARS–1, 123, I/70a, rent roll of the Višnja Gora seigniory 1460, fol. 16v). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 387 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 a new rent roll was prepared – seven owners of small homesteads (Hofstätter) with eight homesteads sur- vived, whereas the neighbouring cottagers’ settlement (Vntersassen bey S. Veit) grew from three small houses to 10 landowners. 77 Information about the estate is only available in the 1705 rent roll. The estates in the settlement (St: Veith) developed out of two small homesteads and other pertaining lands, which were henceforth considered as whole hubas. Moreover, another 19 estates were considered small homesteads (zw ain hofstatt). In fact, the same term of Hofstatt en- compassed estate units of very different origins located in both Stari trg and the common land (gmajna). 78 A similar land ownership/possession situation was recorded in half of the 100-year younger Theresian Cadastre from the mid-18 th century. In Šentvid (St: Veith) there were still two hubas and, instead of small homesteads, there were 20 cottagers (Vntersassen). 79 For the first time the place was explicitly named ‘vil- lage’ (Dorff St: Veit) and its Višnja Gora part actually had just 15 landowners. 80 The former borough, Stari trg, was thus ever less different from the village part of Šentvid that was subordinate to two ecclesiastical landlords, i.e. the local parish and the Stična Monastery. Even after the Višnja Gora seigniory had passed into the private hands of the nobility in 1618, i.e. first, the Moscon family and after a few years the Counts of Auersperg (Smole, 1982, 533), its new owners did not show any particular interest in the former borough for several intertwining reasons. The first was that the town of Višnja Gora had under lease a toll on the territory of the seigniory court and thus also a toll and fair fee at the Šentvid annual fairs (Golec, 2016, 112). Moreover, Šentvid could not seriously rival the town located a mere hour’s walk away, especially because just a small proportion of the place, i.e. Stari trg, was subordinated directly to the seigniory. The seigniory’s support for Stari trg would sooner or later bring greater benefit to the ecclesiastical part of Šentvid and/or the parish than the latter’s seignior. In the meantime, the ecclesiastical part of Šentvid had considerably outgrown Višnja Gora in terms of the number of homes. According to the Theresian Cadastre in the mid-18 th century, three whole hubas and two small homesteads belonged to the Stična 77 ARS–174, RDA, N 205, No. 36, urbar gospostva Višnja Gora 1619, s. p. (S: Veit im Altenmarkht ...). 78 ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–123, Urbar Weixelberg 1705, s. p., (St: Veith). 79 ARS–174, 134, RDA, N 205, No. 4, s. d. 80 ARS–174, 134, No. 33/29, s. d. 81 ARS–174, 101, RDA, N 12 I, No. 56, 4. 8. 1756. 82 ARS–781, Spisi, fasc. 4, urbar domačega urada 1653–1676, s. p. (St. Veith). 83 Ibid, Knjige, knj. 17, glavni urbar župnij in njih imenj, inkorporiranih samostanu Stična 1662, s. p. (Vrbarium yber daß Pfarrhoffliche einkhomen der Pfarr St. Veith Vnter Sittich). 84 After a strong decline in its population, Višnja Gora had the smallest population size in 1663, i.e. only 53 inhabited houses (ARS–166, 4, town tax registers, 1664), then the number of houses increased to 66 by 1752 (ARS–174, 142, N 244, No. 8, 26. 5. 1752). 