Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald
ISSN 0353-295X (Tisak) 1849-0344 (Online)
Radovi - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest
Vol. 51, br. 1, Zagreb 2019
UDK 314.15(5:4)“14/18“(091)
314.15(5-15:497)“14/18“(091)
314.15(5-15:4-11)“14/18“(091)
Pregledni rad
Primljeno: 5. 9. 2019.
Prihvaćeno: 9. 12. 2019.
DOI: 10.17234/RadoviZHP.51.5
Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
Recent research in historical migration studies has the potential to revise our understanding of Early Modern societies and states. The research program Transottomanica
focuses on the historical entanglement between the Middle East and Eastern Europe
by examining migration processes from a transregional and transimperial perspective.
In the Early Modern period, various types of migration, especially from and across
inter-imperial buffer zones such as the northern Black Sea region, the Caucasus, and
the Balkans, connected the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Merchants, refugees and
slaves not only created an overarching migration society, especially in the cosmopolitan
cities, for transregional migration was also visible in the self-description and identities of imperial elites. The effects of inter-imperial migration, which was ingrained
in societal and identitarian structures, can be followed until the early 20th century.
In both the media and academic writing, migration processes in the recent
wave of globalization have been depicted as an entirely new phenomenon that is
producing unprecedented consequences for local societies.1 By contrast, historical
migration studies have demonstrated that the current situation is not an exception,
but rather that migration as a universal condition is central to the composition
of any society. Since the 1980s, this has been shown by studies with a global
historical focus,2 as well as those with a focus on specific historical periods3 or
with a regional approach.4 At the same time, the thematic range of migration
studies, which began to look beyond the classical case of long-term migrations
between states, now includes all types, even short-term and circular acts of human
mobility.5 Moreover, migration studies have expanded their focus by perceiving
migration not as primarily an economic, but also as a cultural practice that has
effects beyond the societies of emigration and immigration.6 From this thematic
expansion, scholars interested in diasporas and transnational migrant communi1
2
3
4
5
6
WHITE 2016.
MCNEILL & ADAMS 1987, MANNING 2007.
BORGOLTE 2009, 2012, BADE 2010, OLTMER 2010.
BRUNNBAUER 2009, BRUNNBAUER, NOVINŠĆAK & VOSS 2011.
DROZ & SOTTAS 1997: 70.
HAHN & KLUTE 2007: 10.
201
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
ties have begun to fundamentally question the bounded nature of territories or
social groups. Their aim was to overcome ‘methodological nationalism’ with
‘methodological transnationalism’.7
In this article, we want to outline how these recent approaches to migration and
mobility have inspired new perspectives on shared and transcontinental Middle
Eastern and Eastern European history. The research program “Transottomanica”8
is a pertinent example of how new empirical research inspired by such approaches
helps to transcend disciplinary boundaries and compartmentalized area studies.
The focus of this research program encompasses interactions and networks—be
they social, economic, martial or cultural—across the Ottoman Empire, PolandLithuania, Russia and Persia from the Early Modern period to the 20th century.
Such interactions involved various forms of mobility and migration, which were
constitutive for a context that we label “Transottoman,” because, beginning in the
16th century, the Ottoman Empire played a central role in organizing such mobilities.
Thus, “Transottomanica” is not conceptualized as a “historical region”9 with fixed
borders, but as a set of multiple relational, socially constituted spaces10 that varied
considerably in their extent, from the local to the trans-regional, and in density.
These ever-changing and fluid contexts of interactions and social networks were
constituted by the mobilities of concrete actors, by the circulation of ideas and
exchanges of goods. In the form of historical case studies, the research program
reconstructs several such contexts and maps the long-term patterns of Transottoman
interaction that can be followed until the beginning of the 20th century.11
Migration as a universal human activity played a pivotal role in the Middle East
and Eastern Europe. The following section will offer a broad overview how recent
approaches in migration studies have been applied to societies in our focus area.
Today, the myth of a local immobile society is no longer tenable, but we have to
acknowledge the centrality of migration for the constitution of Early Modern empires and their societies. Even if only small parts of any population were migrating,
all of the others were affected by mobility of local or transcontinental migration.
This happened either directly or, as seen from a systemic perspective, as a result
of the general relational impact of mobility. Overall, we seek to stress networks of
short, long-term or structural durability that were indicative of a larger, Transottoman, migration society as it was constituted by flows in transimperial contexts.12
7
8
9
10
11
12
202
FORTIER 2014.
Running from 2017 to 2023, www.transottomanica.de.
BRUNNBAUER 2011: 83.
BOURDIEU 1991.
ROHDEWALD, CONERMANN & FUESS 2019.
This contribution builds on and accentuates a text in German: ROHDEWALD 2019.
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
Empires as Migration Societies
Research in the recent years has clearly established the central role of migration in the establishment, expansion, functioning and cultural identity of empires.
The emigration of white settlers is the classical theme in British imperial history
that has been expanded to other non-white groups that moved inside the British
Empire and to Britain after the dissipation of its empire. Thematically, classical
migration history that was interested mainly in social questions now also includes
processes of culture and identity formation.13
Regarding the multi-ethnic empires that are in the focus of the Transottomanica
research program—Poland-Lithuania, Russia, Persia and the Ottoman Empire—
research has explored the link between empire and migration. In a recent monograph, Reşat Kasaba has characterized the Ottoman state as a “movable empire”
due to its close interaction with mobile groups, most importantly with nomads.14
In the Ottoman case, in the 13th century a group of nomads established a small
state (beylik) in the Byzantine-Seljuk border zone in north-western Anatolia that
would later become one of the world’s major empires. We see similar cooperation
in the case of Safavid Persia, where a Sufi sheikh, later Shah Ismail, mobilized
his nomadic followers to establish a dynasty that ruled Persia from 1501 to 1722.
Even after these states had become bureaucratic empires, nomadic groups remained
an important element in their political structure: frequently tribes were settled
in the imperial peripheries, such as the Balkans and Eastern Anatolia, to protect
the borders.15 That such areas are not only crucial from the perspective of innerimperial, center-periphery relations, but also figure prominently in trans-imperial
exchanges will be examined in greater detail in the next section.
