Istorijski časopis
Primary tabs
Историјски часопис, званично гласило Историјског института, излази од 1948. године. Објављује оригиналне научне радове на српском и другим језицима. Примењује систем „слепих“ рецензија два рецензента. Тематски оквир часописа обухвата економску, друштвену, политичку и културну историју српског народа, као и његове везе са јужнословенским и осталим балканским народима, и истовремено унапређује све гране историјске науке. Хронолошки оквир је омеђен на период од средњег века до почетка 20. века, односно до 1918. године и стварања Краљевине СХС.
Homepage
CEEOL
ISSN: 0350-0802
Pages
-
- Главна контрола у Кнежевини Србији
- The State Audit Institution in Serbia was founded in 1843 and it was named ‘’The Main Control’’. It was a part of the State Council and it was put under Council’s supervision. Control’s task was to inspect yearly accounts of all state and public institutions. Its activity proved to be quite beneficiary for the state and its finances. However, the Control was inefficient. It kept lacking behind with inspecting accounts year after year, so they were piling up. Such development was caused by the insufficient number of employees and certain drawbacks of the Law on Main Control. Eventually, the new Law was passed in 1858, which considerably broadened Control’s authorities and thus provided an excellent foundation for its future work.
-
- Гора Прозрак и двор Неродимља
- In a series of Serbian medieval palaces, whose placement has not been accurately established, is Nerodimlje palace as well. Hagiography of Stefan of Dečani provides us with significantly important information on its placement, in the episode of the attack undertaken by Dušan's army and dethronement of the old king. The army had effectuated preparation for the forthcoming attack on the mountain of Prozrak, which points to the fact that Nerodimlje palace was situated on the mountain itself, or in its vicinity. Russian consul Jastrebov, who visited the area surrounding Nerodimlje and recorded local legends and microtoponimy, wrote also of the ruins, lying on the mountain of Prozrak, which people held for the medieval Serbian royal palace. According to his writings, on the slopes of the Prozrak mountain lie small villages of Mačitevo, Prorok, Verište, Malopoljce and Katun. In the ancient times, a road was passing by, leading from Prizren to the valley of Nerodimka, via Budakovo and Prozrak. Information from Turkish registers confirm the fact that it was indeed an ancient, medieval road. They speak of the village called Prozrak and the identically named derbend, throughout 16th century, that lied on the already mentioned travel route. It was most probably the same road Dušan's army followed before reaching the palace – from West and from the direction of Skadar. Running before the rebels, Stefan of Dečani was headed towards the East and the fortification of Petrič, where he found shelter. After the fall of Petrič, Dušan was crowned in Svrčin; his father spent his last days in Zvečan.
-
- Град Некудим и Некудимска власт
- In the sources from the late 14th and mid-15th centuries, Nekudim is mentioned as the fort, settlement, and residence of Serb rulers, Despots Stefan Lazarević and Đurađ Branković. The earliest and hitherto unknown information about the Nikodim fort (castrum Nicodem) comes from a 1389 Charter of the Hungarian King Zsigmond. Nekudim was located near the village of Pridvorice, Southwest of Smederevska Palanka, and during the reign of the despots was the center of the military-administrative county (Nekudim's «vlast»). Following the Ottoman conquest of Serbia in 1459, the Nekudim nahia was formed, while the settlement Nekudim itself was a smallish village — in 1476, it consisted of 12 houses.
-
- Градина - Казновиће, резултати археолошких истраживања
- One of the last researched localities in the Ibar valley is Gradina- Kazanoviće, in the municipality of Raška. The only access to the site was through a slope, from the peak of Dubovi. There was probably a tower at the entrance, and a dry ditch right before it. Although it was only slightly away from the main communication route along the Ibar, higher hills in the background made the site hidden, and provided security for its population. Such a location made the site unnoticeable even from some surrounding Early Byzantine localities. The citadel was explored with five exploratory probes, and the approximate oval base, 123 meters in length, was established based on the noted wall parties and their superficial covering, while in some parts of the site the previous fortification manifested as a layer of scattered rock. The measured width of the south wall at the former entrance was 1.8 m. Broken rock tied by stucco plaster was used for construction, and the funding of the walls was done on the live rock. The recovered archeological material indicate that this is a two-layered archeological site. The construction took place in the Early Byzantine period, in the 6th century, and the space was also used during 9th and 10th centuries. The main criteria for dating is provided by the ceramics. Specimens belonging to the earlier horizon, based on analogies with nearby localities around Raška, Novi Pazar, Sjenica, and Tutin, could be dated to late 6th and early 7th century. In mid-9th century, the frontier between Serbia and Bulgaria was around Ras, which indicates that the border of Serbia at the time went northwards following the Ibar, and our fort would have been on Bulgarian territory. However, there could have been some shifts in the border, either during the reign of Časlav, or during the 10th century, following the establishment of catepanate in Ras, between 971 and 976, when Serbs regained their independence. Regardless of in whose territory it was located, as a frontier outpost, the site would have been useful during the Simeon's conquest of Serbia in 926, during the establishment of the catepanate, or during Samuil's conquests.
