Let me clarify from the start – I have no problem with the use of the noun Bosnia and the adjective Bosnian. I was born in Sarajevo, which truly is Bosnia, and in Bosnia – on the Paljanska side of Jahorina, my father and grandfather were born. The only problem I have with these words arises when they are misused, noted lawyer Ognjen Tadić in a column for banjaluka.net.
We present the column in its entirety:
This text probably wouldn’t exist if a friend of mine hadn’t recently, on a social network, posted the following text: “I’m always in a dilemma whether the nature or the architecture of Jajce is more beautiful. The most mystical Bosnian city.” To my comment that Jajce is not Bosnia and that what he implies by Bosnian mystique has nothing to do with Bosnia, but most likely with Turkish heritage, I received a quite straightforward answer: On the contrary, along with Travnik and Konjic, it is the most Bosnian city. The fact that he included Travnik in his claim gave me a little hope that it makes sense to address this topic in the way I will, and the fact that he included Konjic gave me the obligation to do so, as I am, after all, related to Herzegovina through my mother.
Where is that Bosnia from, where is it, that Bosnia?
Historical sources say that the original true Bosnia extended over the area designated by certain toponyms “Vrhbosna, Brdo, Hodidjed, Kreševo, Hvojnica, Lašva, Travnik, Vranduk, Bilino Polje, Bobovac, Sutjeska, Visoki” (I have one of the maps in front of me from which we all learned history in school).
Roughly, that would be the territory corresponding to today’s area from Pale or Sokolac in the east to Travnik in the west, and from Vranduk in the north to the border with Konjic in the south. That was the original medieval and the only true Bosnia. Everything beyond that, starting from Ban Kulin (1163-1204), represents conquests of surrounding territories which have their own names and areas they extend over. During Ban Stefan II Kotromanić’s time, conquests of Donji Kraji (to which the mentioned Jajce belongs), Usora, and Soli were made.
During King Stefan Tvrtko I Kotromanić’s time, conquests of the Coast, the remaining parts of Donji Kraji, Hum land, and Podrinje were made.
Historians, political scientists, and even geographers, can afford certain simplifications, but lawyers are not allowed to do so.
Lawyers derive their conclusions about history not based on impressions or interpretations or courteous and less courteous statements that feudal lords or religious authorities sent to each other – regardless of whether they flatter the recipient or attempt to belittle the one addressed or to whom a certain part of the text refers (politics always creates the same problems regarding the interpretation of history).
Lawyers can only make conclusions based on unambiguous and undisputed statements that relate to a very specific issue and provide an answer about the state of a country (or something else) at the moment to which that statement refers to it. It’s unnecessary to explain that there were no constitutions, etc., documents in the Middle Ages.
For legal research on the arrangement of any of the medieval countries, therefore, among other things, the titles of its ruler are always important. Here, of course, we will not talk about whether and how the titles of medieval rulers were recognized by the pope or the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire (they were mostly the powers that could decide something we could today call international recognition), nor whether each of the territories in the title was recognized as the possession of the ruler. That is not important for our topic.
What is important for our topic is how the names of the territories they ruled were treated by medieval rulers at the time they themselves determined their content and how, which is important for our topic, they treated the name Bosnia in relation to other names in their title. Thus, the already mentioned Stefan II Kotromanić (1292-1353) referred to himself as “ban of Bosnia, Soli, Usora, Donji Kraji, and Hum land”.
So, he clearly distinguished Bosnia from other lands/names. After taking the crown of Nemanjić in a well-known manner, Stefan Tvrtko I Kotromanić bore the title “king of the Serbs, Bosnia, Primorje, Hum land, Donji Kraji, Western Strana, Usora, Soli, Podrinje, and more”. So, Tvrtko I also clearly distinguished Bosnia in relation to other lands/names. This principle extends to the very
end of the dynasty, and the state, so Stefan Tomašević (1438-1463) bore the titles of “Serbian despot” and “king of Bosnia, Primorje, Hum land, Donji Kraji, Usora, Soli, Podrinje, and Western Strana”. So, even the last king clearly distinguished Bosnia from other lands/names. Where then does this narrative about Bosnia outside its natural and original historical/political borders come from?
Where then is it that someone previously called Novi Grad Bosanski Novi or Kozarska Dubica Bosanska Dubica or Gradiška Bosanska Gradiška or Kostajnica Bosanska Kostajnica…; when not a single day in their history these cities were part of even that verbally incorrect construct many call “Bosnian medieval state”? Or, to return to the initial topic, let’s ask, why does my friend consider Jajce, which is historically in Donji Kraji, or Konjic, which even by today’s prevailing view is not Bosnia, but Herzegovina, to be the most Bosnian cities, along with Travnik (which is true Bosnia in every sense)?