In the movable empire concept, non-nomadic groups were also central to
mobility and migration. The policy of forced settlement (sürgün) of the Ottoman
central government could affect both nomadic tribes that were, e.g., transported
from Anatolia to the Balkans, and urban populations and vocational groups. In
particular, specialized craftsmen and members of the Jewish community had to
populate the new Ottoman capital Istanbul.16 Another famous group of migrants
in the spatial and social sense were the forced recruits into the Ottoman central
administration. In the institution known as devşirme, young boys from the Balkans
were “collected” from Christian families to serve as Janissaries and administrators after their cultural and religious conversion. In the Safavid Empire, a similar
system was adopted at the end of the 16th century, when slaves (ghulam) captured
13
14
15
16
FEDOROWICH & THOMSON 2013, HARPER & CONSTANTINE 2014.
KASABA 2009.
ÁGOSTON 2003, VEINSTEIN 2014, TAPPER 1997.
HACKER 1992.
203
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
in the Caucasus were educated in the palace to fill the highest post in the state and
army. They were explicitly recruited to stand in for the nomadic tribes on which
the power of the Safavid dynasty had rested previously.17
The Phanariots are another group that can serve as an example for the Ottoman
Empire as a migration society entailing social as well as spatial mobility at the
same time. This Greek-speaking Orthodox elite, which was based in the Istanbul
quarter of Fener and served vital functions in the Ottoman state apparatus since
the late 17th century, was a composite group of various regional backgrounds from
within the empire. Like many other such groups, it also had trans-imperial ties,
which will be discussed later.18
Scholars of the social and urban history of the Ottoman Empire who pay special
attention to the experience of non-elite groups have singled out migration as an
important factor. The multi-ethnic character of Ottoman cities was a consequence
of multiple processes of migration that engendered specific solutions of governance.19 Big cities such as the capital Istanbul were economically dependent on
migrant seasonal laborers who often came from the minority communities of the
imperial periphery such as, e.g. the East Anatolian Armenians. Their example not
only shows how spatial and social mobility were entwined. It also offers a glimpse
at the trans-cultural cooperation of different migration communities from the same
regional contexts. For example, a shared regional identity and culinary as well as
cultural practices united Armenian and Kurdish migrants in the Ottoman capital
across religious boundaries.20
The idea of a “movable empire” demonstrates the importance of migration and
mobility by putting interactions between state bureaucracies and mobile groups
such as nomads at the forefront. However, migration and mobility cannot be
reduced to an inner-imperial affair, but should be conceptualized from a transimperial perspective. To refer to a very popular systematization by Manning,21
it is cross-community migration and exchange that can be observed in the cases
of the Early Modern Ottoman Empire, Poland-Lithuania, Russia and Persia. The
peripheries, border zones and vassal states between these empires were particularly
high-mobility zones, often consisting of more than two imperial contexts. Groups
such as Tatars, Circassians, Georgians, the inhabitants of Moldavia or Wallachia,
Poles, Ukrainians, Kurds, Armenians or Greeks were not only part of the Ottoman
world, but formed migrant communities or diasporas in many of the empires in our
focus area. These groups moved from one imperial context to the other, but at the
17
18
19
20
21
204
BABAIE, BABAYAN, BAGHDIANTZ MCCABE & FARHAD 2004.
PHILLIOU 2011: 24-40.
FAROQHI 2014, FREITAG, FUHRMANN, LAFI & RIEDLER 2011.
RIEDLER 2009.
MANNING 2007.
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
same time remained inside their trans-imperial migration networks. On the local
level, cross-community networks became the trademark of empires, e.g. in their
multi-ethnic cities. Here, even groups that did not move came into contact with
these networks and as a consequence were affected by trans-imperial circulation.
Transimperial Migration
The formation of the empires in the focus of the Transottomanica research
program offers many examples for the trans-regional and trans-cultural character
of the migration processes involved. In the Ottoman case, the nomads who successfully expanded the early beylik were joined by other mobile fighters who
were present in the Byzantine-Seljuk border zone. During the expansion into the
Balkans in particular, a leading role was played by the Great Catalan Company,
mercenaries already employed by the Byzantines who were operating in the
entire Mediterranean region. Together with fighters from Muslim backgrounds,
they formed raiding communities (akıncı) that were the vanguard of Ottoman
expansion in the Balkans.22
A very similar mechanism was already in place when Kievan Rus’, a medieval
state formation in Eastern Europe, was established in the 10th century. As Omeljan
Pritsak has demonstrated, this realm was founded by cooperation between two
nomadic groups: the mobile fighters/merchants of Viking origin, the Varangian
“nomads of the sea,” on the one hand, and the Khazar “nomads of the steppes”
on the other.23 This cooperation is known not only from the Rus’ chronicles and
Scandinavian sagas, but also from Arab sources that attest to long-distance trade
networks between the Varangians and Bagdad.24
In the Middle Ages, the Lithuanian25 and the Muscovite26 principalities similarly
thrived based on their competitive or tributary relations with the nomadic empire
of the Golden Horde and its successors. The rapid expansion of the Duchy of
Lithuania to the Black Sea was not least due to cooperation with Tatars who had
fled Tamerlane. As a result, several thousand Muslim Tatars were incorporated into
the Polish-Lithuanian nobility. In 1552, Moscow conquered the Golden Horde’s
successor state, the Khanate of Kazan, but its southern borders remained an arena
of ongoing military conflict with mobile groups such as the Crimean Tatars and
Cossacks. From the 15th century onward, the northern Black Sea area integrated
22
23
24
25
26
GHEORGHE 2015.
PRITSAK 1977: 268-271.
JONSSON HRAUNDAL 2013.
ROWELL 1994.
PRITSAK 1967.
205
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
many different Transottoman networks. Even as Ottoman vassals, the Crimean
Tatar khans retained their political independence; in a similar manner, the different Cossack groups were able to exploit the rivalry between the Ottoman Empire,
Poland-Lithuania and the Muscovite state. As an inter-imperial buffer zone, the
northern Black Sea region was similar to the Ottoman-Safavid border where
Kurdish but also Azeri, Turkmen or Assyrian tribes played a parallel role, or to
Hungary, which was partitioned into Austrian and Ottoman parts and autonomous
Transylvania under Ottoman suzerainty.
Increasingly anthropologically oriented historical migration research has begun
to consider such inter-imperial border zones with mobile populations less as a
“problematic area” between or within states,27 but rather attempts to understand
them from the perspective of their own socio-economic environments. Geographical features such as alternating mountains and valleys or the steppe promoted the
transitional lifestyle with its specific social formations such as patriarchal families
or a clan structure.28 The development of specific legal norms was often closely
linked to a retreat into areas that were only affected by mechanisms of imperial
or state rule to a limited extent. The emergence of the Kanun (a set of traditional
Albanian laws) in the area of the Albanian tribes and clans is an example of this.
