Livno, Bosnia Overview

Brief History (until the collapse of Yugoslavia) -
The Livno area has been populated since approximately 2000 BC. The first known occupants are the Illyrian tribe of Dalmations. It was conquered by Romans around 120 BC. Slavs are assumed to have arrived in the 7th century, where the Illyrians assimilated with the Slav culture and slowly lost their language and customs.

Livno celebrates its founding as being September 28. 892 AD. At the time, it was the center of the medieval Kingdom of Croatia. From the 12th to 13th century, Livno was part of the Bosnian Kingdom. In the 14th century, the Ottoman Turks conquered Bosnia and thus controlled Livno for the next 400 years. In the late 19th century, Livno was occupied by the Austro-Hungarian empire. In 1918 it was part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, later renamed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Culture -
Though Livno is a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatians make up the majority of the population. Culturally, Livno is on the crossroads between Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina.

Geography -
Livno sits in the Livanjsko polje and has a small river, the Bistrica, which flows through the city. A polje is a karstic field, or plain. Karst is a geological formation shaped of the dissoltion of layer(s) of bedrock). The polje that Livno sits in is one of the largest in the world and is surrounded by 4 mountains to the south, east, west, and north. There are major two lakes -  one in the southeast, and one in the northwest. Livno is located in the northeastern section of the field beneath mount Basajkovac. There are several historical archaeological sites, rivers, lakes, waterfalls, mountains, and caves within the area. Livno is also situated ideally for hang gliding.

Potential Places to Explore
1) The Old Bridge on Duman - Duman is the source of the Bristrica. The old bridge is a national historic site.
2) The Firdus and Pirija (also known as the Smailagich) Tower - The only surviving tower from medieval times.
3) Franciscan Museum and Gallery Gorica
4) Traditional wool processing cottages and mills
5) Church at Gorica
6) Monument to King Tomislav
7) Administrative buildings from the Austro-Hungarian period
8) Illyiran ruins

Sarajevo - Crossroads of Change

The Balkans area has been a cultural crossroads since ancient times. Researchers have established a presence in the area now known as the town of Sarajevo since 2400 BC at a site called Butmir. This is one of the largest Neolithic sites in the Balkans region which yielded indications of cultural development through the houses, stone weapons, and ceramic pottery found there. Sarajevo is situated in the area of Sarajevo plain, surrounded by mountains (Bjelasnica and Igman) from the southwest, by Trebevic from the southeast, and mountains and inter-valley headlands to the north and northwest. Eventually, the Romans entered the area and built several settlements - of which Aquae Sulphurae was the most well-known, but they did not establish a significant presence in the region.

This trend appeared to continue into the Middle Ages as not much is known about this period. However, the Slavs arrived in Bosnia in the 7th century and during the 12th century the area became part of Hungary. Around this time, there was an increase in the development of the area as a cathedral dedicated to St. Peter was built in 1238 but little physical evidence of these buildings were ever found.

In 1450, Sarajevo as it is known today began as the Ottoman Empire conquered the region. Mosques - over 100 by the 16th century - and castles were built during this time and many Christians converted to Islam. The city flourished and became second in power only to Istanbul, but it was not to last. 

As the Ottoman Empire crumbled, there were various attempts to free Bosnia from Ottoman control, but even the razing of the city by the Duke of Savoy in 1697 did not gain independence. However, in 1878 the Austro-Hungarian Empire took control of the area and once again Sarajevo flourished. The past fires and destruction of the city allowed architects to rebuild the city in Victorian fashion - which resulted in the contrast of architectural styles within the city. Factories were built and Latin script was used for the first time. This all came to an end, however, with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in 1914 which set off WWI.

After WWI, Bosnia joined the Kingdom of Yugoslavia but during WWII the Axis powers took over the area and formed the state of Croatia, which included Sarajevo. During this time period, there is documentation of the persecution of Serbs by the Ustaše (the Croatian Revolutionary Movement) in addition to the opposition voiced by a group of Muslims. The end of WWII brings us to the former Yugoslav Republics and the modern history of Sarajevo. 

Sarajevo has changed nationalities so many times of the years, it is not difficult to see why a national identity is so difficult to define. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (to a degree) all have a presence in the city and with them, different cultures, morals, and values yet they remained the constant factors as the area changed hands time after time. It is interesting to note that little religious tension arose during the Ottoman empire's rule. They chose a policy of religious tolerance, as long as it didn't interfere with the Empire's functioning. However, once Sarajevo became part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, tensions began to flare just as the city began to Westernize. 

