Head-Hunting in Europe

Montenegrin Heroes, Turkish Barbarians and Western

Observers

Bozidar Jezernik

Jezernik, Bozidar 2001: Head-Hunting in Europe. Montenegrin Heroes, Turkish Barbarians and Western Observers. – Ethnologia Europaea 31: 21–36.

From the 19th century onwards, Western travellers paid full attention to the custom of cutting-off human heads in the Balkans which they perceived as a clear- cut line between civilised and barbarian forms of existence. The image of the Balkans and its people in these travel reports was seasoned with a liberal measure of partiality and biases, for it was not unimportant at all who did it. Montenegrins head-cutters were heroes, “Turkish” head-cutters were the barbarians. On the

other hand, the vivid interest by Westerners showed for the “barbarous custom” in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries indicate that in the West the barbarian “Other” had been but repressed rather than completely eliminated.

Prof. Dr. Bozidar Jezernik, Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, University of Ljubljana, Zavetiska 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected]

Until the beginning of the 20th century the the Priest-Prince. Our guides, however, pointed

Balkans was a promised land for hunters of to it with exultation. They had all, as it was the bizarre phenomena. The cutting off heads, as duty of the warlike inhabitants of the Black one British anthropologist put it, was common Mountains, taken part in raids upon the Mus- in Turkey and could be performed without fear sulmans and in the border wars, which were of scandal (Durham 1905: 148). From the 19th constantly taking place, and had their stories to century onwards, Western travellers paid full relate of slaughtered Turks and bloody spoils, attention to this custom treating the sight of such as those exposed on the round tower” such trophies in the Balkans as a clear-cut line (Layard 1903: I, 128). between civilised and barbarian existence. The custom reminded them, as a German author During his stay in Cetinje Sir Layard visited put it, “of the naivety of the Homeric age” the vladika of Montenegro whose fort was dec- (Hertzberg 1853: 19). At the beginning of the orated with Turkish heads. To contrast this 20th century the custom was considered proof custom with civilisation more clearly, he de- that in the Balkans “but a century ago much of scribed how the vladika had procured a billiard- the population was as wild as the Red Indians table (a symbol of civilisation) from Trieste and of the same date” (Durham 1920: 26). Sir La- that they played together several times. yard, for instance, famous in later life for his discovering of Nineveh, described the following “On one occasion whilst we were so engaged, a picture from Cetinje in 1839: loud noise of shouting and of firing of guns was heard from without. It proceeded from a party of “(A) number of gory heads with their long tufts Montenegrin warriors who had returned from a of hair waving in the wind, the trophies of a successful raid into Turkish territory of Scu- recent raid upon the neighbouring Turks. It was tari, and, accompanied by a crowd of idlers, a hideous and disgusting sight which first greet- were making a triumphal entry into the village. ed the traveller on his arrival at the residence of They carried in a cloth, held up between them,

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0136 8 21

several heads which they had severed from the comrades cut off his head” (Bronevsky 1818: I, bodies of their victims. Amongst these were 267–268). those apparently of mere children. Covered with gore, they were a hideous and ghastly Some years later, a French staff-major of the spectacle. They were duly deposited at the feet Second Division of the Illyrian Army (French) of the Prince, and then added to those which at Dubrovnik visited Montenegro. He watched were displayed on the round tower near the this custom with less compassion and saw more convent” (Layard 1903: I, 132). details. According to him the Montenegrins cut off the heads of captured robbers and Muslims. But it seems that the West had a short memory In his accounts, he informs his readers about a and indeed had forgotten its own practises a few journey he took with a group of Montenegrins, generations earlier “when it, too, was young.” In during which they encounter a group of Mus- the early centuries of the modern era, for in- lims. The Montenegrins darted forward and the stance, London Bridge attracted tourists with “Turks” retired abruptly in great disorder, leav- its criminals’ heads stuck on to the points of ing one of their party dead and two wounded. spears (Maczak 1995: 223). In England, the The latter were immediately seized and decap- custom of displaying severed heads was re- itated; their heads were brought in triumph to tained until the second half of the 18th century, the French officer. This spectacle was not a when passers-by paid six pennies for the privi- pleasant one for the officer. It caused him, he lege of viewing them. wrote, “many painful sensations” and made him “I saw the heads when they were brought up “more than once regret having undertaken this to be boiled,” wrote a seventeenth-century pris- journey” (Sommieres 1820: 24). Yet it was not so oner in Newgate. unpleasant that he changed his plans of visit- ing and seeing as much of this strange land as “The Hangman fetched them in a dirty dust possible. During his journey, he came across basket, out of some by-place; and, setting them further examples of this practise. He saw the down among the felons, he and they made sport greatest number of severed heads during his with them. They took them by the hair, flouting, stay in the monastery of St Vasil. In every jeering, and laughing at them; and then, giving direction at a distance of two or three leagues, them some ill-names, boxed them on the ears he saw the “horrible spectacle” of vast numbers and cheeks. Which done, the Hangman put of Turkish heads fixed upon staves standing them into his kettle, and parboiled them with upon the hills (Sommieres 1820: 35). Bay-Salt and Cummin-Seed – that to keep them In the spring of 1838 king of Saxony, Frederic from putrefaction, and this to keep off the fowls August, visited Vladika Peter II of Montenegro from seizing them” (Hibbert 1966: 43). during his botanical tour. Frederick August was less delicate than the French staff-major and expressed his wish to see “a souvenir of valour The First Reports of the Montenegrins” namely the embalmed A detailed report about the custom of cutting off head of Mahmud Pasha of Shköder. The Mon- and displaying heads was written by a Russian tenegrins had been incorporated into the pash- naval officer who visited Montenegro in the aluk of Mahmud Pasha according to the peace th first decade of the 19 century. He looked upon treaty between Emperor Leopold II and the the people of Montenegro as brave and reliable Sublime Porte in 1791, but refused obedience allies of Russia in its wars against Turkey. The and tribute. This led the pasha to attack Mon- custom of taking heads, in his eyes, was con- tenegro with fire and sword in 1796. During the vincing proof of Montenegrin heroism: war Vladika Peter Petroviç I found himself in the middle of the clash, holding a cross in one “A Montenegrin never sues for mercy and when- hand and a spade in the other to animate his ever one of them is severely wounded, and it is people against the invaders. His people were impossible to save him from the enemy, his own victorious and slaughtered many enemies. They

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. 22 ISBN 87 635 0136 8

even seized the pasha himself, cut off his head, bouring territories. This practise provided Mon- and preserved it as a token of their deed. The tenegrin society which did not have hereditary head was preserved in the monastery of Cetinje, rank with a system of social prestige (Karadziç together with his sword and turban, where it 1837: 29, 35, 53; Hertzberg 1853: 19; Krasinski was “religiously kept” in a special nut-wood 1853: 50; Pelerin 1860: 27; Neale 1861: 186; chest of fine work (Biasoletto 1841: 95–96). Frilley and Wlahovitj 1876: 437, 450; Andrejka When Sir Gardner Wilkinson visited Mon- 1904: 344; Durham 1928: 172; Nenadoviç 1975: tenegro in 1844 he saw a round tower above 41). Cetinje decorated with Turkish heads. He in- According to accounts up to the 20th century spected the tower down to the smallest detail: old men enjoyed telling tales of the heads they

