The city authorities in Varaždin compiled a number of lists of estate owners with the purpose of collecting the regular and supplementary taxes as well as other levies imposed by the city government. ...From the second half of the 17th century nine such records have been preserved, the last of which, dating from 1698, is a complete document, while the rest refer only to certain city areas. The records also provide information on the number of parcels owned by Jesuits, Pauline Fathers, prelates, members of the Varaždin Generalate, and customs offices, which, as owners of city parcels, were also required to pay taxes. The amount of these taxes depended on the size of their parcels. The analysis of the average size of estates shows that there is a noticeable economic and social divergence in the city during the second half of the 17th century. While the inner-city inhabitants owned 1.5 – 2 plots on average, in the suburbs the average estate size was between 1.1 and 1.4 plots. The average size of estates was affected by the owners of a larger number of plots, such as monasteries, the Church, and both military and civil services of the Kingdom. The number of their plots, particularly in the inner city is increasing and at the end of the 17th century they own more than twenty percent of city lands. The biggest individual owners are Jesuits. A larger number of plots is also owned by judges, senators and noblemen. In the suburbs, there is a completely different process at work. Instead of augmentation, the estates are being divided into smaller parcels of land. This proves a higher population density in the suburban areas, which resulted in an increased number of the poor and those citizens whose economic power is in decline. Besides allowing the analysis of the economic and social processes in the city, the records are a valuable source in estimating the number of inhabitants in Varaždin at the end of the 17th century. Taking into consideration the number of uninhabited plots and the average number of household members, between 2,850 and 3,350 inhabitants are estimated to have lived in Varaždin at that time. Except for the names and plot sizes, the records also contain the information on locations, types, quality of these lands and the amount of taxes and duties paid. They are therefore an important source in investigating the history of the land register of the city of Varaždin.
Since the scope of the territory which can be brought into relation with the term Sandžak has varied during history, and considering that it does not form an administrative unit with the defined ...spatial frame, it is essential to define the areas belonging to Sandžak. For the duration of the Ottoman rule it was the easternmost part of the Eyalet of Bosnia. After the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: B&H) by Austria-Hungary, that part remained under Ottoman rule within the territory of Kosovo Vilayet. In terms of territory, it functioned as a kind of geopolitical wedge between Serbia and Montenegro. Considering that it occasionally represented a unique administrative unit, that part of the former Ottoman Bosnia was commonly referred to as the Sandžak of Novi Pazar. Nonetheless, during the final stage of Ottoman rule, it was divided into the Sandžaks of Pljevlja, Sjenica, Peć and Priština. The whole area was divided in 1912, during the First Balkan War between Serbia and Montenegro. The division had been short-lived as it was followed by World War I (1914–1918) and by the occupation of the two countries. After the war, Montenegro was incorporated into the territory of Serbia, which later became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes / Yugoslavia (1918–1941). Sandžak was again divided after World War II (1939–1945) due to federalization of socialist Yugoslavia. Approximately following the line of 1912, its northern part was annexed to Serbia, and southern to Montenegro. The territory of Sandžak was finally defined upon administrative division of the Yugoslav republics into municipalities, carried out at the end of the 1950s. Its Serbian region became part of the municipalities of Priboj, Nova Varoš, Prijepolje, Sjenica, Novi Pazar and Tutin, and the Montenegrin one was incorporated into Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Ivangrad (which was its name until 1949, since 1992 it has been “Berane”), Rožaj (since the 2003 list; “Rožaje '') and Plav. Sandžak occupies 8.687 km², with its Serb part amounting to an area of 4.499 km² (51.8%) and the Montenegrin to 4.188 km² (48.2%). The number of municipalities we can consider as part of Sandžak has increased. While the municipality of Andrijevica was formed from the southern part of Berane municipality in 1990, Petnjica municipality was established from the northern part in 2012.Mitrovica (Kosovo, Tito’s) and its surroundings were also part of the Sandžak of Novi Pazar. After World War II it was integrated into Kosovo and has been perceived as its part. On the other hand, the modern notion of Sandžak includes the town of Plav in Montenegro, which did not use to be