The Balkan region’s recent history is marked by periods of conflicts, wars and decisions aiming at redrawing the region’s borders. All these events will furthermore define the political, economic and social systems in the Balkan countries, bearing in mind that the legacy of the recent past – the remembrance – still remains a fundamental issue that must be considered from an interdisciplinary perspective in order to intensify our efforts to build a solid democracy and guarantee a sustainable future in this region.

Moreover, the narrative should be presented in a way that takes into account various experiences on different levels and social groups.

The online Regional Forum will be the occasion to discuss the challenges and the possibility to build a common narrative for the Balkan region. The conference will highlight good practices about remembrance and intercultural dialogue, including sessions for the exchange of experiences on various sub-topics such as youth, cultural tourism, languages, EU integration and fake news. The Forum will gather representatives of civil society organizations as well as cultural and educational institutions working on the topics of reconciliation and intercultural dialogue.

Last but not least of the series of webinars promoted by ALDA to unfold our new Strategic Plan, the fourth online meeting-discussion will focus on our project and development strategy in the Eastern Partnership Countries, namely Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.

As outlined by Mr Vassilis Maragos, Head of Unit – DG Near of the European Commission in a recent interview dated July 2020 “[….] shaping relations with the Eastern Partnership is a fundamental step towards European integration”. He also pointed the attention on the fact that “democracy and the rule of law remain two pillars on which every other socio-economical-political issue such as, green transition, digital transformation and fair partnerships must rely on.”

---

Join us for an online webinar on December 21^st, 2020 at 2pm to learn about our strategy in the Eastern Partnership region!

---

Absolutely in line with those principles, the webinar will unfold ALDA’s views and plan of action to contribute to the process of transformation and empowerment of Eastern Partnership-based communities.

The appointment, open to all ALDA members and partners, is on Monday, December 21^st, 2020, at 2pm CET.

Ms Antonella Valmorbida, ALDA Secretary General will open the panel and the webinar will be held by Ms Shorena Khukhua, freshly elected Governing Board member and by Mr Alexandru Coica, EaP Regional Coordinator.

To have a finest framework of the situation, it is essential to bear in mind that the Eastern Partnership area is a key working path for ALDA, since 2006. Our strategic objectives for the forthcoming years are to strengthen our presence in this region, by empowering local authorities and implementing decentralisation and territorial reforms.

ALDA members and partners, you can register THROUGH THIS LINK to join the conversation and give us your personal vision and opinion about our plan and start thinking about possible cooperation and projects in the area!

As previously announced, ALDA has revealed the launch of 4 regional webinars, free and open to ALDA’s members and partners, with the aim of unfolding the NewStrategic Plan for 2020-2024.

The first online meeting-discussion will focus on the European area and ALDA’s future strategy to strengthen local democracy in the Old Continent.

---

Join the 1st European Regional Webinar and discover our new Strategic Plan for 2020-2024!

---

The appointment is on Monday, December 7^th, 2020, at 2pm CET and it is open to all ALDA members and partners.

The conversation will be conducted by Mr Oriano Otočan, President of ALDA, Ms Antonella Valmorbida, ALDA Secretary General, Mr Francesco Zarzana and Mr Bartłomiej Ostrowski, ALDA Vice Presidents.

ALDA’s network is Europe is well developed and varied: yet a further effort to engage local stakeholders is fundamental in order to make an impact and be, together, strong change drivers. 

ALDA members and partners, REGISTER HERE to join the conversation and let’s meet each other online to discover our strategy, planned actions and pillar values!

An interview with Vladimir Martinovski, professor at the University of “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” in Skopje, Department of Comparative Literature, interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator.

