We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 February 2023
This article investigates the capacity and quality of governance through the prism of forest use regulation in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the inter-imperial transition between Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rule. It does so by bringing the question of access to natural resources into the frame of imperial governance formation, which is analyzed from the perspective of legal regulation of ownership and usage rights of forests. The analytical focus is set on the early phase of Austro-Hungarian occupation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was marked by political uncertainties and a legal arena where multiple and often conflicting norms coexisted. It shows how the consolidation process of legal arrangements and administration apparatuses did not follow any linear, teleological development towards a strong imperial state or homogenous Rechtsstaat that simply arrived and set up its governing institutions. Instead, governing bodies soon found their interests clashing with those of other local parties. Bureaucracy developed through time- and place-bound practices, which often had to adjust to complex social and environmental realities. During this process multiple attempts failed, while certain practices were implemented unevenly. In the process of asserting its own interests, the imperial administration relied on Ottoman legislation, which gradually became modified, resulting in legal pluralism and entangled imperial legacies.
I would like to thank the anonymous peer reviewers who have helped me to make my arguments stronger. I am infinitely grateful to colleagues and friends who have read and commented on the earlier drafts of this article: Harun Buljina, Keith Chester, Gábor Egry, Cristina Florea, Matthew Goldman, Maximilian Hartmuth, Olof Heilo, Pieter M. Judson, Stefan B. Kirmse, Janet Nielsen, and Ana Sekulić. This article was written as part of the research project “Between the Orient and the Occident: Forest Use Regulation in Bosnia and Herzegovina During the Inter-Imperial Transition from Ottoman to Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1878–1918.” It was supported by the Swedish Research Council under grant number 2017–00801.
1. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Kriegsarchiv, Vienna (AT- OeStA KA), KPS LB VII m, 45–11 (Bosnien, topographisch-statistische Übersicht, 1874).
2. Greble, Emily, ed., “The Habsburg-Ottoman Borderlands: New Insights for the Study of the Nineteenth-Century European and Social Order,” Forum, Austrian History Yearbook 51 (2020): 15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the most recent analysis of the transformation of Islamic institutions in post-Ottoman southeastern Europe from the legal point of view, see Greble, Emily, Muslims and the Making of Modern Europe (New York, 2021)Google Scholar.
3. Among others, see Sugar, Peter, Industrialization of Bosnia and Hercegovina 1878–1914 (Seattle, 1963)Google Scholar; Hajdarpašić, Edin, Whose Bosnia? Nationalism and Political Imagination in the Balkans, 1840–1914 (Ithaca, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Okey, Robin, Taming Balkan Nationalisms: The Habsburg ‘Civilizing Mission’ in Bosnia 1878–1914 (Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donia, Robert J., “The Proximate Colony: Bosnia-Herzegovina under Austro-Hungarian Rule,” in Ruthner, Clemens, Reynolds-Cordileone, Diana, Reber, Ursula, and Detrez, Raymond, eds., WechselWirkungen: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Austria-Hungary, and the Western Balkans 1878–1918 (New York, 2015), 67–82Google Scholar; Gammerl, Benno, Subjects, Citizens, and Others: Administering Ethnic Heterogeneity in the British and Habsburg Empires, 1867–1918 (London 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruthner, Clemens and Scheer, Tamara, eds., Bosnien-Herzegowina und Österreich-Ungarn: Annäherungen an eine Kolonie (Tübingen, 2018)Google Scholar.
4. This question was originally posed by Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History (New York, 2000), xi.
5. For most recent examples of these paradigmatic engagements, see Greble, Muslims and the Making of Modern Europe; Thomas Simon, ed., Konflikt und Koexistenz: Die Rechtsordnungen Südosteuropas im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: Serbien, Bosnien-Herzegowina, Albanien, Band 2 (Frankfurt am Main, 2017); Leyla Amzi-Erdoğdular, “Afterlife of Empire: Muslim-Ottoman Relations in Habsburg Bosnia Herzegovina, 1878-1914” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2013).
6. Diamond, Stanley, “The Rule of Law Versus the Order of Custom,” Social Research 38, no. 1 (Spring 1971): 42–72Google Scholar.