perceived as its part. Although Sandžak remains recognisable as a separate formation, it is essentially a historical perception maintained by the distinctiveness of its ethnic features. It is seen as a region inhabited by Bosniaks (predominantly in the east, towards Kosovo) as well as Serbs and Montenegrins (mostly in the west, towards B&H). This paper presents the data of all modern population censuses providing a more or less clear image of the ethnic features of Sandžak. The censuses included are those carried out between 1921 and 2011 within several countries, namely in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (SHS) (as of 1929; the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), socialist Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia / the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (1992–2003 / 2003–2006) and in independent Serbia and Montenegro (since 2006). The indicators presented refer to the total population of Sandžak, providing basis for various analyses, comparisons and conclusions. The attached paper was focused on the Bosniak community. We have attempted to determine the extent to which the Sandžak Bosniaks have expressed their ethnicity or national affiliation in accordance with the Bosniaks in B&H. The attempt was made both at the level of the entire Sandžak and of its Serbian and Montenegrin part. At the same time, the analysis conducted enabled the comparison of Bosniaks’ census declaration in those two parts of Sandžak. With regard to the objectives stated, the first two censuses, the ones from 1921 and 1931, are virtually unusable considering that they did not register ethnicity. As they contain data on religious affiliation and mother tongue, data on ethnicity may only be obtained indirectly, i.e. by combining the former two indicators. However, one should bear in mind that the data thus obtained only have approximate value, considering that the population might not have declared their ethnicity as such, had they had the opportunity in those years. Nevertheless, those censuses have a reference significance for the subsequent periods, so their indicators are also included in the paper.The subjects of the analysis were primarily the results of the censuses conducted from 1948 until 2011, that is, the censuses allowing for an insight into the ethnic or national positioning of all the groups, including the Bosniaks. In the case of Bosniaks; in accordance with the political circumstances, the first three censuses conducted in socialist Yugoslavia were not aligned with the reality of their autonomy. However, they nevertheless offered opportunities to express their own identity, albeit indirectly. In 1971, in the context of political recognition of the national distinctiveness of Bosniaks, then known as “Muslims”, new circumstances emerged in terms of quality, to be reflected in the subsequent two censuses. They have changed somewhat due to the replacement of the Muslim national name with the name “Bosniaks” in the early 1990s. This is also evidenced by the results of the censuses covering Sandžak after the disintegration of socialist Yugoslavia. The following conclusions may be drawn from the insights into census results as well as from their analysis and comparison.Although the Communist government generally approached the Bosniaks as a separate ethnic entity, it took a long time to issue a political acknowledgement of the Bosniak national distinctiveness. This reality was already reflected in the first census carried out in 1948, in which the Bosniaks were given the opportunity to declare themselves as “undeclared Muslims” in order to demonstrate their own autonomy. In B&H, almost 90% of Bosniaks identified themselves as such. In Sandžak, such declarations were rare and only occurred in its Serbian part, where Bosniaks mostly declared themselves as Serbs. In the Montenegrin part, they almost completely identified themselves as Montenegrins. Within the 1953 census, Bosniaks were provided an opportunity to declare themselves as “undeclared Yugoslavs”, which was done by 95% of them in B&H. In the Serbian part of Sandžak, the majority of Bosniaks also identified themselves as such, but a significant part of them declared themselves as Turks. Unlike the Serbian part of Sandžak, where Bosniaks decreasingly identified themselves as Serbs, in the Montenegrin part, they continued to refer to themselves as Montenegrins. In that census, as well as in the subsequent ones, a smaller number of the Montenegrin Bosniaks identified themselves as Turks. In that and in the subsequent two censuses, expression of Turkish nationality was closely related to the then mass emigration of Sandžak Bosniaks to Turkey. Acceptance of Turkish national identity was supposed to facilitate the process of overcoming the constraints that have stood in the way of emigration from the homeland and immigration in the country specified.In the 1961 census, Bosniaks were able to declare themselves as “Muslims in terms of ethnicity”. In B&H, almost the entire population of Bosniaks opted for that possibility, as well as the