85 ARS–781, Spisi, fasc. 7, protokol kupnopravnih pisem, kupoprodajnih pogodb in dolžnih pisem 1575–1692, s. p. Monastery, whereas the Šentvid parish had 10 whole hubas, two one-half hubas and 29 small homesteads in the hands of 26 landowners – a total of 34 serfs, 81 which was about twice as many as serfs in Višnja Gora. The situation was practically the same even 100 hundred years before. In the monastic part of Šentvid, three hubas and two small homesteads were listed in the 1653–1676 period, 82 whereas the 1662 parish rent roll refers to 10 whole and two one-half hubas as well as 27 landowners of 29 small homesteads – a total of 33 serfs. 83 With about 60 houses, the mid-17 th century Šentvid constantly achieved or slightly exceeded the number of homes in the neighbouring town of Višnja Gora! 84 The fact that in some respects Šentvid rose in terms of quality above the remaining rural area was not so much a consequence of the former borough status held by part of the settlement (Stari trg) but of favour - able economic factors. The parish and monastic small homesteads and farms, albeit not all of them, gradu- ally acquired – against the payment of sales proceeds – a sales-law character in the 16 th and 17 th centuries, which was quite rare in the existing circumstances. 85 Throughout this period, the settlement witnessed a strong social-wealth differentiation, resembling more like in urban settlements than in rural areas due to the emergence of the ‘gentry’. In both the Višnja Gora seigniory rent rolls (1578 and 1619) and the parish rent roll (1662) as well as parish registers of births, marriages and deaths that started in 1623, individual persons appeared bearing titles of gentleman or lady. Image 5: The first mention of Stari trg in the 1578 Višnja Gora rent roll (ARS–174, 134, RDA, N 205, No. 35, s. p.). ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 388 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 As evident in the registers of births, marriages and deaths, the Šentvid ‘gentry’ elite was very small nu- merically. 86 The question arises of whether Šentvid, compared to the 15 th century, grew even stronger economically. While in the Middle Ages the borough had merged with the centre of the ancient parish as a lively traffic juncture, which strongly spurred its trade and craft activities, in this period the Šentvid parish reaped all those benefits that Stari trg had brought about to the entire settlement in the Late Middle Ages when it was a borough. Like in Stari trg, most homes of the parish part of Šentvid were small homesteads, revealing the explicit and early orientation of Šentvid locals to a non-agrarian economy. Šentvid’s non-agrarian character was clearly emphasised at the end of the 17 th century by Valv- asor, who was obviously well aware the settlement could not be considered a borough, which is why he included it in the description of Lower Carniolan villages, stating: “Šentvid, a large village in the vicin- ity of Stična, standing on good, beneficial soil. Many handicraftsmen live here, and there are also many inns and many fairs every year” (Valvasor, 1689, II/183). Another revealing historical source is a list from 1705 of craftsmen for the entire Višnja Gora seigniory court. In terms of the strength of the non- agrarian economy, Šentvid with its 12 craftsmen held a solid second place among 40 listed villages, after Šmartno pri Litiji with 18 craftsmen. It had seven small wineries, the most among all of the places, three tanners, one butcher and one smaller trades- man, whereby the shift of the core of non-agrarian activities from Stari trg to the other, ecclesiastical part of Šentvid is clearly seen in the information that only one craftsman was a serf of Višnja Gora, five belonged to the Šentvid parish, and six to the Stična Monastery. 