If it’s Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, or Yugoslav, then it’s not Bosnian!
The Bosnian Eyalet was established in 1580 from seven sanjaks – Bosnian, Herzegovinian, Klis (Livno), Pakrac, Lika, Zvornik, and Požega, and later the Bihać Sanjak appears among them. Interestingly, even the Turks differentiated the Bosnian Sanjak from, for example, the Bihać or Zvornik Sanjak, and today if you told someone that Bihać or Zvornik are not in Bosnia, you would be looked at strangely?! Imagine telling someone from Zvornik that they are a Podrinjac or Drinjanin, not a Bosnian, and they wouldn’t understand anything. The fact that the Turkish empire needed to simplify the organization on its large territory led to the use of the adjective Bosnian by the occupiers to administratively mark a territory larger than the territory to which it originally referred, whether it’s the Bosnian Sanjak or the Bosnian Eyalet.
If the Turks liked the name Usora more, then today Bosnia and Herzegovina would be called Usora and Herzegovina. So, this has nothing to do with what Bosnia really is, but only with what the Turkish occupier wanted and made according to his desires.
Similarly with the Austro-Hungarian period. Coming to these territories, the Austro-Hungarians tried the well-known construction of a new identity, trying to declare everything that can be seen with the eye and touched by hand as Bosnian (so it wouldn’t be Serbian by national origin), but even they do not cross the Rubicon and do not negate the name Herzegovina.
How aware they were of this difference is best shown by the fact that in the so-called constitution of 1910, they stated that “Bosnia and Herzegovina are a single separate administrative area, which stands… under the responsible leadership and supreme supervision of the Imperial and Royal Joint Ministry”, so, “are” (plural), not “is” or “it is” (singular). So, even by this criterion, Konjic, which as one of the “most Bosnian” cities is mentioned by my friend, would not be Bosnian.
The further use of the name Bosnia is more known, so I won’t spend too much space on it. In the pan-Yugoslav atmosphere, concluding with the Dayton Peace Agreement, the plural “are” went into the background in relation to the singular “is”, so today Bosnia and Herzegovina are not states, but a state.
Following the logic accepted today, nothing in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be Bosnian, but exclusively Bosnian-Herzegovinian, except if only the Turkish period is decisive and determining for all times, in which the adjective expanded beyond the boundaries of the previous authentic domestic interpretation through the Eyalet and Pashaliks?!
All in all, it’s clear to everyone that changes in the use of this noun over time depended on nothing other than politics, so the important question arises not only for our domestic history and identity themes but also for the world – do political constructs of the occupier or any other form of supremacy bind if they differ from the primary (initial) perception of the local population?
Occupation does not bind
Recently, the President of Turkey, T. Erdogan, in connection with the dispute over the islands near the Turkish coast, made a symbolically significant statement telling the Greeks: Your occupation of the islands does not bind us. When the time comes, we will do everything necessary.
Thus, as far as I’m concerned, what the Turks, Austro-Hungarians, or Yugoslavs did here regarding the use of the name Bosnia does not have to bind us.
In the specific case, someone who is from Jajce is a Krajisnik for me (which should not be confused with the designation Krajisnik related to the so-called Military Frontier in Austro-Hungary), because Jajce is part of the historical province of Donji Kraji (which does not mean end in the sense of extremity, but is an archaic noun meaning land).
By any authentic domestic criterion devoid of occupation interventions, they cannot and are not Bosnian (unlike me who was born in Sarajevo). Of course, today you cannot, nor should you, impose any identity on anyone (Turkey, Austro-Hungary, Yugoslavia tried, but did not succeed), but science, especially historical, legal, or political, has the obligation to name phenomena, things, identities, social constructs of any kind… by their real name and to restore logic to them and bring them into an authentic state of affairs whenever possible, and now it is.
As long as this is not done in such a way, to remove misunderstandings and abuses, it is only acceptable that each time along with the noun Bosnia, an adjective related to the period being discussed is mentioned, so that it is precisely known what is actually being discussed – medieval Bosnia (with clear differentiation from the names of other territories under the rule of feudal lords from Ban Borić to King Stefan Tomašević), the Turkish Bosnian Eyalet and the Turkish Bosnian Sanjak, Austro-Hungarian territories Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Yugoslav republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a political term, so it cannot be evaluated in any other way. Any other approach does not correspond to historical or any other scientific truth and is mostly a matter of ignorance or day-to-day political and ideological-pragmatic abuses.
So, here are some new theses for consideration, which seem justified to me, and I am sure that after discussions about them, everyone will more easily understand and accept where is truly, from where is truly, where is truly, that Bosnia – from Pale or Sokolac in the east to Travnik in the west and from Vranduk in the north to the border with Konjic in the south.
What’s your reaction? – wrote Tadić in the column.
Source: RTRS