one that had been offered as the alternative possibility in the previous census (“undeclared Yugoslavs”) In the Serbian part of Sandžak, the vast majority of Bosniaks declared themselves as “Muslims in terms of ethnicity”, but again, a substantial number identified themselves as Turks. In the Montenegrin part; in 1961 the Bosniak population declared themselves as “Muslims in terms of ethnicity” and as Montenegrins in equal measure.After the constitution of the nation of “Muslims” was politically accepted in the late 1960s, almost all Bosniaks from B&H and Sandžak opted for that entry in the 1971 census. In the Serbian part, only a small number identified themselves as Turks. The 1981 and 1991 censuses are significant as they confirmed the 1971 rule, with a significant part of B&H Bosniaks, together with Croats and Serbs, declaring themselves as “Yugoslavs”. Such declaration was scarce in Sandžak. As the Bosniaks accepted the replacement of their former national name in 1993, a new situation emerged, which was registered in the subsequent censuses. Within them, the reality of Bosniak nationality was accepted, but a possibility was left for declaring oneself as “Muslim” both in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro and of B&H. Of the total number of declared Bosniaks and Muslims, the 2002 census counted close to 6% of Muslims in the Serbian part of Sandžak, while the 2003 census counted as much as 26% of them in Montenegro. It could be said that a part of the population declared in those censuses had not yet adequately perceived the significance of the changes relating to national affiliation, but would do so eventually. That situation was similar to the 1961 census, when a significant part of Bosniaks in B&H did not declare themselves as “Muslims in terms of ethnicity” but as “undeclared Yugoslavs” in accordance with the previous census. In B&H, that “anomaly” was bypassed already in the subsequent census. However, not in the case of Sandžak. In the 2011 census, Muslims comprised 8% of the total number of declared Bosniaks and Muslims in the Serbian part of Sandžak, while there were almost 20% of them in the Montenegrin part. As opposed to that, in the first census that was held in B&H after 1991, i.e. the 2013 census, Muslims compris
Zadar is one of the cities with longest urban tradition and continuous population in Croatia. This article deals with the number of inhabitants in Zadar throughout the history, particularly from 15th ...century on, when first censuses were taken. Until the second half of 20th century, the population growth was slow and depended mostly on numerous wars, economic conditions, epidemics and famines that caused massive death and migrations of the population within the city and in its surroundings. It was only after the Second World War that population growth was rapid, due to industrialization and stronger economic development of the town.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The majority of Croats in Montenegro are the native population traditionally living in the Bay of Kotor, the town of Budva and Bar and its surroundings. A minority of them are immigrants or their ...descendants. As early as during the Austro–Hungarian rule over the Montenegrin coast, and especially during the Yugoslav period, they inhabited the area of today’s Montenegro, mostly its inland towns. This paper primarily aims to present and analyse the size of the Croatian population in Montenegro in general and at the level of its administrative units. To do so, it uses data from the censuses conducted from 1948 to 2011, which recorded national affiliation, among other things. In the context of those censuses, one can argue that, during their conduct, it was possible to declare oneself as a Croat, and that a major share of the population avoided declaring themselves as such although they could, based on their ethnic characteristics.Accordingly, the second aim of the paper was to attempt to determine, in the context of the 2011 census, which is a source of plenty of relevant data, not only the number of declared Croats but also those who were undeclared as such, but could certainly be considered to belong to the same linguistic, religious and cultural community as Croats. For this paper, that wider unit was termed the Slavic Catholic community (Slavic–Catholic), which is already recognised in language as the Central South Slavic area (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro), among other things as a certain “opposite” of the Slavic–Orthodox and Slavic–Muslim communities of the same spatial scope. To better understand the position of Croats in Montenegro, and especially their reluctance to declare Croatian national affiliation, which is more and more evident over time, an integral part of the paper is an appropriate presentation of historical circumstances that have framed their past and present identity positioning.The first data on the presence of Croats in today’s Montenegrin area refers to the period of Slavic settlement of South-east Europe, which took place until the beginning of the 