-
- Градитељско дело, контекст, значење
- The art of the last period of the Serb Medieval state, known as the Art of Morava Serbia, was and remains one of the most complex questions of the Serbian Medieval art. So far, it was evaluated in a very wide range — from being labeled the most original and only truly national art style of Medieval Serbia, to being reduced to mere eclecticism, art of local importance, lacking full development and major changes. Such conclusions were especially present when evaluating the architecture of the Morava Serbia. A more balanced perspective is rendered more difficult by the fact that the wider frame, where it undoubtedly belongs as an important segment — the Late Byzantine architecture — represents another very complex issue. Scholarly research in the Morava Serbia architecture began in the early days of the establishment of art history in Serbia, during the last three decades of the 19th century. Knowledge presented at the time was only within the limits of basic facts about the past, and the look of the churches known at the time. Among the first synthetic works on Medieval Serbia architecture by European researchers, especially influential was Gabriel Millet's L'ancien art serbe. Les églises (Paris, 1919). This French scholar established a model of describing Serb Medieval architecture chronologically, territorially, and in wholes stylistically homogenous, which he labeled “schools,” whichhistorically followed one after the other, in an evolutionary sequence, from simpler to more complex architectural organisms. A change in perception occurred in mid-1960s, in works of the two leading researchers at the time, Vojislav Korać and Vojislav J. Đurić. Finally, after several decades of study of Morava Serbia architecture and sculpture, there is a first synthetic work, by Vladislav Ristić (Moravska arhitektura, Kruševac, 1996). However, this book, although very important, still represents only modernized form of the traditional typological classification, established by Gabriel Millet. Thus, it confirms the degree in which even contemporary science remains captive to old concepts and models of perceiving Morava Serbia architecture. Fortunately, some more recent monographs display use of qualitatively different methodological takes on its study (I. Stevović, Kalenić. Bogorodična crkva u arhitekturi poznovizantijskog sveta, Belgrade, 2006). By analyzing these works, one could note that the efforts of scholars for the most part went within the framework determined by studying the work’s origin and existence, as well as the analysis of its formal characteristics. The possibility for widening of the interpretative horizon is necessarily seen in perception of its context, understood as the general whole of all the relations that the work establishes with its environment. Based on this, the finally complex structure could be seen in part of the stored meanings, built in several layers and with rich texture of mutual relations.
-
- Давид Уркарт, Писац Прве Енглеске Историје Србије
- The article is a discussion of the work of David Urquhart (1805- 1877), British diplomat and publicist whose numerous publications include A Fragment of the History of Serbia (published in London in 1843). The opening part of the paper discusses the general conditions in the Balkans and the Near East prevailing at the time of Urquhart's appearance on the diplomatic scene and focuses on the political and commercial aspects of the Anglo-Russian rivalry in the region. This is followed by a brief account of the early life of David Urquhart, of his participation in the Greek war for independence in 1827-1829 and of his subsequent transformation into an ardent admirer of Turkey and a bitter enemy of Russia.. In 1831 Urquhart accompanied Sir Stratford Canning on a diplomatic mission to Constantinople, and there are some indications that during Canning's negotiations with the Porte he visited Serbia and even spent some time in it. He returned to England towards the end of 1832 and published a book on Turkey and Its Resources which gained him the favour of the King and some other influential people. As a result, he was sent in 1833 on a mission to the East to explore the possibilities for the promotion of AngloTurkish trade. Although his instructions were that he should travel as an ordinary commercial agent without disclosing that he was on an official mission, his letters and reports sent to England claim that he conducted important political talks with Prince Miloš of Serbia and his leading statesmen during the two weeks he spent in Serbia before proceeding to Turkey. The paper suggests that Urquhart's reports are of doubtful veracity and that they were probably intended to be taken as evidence of the writer's diplomatic acumen and political ability. The main part of the paper is a discussion of the possible role of Urquhart in the establishment of the first diplomatic relations between Britain and Serbia and to an analysis of Urquhart's unfinished account of the history of Serbia. In 1832 Urquhart suggested indirectly in one of his letters, purportedly sent to his mother, but