This is not to say Western presence causes religious strife, but rather a lack of tolerance. The West was  - and remains today - predominantly Christian in morals, values, and religion whereas the Ottoman Empire allowed many religions to flourish and have a significant presence in the city. Religious persecution was forbidden for centuries while Europe struggled with persecution even amongst Christians into the 1900s. This sudden change in religious tolerance - or rather the acceptance of persecution amongst religions - appears to have set fractures into the very things that helped define Bosnia and her people.

Sources:
http://www.sarajevo.ba/en/stream.php?kat=78
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/293938b2-afcd-11e3-9cd1-00144feab7de.html#axzz2x8dNGc4r
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sarajevo
http://lostislamichistory.com/non-muslim-rights-in-the-ottoman-empire/

Brief History of Belgrade

My group was assigned to plan for the city of Belgrade, Serbia, so I decided to provide a condensed history of the city so all could be familiar with its origins!  If you would like to view a 5 minute youtube video with a visual guide to the city's history, view this link:

Disclaimer: the voice on the video is automated and incredible annoying! 

One key takeaway from my readings is that Belgrade is an incredibly old city, one of the oldest permanent human settlements in the world!  The area was first settled during the Neolithic era around 8000 years ago!  The region around Belgrade was heavily valued because of the intersection of two large rivers (Sava and Danube) and the intersection of the Panonian valley and nearby mountain chains.  This geographic desirability has made Belgrade highly attractive to many nations across the centuries.  

The oldest known reference to the city itself came from the Greek writer Hesiodus in the 6th century BC.  In the 3rd century BC, the city was given the name "Singidunum" and served as a stronghold for the Celts.  Since this time, the city has seen much conflict and much bloodshed.    

Due to the strategic location of the Balkans between the Orient and the Occident, many great powers have competed for power and fought battles over Belgrade.  In the recorded history of the city, it has been completely razed more than 40 times and has changed rulers more than 60 times.  These two numbers were very easy to glance over without second thought, but try putting those numbers into context.  Imagine a city closer to home, say Atlanta.  Try to imagine the city of Atlanta being completely demolished and rebuilt over 40 times and swapping ownership between 60 different countries.  It is hardly fathomable!  In Belgrade's history, it has been owned and occupied by the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Huns, Samartians, Slavs, Goths, Bulgarians, Russians, Turks, Germans, and Austrians (to name a few).  

Through all of the turmoil in being conquered, the city was never given the opportunity to truly prosper.  However, the city started to grow at a fast rate after the Turks left Belgrade in 1867.  Population continued to grow quickly until the city was demolished in WWI and WWII.  Since then, the population has grown to around 1.7M citizens and represents more than 1/4 of the population of Serbia.  

I am very excited to visit the city to better understand its tumultuous past.  Moving forward, I want to continu to study the history of conflicts in the medieval period to better understand why this city changed ownership so frequently!

Frederick Grimm

The Geographical Designation of The Balkans

When I mention our upcoming trip to The Balkans, I tend to get many responses (excitement, concern, interest) all mixed in with the same vague look of confusion.  Where exactly are The Balkans and what makes them a unique region?  The sovereign states of the peninsula include Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Albania.  Defined by the Balkans Mountains, this region contains the most ethnic diversity in all of Europe.  While looking into its history deeper, I found the formation of the Danube-Sava-Kupa line marked a large designation in the area--both geographically and politically. 

As of 1920 until World War II, Italy was included in parts of the Balkan peninsula until its official relinquishing of Istria and Zara.  The definition of The Balkans by the Kupa river, however, remove these countries from consideration. 

Politically, the specific "Western Balkans" regions represents a Southeastern Region removed from the European Union, with what some consider more liberally leaning views.  Until membership is reached, these countries are under the watchful eye of the CEFTA.

For my next blog, I hope to look more into this political tension--keep you posted!