7th century. According to the work of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (945–959), “On the Governance of the Empire”, during their settlement, Croats occupied the former Roman province of Dalmatia (which, according to the author, “started from the surroundings of Durrës and Bar and stretched to the Istrian mountains and to the river Danube in width”), as well as Pannonia and Illyricum. According to the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, probably written by the (Arch)Bishop of Bar Gregory in the period 1177–1189, upon settlement the Slavs had founded a state, the backbone of which was on the coast, between Istria and today’s northern Albania. According to the Chronicle, that coastal belt was divided into White and Red Croatia, which stretched from Duvanjsko Polje further south. Besides, Byzantine 11th- and 12th-century writers mention Croats and Croatia in the context of the area of today’s Montenegro.However, from the beginning of the 9th century, that is, the point in time from which one can continuously follow the political development in the Adriatic–Dinaric belt, or the area of the former Roman Dalmatia, it is certain that four smaller Slavic principalities existed between the rivers Cetina and Bojana: Neretva, Zahumlje, Travunia and Duklja. In the mid 11th century, Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje were united into a state at the initiative of the rulers of Duklja. The expanded state of Duklja, ruled by the Vojislavljević dynasty, gained international acknowledgement since the papacy recognised it as a separate kingdom and a strong lever for maintaining its own identity, manifested in the existence of a state religious centre in the form of the Catholic metropolis of Bar. Such circumstances could have suggested the emergence of a much wider state unit, located approximately between the rivers Neretva and Drim on the one side and the Adriatic and the river Tara on the other, which would have implied the formation of an ethnic body.However, events unfolded in a different direction. Since the mid 12th century the state of Duklja had been losing ever more power, completely falling under the ruler of neighbouring Orthodox Serbia at the end of the same century. During that time the Schism of 1054 acquired full significance. The 1204 establishment of the Latin Empire, with its seat in Constantinople, led to a strong polarisation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. In such conditions, upon establishment of its own church in 1219, the Serbian dynasty of Nemanjić began to carry out mass Orthodoxisation of the Zahumlje and Duklja areas to ensure their loyalty. Primarily exposed to religious conversion were Slavic Catholic people, who, at that time, shared many similarities with the neighbouring Orthodox in the entire area of the Adriatic–Dinaric belt in terms of external manifestations of their Christian identity, significantly marked by the tradition of Cyril and Methodius. Coastal, communal centres in the area of today’s Montenegro, Kotor, Budva and Bar, at the time still largely Romanesque, but eventually Slavicised, and their “belonging” or gravitating Slavic population, as well as the Albanian population located next to gradually Albanianised Ulcinj, along the river Bojana and in Malesia, were left Catholics.The territorial relations between Catholics and Orthodox established at the time have largely remained relevant until modern times. In the area of today’s Montenegro, the Slavic Catholic population was in principle reduced to a distinct minority concentrated in and around the coastal communes. As the Serbian state weakened from the mid 14th century, those communes gradually merged with the western states, and ultimately with the Venetian Republic. They remained under its rule until the end of the 18th century. After that, they were mainly part of the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia until 1918. Under those conditions, sharing the social climate with the population of the eastern Adriatic coast, who spoke the same language and shared the same religion, from the mid 19th century the Slavic Catholic population of today’s Montenegrin coast became involved in the processes leading to the constitution of the Croatian nation.The political and social development of the Orthodox population in Montenegro took a different course. By integrating into the de facto Serbian Orthodox Church, they began acquiring Serbian ethnic characteristics. However, given the disintegration of the Serbian state on a part of today’s Montenegrin territory, a new state emerged in the form of Zeta, centred in sub-Lovćen Montenegro and ruled by the Balšić dynasty and the Crnojević dynasty. During the Ottoman rule, which began in the late 15th century, sub-Lovćen Montenegro retained a certain autonomy, which became the basis for the formation of the Montenegrin state close to its current borders in the late 17th century. While the Montenegrin population “remained” in the identity sphere of proto-national Serbs due to Orthodoxy, imbued with the cult of the Nemanjić