and their friends had taken. In a monastery

“On a rock, immediately above the convent, is a near Danilovgrad, a local doctor and young round tower, pierced with embrasures, but with- monk proudly showed a British anthropologist out cannon; on which I counted the heads of the tomb of Bajo Radoviç. His weapons and twenty Turks, fixed upon stakes, round the medals were carved upon it and his epitaph parapet, the trophies of Montenegrin victory; stated that he fell in the battle with the Turks and below, scattered upon the rock, were the in 1876 after hewing off fifteen Turkish heads. fragments of other skulls, which had fallen to As the doctor explained, when King Nikola rode pieces by time; a strange spectacle in a Chris- by, he reined his horse, lifted his cap and prayed: tian country, in Europe, and in the immediately “God give thee salvation, Bajo. Fifteen heads to vicinity of a convent and a bishop’s palace. It one sword – O Thou dobar junak!” (Durham would be in vain to expect that, in such a 1928: 172–173). condition, the features could be well preserved, Grand Vojvoda Mirko, father of King Nikola, or to look for the Turkish physiognomy, in these wrote a poem A Monument to Heroism, describ- heads, many of which have been exposed for ing exploits of the Montenegrin heroes in their years in this position, but the face of one young battles with the Turks. The tale of nearly every man was remarkable; and the contraction of the fight ends with a list of booty taken – heads upper lip, exposing a row of white teeth, con- included. In The Avenging of Priest Radosav, for veyed an expression of horror, which seemed example, Mirko sings that to atone for one that he had suffered much, either from fright or priest, the Montenegrins cut off thirty-three pain, at the moment of death” (Wilkinson 1848: heads and carried them upon stakes. They I, 511–512). mounted the stakes where Turkish women in the town could see and understand them as a

monument to Radosav. Even more heads were Bowling with Heads taken in wars. In Kolasin in 1858, for instance, Until the middle of the 19th century, the Mon- one thousand heads were said to have been tenegrins cut off heads of killed or wounded taken and in the fight at Niksiç in 1862 the score enemies and took them in battle as a sign of was given as 3,700 (Durham 1928: 175–176). their heroism, even if thereby exposing them- The Montenegrins also brought home hu- selves to danger of death. Head-cutting was a man heads from their raids into neighbouring way of triumphing over a contemptible foe and Muslim territories and not only from the battle- provided a means of achieving personal renown field. They would give the heads to the vladika, within Montenegrin community. The impor- who would reward them. Heads, including those tance of a victory or defeat they expressed in of women and children, were then usually fixed numbers of heads. If someone was said to be a on the poles on the round tower above Cetinje, dobar junak (great hero), the number of heads called Kula, atop houses, or the nearby trees he had taken was immediately cited as evi- (Sommieres 1820: 24; Karadsiç 1837: 53; Wilkin- dence. Folk songs, celebrating heroes, say that son 1848: I, 431, 562; Kohl 1851: I, 271, 295, 336; they cut off the heads of their enemies in battle Hertzberg 1853: 19; Pelerin 1860: 27; Lenor- or brought home heads from raids into neigh- mant 1866: xiv; Tozer 1869: I, 266; Freeman

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0136 8 23

1877: 24; Frischauf 1883: 268; Marcotti 1896: a Montenegrin soldier supplicated a Russian 77; Passarge 1904: 333). officer, when he lost his ground in retreat from

Montenegrin likewise cut off the heads of a battle, to take his head, in order that it not fall

French soldiers regardless of rank, when they in enemy’s hands: were neighbours (Karad ziç 1837: 113). Accord- ing to the French commander at Dubrovnik “When at the attack of Klobuk, a small detach- many French soldiers, including General Del- ment of Russian troops was obliged to retreat, gorgeus, “have fallen victim to this barbarous an officer of stout make, and no longer young, practise.” During the siege of Hercegnovi “in- fell on the ground from exhaustion. A Mon- stances of singular atrocity occurred,” when tenegrin perceiving it, ran immediately to him,

“some Montenegrines, in a fit of intoxication, and having drawn his yatagan, said, ‘You are amused themselves by playing at nine-pins very brave and must wish that I should cut off with the heads of some Frenchmen, and, at the your head. Say a prayer and make the sign of same time, directing insulting language towards the Cross.’ The officer, horrified at the proposi- them. ‘See, see,’ said they every moment, ‘how tion, made an effort to rise and rejoined his roundly these Frenchmen’s head roll;’ – a cruel comrades with the assistance of the friendly irony on the imputed levity of the French na- Montenegrin. They consider all those who have tion” (Sommieres 1820: 24). – A more prudent been taken by the enemy as killed. They carry th British diplomat from the end of the 19 centu- out of the battle their wounded comrades on ry was of the opinion that the story of Mon- their shoulders; and, be it said to their honour, tenegrins bowling with the heads of the French they acted in the same manner by their allies soldiers, while remarking how light-headed their the Russian officers and soldiers” (Bronevsky enemies were, was “probably an invention” (Mill- 1836: I, 268). er 1896: 414). There were rules for head taking. If in a fight Any Montenegrin who fell in action but did not two Montenegrins wounded the same man, the have his head cut off and taken away did not head belonged to the Montenegrin who had quite count as dead. An individual whose head drawn the first blood. Great disputes arose on had been reclaimed in exchange for several this question, and Durham was told of cases in enemies’ heads was considered a fortunate man which two men fought each other almost to the (Nenadoviç 1975: 41). If the head of a fallen man death on the very battlefield where their ene- was taken by the enemy, great efforts were my’s corpse had fallen (1928: 173). Conforming made by his relatives to obtain his head for to their code of military honour, the Mon- burial with his body. Grim tales were told both tenegrins would rather take the heads of their sides of the Montenegrin border of women who fallen comrades than let them fall in the ene- had crawled over the border at night at great my’s hands. This was to ensure that their com- risk and brought back their husband’s or broth- rades were buried “as humans.” When two er’s head from the pole on which it was rotting pobratims (sworn brethren) went to war, it was (Durham 1928: 174). the duty of the one to cut off and carry away the head of the other if slain, to prevent the head Heads in Bags from falling into the hands of the enemy. He was even to cut off the head if the man were fatally Some authors went beyond merely reporting or so badly wounded that he could not be carried the custom of head-cutting in Montenegro and from the field and might be taken by the enemy. pondered theories about how the victors carried Tradition declared this had often been done the heads of their dead enemies. According to (Hertzberg 1853: 19; Krasinski 1853: 51; Lenor- one British anthropologist: mant 1866; Pieøkowski 1869: 7; Kutschbach 1877: 82; Mackenzie and Irby 1877: II, 202; “According to popular belief, the long lock is to

Wyon 1904: 292; Durham 1928: 173–174). serve as a handle to carry home the head when

Russian navy officer Bronevsky reported how severed. A head, it seems, can be carried only by

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. 24 ISBN 87 635 0136 8

the ear, or by inserting a finger in the mouth” practice which he condemned on every account, (Durham 1904: 81). because it was necessary to maintain the war-

like spirit of his people.” Montenegrins were

Her theory was based on stories she came across continually in a state of enmity with their with Slavs, Turks and Albanians. Among all neighbours. They were few in number and, Balkan people the custom of head-shaving pre- unless always prepared to defend their moun- vailed, only one top-lock or side locks or large tain strongholds, would soon be conquered and patches of hair were left. According to popular exterminated by the Turks or the Austrians. explanation, she heard in Montenegro, clean- There was nothing he dreaded more, the vladi- shaven heads could not be carried away save by ka declared, than a long peace. Once the Mon- sticking a finger in the mouth. A Christian, even tenegrins slept with a sense of security and when dead, would object to a Muslim finger in abandoned their state of continual warfare, his mouth. And a Muslim, with equal justice, they would soon be conquered. It would thus be would object to the finger of an unclean giaour. unwise on his part to make any attempt “for the Therefore a convenient handle was left (Dur- present” to put a stop to a practise that encour- ham 1928: 174). aged his people in their hatred of the Turks and In fact those who succeeded in cutting off an determination to perish rather than allow the enemy’s head, carried it in a bag, if necessary for Muslims to obtain a foothold in their mountains three, four days together with their allowance of (Layard 1903: I, 132–133). stale bread and onion. When they were appeas- When, a few years later, Sir Gardner Wilkin- ing their hunger, they emptied the bag all to- son tried to persuade the vladika to abolish the gether. They put up the head in front of them- custom, the latter replied, that he could not do selves to see it and spoke to it in a monologue so for the sake of Montenegrin security. It was while they were eating, thus incorporating the impossible, according to the vladika, for his enemy as friend (cf. Freeman 1979: 245). Obvi- people to be the first to abandon the usage. ously, they were not much disturbed by the fact Their foes would mistake their humane inten- that they were cutting the food with the same tions to fear and responded with increased handzhar they used to cut off the head (Ebel vexations. “Our making any propositions of the 1842: 44; Holecek 1876: 43, 65; Knight 1880: 76; kind would almost be tantamount to an invita- Marcotti 1896: 14; Gjurgjeviç 1910: 101). tion to invade our territory” (Wilkinson 1848: I, 475–476). Then Sir Gardner Wilkinson tried to per- The Strength of Custom suade the Vizier of Mostar Ali Pasha Rizvanbe-

