The Yugoslav Lands in The Ottoman Period

The Yugoslav Lands in the Ottoman Period: Postwar Marxist Interpretations of Indigenous and
Ottoman Institutions
Author(s): Wayne S. Vucinich
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1955), pp. 287-305
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1874271 .
Accessed: 29/01/2013 10:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Modern History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:06:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BIBLIOGRAPHICALARTICLE
THE YUGOSLAV LANDS IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD: POSTWAR
MARXIST INTERPRETATIONS OF INDIGENOUS
AND OTTOMAN INSTITUTIONS
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
IN CONTEMPORARY Yugoslav historiography

the principal stress is laid upon socio-economic developments-class struggle, feudal institutions, and revolutionary movements. The
much neglected social and economic history of
the Ottoman period offers a broad field for historical inquiry, especially in view of the fact
that Yugoslav mosques and various religious
and local institutions contain many old manuscripts. Although only a few significant works
on the Ottoman period have appeared since the
end of World War II, Yugoslav historians have
produced an impressive list of shorter treatises
and studies, novel both for their content and interpretations. Contemporary Marxian historians stress the fact that before a final synthesis
of the Ottoman period of Yugoslav history can
be undertaken it is necessary to collect fresh
source materials and investigate more fully a
number of specific and fundamental topics. It is
refreshingto see that, despite a rigid application
of the Marxian formula to all historical developments, Yugoslav historians do reach opposite
conclusions and hold divergent views.
Leadership in the field of Ottoman studies is
shared by the Glasnikzemraljskog
muzeja (GZM)
[Bulletin of the Territorial Museum], published
by the Museum of Bosnia-Herzegovina at Sarajevo since 1889, and the Godisnjak istoriskog
drustva Bosne i Hercegovina (GID) [Annual of
the Historical Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina], published by the Historical Society of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The GZM publishes
not only separate studies but also from time to
time fresh documentary materials uncovered in
various long-forgotten depositories and kiutiubhane. Of considerable importance for the Ottoman studies are also the Istorisko-pravnizbornik
(IPZ) [Historical-legalBulletin], a periodical devoted to the legal history of Bosnia and Herzegovina and published under the auspices of the
Faculty of Law of the Sarajevo University, and
the Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju i istoriju
Jugoslovenskiknaroda pod Turskom vladavinom
(P) [Contributions to the oriental philology and

history of the Yugoslav peoples under Turkish
rule], a periodic publication by the Oriental Institute of Sarajevo. Outside Bosnia-Herzegovina
the most important journal on the study of the
Ottoman period of Yugoslav history is the Istoriski casopis (IC), which, among other things,
publishes papers read before the "Historical Institute" of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and
is the organ of the Historical Institute of the
Academy. The organs of the Historical Society
of Serbia (Istoriski glasnik [IG]), the Historical
Society of Croatia (Historijski zbornik [HZ]),
and Historical Society of Montenegro (Istoriski
zapisi [IZ]) also publish materials dealing with
Yugoslav lands in the Ottoman period and report on the historiographic developments and
papers read at the periodic meetings of their respective societies. Nastava istorije u srednjoj
gkoli [Teaching of history in secondary schools]
is a journal for instructors in history; it discusses
the historical method, source materials, and the
interpretation of controversial historical periods
and institutions. The Nastava has published
several items that deal with Ottoman history.
I
The postwar author on Ottoman history who
has received the greatest official and piofessional attention is a young Marxian historian,
Branislav Djurdjev, director of the Museum of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1949 the government
awarded him a bonus for work published on the
socio-economic history of the Yugoslavs under
Ottoman rule. His main studies concern the development and character of Ottoman feudalism
with special referenceto the timar-sipahiorganization (timar, a specific kind of landed fief;
sipaht, its holder and a member of the feudal
cavalry)' and the influence of Ottoman rule
1 "Prilog pitanju razvitka i karaktera turskoosmanskog feudalizma-timarsko-spahiskog uredjenja," GID, I (1948), 101-67.
287

288
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
upon the development of Yugoslav society.2

These studies are based on new materials and
show the author's familiarity with the latest
foreign, particularly Turkish, scholarship. He
holds that Ottoman feudalism was not an adoption of an alien system (Byzantine or Muslim),
but that it was an indigenous creation which
evolved over a long period of time during the
Selcuk rule. Djurdjev divides the development
of Ottoman feudalism into two periods: the period from the fourteenth to the seventeenth
century, characterized by the growth of the
timar-sipahi system; and the period from the
seventeenth to the middle of the nineteenth
century, characterized by the development of
the so-called (ift~i [tenant] relations and a new
type of feudal lord in the (iftlik sdhibi. In one
form or another Ottoman feudalism existed
until well into the nineteenth century. In his
studies, however, Djurdjev deals primarily with
the first period of Ottoman feudalism, and his
main thesis is that Ottoman feudalism from its
very beginning was more backward than the
feudalism of medieval Serbian states. He identifies as "anarchistic national nihilism" the theory of Sergije Dimitrijevic, who argues that
Ottoman feudalism at the time of its establishment in the Balkans was more progressive than
that of Serbia and that it remained so until the
sixteenth century. According to Djurdjev, retarded Turkish feudal relations did not favor
the development of productive forces, and the
Turkish occupation marked a general socio-economic setback.
There is ample evidence to show, Djurdjev
writes, that the peasants in Bosnia and Hungary
(Vojvodina) often voluntarily exchanged their
existing plight for a less oppressive Ottoman
feudal rule. But this did not mean that the
Ottoman was a more advanced form of feudalism. On the contrary, the more oppressive character of the feudalism in Christian areas was a
distinguishing feature of a higher form of feudalism. Despite the fact that Ottoman feudalism
brought the peasants a temporary relief, it was,
Djurdjev asserts, not as advanced as medieval
Serbian feudalism. The introduction of primitive Turkish feudal relations, the return to
"natural rent," and the institution of the timar

system in place of larger landed fiefs-all this in
the opinion of Djurdjev meant "going back,"
despite the fact that the peasant found life
easier under the Turks. Indeed, Ottoman rule
delayed the peasant revolutions for centuries.
The primitive Ottoman system of feudalism,
Djurdjev further notes, produced a regeneration
of outmoded patriarchal forms of life among the
Serbs. The tribal and communal structure of
Serb society, which had nearly disappeared during the period of their own medieval states, was
revived under the Turks. This is not a new theory. There were a few prewar scholars, among
them the noted geographer, Jovan Cviji6, who
also noted the revival of patriarchalism. Turkish
rule, it is argued, brought a revival of the plemena [tribes], the institutions of the katun [a
pastoral community], the knez [village head],
and the knezine[local autonomies]. The Turkish
tax system favored the development and preservation of the Slavic social organization known
as the zadruga [joint family]. All these are said
to be manifestations of the backwardness of the
Ottoman feudal system.
Yet Djurdjev himself acknowledges the fact
that some of these backward Serbian institutions (zadruga,pletne) were a source of national
strength. From them emerged the power which
ultimately destroyed the degenerated Ottoman
feudalism that had brought heavy new burdens
to the Serbian people. But one should not, as
some historians do, attribute to these backward
institutions an "absolutely positive" role in history. When the Turks were strong in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the patriarchal
Serbian institutions were not only incapable of
supplying the energy for the destruction of
Ottoman feudalism, but like the knezine they
were the instruments of Ottoman feudalism.
The knez and the closely related primucar had
as their principal functions the collection of the
6arac [properly cizya; the poll tax] and other
duties. Through them the Ottomans were able
to keep the land settled, to attach the peasant
to the land, and to colonize the lowlands with
pastoral peoples.
The transformation under the Ottoman rule
of the agrarian economy into a pastoral econo2 "0 uticaju turske vladavine na razvitak nasih
my was accompanied by the development of
naroda," GID, II (1950), 19-82. The author treated
such military orders as the voynuks [Christian
this same subject in some detail in a paper he read at
auxiliary units], who, when engaged in their northe first conference of the Serbian Historical Society,
held in Belgrade on May 14-16, 1950. The summary mal occupation, comprised a class of free peasof the paper and the discussion which followed were ants, the filurijis. Through these Christian
military orders, with knezes and primu&arsreported in the IG, Nos. 1-2 (1950), pp. 187-202.

THE YUGOSLAV LANDS IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD
289
who were also soldiers-at their helm, coupled

with a few of the Christian sipdhlzs,the Turks
acquired effective instruments of power control.
All this, according to Djurdjev, is a convincing
proof that the aforementioned patriarchal institutions and the prevalence of pastoral economy can not be interpreted as progressive forces.
Djurdjev next treats the role of the Serbian
church under Ottoman rule. In this connection
he notes that the church hierarchy, especially
its higher clergy, was likewise tied to the higher
stratum of the Ottoman feudal society. The
donors to churches and monasteries were, he
writes, the Christian sipahis, voynuks, knezes,
and other prosperous elements of the Christian
population. In his opinion the renewal of the
Pe6 Patriarchate in 1557 came as a result of the
Ottoman wish to satisfy the aforementioned
Christian classes, upon whom the success of
their feudalism was dependent.
The Serbian church none the less played a
great role in the struggle against the Ottoman
feudatories. Kneziine,as small isolated territorial
units in a feudalism of a "primitive character,"
were incapable of uniting the people, although
they did supply the tools for that unity. Moreover, the knezine varied in size and character.
Those not under direct control of the Turkish
sipdhis and founded on tribal and blood tiesreal or fictional-were generally stronger. They
had a greater degree of autonomy than those in
the northern Serbian territories. The latter provided the real foundations of Turkish feudalism.
In contrast with the knezine, the church organization could facilitate popular unity. It embraced most of the Serbs, Montenegrins, and
part of the Macedonians. Yet, until the end of
the sixteenth century, according to Djurdjev,
the church, like the social element "with which
it was linked," did not lead an active struggle
against the Turks but was far more interested
in the benefits it secured from them.
Djurdjev's ideas have stirred up quite a controversy in Yugoslav historical circles. Sergije
Dimitrijevic,3 an author of several social and
economic studies, is the principal critic. He
maintains that the Ottomans brought with
them a feudal system which was more "advanced" than that of medieval Serbia: the Ottoman state was a highly centralized, well organized, and disciplined organization in contrast to
the disjointed and chaotic medieval Serbian
state. The Ottoman rulers replaced "labor rent"
as the peasant's feudal obligation by a strictly
established "rent in kind." The isolated instances of "labor rent" in his opinion do not
alter this basic fact. The changes effected by the
Ottoman rulers temporarily eased the economic
burdens of the peasant.
Thus Dimitrijevi6 argues that a change from
"labor rent" to "rent in kind" was a progressive
feature of Ottoman feudalism, because the rent
did not constitute surplus labor but produce
from the peasant's property and accounted for
an increase in labor productivity. The general
retrogression of Serbian society in the Ottoman
Empire, he says, can not be explained on the
ground that Ottoman feudalism was more primitive than that of medieval Serbia. The retrogression should instead be attributed to the adverse effect the Ottoman conquest had on general Serbian socio-economic development. Dimitrijevi6 traces the backwardness of Serbian
cultural and technological life to the monopoly
of culture by the Ottoman feudal class, to the
abrupt change in the method of feudal exploitation, and to the destruction of the social and
cultural achievements of the medieval Serbian
states.
Needless to say, Djurdjev has not only refused to yield to Dimitrijevic, whose arguments
certainly appear convincing, but he has proceeded further to elaborate his own theory regarding the backwardness of the Ottoman
feudalism. In an article entitled "Basic problems regarding Serbian history in the Ottoman
period,"4Djurdjev refutes the theory that there
was continued peace in the Pax Ottomanica.
This might have been true, he concedes, during
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but other
periods were replete with a variety of internal
disturbances and disorders. The ra'iya [subjects] were exposed to Turkish persecution even
in the sixteenth century because the laws of
Siileyman were often abused. Djurdjev has pub3 IG, Nos. 1-2 (1950), pp. 187-202. See also
lished a kdni2n-ndme [collections of sultanic
lengthy review of Nikola VuWo's"Economic history
regulations] from this period specifically illusof Yugoslav peoples before the first World War" trating the situation. In 1565 the peasants ac(Privredna istorija naroda FNRJ do prvog svetskog
tually rose in an armed rebellion-the so-called
rata [Belgrade, 19481in Crvenazastava, II [1949], 93107), in which Dimitrijevi6 expounds his theories
based on a Marxian approach to the socio-economic
history of the Yugoslav peoples.
4 Branislav DJuRDJEv,"Osnovni problemi srpske

istorije u periodu Turske vlasti nad na?im narodima," IG, Nos. 3-4 (1950), pp. 107-18.