dynasty, its peculiar development enabled them to acquire own ethnic consciousness. The dichotomy between the Montenegrin and Serbian sense of identity has not been overcome to this day, which is becoming increasingly clear in the division of the Orthodox population between the national Montenegrins and the national Serbs.With the disintegration of Austro–Hungary and the emergence of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, that is, Yugoslavia, the Slavic Catholic population in the area of today’s Montenegro found itself permanently separated from the political, or at least administrative framework defined by the Catholic majority, after almost five hundred years. Instead, it became a distinct minority group in an environment that was continuously exposed to strong Serbian influences, even after Montenegro gained independence. Over time, following the processes of migration towards the coast, it also became a minority in settlements where it once represented the only or majority population. Under those conditions, strongly marked by latent or real contradictions in the relations between Croats and Serbs and often radical manifestations of Serbian identity in their environment, for the Slavic Catholic population in Montenegro, the declaration of Croatian identity became a kind of burden that not everyone was ready or able to bear. In that context, among other things, it is worth looking at the data presented, which points to a decline in the share of Croats in Montenegro. Equally, attention should be paid to the data from the 2011 census, which indicates a kind of mass declaration of “alternative” forms of ethnicity on the part of the Slavic–Catholic population.According to the first census, the one of 1921, which covered the population of all parts of today’s Montenegro, 313,432 inhabitants lived on its soil, of which between 11,380 and 12,145 were Croats and other members of the Slavic–Catholic community. According to that census, which took no account of the national determinant, but recorded the religious and linguistic ones, the share of members of that community in the total population inhabiting the area of today’s Montenegro was between 3.6% and 3.9%. The censuses after 1945, which, as pointed out, covered the national determinant and were conducted in socialist Yugoslavia (1945–1991), Federal Republic of Yugoslavia / the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (1991–2006) and in independent Montenegro (since 2006) recorded the following shares of Croats in Montenegro: 6,808 (in 1948), 9,814 (in 1953), 10,664 (in 1961), 9,192 (in 1971), 6,904 (in 1981), 6,244 (in 1991), 6,811 (in 2003), and 6,021 (in 2011).It is evident from the first censuses that part of the Slavic–Catholics in Montenegro did not declare themselves as Croats. This is primarily the case in Bar and its surroundin
The paper analyses nine Roma families who lived in Stupnik Municipality; more precisely, in the villages of Žitarka and Razborišće, on the eve of World War II. The research draws from a questionnaire ...used by the municipal authorities in late August 1939 to survey and register the Roma men and women from those families, seeking to implement a policy of the Banovina authorities aimed at better controlling the migration of Roma people. Nowadays, these files are kept at the State Archives in Zagreb, in the holdings of the Administrative Municipality of Stupnik. The analysis of these data served as a basis for examining the demographic and socio-economic structure of individual Roma families in inter-war Croatia, more specifically, in the Banovina of Croatia.
The first piece of data from the 1939 census of Stupnik Roma that can be analysed is their demographic structure. The average age of the total of 30 registered Roma was 26.9 years, which indicates a middle age structure. Roma parents were on average 35.2 years old, while the average age of their children was 16.4 years, which merely confirms their middle age structure. These data correspond to the age structure of Roma in other areas of inter-war Croatia, where approximately 44% of all Roma registered in the Sava Banovina in 1931 were between 20 and 59 years old.
The family structure shows that the nine registered Roma families had an average of 3.5 members, while three families had no children. Almost all families consisted of a married couple with or without children, while only one family included a mother-in-law (husband›s mother). This file also reveals whether the Roma were legally married or lived in a “concubinage”, i.e. in an extramarital union. Half of the Roma couples were legally married, while the other half were unmarried. The issue of marriage legality is followed by the issue of their attitudes to religion, especially when it comes to the baptism of children. All Roma interviewed stated that they had been baptised, as well as their children, which suggests that the registered Roma from Stupnik were religious insofar as they and their children had been baptised, but the documents themselves provide no insight into their personal attitude toward religion.