Thus, trans-territorial social systems were established, whose norms and value
systems could be transferred through voluntary and forced migration into other
regional contexts.29 Trans-territorial and therefore cross-border social systems,
which not only originated from tribes and clans, were not only essential to the
multiple area configurations within the greater region, but also proved to be stabilizing elements for trade.30
Inter-imperial buffer zones such as the northern Black Sea or the Caucasus were
not only ruled by mobile groups – they also generated a special type of migrants:
slaves. In the slave raids organized by the Tatars in southern Ukraine and Russia,
as well as Moldavia and Circassia, between 1500 and 1800, millions of persons
of Slavic and Circassian origin were sold to the Ottoman Empire. A much smaller
number of Muslims was captured by Cossacks and transported mainly to Muscovy.
Jews were involved in the slave trade as merchants but also as “live merchandise.”
Often enslavement involved the conversion of the captives.31
In the Ottoman Empire, slaves were served many purposes in the urban and
rural economies; women and men were recruited into the harem and other central state organizations. In the 17th century, regular slaves replaced the devşirme
27
28
29
30
31
206
ATEŞ 2013, SCHLINGEMANN 2001.
KASER 1992, KHODARKOVSKY 2002.
BRUNNBAUER 2009.
BAGHDIANTZ MCCABE 1999.
KIZILOV 2007.
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
recruits. Those originating from the Caucasus in particular often became a part of
the networks inside Ottoman state administration that formed on account of their
former regional identity, which was not entirely lost with their forced migration
to the empire.32 In general, slaves were integrated into Ottoman society to a high
degree and they could expect to be manumitted after a certain period of service
or after the death of their master. That is why despite the attempts of ransoming
slaves that became a central political ideology of the Muscovite state in the latter
half of the 16th century, only very few of them re-migrated. Return and a fresh
start only offered an advantage to those who did not manage to secure a bearable
position in Ottoman society.33
Apart from the slave trade, trans-regional processes of forced migration also
included refugees who often came from the same zones of inter-imperial conflict from which slaves originated. As of the late 18th century, many Muslims
whose homelands were incorporated into the Russian Empire, Crimean Tatars,
Circassians and other peoples from the Caucasus and Central Asia, established
refugee communities in the Ottoman Empire. These communities of “transimperial Muslims”34 did not lose contact with their former homelands. In the
late 19th century, intellectuals from these communities who propagated reformist
and Pan-Turk ideas transformed both Russian Muslim communities as well as
Ottoman society.
Another example of a Transottoman migration community formed in Ottoman
Palestine. Ashkenazi Jews were immigrating from Poland-Lithuania already since
the beginning of the Early Modern period. In Palestine, they integrated into the
existing local society of Arabic Muslims and Christians. However, long-term and
long-distance mobility did not mean the end of communication between the regions
of origin and arrival respectively, but, as a rule, constituted a social relational space
encompassing both. In the 1770s, Menakhem Mendl from Vitebsk residing in
Palestine communicated to the Jews in Russia, i.e. in the former Polish-Lithuanian
territories, not to take part in the municipal elections together with the Christians,
as this would be too close to their (Christian) customs.35
The transregional character of imperial migration societies was particularly apparent in the urban centers of the different empires, beginning with their capitals.
Merchant communities, which organized long-distance trade, linked several of
these centers. Armenians played a very pronounced role in such mobility networks,
which organized the East–West trade since the late Middle Ages. As of the mid13th century, when long-distance trade in Oriental goods flourished under the pax
32
33
34
35
KUNT 1974.
WITZENRATH 2015.
MEYER 2014.
FISHMAN 1995: 116.
207
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
mongolica, Armenian merchants established trade colonies in the Crimea. When
the Ottomans conquered the Crimea in 1475, many merchants were forcibly resettled in Istanbul, whence they began to trade with Eastern Europe on the overland
route along the Black Sea coast.36 Then they successively moved into Moldavia,
Lithuania and Poland to cities such as Iași, Lviv and Warsaw,37 where they had
played a constitutive role in urban and transregional societies in cities such as
Lviv already in the Middle Ages.38
The most famous of these competing and connecting Armenian merchant
networks was New Julfa, a part of Isfahan. At the beginning of the 17th century,
they were forcefully resettled by Shah Abbas to the Persian capital and granted
the monopoly over the Persian silk trade. Eventually, their trade network, which
diversified to other products as well, stretched from India in the east to the Mediterranean and Western Europe in the west and to Russia in the north. The reach
of these networks and the different environments they encompassed made these
merchants a special type of “transimperial cosmopolitans.”39
Another case were Orthodox merchants who used Greek as a lingua franca
and expanded from their home regions in the Balkans beyond the borders of the
Ottoman Empire.40 They organized trade between the Ottoman Empire and Western, Central and Eastern Europe by forming trade diasporas in Odessa, Trieste,
Marseille, Amsterdam, London, Lviv, Brașov or along the Danube. In Vienna,
these Orthodox merchants, who were generally called “Greeks” by the Austrian
authorities, could also acquire a Russian identity. From the mid-17th century onward, Nežin (Ukr. Nižin), a town north-east of Kiev, played a major role as an
exchange hub between Poland, Russia, Venice and the Ottoman Empire.41 These
Orthodox merchants also settled in ports and inland trading cities such as Alexandria and Cairo under Ali Pasha.
Similar and even more successful and geographically expansive in comparison
to these inland trade networks were the merchants from Chios. In the 18th century,
they began to establish themselves as conveyors of the burgeoning trade on the
Mediterranean between the Ottoman Empire and Italy, Austria/Trieste, France
and Britain; Black Sea trade was added in the late 18th century. Greek diaspora
colonies were established in all major cities of the northern Black Sea coast, such
as Odessa, Taganrog and Rostov.42
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
208
OSIPIAN 2015.
STOPKA 2012.
ROHDEWALD, FRICK & WIEDERKEHR 2007.
ASLANIAN, also cf. BAGHDIANTZ MCCABE 1999.
STOIANOVICH 1960.
KATSIARDI-HERING 2008: 175, KATSIARDI-HERING 2012.
HARLAFTIS 2005.