Vladimir Martinovski is a poet, prose writer, literary critic, translator and musician. He is a professor at the General and Comparative Literature Department of the “Blaze Koneski” Faculty of Philology, “Ss Cyril and Methodius” University, Skopje. He received his Bachelor and Master’s degrees at the Faculty of Philology, and his PhD at the University of the New Sorbonne – Paris III. He has authored the following books: “From Image to Poem – Interference between Contemporary Macedonian Poetry and Fine Arts” (a study, 2003), “Maritime Moon” (haiku and tanka, 2003), “Hidden Poems”
(haiku, 2005), “And Water and Earth and Fire and Air” (haiku, 2006), “Comparative Triptychs” (studies and essays, 2007), “Les Musées imaginaires” or “Imaginary Museums” (a study, 2009), “A Wave Echo” (haibuns, 2009), “Reading Images – Aspects of Ekphrastic Poetry” (a study, 2009) and “Quartets” (poetry, 2010). He co-edited the books: “Ut Pictura Poesis – Poetry in Dialogue with Plastic Arts – a Thematic Selection of Macedonian Poetry” (with Nuhi Vinca, 2006), “Metamorphoses and Metatexts” (with Vesna Tomovska, 2008).

If we are to promote our rich cultural heritage, then the most logical thing to do is to preserve both the tangible and intangible cultural heritage in writing… consequently literature. Literature survives the test of time and is always apprehended. Interviewing Vladimir Martinovski on issues related to ‘shared or contested heritage’ gave us very knowledgeable, tasty and rich context in the research.

Cultural heritage tends to promote the creation of icons, which simultaneously tend to create stereotypes that risk negatively affecting individuals and groups. Such an icon needs to be critically deconstructed. What is your opinion about this discourse?

Vladimir: As the word suggests, cultural heritage is something we have inherited from previous generations. And, as well, we have borrowed it from the future ones, on behalf of whom we have an obligation to protect it. Yet, cultural heritage is something we should earn. Let us enter into living communication and save it from oblivion. Cultural heritage should enrich and ennoble our lives. To help us better understand the people of the past, and better understand each other today. To help us understand that the great achievements in art and culture belong to all mankind as signposts pointing out the best in any human. Andre Malraux said that art is one of the few things that humanity can be proud of. But when the complexity of cultural heritage is neglected, and simplifications are made based on looking through the national dioptre, it is quite easy to fall into the traps of stereotypes such as “we are the cultured ones, the others are the barbarians”. Therefore, the creation of “icons”” has two faces. On one hand, it is good to have examples from people of the past, to know and respect their meaning, and to constantly strive for their achievements and values. But even here a measure is needed. On the other hand, there is the danger of indulging in the temptations of uncritical idealisation, hyperbole, and simplification, which can lead to an idolatrous relationship, emptied of essence.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Vladimir: Words are always necessary, so there is a huge responsibility in them. The novelist Michel Butor said that all “”dumb artefacts” (artistic or architectural) are interpreted with the help of verbal discourse, “which surrounds them”, starting from the titles of the works. In other words, material, immovable cultural heritage, among other things, requires to be interpreted, explained through language. The attitude towards cultural heritage could certainly be compared to “reading” and interpreting stories. Some stories go on for millennia, some are forgotten. If the present or future generations are not shown the value, meaning, uniqueness of an object from the past, they could neglect it completely, leaving it to oblivion and the “ravages of time”. Cultural heritage requires care. Although intangible, language is also a cultural heritage site, one of the most valuable. It is through language that we realise that cultural heritage is something alive, in which each of us participates.

When dealing with shared history and heritage, international cooperation has the potential to foster more understanding within and between cultures. Do you agree? What is your personal experience?