intended for his patrons at the court, that it would be opportune to keep a British consul in Prince Miloš's Serbia and hinted vaguely that he would be the right person for the office. There seems, however, to be no more substantial evidence that he was instrumental in the establishment of Anglo-Yugoslav diplomatic relations five years later. The analysis of Urquhart's Fragment of the History of Serbia seeks to place that account in the context of Urquhart's general view of the Eastern Question and of the leading ideas consistently expressed in his other publications. It is argued that Urquhart considered the events from Serbian history mainly as useful material for the illustration and confirmation of his obsessive Rusophobia and of his admiration of Turkey, belief in the possibilities of her renewal and praise of her institutions. This treatment of Serbian history often leads either to the adjustment of historical events to preconceived conclusions or to their neglect in favour of matter which is irrelevant but supports the author's obsessive vilification of Russia. The reason why Urquhart left his history unfinished, breaking off literally in mid-sentence, is not known. Another mystery is why he chose to have it published it in that form. The Fragment as it is may be said to be noteworthy as the first English work on Serbian history, but its contribution to the knowledge of Serbia and its past was not great, partly because it offered little new or detailed information, and partly because it seems to have been received as just another polemical work dealing with aspects of the Eastern Question. Indeed, it did not much differ from the run-of-the-mill journalistic production of that type. A heated piece of political propaganda rather than a sober-minded historical survey, unfinished and published, apparently, in a very limited number of copies, it attracted little attention at the time and is very rarely mentioned in the later accounts of Urquhart and his work. Another probable explanation why Urquhart's history left no more lasting mark was the fact that it could not stand comparison with Leopold Ranke's history of Serbia, published in Germany about fifteen years earlier. Even the English readers unable to read German could get a fairly good idea of Serbian history from the detailed and very flattering reviews of Ranke published in the British periodicals of the time. A few years after the publication of the Fragment there appeared the English translation of Ranke's book (1847), and Urquhart's history fell into deep oblivion. The concluding part of the paper deals briefly with Urquhart's later career and with the divided contemporary views of him.
-
- Два српска кнеза, отац и син – слике из британских дипломатских извештаја
- The aim of this article is to describe the way the British diplomacy viewed the Serbian Princes Milosh and Michael Obrenovic at the time of change at the Serbian throne in 1860. Britain first tried to establish consular relations with Serbia in 1828. The first British consul in Serbia was George Lloyd Hodges 1837 – 1838. His mission was not a success. Britain tried to influence the 1838 Serbian constitution but they failed. The Russian influence was deciding and the institution of the State Council was established. The institution was able to maintain control over the Serbian Prince. After that Milosh Obrenovic (1829 – 1839) left Serbia. He was succeeded by his son Milan and after Milan’s death by Prince Michael (1839 – 1842). When the British Consulate was set up again in 1842, the British consuls in Serbia had less influence in the Principality than Austrian or Russian representatives. After a short reign of Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic (1842 – 1858), Prince Milosh Obrenovic, was elected again in Serbia. Prince Michael was named as his successor. The British had decisive influence in Turkey after the Crimean war and they tried to implement it in Serbia. The British ambassador at Constantinople had a crucial effect on the British foreign policy towards Serbia. In 1858 the ambassador was Sir Henry Bulwer. The first aim of Milosh and Michael Obrenovic was to secure their hereditary power in Principality and to change the 1838 Constitution. The Porte and the great powers refused to grant them these requests. They only recognized Obrenovic`s electoral rights. Prince Milosh died in 1860 and Michael Obrenovic became the Serbian Prince. The change at the Serbian throne presented a need for the British diplomats to study their personalities. This article is trying to show what personal characteristics of the two princes were observed by the British. It is a try to show the challenge that ambassador Bulwer faced against Michael Obrenovic and the goals of his foreign policy. Michael proclaimed himself a hereditary ruler, continued to rule Serbia with no regard for the 1838 Constitution and continued his attempts to create Balkan union directed against Ottoman Empire. His main objective was to expel the Turks from Serbian towns. British policy had no effect on his plans. Great Britain never supported Serbian and other Balkan nationalisms.