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
Since the late 19th century, this network formed an illustrative example of how
Transottoman networks were transformed by the new technological and political developments and were inserted increasingly into global networks. This was
particularly visible in the economically prospering zone of the Danube and Black
Sea or the oil regions of the Caucasus.
Migration, Identity and Tales of Origin
Transregional mobility left an imprint on the identity construction of individuals, groups and particularly the elite of the movable empires. Using the concept
of “trans-imperial subjects,” Natalie Rothman43 attempts to define the identities
and political loyalties of mobile groups such as brokers, converts and translators
who were engaged in a constant process of defining boundaries and transgressing
them. Rothman’s study focuses on exchanges in the Early Modern Mediterranean,
more exactly, between Venice and the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth and 17th
centuries. She was part of a wider group of scholars who shifted the emphasis in
mobility research, from a reconstruction of networks in the economic44 or religious
milieu,45 toward a focus on interaction between multiple identities, upon which
merchants or pilgrims relied in the respective socio-cultural context.46
Moreover, the political identity of elite groups and the resulting legitimacy were
in many cases not tied to autochthony but sustained by narratives that included
elements of mobility and reflected, but also recombined, the real historical processes of migration. In the Middle Ages as well as the Early Modern period, this
was typical regarding narratives of the origins of dynasties (origio gentis) and
“nations” (origo nationis).47
One very obvious case is the self-description of the Polish nobility that they
descended from the Sarmatians, an ancient nomadic warrior people of the steppes.
This idea, very widespread since the 17th century, was supported by a material culture that used luxury objects imported from Persia and the Ottoman Empire such
as carpets, weapons, clothing and horses for the purpose of representation.48 At
the same time, this culture ran parallel to the political ideology of the antemurale
christianitatis as an expression of the imperial rivalry with the Ottoman Empire.49
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
ROTHMAN 2012.
FAROQHI 2004.
REICHMUTH 2009.
FAROQHI & VEINSTEIN 2008, FAROQHI 2014, FAROQHI & DEGUILHEM 2005, FAROQHI 1990.
KERSKEN 1995, BÖMELBURG 2006.
UFFELMANN 2016.
ROHDEWALD 2016, HÖFERT 2010.
209
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
Legends about the origins of dynasties were known by the Ottomans and the
Safavids as well, who associated their dynasties with the Oghuz and Mongols—
with Ottoman historiography receiving and transforming older Persian historical
imaginings in the fifteenth and 16th centuries.50 Likewise, the Tatars in PolandLithuania endowed themselves with a Genghisid/Seljukid origin, thus directly
making a connection to the forefathers of the Ottoman dynasty.51 From Arabia
to Central Asia, the origins of local ruling dynasties were frequently connected
to the tribe of the Prophet, the Quraish.52 Regarding the Ottoman Balkans, one
such narrative had a strong element of migration and therefore will be presented
here in detail.
Evliya Çelebi, the 17th century Ottoman traveller and travel writer, explained
the origin (ibtidā) of the Albanians as the result of transregional and transimperial migration. According to Evliya,53 the Albanians originally were part of the
tribe of the Prophet, the Quraish, “the Arab tribe who lives in Mecca.” One of
its sheikhs, Jabal-i Alhama, fled with three thousand followers, because he was
afraid to be punished for an attack on his kin, and he sought refuge in Antioch
with the East Roman King Herakles (Ḫırqīl qirala), i.e., the Byzantine Emperor
Herakleios (610–641). Later, these Arab migrants split into three groups. When
the Abbasid Empire disintegrated in 1258, one group was forced to settle “in the
oak forests of the Kipchak Steppe” and became the ancestors of the Circassians.
In the 17th century, when Evliya wrote this, Circassia had become contested
between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. By making it a part of an imagined
relational social space, the narrative of migration integrated the area into the
Ottoman mental map.
Another part of the group, Evliya continues, found refuge in Gaza and founded
the Hashemite people. The third group, led by Jabal-i Alhama himself, renounced
Islam and therefore had to flee from an Arab military expedition; they resettled
on an Aegean island. Jabal-i Alhama’s three sons, ʿAbaza, Lāziqa and Migrāl,
who had also become Christians, were given land on the Black Sea coast “by
the Genoese king” in Galata or “Macedonia, i.e. Istanbul”. There, they formed
the Abkhaz, Laz and Migrelian/Georgian peoples. This part of Evliya’s narration
stresses the integration of the north-eastern Black Sea region into the Ottoman
world. King Jabal-i Alhama himself fled to the “king of Spain,” who gave him
the land in today’s Albania to settle. The Albanians are his descendants, but they
began to speak “a different language.” As in the other examples, for Evliya lan50
51
52
53
210
e.g., OGASAWARA 2018.
POŁCZYŃSKI 2015: 415-416.
TOLMACHEVA 2013.
EVLIYA 2000: 64–67.
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
guage was not a determining factor of group identity, but an accidental result of
unknown circumstances.
This very complex—if not confused—narrative explains the origin of the
Albanians by associating them with other ethnic groups such as the Georgians,
Circassians, and Abkhazians who originated from the same process of imagined
migration. Moreover, it shows the political cooperation across imperial and religious boundaries with the Byzantine, Genoese or Spanish kings. In this way, the
narrative binds together the whole of the Ottoman Empire from the Arab south to
the Balkans with the world beyond such as the northern Caucasus and the western
Mediterranean into one relational space. This space emerges in a decentralised
process of tribal migration, which Evliya’s narrative acknowledges as central to
the ethnic landscape of the empire. At the same time, its results are not unambiguous: from their very distinguished beginning as part of the tribe of the Prophet,
the prestige of the Albanians constantly diminished, ending with their conversion
to Christianity. Here, as in other passages, Evliya commented negatively on this
Albanian religious ambiguity.54
The Ottoman elite and other groups employed such narratives of migration and
mobility not only for the transimperial peripheries, but also for the center and its
identity. A very interesting case is the explanation of the 16th century historian
Mustafa Ali (1541–1600) about the origin of the Ottoman elite and their appropriation of a “Rum” identity. Rum was the Arabic name for Anatolia, the territory of
the Roman Empire, which, from the 11th century onward, was settled by Turkic
tribes who founded the Sultanate of Rum with its center in Konya. Mustafa Ali
explained the emergence of a new group in this territory:
“Those varied peoples and different types of Rumis living in the glorious days
of the Ottoman dynasty, who are not [generically] separate from those tribes
of Turks and Tatars dealt with in the third Pillar, are a select community and
pure, pleasing people who, just as they are distinguished in the origins of
their state, are singled out for their piety [diyanet], cleanliness [nazafet] and
faith [akidet]. Apart from this, most of the inhabitants of Rum are of confused
ethnic origins. Among its notables there are few whose lineage does not go
back to a convert to Islam ... either on their paternal or their maternal side,
the genealogy is traced to a filthy infidel. It is as if two different species of
fruit-bearing tree mingled and mated, with leaves and fruits; and the fruit of
this union was large and filled with liquid, like a princely pearl.”55
Mustafa Ali continued to show how migrating Tatar and Turkic tribes intermingled with local ulema, Arabs and Persians, as well as with other converted
54
55
ROHDEWALD 2017.