Vladimir: International cooperation is crucial for both mutual understanding as well as understanding the concept of cultural heritage. Although there is a tendency to talk about national cultural heritage, which is quite legitimate, in essence no culture exists in isolation from others and all great achievements in culture belong to all mankind. As a phenomenon, culture is a palimpsest and the whole of culture is essentially shared. Understanding many phenomena in art, literature and culture at the national level necessarily leads us to intercultural dialogues, exchanges, as well as facing the fact that there are regional cultural achievements, as well as larger cultural zones. Great art crosses all boundaries. I have participated in many international literary festivals, where literary works are practiced by the authors to be read in the mother tongue, and then read in translation so that the local audience can understand them. It is wonderful to hear the diversity of languages, the different “music” of each language. Poets create in a language they inherited from their ancestors. But every song in the original and when translated, is not only the fruit of a linguistic tradition, it also belongs to world literature. Some of the most beautiful achievements in all segments of art are created precisely because of the mixing of cultures.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Vladimir: Unfortunately, just as material heritage (from fields to old family homes) can be a kind of “apple of discord”, likewise is the nationality of important personalities, artists or works of art from the past get bitterly disputed. Instead of critically perceiving the importance, value, and worth of those individuals or works, the discourse of belonging and possession is sometimes forced and absolutised. Some authors belong to more cultures and I do not see anything wrong with that. On the contrary. There are authors who have created in multiple languages, in multiple environments, under the influence of multiple cultures and poetics. Instead of stubbornly arguing over their belonging to a single culture, it is far better to look at them as bridges between cultures or as a common, shared value.

---

“The attitude towards cultural heritage could certainly be compared to “reading” and interpreting stories”

---

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)? 

Vladimir: The epithets you enumerate are beautiful: diversity and pluralism and self-reflection and criticism are needed, as well as scientific acrimony and readiness for different opinions, arguments and interpretations. Cultural heritage should be preserved, nurtured, to be a part of our lives.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation? 

Vladimir: As an example for shared heritage I could point to the poem “Ο Αρματωλός” / “The Serdar” (1860) by Gligor Prlichev (1830-1893), a work written in Greek, in which thematic patterns and stylistic features from Homer’s epics, the Byzantine epic tradition, the Renaissance epic and the Macedonian folklore are intertwined in a masterful way, all through the talent of an exceptional poet, who received the epithet “the Second Homer”. This poetic masterpiece dedicated to the death of the hero Kuzman Kapidan has been translated many times in both Bulgarian and Macedonian, and with its value certainly enters among the most important literary works created not only in the Balkans, but also in Europe in the XIX century. As an example of shared heritage, I would like to point out the Old Slavic language, Old Slavic literacy and literature, as a common root of all Slavic languages, including, of course, Macedonian. Challenging the authenticity of the Macedonian language due to daily political agendas which we are witnessing these days is extremely problematic, as it could translate as a challenge or dispute of the Macedonian literature, art and culture.

In a context of uncertainties and dystopias, what is the role of cultural heritage?

Vladimir: In these pandemic circumstances, we have all become convinced of the fragility, vulnerability and insecurity of today’s humanity. Due to insatiable consumerism and greed for profit, we have become a threat to other forms of existence, as well as to our cultural heritage. In a short time, our everyday life began to look like a dystopian novel. We have seen that war conflicts in the last decade in different parts of the world have irreversibly damaged significant cultural treasures. The economic crisis that is inseparable from the pandemic crisis can also affect the neglect of cultural heritage. However, let us not give in to pessimism. Just as Boccaccio’s Decameron was created during a plague epidemic, these difficult months on our planet are sure to create works of art that will grow into a significant cultural heritage site. We learn to appreciate some things only when we realise that we can easily lose them.

One of the challenges for researchers and practitioners in the field of cultural heritage is to develop more inclusive approaches to share heritage in order to transgress social and national boundaries. Any ideas on how this approach could be implemented into your particular field of interest?

Vladimir: We live in a digital age, in which inclusiveness and accessibility to different forms of cultural heritage is also realised through the Internet: from digitised manuscripts and books to accessible sound libraries and virtual visits to buildings and museums. These “digital versions” of cultural heritage are important both for archiving, as well as for new ways of presentation, close to contemporary and future generations. However, this does not exonerate us from the responsibility for permanent protection of the existing cultural heritage.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Vladimir: I agree with Holtorf. It is in these times of crisis that we see how much these values are needed, and to what extent the values and virtues of humanism and global solidarity have been forgotten. We are all connected and we can all help each other in many areas, with the care for cultural heritage being one of them.