A review of the data from the Roma census enables an analysis of their economic position and migration routes. All registered Roma people stated that they were engaged in agriculture on small plots of land. When it comes to migration, it is important to point out that those Roma lived a sedentary lifestyle. Comparison between the birthplace of the registered Roma and the place of their residence in Stupnik municipality shows that they had been migrating only within the wider Zagreb area. In addition, data were collected on their plans to emigrate from their (Stupnik) municipality, with all registered Roma stating that they intended to stay in that area, which further underlines the high level of their social integration.
The final question of the interviews with the Roma was related to military service. These data reveal that a part of the Roma served in the army during World War I, while the second part was declared unfit for the army, although some of them also took part in military operations during the war.
The analysis of the above data leads to certain conclusions. In 1939, nine Roma families with a total of 27 members lived in Stupnik municipality. They were permanent residents of the villages of Žitarka and Razborišće. Their average age of 26 corresponds to the average age of registered Roma in the Sava Banovina. Most Roma families consisted of a mother and father with children, while only one of them included a mother-in-law. Half of the Roma partners were legally married, while the other half were unmarried or living in concubinage. It is interesting to note that all registered Roma had been baptised, which can be explained by a certain level of adaptation to the local environment. The analysis of the above data reveals that the majority of Roma households were engaged in agriculture, while a minor part were workers. The Stupnik authorities were particularly interested in where the Roma had immigrated from and whether they intended to stay or relocate. All registered Roma were born and lived near Stupnik municipality, mostly in the areas of Sv. Klara, Sv. Nedjelja and Samobor. The question concerning military service also reveals the attitude of the Roma towards state authorities. These data are diverse, too. While some stated that they had actively fought in World War I, others had been declared unfit. Further research into the history of the Stupnik Roma shows that the municipal authorities registered Roma twice in two years (in May 1940 and in July 1941). That was in line with the local provisions of official authorities for resolving the issue of relations with the Roma. Those Roma were also victims of the Ustasha genocidal policy of Roma extermination. In early June 1942, they were forcibly evicted and deported to the Jasenovac concentration camp, where they were killed. This historical demographic and socio-economic analysis of the Roma community in a certain area aims to contribute to a better understanding of the history of the Roma in Croatia.
U radu se, na osnovi arhivske građe državnih arhiva u Bjelovaru i u Zagrebu, literature, periodike, službenih novina i časopisa, prikazuju rezultati istraživanja prvih parlamentarnih izbora, održanih ...11. studenoga 1945., za izbor zastupnika u Ustavotvornu skupštinu Demokratske Federativne Jugoslavije na području izbornog okruga Bjelovar. Izbornim zakonima, donesenima u kolovozu 1945., iz izbornog postupka eliminirani su svi potencijalni glasači koji su mogli ugroziti parlamentanu legitimizaciju Komunističke partije Jugoslavije. Unatoč pobjedi kandidata Narodne fronte, rezultati izbora na području izbornog okruga Bjelovar ukazivali su na postojanje „lokalnih džepova otpora“ službenoj vlasti, a koji su bili bliski predratnoj politici Hrvatske seljačke stranke.
Pojava časopisa i izdavača upitne kvalitete postala je velik problem za znanstvenu
komunikaciju, ali i za razvoj znanosti i ljudskoga društva. Takvi se
časopisi objavljuju u otvorenom pristupu, ...koriste poslovni model naplate troškova
objave autorima, a pri tome ne provode recenziju, već objavljuju sve bez
ikakvih kriterija. Prema tome, osnovno obilježje časopisa upitne kvalitete jest
neselektivnost u procesu odabira rukopisa zbog nepostojanja recenzijskog
postupka. Od izuzetne je važnosti da takve časopise korisnici (znanstvenici,
ali i šira javnost) znaju prepoznati. Cilj je rada istražiti pojavu časopisa i izdavača
upitne kvalitete kao anomaliju unutar izgrađivanoga modela znanstvene
komunikacije putem znanstvenih časopisa u hrvatskoj znanstvenoj zajednici.