Western observers, however, saw these heads goviç. The pasha agreed that nothing was more from a very different perspective. Sir Layard desirable, but added that “all attempts hitherto could not conceal from the vladika his disgust at made had been fruitless, and there was no what he had witnessed and expressed his as- trusting to a reconciliation with Montenegro” tonishment that someone with his desire to (Wilkinson 1848: II, 74–75). civilise his people “permitted them to commit Nevertheless in 1853, Prince Danilo of Mon- acts so revolting to humanity and so much tenegro ordered all heads exhibited in Cetinje opposed to the feelings and habits of all Chris- to be removed. He forbade his soldiers from tian nations.” The vladika readily admitted salting and keeping the heads of enemies from that the practise of cutting off and exposing battle. The immediate cause for his order was heads of the slain was shocking and barbarous, the semi-official visit of a Russian colonel after but added that it was “an ancient custom of the Omar Pasha’s expedition in the spring of 1853. Montenegrins in their struggles with the Turks, The Russian colonel represented it to the Mon- the secular and blood-thirsty enemies of their tenegrins as a specimen of domestic manners race and their faith, and who also practised the not well calculated to raise them in the estima- same loathsome habit.” He was compelled “to tion of all other nations of Christendom in the th tolerate, if not to countenance, this barbarous 19 century. He finally succeeded in persuading

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0136 8 25

Montenegrins to stop cutting off the heads of man 1877: 71–72; Gopceviç 1879: I, 103). Many their prisoners by paying them a ducat for every heads were cut off in the battles that took place prisoner instead (Krasinski 1853: 56; Wingfield in 1876/77, but due to an anti-Turkish attitude

1859: 200; Pelerin 1860: 24; Tozer 1869: I, 308; that prevailed in the West, Europe was not Rasch 1873: 228, 246; Frilley and Wlahovitj prepared to believe eyewitness reports about 1876: 437; Gopceviç 1877: 92; Rossi 1897: 25; the practise: Hulme-Beamon 1898: 160; Lavtizar 1903: 200, 212). However, “the habit was stronger than his “Poor Canon McColl was jeered at and discred- word” (Gopceviç 1914: 330). ited when he came from the seat of war and said The custom did not completely die out. If he had seen heads on stakes and that the heads nobody practised it, there would be no need to were those of Turks. Gladstone had represented sanction it either. But, as visitors in Cetinje in the Balkan Christians as something like angels 1875 were informed, a Montenegrin was under- – never having lived among them – and Canon going a short term of imprisonment for decapi- was completely disbelieved. But the truth will tating a dead Muslim at Podgorica (Creagh out. About twenty-five years afterwards I was 1876: II, 264; Denton 1877: 138). Prohibition of at the Grand Hotel at Cetinje. An English par- the practise had to be reiterated by Knjaz Niko- son and his wife arrived and talked with some la, who no longer bought so much a head to be Montenegrin officials who were dining there, exhibited on the round tower and had con- spoke French, and wore nice frock-coats. They structed a wooden belfry on its summit (Knight talked of Turks, and the reverend gentleman 1880: 65, 75). He even forbade his soldiers in mentioned Canon McColl’s foolish blunder. ‘Of 1876 to cut off noses and ears. He ordered course, no one believed him.’ ‘But why not?’ instead that they bring fezzes, rifles, or swords, asked Miouskovitch (afterwards Minister of in order to prove who fought valiantly and Foreign Affairs), completely puzzled, ‘in a war deserved to be rewarded. He advised them to naturally one sees decapitated heads.’ Then, capture and bring back alive as many noblemen seeing the horror on the other’s face, he added as possible (Gjurgjeviç 1910: 119). hastily: ‘But when one teaches children to put Although Knjaz Nikola was unyielding in his cigarettes in the mouths – no, that is a bit too prohibition of the practise and he himself strong (c’est un peu fort, ça).’ For one moment personally went on the spot, if he learned that the Balkans were unveiled” (Durham 1928: the Turkish heads were exhibited somewhere, 179). British women travellers during their stay in Montenegro saw three heads dangling on an An Enemy’s Nose for a Wife apple-tree (Mackenzie and Irby 1877: II, 202).

And another British traveller could still see The Montenegrins finally succeeded in elimi- during his visit to Montenegro and Albania in nating the custom of decapitating dead enemies late 1870s “an astonishing number of men who among troops under regular Montenegrin disci- have been victims of this barbarous custom.” He pline. But the custom of cutting off the dead came across more mutilated men in Shköder enemy’s nose, as a kind of substitute for his alone than in all Montenegro (Knight 1880: head, had still been kept up both by the irregu-

90). lar insurgent bands and by the Albanians who

Knjaz Nikola’s order was in force where the sometimes joined the Montenegrins (Freeman Montenegrins were victorious and were more 1877: 24; Gopceviç 1879: I, 116). According to a powerful in battle; but where the Turks drove report by a British correspondent from Bosnia- them into the corner, the old shrieks could be Herzegovina from time of uprising, in Trebinje heard urging the Montenegrins to go on for in 1875 clashes between the Montenegrins and heads (Nenadoviç 1975: 50). Sporadically they rebels in Herzegovina cut off a lot of “Turkish” were incited to this also by the fury excited in noses. According to his report they cut off over them because of the inhumane treatment by 800 noses instead of heads in a single battle the Turkish soldier with their captives (Still- (Stillman 1877: 107–108, 121–122). As reported

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. 26 ISBN 87 635 0136 8

by a German correspondent some Turkish heads, she told me my sworn brother, Joko Shtepitch, too, were cut off (Kutschbach 1877: 82). had brought me in – God rest his soul. He shot