When we discuss shared or contested heritage, the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Vladimir: We can learn a lot from the past. Among other things, that we should not allow ourselves to sacrifice the present and the future for the sake of the past. As difficult and arduous as they are, mutual reconciliation, acceptance and cooperation are the real tasks of today’s generations, to leave a better world for future generations.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

Although this year has been particularly difficult, ALDA is even more determined to support local and participative democracy as well as to strengthen citizens’ local approach and resilience.

With its 20th anniversary and also taking into consideration the crisis generated by the worldwide outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which adds to other already existing challenges, ALDA adopted a new Strategic Plan for 2020-2024 during the Annual General Assembly to increase the impact of its action and we are now proud and excited to present our networks this new strategy!

---

“Democracy and citizens’ engagement are and will be a key factor for unlocking positive and constructive proposals for the future”

---

With the aim of outlining the new strategic plan, the key objectives, the vision and ALDA’s driving forces, we are thrilled to announce the launch of 4 regional webinars, free and open to ALDA’s members and partner, which will take place during the month of December:

• 7 December/ at 2 pm CET – regional meeting with European area members and partners REGISTER HERE!
• 14 December/ at 2 pm CET – regional meeting with Mediterranean area members and partners. REGISTER HERE!
• 17 December/ at 2 pm CET – regional meeting with Balkan area members and partners. REGISTER HERE!
• 21 December/ at 2 pm CET – regional meeting with Eastern Partnership area members and partners. REGISTER HERE!

Oriano Otocan, President of ALDA and Antonella Valmorbida, ALDA General Secretary, together with the Regional Coordinators and the representatives of the new Governing Board, will unfold the vision of the quadrennial plan and will share with members and partners the new strategic views.

Democracy and citizens’ engagement are and will be a key factor for unlocking positive and constructive proposals for the future and, ALDA, together with its members and partners, wants to be at the centre of a successful proposal in order to design and activate positive changes while confronting the main current challenges.

Don’t miss the chance of discovering the new priorities of ALDA and to discuss further how to implement the plan in accordance with your local and regional priorities!

Join us online!

An interview with prof. Darija Andovska, composer, pianist and author of orchestral, chamber, solo, vocal, film, theatre and dance music, as well as music for multimedia projects, by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator.

Darija Andovska is a Macedonian trademark in the field of contemporary music, being a composer, pianist and author of chamber, solo, orchestral, symphonic, choral music as well as film music, theater, dance and multimedia projects. Her works have been performed on festivals and concerts in North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Georgia, France, England, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Austria, Albania, Russia, Mexico, Canada, Poland, Romania, Armenia and the United States of America. Her music has been recorded on CDs and sold in Switzerland, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Italy, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Germany, and her scores have been published by Nuova Stradivarius – Italy, Sordino – Switzerland, Association of Composers – North Macedonia. Won several competitions, nominated and awarded as well for film and theater music all over the world. Chosen by MusMA (Music Masters on Air) as one of the best young composers in Europe for 2013/2014. Nominated (2014) and twice awarded (2013, 2015) the “Virtuoso” award for Best Composer in Macedonia. Won the Cultural Honor Award of the City of Zürich – Best Composer in 2014. Macedonian music ambassador for the project CEEC 17+1 between China and central- and east European countries for 2016/2017 and 2018-2020. Awarded state prize “Panche Peshev” 2018 for highest achievements in music art. Andovska is an artistic director of the Days of Macedonian Music festival, under the Association of Composers of Macedonia – SOKOM. Works as professor at the Faculty for music and Faculty for dramatic arts at the State University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” in Skopje.