The Impact of Geography and Natural Terrain on History

I found Hugh’s comment about terrain influencing a range of social political relations very fascinating and it got me thinking about how geographical designs of areas both in nature and in man-made cities can have a large impact on social and political histories.  I grew up in Washington, D. C., learning that the city had been planned out strategically in 1791 to include countless “traffic circles” to create diversion and confusion in the route to the White House and Capitol in the event of that enemies ever invade the city.  The Industrial Revolution brought the development of modern day urban city centers, the main ones of which have always been traditionally located along a body of water, to allow for easy transportation of goods in and out of the city in a time when boats were the fastest route of transport.  The Alps, as an enormous mountain stretching across southern Europe have long played a role in political invasions and conflicts, particularly in historical crossings into Italy by leaders such as Napoleon in building the French Empire. 

This tradition of geographical design and natural terrain and resources having major affects on the course of history is something I have never given much thought to before, but now believe has potentially greatly shaped the world as we know it.

I am interested in looking more into studying the geology and topography of the Balkans and how it has possibly affected the history there.  In initial research, I have found discussion from U.S. Army Colonels in 1992 stating that the hilly, forested terrain of the Balkans played a large role in allowing independent guerrilla bands to hide and fire low-tech explosive weapons, to which the larger U.S. Army was nearly defenseless (source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-09-27/news/9203280132_1_mortars-balkans-croatian).  These terrain conditions also affected the Blitzkrieg invasion of Greece in 1941 at the start of WWII (source: Blitzkreig in the Balkans & Greece 1941 by Bob Carruthers).  As we delve further into research of the Balkans and finalize our ASK questions, I would be very intrigued to study further and explore the impact that the natural terrain of the Balkans has played in shaping their political history. 

Religion in Livno

Inspired by Hugh's comments about delving deep into the history of the cities and since Parker and I were assigned to explore historical landmarks in Livno this week, I have been doing some sleuthing. It is pretty difficult to find any information on things to see in Livno (it is small, only 10,000 people). Coming from the background that I do, one of the first things that comes to mind when thinking about deep history is religion.

I am intrigued by the religious history of Livno. A long long time ago, Livno was first populated in 2000 B.C. by an Ilyrian tribe. Their religion consisted of worshiping a variety of gods and was highly patriarchal and superstitious. It was actually forbidden to look at the stars (My worst nightmare!!).  
<sup>When the Romans invaded, everyone in Livno adopted their religious beliefs and then likewise in the 7th century when the Slavs invaded, they began to adopt Christianity. When Livno became a part of the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century, the country moved towards Islam. Pictured below is an iconic mosque built during the middle ages:

 

After that, Livno was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and then became communist (no religion). And now that communism has been disbanded there is freedom of religion. It's amazing the mix of religions over the years! And there are probably a lot more that I have no been able to dig up. 

Being the Catholic that I am, I also scoped out Catholic churches in Livno and found one that was built about a hundred years ago:




I foresee exploring gravestones and visiting churches as two historical activities during out time in Livno. We're really looking forward to coming up with some unique activities to introduce everyone to Livno's history!</sup>

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livno

A History to be CELEBRATED

As I read through the various articles and histories of the Balkans, I couldn't help but reminisce on my earlier years as a tenth grade high school student, sitting in AP World History, ready to claw my eyes out. I always thought to myself, "When will I EVER use this? I'm in America, not Europe." But now, I look back on that class and yearn to regain the knowledge that I had so ignorantly disregarded. Now more than ever, I see how pertinent it is to know what other countries have had to endure to achieve the positions that they currently have. Granted, I am no historian and clearly never planned on becoming one, but I am intrigued by what factors contribute to a country's current identity. Is it their language? Food? Music? All of these cultural aspects without a doubt contribute to how a country defines their self. But, one underlying theme that ties all of these traits together can be summarized in one single word: history. This fact especially holds true for the Balkans region. As this area's rich past developed, it brought along a multitude of different cultural practices, different perceptions, and unfortunately, different conflicts.

To further emphasize my ignorance, I must first state that prior to embarking on this Balkans journey, I was unaware that the Balkans was a region, not a country (I promise I didn't bribe Chaffee to let me be a PS, ya'll). But in all seriousness, I never knew that the region was so divided and had such contrasting beliefs until I read about it myself. When I did some more research on Balkan history, I came to realize how these cultural "fault lines" in Europe emerged and what exactly contributed to their permanence in the region today.