87 A similar situation appeared in the mid- 18 th century in the Theresian Cadastre which listed craft professions only for the landowners. Thus, out of eight landowners, serfs of Stična, not even one was a craftsman; 88 of 14 subjects of the Višnja Gora seigniory only one, the tanner, was a member of the Višnja Gora guild; 89 of 30 small landowners 86 NŠAL, ŽA Šentvid pri Stični, Matične knjige, R 1624–1629 in P 1623–1629), R 1664–1681, R 1681–1714, R 1714–1728, R 1729–1748, R 1749–1770, R 1771–1784, P 1714–1734, P 1735–1770, M 1714–1734, M 1735–1759. 87 ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–123, Urbar Weixelberg 1705, s. p. (Herrschafft Weixlberg Landt Gerichts Jahrs Khirchtag). 88 ARS–174, 52, BT 12, No. 17, s. d. 89 ARS–174, 89, BT, N 205, No. 29., 1. 5. 1752. 90 ARS–174, 93, BT, N 252, No. 1, s. d. 91 ARS–1, 65, lit. S XXI–7, s. d. (presented 27. 4. 1591), 29. 1. 1592, 3. 12. 1592, 10. 1. 1593. Prim. Mlinarič, 1995, 450. 92 In 1675 or 1676, the town of Višnja Gora reported on five fairs that had supposedly developed in Šentvid (ARS–1, 284, I/145, lit. W I–4, s. d. (Berichtscopi). A similar report was produced in 1713 by the town of Novo mesto (ARS–1, 255, I/133, lit. R I–5, 20. 1. 1713). The dates of all five fairs were reported by Valvasor (Valvasor, 1689, VIII/823) and the 1705 rent roll of the Višnja Gora seigniory (ÖStA, HHStA, FAA, A–15–123, Urbar Weixelberg 1705, s. p. 93 ARS–1, 65, I/37, lit. S XXI–7, s. d. (presented 27. 4. 1591). Prim. Mlinarič, 1995, 450. 94 NŠAL, ŽA Šentvid pri Stični, Matične knjige, R 1624–1629 in P 1623–1629, f.i. fol. 4 , 5, 7, 8. 95 NŠAL, ŽA Šentvid pri Stični, Matične knjige, R 1624–1629, fol. 10 in 36. (Hofstätter) under the Šentvid parish only a good one-third (11) were craftsmen – all of them, except for the healer, were labelled ‘rustic’: three tanners, two shoemakers and carpenters, one weaver and a blacksmith as well as a temporary butcher. 90 The economic initiative thus moved from Stari trg to the remaining part of the settlement already earlier. Both ecclesiastical seigniors supported non-agrarian activities much more than the Višnja Gora seigniors. In this respect, they encountered obstacles, among others the fact that Šentvid lay within the territory of the Višnja Gora seigniory court, which is why the fees from annual fairs were paid to the seigniory; up until 1705, this occurred indirectly via the town of Višnja Gora as a lessee of the toll (Golec, 2016, 112). It is meaningful that in 1591 the Stična Mon- astery asked the provincial prince to grant Šentvid a privilege to allow the latter to hold a weekly fair; the attempt failed. 91 While craftsmanship, as attested to by the 1705 rent roll, literally became an exclusive domain of parish and monastic serfs and Stari trg started to decline demographically, fairs remained in the hands of the Višnja Gora seigniory. There were five of them in the 17 th and 18 th centuries, 92 as many as there were already back in 1591. 93 The Šentvid parish and its protector, the Stična Monastery, tried to take over the borough title from the former borough and exploit it, besides its eco- nomic advantages. No later than in the first quarter of the 17 th century, but highly probably even earlier, they transferred it to the entire settlement in their internal documents. The oldest Šentvid registers of baptisms and marriages (1623–1629), with just a few exceptions, consistently speak about ‘oppidum S. Vita’ or ‘oppidum nostrum’ without drawing any distinction between the Višnja Gora part and the parish-monastic part of the settlement. 