Music is also an integral part of the cultural heritage. Very often, contemporary musicians find inspiration in the traditional sounds and intertwine some elements of ethno-folklore in contemporary compositions in order to transmit the spirit of belonging to a certain place. Mrs Andovska being an educator (as a professor at the Academy of Music in Skopje) and an active creator in the field of culture and, as well as being a constructive critic of the Macedonian modern society, is appropriate relevant interlocutor on the topic of our research on shared or disputed inheritance.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Darija:  Our heritage is not what we choose it to be. It’s the environment that shapes our thoughts, beliefs, even our taste ever since we were kids, like the environment shapes up and directs the stem cells to develop into different tissues. It’s not about how it is presented to the public, it is already a part of us. The public that doesn’t come with the same heritage, can just observe it and accept it as it is, as a cultural diversity or partly relate to it, if there’s any connection. There’s actually no challenge in this, unless it’s put in the context of daily politics.

When dealing with shared history and heritage, international cooperation has the potential to foster more understanding within and between cultures. Do you agree? What is your personal experience?

Darija: I don’t see why this “shared history” is so prominent in the case of Macedonia. I don’t see any other countries dealing with such a problem or claiming to have shared history. Let’s challenge Greece and Turkey to have a shared history and heritage, or Greece and Bulgaria, or France and Germany, or Serbia and Croatia and Slovenia… let’s stop here. No, it doesn’t have a potential to foster more understanding, but just more oppression towards one of the parties involved.

---

“Our heritage is not what we choose it to be. It’s the environment that shapes our thoughts and beliefs”

---

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation? 

Darija: These subjects are not in my particular field of interest. I am interested in contemporary music, moreover, ethno-music has, despite some similarities, completely different parameters in each country, so it cannot be construed as “shared” heritage.

In a context of uncertainties and dystopias, what is the role of cultural heritage?

Darija: Cultural heritage is the environment in which we develop.

Can we achieve reconciliation with the help of music (and its differences and similarities) if we place it in a new context?

Darija: There’s no dispute that requires reconciliation in these matters. It’s just different. You cannot reconcile it.

One of the challenges for researchers and practitioners in the field of cultural heritage is to develop more inclusive approaches to share heritage in order to transgress social and national boundaries. Any ideas on how this approach would be implemented into your particular field of interest?

Darija: Yes, it’s a challenge because this approach is artificial. It’s redundant.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them,” said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Darija: That’s not the case with cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is alive and intertwined in all segments of our day to day life, in one way or another. It’s in the language (the rhythm), it’s in the lullabies, it’s in the anatomy structure and many other aspects.  This sitation may be applicable to some history books.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Darija: Yes, we can all add up to this and enrich the world, but not on the account of one nation or another.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Darija: I hope not. Having our own cultural heritage, language, history, etc. is a part of our basic human rights.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An interview with Tosho Spiridonov, historian, anthropologist and archaeologist from Sophia, Bulgaria, by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator

Tosho Spiridonov is a leading expert in the field of ancient Thrace, historical geography, historical ethnography, anthropology, archaeology and has particular expertise in digitisation of cultural and historical heritage. He is an associate professor of history at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and director of the National Centre for Digitalisation of the National Scientific Expeditionary Club UNESCO. Mr Spiridonov participated in the creation of numerous projects in the fields of cultural tourism, ethnology and folklore. He was a director at the Museum of History and an expert at the Ministry of Culture.