Initially, the Balkans were under the rule of the Byzantine Empire which ruled from Constantinople. They were a united people and were passionate about their cultural beliefs. It wasn't until the Byzantine Empire started to weaken that independent Slavic states began to emerge. This is where we can see the beginnings of the Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian kingdoms. There were various conflicts over land ownership, which has had modern repercussions as well. Around the 14th century, the Ottoman Turks took over, and the Balkan people came under the complete control of the Turkish Sultan. After they had control, the Turks renames Constantinople "Istanbul." If I may briefly interject, I must say that a move like THAT would have totally got me fired up. Here is this city that really was the only thing holding together all of these divisive beliefs, and the Turks swoop in and completely strip it of its significance. I personally feel like that was a large contributing factor to the finality of the Balkan area splitting up. After this, many Balkan natives began getting persecuted for their beliefs and practices due to the new authority.

Luckily, all hope was not lost, because as the Romantic movement began in the 19th century, people started to investigate their nations' individual identities, thus leading to a massive push in nationalism and desire for national states. It also helped that the Ottoman Empire was progressively growing weaker.

After reading more and more about this separation, I became aware that the separation of the Balkans region is viewed as being an upsetting time in history, However, I hope this is not offensive for me to state, but I feel that this is a time in history that should be regarded as one of the greatest, boldest times ever. Here are groups of individuals who are each passionate about their own beliefs and what their nation should represent, and they are pushing toward their goal with full-force. Things like that in our society today are celebrated, not regretted. These individual nations rose up and took on an empire much more powerful than their own and were able to come out victorious. While there may be conflict in the region today, I do feel like this particular point in history (pre-WWI) can teach us extremely important lessons that can even be applied to our time here at Tech. If you see something you want, regardless of what other people may think or say, believe wholeheartedly than you are capable, and do it.

A (Brief!) History of Yugoslav Nationalism

The Balkans have always been, at their core, a crossroads. In this intersection between Europe and Asia we find a coexistence of:

• Religion (Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim)
• People Groups (Latin/Greek/Slavic)
• Historic Cultures (Byzantine/Ottoman/Venetian/Austro-Hungarian)

This contested peninsula has been traded and dominated and reorganized throughout its history - and for most of its early history (16th-19th centuries) was dominated by other regional powers.

Sometimes we just need to look at maps to understand this stuff - so let's look at some maps!

Starting in the late 16th century, the Balkans were controlled by the Ottoman Turks, and the territories acted as the empire's foothold in Europe.

But, of course, no one was happy having the Turks in their backyards, and through a series of Ottoman wars, the European powers generally beat back the Turks until Russia finally defeated them in 1878.

This led to the Congress of Berlin, in which the major world players (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Turks) sat down to carve up the Balkans in all their imperial goodness.

Due to German/Hapsburg fears of Pan-Slavism, they decided to not unite the southern Slavic territories with Russia, but instead gave a large swath of the Balkans to Austria-Hungary (including present-day Bosnia, Croatia, and parts of Serbia/Montenegro), in addition to creating independent states of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro. 

However, due to the burgeoning Pan-Slavic movement, Serbia was unhappy with this arrangement and wanted to see the formation of a united Southern Slavic nation (what would eventually become Yugoslavia). Thus, the Serbs sponsored multiple nationalist (arguably terrorist!) groups that operated in Bosnia/Croatia during the early 20th century. 

The most notable group is the Black Hand, a group of Serbian military-sponsored students who advocated for a united Yugoslavia. This group decided the best way to split the southern Slavic territories from Austria-Hungary was by assassinating an upper-level Austria-Hungarian official, namely Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

On June 28, 1914, the Black Hand enacted a plot that ended with Gavrilo Princip shooting the Archduke and his wife during their visit to Sarajevo. This assassination set off a chain of events that allowed regional tensions to boil over into a much more massive conflict. The nationalists got a bit more than they bargained for -- namely, World War I. 

In the aftermath of World War I, the Slavic nationalists got their wish, and a united southern Slav nation was formed due to the work of the Yugoslav Committee, a group of politicians who worked ceaselessly in London during WWI to draw up plans for the new united Slavic nation. The new Yugoslavia united all of the Slavic people in the Balkans, regardless of religion or region, except for Bulgaria, which remained independent.

-----End History! ----

I think I'm just glad to get the history straight in my head. It seems that the ideas of pan-Slavism and southern Slavic unification weren't entirely born out of the imperialist climate of 19th century Europe, but instead out of necessity. The Balkans are essentially the middle four squares on the chessboard between Europe and Asia, and these people groups had been dominated by the complete list of regional powers.