290
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
Prilep uprising-against their feudal lords. It

must be further noted that in the second half of
the sixteenth century the money economy had
caused a rapid disintegration of the state apparatus, leading to the development of the
~iftsi system. From the sixteenth century onward the legal attachment of peasants to the
land grew steadily, and the practice of the
kuluk [corvgeJ
reappeared.
Djurdjev on this occasion went into even
greater detail in explaining the reasons for the
collapse of the medieval Serbian states, contrasting Serbian and Ottoman feudalism, and
discussing the regressive role the Vlachs played
in Ottoman society. Immediately after the
battle of Maritsa (1371), he writes, the Turks
enlisted the Vlachs as auxiliary troops in their
military system. These pastoral people who, before the arrival of the Turks, had been driven
into the mountains, where they were "doomed
to extinction," received a new lease on life by
facilitating Turkish expansionism. The Vlachs
descended from the mountains into the lowlands, where they established a pastoral economy, a phenomenon that did not favor the development of the productive forces.
The trouble with the bourgeois historians,
writes Djurdjev, is that they have relied excessively on literature in Western languages and on
scattered native sources. Moreover, he adds,
their findings are based on legal commentaries
rather than on actual decrees and documents.
Such superficial examination of the Ottoman
institutions explained their exaggerated picture
of some developments in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and their "idealization" of the
Ottoman agrarian system and legal order. As a
good Marxist, Djurdjev warns that an exhaustive study of the development of productive
forces and the timar system has shown conclusively the inaccuracy of the notion that Ottoman feudalism was a "progressive" institution.
It is not correct, writes Djurdjev, to define
Ottoman feudalism as a progressive institution
solely because the "labor rent" was replaced by
"rent in kind." This theory, in his opinion, is
based on an isolated phenomenon and does not
take into consideration the broader aspects of
the influence of the money economy on the village and the basic difference between Ottoman
and Serbian feudalism. It must be noted,
Djurdjev writes, that the money economy in
medieval Serbia and Bosnia developed very
rapidly as a result of the growing mining industry. The Ottoman rulers through "administra-
tive measures" maintained mining production

at about the same level so long as the central
power was strong in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. But indications of a crisis appeared in
the first half of the sixteenth century as shown
in Suileyman'sorder of 1539, which refers to declining production in the mines. By the seventeenth century, mining in Serbian territories
had begun to decline rapidly.
In any case, Djurdjev says, it is a serious
mistake to speak of a "progressive"feudalism at
a time when feudal ownership was incapable of
trade and the money economy had slight influence upon the village. Furthermore, he doubts
that the "rent in kind," during its predominance
in the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries, could
have caused the development of productive
forces in the Serbian lands, considering the
devastation caused by Turkish attacks. In his
opinion it was the unusually slow development
of productive forces that accounted for the persistence of the Ottoman "primitive feudal
society."
Some historians, Djurdjev observes, also erroneously ascribe economic and social progress
to the growth of the cities and the expanded
scope of trade in the sixteenth century. An accurate assessment of these phenomena, he
writes, cannot be made without a study of the
structure of the city economy and its influence
on the village economy and feudalism in general. The actual expansion of cities in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries he attributes to growing
military needs and hence does not regard as
evidence of progress. Moreover, the city economy manifested its first signs of cracking up at
the beginning of the sixteenth century.
Other Yugoslav scholars have been, in one
way or another, also interested in the character
of the Ottoman feudalism. Halil Inald'ik5 examined the period of history from the death of
Tsar Dusan (1355) to the founding of the Ottoman Empire. His is a heavily documented study
which seeks to show that the Ottoman system
bore a conservative character. The Ottoman expansion, the author writes, was not sudden and
did not aim to displace at once the existing
classes. The old Greek, Albanian, and Serbian
nobility and military classes were left at their
place and a large part of them incorporated into
the Ottoman system as Christian sipdhis-holders of the timars. The Ottoman rulers, he says,
did not conduct a policy of Islamization.
6"Od Stefana Dugana do osmanskog carstva,"
P, III-IV (1952-53), 23-54.

Several valuable studies of social and economic problems and institutions in the regions
under Ottoman rule, especially in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, have also appeared. Djurdjev's
study of the voynius,6 the irregular military
bodies made up of Slavic elements and peculiar
only to a few Balkan regions, is a definite contribution to historiography. The voynuksrepresented a special military auxiliary in the Ottoman army in which the higher ranking officers
were all Muslims, while the other troops were
Christians. Djurdjev may well be the first to
have used local and Turkish sources in investigating the origin, location, and agrarian-legal
status of the voynuk.The subject of inquiry entails broader ramifications than the title might
imply. It falls in the context of the conflict between medieval Serbian and Ottoman feudalism
and the transformation of the latter into "something different."
Djurdjev proves that the voynuksexisted not
only in Bulgaria and Bosnia but also throughout
European Turkey and that they came into existence soon after the battle of Maritsa (1371).
There were, he says, two types of voynuis-imperial and ordinary. The former served the sultan and the pashas in Constantinople; the latter
served the field armies in such ways as preparing
feed for horses, digging trenches, and reconnoitering. Djurdjev describes the organization of
the voynuks and their equipment. The voynuics
in the Turkish feudal system had a "betweenclass" status; they possessed their own land
(bastina) free of taxes and tilled it themselves.
Djurdjev believes that at first the voynu.4senjoyed considerable privileges, but that, as the
character of Ottoman feudalism changed from
the beginning of the seventeenth century, the
voynucs gradually became reduced to ordinary
ra'$ya. The disappearance of the voynuis came
when the Turks were no longer capable of fresh
conquests and when in consequence the feudatories intensified their exploitation of the ra'iya.
The sipdhis began to exact from the voynuks
dues from which they had earlier been exempt.
This hastened the transformation of the voynuks
into ordinary ra'iya.
In his study Djurdjev has devoted some attention to the question of relations between the
voynuklik and the Bosnian agalik. He rejects
Truhelka's theories that the Bosnian aga developed from the voynui and that old Bosnian
6
"t0
vojnucima," GZM,II (1947), 75-137.
291
feudal relations had continued to exist under

the Turks. Instead, he shows how in the course
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the
janissaries exerted a powerful economic influence in the Bosnian cities and how as craftsmen
and tradesmen they began to exploit the villages. This, he says, led to the establishment of
that aga who first acquired from the feudal
lords the privilege of collecting taxes and eventually bought out the peasant's rights of ownership, placing the peasant in what is known as
the Ciftqirelationship. Djurdjev traces the origin
of the voynuks to the Vlachs, who, by virtue of
their pastoral occupation in the medieval Balkans, performed certain auxiliary functions for
the Ottoman army.
In a brief note on the life of the Serbian
ra'iya in the Sancak [province] of Smederevo in
the seventeenth century,7 Djurdjev endeavors
to show that, contrary to theories held by many
other historians, the ra'fya were attached to the
land. Different legal documents show that during the early years of Suleyman the Magnificent
the sipdhlzhad the right, within the period of ten
to fifteen years, to force the return of the runaway ra'fya.
Djurdjev's study of the role of the knezesduring the Ottoman period is welcome indeed.8
Little is known about the institution of knez in
the Turkish period, although the subject is of
great importance. The knezeswere prominent in
the uprisings against the Turks that took place
toward the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century. But a most
difficult question arises when one seeks to learn
the role of a knez in the earlier period of the
Ottoman history. How, for example, did it happen that this medieval Serbian institution survived under the Turks?
For a long time many Yugoslav scholars believed that knez and primu&arwere one and the
same thing. The kdn4n-ndmeof Po'eg in 1545
makes a clear distinction between knez as
ndhiye kdhya [ndiiye, a district; kdhya, a head]
and primu6ar as the village kd4ya. There is
much evidence to show that knezes were freed
from taxes and other burdens and that only
7"'Jedan nov podatak za vezanosti raje za
zemlju u smederevskom sandzaku u XVII veku,"
IG, II (1949), 73-74.
8 4"0 knezovima pod turskom upravom," IG, I,
Nos. 1-2 (1948), 132-66. Djurdjev also treated the
subject of knezesin one of his earlier works. See
"Negto o vlagkim starjesinama pod turskom upravom," GZM, LII (1940), 49-67.

