Jelena Mrgić, Ph.D. SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON

Београдски историјски гласник 1, 2010 Belgrade Historical Review 1, 2010 UDC: 94:630*8(497.11)”04/14” ; 94:630*8(497.6)”04/14” ID: 180475148 Jelena Mrgić, Ph.D. Assist. Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Philosophy Čika Ljubina 18–20, Belgrade [email protected] SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON WOODLAND RESOURCE IN THE MEDIEVAL SERBIA AND BOSNIA* Despite the lack of direct documentary evidence, the paper points to different possibilities in the historical environmental research in our historiography. It presents certain methodological steps which could, along with comparative approach, yield some new results in the historical knowledge of the Middle Ages. e starting point would be to reconsider the chronological boundaries of the research, which, by all its issues, belongs to the ‘long durée’ processes and must be treated as such. Both historical and anthropological evidence are used in order to reconstruct the traditional and innovative uses of woods in everyday life and industrial production. Key words: woodland, natural resources, sustainability, environmental history, mining . Kључне речи: шуме, природни ресурси, одрживост, еколошка историја, рударство e research of such a broad topic — historical woodland use, demands relying on the results of several disciplines — comparative law and social history, is study is a part of the project ’Насеља и становништво српских земаља у позном средњем веку (14. и 15. век)’ (Settlements and Population of the Serbian Lands in the Late Middle Ages (14th and 15th centuries)) (No. 177010) supported by the Ministry of Science and Techno- logical Development of the Republic of Serbia. is paper originated from the presentation held at the First World Congress of Environ- mental History, Copenhagen 4–8 August 2009 (https://wceh2009.ruc.dk/program). Participation was partially financed by the Serbian Ministry of Science and Technology, for which we express our gratitude. We’d like to thank our colleague Dr Richard Keyser (History Department, Western Kentucky University) for his more than useful questions, comments and corrections. 87 БИГ 1 (2010) 87–101 dendrology and ethno-botany, landscape archeology, history of technology, historical ecology and environmental history. All of these scientific branches are still quite underdeveloped in our region, without any significant cooperation between the specialists. On the other hand, the situation with documentary sources for medieval Serbia and Bosnia is truly grave. Most of the legislative acts on mining, hunting, and woodland use are almost absolutely missing until the beginning of the 19th century, when the first thoughts on sustainable forestry emerged, and they were formulated as prohibition and protection law 1 Neither a single town archive nor mining statute from the Middle Ages had survived completely but only in fragments and in different linguistic editions (Cyrillic, Latin, and Ottoman).2 Tis complete lack of legal evidence cannot be, however, caused only by the (nearly) complete destruction of archives and sources, and upon closer examination it could be claimed that no forest laws, nor cadastres (Germ. Waldordnungen, Waldbücher 3) were ever composed in medieval Serbia and Bosnia. Further methodological distinction should be made between the woodland and the forests. Te latter term should be used only in those cases where there were Royal Forests as hunting preserves, protected by the Forest and Hunting laws and guarded by the foresters. Te research in neighboring Hungary showed that ‘forests’ in the legal sense were a Western European import during the Late Middle Ages. 4 Nothing similar had ever come to life in the medieval Central Balkans. First institutionalized forest care, along with forest laws and guarding service, was implemented in Serbia during the first reign of Prince Miloš Obrenović, aimed at preventing the total woodland annihilation in the process of new land acquisitions. As for Bosnia, the first regulations were introduced along with the Austro-Hungarian administration (from 1878 onwards), more than a century later than in the vicinal regions of Croatia and Slavonia.5 In spite of vague documentary evidence, which represents a great hindrance to scientists, some new interpretations of Man vs. Nature relationship are possible from a comparative, long-term, and multifaceted approach. Tese 1 Sustainability (Nachhaltigkeit ), as an economic concept of preserving natural resources renewable, dates from the Age of Enlightenment in Europe –Vehkamäki 2005, 1–13. 2 On the mining and communal law of Novo Brdo: Marković 1985; Ćirković 2005, both with extensive literature overview. 3 See, for example, the interpretation of forest cadastres and town statutes in Dalmatia and Istria — Jelašić 1983, 23–24; Mihelič 2008, 27–51. 