-
- Делатност Mилутина Гарашанина на организовању Cрпске пропаганде у старој Cрбији и Mакедонији 1885. Године корени и план
- Under the influence of the development of international relations in the mid-1880s and the increasingly deteriorating relations between Serbia on the one hand and Russia and Bulgaria on the other, and given the ever more successful work of Bulgarian propagandists in the Ottoman Empire, Serbian King Milan and the Prime Minister Milutin Garašanin realized that the Serbian government needed to intensify its activities in order to safeguard the state and national interests of the Kingdom of Serbia in Old Serbia and Macedonia. Already in the second half of 1884, the Government started working to strengthen the influence of Serbia in the transfrontier areas of the Ottoman Empire, and all of 1885, until September and the onset of a new crisis caused by the unification of the Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, was marked by intensified efforts of the Serbian Government to lay new foundations for Serbian propaganda activities in Old Serbia and Macedonia. To that end, Garašanin drew up a plan and informed the king about it in March 1885. In accordance with the current foreign policy position of Serbia, Bulgaria and its propaganda activity in Macedonia were identified as the major enemy of the Serbian state, with loyal conduct being envisaged vis-à-vis the Ottoman Empire, because the support of the Ottoman rulers was a necessary precondition for the successful effects of Serbian propaganda in the area of the Empire. Garašanin’s plan defined the basic guidelines for the foreign policy activity of the Serbian state in the years that were to follow, and its implementation started immediately.
-
- Делатност првог руског конзула у Србији Герасима Вашћенка 1838-1843. године
- Gerasim Vasilevich Vaschenko, born in 1790, was the first Russian consul in Serbia. Like the majority of Russian diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, he began with his service in the Russian legation in Constantinople. As a dragoman (interpreter), he was perfecting his French and Turkish, and gaining practical knowledge necessary for diplomatic work. At the time of the Greek uprising, he was secretary to the commission for sheltering Greek refugees in Odessa (1821–1826), member of the Russian delegation in negotiations with the Turks in Akerman (May–October 1826), and member of the Russian mission in Wallachia and Moldova (1828–1830). He was the first Russian consul in the territory of present-day Bulgaria in Sliven (1830–1833). He also served as a consul in Orșova, Wallachia, from 1837 to 1838. Vaschenko’s consulship in Serbia (1838–1843) may be tentatively divided into three phases. In the first phase (1838–1839), he worked on suppressing British influence in Serbia, supporting the opposition in its struggle against Prince Miloš. A change in the course of Russian foreign policy at the time of the second Egyptian crisis of 1840/41 resulted in Vaschenko’s active support of Prince Mihailo’s Government in 1841/42. The Russian influence in Serbia diminished significantly with the outbreak of Vučić’s riot in 1842 and the banishment of Prince Mihailo. Vaschenko’s consulship did not help improve relations between the Russian Empire and the Principality of Serbia. This was due not only to differing state interests, but also to Vaschenko’s traits – his presumptuous behaviour and aderisive attitude which was off-putting rather than appealing.
-
- Делатност улцињског трговца Ника Рога у Котору у тридесетим годинама 15. века
- This paper, mostly on the basis of previously unpublished source material from the Archives of Kotor, covers the business career of Niko Rogo, a merchant from Ulcinj, in Kotor in the 1430s. That includes the information on his credit and trading business, family circumstances and financial condition. More than a decade Niko was successful in trade and credit transactions. In this way, he took part in the economic development of Kotor, the city where he lived and worked. Through a wide range of his business activities he gained both wealth and reputation and, therefore, obtained the title of Sir (Ser), although he was not a nobleman. Title Ser was generally reserved for the nobility, but it was given to Niko Rogo because he, as some other persons, took part in the economic development of Kotor.
-
- Демографске прилике и мрежа парохија у Београдској епархији од 1718. до 1739. године
- During the Austro-Turkish wars dating from the end of 17th and the beginning of 18th century, significant demographic changes occurred on the area of the Eparchy of Belgrade. Numerous previous settlements disappeared, and number of the inhabitants considerably decreased, as a consequence of the population displacement. Areas of the Eparchy of Belgrade have not suffered from wars equally, nor have they recovered from them at the same pace. As we possess no detailed Austrian register of this ecclesiastical region, lists of settlements of ecclesiastical origin, including numerical state of the families, are proved to be of utter importance for the demographic study of this area. According to these, at least 3700 families, or slightly more than 15000 inhabitants dwelled in the Eparchy of Belgrade in the mid- 1720's. If we compare the given information with ecclesiastical registers dating from the mid- 1730's, we can clearly observe the increase in numerical state of the settlements, as well as in houses they counted. Migrations from the area under the Turkish rule have considerably contributed to demographic growth, but also has the return of some refugee families. According to the list of settlements and houses, composed approximately in 1735, 171 settlement, counting 4624 families, was registered in the Eparchy of Belgrade, or slightly more than 19000 inhabitants. Since an ecclesiastical register of the settlements and houses in the Bishopric of Valjevo, of the same year, has been preserved as well, we can conclude that more than 7000 families, or at least 29000 inhabitants dwelled in the Kingdom of Serbia, not counting Belgrade, by the end of the Austrian rule. The most prominent demographic growth, according to the information contained in ecclesiastical registers, has been recorded in regions under the administration of Timisoara, while it amounted to only approximately 5% in the surroundings of Belgrade. The biggest settlements were situated in the North, which reflected upon the population density that was multifold in the areas along Danube compared to the remaining parts of the eparchy. At the same time, a dense network of 64 settlements existed on the relatively small area of Stig and Braničevo. Hence, more than half of the population dwelled on the surface stretching from Belgrade to Golubac, of 2155 km2 (21,77% of the surface of the entire eparchy), with population density that amounted to 5,37 inhabitants per km2 in the mid- 1730's. Population density was many times smaller in other parts of the eparchy, and amounted to only 1,15 inhabitants per km2, while the average population density of the entire territory of the Eparchy of Belgrade was 2,08 inhabitants per km2.