94 Stari trg is clearly attested to in historical records as part of Šentvid (Alten Marg zu St. Veith) and/or the Šentvid borough (Alten Margt ex opido n(ost)ro S. Viti)! 95 Another characteristic of the Šentvid parish registers of births, marriages and deaths is the gradually wan- ing use of the term ‘oppidum’ and its eventual dis- appearance. Perhaps part of the reason for this lies ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 389 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 in the fact that since 1664 the registers of baptisms were kept by church neighbourhoods, which is why there were fewer opportunities to note the place of birth. 96 One fact that speaks for itself is that, during the Modern Period, borough is not mentioned in any other document except the parish registers of births, marriages and deaths and monastic historical records (oppidum) 97 and thus, after 1475, the German term Markt is no longer seen. When the Višnja Gora part of Šentvid lost its seignior’s protection, the parish and the monastery did not dare use the title ‘borough’ in their official external documents, let alone transfer it in such cases to the entire settlement. The legal status of the estate inside the settle- ment differed depending on the appurtenance to the seigniory. All holders of small homesteads (Hofstät- ter), who were parish serfs, enjoyed possession of the property as bona quaesita, i.e. under the most favourable conditions. 98 One of the serfs of the Stična Monastery had a huba under the sales law, one had a leased huba, whereas there is no informa- tion available for the other landowners, 99 and thus no information for Stari trg that was subordinated to the Višnja Gora seigniory. 100 The remnants of the former borough, as a whole, gradually disappeared. In fact, only the micro- toponym Stari trg continued as a relic, applying to the completely built borough street along the parish Church of St. Vitus and its neighbourhood. However, the land subdivision was not correct, i.e. contrary to expectations, it did not feature the lamellar grid that characterised the medieval towns and boroughs. Such a design of the Stari trg in Šentvid leads us to conclude that the ‘borough sec- tion’ of Šentvid was designed correctly as a place 96 NŠAL, ŽA Šentvid pri Stični, Matične knjige, R 1664–1681, 1681–1714, 1714–1728, 1729–1748, 1749–1770. 97 In 1718, the term oppidum was used for Šentvid by P. Pucelj, the chronicler of the Stična Monastery (ARS–1073, 148r, P. Pucel, pag. 6). 98 ARS–174, 93, BT, N 252, No. 1, s. d. 99 ARS–174, 52, BT 12, No. 17, s. d. 100 ARS–174, 89, BT 205; 134, BT 205. with a borough character, but its construction was never completed. The borough of Šentvid (Stari trg) waned even before it started to bloom (Pirkovič & Kocbek, 1986, 68–69). CONCLUSION None of the four boroughs that ceased to exist in the Early Modern Period vanished without first trans- ferring at least some of their functions to another nearby settlement and none of them physically dis- appeared completely. The demographic regression in Svibno and Senožeče was incomparably more intense than in the other two boroughs. The eco- nomic foundations of the small borough of Svibno were shattered by the vicinity of the Radeče borough (as the latter enjoyed a more favourable position in terms of transport), after they both fell into the hands of the same landlord, i.e. the provincial prince. The economic functions of the Trebnje borough, which were thwarted by the competition from the newly emerged towns of Novo mesto and Višnja Gora, were partly taken over by the nearby parish village bear - ing the same name. A certain similarity with Trebnje can be seen in the boroughs of Šentvid pri Stični and Senožeče as the boroughs were integral parts of the villages; eventually, the village assumed all of the remaining non-agrarian functions of the bor - ough. The development of the Šentvid borough was primarily stunted by competition from the nearby Višnja Gora which was located in the same seigniory and enjoyed all the support of the provincial prince, whereas any further development of the Senožeče borough was doomed by the rise of Trieste and the provincial princely economic policy. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 390 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 UGASLI SREDNJEVEŠKI TRGI V JUŽNEM DELU SLOVENIJE Boris GOLEC ZRC SAZU, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa, Novi trg 2, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija e-mail: bgolec@zrc-sazu.si POVZETEK Oznako ugasli srednjeveški trgi uporabljamo v prispevku v dvojnem pomenu, in sicer: 1) za trge srednjeveškega nastanka, ki so izgubili trški naslov, in 2) za trge, ki niso bili zgolj ob naslov, ampak so tudi fizično (skoraj) izginili. Razlogi za to so bili gospodarske narave, pri čemer so igrale večjo ali manjšo vlogo tudi politične razmere. Vsi obravnavani trgi so ležali v južnem delu slovenskega prostora, v vojvodini Kranjski [Carniola], za katero je bila v zgodnjem novem veku nasploh značilna zelo pestra dinamika nastajanja in ugašanja trgov. Trške funkcije in oznaka trg so v tem času postopoma ugasnile pri štirih srednjeveških trgih: Svibno, Senožeče, Šentvid pri Stični in Trebnje. Nobeden od štirih trgov ni ugasnil, ne da bi se njegove funkcije vsaj deloma prenesle na drugo bližnje naselje in nobeden tudi ni v celoti fizično izginil. Demografsko nazadovanje je bilo neprimerno večje pri Svibnem in Seno- žečah. Malemu trgu Svibno je spodrezala gospodarsko osnovo bližina trga Radeče na prometno ugodnejši legi, za nadaljni razvoj trga Senožeče pa sta bila usodna vzpon pristaniškega Trsta in deželnoknežja gospodarska politika. Gospodarske funkcije trga Trebnje, ki je podlegel konkurenci novonastalih mest Novo mesto in Višnja Gora, je deloma prevzela bližnja istoimenska župnijska vas. Trg Šentvid je v razvoju zakrnel predvsem zaradi konkurence bližnje Višnje Gore, ki je ležala v istem zemljiškem gospostvu, nato pa postala deželnoknežje mesto. Ključne besede: trgi, Svibno, Senožeče, Trst, Trebnje, Šentvid pri Stični, Višnja Gora ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 391 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ARS–1 – Arhiv Republike Slovenije (ARS), Vice- domski urad za Kranjsko (fond 1). ARS–6 – ARS, Reprezentanca in komora za Kranjsko v Ljubljani (fond 6). ARS–166 – ARS, Mesto Višnja Gora (fond 166). ARS–174 – ARS, Terezijanski kataster za Kranjsko (fond 174). ARS–176 – ARS, Franciscejski kataster za Kranjsko (fond 176). ARS–781 – ARS, Cistercijanski samostan in državno gospostvo Stična (fond 781). ARS–1063 – ARS, Zbirka listin (fond 1063). ARS–1073 – ARS, Zbirka rokopisov (fond 1073). ARS–1074 – ARS, Zbirka urbarjev (fond 1074). NŠAL–100 – Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana (NŠAL), Kapiteljski arhiv Ljubljana (fond 100). NŠAL–101 – NŠAL, Zbirka listin (fond 101). NŠAL, ŽA Svibno – NŠAL, Župnijski arhiv Svibno. NŠAL, ŽA Šentvid pri Stični – NŠAL, Župnijski arhiv Šentvid pri Stični. NŠAL, ŽA Trebnje – NŠAL, Župnijski arhiv Trebnje. ÖStA, HHStA, FAA – Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖStA), Wien, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (HHStA), Fürstlich Auerspergsches Archiv (FAA). StLA, I. Ö. HK–Sach. – Steiermärkisches Lande- sarchiv (StLA), Graz, Sachabteilung