292
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
some of the primu6arspaid taxes. The knez and

the primu!arin the earlier Turkish period were
granted privileges through berats [diplomas of
title], issued, it seems, at the suggestion of the
kd.d [a judge]. In the earlier period of Turkish
rule, their duties, varying from region to region,
appear to have been to collect taxes, to serve as
a kind of liaison between the government and
the ra&iya, and to participate in military campaigns. In return for their manifold services,
their properties were exempt from taxes and
burdens. The origin of the knez is difficult to
ascertain simply because there were so many
types.
Other Yugoslav authors have also been interested in the various aspects of Ottoman
feudalism. The study by Nedim Filipovid on
this subject is especially noteworthy,9 because
it represents an authoritative discussion of feudalism in certain Yugoslav regions, with special
reference to such topics as the origin and character of the mnri[state] lands, natural rent, the
peasantry, the Ottoman feudal class, Yugoslav
cities under the Turkish rule and their social
and economic transformation.
One significant study treats the hitherto
rather obscure institution of kapudanlskwhich
existed in Bosnia and Herzegovina."0The kapudanltk was a feudal institution, and the kapudan
in charge of it was a type of feudal lord. The institution existed only in the Ottoman provinces
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, along the borders of
Croatia. It was an institution devised for this
strategic area which had to be in a constant
state of war preparedness. The inhabitants of
the kapudanlskwere organized on military basis,
and every person from the kapudan, the captain
of the province, to the ordinary soldier was paid
for his service which was hereditary. In each
kapudanlzkthere was at least one fortress and
one kule [tower] which guarded the border from
foreign enemies and the interior from banditry.
The institution of kapudanlskexisted from the
middle of the sixteenth century until it was
9 Nedim FILIPOVI6, "Pogled na osmanski feudalizam," GID, IV (1952), 5-146. This is an extensive
and documented study of feudalism with special reference to agrarian problems and land tenure. It is a
part of a general work which will appear under the
title, "Polozaj nagega seljastva pod turskom vlasu
u XVI i XVII vijeku" [Position of our peasantry
under the Turkish rule in the XVI and XVII centuries].
10Hamdija KRESEVLJAKOVI6,"Kapetanije i kapetani u Bosnia i Hercegovini," HID, II (1950), 99104.
abolished in 1835, and in the last hundred years

of its existence the kapudans played an important political role in society. The author lists the
kapudanliks by their names, traces their transformation through history, and describes such
matters as equipment, clothing, ceremonials,
and administration. He describes the prerogatives and functions of the kapudans.
A number of short accounts by Vojislav Bogi6evic11 cover a variety of subjects (such as
trade, crafts, communications, population, and
foreign consular services) which portray the
political and socioeconomic status of the ra'iya
in 1875. The studies deal specifically with the
situation in the individual sanca4s, the attitude
of the upper stratum of the Christian bourgeoisie toward the sufferings of the peasants, the
mutual co-operation of the peasants in uprisings
in the nineteenth century, the causes which precipitated the insurrection of 1875, and the measures employed by the Porte to prevent persecution of the ra'iya. The author points out that
in the course of the nineteenth century, a significant economic transformation took place in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Capitalism and the
bourgeoisie, playing havoc with the oppressed
peasant, emerged within the frames of the disintegrating feudal order, Even the Christian
bourgeois elements exploited their less fortunate
brother peasants!
A most enlightening article by Vladislav
Skaric on socio-economic conditions in Bosnia
under the Turks, with special emphasis on land
tenure, administration, crafts, trade, and the
position of the Christian churches and schools,
has been published posthumously.12This is one
1' Vojislav BOGICEVIC,"Gradja za proucavanje
ekonomskih odnosa u Bosni i Hercegovini pre
ustanka 1875 g." [Materials for the study of economic relations in Bosnia-Herzegovina before the
uprising of 1875], GID, I (1949), 215-32. "Seljacki
pokret u Bosanskoj Krajini i Posavini 1910 g."
[Peasant movement in Bosanska Krajina and Posavina], GID, II (1950), 217-55. "Stanje raje u Bosni
i Hercegovini pre ustanka 1875-1879 godine," GID,
II (1950), 143-84. The article is especially valuable
for its information on the (iftlik system and the reforms of 1848 and 1859. "Emigracija Muslimana
Bosne i Hercegovine u Tursku u doba austro-ugarske
vladavine 1878-1918," GZM, VI (1951), 175-88;
and the supplement by Muhamed HADZIJAKI6,ibid.,
pp. 188-92. The article treats the problem of the emigration of Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina to
Turkey during the Austro-Hungarian rule.
12 "Iz proslosti Bosne i Hlercegovine," GID, I

(1949), 7-41.


of the clearest exposes of the subject and treats
the social position of each of the three religious
groups-Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim. The
evidence amply demonstrates the absence of
uniformity in the Ottoman Empire and the
existence of varying policies and practices instituted by the Ottoman rulers to meet the
needs of the diversified population. Moreover,
the article is valuable for the treatment it gives
to the relationship between Catholic Croats and
Orthodox Serbs.
On the subjects of trade, crafts, and cities,
several interesting items have appeared. Hamdija Kreqevljakovi6is responsible for two superior studies, which contain hitherto unpublished
materials. The first one is on urban economy
and the guilds (asndf) in Bosnia-Herzegovina
and covers the period from the arrival of the
Ottomans to the middle of the nineteenth century.13The article throws light on the nature
and volume of trade and explains the organization of trade, crafts, and mining. Finally, the
author offers an economic interpretation of various statutes and regulations, and discusses at
some length the asndf system-its organization,
function in the Ottoman society, and lists what
he thinks to have been the reasons for its breakdown. He gives names of the asndf officials and
committees and defines their duties. The second
article deals with the important barrel-making
craft and trade in Bosnia and Herzegovina,I4
and discusses the organization of this group of
carftsmen and tradesmen, the procurement of
13 "Gradska privreda i esnafi u Bosni i Hercegovini (od 1463 do 1851)," GID, I (1949), 168-209.
See also by the same author, "Esnafi i obrti u Bosni
Zbornik za
i Hercegovini (1463-1878)-Mostar,"
narodni zivot i obicaje, Jugoslovenska Akademija,
XXXV (Zagreb, 1951), 61-138. A superior study of
the "Asndfs" and trade in Bosnia and Herzegovina
(1463-1878) as they existed in the city of Mostar.
The work is based on rich archival materials. The
study includes a discussion of the city of Mostar
during the Ottoman period, its administrative organization, public buildings, inhabitants and philanthropists, storehouses, homes, trade, currency, inns,
epidemics, floods, droughts, reports by travelers, and
poems describing Mostar. The author also comments
on the role of Mostar in the Venetian wars (1652,
1693-94, 1717). The main discussion centers on the
types of the asndfs and crafts. The author discusses
the organization of the asndfs and defines their functions; he describes their administrative apparatusassemblies, defters, superintendents (ehibaba or
ahubaba), and various statutes, and comments on
individual categories of asndfs. Appended to the
study is a long list of definitions of Turkish, Arabic,
and Persian nomenclature.
293
raw materials and the distribution of finished

goods, and provides us with a long list of Turkish trade and artisan nomenclature.
The dual system of the Ottoman taxation
(hukuk-i 4er'iye, based on the principles of
,ert a; and the rsfism-i irfiye, based on special
legal decisions) is a complex subject of inquiry
but of profound importance for the understanding of Ottoman feudalism. The best work on the
subject was published by Hamid Hadzibegi6,15
who in a documented study shows the manner
in which taxes were collected in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. He lists the categories of Christians who were either freed from or accorded
special concessions in paying the cizya (the poll
tax-paid by non-Muslims). Often, he writes,
the terms cizya and Irdc (land tax-paid by
both Muslims and non-Muslims) were used interchangeably. There were others who wrote on
social and economic history, and a few of the
more significant items have been listed below.
III
Currently, one of the hotly debated subjects
is the status of Montenegro during the time of
Turkish rule over the Balkans. What was the relationship between Montenegro and the Ottoman Empire? Was Montenegro an ordinary
sancak or a sancak which enjoyed a special degree of autonomy? Djurdjev, Nedeljkovi6,
Tadi6, Elezovi6, and many others are involved
in this discussion. The consensus of the historians is that Montenegro in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was a dependency of the
Ottoman Empire. The new evaluation is based
on fresh documentary evidence and particularly
on materials in the Dubrovnik archives. In this
connection a few items are noteworthy,'6but the
14 Hamdija KRESEVLJAKOVI6,"Kasandzijski obrt
u Bosni i Hercegovini," GZM, VI (1951), 191-240.
16
iDzizja
ili hara6," P, III-IV (1952-53), 55-
135.
16 Branislav DJURDJEV,"Defteri za crnogorski
sandzak iz vremena Skender-bega Crnojevi6a," P,
I (1950), 7-22, II (1952), 39-56, III-IV (1952-53),
349-402. "Defters [registers] pertaining to the Montenegrin sanca7 in the time of Skender-beg Crnojevic." This is a discussion of the imperial hasses in
Montenegro and their listing. The article is accompanied by facsimiles of documents. "O odlasku
crnogorskog vladike Pahomija u Carigrad u drugoj
plovini XVI veka," IC, II (1949-50), 135-43. This
concerns the visit of a Montenegrin bishop to Constantinople. The nationalist school uses the incident
to show Montenegro's independence from Turkey.
Others, including Djurdjev, use it to prove the de-

294
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
most controversial is the thesis contained in the

doctoral dissertation of Bransislav Djurdjev,17
entitled "Turkish rule in Montenegro in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." This is a
curious document. The author alleges that his
dissertation was delayed as a result of disagreement among the examiners, and that he was
called upon to defend it long after the usual
time within which the doctoral candidate must
defend his work. He attributes the delay to
criticisms of the dissertation by Gli'sa Elezovie
and Jorjo Tadie, both eminent Yugoslav scholars.
The author also resented the statement by
AlexanderBelie, president the Serbian Academy
of Sciences, who on the occasion of bestowing the
degree on Djurdjev said inter alia that "even
though the Commission believed that the thesis
of Mr. Djurdjev would not hold, it none the less
accepted his dissertation."''8Djurdjev was so
infuriated that he threatened to decline the degree and prevent the academy from publishing
his dissertation. In any case, since the academy
delayed publication of the dissertation, Djurdjev submitted it-revised and enlarged to include additional materials collected during the
author's subsequent study in Turkey-to another publisher, and the book appeared in 1953.
Although he did not receive his doctorate until
1951, Djurdjev is apparently among the "consistent" Marxian historians, and for the time
being, at least, is given the greatest professional
attention.
The position of Montenegro during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has long been
debated between the so-called "critical" and the
"traditional" schools of historians, and Djurdjev notes that some contemporary historians
have accepted the antiquated theories of these
"bourgeois" scholars. The traditional school
holds that after Djuradj Crnojevie (1496) rule
in Montenegro was taken over by the bishops
(1516-1697) of various tribes and from 1697 to
the middle of the nineteenth century by bishops
from the tribe Njegusi-family of Petrovi6.
There is also a variant of this theory according
to which the Crnojevi6 family ruled from 1358
until 1516 and from that time until 1711 the
authority was exercised by the bans [leaders]of
the ndhiye of Katun. Some contemporary historians seemingly had accepted, in part or in
entirety, the "traditionalist" interpretations of
the Montenegrin history. This prompted
Djurdjev to re-examine the whole subject of
Montenegro's relations with the Ottoman Empire. After doing so, he flatly rejected the theory
that Montenegro had preserved its independence during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.
Djurdjev contends that Montenegro was
under Ottoman rule from 1496 on, and that
from 1499 to 1514 it was a part of the Sancak of
Scutari, and that the timar-sipadh1
system had
been established in Montenegro. He explains
how with the degeneration of the Ottoman institutions, the Turkish rulers encountered difficulties in Montenegro. The pleme and zadruga
institutions made possible the effective struggle
pendence of Montenegro on Turkey. The author of the Montenegrins against Ottoman feudalsays that the authority of the Montenegrin tribes ism."9The Turks were compelled to make conunder the Turks was indeed great but that they were cessions; they abolished the timar-sipalhisystem
a dependency of Turkey. See also Mom6ilo ZERAV- and proclaimed Montenegro an imperial
hass,
6I6, "Jedno sporno pitanje u nasoj narodnoj istoriji,"
and the Montenegrins were given the status of
IZ, VI, Nos. 10-12 (1950), 367-81, and Hamid HADfilurijis [freepeasants]. Montenegro was afiluriji
LIBEGI6, "Odnos Crne Gore prema osmanskoj drzavi
region from 1514 to 1570. By virtue of privileges
plovicom XVIII vijeka," P, III-IX (1952-53), 485it enjoyed Montenegro did not differ much from
508. Hadzibegic considers "the relations between
Montenegro and Ottoman Empire in the middle of any other Ottoman region. The Turkish defters
the eighteenth century." His study is based on docushow, Djurdjev writes, that in the sixteenth and
ments found in the Cetinje Archives, and the conthe seventeenth centuries there was no local
clusions corroborate those of Djurdjev. The author
feudatory who was the "head of Montenegro."
emphasizes the fact that despite the changing politiAs time passed the Turkish central authorities
cal status of Montenegro, it had always retained rebegan to fear that the feudatories might usurp
gional separateness which was of great importance in
the imperial 64s, and because of this and the
its historical development and ability to offer effecconsequences of a series of Ottoman war disastive resistance to the Ottomans.
ters, the Ottoman rulers decided to appease the
17 Branislav DJURDJEV,
Turska vlast u Crnoj people of Montenegro by granting them new
Gori u XVI i XVII veku (Sarajevo, 1953), 136 pp.
concessions. Toward the end of the sixteenth
18Ibid., p. 9.
19 Ibid., p. 121.


