Yugoslavia

530/lla1pern
Slovenia, Dalmatia, Croatia and the
Vojrodina in 1857 and again occur in
1869, 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1910. He
also rotes, "The carrying out of the
census was in the hands of the local
communities, and therefore, such census
materials must be sought there.
Generally, one can COWlt on finding such
material in great amoWlts for more recent
censuses but very seldom for the older
ones. This is in contradistinction to
the Serbian situation. The oldest
canplete census for 1863 is available for
all regions in the Serbian State Archives
in Belgrade as are pre-1863 lists, where
the 1885 census is partially preserved.
It is also, as far as I know, the only
Yugoalav census that has been selectively
published in various foIIDS. Original
census sheets for subsequent censuses do
not appear to have been preserved.
It is also pertinent to cite here
Zontar's coaments on medieval records.
lie notes (p. 3) that he does rot cOllsider
the Middle Ages "because of the extremely
meager number of available sources."
While we would not claim they are
abundant or detailed, they nevertheless
exist and, as Hamnel's work demonstrates,
they can be useful. Further, while
Zontar does mention Ottanan tax records,
he merely observes that "They are to be
foUId in the central Turkish collections
in Istanbul ." Since some of these
records, which we previously have
referred to, were published in Yugoslavia
in Serbo-Croatisn duri'll the past decade
it is again understandable that he did
not refer to them. He also states (p.
11), "Generally they were discontinued
about the beginnilll of the 17th century."
Yet we have referred to important
published Ottanan tax related population
lists for Sarajevo for the early and even
mid-nineteenth century.
The above remarks are not intended to be
critical of Zontar, as such, but rather
to emphasize the dynamic state of
classification and publication of
archival records over approximately the
past decade in the eastern an:! southern
areas of Yugoslavia which has greatly
increased the number of resources
available to the genealogist and
historical demographer.
SETILEMENrS AND ORIGIN OF RlPULATION
At the conclusion to his article, Zontar
(pp. 26-31) gives a survey of migration
patterns within the territory of today's
Yugoslavia from the eighteenth to the
twentieth centuries. It does not seem
appropriate to recapitulate or summarize
that data here. Of direct interest to
researchers, however, is the fact that,
following in the tradition of the
distinguished Serbian human geographer
Jovan CvijiC, there has been a series
issued by the Ethnographic Institute of
the Serbian Academy of Sciences called
Naselja i Poreklo Stanovnistva
(Settlements and Origin of the
Population). Summaries of Cvij:lC's work
are available in English ("Geographical
Distribution of the Balkan Peoples," and
"Zones of Civilization of the Balkan
Peninaula," in the May and June 1918
issues of the Geographical Review [Vol.
5], pp. 345-361 and 470-482).
The study of rural migrations and the
establishment of new settlements at the
time when the Ottanan Elnpire ha:l begWl to
decline was important in establishing
boundaries for emergent ethnic
identities. All of these monographs
coveri'll various regions are based on the
work of ethnographers who went from
village to village gatheri'll data.
They describe the specifics of the local
terrain and give a brief history of each
cOllllllWlity. (The regions covered in this
article and am0'll the areas of which
there are monographic data on family
origins in the Naselja series are Morava,
NiB, Cacak, Ibar, Kolubara, Sumadija,
Bosanska Krajina, Trebinje as well as on
parts of Hercegovina, Bosnia and
Macedonia. hno'll other areas covered in
this series are M:>ntenegro, the area of
Belgrade, Skopska Cms Gore, the region
of Sarajevo. Val j evo , Boka Kotorska,
Dubrovnkik, migrations of Serbs to
Hungary in sixteenth to the eighteenth
14