The custom remained in force until they the Turk through the head. My teeth were made war each in his own name and in small locked in the Turk’s nose as we fell together. groups. The most efficient weapon in chasing it Joko severed it with his knife. He knew I had away were long range rifles. In the time needed sworn to take a head, and that now I should not for a soldier to cut off a head, he could fill up his have another chance. With us, you know, a nose rifle twenty times and shoot. Severed heads count as a head. He could not carry me and the were quite an inconvenient impediment. A man head too, so he thrust the nose into my breeches who carried on him two or three of them, could pocket. I found it there and it did me more good not fight anymore: the heads impeded him while than all the doctor’s stuff...” (Durham 1928: running and manipulating with his arms (Ne- 177–178). nadoviç 1975: 50). Edith Durham reported the last heads that she heard of as being cut off were Some authors were of opinion that the custom of those of three Montenegrins killed in a border nose-cutting developed from a practical reason: fight in August 1912 (1928: 177). it was inconvenient to carry a head (Holecek If the Montenegrins were yielding slowly 1876: 65). The others stated that, as we learn and unwillingly in the matter of cutting off the from the Odyssey, this was an ancient custom heads of dead foes, their princes were more (Minchin 1886: 13). However, the custom was successful with abolition of a custom which was an old and widespread form of corporal punish- not less cruel, namely, cutting off the nose of a ment for slaves and women. For instance, a living foe. The desire to take a nose was so great famous French traveller from the 17th century that occasionally a man whose hands were not reports that the slaves in Tunis were punished free would seize his enemy’s nose with his teeth with bastonadoes or they cut their ears or nose and try to bite it off, for successful participation according to the quality of the offence (Theven- in a battle seems to be prerequisite for marriage ot 1687: I, 279). According to some reports in the th for a young man (cf. Jensen 1963: 162). 19 century the Montenegrins still used to cut A Montenegrin gendarme once told his per- off a wife’s nose, if caught “in a heavier sin” sonal story: (Medakoviç 1860: 127–128). In case of the wife’s adultery the husband could, if he pleased, cut “Then came war and I went to fight the Turks in off his wife’s nose and, according to a British Herzegovina (1876). We fought almost to Mos- anthropologist, “not infrequently did so” (Dur- tar. But I was ashamed in the eyes of my ham 1928: 213). comrades, for I had not taken a head. Other When war was declared in October 1912, younger than I had taken heads and sent them Kovaceviç, “professor of modern languages,” at home to their mothers, and I, never an one. I Podgorica predicted gleefully that there would swore in the next fight to take one or die. I fixed be baskets full of Turkish noses to see. When my eyes on a Turk and slashed at him with my Durham commented that such conduct would handzhar, but he fired his pistol and caught me disgust all Europe, he flew into a rage and there’ – he showed a deep scar on his right declared nose-cutting was a national custom forearm – ‘the handzhar fell from my hand. I and Turks not human beings: snatched my pistol with my left hand, but as I fired he sliced me with his knife and the pistol “It is our old national custom, how can a soldier fell, too. (He showed two fingers of his left hand prove his heroism to his commander if he does stiff and contracted.) ‘Both my hands were use- not bring in noses? Of course we shall cut noses; less, but I saw nothing but that Turk’s head. I we always have” (Durham 1914: 185; 1928: must have it. I flew at him like a wolf and fixed 177). my teeth in his nose. God! how I bit into him!

And I knew nothing more till I woke up in the And so they did this time again (Durham 1914:

Russian field-lazaret. There was a Russian nun; 197, 218, 237–238).

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0136 8 27

Durham herself saw nine victims who had of Europe to the subject. This report was read by survived: the nasal bone was hacked right the Prince of Montenegro, and he forbade the through and the whole upper lip was removed. practice under the severest penalties. The re-

Her Montenegrin patients boasted to a man of sult was that this abomination went out of the noses they had taken and wanted to be fashion with the Montenegrins” (Minchin 1886: cured so as to take more. They told her that they 13–14). had not left a nose on a corpse between Berane and Peç with shouts of laughter how they had The Wine of Honour mutilated living victims and said: “Go home and show your wife how pretty you are” (Durham A custom perceived by the 19th century travel-

1928: 177). lers as a particularly Balkan barbarian custom,

When reporting about this custom authors was, in fact, much older. In Europe, head-hunt- with strong sympathies for the freedom-loving ing as a proof of prowess was far older than Montenegrins attributed it to Montenegrin al- Turkish invasions and there is clear evidence lies instead of the Montenegrins themselves: for it as far back as Mesolithic times. The head- hunt was a rather common practise considered “The determined severity of their rulers really a precondition for being recognised as an adult seems to have put down this barbarism in and deemed suitable for marriage. This prac-

Montenegro itself; every foreign agent to whom tise is well documented among Indo-European we referred was of opinion that no noseless peoples such as the Scythians. According to patients has been seen or authenticated at Herodotus, a Scythian drank of the blood of the Scodra. On the other hand, it appears that such first man whom he had overthrown. He carried were seen at Ragusa and on board steamers for to his king the heads of all whom he had slain in Corfu, and there are grounds for believing what the battle in order to receive a share of the booty the mountaineers assert, viz., that those muti- taken. He scalped the head and kept the skin for lated suffer at the hands of the Herzegovinian a napkin, attaching it to the bridle of his horse. insurgents, whose barbarities the Prince of The more scalps a man had, the better man he Montenegro cannot control, and who, being was judged to be. Once a year each governor of Turkish rayahs, behave as such...” (Mackenzie a province would brew a bowl of wine for those and Irby 1877: II, 202). Scythians who had slain enemies. Those who had slain more than one enemy received two On the other hand, the authors who attributed cups and drank of them both, while those who it to the Montenegrins, added that their mo- had killed no one sat dishonoured without a tives for this practise were “not altogether bad:” taste (book iv, 64–66).

The Hungarian historian Isthuanfy described “The Montenegrin, who is a Christian, and by how the Croatian nobleman Nikolaus Zrinyi nature of a gentle disposition, felt scruples killed Johann Kazianar in 1539, cut off his head about taking the life of his Turkish prisoner. At and sent it to Emperor Ferdinand in Vienna the same time, he did not wish the Turk to boast (Gruden 1941: 581). that he had discomfited a Montenegrin. He In the 16th and 17th centuries Austrian sol- therefore put this mark upon his face, that all diers, as described by Baron Valvasor, were also might know the Turk was a vanquished man. in habit of cutting of the heads of Turkish That this was a common practice in Montene- soldiers found dead on the battlefield after gro within recent years I will not deny; but what falling in retreat. They, too, would erect the I do assert is, that no Turkish prisoner has been heads on a stake as a sign of triumph. In Croatia mutilated by the Montenegrins since the last and other frontier lands once no one was al- battle of Medun in 1876. On that occasion sev- lowed to wear a feather in the cap, until he eral Turks were brought into Scutari in a muti- killed a Turk and brought home his head (Val- lated condition, and our consul there, Mr. Kirby vasor 1689: XII, 63, 64, 65, 115, 116). Baron

Green, wrote a report which drew the attention Valvasor described seeing, how the people of

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. 28 ISBN 87 635 0136 8

Senj, the Vlachs and the Uskoks cut off a Turk- tion was added: “For not having followed the ish head, lifted it up and let the warm blood plan of the campaign sent directly from the dribble in their mouth “in a barbarian way with Emperor” (Tott 1785: III, 11). th a great lust” (Valvasor 1689: XII, 93). In the 19 century, it was still “the fashion of Enemies’ heads were also used as a deter- those times” to hang heads of prominent figures rent. An English traveller in the 17th century who lost their favour with the sultan in public reported that the governor of the town of Ko- (Elliot 1893: 5). The heads of the whole divan of marno judicially tried the Turkish messengers ministers under Sultan Selim III were treated whom Sinan Pasha sent to him during the siege in this fashion, “the janissaries falling on them of the town, “till they had declared their whole like wild beasts, and carrying them off to the treachery.” Then he commanded four of their Atmeidan barracks above, to range these bloody heads to be struck off and to be set upon long trophies before the historic kettles” (Elliot 1893: pikes upon one of the bulwarks for the pasha to 5, 258–259). look upon (Browne 1685: 17). An English visitor to Istanbul in the first half This practise was even more common in of the 19th century described the heads he saw the Ottoman Empire. On the walls of Turkish there in 1827 in detail: towns in the 17th century it was customary for the heads of highwaymen to be displayed spiked “We now arrived at the gate of the Seraglio... At on the end of a lance. French and Turkish the gate on the right hand, in a niche in the wall, th travellers from the middle of the 17 century we saw about a dozen human heads, or rather saw such heads in towns in Serbia, and an scalps, the skull and bones having been careful- English traveller from the same period, for ly removed, and the skin stuffed with hay. They instance, saw them in Osijek. These heads were were said to be Greeks; but I have reason to to serve as a deterrent for other robbers (Quiclet believe them to have been Bosnians, who had 1664: 126; Burbury 1671: 212; Çelebi 1979: 63). lately fallen victims in partial attempt at insur-