7. The body of literature within legal history of empire has become enormous. Among many others, see Lauren Benton, “Introduction,” in “AHR Forum: Law and Empire in Global Perspective,” special issue, American Historical Review 117, no. 4 (October 2012): 1092–1100; Benton, Lauren, Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History 1400–1900 (Cambridge, Eng., 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Snyder, Francis G., “Colonialism and Legal Form: The Creation of ‘Customary Law’ in Senegal,” Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 19 (December 1981): 49–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8. By peasants I mean sharecroppers; that is, peasants who did not own land, also known as kmets.
9. Pieter Judson, The Habsburg Empire: A New History (Cambridge, Mass., 2016), 5.
10. For analytical approaches that shift from studying law merely as a tool of power to exploring its process-making with case studies of British India see Gunnel Cederlöf, Landscapes and the Law: Environmental Politics, Regional Histories, and Contests over Nature (New Delhi, 2019); K. Sivaramakrishnan, Modern Forests: Statemaking and Environmental Change in Colonial Eastern India (Stanford, 1999).
11. Already in the late nineteenth century, the legal sociologist Eugen Ehrlich observed parallel practices of two conflicting legal regimes: Austrian official law and local legal customs in Habsburg Galicia. He called for conceptually acknowledging the law-creating role of customs as part of a legal reality, for which he also coined the term “living law.” For more elaborate discussions on Ehrlich’s concept of legal pluralism and his legacy in present legal practices, see David Nelken, “Eugen Ehrlich: Living Law and Plural Legalities,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9, no. 2 (June 2008): 443–471. For the most recent discussion on legal pluralism in Austria-Hungary as temporal pluralism, see Natasha Wheatley, “Legal Pluralism as Temporal Pluralism: Historical Rights, Legal Vitalism, and Non-Synchronous Sovereignty,” in Dan Edelstein, Stefanos Geroulanos, and Natasha Wheatley, eds., Power and Time: Temporalities in Conflict and the Making of History (Chicago, 2019), 53–79.
12. Fabio Giomi, “Forging Habsburg Muslim Girls: Gender, Education and Empire in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1878–1918),” History of Education 44, no. 3 (May 2015): 274‒92; Hajdarpašić, Whose Bosnia?; Hajdarpašić, “Out of the Ruins of the Ottoman Empire: Reflections on the Ottoman Legacy in South-eastern Europe,” Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 5 (September 2008): 715–34; Nathalie Clayer and Xavier Bougarel, eds., Les musulmans de l’Europe du Sud-Est: Des Empires aux États balkanique (XIX e–XX e siècles) (Paris, 2013).
13. Michael Stolleis, Jani Kirov, and Gerd Bender, eds., Konflikt und Koexistenz: Die Rechtsordnungen Südosteuropas im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: Rumänien, Bulgarien, Griechenland, Band 1 (Frankfurt am Main, 2015); Simon, Konflikt und Koexistenz, Band 2.
14. Jelena Radovanović, “Contested Legacy: Property in Transition to Nation-State in Post-Ottoman Niš” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2020).
15. Mehmed Bećić, “Osmansko tanzimatsko pravo i austrougarski pravni poredak u Bosni i Hercegovini,” Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Zenici (2013): 187–201; Mehmed Bećić, “Primjena Medželle u post-osmanskoj Bosni i Hercegovini,” Godišnjak Pravnog fakulteta u Sarajevu LVII (2014): 51–65; Fikret Karčić, “Građanski zakonik u Bosni i Hercegovini: Kodifikacija kao sredstvo transformacije pravnog sistema,” Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 63 (2013): 1027–36.
16. Philippe Gelez, “Pauverté et modernité dans une province ottomane: La question agraire en Bosnie 1800–1918,” (Habilitation, École des hautes études en science sociales, 2016).
17. For similar analytical approaches with case studies of Tsarist Russia and India see Stefan Kirmse, “Law and Empire in Tsarist Russia: Muslim Tatars Go to Court,” Slavic Review 72, no. 4 (Winter 2013): 778–801; Gunnel Cederlöf, Founding an Empire on India’s North-Eastern Frontiers 1790–1840: Climate, Commerce, Polity (Oxford, 2014).
18. Hannes Grandits, Pieter Judson, and Malte Rolf, “Towards a New Quality of Statehood: Bureaucratization and State-Building in Empires and Nation States Before 1914,” in Włodzimierz Borodziej, Sabina Ferhadbegović, and Joachim von Puttkamer, eds., The Routledge History Handbook of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century: Statehood (London, 2020), 41–116. For alliance building in Galicia, among others, see Kai Struve, Bauern und Nation in Galizien: Über Zugehörigkeit und soziale Emanzipation im 19. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2005). For Bukovina, see Fred Stambrook, “National and Other Identities in Bukovina in Late Austrian Times,” Austrian History Yearbook 35 (January, 2004): 185–203.