der Innerösterrei- chischen Hofkammerakten (I. Ö. HK–Sach.). StLA, I. Ö. Reg. – StLA, Graz, Archiv der Inneröster- reichischen Regierung (I. Ö. Reg.). StLA, Kammer–Reg. – StLA, Graz, Registratur der (Niederösterreichischen) Kammer (Kammer–Reg.). Alphabetische Tabelle (1819): Alphabetische Tabelle aller Ortschaften des Neustaedtler Kreises. Laibach, Leopold Eger. Baraga, F. (1995): Kapiteljski arhiv Novo mesto. Regesti listin in popis gradiva (Acta ecclesiastica Slo- veniae 17). Ljubljana, Inštitut za zgodovino Cerkve pri Teološki fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani. Baraga, F. (2010): Urbar gospostva Mirna 1563– 1570 in ostanki grajskega arhiva. Mirna, Studio. Bianchi, J. (1847): Thesaurus Ecclesiae Aquilejen- sis. Opus saeculi XIV. Udine. Bizjak, M. & M. Preinfalk (2009): Turjaška knjiga listin II. Dokumenti 15. stoletja (Thesaurus memoriae, Fontes 8). Ljubljana, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa ZRC SAZU. Curk, J. (1991): Trgi in mesta na Slovenskem Štajerskem. Urbanogradbeni oris do začetka 20. stoletja. Maribor, Obzorja. Črnologar, K. (1900): Dorf St. Veit bei Sittich 1475 noch ein Markt. Mittheilungen des Musealvereines für Krain XIII, 135–138. Dolenc, E. (1994): Senožeče. Skupnost na prepihu. Koper, Rubic Trade. Durissini, D. (1998): Diario di un viaggiatore del 1600 in Istria e Carniola. Monfalcone, Laguna S.R.L. Fister, P. (1975): Arhitektura slovenskih protiturških taborov. Ljubljana, Slovenska matica. Florijančič pl. Grienfeld, J. D. (1995): Deželopisna karta vojvodine Kranjske. Ljubljana 1744, faksimile (Monumenta slovenica VI). Ljubljana, Slovenska kn- jiga. Frank, K. F., (1970): Standeserhebungen und Gnadenakte für das Deutsche Reich und die Öster- reichischen Erblande bis 1806 sowie kaiserlich österreichische bis 1823 mit einigen Nachträgen zum »Alt-Österreichischen Adels-Lexikon« 1823–1918. 2. Band. F–J. Schloss Senftenegg, Selbstverlag. Gestrin, F. (1965): Trgovina slovenskega zaledja s primorskimi mesti od 13. do konca 16. stoletja. Lju- bljana, Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Gestrin, F. (1969): Trgovsko prometni položaj Novega mesta (od ustanovitve do konca 16. stoletja). In: Novo mesto 1365–1965. Prispevki za zgodovino mesta. Maribor, Založba Obzorja, Novo mesto,: Do- lenjska založba, 130–143. Gestrin, F. (1972): Otok (Gutenwerth). Zgodovinski oris. Zgodovinski časopis 26, 1–2, 33–37. Golec, B. (1999): Družba v mestih in trgih Do- lenjske in Notranjske od poznega srednjega veka do srede 18. stoletja (doktorska disertacija). Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta. Golec, B. (2001): Dolenjska mesta in trgi v srednjem veku. Rast XII, 74, 2, 269–276; 75–76, 3–4, 391–395; 77, 5, 511–515. Golec, B. (2003): Dolenjska mesta in trgi v sredn- jem veku. Rast XIV, 90, 6, 603–608. Golec, B. (2006): Senožeče in Prem – nenavadni trški naselbini na t.i. Kraških gospostvih. Kronika, 54, 3, 365–384. Golec, B. (2008): Nova spoznanja o začetkih Višnje Gore. In: Groznik, P. (ed.): V Višnjo Goro. Druga kn- jiga. Višnja Gora, Krajevna skupnost, 106–115. Golec, B. (2010): Trgi, ki jih ni bilo? Prezrta trška naselja Bele krajine in njen nikoli obstoječi trg. Kro- nika, 58, 3, 593–630. Golec, B. (2016): Urbarji kot vir za neagrarno gospodarstvo slovenskega prostora. In: Bizjak, M. & L. Žnidaršič Golec (eds.): Urbarji na Slovenskem skozi stoletja. Ljubljana, Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa ZRC SAZU, 93–115. Golec, B. (2017): Šentvid pri Stični: ugasli srednjeveški trg. In: Štepec, D. & M. Šteh (eds.): Šentviško tisočletje. 