In the Ottoman Empire this practise remained rection, which had been quelled by the devour- th current through the 18 century (Baseskija ing sword of the Mussulmans: they had long 1987: 118). A British traveller in Mostar in 1844 beards, which the Greeks do not wear, and the saw human heads stuck on poles when he paid shaven crown and long topknot of the Soman- a visit to the governor’s kula. The whole parapet lees; there were likewise several pairs of ears. of this tower bristled with sharp wooden stakes The Turks came and looked at them, and walked placed at a convenient distance from each other away apparently proud of these disgusting tro- for receiving the heads of Montenegrins killed phies” (Frankland 1829: I, 111). or taken in war (Wilkinson 1848: II, 69). A similar scene was described a few years latter Human heads were much admired trophies by a British captain who on entering the castel- within the Ottoman army in the 16th and 17th lated residence of the governor in Plav observed centuries. Soldiers forced their captives to take human heads stuck upon poles, “the trophies of the heads of their dead enemies and stuff them war which the fierce Arnouts had gained in a with hay. Before they started an expedition, skirmish with their equally fierce assailants, they solemnly stuck the heads on poles in the the predatory hordes of Tchernagora” (Spencer morning and carried them at the head of the

1851: I, 380). column. Heads were salted and, together with th In the capital city itself in the 18 century at other trophies of war (trumpets, flags and cross- the main entrance of the Seraglio the severed es) wrapped in woollen bags and sent to the heads of criminals, German and Russian noses, sultan (Çelebi 1979: 183, 187, 193; Valvasor ears and lips nailed against it, were exposed 1689: XII, 30, 92). regularly (Tott 1785: I, 63; Watkins 1797: II, In the arsenal of the castle of Turjak, Baron 231). From time to time heads of most promi- Valvasor saw a wooden chest with “inestimable nent figures were to be seen, for instance, the valuables” hidden in it, including two pieces of head of Vizier Emin Pasha to which an inscrip- skin peeled off human skulls and stuffed from

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0136 8 29

the inside. The heads belonged to Herbart von In preparations for an expedition to Montene- Auersberg and Friedrich von Weixelberg, who gro in 1768, the pasha of Shköder issued a were both killed in a battle with the Turks near proclamation forbidding the sale of wheat and

Budacki in 1575. Both heads were cut off, skin gunpowder to the Montenegrins under pain of tanned and sent to the Turkish emperor in death. In order to incite in his people fighting Istanbul. From there, the lords of Turjak ran- spirit against the Montenegrins, he promised somed them for “a substantial reward” and payment for each Montenegrin head (Stano- brought them back home “in eternal memory” jeviç 1957: 57). As late as the second half of the (Valvasor 1689: XI, 27; Dimitz 1876: III, 56; 19th century, Turkish soldiers beheaded many Gruden 1941: 774–776). wounded prisoners who fell into their hands, or

In December 1575 Ferhad Pasha victorious- cut off their noses or ears. Some of these heads ly entered Constantinople. Stefan Gerlach, the impaled on stakes adorned the walls of Turkish predicant of the Imperial Ambassador David towns as trophies of victory (Serristori 1877: 15; Ungnad, gives the following account of the event: Gopceviç 1879: I, 134–135; II, 109). Turkish soldiers used the cutting of heads, “On 9 December a sad and shameful procession noses and ears as retaliation against insubordi- took place. It was led by some mounted Turks nate Balkan peoples. Such methods were em- from the border, wearing their caps with long ployed through the second half of the 19th centu- points. They were followed by two Turks carry- ry to make killings, the burning down of villag- ing a flag each and another two carrying the es, robbery and rape even more terrifying. The heads of Herbort von Auersberg and Friederich orders from Istanbul explicitly demanded that von Weichselberg on long poles. The head of the the officers had to fight against the mutilation provincial governor had a broad pleasant face of corpses under the threat of death penalty. with greying red beard and grey hair. It ap- However, some reports claimed that Turkish peared to have a wound under the cheek. Frie- soldiers did not reckon their victory as complete derich von Weichselberg’s head was beardless if they could not desecrate their foe’s body and had a longish face. Those who cut off their (Freeman 1877: 24; Mackenzie and Irby 1877: I, head carried them themselves. Deli Peruana, 52; Evans 1878: 32, 77–82; Fife-Cookson 1879: who took Auersberg’s head, was made a zaim 68–69; Yriarte 1981: 82–83). (junior commander) and his wages were in- There are reports of such instances even creased by 250 thalers. Undoubtedly he will from the 20th century. For instance, in Rugovo in also be made an alori or sansabeg. Deli Reggier, 1913, a Montenegrin from the tribe of Vasojeviçi who carried Weichselberg’s head, also became was killed during a raid. The Rugovians brought zaim and was bequeathed the annual income of his head to Peç, where it was the object of

2000 aspers. These two were followed by four derision and laughter for the people during a flags. Then came the captured captain in a whole day. Finally it was given to children who Hungarian hat and Croatian boots, his name used it to play ball until nightfall when they was Lorenz Petrizowitz and he was the caretak- threw it on a rubbish heap in the Serbian er of Jobst Joseph von Turn in Sichelberg. He quarter. The next day the Serbs decided to bury was followed by two captured trumpets and a the head. Reportedly, for the Turkish govern- piper, twenty captives with iron chain around ment the only problem in all this was the pho- their necks – all of them young and strong men. tographer who shot the scene of this funeral: he The last in the procession was the young Burg- was condemned to fifteen years of imprison- staller in broad sleeves, leather trousers and a ment for his audacity (Bashmakoff 1915: 62). hat with a green and blue feather. The Croatian Serbian soldiers in Northern Albania as vic- and Carniolan captives were brought by Nessi- tors in the First World War in 1918 robbed mi Tihaja, the courtier of Ferat Beg of Bosnia, Bahtjar Kollowozi. They shot him, but he sur- who was rewarded with the title of chaush on vived. Kollowozi swore vengeance, assembled the court” (Gerlach 1674: 132–133). his neighbours and with their help killed sixty

Serbs. They took two captives “who were not

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. 30 ISBN 87 635 0136 8

worth a bullet” and cut off their heads “as the after a long period of waiting to participate in Serbs did” (Matzhold 1936: 42). the pleasures promised by the Prophet (Eton

Bosnian soldiers who resisted the Austro- 1798: 218; Curtis 1903: 299; Alesovec 1908: 123;

Hungarian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina Yriarte 1981: 83). also cut off many heads (Andrejka 1904: 43, 68, A strong disinclination towards the loss of a 121, 259, 261, 336; Ale sovec 1908: 97, 112). A limb, even when life was at stake, was wide- Czech author who himself took part in this ex- spread all over the Balkans. People insisted on pedition was scandalised by “the Bosnian canni- keeping limbs that were mere black and offen- bals” who, in Vranduk on 18 August 1878, stuck sive lumps of suffering. As reported by two several heads of Austrian soldiers on poles: British nurses, the Serbs had a superstition