century the imperial ha'sswith the filurijis was
transformed into a region with a somewhat
greater autonomy. However, the struggle
against Turkish feudalism continued, and by
1688 the Montenegrins had rid themselves of
Turkish rule.20
The status of Montenegro in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries was also discussed by
Gligor Stanojevic, a young assistant in history
at the Belgrade University.21 Stanojevic says
that under the last of the Crnojevi6 rulers,
Montenegro was a separate province within the
Ottoman Empire. Subsequently, it was attached
to the Sancak of Scutari, not as a normal Ottoman province but as a "special" entity, probably under the leadership of a local voyvodwho
was responsible to the sultan. Montenegro was
declared an imperial hdss, and the proceeds from
filurijis were collected by a special official of the
Porte. The Sancak Bey of Scutari enjoyed only
the right of supervision. By the late sixteenth
century, however, Montenegro was no longer a
part of the Sancak of Scutari, and it had lost
whatever autonomy it may have enjoyed. According to Stanojevic, therefore, the autonomy
of Montenegro disappeared when, according to
Djurdjev, it began to develop.
In his study Stanojevic treats various aspects
of Ottoman rule: the penetration of Ottoman
feudalism into plernenaand knezine organizations; the position of the knezesand the church
as the instruments of Ottoman feudalism in
Montenegro. He criticizes Djurdjev's contention that the knezwas the backbone of Ottoman
feudalism in Montenegro. The institution of
knez, writes Stanojevic, had dual characteristics: although in service of Ottoman feudalism,
the knezwas also an expression of tribal autonomy. When the Ottoman feudalism began to
threaten the autonomy of Montenegro, the
knezeswere the first to rise in defense of autonomy. This is exemplified, Stanojevic writes, by
the struggle against Ottoman feudalism during
the Candian War when the Montenegrins supported the cause of Venice.
As can be seen, Djurdjev's was not the final
word on the status of Montenegro in the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. Glisa
Elezovi6, among others, answered with a blistering response Djurdjev's assessment of Montenegrin history and charges against Elezovic
20
Ibid.,p. 119.
"Crna Gora u dolba kandidskog rata (16451669)," IG, Nos. 1-2 (1953), pp. 3-53.
21
295
and the Serbian Academy of Sciences.22Elezovi6

challenged Djurdjev on several points of fact
and historical method, questioned his integrity,
and accused him of telling the world about "the
quarrel" with the Belgrade professors who examined his doctoral dissertation.23 Elezovi6
noted that Djurdjev referred to his recent book
as his "doctoral dissertation," when in fact it
was altered to such an extent-incorporating
the criticisms made by his examiners-that it
no longer could be treated as the original document submitted for the doctorate. Djurdjev admitted that many observations made by the
examiners were cogent, but explained that they
in no way affected his basic conclusions.
Elezovic answered a whole list of Djurdjev's
charges published in the Nova Misao,24 and
blamed Djurdjev himself for delay in publication of his dissertation. Interestingly the Nova
Misao refused to publish articles refuting
Djurdjev's charges. This Elezovic attributes to
the "protection" that Djurdjev enjoyed from
"his friend" Milovan Djilas, a leading Yugoslav
Marxian theoretician recently expelled from the
high posts of the Communist party and the government. Djilas reviewed Djurdjev's book and
hailed it as a great contribution to scholarship,
ranking Djurdjev with the best national historians.25According to Djilas, Djurdjev had destroyed definitely the legend that Montenegro
"never recognized Turkish authority, that it
was always 'if not completely at least in part'
an independent region and free of the hardc."
Elezovic comes to defense of Gligor Sanojevic
who "anticipated" Djurdjev on the subject of
the Montenegrin status in the sixteenth and the
22Glisa ELEZOVI6, "Povodom knjige Branislava
Djurdjeva 'Turska vlast u Crnoj Gori u XVI i XVII
veku,"' IZ, No. 1 (1954), pp. 256-82.
23 Elezovic accused Djurdjev
of telling "a young
American professor" W. S. Vucinich about "the
quarrel." It should be pointed out that the "young
professor" did not know anything about the "quarrel" until he read Djurdjev's book. What the professor learned from Djurdjev, Elezovil, and a number of other Yugoslav scholars was that there were
disagreements among the historians over the interpretations of various aspects of Ottoman history; he
knew nothing about the dispute involving Djurdjev's dissertation.
24 Nova Misao, No.
10 (1953), pp. 636-91; No. 11,
pp. 797-802; No. 12, pp. 933-42.
25 Milovan
DJILAS, "Kraj jedne legende" ["An
end to a legend"], Nova Alisao, No. 1 (1954), pp.
131-34.

296
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
seventeenth centuries, and whom Djurdjev accused of being "unmethodical," and of basing
his ideas on "phantasy." By using hitherto unexplored materials of J. Tomi6, Stanojevi6writes Elezovi6-reached the conclusion that
the character of autonomy of Montenegro in the
sixteenth century was the same as it was in the
seventeenth century. Elezovic argues that because Stanojevi6 did not rely exclusively on the
Turkish defters, collected and published by
Djurdjev, his work should by no means be dismissed as "unmethodical." Needless to say
Elezovi6 disagrees with Djurdjev on many other
points and observes that Djurdjev is suffering
from a "fixed idea" that the autonomy of Montenegro was a system of "filuriji autonomy." If
the Turks did not consider Montenegro as something special why, asks Elezovic, did they call
it "Kara Dag hat-i-imtiyazi"-privileged Montenegrin region?
The Montenegrin historical journal, Istoriski
zapisi, has published a number of shorter items
and a few documents dealing with the Ottoman
period-e.g., notes on the defense of the Monastery of Ostrog, 1852-53, on the controversial
battle of Carev Laz, on the emigration of NiksiW
Muslims after the city's liberation in 1877. The
Montenegrin Historical Institute has published
some sixty documents found in the Zadar archives on the mission of Prince Dolgorukov to
Montenegro which shed light on the nature of
Montenegrin relations with Russia and Turkey
in 1769.26One short article of interest explores
the question of the controversial Grahovo district, the scene of so many conflicts between the
Turks and the Montenegrins.27
IV
The question of the ethnic origin of the
Yugoslav Muslims is still a subject of inquiry
in Yugoslav historical circles. This is an especially controversial subject. Were the Muslims
of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Slavic origin; if
so were they of Serbian or Croatian origin? Were
they Bogomiles? Or were they possibly Turkish
colonists from Africa and Asia? KulisM, in one
of his studies, comments on some of these questions, but his main purpose is to explain the development of the Muslims in Bosnia-Herzego26Misija kneza DolgorukovaCrnoj Gori. "Zbornik
za prou6avanje Petra II Petrovi6a Njegoga" (Cetinje, 1949), 76 pp.
27 Hamid HADZIBEGI6, "Odnos Crne Gore prema
Grahovu u doba Njegoga," P, II (1951), 201-11.
vina into a distinct "ethnic" group. Whatever

their racial origins, the author says, these Muslims acquired a distinct character as a result of
special historical conditioning.28This approach
to the history of local Muslims is novel and one
in harmony with the official line. Closely related
to this question of Muslim origin is the origin
and role of the Bosnian potur [a converted Turk]
in the Ottoman society.29
A study by Aleksandar Solovjev (now
abroad), a leading medievalist and a prolific
author, on the disappearance of Bogomiles and
the Islamization of Bosnia30 is especially welcome, as these subjects have for a long time provoked controversies. Solovjev sets out to refute
some of the traditional theories regarding the
early role of Islam and the position of the Bogomiles. Now that the Muslims have been "unshackled from the influence of their hoIas," he
urges a new and systematic study of the early
stages of Islam in this area of the Balkans.
Many topics regarding medieval Bosnia still require investigation and study. The principal
subjects of controversy are: who was it that accepted Islam in Bosnia-Bogomiles, the nobility, the peasants, Christians? What was the socalled "Bosnian Church"-Orthodox, Roman
Catholic, an autocephalous Christian church, or
was it Neo-Manichean? Did the Ottomans engage in a forced Turkification in Bosnia and
were they tolerant in religious matters? What
accounts for the voluntary Islamization? In
Yugoslav historical literature there are exponents of all these various and conflicting theories.3'
28
Spiro KULISI6,
"Razmatranja o porijeklu
Muslimana u Bosni i Hercegovini," GZM, n.s., VIII
(1953), 145-58.
29 Aleksandar SOLOVJEV, "Engleski
izvjegtaj
XVII vijeka o bosanskim Poturima," GZM, n.s., VII
(1952), 101-9. Author compares the French edition
of Paul Ricaut's Histoire de lW'tatpresent de l'Empire
Ottomanwith the more precise original English edition and establishes the fact that the population in
medieval Bosnia-Herzegovina was preponderantly
Bogomile. Squeezed between and persecuted by
Catholic and Orthodox churches, the Bogomiles accepted Islam as the lesser evil.
30
"Nestanak bogomilstva i islamizacija Bosne,"
GID, I, 42-79.
31 Latest to
argue that the Bosnian church was
Orthodox is Vasa Glusac (Istina o Bogumilima [Belgrade, 1945], 272 pp.). The author de-emphasizes the
generally prevalent theory of voluntary Islamization
as explanation for a large number of Muslims in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. He believes the Muslims were