19. Tomislav Kraljačić, Kalajev režim u Bosni i Hercegovini 1882–1903 (Sarajevo, 1987), 504.
20. Robert J. Donia, Islam under the Double Eagle: The Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1878–1914 (Boulder, CO, 1994); Kraljačić, Kalajev režim; Robin Okey, “A Trio of Hungarian Balkanists: Béni Kállay, István Burián and Lajos Thallóczy in the Age of High Nationalism,” The Slavonic and East European Review 80 (2002): 234–66; Hajdapašić, Whose Bosnia?, 172–77.
21. Lauren Benton, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400‒1900 (New York, 2009).
22. Ludwig Dimitz, Die forstlichen Verhältnisse und Einrichtungen Bosniens und der Hercegovina (Vienna, 1905), 94–95; Ferdinand Schmid, Bosnien und Hercegovina unter der Verwaltung Österreich-Ungarns (Leipzig, 1914), 424–28.
23. Sugar, Industrialization of Bosnia, 128; Michael Palairet, The Balkan Economies c. 1800–1914: Evolution Without Development (Cambridge, Eng., 1997), 227.
24. Sugar, Industrialization of Bosnia, 239.
25. On political and legal Tanzimat reforms and their implementation in the Herzegovina region of the Bosnian province, see Hannes Grandits, Herrschaft und Loyalität in der spätosmanischen Gesellschaft: Das Beispiel der multikonfessionellen Herzegowina (Vienna, 2006).
26. For details, see Selçuk Dursun, “Forest and the State: History of Forestry and Forest Administration in the Ottoman Empire” (PhD diss., Sabançı University Istanbul, 2007), chapter 3.
27. Dursun, Forest and the State, 235.
28. The Ottoman classification of forest lands followed from the broader classification of landed property, which then encompassed the forest that was on the land. See Dursun, Forest and the State, 237.
29. Branislav Begović, Razvojni put šumske privrede u Bosni i Hercegovini u periodu austro-ugarske privrede sa posebnim osvrtom na eksploataciju šuma i industrijsku preradu drveta (Sarajevo, 1978), 11; Sugar, Industrialization of Bosnia and Hercegovina, 131; Dževad Juzbašić, Privreda i politika u Bosni i Hercegovini pod austrougarskom upravom (Sarajevo, 2002), 160.
30. Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine, Zemaljska vlada za Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Sarajevo (hereafter ABiH, ZVS), 1878, K.K. XXXVI. Infanterie Truppen Division, Dokument Nr. 2014/4 (Beilage II, Übersetzung des Circulars A703 vom 14. Oktober 1878), November 11, 1878.
31. Another decree was issued on August 1, 1879. Departing from the Ottoman ownership categories of forestlands, the new occupying power aimed now at demarcating private, state-owned, and vakıf forests, thus trying to give them practical meaning by a clear determination of boundaries. This also failed. For the decree, see “Circularerlass der Landesregierung in Sarajevo vom 1. August 1879, Nr. 14276, Fin 4160, betreffend die Ausscheidung der Privatforste von den Staats- und Vakufforsten,” in Sammlung der für Bosnien und die Hercegovina erlassenen Gesetze, Verordnungen und Normalweisungen, 1878–1880, Band 3, I. Theil (Vienna, 1881), 778–79.
32. “Verordnung der Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Hercegovina vom 31. Dezember 1881, Zahl 26385, über das Verfahren zur Klarstellung des Eigenthums- und sonstigen Besitz- und Nutzungsrechte und Ansprüche an Waldgründe,” in Sammlung der Gesetze und Verordnungen für Bosnien und die Hercegovina, Jahrgang 1881 (Sarajevo, 1881), 734–40.
33. Schmid, Bosnien und Hercegovina, 442.
34. Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine, Zajedničko ministarstvo finansija, Sarajevo (ABiH, ZMF), 1883, Opšti spisi, Nr. 2545 (Bericht der Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Hercegovina), May 12, 1883.