that if a man went to his grave with one leg, he

“We stood in full armaments against the igno- would rise in the day of judgement and exist in ble cannibal enemy and it is no exaggeration to all eternity with only one leg (Pearson and say that the Zulus, Bagurus, Niam-Niams, Be- McLaughlin 1877: 183; Fife-Cookson 1879: 13; chuans, Hottentots and similar South-African Minchin 1886: 19; Durham 1905: 149; Aldridge gangs behaved more chivalrously towards Eu- 1916: 54). An Australian war correspondent, for ropean travellers than the Bosnian Turks did instance, reported that Bulgarian soldiers in towards us. I always recollect with dismay the the Balkan Wars also had very strong feeling peoples of the Balkans, where the foot of the against amputation, and if they understood civilised European has not tread for decades, that amputation was intended, they sometimes how the Turks, ‘native lords,’ probably rule begged to be “killed instead” (Fox 1915: 143). down there!” (Chaura 1893: 38). From this point of view decapitation would be an extremely severe punishment indeed. Per- That the “Turkish” atrocities were just too much haps this explains why, in battles between the for some Austrians to forget witnessed the fa- Christians and the “Turks,” so many mutilated mous war correspondent John Reed, who visited corpses were left on the battlefield. the town of Sabac in Serbia during the First In some provinces the custom survived until th World War. He testified in his book to the hun- the very beginning of the 20 century. Albani- dreds of reports, affidavits and photographs, ans in the Turkish army suppressing insurrec- giving names, ages, addresses of sufferers and tion in Bulgaria, supposedly even “displaying details of the horrible things the Austrians had pickled women’s breasts and ears as trophies done. Among other things, he saw a picture when they were on their way home” (Wyon “showing more than a hundred women and 1904: 68). During the insurrection in Bulgaria, children chained together, their heads struck “blood shed in stream and pyramids made from off and lying in a separate heap” (Reed 1916: 1 000 human heads were rising into heights of 84). infected air” (Gjurgjeviç 1910: 102). At the beginning of the 20th century a photog- rapher in Bitola shot many pictures of Turkish It is Hard to Get to Heaven with only soldiers and officers standing behind tables on One Leg which laid the battered heads of Bulgarians

For long, the Turks performed no operations, and other “brigands” (Moore 1906: 259). And the nor did they consent to amputation, even when Turkish troops that attacked a Montenegrin the loss of life was certain to follow. In the village in August 1912 decapitated several vil- Turkish army it was necessary to get permis- lagers and took their heads as trophies (Dur- sion for each amputation, which could be issued ham 1914: 168). only after an investigation. According to West- ern authors the reason for this regulation laid Four Eyes See More than Two in the belief, widespread between the Muslims, that those who come to Heaven’s gate without a The Montenegrin custom of cutting off and limb or mutilated, are allowed to enter only exhibiting human heads in public, scandalised

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0136 8 31

the West in the 19th century. But some spoke in piled infamies and barbarities on the Mon- defence of those who treated their enemies in tenegrin name: such uncivilised fashion:

“Nobody would say that it is barbarity, because “It is very easy for us, enjoying all the good even today in England there exists a law, ac- things of civilisation, to rebuke the Montenegrins cording to which they can imprison a man and for returning in kind to their pitiless enemies leave him without food until he die of hunger; in those very cruelties which they suffered them- Prussia they have even today a law, according to selves at their hands” (Minchin 1886: 13). which they spread a living man on the floor and then slowly break his bones with a heavy wheel

Some authors quoted the following anecdote to starting from the feet then moving to the to illustrate just how short was the memory of the head, until he expire with these torments.” West. When Marshal Marmont reproached Vladika Peter with this horrible custom of his He was persuaded not only that such reproach- people, the vladika replied that there was noth- es were unjustified, but also that just the oppo- ing surprising in it at all. What did surprise site was true: him, he added, was that the French should have beheaded their lawful king. Perhaps, he went “When have you heard that the Montenegrins, on, the Montenegrins had learned their barba- as the Englishmen did, fasten their captives in rous practise from the French, with the im- front of the cannon mouth, and then pulled the provement that they beheaded only their op- trigger? The Montenegrins were never inhu- pressors and not their prince or fellow-country- mane with their enemies. They never tortured men (Miller 1896: 414–415; Marcotti 1896: 186). the captive Turk, not even to a small degree, For their part, the Montenegrins were bitter- they never beat him, they never gauged out his ly unhappy with the opinion they enjoyed around eyes, they never hanged him! Never! – In which the world: death you can find more beauty and poetry,

than when it is said: ‘He swung his sword and “’The Montenegrins are cutting-off heads!’ – cut off his head?’” (Nenadoviç 1975: 43). Those five words sufficed that a greater part of the world press has been writing for a hundred A Serbian author was of similar opinion. He years against Montenegro. This they arbitrari- argued that cutting-off heads was not a Slavic ly proclaimed as a barbarity and then took this custom at all, “but Asiatic-Turkish” (Gopceviç as a base; on this base they construct and evolve 1877: 26). Or, as a German author put it: all the horror and savage atrocities, for which they knew that exist with these really barba- “The atrocities of which the Montenegrins are rous people. Nobody stood in their defence to guilty of, go on the greater part on account of the say and prove what has been latter said and Turks, perhaps the wildest and cruellest peo- proved: that the Montenegrins are no barbari- ples who ever invaded the European territories. ans, but that Montenegro is Thermopile, a trench Then they brought the custom of cutting-off against barbarity; that they are not inhumane, heads and even upgraded it into a system and but opposers of inhumanity. Montenegro is un- who could take it amiss to the Montenegrins, if known. Her enemies took more care to know her they took over the habit simply as a retaliation!” and wrote about her more than her friends did. (Passarge 1904: 318). Slavdom which nowadays glorifies and extols them so much, had not been awaken yet” (Nena- Others claimed that this was not an act of doviç 1975: 42). barbarity at all, but an act of compassion when practised by Montenegrins: The secretary of the Montenegrin prince flew into a passion over the “irrational lacman” “What should they do with wounded persons? It

(scornful term for a stranger, B. J.) press that was impossible to carry them, since they had

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. 32 ISBN 87 635 0136 8

hardly enough men to carry away their own middle of the 19th century was enthusiastic wounded, and where should they have brought about its inhabitants: them? To Montenegro?” (Gopceviç 1877: 91).

“Isn’t it odd: the sources of the Nile had seen The Montenegrins were described with pas- travellers from strange and remote countries, sionate eloquence by Western authors as a na- but Moraca, a part of Europe, remained for tion of heroes, endowed with every virtue of the them terra incognita and does not provoke any heroic age who had with unsurpassed bravery curiosity: even on maps it does not exist. But in resisted every attempt of Turkish hordes to Moraca there are up to 1200 young soldiers, and subdue them. Some would persuade their read- what soldiers! Each of them has behind him ers that the Montenegrins were the finest peo- five, six, even twenty Turkish heads” (Kova- ple in Europe, exaggerating the virtues of the levski 1841: 108). noble Montenegrins in contrast to the “un- speakable” Turk. Or, as reported by a correspondent to the Times : Tower of the Skulls “I left Cetinje with the feeling of having extend- When the marriage of the king of Italy to Prin- ed my own horizon by the discovery of a people cess Jelena of Montenegro was announced in of the old heroic type – a survival of the Homeric 1896, many Italian reporters visited Montene- age, doubtless with heroic vices which also gro to see the future queen of Italy. Sure enough survive elsewhere, but with some virtues which they, too, paid attention to the “barbarous cus- hardly survive larger civilization. I think that tom” of decapitating dead or wounded enemies few Englishmen could resist this impression, (Cerciello 1896: 20–21; Erba 1896: 12; Mante- and most would entertain a wish that Montene- gazza 1896: 92; Rossi 1897: 25). In their reports, gro might preserved intact and unchanged by the round tower was poetically called the Tower civilization as a study of what mankind has of the Skulls and described as a curious “histor- once been” (Stillman 1877: 26). ical monument” (Mantegazza 1896: 92). Howev- er, some of them were of the opinion that valiant There was, of course, in all this grand exagger- Montenegrin history needed also some roman- ation, accompanied by a vast deal of ignorance tic embellishment and attributed the author- of the real condition and history of the people, ship of the Kula in Cetinje to the Turks: and spiced with some desire to conceal and pervert the facts of political reasons. Thus, ac- “The ‘Tower of the Skulls’ has a singular history, cording to a French author, because of such because of its association with epic battles in testimonies as we have seen, in time “when 1690 between a handful of Montenegrin heroes civilisation expanded in Africa and Asia and and the Turks. Once, these after a ferocious already stretching towards the Far East,” Tur- combat, conquered the tower, decapitated the key should have been excluded from the Euro- dead, fling down the heads on the floor to pean nations “in the interest of civilisation,” intimidate the survived heroic defenders of while the Montenegrin heroes deserved their Czernagora” (Cerciello 1896: 20–21). support “in the name of liberty” (Pelerin 1860:

27). Such a tower reminds one not on the real Kula The Montenegrins and their love for freedom but rather on Çele-Kula (“tower of skulls” in was admired most strongly by Slavic authors, Turkish) which some other travellers thought who loved them, were proud of them and ad- the only “object of absorbing interest” – in Nis mired them as Slavic Spartans (Holecek 1876: (Jaeckel 1910: 101). That was literally a tower 1). They were ready not only to overlook many composed of twelve hundred human skulls, com- things, that others saw as evil, but rather to see memorating the Turkish victory over Serbs in them a virtue. A Russian author, for instance, near Nis in 1809. who spent four months in Montenegro in the

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0136 8 33

“The story connected with the place is a roman- Notes tic one... One Stefan Sindiélitch, commander of 1. When Timur the Lame in 1400 invaded northern a brave little band, after stoutly defending an Syria, his warriors were permitted to go on a outpost near Nisch was defeated by overwhelm- pillaging spree in Alleppo that lasted three days. ing odds, and sooner than surrender exploded From the severed heads of more than twenty thousand slaughtered citizens they made a tower the powder magazine, killing himself, his gal- ten feet high and twenty feet wide. And to avenge lant followers, and an even greater number of the death of some of their officers, they decorated the enemy. The Pasha, infuriated at the loss of Baghdad with one hundred and twenty mounds his men, resolved to punish the Christian pop- made from the heads of those killed (Hitti 1988: ulation by collecting the heads of their van- 629, 631). quished ones, and erecting this ghastly monu-

1 References ment...” (De Windt 1907: 191). Aldridge, Olive M. 1916: The Retreat from Serbia This Turkish trophy was “gruesome enough” Through Montenegro and Albania. London: The when seen by Lamartine, early in the 19th cen- Minerva Publishing. Alesovec, Jakob 1908: Vojska na Turskem od leta 1875 tury, “for many of the skulls were furnished do konca leta 1878 . Ljubljana: Janez Giontini. with hair and hundreds of grinning rows of Andrejka, Jernej pl.1904: Slovenski fantje v Bosni in teeth added to the horror of the spectacle” (De Hercegovini 1878. Celovec: Druzba sv. Mohorja.

Windt 1907: 190). But when an Austrian ar- Askerc, Anton 1893: Izlet v Carigrad. Ljubljana: Nar- odna tiskarna. Ç chaeologist visited ele-Kula in June 1860, the Baseskija, Mula Mustafa Sevki 1987: Ljetopis (1746– skulls had almost altogether disappeared. Some 1804). Sarajevo: Veselin Maslesa. were undermined by the tooth of time, the Bashmakov, Aleksandr 1915: Through the Montene- others were bought by foreign travellers and gro in the Land of the Geugeus, North Albania. taken away. Only one remained, too deeply Biasoletto, Bartolomeo 1841: Relazione del viaggio fatto nella primavera dell’anno 1838 dalla maestâ embedded in the mud-cement for easy extrac- del re Federico Augusto di Sassonia nell’Istria, tion. After the annexation of Nis by Serbia in Dalmazia e Montenegro. Trieste: Tipografia Weis. Bronevsky, Vladimir B. 1818: Zapiski morskago oficera, 1878 Çele-Kula was fenced off and covered to protect it from ruin and to preserve this barba- v prodolzenii kampanii na Sredizemnom morf pod nacalstvom Vice-Admirala Dmitrija Nikolaevica rous monument for future generations, in mem- Senjavina ot 1805 do 1810. Sankt Peterburg: orie of the by-gone “black days” under the Turks Tipografija Imperatorskoj Rossijskoj Akademii. (Popoviç 1882: 362; Minchin 1886: 133; Askerc Browne, Edward 1685: A Brief Account of some Trav- 1893: 63; De Windt 1907: 191; Kanitz 1909: II, els in Divers Parts of Europe. London: Benj. Tooke. Burbury, John 1671: A Relation of a Journey of the 144, 179–180; Jaeckel 1910: 101; Reed 1916: Right Honourable My Lord Henry Howard, From 47). London to Vienna, and thence to Constantinople. Western travellers to the Balkans were fas- London: T. Collins, I. Ford & Hickman. cinated by local custom to cutting off the heads Çelebi, Evlija 1979: Putopis. Sarajevo: Veselin Masle- s of enemies slain in battle. To their eyes, such a a. Cerciello, Giuseppe 1896: Uno sguardo al Montenegro practise was barbaric, and marked a clear divi- (Cenno storico). Napoli: Stabilimento Tipografico G. sion between the backward Balkans and the Cerciello. enlightened West. And yet, not all who prac- Chaura, Edmund 1893: Obrázky z okupace bosenské. tised the custom were reckoned completely bar- Praha. Creagh, James 1876: Over the Borders of Christen- baric. Montenegrin head-cutters were esteemed dom and Eslamiah. London: Samuel Tinsley. heroes, “Turkish” head-cutters were considered Curtis, William Eleroy 1903: The Turk and His Lost the barbarians. On the other hand, the vivid Provinces. Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company. interest that the Western observers showed for De Windt, Harry 1907: Through Savage Europe. Lon- don: T. Fisher Unwin. th the “barbarous custom” in the 19 and the Denton, William 1877: Montenegro. Its People and th beginning of the 20 centuries seems to indi- their History. London: Daldy, Isbister & Co. cate that in the West the barbarian “Other” had Dimitz, August 1876: Geschichte Krains von der ältest- been but repressed and not completely elimi- en Zeit bis auf das Jahr 1813. Laibach: Ig. V. Klein- mayr & Fed. Bamberg. nated. But this is already another story.

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. 34 ISBN 87 635 0136 8

Durham, Mary Edith 1904: Through the Lands of the Holecek, Josef 1876: Cerná Hora. Praha: Spolek pro Serb. London: Edward Arnold. vydávání lacinych knih ceskyh. Durham, Mary Edith 1905: The Burden of the Bal- Hulme-Beamon, Aredern G. 1898: Twenty Years in the kans. London: Edward Arnold. Near East. London: Methuen & Co. Durham, Mary Edith 1914: The Struggle for Scutari. Jaeckel, Blair 1910: The Lands of the Tamed Turk or London: Edward Arnold. the Balkan States To-day. Boston: L. C. Page and Durham, Mary Edith 1920: Twenty Years of Balkan Company. Tangle. London: George Allen & Unwin. Jensen, Adolf E. 1963: Myth and Cult among Primi-