297
Solovjev offers documentary evidence and

proof in support of the theory that the Bogomiles voluntarily accepted the Turks and Islam.
In Islam they found what seemed to them the
puritanical religion they sought. For in Islam
there were no icons, no statues, no bells, no
relics! Muhammad himself might be the Paraclete whom Jesus had promised! Solovjev thinks
that the peasants who in large numbers in the
fifteenth century accepted Islam were Bogomiles. This, he believes, accounts for the existence of so many Muslim peasants, and not the
muha'rs after 1683.
manuscript. By using various copies available in

the archives of the Territorial Museum, Had3ibegi6 believes he has improved Arif Bey's
translation. This specific kdn4in-ndmeis of interest to the Yugoslavs because it sheds light on
the condition in the Yugoslav lands under Ottoman rule, and particularly on the timar-sipdhi
system.
Nedim Filipovi6 has translated and appraised two imperial decrees.34One of these is
an imperial order of Be?aret, son sqfAbulselam,
on May 24, 1563, from a manuscript in the archives of the Territorial Museum. The order
lists Bosnian sancaks and the state income that
V
was derived from them. It shows how the income was determined on the basis of data colThe most impressive of all postwar activity
is the collection and publication of Turkish doc- lected by emnns [commissioners, agents] and
uments dealing with the period of Ottoman rule supplies information of relations inside the
over Yugoslav lands. Among the many precious timar and on such matters as the (apu [right to
materials in the Turkish archives of the Muse- a specific land, a deed].
Besides his main and controversial studies,
um of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo, there is
a fine collection of kanufn-ndme.The object at Djurdjev has analyzed the origin and nature of
present is to translate these and other kdnfin- three imperial decrees35illustrating Turkish adnime into Serbo-Croat and analyze their con- ministration and feudalism in various Serbian
tents. Various Yugoslav prewar historians had regions: two of these fall in the time of Suileyalready done some work in this field. There are man the Magnificent and one in the time of
several postwar scholars who are engaged in the Sultan Murad III (1574-92). The latter one, that
collection and publication of documents. Hamid is the Srem kanun-ndme for 1588-89, is espeHadzibegic is responsible for translations and cially important for the information it gives on
critical evaluations of two imperial decrees32is- such institutions as knez and primuear,the stasued by Siileyman the Magnificent and a com- tus of which in the Ottoman Empire was never
mentary on the discussion by Ali Cavua of clearly defined. All of Djurdjev's translations
Sofia of the timar organization in the seven- are annotated and critically assessed.
Several documents on city life, trade, comteenth century.33Hadzibegic is the first to translate a general kdnfin-namewhich dates from the merce, and the economic situation have been
early part of SUleyman'srule and was first pub- published. Of these, the collections and analyses
lished by the noted Turkish scholar, Mehmed of documents by Kresevljakovi636and FilipoArif (Tarihi osmani encilmeni mecmuas*,Nos.
34 "Jedna kanun-nama zborni&kog sandzaka,"
15-19 [1912-13]), on the basis of a Vienna GZM, III (1948), 223-34; "Carska zapovijed Begamostly newcomers muhacjrs [emigrees] from territories Turkey lost from time to time. Jaroslav Sidak
surveys the recent literature on the subject of Bogomiles and analyzes the conflicting theories ("Danagnje stanje pitanja 'Crkve Bosanske' u historijskoj
nauci," HZ, Nos. 1-4 [1954], pp. 129-42). The
author himself is inclined to accept the idea that the
Bosnian church was "ecclesia Sclavoniae nuncupatur."
32
"Bosanska kanun nama iz 1565 godine," GZM,
III (1948), 201-22; "Kanun-nama sultana Sulejmana Zakonodavca," ibid., IV-V (1950), 295-382.
33 "Rasprava Ali-(auga iz Sofije o timarskoj organizaciji u XVII stoljecu," GZM, II (1949), 139206. See also "Turski dokumenti grbaljske zupe iz
XVII stolje6a," P, I, 25-27.
retu. Prikaz sultana Begaretu," ibid., IV-V (1950),

285-94.
35 "Kanun-nama bosanskog sandzaka iz godine
1530," GZM, n.s., III (1948), 189-200; "Pozegke
kanun-name iz 1545 godine," ibid., I (1946), 129-38;
"Sremska kanun-nama iz 1588-89 godine," ibid.,
IV-V (1950), 269-84; "Kanun-name za bosanski,
hercegova&ki i zvornikki sandzak iz 1539 godine,"
IPZ, III-IV (1950), 227-40. See also an extensive
and critical review by Gliga Elezovic of some of these
compilations and studies by Djurdjev, Hadzibabid,
and Filipovi6(IC, II [1949-50],223-51).

36 Hamdija KRE9EvLJAKOVI6,
"Prilozi povijesti
bosanskih gradova pod Turskom upravom," P, II
(1952), 115-84. This is a study of construction,
building materials, trade, security system, supplies,
equipment and tools, fortifications, and other prob-

298
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
and Jorjo Tadic's38collection of documents

from the Dubrovnik archives on the history of
the city of Belgrade, with special reference to
trade and commerce, are most important.
Documents dealing with general conditions
in Bosnia in the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries39and those pertaining to Ottoman rule in
Macedonia40are also worth noting. One historian has published and analyzed a series of fermans from the sixteenth century4I and two
others have reproduced and interpreted several
Turkish inscriptions located in the mosques and
cemeteries of Bosnia and Herzegovina.42The
collective work on epigraphic monuments in
eastern languages has been initiated as a Yugoslav contribution to the general Corpus inscriptionum islamicarum.
ViC37
lems concerning the Bosnian cities under Ottoman

rule. The author lists the principal cities and describes their importance and role in the Ottoman
society.
37Nedim FILIPOVIC, "Nekoliko dokumenata o
trgovini za vrijeme turske vladavine u nasim zemljama," P, II (1952), 57-81. These documents, the oldest being dated 1523, were found in the Zadar archives in 1951. They tell of the nature and scope of
commerce and trade between the Ottoman Empire
and the Italian and Dalmatian cities, including Dubrovnik. "Sedam dokumenata iz kodeksa Br. 1," P,
III-IV (1952-53), 437-54. Seven documents from
the collection listed as the Codex Nr. 1 in Sarajevo's Oriental Institute, translated and annotated.
They deal with the agrarian relations, city and village life, mining, trade, and laws governing these
activities in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries.
38 Jorjo TADIC, Dubrovackaarhivska gradja o Beogradu, Vol. I, 1521-1571 (Belgrade, 1953), 489 pp.
This is the first volume of the series "Materials for
the history of Belgrade."
39Hazim SABANOVIC,"Turski dokumenti u Bosni
iz druge polovine XV stolje6a," IPZ, I, Nos. 1-2
(1949), 177-208. This is a collection of eleven Turkish documents describing the situation in Bosnia
during the fifteenth century. The study evoked a
polemic with Elezovi6. See P, I (1950), 17380; II (1951), 336-46. Adem HANDZIC, "Pisma Ahmed-Pase Dugalica Dubrovackom knezu i
vlasteli," P, III-IV (1952-53), 415-35. This is a
translation of twenty-six letters from the Dubrovnik
archives which tell of "friendly relations" between
Ahmed Pasha Dugalic and the prince of Dubrovnik
and supply information on the conditions in BosniaHerzegovina. Sabanovic has recently translated
those portions of Evliya Celebi's Seyahatnamesi
[Travels] which deal with the Yugoslav lands (Evlija Celebija, Putopis. Odlomci o Jugoslovenskim
zemljama [Sarajevo, 1954], 290 pp.). The description
Yugoslav historians closely follow foreign

scholarship, and in particular, the work of Ottoman historians. Some of them have studied in
Turkey and have spent time in the archives of
Constantinople (T. C. Ba&bakanlikArXivi).43
of political, economic, social, and geographic character of Yugoslav lands by this seventeenth-century
Ottoman writer represents an important source of
historical information. He describes cities, buildings,
mosques, fountains, schools of various types, bathhouses, public kitchens, agriculture, and a great
many other things. A series of original Turkish documents on conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina was
published in IZP, II (1949), 177-216, including eleven facsimiles. Very few original Turkish documents
pertaining to the second half of the fifteenth century
have been preserved. The recent discovery was found
in the archival files of the Franciscan monastery at
Fojnica.
40 Panta DJAMBAZOVSKI,
Turski dokumentiza
makedonskataistorija (2 vols.; Skopje, 1951), 169 pp.

and 202 pp. A collection of Turkish documents on
the history of Macedonia, it contains facsimiles of
original Turkish documents and their translation in
Macedonian, Turkish, and French. This compendium is most welcome since the Ottoman period of
Macedonian history had been almost completely
neglected.
41 Hamid HADZIBEGIC, "Tri fermana iz prve polovice XVI stoljeca," P, II (1951), 83-94. The fermans deal with the region of present-day Macedonia.
One of the fermans is particularly interesting; it concerns the undue burdens imposed on the people in
the Salonika region-the collection of the larac,
sheep tax, and the recuitment of oarsmen for the
navy.
42 Mehmed
MuJEzINov16, "Turski natpisi u Sarajevu iz XVI vijeku," P, II (1952), 95-114. This is an
analysis of some of the oldest Turkish inscriptions in
Sarajevo, and especially the one over the main entrance into the Hiisrev-bey Mosque. By the same
author, "Turski natpisi XVI vijeka iz nekoliko
mjesta Bosne i Hercegovine," P, III-IV (1952-53),
455-84. These are facsimiles and analyses of inscriptions found in several places of Bosnia and Herze-
govina. Hazim
gABANOVIC,
"Natpisi na nadgrob-
nim spomenicima Malko6-bega i njegovog sina

Dzafer-bega," P, II (1951), 249-58. This is a study
of the inscriptions on the graves of Malko6-beg and
his son at Banja Luka. The author establishes the exact dates of their deaths. Another work by the same
author is "Natpis na KasapcZi6umostu u Uzicu i
njegov autor Dzari Celebi," P, I (1950), 156-60. In
this brief statement the author corrects Elezovic and
establishes that Dzari Celebi, who wrote poetry in
Turkish, lived in the seventeenth century.
43 Glisa ELEZOVI6, Iz Carigradskik Turskih Arhiva-muihimme defteri. Istoriski Institute. Srpska
Akademija Nauka (Belgrade, 1951), 574 pp. This is