There's a lot more subtlety to the history of their unification. For instance, I should mention the Illyrian movement, a group of Croat scholars and thinkers who advocated for the unification of southern Slavic culture in the mid-19th century, resulting in the official Serbo-Croatian language, as well as an outpouring of Croat literature and philosophy. I could also talk about the general nationalist movements of the 19th century, ranging from the well-known (Germany, Italy) to the less-mentioned (like Ukraine, or the Balkans!). These movements and cultural revivals obviously added to the desire for independence found in the Balkans.

At its core, the idea of a united Yugoslavia represented the hope southern Slavs had for peace. European and Asian empires had fought their wars on Balkan soil, and the only way to end this ceaseless cycle was to become a regional power. A united Yugoslavia offered all southern Slavs, regardless of religion or region, protection, influence, and peace. Essentially, it was safety in numbers.

What they didn't foresee was the large cultural differences between the different constituents of the country. These differences later caused the fracturing and wars of the late 20th century. It would be interesting to examine what happened to cause people groups who in just two generations went from being Slavic brothers to being at each other's throats.

-----
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_Yugoslavia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(Serbia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism

The History of Samobor Castle

The History of the Samobor Castle

The Modern Ruins

As I have casually perused attraction options that we as a group may explore during our first days in the Balkans, perhaps the most popular attraction is the Samobor Castle. Though the castle was built in the mid-1200’s and is undoubtedly in (beautiful and intriguing) ruins, the castle was the site of interesting historical events; these events occurred over centuries and weave a compelling story that provides specific insight into the late history of Croatia and the Balkans region as a whole. Because the castle is only a small stroll from the center of Samobor, I, having read about the history surrounding the ruins, think it would serve as a valuable stop in our Balkans adventure.

A rendering of what the castle looked like

The Samobor Castle was built by followers Otokar Premisl II, a Bohemian king who was, at the time (~1264), engaged in a war with the Hungarian monarch Stephen V. The castle is made of stone and built on top of solid rock. When the castle was less than ten years old, however, in a first of many exchanges, the castle was (year 1274) claimed by followers of the knez (Slavic title of nobility; synonymous to prince) of Okic (a neighboring—now Croatian—village). The occupation of the the castle continued, and the knez collected taxes from the people of Samobor for decades. In the fifteenth century, the castle was captured by the Counts of Celje, a Solvenia noble family. The castle continued to change owners relatively regularly; family owner after the Counts include the: Trzac, Tahy, Auersperg, Kiapach. Finally, the town of Samobor actually purchased the castle from the family Erdody-Kulmer in 1902. Since then, the castle has served as an attraction; though few have taken great efforts to restore or rebuild this now picturesque ruin. 

Here is a link to a cool 360 panorama of the castle!

A Brief History of Foreign Rule in the Balkans

"Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal ... A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all ... I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where ... Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off." -Otto von Bismarck

One of the questions our group posed was how foreign rule in the Balkans, including the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, shaped cultural identities and contributed to ethnic tensions. To begin to answer that question, I'd like to take a high-level look this week at the history of foreign rule in the Balkans - what larger entities have administered the region, and how did the Balkan nations operate during that time? Were the Balkan people subservient or rebellious? Did the empire rule firmly or more laissez-faire? Was there any sense of distinct ethnic identity, or did the ruling entity homogenize the region?

Early History
The earliest known people groups in the Balkans were the Illyrians in the west and Thracians in the east, who were influenced by Greek society. These groups formed kingdoms in response to invasions by the Persians and Celtics but later fell under Macedonian and Roman rule.

The Roman Empire
Under the Roman Empire, the Balkans experienced a high level of organization. They had military security, a single justice system and thriving commerce. In later years, Roman hegemony became threatened by Celtic invaders and an westward-expanding Dacian state until Roman emperor Trajan invaded the area and established a colony that existed until Barbarian invasions in the 200s.

The Byzantine Empire
Upon breakup of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire took hold in the eastern portion of the Balkans, while the western portion remained under Roman rule. Various barbarian groups came and went, but in the 6th century, the Slavs arrived, forming the Slovene, Croat and Serb groups. Bulgarians, a distinct ethnic group, came around the same time but migrated from Asia. These groups, while somewhat independent, for the most part fell under Byzantine rule from Constantinople. As a result, the Serbs and Bulgarians adopted Byzantine Christianity (Eastern Orthodox), while the Croats and Slovenes, more influenced by their Italian neighbors, took on the Roman Catholic version of Christianity. Albanians for the most part did not adopt Christianity at all.