MUSTAFA ALI: Künh ül-ahbar, I, 16, quoted acc. to FLEISCHER 1986: 254, cf. KRSTIĆ
2011: 3-6, ÖZBARAN 2004: 105-106.
211
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
Christians, namely Serbs, and adopted the Rum identity of the local Anatolian
elites.56
To foreign observers—as well as later translators—this was confusing, as shown
by the example of a late 16th century Moroccan emissary to Istanbul, who tried to
describe the adoption of the imperial Roman identity by the Ottomans after the
conquest of Istanbul.
“That city was the capital of the lands of Rum [rendered “grecs” by the
French translator], and the seat of the lands of Rum empire, the city of Caesars. The Muslims who live in that city now call themselves “Rum” [again
rendered as “grecs” by the translator] and prefer that origin to their own.
Among them, calligraphy, too, is called khatt rumi [“l’ecriture grecque”].”57
Similar to Anatolia, Istanbul was a city populated by migrants with multiple
backgrounds, among them many converts, who contributed to the Ottoman elite.
For the Phanariots, the Greek-speaking Orthodox elite, who had served in
important functions in the Ottoman state apparatus since the late 17th century,
the Rum character of the Ottoman Empire was out of the question. Their own
networks stretched beyond the Ottoman Empire, especially since they became
hereditary princes of the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia. Here, they acted as
trans-cultural brokers between the Ottoman Empire, Western and Eastern Europe,
especially in the field of literature, science and printing.
There are many other examples that show how migration led to the construction
of new individual or group identities among the migrants and locals that could be
superimposed over older identities. In the realms and centuries in the focus herein,
as a result of migrations, cities had populations that were very diverse regarding
their religions, denominations or languages. Social practices overarching religious
or other culturally constructed boundaries were necessary to constitute an urban
or regional58 or Transottoman society.
In the 19th century, Ottoman cities were important laboratories where new national identities formed. Bulgarians, Serbians, Armenians, Greeks, Crimean Tartars
or Kurds living in Ottoman cities, most importantly in the capital Istanbul, formed
national networks that also connected with similar networks in neighboring empires such as Austria or Russia. Similar to the case of East Central Europe,59 older
political group identities transformed into new “national” ones. A case in point
56
57
58
59
212
FLEISCHER 1986: 254-255.
‘ALI B. MUHAMMAD AL-TAMGHRūTī 1929: 48, quoted acc. to KAFADAR 2007: 16.
ROHDEWALD, FRICK & WIEDERKEHR 2007.
TRENCSÉNYI & ZÁSZKALICZKY 2010.
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
are the Orthodox networks that split up and began to develop “Greek,” “Serbian,”
or “Bulgarian” political loyalties.60 But even these segregations should be seen
in the larger context of mutual observation and competition, thus, as parts of one
larger Transottoman framework. Many of them were building on older contexts
of competition and cooperation between religious groups, constituting locally and
in the large framework a Transottoman setting.
Conclusion
A focus on mobility and migration does more than merely deepen our understanding of Early Modern empires, their societies, politics and cultures. At the
same time, the translocal, transregional and transimperial character calls for a
larger contextualization of mobility. The aim of the research program Transottomanica is to map such networks and narratives of mobility and migration that
go beyond a single political context within our focus area, which encompasses
large areas of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Above, we have assembled
some examples that suggest that mobility constituted a Transottoman migration
society that, despite its dynamically changing character, nonetheless established
a long-term structure, due to the repeated and constant nature of mobility. We are
well-aware that networks and entanglements in many instances transcended our
geographical focus, which was chosen for purely heuristic reasons and should not
be understood as an attempt to create a new “area”. In such instances the Transottoman focus should be seen as a new starting point to examine an even larger
transcontinental or global shared history and make recognizable condensations
or transregional hinge functions.
60
EXERTZOGLOU 2008.
213
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
Bibliography
Primary sources
ʿALI B. MUHAMMAD AL-TAMGHRūTī. 1929. En-Nafhat el-Miskiyafi-s-Sifarat etTourkiya. Relation d’une ambassade marocaine en turquie, 1589–1591. Transl. Henry
de Castries. Paris: Geuthner.
EVLIYA ÇELEBI. 2000. Evliya Çelebi in Albania and Adjacent Regions (Kosovo, Montenegro, Ohrid). The Relevant Sections of the Seyahatname. Eds. Robert Dankoff, Robert
Elsie. Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Reference works
ÁGOSTON, Gábor. 2003. A Flexible Empire: Authority and Its Limits on the Ottoman
Frontiers. In Ottoman Borderlands. Issues, Personalities, and Changes, ed. Kemal
Karpat. 15–32. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
ASLANIAN, Sebouh David. 2011. From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. The
Global Trade Networks of Armenian Merchants from New Julfa. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
ATEŞ, Sabri. 2013. The Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands. Making a Boundary, 1843–1914.
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
BABAIE, Sussan, Ina BAGHDIANTZ MCCABE, Kathryn BABAYAN, Massumeh
FARHAD. 2004. Slaves of the Shah. New Elites of Safavid Iran. London: I.B. Tauris.
BADE, Klaus J. (ed.). 2010. Enzyklopädie Migration in Europa. Vom 17. Jahrhundert bis
zur Gegenwart. Paderborn: Schöningh.
BAGHDIANTZ MCCABE, Ina. 1999. The Shah’s Silk for Europe’s Silver. The Eurasian
Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India, 1530–1750. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
BÖMELBURG, Hans-Jürgen. 2006. Frühneuzeitliche Nationen im östlichen Europa.