35. Such instrumental deployment of Ottoman documents by land-owning parties was also practiced during the Ottoman period. Ana Sekulić’s excellent study of the Franciscan monastery in Fojnica illustrates the employment of Ottoman documents as a legal strategy for establishing legitimacy among the Catholic population. See Ana Sekulić, “From a Legal Proof to a Historical Fact: Trajectories of an Ottoman Document in a Franciscan Monastery, Sixteenth to Twentieth Century,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 62, no. 5/6 (2019): 925–62.
36. AT-OeStA, KA KPS LB K VII m, 46–4-503 (Ergebnisse der Forstexpertise in Bosnien und der Herzegovina während des Sommers 1879, 1880), 24–25.
37. All documents related to the court case of Avdo Kobilica, which went on for several years, are put together in a bundle under the title “Waldansprüche, Bezirk Zenica, Fall Avdo Kobilica” with the archival signature ABiH, ZVS, 1884, K. 38, šifra 42–34/20.
38. ABiH, ZVS, 1884, K. 38, šifra 42–34/20 (Fall Avdo Kobilica, Odluka kotarskog suda u Zenici, Nr. 186), March 29, 1882; and (Odluka vrhovnog suda u Sarajevu Nr. 1898), May 13, 1882.
39. Dimitz, Die forstlichen Verhältnisse, 89.
40. ABiH, ZVS, 1884, K. 38, šifra 42–54/55, Nr. 3 (Brief vom Forstbeamten Johann Marhula), January 15, 1884.
41. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Vienna (AT-OesT-AVA), Nachlässe von Karl Freiherr von Krauss junior: IV, B. 5.7., Unterlagen und Berichte, Forst und Weide (Elaborat über Weidefrage in den okkupierten Provinzen mit Berücksichtigung der bestehenden Weidezinsverhältnisse), May 28, 1881.
42. Erläuternde Bemerkungen zu dem Entwurfe eines Grundbuchs-Gesetzes für Bosnien und die Hercegovina (Sarajevo, 1890), 12.
43. Dursun, Forest and the State, 220–21.
44. AT-OeStA AVA, Nachlässe von Karl Freiherr von Krauss junior: IV, B. 5.7., Unterlagen und Berichte, Forst und Weide 1881 (Antrag betreffend des Begriffes Forstfrevel und deren Behandlung), October 14, 1884.
45. “Circularerlass der Landesregierung in Sarajevo vom 3. August 1879, Nr. 14451, Fin. 4223, betreffend das Holzbezugsrecht der Bevölkerung,” in: Sammlung der für Bosnien und die Hercegovina erlassenen Gesetze, 779–80.
46. “Verordnung der Landesregierung in Sarajevo vom 15. August 1879, Nr. 9504, Fin. 2570, betreffend die Ausübung der Viehweide in Staatswaldungen,” in: Sammlung der für Bosnien und die Hercegovina erlassenen Gesetze, 780–81.
47. Schmid, Bosnien und Hercegovina, 450.
48. “Dienstinstructionen für die forstliche Verwaltung von Bosnien und der Hercegovina. Genehmigt mit Erlass des gemeinsamen Ministeriums vom 9. Mai 1880, Nr. 2975 B. H.,” in: Sammlung der für Bosnien und die Hercegovina erlassenen Gesetze, 798–852.
49. ABiH, ZVS, 1883, K. 29, šifra 17/2–18, Forst- und Waldangelegenheiten/Waldstreitigkeiten.
50. AT-OeStA AVA, Nachlässe von Karl Freiherr von Krauss junior: IV, B. 5.7., Unterlagen und Berichte, Forst und Weide (Bericht des Forstbeamten aus Maglaj an Karl Freiherr von Krauss), October 8, 1881.
51. Dursun, Forest and the State, 234.
52. For the concept of “weapons of the weak,” see James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Every Day Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven, 1985).
53. AT-OeStA AVA, Nachlässe von Karl Freiherr von Krauss junior: IV, B. 5.7., Unterlagen und Berichte, Forst und Weide (Das Justizdepartement in der Frage der Regelung der Forstangelegenheiten), October 17, 1881.
54. AT-OeStA AVA, Nachlässe von Karl Freiherr von Krauss junior: IV, B. 5.7., Unterlagen und Berichte, Forst und Weide (Bericht des Forstbeamten aus Maglaj an Karl Freiherr von Krauss), October 8, 1881.