299
The historians are currently examining various

wakf-ndme[a religious endowment, a book or a
document]."4
Finally, a student interested in collections of
materials on the study of Ottoman history
might consult a report on the character of the
oriental collections in the Yugoslav Academy of
Sciences at Zagreb,45and a bibliography of published materials in Serbo-Croatian and foreign
languages, including a survey of Turkish collections in Yugoslav archives and materials in the
archives of Constantinople, dealing with diplomatic history of the Ottoman period involving
the Yugoslav lands.46
The presentYugoslavregime hasgiven a great
deal of attention to the preservation of historical
monuments and the collection, centralization,
and classification of archival materials. Many
new archives have been founded on national,
regional and local levels. The Zadar archives,
formerly under Italy, contain many documents
that throw light on the Ottoman period of
Yugoslav history. The Turkish archival mate-
rials in Bosnia and Herzegovina are located for

the most part in the Oriental Institute and the
Hiisrev-bey Mosque, both in Sarajevo. The Oriental Institute has the former archives of the
Bosnian eydlet in the nineteenth century, 5,108
miscellaneous documents, 54 sicils, and a collection of official registers. Some of these materials are still in process of classification. Husrevbey Mosque has 84 sicils of the Sarajevo 5erl'a
court and over 1200 documents pertaining to
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This
collection of materials in the mosque is under
the supervision of the wakf administration;
some materials are located in the wakf administration offices. An unspecified number of
materials are located in the Franciscan monasteries at Fojnica and Sutjeska, and in the Museum of the Old Serbian Church in Sarajevo.
Some materials dealing with the Ottoman history are still to be found in private hands. According to the decree on the organization of the
Oriental Institute and the law pertaining to the
organization of the archives for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the Oriental Institute is to become
a list of the entries in Volumes V and VI of miihimme the main institution for the gathering, preservadefterleri of the Imperial Divan and located in the tion, and classification of the Turkish archival
archives of Constantinople. Each entry is accom- materials.47
panied by a brief statement regarding its content. See
The Turkish materials on the Ottoman rule
the devastating review by Djurdjev (P, II [1951], in Macedonia, the region which was not freed
321-26). The reviewer found this compilation of until 1912, have not been systematically organlittle importance and wondered why the Serbian ized
and many precious documents have perAcademy of Sciences sponsored it. Gliga ELEzovI6,
ished
during the two world wars. Some materials
Turski spomenici (Belgrade, 1952), Vol. I, Part 2.
This is the second part of the first volume of a col- were removed to Bulgaria during World War II
lection of Turkish documents, the publication of and were not returned. The newly created Institute for National History of Macedonia has
which was interrupted by the war. It is published
under the auspices of the Serbian Academy of Sci- achieved some success in collection and classifiences, and it comprises 178 facsimiles of Turkish cation of archival materials. It has located
documents with a brief French statement on their about 300 volumes of sicils of the kddUsof Bitolj,
content. Branislav DJURDJEV, "Kako treba zapo6eti which contain valuable official entries pertainrad u Carigradskom arhivu (T. C. Balbakanltk Aring to the eydlet of Bitolj; they cover the period
fivi)," Arkivist, II, No. 1 (1951), 13-23. These are
suggestions on how to begin work in the archives of from 1609 to 1913 and represent an invaluable
Constantinople by an author who spent some time source for study of Macedonian political and
economic history.48
there.
At its first meeting in November 1950, the
"1Hazim SABANOVI6,"Dvije najstarije vakufSupreme Archival Council adopted a plan to
name u Bosni," P, II (1952), 5-38. This is an analysis of the wacf-ndme of Iso beg Isakovi6 on his en- explore foreign archives for materials on
dowment in Sarajevo, dated 1462, and the wakfname of Sancak Bey Ajas-beg, son of Abdulhaj, in
1477. It is a translation of the originals and their
annotation.
4 Sulejman BAJRAKTAREVIC,
"Kratak osvrt na
istorijat orientalne zbirke Jugoslovenske Akademije
u Zagrebu," P, II (1951), 315-17.
46 Hazim SABANOVI6,
"Turski diplomati6ki izvori
za istoriju nagih naroda," P, I (1950), 117-49.
47Branislav DJuRDJEV, "Stanje arhiva u NR

Bosni i Hercegovini," Arhivist, No. 1 (1951), pp.
42-43. Author explains the archives and Turkish
materials in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
48 Dan6o ZOGRAFSKI, "Prikupljanje
arhivskog
materijala u NR Makedoniji," Arhivist, No. 1
(1951), pp. 43-46. Author reports on the collection
of the archival material in the National Republic of
Macedonia.

300
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
Yugoslav history. The Council for Learning and

Culture as well as the Academic Council were
interested in this project and lent their hand to
it. A special commission was constituted and
Branislav Djurdjev was sent on an exploratory
mission to Constantinople. One or two experts
on history and archives were attached to embassies in Greece, Turkey, Austria, and Italy.
The commission was to determine which materials were to be microfilmed, and what scholars
were to be sent to foreign archives.49
The Oriental Institute in Sarajevo prepared
the plan for the work in the archives of Constantinople, and was approved by the Supreme
Archival Council and the Academic Council.
According to the plan, a team of four experts
was sent to Constantinople with the assignment
to copy or microfilm all kanun-nameconcerning
the Yugoslav lands from the cadastral defters,
excepting those for the sancaks of Bosnia, Zvornik and Montenegro which had already been
copied by Djurdjev in 1951. This was to involve
an examination of about 120 deftersand microfilming of about 70 kdnu?n-ndme.
The four experts50were to examine six cadastral deftersconcerning the eyalet Vlk (the region of Vuk Brankovic), 1454-55, and defters pertaining to the
subailik of Branicevo (1467-68), the sancak of
Prilep (1469-70), the sancak of Bosnia (147778), Herzegovina (1477-78), and the defter on
Smederevo. Another project was to examine and
reproduce the diavn defters and other sources
dealing with the first Serbian Revolution (1804).
For the most part this ambitious project was
accomplished. The Yugoslav scholars, moreover, uncovered a number of kani'n-namewhich
were hitherto unknown (they deal with Krusevac, Prizren and Vucitrn).
The Yugoslavs say that the materials obtained in the archives of Constantinople together with the materials already available in
Yugoslavia represent "a solid collection of
Turkish legal materials concerning the Yugoslav lands." They provide information on all
49 Jovan PEROVI6, "Prou0avanje i mikrofilmovanje arhivske gradje za istoriju nasih naroda u inostranim arhivima," Arhivist, No. 2 (1952), pp. 83-88.
The author explains the project to study foreign archives and the problem of microfilming.
60 Two scholars each from Bosnia and Macedonia
comprised the team of experts: Branislav Djurdjev,
director of the Oriental Institute; Nedim Filipovi6,
Sarajevo University; Metodije Sokolski, Skoplje
University; and Dusanka Sopov, Institute of Folklore in Skoplje.
phases of social, economic and political life, and

make possible the study of hitherto neglected
periods of history and Ottoman institutions.5
VI
In general, postwar Yugoslav historians have
produced many new studies which are of high
scholarly quality and often based on fresh
sources of information. Methodical work, the
collection of new materials, and the preservation
of historical monuments are particular virtues
of these historians. The new journals and institutes dedicated to research in the field of Ottoman history have attracted many young scholars. Most Yugoslav historians are guided by a
Marxian philosophy of history. Some are "consistently Marxian" and doctrinaire while others
are flexible. They are guided by the principle
that the "productive forces" are the only determinant of progress. There remains, however, the
task of identifying "productive forces" and
therein lie the differences of opinion among the
Marxian historians themselves as we have
noted in the Djurdjev-Dimitrijevic controversy.
The intense polemics between various Yugoslav
historians, though on occasion exceeding the
usual bounds of courtesy, have produced positive results which have enriched our knowledge
of Ottoman history.
For ideological reasons some Yugoslav historians find the prewar "bourgeois" historians
guilty of countless faults. The censure of historians of the "critical" and "traditional"
schools by the Communist historians is often
unjustified. Their faultfinding leaves the impression that little if anything was done in the
field of Yugoslav history during Ottoman rule
by the older generation of historians. In fact,
many pioneer Yugoslav historians have left a
most remarkablerecord, and no field in humanities had been so highly developed as the field of
history. Had it not been for these pioneers,
present Yugoslav historiography would not be
so advanced.
In many ways the position of Yugoslavia is
analogous to that of the Soviet Union. Aside
from the fact that they are both Communist
and multinational states, they both have within
their political framework a large number of
Muslims, and they both experienced a close historical tie with Muslim civilization. This situation has given the two countries special advantages in the study of Muslim institutions. They
51 PEROVIC,pp.
85-86.


have a culturally conditioned and linguistically
equipped element which may, with proper training in the historical method, effectively handle
such a complex subject as Ottoman and Muslim
institutional history. A cursory examination of
the names of persons engaged in study of the
Ottoman period of history will reveal many
Muslims among them. These are for the most
part young Muslims who are both Communists
301
and Yugoslav patriots. Yet, one must also note

that both in the Soviet Union and in Yugoslavia
the leading authorities on Muslim and Turkish
history are non-Muslims, which is, of course,
natural since the Muslims as a distinct group
are just beginning to exercise the influence commensurate to their numerical importance.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
A SELECTED LIST OF ADDITIONAL POSTWVAR

STUDIES
Besides the aforementioned studies on the Yugoslav lands in the Ottoman period, many others have
appeared since the end of World War II. Some of
these are based on new documentary materials, but
all betray a Marxian approach to historical inquiry.
Most impressive is the great diversity of topics under
investigation, as shown by the following list of the
more important studies, accompanied by an explanatory statement regarding the content.
GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
Hazim SABANoVI6,
"Upravna podjela jugoslovenskih zemalja pod turskom vladavinom do
Karlovackog mira 1699 god.," GID, IV (1952), 171204. A study of the administrative subdivision of the
Yugoslav lands under the Turkish rule prior to the
Treaty of Carlowitz. The author lists the sancaks and
eyalets and describes them.
I. BOZIC, "Hercegovacki sandzak-beg Ajaza,"
Zbornik Filozofskog Fakulteta, I (1948), 63-81. A
study of the Ottoman administration in Herzegovina
in the fifteenth century.
Dugan PANTELIC, "Popis pogranicnih nahija
posle Pozarevackog mira," Spomenik. Srpska Akademija Nauka, XCVI (1948), 1-48. A list and
description of the frontier naIihye in Serbia after the
Peace of Passarowitz.
LAW AND JUSTICE
H. HADZIBEGIC, "Prilog prou6avanju nadleznosti

sudova u turskom periodu," IPZ, II:3-4 (1950),
241-46. A contribution to the investigation of the
functions of the courts in the Ottoman period. An
analysis of a Turkish ferman [imperial order] of
1756 from the standpoint of judicial organization
and responsibility.
H. KRE9EVLJAKOVI6 and H. KAPIDZIC, "Sudskoadministrativna podjela u Bosni i Hercegovini
pocetkom XIX stoljeca," IPZ, III-IV (1950), 24760. The organization of the judicial administration in
Bosnia and Herzegovina at the beginning of the
nineteenth century. Hamdija KRESEVLJAKOVI6,
"Cefilema sarajevskih krscana iz 1788 godine," P,
III-IV (1952-53), 195-214. One of the preventive
measures of Turkish judicial-administrative system
for maintenance of peace and order in "uncertain
times" was the institution of !efilema-a responsibility of all the inhabitants of a given area for actions
of any one individual. The author explains the en-
forcement of the eefilema and penalties imposed on

those who violated their duties.
Vojislav SPAIC, "Pravni rezim u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme Turaka," IPZ, I, Nos. 1-2 (1949),
101-5. The legal system in Bosnia and Herzegovina
during the Turkish rule. The author defines the role
of ieri'aand the customary law, and he cites a series
of court decisions based on the seri'a in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Mehmed BEGOVIC,"Prou0avanje Turskih istorisko-pravnih spomenika," IC, II (1949-50), 34855. A study of Turkish historical-legal monuments.
The author examines different types of legalistic literature and documents and discovers in them a
whole list of Serbian legal nomenclature. By the
same author, "Tragovi naseg srednjevjekovnog prava u turskim pravnim spomenicima," IG, III (195152), 67-84. The traces of the Serbian medieval law in
the Turkish legal material..
REVOLUTIONARY
MOVEMENTS
Fuad SLIPI6EVI', "Selja6ki ustanci u Bosni i
Hercegovini u XIX vijeku," Nastavachistorije, January-February, 1951. On the peasant uprisings in
Bosnia and Herzegovina during the nineteenth
century.
Bune i ustanci u Bosni i Hercegovini u XIX vijeku, Vojnoistoriski institut JNA (Belgrade, 1952),
170 pp. A study of uprisings and insurrections in
Bosnia and Herzegovina in the nineteenth century,
published under the auspices of the Military-Historical Institute of the Yugoslav Army.
Bosko DESNICA, Istorija Kotarskil uskoka 16461749 (Belgrade, 1950-51). On the history of the
uskoks (guerillas) in the Kotar region. The work was
published under the auspices of the Serbian Academy of Sciences. "Nekoliko podataka o Perastanskim
hajducima," P, VII, 81. Some fresh data on the
Perast haiduks [rebels].
H. KAPIDWI6, "Prilog istoriji hercegova&kog
ustanka iz 1862 godine," GID, I (1949), 168-209. A
study of the Herzegovinian uprising in 1862 on the
basis of Austrian consular reports. By the same
author, "Prilozi istoriji ustanka iz godine 1882,"
GID, III (1951), 237-86. A documentary article on
the history of the uprising in 1882.
Vojislav BOGICEVIC,"Po6etak ustanka Luke
Vukalovica (1852-1853)," GID, IV (1952), 205-23.
The origins of the uprising by Luka Vukalovi6.