Das polnische Geschichtsdenken und die Reichweite einer humanistischen Nationalgeschichte (1500–1700). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
BORGOLTE, Michael. 2009. Migrationen als transkulturelle Verflechtungen im mittelalterlichen Europa. Ein neuer Pflug für alte Forschungsfelder. Historische Zeitschrift
289/2: 261–285.
BORGOLTE, Michael (ed.). 2012. Europa im Geflecht der Welt. Mittelalterliche Migrationen in globalen Bezügen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. 1991. Physischer, sozialer und angeeigneter physischer Raum. In
Stadt-Räume, ed. Martin Wenz, 25–33. Frankfurt am Main – New York: Campus-Verlag.
BRUNNBAUER, Ulf (ed.). 2009. Transnational Societies, Transterritorial Politics.
Migrations in the (Post)Yugoslav Region, 19th–21st Century. München: Oldenbourg.
BRUNNBAUER, Ulf. 2011. Der Balkan als translokaler Raum. Verflechtung, Bewegung
und Geschichte. Südosteuropa Mitteilungen 3: 78–94.
214
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
BRUNNBAUER, Ulf, Karolina NOVINŠĆAK, Christian VOSS (eds.). 2011. Gesellschaften in Bewegung. Emigrationen aus und Immigration nach Südosteuropa in
Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. München – Berlin: Sagner.
DROZ, Yvan, SOTTAS, Beat. 1997. Partir ou rester? Partir et rester Migrations des Kikuyu
au Kenya. L’Homme 37: 69–88.
EXERTZOGLOU, Haris. 2008. Reconstituting Community. Cultural Differentiation and
Identity Politics in Christian Orthodox Communities during the Late Ottoman Era.
In Homelands and Diasporas. Greeks, Jews and Their Migrations, ed. Minna Rozen,
137–154. London: I.B. Tauris.
FAROQHI, Suraiya. 1990. Herrscher über Mekka. Die Geschichte der Pilgerfahrt.
München – Zürich: Artemis-Verlag.
FAROQHI, Suraiya. 2004. The Ottoman Empire and the World around It. London: I.B.
Tauris.
FAROQHI, Suraiya. 2014. Travel and Artisans in the Ottoman Empire. Employment and
Mobility in the Early Modern Era. London: I.B. Tauris.
FAROQHI, Suraiya, Randi DEGUILHEM (eds.). 2005. Crafts and Craftsmen in the Middle
East. Fashioning the Individual in the Muslim Mediterranean. London: I.B. Tauris.
FAROQHI, Suraiya, Gilles VEINSTEIN. 2008. Merchants in the Ottoman Empire. Paris:
Peeters.
FEDOROWICH, Kent, Andrew THOMPSON. 2013. Empire, Migration and Identity in
the British World. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
FISHMAN, David E. 1995. Russia’s First Modern Jews: The Jews of Shklov. New York:
New York University Press.
FLEISCHER, Cornell. 1986. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire. The
Historian Mustafa Ali (1541–1600). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
FORTIER, Anne-Marie. 2014. Migration Studies. In The Routledge Handbook of Mobilities, eds. Peter Adey, David Bissell, Kevin Hannam, Peter Merriman, Mimi Sheller,
64–73. London – New York: Routledge.
FREITAG, Ulrike, Malte FUHRMANN, Nora LAFI, Florian RIEDLER (eds.). 2011. The
City in the Ottoman Empire. Migration and the Making of Urban Modernity. London
– New York: Routledge.
GHEORGHE, Adrian. 2015. Monopolizing Violence in the Early Ottoman Empire. The
Military Institution of akıncıs and State-building 1330–1450. PhD diss., Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.
HACKER, Joseph R. 1992. The Sürgün System and Jewish Society in the Ottoman
Empire during the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries. In Ottoman and Turkish
Jewry. Community and Leadership, ed. Aron Rodrigue, 1–66. Bloomington: Indiana
University Turkish Studies.
HAHN, Hans Peter, KLUTE, Georg (eds.). 2007. Cultures of Migration: African Perspectives. Münster: LIT.
HARLAFTIS, Gelina. 2005. Mapping the Greek Maritime Diaspora from the Early
Eighteenth to the Late Twentieth Centuries. In Diaspora Entrepreneurial Networks:
215
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
Four Centuries of History, eds. Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, Gelina Harlaftis, Ioanna
Pepelasis Minglou, 147–172. Oxford: Berg.
HARPER, Marjory, Stephen CONSTANTINE. 2014. Migration and Empire. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
HÖFERT, Almut. 2010. Alteritätsdiskurse. Analyseparameter historischer Antagonismusnarrative und ihre historiographischen Folgen. In Repräsentationen der islamischen
Welt im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit, eds. Gabriele Haug-Moritz, Ludolf Pelizaeus,
21–40. Münster: Aschendorff.
JONSSON HRAUNDAL, Thorir. 2013. The Rus in Arabic Sources. Cultural Contacts
and Identity. PhD diss., University of Bergen.
KAFADAR, Cemal. 2007. A Rome of One’s Own. Reflections on Cultural Geography
and Identity in the Lands of Rum. Muqarnas 24: 7–25.
KASABA, Reşat. 2009. A Moveable Empire. Ottoman Nomads, Migrants and Refugees.
Seattle – London: University of Washington Press.
KASER, Karl. 1992. Hirten, Kämpfer, Stammeshelden. Ursprünge und Gegenwart des
balkanischen Patriarchats. Wien: Böhlau.
KATSIARDI-HERING, Olga. 2008. Central and Peripheral Communities in the Greek
Diaspora. Interlocal and Local Economic, Political, and Cultural Networks in the
Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In Homelands and Diasporas. Greeks, Jews and
Their Migrations, ed. Minna Rozen, 169–180. London: I.B. Tauris.
KATSIARDI-HERING, Olga. 2012. Greek Merchant Colonies in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. In Merchant Colonies
in the Early Modern Period, eds. Gelina Harlaftis, Olga Katsiardi-Hering, Victor
Zakharov, 127–140. London: Pickering & Chatto.
KERSKEN, Norbert. 1995. Geschichtsschreibung im Europa der nationes. Nationalgeschichtliche Gesamtdarstellungen im Mittelalter. Köln – Weimar – Wien: Böhlau.
KHODARKOVSKY, Mikhail. 2002. Russia’s Steppe Frontier. The Making of a Colonial
Empire, 1500–1800. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
KIZILOV, Mikhail. 2007. Slave Trade in the Early Modern Crimea from the Perspective
of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources. Journal of Early Modern History 11/1: 1–31.