-
- Демографске промене у нахији Бован као пример депопулације Румелије у 16. веку
- The Bovan nahiye was situated in the center of Aleksinac basin, on the right side of South Morava River, with the exception of two villages placed on the left side of the river. During the time of Ottoman conquest it was average populated area and after that, to be more precise from 1491. to 1516, the tendency of population growth is visible. Since 1516. the population started to decrease and this was constantly lasting process during the whole century. Until 1607 this number decreased ten times. Our historiography is insufficiently familiar with proportion of depopulation that has happened in this area. Ottoman conquests of Belgrade in 1521 and large territories in Southern Hungary, after Battle of Mohács in 1526 were the main reasons for beginning of depopulation in Bovan and surrounding nahiyes. Krucevac’s region found itself in a situation where the part of the population, such as Vlachs, lost their previous privileges. On the other hand, the tax system in vast newly conquered regions has been significantly milder, which attracted numerous colonists from Krusevac and its region. Another reason for this could be the plague, which ravaged this area during the mentioned period of time. The next big wave of emigration occurred after the Ottoman conquest of Banat and founding Timisoara Eyalet in 1552. After the conquest of Djula in 1566. and founding of the same name region, inhabiting of Serbian population has obtained proportions of migration. People inhabited southern from Danube, began migrating to Banat in order to be enlisted in а new defter. Migrations were motivated by better economic conditions of peasantry in the areas across Danube. During the period when this migrations subside, by the end of 1560s, the new wave of plague arrives. By the end of 16th and the beginning of 17th century, the whole area was depopulated. This can be best seen in the number of taxpayers in Bovan nahiye, which was 617 in 1591/1592 and only 254 in 1607. Considering that in 1607, from all registered people there were 88 who migrated from other areas, it is visible that there were only 166 Christian natives. The change of ethnical structure in Bovan nahiye was evidenced already in register from 1591/92 and continued on until 1607. During this period population from Macedonian, Bulgarian and Albanian areas migrates to this area.The Bovan nahiye was situated in the center of Aleksinac basin, on the right side of South Morava River, with the exception of two villages placed on the left side of the river. During the time of Ottoman conquest it was average populated area and after that, to be more precise from 1491. to 1516, the tendency of population growth is visible. Since 1516. the population started to decrease and this was constantly lasting process during the whole century. Until 1607 this number decreased ten times. Our historiography is insufficiently familiar with proportion of depopulation that has happened in this area. Ottoman conquests of Belgrade in 1521 and large territories in Southern Hungary, after Battle of Mohács in 1526 were the main reasons for beginning of depopulation in Bovan and surrounding nahiyes. Krucevac’s region found itself in a situation where the part of the population, such as Vlachs, lost their previous privileges. On the other hand, the tax system in vast newly conquered regions has been significantly milder, which attracted numerous colonists from Krusevac and its region. Another reason for this could be the plague, which ravaged this area during the mentioned period of time. The next big wave of emigration occurred after the Ottoman conquest of Banat and founding Timisoara Eyalet in 1552. After the conquest of Djula in 1566. and founding of the same name region, inhabiting of Serbian population has obtained proportions of migration. People inhabited southern from Danube, began migrating to Banat in order to be enlisted in а new defter. Migrations were motivated by better economic conditions of peasantry in the areas across Danube. During the period when this migrations subside, by the end of 1560s, the new wave of plague arrives. By the end of 16th and the beginning of 17th century, the whole area was depopulated. This can be best seen in the number of taxpayers in Bovan nahiye, which was 617 in 1591/1592 and only 254 in 1607. Considering that in 1607, from all registered people there were 88 who migrated from other areas, it is visible that there were only 166 Christian natives. The change of ethnical structure in Bovan nahiye was evidenced already in register from 1591/92 and continued on until 1607. During this period population from Macedonian, Bulgarian and Albanian areas migrates to this area.