Map of the Byzantine Empire in 1355

The Ottoman Empire
After defeating the Byzantine Empire, the Muslim Ottoman Empire took control of the Balkan region. Over the years, some Bosnians converted to Islam, causing strife with those who remained Christian. Serbia remained strongly anti-Muslim, prompting violent retribution from their Ottoman rulers. The Serbians rebelled sporadically against Ottoman rule, but insurrection was always definitively put down.

Map of the Balkans under Ottoman rule in the late 1800s

Post-Ottoman Rule
As the power of the Ottoman Empire waned, Russia, with its similar ethnic and religious roots, stepped in, defeating the Ottoman empire in the Balkans in 1829 and granting the region independence.

The Slavs whose descendants now populate the Balkan region did not arrive in the region until the 500s, and much of their ethnic history, it seems, was defined by religion. While heritage and geography certainly played an important part, this account of foreign rule in the region highlights the importance of the Catholic Church and Islam in delineating various groups. While little conflict was noted under Byzantine rule, the invasion of the Ottoman empire precipitated violent conflict, largely for religious reasons, in the region, sharpening ethnic lines and dividing groups.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Balkans (image)
"An Ancient Hatred," Scholastic Update, 1994
Map of the Byzantine Empire (image)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/50325/Balkans/43532/In-the-Roman-Empire

Further reading:
A History of the Balkan Peoples
The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest
http://www.balkanhistory.com/dark_ages.htm

-Trey

A Different Perspective - Chandler Barre

I am very willing to admit to my ignorance of the area - whether it be geography, culture, history, I did not know it. This ignorance made it truly a unique experience to be in charge of planning the hiking portion of the wilderness week. I quickly found out how a simple act such as hiking can be made so different by these factors. It has been enlightening to see these factors in action.

Walking, the biological ability to simply move our two legs, is something internationally we share and can be defined as a root to our humanity. We learn how to walk as infants from learning from our parents, and they learned from their parents, and so on. Each generation learned from its predecessor and if humanity all derived from a central location then how come hiking (an extreme form of walking) is so different in Croatia than it is in the US? For the answer to this we have to turn to geography, culture, and then history.

The geography of the area, as I have found, is extremely different to what we have herein the US. The countries are smaller, the mountains are rockier, and all around the elevation is lower. The area in which we will be hiking will help to truly show this but the trails we will hike were seemingly impossible to move through until this modern era. The engineering feet of the Premu žić Staza made hiking as a recreational sport possible. This was not the case in the United States where our obstacles were trees and grass; here the obstacles are sheer rock faces that come to sharp points above and below. A little more daunting over there if you ask me.

(a look at "5 fingers" along/on the Bijele stijene trail)

The second aspect to look at is culture. Hiking for days on end is not part of the mainstream culture for three reasons. One, the country is small and you cannot find the amount of true wilderness we possess in the United States this day in age in Croatia. Two, recreational hiking was not made available until more recently and that time has been cut into two segments: pre-war and post-war. Pre-war hiking was growing as a sport but the war halted this progress. Post-war, hiking is having to overcome the halt as well as the land mines. Yes, land mines. May trails along the borders have been shit down due to the numerous land mines set during the war making a small wilderness even smaller. Lastly, culture is shaped by history and the Balkans does not have a history like America does.

Focusing in on the history of the US vs the Balkans reveals that there was no pioneer era in the Balkans. There was no gold rush, there was no giant traverse across the country that shaped a generation and defined a culture in Croatia. Americans are a mobile people and the Balkans does not possess a similar historic background.

This brings me to a bigger realization - everyone views things differently, even if we call it the same term. Its the ultimate question of what if the blue I see is not the blue you see? This is not a literal statement but more of a metaphor, to say when I look at the sky it evokes a reaction to me that is different from any one else's yet it is still the same sky we all consider the same thing despite its uniqueness to each individual. Well this same concept is what I see in the sport of hiking between cultures. It is the same sport, but we play by different rules and it is important to understand not only what their rules are, but also the root cause of why their rules are what they are.