4 Szabo 2005, 20–24. 5 For Serbia: ‘Ukaz o sečeniju šuma’ [Edict on the wood cutting] which was pronounced in 1839 — Sbornik zakona I, 1840, 101–104; Šuma, in: Rečnik zakona 1856, 528–532; Milić 1983, 99–108. For Bosnia: Schmid 1914, 424–492. 88 JELENA MRGIĆ: Some Considerations on Woodland Resource interpretations of scarcely preserved data are set in the context of pre-industrial, i.e. agrarian socio-economical regime, with its organic sources of energy: solar energy, man and animal power, vegetable fibers and wood fuel. 6 From the economic aspect, the Nature was valued as an almost endless reservoir of resources and raw material and the human experience was shaped both by the cultural tradition and the everyday practice. Ruler, as the supreme landowner, aimed to regulate the resource allocation for the most lucrative pre-industrial production, i.e. mining. On the other hand, technical development induced both socio-cultural and environmental changes. erefore, this all concerned a complex process of mutual influence. 7 Trees and woods were highly appreciated in the cultures of all Slavic peoples, and their millennia long experiences in shaping the Nature are still preserved in the form of linguistic, i.e. ethno-botanical evidence. e analysis of the available written sources points to several conclusions. Dendronyms are mostly of Old Slavic origin, shared by other Slavic languages, while ‘dub/hrast’ — oak tree (quercus) was the object of the highest cult admiration and respect.8 More importantly, there is quite a distinctive choice of words, mostly Old Slavic, for different groups of trees, which indicate that specific tree types and their structure were preferred for specific activities and products, such as: — ‘gvozd’ and ‘gora’ (Lat. mons, silva) — a mountain covered with dense and high, mature woods (Germ. Bergwald ) — used as construction timber, pitch, charcoal production, and very rarely, for land clearing and turning into arable fields; — ‘gaj’ (nemus, nemus edictum) — low-lying, well-kept and nourished oak preserve or enclosure (Fr. haine, garenne, Germ. Haine) — for coppicing, firewood, and fodder; — ‘dubrava’ (silva, nemus) — an oak wood in the lowlands (Germ. Talwald ) — mostly for pannage; — ‘les, leska’ — all work wood (lignum, materia), or thinned woods, coppice in the lowlands (nemus, Germ. Buschwald , Niederwald ) — for herbage, coppicing and firewood. Linguistic development went towards introduction of new words: ‘šuma’ ( forestris, silva) — as the general term for all woods, regardless of location or composition of trees, which replaced ‘les’, and ‘planina’ (mons) — replacing ‘gora’.9 6 Landers 2003, 2–46, et pass.; Gingrich 2008, 31. 7 Jaritz — Winiwarter 1997, 91–93ff. 8 Čajkanović 19942 a; Idem 19942 b, 169–180; Ivić 19952,124–140; Radenković 1996, 47–48, 275ff. 9 Georgijević 1967, 9–43; Mišić 2007, 29–33; Mrgić 2004, 167–170; for each linguistic term, see: Schütz 1957. 89 БИГ 1 (2010) 87–101 Scientists, however, have to avoid imposing the modern botanical terminology and taxonomy to the earlier societies in respect to all differences. According to anthropological research, the Slavic structure of the world shows clear division into ‘domesticated/cultivated nature’ with arable fields and pastures in the lowlands, and the ‘wilderness’ or uncultivated/uninhibited land, i.e. ‘desert’, located just behind the village borders. As in other parts of continental Europe, ‘wilderness’ and ‘desert’ denoted densely wooded areas. According to the Crusaders’ chronicles, the stretch of Via militaris through the valley of Velika Morava River went through the terrifying ‘silvae Bulgariae’ or ‘deserta Bulgariae’.10 Further, in a charter of the King Stephan Dušan, a wooded mountain was named ‘gora Pustoš’, which indicated the height, density of woods and the lack of human presence (< pusta, meaning deserta).11 Preserved evidence, though sparse, allow the assumption that woodlands in medieval Serbia and Bosnia were used within traditional patterns of exploitation, according to experience, similar to other European regions such as the Byzantine Empire and Hungary. Tis traditional woodland management included felling, coppicing, pollarding, tapping for pitch, browsing, pannage, and burning the woods in the process of clearing. Once cleared, the land had to be maintained, since the vegetation cover would reclaim it in a number of years, depending on the soil and climate conditions.12 Wood was by far the most available construction material, except for the Mediterranean parts of Bosnia and Serbia, where the vegetation cover was thinned and less available. Tere is, though, an interesting term, which appeared in both Mediterranean and continental parts: Serb. grm, grmlje, grmovi. Even though the first dictionary entrance is Lat.

Load more