Durham, Mary Edith 1928: Some Tribal Origins, tive Peoples. Chicago and London: The University of Laws, and Customs of the Balkans. London: Allen & Chicago Press. Unwin. Kanitz, Felix 1904: Das Königreich Serbien und das Ebel, Wilhelm 1842: Zwölf Tage auf Montenegro. Serbenvolk von der Römerzeit bis zur Gegenwart. Königsberg: Verlag von J. H. Bon. Leipzig: Bernh. Meyer. Elliot, Frances 1893: Diary of an Idle Woman in Karadziç, Vuk 1837: Montenegro und die Montegriner. Constantinople. London: John Murray. Stuttgart und Tübingen: Verlag der J. G. Gott’schen Erba F. Dell’ 1896: Il Montenegro . Napoli: Casa edi- Buchhandlung. trice E. Pietrocola. Knight, E. F. 1880: Albania. A Narrative of Recent Eton, William 1798: A Survey of the Turkish Empire. Travel. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & London: T. Cadell, and W. Davies. Rivington. Illyrian Letters Reisen nach Istrien, Dal- Evans, Arthur John 1878: . London: Kohl, Johann Georg 1851: Longmans, Green, and Co. matien und Montenegro. Dresden: Arnoldische Fife-Cookson, John 1879: With the Armies of the Bal- Buchhandlung. kans and at Gallipoli in 1877–1878. London: Cas- Kovalevski, Egor Petrovic 1841: Cetyre mfsjaca v sell, Petter, Galpin & Co. Cernogorii. S.-Peterburg: A. A. Pljusar. Fox, Frank 1915: The Balkan Peninsula. London: A. & Krasinski, Valerian 1853: Montenegro, and the Slavo- C. Black. nians of Turkey. London: Chapman and Hall. Frankland, Charles Colville 1829: Travels to and from Kutschbach, Albin 1877: In Montenegro und im Insur- Constantinople, in the years 1827 and 1828: or gentenlager der Herzegowizen. Reiseskizze eines Personal narrative of a journey from Vienna, through Kriegsberichterstatters. Dortmund: Verlag C. L. Hungary, Transylvania, Wallachia, Bulgaria, and Krüger. Roumelia, to Constantinople. London: Henry Col- Lavtizar, Josip 1903: Pri Jugoslovanih. Ljubljana: burn. Slovenska Matica. Freeman, Derek 1979: Severed Heads that Germni- Layard, Austen Henry 1903: Autobiography and Let- nate. In: R. H. Hook (ed.): Fantasy and Symbol. ters. London: John Murray. Studies in Anthropological Interpretation. London Lenormant, F. 1866: Turcs et Monténégrins. Paris: and New York: Academic Press. Didier et Cie. Freeman, Edward 1877: The Ottoman Power in Eu- Mackenzie, Georgina Muir, and Adeline Paulina Irby rope. London: Macmillan & Co. 1887: Travels in Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in- Frischauf, J. 1883: Gebirgsführer durch die Österrei- Europe. London: Daldy, Isbister & Co. chischen Alpen und die Theile Bayern, Italien und Maczak, Antoni 1995: Travel in Early Modern Europe. Montenegro. Wien: Verlag des Österreichischen Cambridge: Polity Press. Touristen-Club. Mantegazza, Vico 1896: Al Montenegro. Note ed im- Frilley, G., and Jovan Wlahovitj 1876: Le Monténégro pressioni (agosto–settembre 1896). Firenze: Succes- contemporain. Paris: E. Plon et Cie. sori le Monnier. Gerlach, Stephan. (1674). Deß Aeltern Tage-Buch. Marcotti, G. 1896: Il Montenegro e le sue donne. Frankfurth am Mayn: Johann David Zunners. Milano: Fratelli Treves. Gjurgjeviç, Martin 1910: Memoari sa Balkana 1858– Matzhold, Louis A. 1936: Brandherd Balkan. Wien: L. 1878. Sarajevo: M. Gjurgjeviç. W. Seidel & Sohn. Gopceviç, Spiridon 1877: Montenegro und die Mon- Medakoviç, V. M. G. 1860: Zivot i obicai Crnogoraca. tenegriner. Leipzig: Hermann Fries. Novi Sad: Episkopska kn’igopecatna. Gopceviç, Spiridon 1879: Der turco-montenegrinische Meslin, Michelin 1987: Head. In: Mircea Eliade (ed): Krieg 1876–78. Wien: L. W. Seidel & Sohn. The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Mcmillan Gruden, Josip 1941: Zgodovina slovenskega naroda. Publishing Company: 6: 221–225. Celje: Druzba sv. Mohorja. Miller, William 1896: The Balkans. London: T. Fisher Hertzberg, Gustav 1853: Montenegro und sein Frei- Unwin; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. heitskampf. Halle: Schrödel & Simon. Minchin, James George Cotton 1886: The Growth of Hibbert, Christopher 1966: The Roots of Evil. A Social Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula. London: John

History of Crime and Punishment. Harmondsworth: Murray. Penguin Books. Moore, Frederick 1906: The Balkan Trail. London: Hitti, Philip K. 1988: History of Arabs. London: Mac- Smith, Elder, & Co. millan. Neale, J. M. 1861: Notes, Ecclesiological and Pictur-

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. ISBN 87 635 0136 8 35

esque, on Dalmatia, Croatia, Italia, Styria, with a Stanojeviç, Gligor 1957: Sçepan Mali. Beograd: Srpska Visit to Montenegro. London: J. T. Hayes. akademija nauka i umetnosti. Nenadoviç, Ljubomir 1975: O Crnogorcima. Pisma iz Stillman, William James 1877: Herzegovina and the Cetinja 1878. godine. Cetinje: Obod. late uprising: the causes of the later and the reme- Passarge, Louis 1904: Dalmatien und Montenegro. dies. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Reise- und Kulturbilder . Leipzig: Verlag von B. Thevenot, Jean de 1687: The Travels of Monsieur de Elischer Nachfolger. Thevenot into the Levant. London: H. Clark, H. Pearson, Emma Maria, and Louisa Elisabeth Faithorne, J. Adamson, C. Skenes, and T. Newbor-

McLaughlin 1877: Service in Serbia under the Red ough. Cross. London: Tinsley Brothers. Tott, François de 1785: Memoirs of the Baron de Tott, Pelerin, Charles 1860: Excursion artistique en Dal- on the Turks and the Tartars. Dublin: L. White, J. matie et en Montenegro . Paris: De Dubuisson & Co. Cash, and R. Marchbank. Pieøkowski, Karol 1869: Czarnagóra pod uzgl™dem Tozer, Henry Fanshawe 1869: Researches in the High- geograficznym, statystycznym i historycznym. Lwów: lands of Turkey. London: John Murray. Nakladem autora. Valvasor, Johann Weichard 1689: Die Ehre deß Hert- Popoviç, Sreten L. 1879–1884: Putovanje po novoj zogthums Crain. Laybach and Nürnberg. Srbiji. Beograd: Srpska knjizara Braçe M. Popo- Watkins, Thomas 1797: Travels through Switzerland, viça. Italy, Sicily, the Greek Islands to Constantinople; Quiclet 1664: Les voyages de M. Quiclet a Constanti- through Part of Greece, Ragusa, and the Dalmatian nople par terre Isles . Paris: Pierre Promé. . London: J. Owen. Rasch, Gustav 1873: Die Türken in Europa. Prag: Wilkinson, John Gardner 1848: Dalmatia and Mon- Skrejsovsky. tenegro: with a Journey to Mostar in Herzegovina. Reed, John 1916: The War in Eastern Europe. London: London: John Murray. Eveleigh Nash. Wingfield, William Frederick 1859: A tour in Dalma- Rossi, Adolfo 1897: Un’Escursione nel Montenegro. tia, Albania, and Montenegro with an historical Milano: Carlo Aliprandi. sketch of the Republic of Ragusa. London: Richard Serristori, Alfredo 1877: La costa Dalmata e il Mon- Bentley. tenegro durante la guerra del 1877. Firenze: Tipogra- Wyon, Reginald 1904: The Balkans from Within. Lon- fia di G. Barbera. don: James Finch & Co. Sommieres, L.C. Vialla de 1829: Travels in Montene- Yriarte, Charles 1981: Bosna i Hercegovina – putopis gro. London: Richard Phillips. iz vremena ustanka 1875–1876. Sarajevo: Veselin s Spencer, Edmund 1851: Travels in European Turkey Masle a. in 1850. London: Colburn and Co.

EthnologiaEthnologia Europaea Europaea vol. 31: vol. 2; 31: e-journal. 1. 2004. 2004. 36 ISBN 87 635 0136 8