55. Ibid.
56. AT-Oest AVA, Nachlässe von Karl Freiherr von Krauss junior: IV, B. 5.7., Unterlagen und Berichte, Forst und Weide (Brief des Bezirksvorstehers in Maglaj an Carl von Krauss), October 8, 1881.
57. On the cadaster as a political means of a modernizing state in the context of the Habsburg Monarchy, see Kurt Scharr, “The Habsburg Cadastral Registration System in the Context of Modernization,” in Hannes Siegrist and Dietmar Müller, eds., Property in East Central Europe. Notions, Institutions and Practices of Landownership in East Central Europe (New York, 2015), 100–16.
58. Benton, A Search for Sovereignty.
59. AT- OeStA KA, KPS LB K VII m, 46–4-500 F, 34, Protokolle der Beratungen der Kommission in Betreff der Einführung eines Grundsteuer-Katasters in Bosnien und die Hercegovina.
60. Raphael Lutz, “Die Verwissenschaftlichung des Sozialen als methodische und konzeptionelle Herausforderung für eine Sozialgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 22, no. 2 (1996): 165–93.
61. Bericht über die Verwaltung von Bosnien und der Hercegovina (Vienna 1906), 488–89.
62. Among others see ABiH, ZVS, 1886, K. 45, šifra 5–64/549 (Zaključni šumski ugovori izmedju Zemaljske vlade i Morpurgo und Parente iz Trsta).
63. Bericht 1906, 488.
64. AT- OeStA KA, KPS LB K VII m, 46–4-501 F, 34, Protokolle der Beratungen der Kommission in Betreff der Einführung eines Grundsteuer-Katasters in Bosnien und die Hercegovina 1880–1885.
65. AT- OeStA KA KPS LB K VII m, 46–4-500 F, K.k. Katastral=Vermessungs=Direktion für Bosnien Nr. 2530 (Oberst Roskievic Promemoria über die Errichtung von Instruktions Abtheilungen für Adjunkte), November, 1881.
66. AT- OeStA KA KPS LB K VII m, 46–4-501 F, 34, (Protokoll der 35 Beratung der Kommission in Betreff der Einführung eines Grundsteuer-Katasters für Bosnien und die Herzegovina), December 19, 1884.
67. AT- OeStA KA KPS LB K VII m, 46–4-500 F, 34, (Protokoll der 34 Beratung der Kommission in Betreff der Einführung eines Grundsteuer-Katasters in Bosnien und die Herzegovina), December 15, 1884.
68. Philippe Gelez, “Les problématiques évolutions de l’estimation fiscale des biens fonciers en Bosnie-Herzégovine durant l’époque austro-hongroise (1878–1918),” in Florence Bourillon and Nadine Vivier, eds., La mesure cadastrale: Estimer la valeur du foncier (Rennes, 2012), 61–72.
69. On the land register as a tool for reordering property relations in southeastern Europe, see Dietmar Müller, Bodeneigentum und Nation: Rumänien, Jugoslawien und Polen im europäischen Vergleich, 1918–1948 (Göttingen, 2020).
70. Mehmed Bećić, “Pravni transplanti i pravni pluralizam. Transformacija stvarnog prava u Bosni i Hercegovina 1878–1918” (PhD diss., Sarajevo University, 2018), 324.
71. “Verordnung über die Verleihung von Tapien auf Grundstücke, welche zum Waldlande gehören,” in: Sammlung der Gesetze und Verordnungen für Bosnien und Hercegovina, Jahrgang 1884 (Sarajevo, 1884), 82–86.
72. ABiH, ZVS, 1884, K. 38, šifra 42–54/5, Nr. 10226 (Amsterrinnerung dass die Ediktalaufforderung betreffend die Anmeldung der Eigenthumsansprüche auf Waldland für das Bezirk Prnjavor zu verlautbaren wäre), July 4, 1884.
73. Later on, the Department was split into two bureaus, one for the establishment of the land registry and another one for the regulation of forest ownership.
74. ABiH, ZVS, 1884, K. 38, šifra 42–54/5, Nr. 10226.
75. ABiH, ZVS, 1884, K. 38, šifra 42–54/5, Nr. 1060 I (Brief von Kállay wegen Änderungen der Verordnung in Bezug auf Anspruch auf Waldland), May 5, 1884.