KRSTIĆ, Tajana. 2011. Contested Conversions to Islam. Narratives of Religious Change
in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
KUNT, Metin Ibrahim. 1974. Ethnic-Regional (Cins) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century
Ottoman Establishment. International Journal of Middle East Studies 5/3: 233–239.
MANNING, Patrick. 2007. Wanderung, Flucht, Vertreibung. Geschichte der Migration.
Essen: Magnus.
MCNEILL, William, Ruth ADAMS (eds.). 1978. Human Migration. Patterns and Policies.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
MEYER, James H. 2014. Turks across Empires. Marketing Muslim Identity in the RussianOttoman Borderlands, 1856–1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OGASAWARA, Hiroyuki. 2018. Enter the Mongols: A Study of the Ottoman Historiography in the 15th and 16th Centuries. Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman
Studies 51: 1–28.
216
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
OLTMER, Jochen. 2010. Migration im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. München: Oldenbourg.
OSIPIAN, Alexandr. 2015. Practices of Integration and Segregation. Armenian Trading
Diasporas in Their Interaction with the Genoese and Venetian Colonies in the Eastern
Mediterranean and the Black Sea (1289–1484). In Union in Separation. Diasporic
Groups and Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (1100–1800), eds. Georg Christ,
Franz-Julius Morche, Roberto Zaugg, Wolfgang Kaiser, Stefan Burkhardt, Alexander
Daniel Beihammer, 349–361. Rom: Viella.
ÖZBARAN, Salih. 2004. Bir Osmanlı Kimliği. 14.–17. Yüzyıllarda Rûm/Rûmi Aidiyet ve
İmgeleri. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
PHILLIOU, Christine M. 2011. Biography of an Empire: Governing Ottomans in an Age
of Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
POŁCZYŃSKI, Michael. 2015. Seljuks on the Baltic: Polish-Lithuanian Muslim Pilgrims
in the Court of Ottoman Sultan Süleyman I. Journal of Early Modern History 19:
409–437.
PRITSAK, Omeljan. 1967. Moscow, the Golden Horde, and the Kazan Khanate from a
Polycultural Point of View. Slavic Review 26/4: 577–583.
PRITSAK, Omeljan. 1977. The Origin of Rus’. Russian Review 36/3: 249–273.
REICHMUTH, Stefan. 2009. The World of Murtada al-Zabidi (1732-91). Life, Networks
and Writings. Oxford: Oxbow.
RIEDLER, Florian. 2009. Hagop Mintzuri and the Cosmopolitan Memory of Istanbul. EUI
Working Paper RSCAS 2009/13. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/10913/
EUI_RSCAS_2009_13.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (retrieved 3 September 2019).
ROHDEWALD, Stefan. 2016. Mehr als Feind oder Freund. Überregionale Kommunikation im (süd)östlichen Europa von den Osmanen bis zum Kalten Krieg. Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot.
ROHDEWALD, Stefan. 2017. Beschreibungen von Uneinheitlichkeit im „Osmanischen
Europa“ am Beispiel von Evliya Çelebis Bericht über Albanien und Makedonien.
Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 68/5–6: 265–277.
ROHDEWALD, Stefan. 2019. Mobilität/Migration: Herstellung transosmanischer Gesellschaften durch räumliche Bewegungen. In Transottomanica – Osteuropäisch-osmanisch-persische Mobilitätsdynamiken. Perspektiven und Forschungsstand, eds. Stefan
Rohdewald, Stephan Conermann, Albrecht Fuess, 59–82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht Unipress.
ROHDEWALD, Stefan, Stephan CONERMANN, Albrecht FUESS (eds.). 2019. Transottomanica – Osteuropäisch-osmanisch-persische Mobilitätsdynamiken. Perspektiven
und Forschungsstand. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Unipress. https://www.
vr-elibrary.de/doi/book/10.14220/9783737008860 (retrieved 3 September 2019).
ROHDEWALD, Stefan, David FRICK, Stefan WIEDERKEHR (eds.). 2007. Litauen und
Ruthenien. Studien zu einer transkulturellen Kommunikationsregion (15.–18. Jahrhundert) / Lithuania and Ruthenia. Studies of a Transcultural Communication Zone
(15th–18th Centuries). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
ROTHMAN, E. Natalie. 2012. Brokering Empire. Trans-imperial Subjects Between Venice
and Istanbul. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
217
RADOVI - Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, vol. 51, 2019.
str. 201-219
ROWELL, Stephen C. 1994. Lithuania Ascending. A Pagan Empire within East-Central
Europe, 1295–1345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SCHLINGEMANN, Thomas. 2001. Stämme im osmanisch-persischen Grenzgebiet. Ein
zwischenstaatliches Problem des 19. Jahrhunderts. München: Two-Step Communications.
STOIANOVICH, Traian. 1960. The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant. The Journal
of Economic History 20/2: 234–313.
STOPKA, Krzysztof. 2012. Ormiańska Warszawa. Warszawa: Fundacja Kultury I Dziedzictwa Ormian Polskich.
TAPPER, Richard. 1997 Frontier Nomads of Iran: A Political and Social History of the
Shahsevan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TOLMACHEVA, Marina. 2013. Middle Eastern Genealogy in Central Asian Islam. Belief,
Legend, and Privilege. In Contemporary Research in Turkology and Eurasian Studies.
A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Tasin Gemil on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday,
eds. Stoica Lascu, Melek Fetisleam, 1–14. Cluj Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană.
TRENCSÉNYI, Balázs, Márton ZÁSZKALICZKY (eds.). 2010. Whose Love of Which
Country? Composite States, National Histories and Patriotic Discourses in Early
Modern East Central Europe. Leiden – Boston: Brill.
UFFELMANN, Dirk. 2016. Importierte Dinge und imaginierte Identität. Osmanische
„Sarmatica“ im Polen der Aufklärung. Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropaforschung 65/2:
193–214.
VEINSTEIN, Gilles. 2014. Entre Islam et Chrétienté: Le monde à part des frontaliers. In La
frontière méditerranéenne (15e -17e siècles): Échanges, circulations, et affrontements,
eds. Albrecht Fuess, Bernard Heyberger, 31–46. Turnhout: Brepols.