1000 let Župnije Šentvid pri Stični. Šentvid pri Stični, Župnijski urad, 39–53. GZL (1958): Gradivo za zgodovino Ljubljane v srednjem veku. Zvezek 3. Listine Mestnega arhiva ljubljanskega 1320–1470. Ljubljana, Mestni arhiv ljubljanski. Grebenc, J. M. (1973): Gospodarska ustanovitev Stične ali njena dotacija leta 1135. Stična, Samostan. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 29 · 2019 · 3 392 Boris GOLEC: EXTINCT MEDIEVAL BOROUGHS IN SOUTHERN SLOVENIA, 373–392 Haupt-Ausweis (1817): Haupt-Ausweis über die Enteilung des Laibacher Gouvernementsgebiethes in Provinzen, Kreise, Sectionen, Bezirks-Obrigkeiten, Hauptgemeinden, Untergemeinden und Ortschaften, nebst deren Häuser- und Seelenzahl im Jahre 1817 [Ljubljana]. Höfler, J. (2015): Gradivo za historično topografijo predjožefinskih župnij na Slovenskem: Kranjska. Lju- bljana, Viharnik. Kindermann, J. C. (2005): Atlas von Innerösterre- ich. Reprint. Wien, Archiv Verlag. Kos, F. (1902): Iz arhiva grofa Sig. Attemsa v Pod- gori. Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko, XII, 70–101, 109–134. Kos, M. (1930): Stari Trg in sorodna krajevna imena. Geografski vestnik, VI, 160–173. Kos, M. (1954): Srednjeveški urbarji za Slovenijo. Zvezek tretji. Urbarji Slovenskega Primorja. Drugi del (Viri za zgodovino Slovencev. Knjiga tretja). Ljubljana, Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Kosi, M. (2008): Začetki mesta Slovenj Gradec. Prispevek k nastanku mest na jugovzhodnem Koroškem v srednjem veku. Kronika, 56, 2, 131–164. Kranjc, J. (1977): Privilegij mesta Loža iz leta 1477. In: Avsec, A. et al. (eds.): Notranjski listi I. Posvečeno Loški dolini ob petstoletnici mesta Loža 1477–1977. Stari trg pri Ložu, Epid-Paralele, 41–64. Mauring, J. E. (1894): Utemeljitev mesta Višnje Gore. Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko, IV, 30–32. Mlinarič, J. (1995): Stiška opatija 1136–1784. Novo mesto, Dolenjska založba. Otorepec B. (1978): Ob 500-letnici mesta Višnja Gora. In: Zbornik občine Grosuplje X. Gospodarska, kulturna in zgodovinska kronika. Grosuplje, Občinska konferenca SZDL občine Grosuplje, 277–294. Pirkovič–Kocbek, J. (1986): Šentvid, Stična in Ivančna Gorica – zgodovina naselbinskih oblik. Kro- nika, 341, 2, 67–71. Rajšp, V. (ed.) (1997): Slovenija na vojaškem zemljevidu 1763–1787. Opisi, 3. zvezek. Ljubljana, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, Arhiv Republike Slovenije. Sapač, I. (2005): Grajske stavbe v osrednji Sloveniji – III. Notranjska, Prva knjiga: Med Planino, Postojno in Senožečami. Ljubljana, Viharnik. Schematismus (1795): Schematismus für das Her- zogthum Krain 1795 mit verschiedenen nützlichen Nachrichten geographischen, und statistischen Inhalts. Laibach, Ignaz Merk. Smole, M. (1982): Graščine na nekdanjem Kran- jskem. Ljubljana, Državna založba Slovenije. Šlibar, V. (1972): Poročilo o arheološkem odkri- vanju freisinškega trga Otok pri Dobravi (Gutenwerth). Zgodovinski časopis, 26, 1–2, 37–68. Šumrada, J. (1986): Šteberški in njihova posest v srednjem veku. Notranjski listi III. Cerknica, Kulturna skupnost občine Cerknica, 47–60. Umek, E. (1986): Plovba po Savi v 18. stoletju. Zgodovinski časopis, 40, 3, 233–268. Valenčič, V. (1981): Tovorništvo na Kranjskem. Zgodovinski časopis, 35, 3, 243–277. Valvasor, J. W. (1689): Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain. I–XV. Laybach, Nürnberg, Wolfgang Moritz Endter. Valvasor, J. W. (2001): Topografija Kranjske [Sliko- vno gradivo]: 1678–79: skicna knjiga / Janez Vajkard Valvasor. Faksimiliran natis, 2. natis. Ljubljana, Val- vasorjev odbor pri Slovenski akademiji znanosti in umetnosti. Vilfan, S. (1963): K zgodovini kmečkega kupčevanja s soljo. Kronika, 11, 1, 1–12.