76. “1908, maj 2.—Beč. Zajedničko ministarstvo financija poziva Zemaljsku vladu da u pregovorima o agrarnom pitanju ne popušta muslimanskom Egzekutivnom odboru preko direktiva,” in Ferdo Hauptmann, ed., Borba Muslimana Bosne i Hercegovina za vjersku i vakufsko-mearifsku autonomiju (Sarajevo, 1967), 561–64.
77. “1908, maj 11.—Sarajevo. Zemaljska vlada obavještava Zajedničko ministarstvo financija o rezultatu pregovora s egzekutivnim odborom,” in Hauptmann, Borba Muslimana Bosne i Hercegovina, 564–98, here 570.
78. For Ottoman Miri-regime among others, see Donald Quataert and Halil İnalcık, eds., An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire 1300–1914 (Cambridge, Eng., 1995), 103–78.
79. Huricihan İslamoğlu, “Property as a Contested Domain: A Reevalution of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858,” in Roger Owen, ed., New Perspectives on Property and Land in the Middle East (Cambridge, Mass., 2000), 3–61, here 28.
80. Anton Minkov, “Ottoman Tapu Title Deeds in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: Origin, Typology and Diplomatics,” Islamic Law and Society 7, no. 1 (2000): 65–101, here 66.
81. Eduard Eichler, Das Justizwesen in Bosnien und der Hercegovina (Vienna, 1889), 36–37; for a detailed discussion on the interpretation of miri ownership by different imperial legal experts, see Bećić, Pravni transplanti, 312–20.
82. AT-OeStA AVA, Nachlässe an Krauss sen. und jun., B. 5.7., Unterlagen und Berichte, Forst und Weide (Antrag betreffend der Begriffes Forstfrevel und deren Behandlung), October 14, 1884.
83. “Verordnung über die Verleihung von Tapien auf Grundstücke, welche zum Waldlande gehören,” in: Sammlung der Gesetze und Verordnungen, Jahrgang 1884, 84–85.
84. Bericht über die Verwaltung von Bosnien und der Hercegovina (Vienna, 1910), 148.
85. Bericht 1910, 149.
86. Bericht 1906, 324–27.
87. Eichler, Das Justizwesen in Bosnien und der Hercegovina, 303.
88. Schmid, Bosnien und Hercegovina, 442–43.
89. “Zemaljska vlada obavještava Zajedničko ministarstvo financija o rezultatu pregovora s egzekutivnim odborom,” in Hauptmann, Borba Muslimana, 571.
90. “1895. Početkom novembra—Molba Muharem-bega Teskeredžića—Dervišpašića iz Travnika i ostali veleposjednika iz okružja Travničkog i okružja Sarajevskoga, kojom mole da im se milostivo popravi ono što im je nepravo učinjeno te se i sada čini—podnesena caru,” in Hauptmann, Borba Muslimana, 63–68.
91. Aydin Babuna, Die nationale Entwicklung der bosnischen Muslime mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der österreichisch-ungarischen Periode (Frankfurt am Main, 1996), 87.
92. “1899, Maj 4.—Sarajevo. Kutschera javlja Kallayu o putu po Posavini povodom žalbe begova iz Posavine na materijalne i posjedničke teškoće,” in Hauptmann, Borba Muslimana, 83–88, here 85.
93. “1901. Januar 6.—Beč. Kallay saopćava Kutscheri svoj stav prema molbi Bakir-bega Tuzlića za dodjelu šume Jesenica,” in Hauptmann, Borba Muslimana, 119–20.
94. Donia, Islam under the Double Eagle, 189; Babuna, Die nationale Entwicklung der bosnischen Muslime, 119–22; Bougarel, Islam and Nationhood in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 17–20.
95. Robert J. Donia, Sarajevo: A Biography (Ann Arbor, 2006), 97.
96. Husnija Kamberović, Begovski zemljišni posjedi u Bosni i Hercegovini od 1878. do 1918. godine (Zagreb, 2003), 463.
97. “Kallay saopćava Kutscheri svoj stav prema molbi Bakir-bega Tuzlića,” in Hauptmann, Borba Muslimana, 119–20.
98. ABiH, ZVS, 1889, K. 76, šifra 37–34/8, Nr. 74552 (Erlass des gemeinsamen Ministeriums betreffs der gestellten Anträge bezüglich der Verleihung von Waldparzellen im Bezikre Tešanj, Fall Sakalović Zahl 58980/89), August 26, 1889.