Source: (if you want to read more about the area we are hiking in visit this link)
http://www.summitpost.org/bijele-and-samarske-stijene/154086

Article Analysis: A Look at Balkan Foundations and Development

For this week’s blog post, I decided to analyze one of the articles Angela included in her letter to our faculty sponsors. I looked at “The Role of Religion and the Culture of Identity in the Public Policy: The Balkans Case” by Stevo M. Lapcevic. Before I get into my thoughts on the piece, I want to mention any bias that might be included in the article. Lapcevic is a faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, Serbia. As such, his perspective is an educated and academic one, albeit potentially biased towards Balkans nationalism. The article discusses the foundations of the Balkans and the influences that shaped the region while maintaining a bias that favors the region’s original Eurasian identity. The historical facts are accurate, but it is important to keep in mind this bias during analysis to avoid uninformed conclusions.

Lapcevic begins the article by describing the Balkan’s geographic location and the resultant implications. Geographically speaking, the Balkans lies in the center of the three “old continents” (the continents known and civilized before the discovery of the Americas and Australia). Since the Balkan Peninsula is in the middle of Europe, Africa, and Asia, it makes sense that the region would be influenced by cultures from all three continents. This is the foundation for the strong Eurasian influences on the Balkans throughout its history. Lapcevic describes the region as “catena mundi,” or the “buckle of the world”. This stresses the importance of the region in holding the three continents together. I’m not sure how much I agree with this phrase though. It is in the center, yes, but in my reading and research, I feel as though the Balkans have been more influenced by other regions and areas, rather than holding the regions together. Ethnically and culturally, the Balkans represent a blend of the surrounding continents, but this does not imply the region actively works towards holding the surrounding continents together. Jovan Cvijic, a well-known Serbian geographer and scientist, backs up my argument by claiming that the Eurasian heritage of the Balkans influenced the establishment of political and cultural systems of all the people on the peninsula.

Due to the Balkan’s centralized geographic location, the region has been buffeted by influences from other countries and cultures throughout history. Alexander the Great was one of the first major outside influences on the region. He gathered the Southern Balkans and influenced it with Eastern culture (the lands from which he came). According to Lapcevik, this made the Balkan men the “first Europeans to comprehend the full scope of the true East.” This statement holds truth, but also seems very prideful and opinionated. These eastern influences were suppressed due to later Roman influence, who tried to replace the eastern cultural characteristics with that of western culture. This ultimately failed because of the resurgence of eastern influence via Orthodox Christianity in the middle ages. Orthodox Christianity found a home in the Balkans in the identities of many of the peoples in the region. This Balkans religion differentiated itself from Russian Orthodox Christianity due to the previous cultural characteristics existing within the region. I find the back and forth influence between the East and West to be an interesting occurrence in the development of the area.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the article is the interplay between religion and linguistics and their role on shaping the culture in the Balkans. I had no idea that Latin is a sister language to the Cyrillic alphabet. Both are of Greek origin and represent two branches that are differentiated by the locations in which they took root. Latin developed in the west and became the language of the Catholic Church, while Cyrillic developed in the Balkans. Alexander of Macedon is credited as one of the large proponents of spreading the Latin Code and is one of the reasons it entered the Balkans. The subsequent fluctuation of prominence between the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets in the Balkans became a function of the fluctuations in influences from outer regions. This is not an intuitive connection and presents an interesting argument, in my opinion. The Latin prominence was equated with the Catholic Church and western influence, while Cyrillic prominence supports the Balkan’s Eurasian heritage. In a region that always seems to be influenced by outside powers, I find it intriguing that the melting pot of cultures took on its own Balkan identity, which made its way into languages like Cyrillic. Serbian scholar Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic was responsible for bringing the Balkan languages to the masses from the scholarly monastery. Under mixed public opinion, yet respected by the Grimm brothers, Goethe, Paul Schaffarik, Nikola Tomazeo and many other authors and linguists, Karadzic collected and published Romanian, Albanian and Bulgarian folk literature in addition to his native Serbian language.

The languages of the Balkans reflected and still reflect the amount of outside influence on the region, both politically and culturally. For example, the Croatian language alternated between Croatian, Serbian, and a Serbian-Croatian mix in recent history. Speaking Serbian holds ties to the Eurasian Balkans foundation, while the newer Croatian language represents an independent and somewhat western perspective. This is a sentiment that Lapcevik repeats several times in his article, saying Croatia is ashamed about its Balkans heritage and is pioneering a “retreat from Eurasianism.” I would say this is an accurate argument. Croatia has repeatedly sought independence and western influence, most recently in its decade-long attempts to join the European Union (EU), which was successful as of June 2013. Lapcevik goes on to describe how in some cases, languages and linguistics are used as a political statement. For instance, Montenegro recently created a “Montenegrin” language, which is “linguistically unfounded” and “does not differ from Serbian at all.” In this case, the creation of a “new” language is an assertion of independence.

