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
BIBLIOGRAPHICALARTICLE
THE YUGOSLAV LANDS IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD: POSTWAR
MARXIST INTERPRETATIONS OF INDIGENOUS
AND OTTOMAN INSTITUTIONS
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
287
288
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
289
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.
290
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
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
291
292
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
293
iDzizja
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
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.
Ibid.,p. 119.
"Crna Gora u dolba kandidskog rata (16451669)," IG, Nos. 1-2 (1953), pp. 3-53.
21
295
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.
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
298
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
ViC37
Turski dokumentiza
govina. Hazim
gABANOVIC,
"Natpisi na nadgrob-
299
300
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
85-86.
301
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
302
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
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
303
304
WAYNE S. VUCINICH
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
305
MILOSEVIC,