302
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
Vasilj PopoviC, Agrarno pitanje u Bosni i turski

rezim Abdul Medzida (1839-1861) (Belgrade, 1949),
320 pp. An extensive study of the agrarian question
in Bosnia during the rule of Abdul Medjid.
V. BOGICEVIC, "Kako je u Bosni ukinuta rabota
i uvedena trecina 1848," IPZ, III-IV (1950), 18199. On the abolition of the corv&eand the introduction of the tre6ina [a third of the gross] in Bosnia in
1848.
Glisa ELEZOVTC, "Iz posmrtnih rukopisa Ahmed
Dzevdet Page," P, II (1951), 259-314. A study of
the reformist and other activities of Ahmed Cevdet
Pa~a, the Sultan's emissary in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The author analyzes the general situation in
the two provinces, the qiftlik [feudal estates] problem, the security system, the role of the 'ulema
[learned class of interpreters of Islam], various socioeconomic and administrative problems, and the reforms of 1848.
Zarko MUJAWI6, "Dubrovacki izvjestaj o prilikama u Hercegovini u proljece 1788 god.," GID, IV
(1952), 277-85. An interpretation of a report found
in the archives of Dubrovnik on the conditions in
Herzegovina in the spring of 1788.
Hamdija KAPIDZIC, "Jedan francuski izvjestaj o
Bosni iz 1810 godine," GID, IV (1952), 253-68.
Analysis of a French report about the situation in
Bosnia in 1810.
J. RADULOVIC, "Polozaj Srba u Hercegovini
sredinom XIX veka," Istoriski zapisi, III, Nos. 5-6
(1949), 260-79. A study of the status of the Serbs in
Herzegovina in the mid-nineteenth century. By the
same author, "Rezim fanariota u 'turskoj' Hercegovini," IZ, II: 1-2 (1948), 39-50. Comments on the
Phanariot regime in Herzegovina in the nineteenth
century.
Vladislav SKARIC, GID, I (1949), 233-35. A necrology of Skaric, a distinguished Yugoslav scholar,
who produced a score of superior works on the Ottoman period. It is especially valuable for its bibliographical references. Necrology was written by
Hamdija Kapidzic.
B. JANKULOV, "Oslobodjenje Vojvodine od Turaka i stanje njeno posle oslobodjenja," Nau6ni Zbornik Matice Srpske, I (1950), 28-38. A study of conditions in Vojvodina upon its liberation from the
Ottoman rule.
Slavomir MILOSAVLJEVIC, "Izvozne carine koje
su Dubrovcani placali Turcima 1481 do 1520 godine," IG, Nos. 1-2 (1953), pp. 70-77. On the trade
relations between Dubrovnik and the Ottoman
Empire with a special reference to the nature of the
export customs which the subjects of Dubrovnik
paid to the Ottoman Empire. The author also explains the method by which the customs were collected.
VARIA
Dimitar VLAHOV, "Makedonija i Mladoturska,"

IG, III (1949), 33-52. A lengthy article on various
Macedonian political groups, including socialist activities and their relation to the Young Turk movement.
Ivan BoWI6, Dubrovnik i Turska u XIV i XV
veku. Istoriski Institut. Srpska Akademija Nauka
(Belgrade, 1952), 394 pp. The author traces the nature of relations between Dubrovnik and Turkey
during the fourteenth and fifteen centuries. The
work is based on extensive documentation from the
archives of Dubrovnik.
Glisa ELEZOVIC,"Tarapana (Darb-hane) u Novom Brdu. Turske ak6e (aspre) kovane u kovnici
Novog Brda," IC, II (1949-50), 115-26. TheTurkish
coins (akqes and aspres) coined in the mint at Novo
Brdo. This article contains interesting data on Turkish numismatics, written by an able author who had
done earlier work on the subject. By the same
author, "Crnci po Balkanskom poluostrvu," Zbornik etnografskogmuzeja u Beogradu, 1901-1951 (Belgrade, 1953), pp. 275-77. Comments on the origin
and meaning of the term "black Arabs" in the Balkans. According to the author, the reference was
probably to the dark skinned Arabs in the Ottoman
service. The author also notes that certain "black"
Arab slaves were organized into something like the
a,ndfs. By the same author, "Nekretna dobra
Ahmeda page Hercegovica u Dubrovniku-izvor za
pljacku Dubrovacke republike," P, I (1950), 69-83.
On the question of real estate held by Ahmed Pa-a
Hercegovic in Dubrovnik and the relations between
Dubrovnik and the Ottoman Empire. By the same
author, "Iz putopisa Evlije Celebije," IC, I, Nos.
1-2 (1948), 105-31. The author translated portions
of Celebija's travelogue with corrections and annotations. By the same author, "Stare turske skole u
Skoplju," Zbornik radova. Etnografski institut. No. 1
(1950), pp. 159-95. A discussion of old Turkish
schools for young children in Skoplje before they
were Europeanized. Much of his information came
from interviews with his personal friend sheikh
Sad-ed-in Mehmed Khazinedarzade (died 1936),
head of the tekkeKadera in Skoplje. The author had
previously written on a similar subject-Turkish
schools in Vucitrn. The type of Turkish school under
investigation was common from "Bagdad to Buda"
until the reforms of 1839. The author discusses the
physical layout of the school, registration system,
ceremonies in which the pupil participated, method
of instruction, curriculum, final examinations, and
gifts to hoca. The emphasis was on learning how to
read. Separate schools existed for girls. The teachers
had their assistants (kalfas). The author also comments on the character of the school equipment used
by pupils and on school vacations. Some space is
given to tracing the origin of the elementary school
(sibyan mektebi), which apparently existed in Brusa,
almost at the very beginning of the Ottoman history,
and which in the following centuries remained almost unchanged. The author discovered that the
description of the school in Nabi Yusuf's Mun,aat-iaziziyye fi asar-i-'osmaniyye [seventeenth century


work] corroborated the information he had gathered
relative to such schools as the tekkein Skoplje.
Jovan RADONiC,Djuradj Kastriot Skenderbeg
(Belgrade, 1942), 318 pp. This is a study of the life
and activities of the Albanian hero, Skanderbeg,
published under the auspices of the Serbian Academy of Sciences.
R. SAMARDZIl, "Jedan pokugaj predaje Kotora
Turcima (1667)," IG, 11I-IV (1951), 11-20. An attempt to surrender Kotor to the Turks in 1667. A
study in the relations between the city of Kotor and
the Ottoman Empire.
Branislav DJURDJEV,"Kri'sani spahije u severnoj Srbiji u XV veku," GID, IV (1952), 165-69. The
author discovered during his research that there was
a large group of Christian sipahfs in fifteenthcentury Serbia. He believes that some acquired this
status as a result of their friendly attitude during the
Turkish conquest of the Despotate of Serbia and
others as a result of their frontier location in the
Smederevo Sanca4, which compelled the Turks to
shower the local Christians with privileges and
favors.
Muhamed HAD'IJAKI6, "Hamzevije u svjetlu
poslanice uEi&kogsejha," P, III-IV (1952-53), 21527. The message of the Sey6 of Usice is important
for two reasons: it tells about the activities of the
Seyh, and it throws light on the Hamzeviye-a religio-social sect of the Slavic Muslims.
Omer MSuI6, "Poslanica gejha Muhameda Uii6anina Beogradskom valiji Muhamed-pasi," P, II
(1951), 185-94. A message by Seyh Muhammad of
Uzice to Muhammad paaa, the Vali [governor] of
Belgrade. An analysis of a document which describes the intolerable oppression of the ra'iya. By
the same author, "Jedna turska pjesma o Sarajevu
iz XVII vijeka," P, III-IV (1952-53), 575-87. The
beauty of Sarajevo attracted many natives and foreigners. No less than nine different Turkish poets
wrote songs about Sarajevo. The author analyzes
one such song by a Turkish poet.
Hazim SABANOvWI, "Najstarije vakufname u
Bosni," P, III-IV (1952-53), 403-13. The oldest
wakf-name in Bosnia. A study of some of the earliest
mosques and endowments in Bosnia. By the same
author, "Izrazi evd'il, evdsil i evd6ir u datumima
turskih spomenika," P, II (1952), 213-17. The
author interprets and explains various terms appearing in Turkish materials in connection with
dating.
Nedim FiLpovi6, "O izrazu 'tavil,'" P? II
(1951), 239-47. The author explains the meaning of
the term tahvil which appears in the timar beratsand
tezkeres[memorandum or a note of recommendation).
Risto BESAREVIC, "O prvom periodu djelovanja
Vase Pelagida u Bosni," GID, II (1950), 184-206. A
report on the early activities (1860-69) of Vasa
Pelagi6, a precursor of the Yugoslav socialist movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a source of
trouble to the Turkish rulers.
Alija BEJTIC, "Spomenici osmanlijske arhitekture
303
u Bosni i Hercegovini," P, III-IV (1952-53), 229-97.