These language variations ultimately convey the dissociation of the Eurasian Balkans foundation, which is Lapcevik’s primary take away from the article. Spirituality is still varied in the region, but politics and economics are much more dependent upon the West and Russia. Tadeusz Zielinski, a philologist and professor at Warsaw University, offers a unique prediction about the future of the Balkans region. He stresses that the peninsula will be the pillar of the “fourth European renaissance” in which the Balkans will find a spiritual and ethical unity of variations in the region’s culture. I am skeptical of such a prediction, due to the present unrest in the region and the recent conflict, but only time will tell whether Zielinski’s prediction is accurate.

References: http://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/role-religion-and-culture-identity-public-policy-balkans-case#.UzHKFfldWSp

History and Geology of Zagreb, Croatia

When looking into the history and Geology of the Balkans, I wanted to focus in on Zagreb, Croatia because it is one of the cities that my group is planning. One of the first things that I noticed was that even with Croatia's expansive coast line the capital city of Zagreb is not located on the coast. Zagreb is in the center of the arc of the country as shown below.

I found this odd at first because having a direct sea port can be very beneficial to a cities trade and overall well-being. I decided to look further into the geography and history as to why Zagreb was founded in the location it was, why it is called Zagreb, and the impact the geological structures have had on its history.

I found that Zagreb is located around the Sava River and below the southern slopes of the Medvednica Mountain. The Sava River provides the city with a source of fresh water and the mountain would have provided protection for the city. The term Zagrabiti translates directly to "to scoop" and is believed to be the foundation for "Zagreb." This term relates to the urban legend that the city was near a graba (water-filled hole) and early settlers had to scoop the water out of the hole.

The countries actions during the 19th and 20th century helped the city flourish. Cultural and Historic institutions were constructed as well as Croatia's first railroad. During this time the population increased greatly. It was during this time that Zagreb became the center of Croatia because it linked the entire country through a network of rail and roads. In WWII when Croatia became the Independent State of Croatia which was backed by Germany and Italy, Zagreb became the capital city.

During the 1991-1995 war between Croatia and Serbia over Croatian independence, Zagreb's location in the northwest part of the country allowed it to escape bombing and stay relatively preserved. The combination of the location and geographic features has allowed Zagreb to develop and prosper as the capital of Croatia.

Balkans Current Economics

Although much has been discussed with regards to the political forces at work in the Balkans, both today and during the conflicts during the 1990's, I think much less attention has been given to the economic side.

As they say, "follow the money".

In general, I’m looking for answers to the following questions:

-          What economically identifies these separate national groups?

-          What industries have dominated these nations in the past and which have perhaps taken their place in more modern times?

-          How are these nations affected by global economics?

-          How did the 2008-2009 recession affect the Balkan Nations?

Below represents the summary of some of the economic research that i've compiled.

General Economic Facts
	Serbia	Bosnia & Herzegovina	Croatia	US
Population	7.6 million	3.9 million	4.4 million	314.2 million
GDP per capita	$10,405	$8,216	$17,810	$49,922
Unemployment	23.1%	28.0%	15%	8.1%
Currency	Dinar	Convertible Mark	Kuna	Dollar
Highlighted Economic Problems	Corruption, large information sector	Corruption, government gridlock	Corruption, Cumbersome court system	Government gridlock (example given was natl park shutdown)
Government Spending (as % of total GDP)	64%	45%	56%	>100%
Source: 2014 Index of Economic Freedom

GDP Composition by Sector of Origin
	Serbia	Bosnia & Herzegovina	Croatia	US
Agriculture	7.9%	8.1%	5.0%	1.1%
Industry	31.8%	26.4%	25.8%	19.5%
Services	60.3%	65.5%	69.2%	79.4%
Source: CIA Factbook - 2013

Religion
	Serbia	Bosnia & Herzegovina	Croatia
Roman Catholic	5	15	86.3
Orthodox	84.6	31	4.4
Muslim	3.1	40	1.5
Other	1.8	14	1.5
Unspecified	4.5	n/a	2.5
Not religious or atheist	1.1	n/a	3.8
Source: CIA World Factbook

United States: Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)