U članku se analizira proces upravljanja zapisima u kontekstu poslovne ili organizacijske izvrsnosti kao poželjnoga koncepta upravljanja u poslovanju suvremenih organizacija. Obrađuju se tri interna ...dokumenta koje se preporuča izraditi u svakoj organizaciji i koje se smatra bitnim preduvjetima za postizanje izvrsnog upravljanja zapisima: interni akt o upravljanju zapisima, klasifikacijski plan i popis zapisa organizacije s rokovima čuvanja. Budući da sadržavaju obavijesti o vrstama, načinu odvijanja i izvođenja pojedinih aktivnosti u okviru procesa upravljanja zapisima, ta se tri dokumenta promatra kao sastavne dijelove dokumentacije sustava upravljanja kvalitetom. Ukazuje se na pozitivne učinke koje njihova primjena, osim na upravljanje zapisima, ima i na postizanje zadanog sustava kvalitete i obavljanje poslovnih procesa organizacije u cjelini.
U drugoj polovici 18. i početkom 19. stoljeća nastalo je nekoliko dokumenata u kojima su opisani vlastelinstvo Belje i njegova naselja. Budući da je vlastelinstvo zauzimalo istočni i sjeverni dio ...takozvanoga "baranjskoga trokuta", odnosno onaj njegov dio koji se proteže uz desnu obalu Dunava i lijevu obalu Drave do njenoga ušća te obuhvaća Kopački rit, u ovim se izvorima mogu naći obavijesti o rijeci Dravi, njezinom utjecaju na život baranjskoga stanovništva i organizaciju beljskoga vlastelinstva te podaci o ljudskim intervencijama radi iskorištavanja prirodnih prednosti ili rješavanja problema svojstvenih spomenutom području. Prvi od spomenutih dokumenata je Komorski popis naselja vlastelinstva Belje iz 1766. godine. Najveći dio podataka iz ovoga popisa odnosi se na stanovništvo, opis samih naselja, gospodarstvo i porezne obveze, ali se iz njih mogu iščitati i obavijesti vezane uz rijeku Dravu i život uz nju. Drugi je Popis Baranjske županije nastao 1785. godine na temelju uredbe grofa Ferenca Széchényja, kraljevskog namjesnika u pečuškom okrugu, a u sklopu jozefinističkih reformnih nastojanja. Budući da je namjera popisa bila prikupljanje što podrobnijih podataka radi uvida u stanje područja, on je bogat raznovrsnim obavijestima, između ostaloga onima o prirodnim obilježjima, uključujući i podatke o vodenim tokovima i površinama. Treći je dokument Opis beljskoga vlastelistva Josipa Payra, visokog službenika vlastelinstva Belje, koji je nastao 1824. godine. U njemu se, među ostalim, nalaze podaci o klimi, položaju, površini i tlu, rijekama, potocima, vrelima, umjetnim kanalima, navodnjavanju, ribnjacima, riječnim otocima i poluotocima, ribarstvu i drugome.
Avtor v članku razpravlja o prisotnosti Slovencev na »avstro-ogrskem« območju nekdanje SFRJ s pomočjo koncepta politično motiviranega naseljevanja na za večnacionalne države strateško pomembna ...območja. Poleg komparativne analize popisnih metodologij, ki so zbirale razne jezikovne in etnične pri- padnosti v obdobju od prvih modernih popisov sredi 19. stoletja do danes, avtor sistematično naslavlja vprašanje kvantitativne in statistične prisotnosti Slovencev na območjih, katerih teritorialne naslednice so federalne enote nekdanje Jugoslavije. Glavna skupina ugotovitev se osredinja na instrumentalizacijo etničnosti kot ključnega evidentiranega dejavnika planskih migracij s strani državnih centrov večnacionalnih držav (npr. Avstro-Ogrska, nekdanja SFRJ). Prispevek na podlagi analiz podatkov trdi, da se je motiviranost prebivalstva pripadati slovenski etniciteti bodisi skozi nominalno govorjeni jezik bodisi skozi izrecno etnično pripadnost ustvarjala in poustvarjala neodvisno od realnih migracijskih tokov.
PDF