This is an extensive article with many illustrations.
The author discusses the Ottoman public works,
construction materials, urbanism, mosques, madrasas [secondary schoolsi, tekke and haInikah[dervish
and religio-mystic quarters], caravanserays, water
fountains, bathhouses, stories and shops, storage
depots, bridges, memorial architecture, and defense
construction. Plans and designs accompany the
article.
Muhamed KANTARD"I6, "Hidzretski kalendar i
ostali kalendari kod islamskih naroda," P, III-IV
(1952-53), 299-348. A study of calendars among the
Muslim peoples. The author begins with an explanation of how the time was measured in pre-Muhammedan Arabia and then proceeds with the discussion
of various measures of time and calendars employed
in different Muslim lands.
Teufik MUFTI6, "Trilitere u arapskom jeziku,"
P, III-IV (1952-53), 509-51. A discussion of the
triliteral consonants in the Arabic word roots, based
on the Arab dictionary LisJn al-'Arab. It is a statistical-phonetic study.
Dusanka BOJANIR, "Podaci o Skoplju iz 951
(1544) godine," P, III-IV (1952-53), 607-19. The
author analyzes the data pertaining to Skoplje in
mid-sixteenth century. She includes statistical evidence and shows how the expansion of the imperial
frontiers produced economic transformation of
Skoplje. It lost military importance as it became
situated well inside the empire.
Fehim BAJRAKTAREVI',c "Kako su Turci zvali
Beograd," IG, III (1951-52), 209-13. The discussion
of various names given the city of Belgrade. The
Turks called it Ddr ul-Jihad-' the gate of wars"but, contrary to some historians, the term Belgrade
was more common. By the same author, "Poreklo
Ul6upline povijesti Turske Carevine," P, III-IV
(1952-53), 589-95. Author comments on the History of the Turkish Empire by Esref Uscuplija (Sarajevo, 1910) and finds that it was actually copied from
Stanley Lane-Poole's Turkey (1888) and Serbian
translation by Cedomilj Mijatovi6 (1890). By the
same author, "Jedan savremeni perziski izvor o bici
na Kosovu," P, III-IV (1952-53), 5-21. Comments
on the various "Eastern" sources on the famous
battle of Kosovo (1389) and especially the Persian
source Bdzm u rdzm [Banquet and battle], which antedates the oldest Serbian source.
Sa6ir SIKIRI6, "Sintakticke funkcije arapskih
prijedloga," P, III-IV (1952-53), 553-74. A study
of Arab prepositions and their syntactical functions.
By the same author, "Sudi kao komentator Sadijina
Gulistana," P, I (1950), 189-93. The author comments on a sixteenth-century Muslim Yugoslav
commentator on Sa'di's Golistdn.
Dan6o ZOGRAFSKI, 0 radniUkompokretu u Makedoniji do balkanskog rata (Belgrade, 1951). The
author traces the origin and development of workers
movement in Macedonia prior to Balkan wars, that
is, during the final decades of Ottoman rule. By the

304
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
same author, Makedonskiottaen revolucionerenkomitet i "Otm'stenie" (Skopje, 1954), 76 pp. A study of

the Macedonian secret revolutionary committee and
its journal "voice."
Seid M. TRALJIC, "Palinicev Bosanski Zbornik,"
Zbornik historijskog instituta Jugoslavenske Akademije, I (1954), 169-87. The author comments on the
materials written in Turkish but in cyrillic alphabet.
Previously this was believed to have been a rare
practice. This author found new materials which
suggest that the use of the cyrillic alphabet in writing Turkish was used more extensively than hitherto
believed. In this study the author concentrates on
the discussion of the Palinic Bosnian collection, located in the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences, explains the origin of the collection-written in the
old cyrillic (bosancica)-and on the contents therein.
Muhamed Muji6, "Polozaj Cigana u jugoslovenskim zemljama pod osmanskom vlascu," P, III-IV
(1952-53), 137-93. Little has been written on the
history of the gypsies. On the basis of the materials
from the Oriental Institute at Sarajevo, Hulsrev-bey
Mosque, and the Macedonian state archives, the
author endeavors to fill the gap. The author discusses the origin of the gypsies, their coming to the
Balkans, and their appearance in the Yugoslav
lands. He goes into both Muslim and non-Muslim
gypsies, explains their economic, social, and political
position, and says that the attitude of gypsies to religion was based on the principle Cuius regio, eius
religio. Number of facsimiles and statistics on gypsies give additional value to this altogether excellent
study. By the same author, "Prilog proucavanju
proslosti Vitine," P, III-IV (1952-53), 621-28. A
contribution to the study of Vitina, near Ljubuski,
once an important strategic outpost of the Ottoman
Empire. By the same author, "Stav Livanjskog
kapetana Firdusa prema pokretu Husejin-bega
Gradascevica i sultanovoj politici," P, III-IV
(1952-53), 597-605. The author goes into the politics of Firdusi, the captain of Livanj, who identified
himself belatedly with the forces favoring the reforms of Mahmud II. The principal value of the article is that it adds to the understanding of the Ottoman Tanzimat [Reforms] in Bosnia-Herzegovina. By
the same author, "Jedna bujurdulija Husejin-bega
Gradascevica," P, II (1951), 195-99. An analysis of
an order by Husein Bey of Gradiska issued in 1832.
The order throws light on Husein's personality and
the nature of his resistance to sultanic reforms.
Hamid HADZIBEGIC, "Turski dokumenti grbaljske zupe iz XVII stoleca," P, No. 1 (1950), pp. 2350. A series of Turkish documents on the zupa of
Grbalj during 1615-1709 which show among other
things that Grbalj was a part of Montenegro. By the
same author, "Turski dokumenti o pocetku ustanka
u Hercegovini i Bosnia 1875 godine," P, Nos. 1-2
(1950), pp. 85-116. The Turkish documents on the
beginning of the uprising in Herzegovina and Bosnia
in 1875.
Hamdija KRE9EVLJAKoVI6,
Banje u Bosni i
Hercegovini (1462-1916) (Sarajevo, 1952), 152 pp.
The author succeeded on the basis of architectionical
remnants to construct an appearance of an hamam.
He speaks about each of its component parts
(sadirvan, kapaluk, halvet, hazne, etc.) and finds an
analogy between Turkish and Roman terms. In general the author has much to say about the state of
hygiene in the Ottoman times. The study is accompanied by illustrations and plans. It is based on
heavy documentation and the use of sicils as source
materials.
Mirjana PoPovIc-RADENKOVI6,
"O trgovackim
odnosima Dubrovnika sa Bosnom i Hercegovinom
(1480-1500)," IG, Nos. 1-4 (1952), pp. 3-20. Deals
with the trade relations between Dubrovnik and
adjacent Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mirko BARJAKTAREVIC, "Dvovjerske siptarske
zadruge u Metohiji," Zbornik radova. Etnografski
institut, No. 1 (1950), p. 199-209. A discussion of
joint Catholic-Muslim Albanian zadruge in Metohija, their organization, functions, and mutual influences. Of some interest is author's explanation of
the Islamization in this region, which in his opinion
was caused primarily by economic factors.
Ljuben LAPE, Izvestai od 1903 godine na srpskite
konsuli, mitropoliti i utilisni inspektori vo Makedonija (Skopje, 1954), 395 pp. This is a collection of reports written by Serbian consuls, metropolitans and
educational inspectors on the situation in Macedonia in 1903. The same author previously published collections of similar materials. This is Volume I in the series of the "Materials for the history
of Macedonia."
B. KURIPESIC, Putopis kroz Bosnu, Srbiju, Bugarsku i Rumeliju 1530 (Belgrade, 1950). Notes of Kuripesic's travels in 1530 translated into Serbo-Croatian
by Dj. Pejanovi6. The work contains many details
of historical value.
Konstantin BASTAI6, "Prilog pitanju o odnosu
vanekonomske prinude i dominikalne vlasti u timarsko-spahiskom sistemu," HZ, Nos. 1-4 (1954), pp.
103-28. In the Ottoman Empire, as in Western "absolutist centralist monarchies," the state exercised
noneconomic power as a representative of a whole
class pro toto et pro parte. The Turkish feudal state,
and the Turkish feudatories to a lesser degree, jointly exercised direct authority over the person of the
direct producer, the peasant, and thereby achieved
noneconomic control-an essential characteristic of
feudalism. The state operated in the name of the
whole feudal class. This study, heavily documented,
deals with the relations between noneconomic power
and seignorial authority in the feudal system of the
timars and the sipahts.
V. VINAVER, "Dubrovacko-albanski
ekonomski
odnosi krajem XVI veka," Anali Historijskog Institula u Dubrovniku, No. 1 (Dubrovnik, 1952), pp.
207-31. This article treats the economic relations
between Dubrovnik and Albania toward the end of


the sixteenth century. Dubrovnik imported cereals,
wood products, food, tanning, asphalt and led from
Albania, and exported to Albania textiles and soap.
P. BUTORAC,"Proces o martolozima 1477 godine
u Kotoru," ibid., pp. 133-44. The study throws light
on the Turkish activity in the area of Kotor in 1477,
the local cultural situation, the Venetian intrigues,
and the character of the area ruled by Herceg Vlatko. By the same author, "Dva nepoznata rukopisa
Marka Martinovica," ibid., pp. 359-84. The author
describes the Perast incident of 1715 and the Venetian propagation of war with the Turks-the Morean
War (1715-18).
Stevan TANOVIC, "Selo kao socijalna zajednica i
upravna jedinica u Djevdjeliskoj kazi u zadnje
tursko doba," Zbornik radova. Elnografski institut,
No. 1 (Belgrade, 1950), pp. 97-157. The author was
on official duty in the Kaza (or 1yadA)of Djevdjelija,
1905-12. During that time he collected many ethnographical materials. In 1927 he published a book on
"National Customs in Kaza of Djevdjelija." In
this study he treats the village as a social and administrative entity in the Kaza during the last
period of Turkish rule. Tanovic defines the character
and functions of the municipal government (belediye), the municipal president (belediye-re'isi), the
305
municipal board (belediye-azar), and the municipal

secretary (belediye-katibi). Also treated are the municipal assembly (meclis) and other institutions. He
explains the general characteristics of the town, its
division into quarters (mahalle), each with its own
muhzar (for Muslims) or koca-bavi (for Christians).
Many other institutions of the municipal and village
administration are discussed, including the administration of mixed Muslim-Christian villages, the
Christian zadruge, joint village properties.
Slavko MIJUgKOVIC, "Pleme Niksic u Morejskom
ratu (1684-1699)," IZ, No. 1 (1954), pp. 1-42. Article tells of the role played by the Niksic tribe in the
Morean War, how Montenegrins were squeezed between the Turks and the Venetians, and how they
struggled for their independence.
Risto KOVIJANICand Ivo STJEPCEVIC"Hajduci u
Boki do Morejskog rata (1654-1684)," IZ, No. 1
(1954), pp. 162-87. The activities of the hajduci
(irregulars) in and around Boka prior to the Morean
War.
Milog
MILOSEVIC,
"Pomen o Baju Pivljaninuu
Drzavnom arhivu u Kotoru (1684-1685)," IZ, No.

1 (1954), pp. 188-210. References to Bajo Pivljanin,
a Montenegrin popular hero in struggle against the
Turks, in the archives of Kotor.


The Yugoslav Lands in The Ottoman Period

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Yugoslav Lands in The Ottoman Period

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Yugoslav Lands in the Ottoman Period: Postwar Marxist Interpretations of Indigenous and

This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:06:57 AM

IN CONTEMPORARY Yugoslav historiography

(P) [Contributions to the oriental philology and

This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:06:57 AM

upon the development of Yugoslav society.2

"natural rent," and the institution of the timar

This content downloaded on Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:06:57 AM