WHITE, Michael J. (ed.). 2016. International Handbook of Migration and Population
Distribution. Heidelberg – New York – London: Springer.
WITZENRATH, Christoph. 2015. Sklavenbefreiung, Loskauf und Religion im Moskauer
Reich. In Gefangenenloskauf im Mittelmeerraum. Ein interreligiöser Vergleich, eds.
Heike Grieser, Nicole Priesching, 287–310. Hildesheim: Olms.
218
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald - Migration and mobility in a Transottoman context
MIGRACIJE I MOBILNOST U
TRANSOSMANSKOM KONTEKSTU
Novija istraživanja u području proučavanja povijesnih migracija omogućuju
nam da preispitamo svoje shvaćanje ranonovovjekovnih društava i država.
Znanstveno-istraživački program Transottomanica usredotočen je na povijesnu
isprepletenost Bliskog istoka i Istočne Europe, pri čemu se migracijski procesi
razmatraju s transregionalnog i transimperijalnog motrišta. U ranom novom vijeku,
raznovrsne migracije – osobito iz i preko inter-imperijalnih tampon-zona poput
sjevernog crnomorske regije, Kavkaza i Balkana – povezivale su Bliski istok i
Istočnu Europu. Trgovci, izbjeglice i robovi ne samo da su tvorili svojevrsno
migracijsko naddruštvo, napose u kozmopolitskim gradovima, već su se transregionalne migracije ogledale i u samoopisima i identitetima imperijalnih elita.
Učinci inter-imperijalnih migracija, koje su se usadile u društvene i identitetske
strukture, mogu se pratiti sve do ranog 20. stoljeća.
Ključne riječi: migracije, rani novi vijek, Osmansko Carstvo, istočna srednja Europa,
Rusija, Balkan, Perzija
Key words: migration, Early Modern period, Ottoman Empire, East Central Europe,
Russia, Balkans, Persia
Florian Riedler and Stefan Rohdewald
Universität Leipzig
Historisches Seminar
Beethovenstr. 15
D-04107 Leipzig,
Germany
stefan.rohdewald@uni-leipzig.de
florian.riedler@uni-leipzig.de
219
FiloZoFski Fakultet sveučilišta u Zagrebu
Zavod Za hrvatsku povijest
iNstitute oF CroatiaN historY
iNstitut Für kroatisChe gesChiChte
RADOVI
51
Broj 1
Zavod Za hrvatsku povijest
FiloZoFskoga Fakulteta sveučilišta u Zagrebu
ZAGREB 2019.
Poseban broj
Između Europe i Bliskog istoka: migracije i njihove
posljedice na području Jugoistočne Europe i
Anadolije u transimperijalnom i
interkulturalnom kontekstu
Special issue
Between Europe and Middle East: Migrations
and Their Consequences in Southeast
Europe and Anatolia in Transimperial and
Intercultural Context
RADOVI ZAVODA ZA HRVATSKU POVIJEST
FILOZOFSKOGA FAKULTETA SVEUČILIŠTA U ZAGREBU
Knjiga 51, broj 1
Izdavač / Publisher
Zavod za hrvatsku povijest
Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu
FF-press
Za izdavača / For Publisher
Vesna Vlahović Štetić
Glavni urednik / Editor-in-Chief
Inga Vilogorac Brčić
Gostujući urednik / Guest Editor
Vjeran Kursar
Uredništvo / Editorial Board
Jasmina Osterman (stara povijest/ancient history), Trpimir Vedriš (srednji vijek/medieval
history), Hrvoje Petrić (rani novi vijek/early modern history), Željko Holjevac (moderna povijest/
modern history), Tvrtko Jakovina (suvremena povijest/contemporary history), Silvija Pisk
(mikrohistorija i zavičajna povijest/microhistory and local history),
Zrinka Blažević (teorija i metodologija povijesti/theory and methodology of history)
Međunarodno uredničko vijeće / International Editorial Council
Denis Alimov (Sankt Peterburg), Živko Andrijašević (Nikšić), Csaba Békés (Budapest), Rajko
Bratož (Ljubljana), Svetlozar Eldarov (Sofija), Toni Filiposki (Skopje), Aleksandar Fotić
(Beograd), Vladan Gavrilović (Novi Sad), Alojz Ivanišević (Wien),
Egidio Ivetić (Padova), Husnija Kamberović (Sarajevo), Karl Kaser (Graz),
Irina Ognyanova (Sofija), Géza Pálffy (Budapest), Ioan-Aurel Pop (Cluj),
Nade Proeva (Skopje), Alexios Savvides (Kalamata), Vlada Stanković (Beograd),
Ludwig Steindorff (Kiel), Peter Štih (Ljubljana)
Izvršni urednik za tuzemnu i inozemnu razmjenu /
Executive Editor for Publications Exchange
Martin Previšić
Tajnik uredništva / Editorial Board Assistant
Dejan Zadro
Adresa uredništva/Editorial Board address
Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, Filozofski fakultet Zagreb,
Ivana Lučića 3, HR-10 000, Zagreb
Tel. ++385 (0)1 6120191
Časopis izlazi jedanput godišnje / The Journal is published once a year
Časopis je u digitalnom obliku dostupan na / The Journal in digital form is accessible at
Portal znanstvenih časopisa Republike Hrvatske „Hrčak“
http://hrcak.srce.hr/radovi-zhp
Financijska potpora za tisak časopisa / The Journal is published with the support by
Ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i športa Republike Hrvatske
Časopis je indeksiran u sljedećim bazama / The Journal is indexed in the following databases:
Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO, SCOPUS, ERIH PLUS, Emerging Sources Citation
Index - Web of Science
Naslovna stranica / Title page by
Marko Maraković
Grafičko oblikovanje i računalni slog / Graphic design and layout
Marko Maraković
Lektura / Language editors
Samanta Paronić (hrvatski / Croatian)
Edward Bosnar (engleski / English)
Tisak / Printed by
Tiskara Zelina, Sv. Ivan Zelina
Naklada / Issued
200 primjeraka / 200 copies
Ilustracija na naslovnici
Muza Klio (Alexander S. Murray, Manual of Mythology, London 1898)
Časopis je u digitalnom obliku dostupan na Portalu znanstvenih časopisa
Republike Hrvatske „Hrčak“ http://hrcak.srce.hr/radovi-zhp
The Journal is accessible in digital form at the Hrcak - Portal of scientific
journals of Croatia http://hrcak.srce.hr/radovi-zhp