He has great collaboration with colleagues from North Macedonia, very close exchange with the Faculty of Philosophy at the University “St. Cyril and Methodius”, especially in the field of digitalisation of the cultural heritage and in the creation of a software for the Museums in Macedonia that is ready for implementation.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Tosho: The answer to all questions related to historical heritage has been and will always be complex. It is complex because it has always been influenced by the political situation, which pursues its own goals, and in the name of which it is ready to ignore the historical truth which in itself is complex. That is why heritage should be seen as something that has two sides. One side is the legacy related to the lives of the people who created it, who actually participated in its creation and used it in their daily lives. The other side is to contextualise the heritage through the perspective present life. The present context dictates to scientists and politicians (because they study, use and present this heritage to today’s people) what exactly to say, how exactly to present heritage, having today’s tasks that they have to solve.That is why the analysis of heritage has two sides that must be clearly defined and presented to the people: in what historical context this heritage was created; how we “read” this legacy today. Without this unity, society will always be subject to the influence of one or the other side of the heritage’s interpretation. That is why I believe that presenting heritage in its integrality is very important for today’s society in order to understand its past and participate in building its future.

Which are peaceful and tolerant ways of reading and presenting facts about  shared or contested history according to you?

Tosho: Reading history has two sides. One side is personal, because everyone reads it, breaking it through their personal history. For example, in Bulgaria I see that there are people who curse the time of socialism, because then the government took away some of their property  or they suffered other type of losses as a result of the system. Others, on the contrary, regret socialism, because this system  gave them the opportunity to study and achieve something in their lives. And although this example is not directly related to heritage, it is indicative of the refraction of common history through personal history. How to read and present historical facts?

The simple answer is – through compromises on both sides, in the name of the future of both parties in the dispute. If there are insurmountable points of contention, they must be set aside. They should be the subject of calm scientific debates and discussions, with all the source materials and evidence on the table. Throughout these discussions, both sides should not be subjected to political and media pressure until a positive result is achieved.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from North Macedonia and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Tosho: Yes, I have cooperation with colleagues from North Macedonia. So far I have no difficulties in this cooperation – on the contrary, I meet a positive response to our initiatives and I respond alike to their initiatives.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Tosho: I work in the field of ancient history, historical geography and archaeology. With the DIOS Society and the National Research and Expedition Club – UNESCO – Sofia  we engaged in cooperation with colleagues from the University of Skopje and the archaeological site in Stobi and we jointly developed software for the work of Macedonian museums and it is ready for implementation in practice.

Together with my colleague Svilen Stoyanov we participated in a conference in Ohrid, dedicated to the preservation of cultural heritage in North Macedonia.

I must say that I see small issues pertaining to the lack of geographical coordinates of each archaeological site, which will prevent the localisation of these sites in their exact place on the archaeological map and will make it difficult to work together. However, it opens room for a joint work in which we could cooperate – we can train Macedonian archaeologists to deal with this problem, which is essential in archaeological practice; the same is true of ethnographers and historians.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Tosho: Remembering the past is a matter of experience, and the experience is either personal or public. The personal experience of the past determines “my” attitude towards this past, which may not coincide with the public one. Social experience depends on many factors, the most important of which is the goal of today’s society and by what means can this goal will be achieved. Public experience forms the national context of cultural heritage, because it determines what selected points of reference in the history of this society will lay in the pursuit of its current goals. The regional context is something else, and it depends on the geographical location, on the local development of the given area and on the relations with the neighbouring areas. One geographical area may be more related or less related to another, and this is the most important factor as we go back in time. It all depends on the geographical location – whether an important trade route passes through a given region, whether the conditions allow a certain craft to develop, whether the region is influenced by this or that neighbouring region.Each region belongs to one or other society/state. All this happened as a consequence of the historical development of the given lands. Therefore, it is the job of this society/state to take into account the interests of each region that has fallen as a result of this historical development in this society/state. In this manner only will it be possible to build a cohesive society – when the interests of each region are taken into account. Neglecting the interests of a region leads to differences in society, which in turn leads to an unstable society. Hence the answer to the question – each region wants to preserve samples of its culture – restored, preserved, displayed. Because the further back in time we go, the greater the differences in cultural development between the different regions we see due to the weaker communications between the different regions of a country.Man has not come up with many different ways to share the patterns of cultural heritage. In summary, these are three ways – research, education and cultural tourism, each has its own specifics and can be considered at length.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them, said Anderson in 1991.” Do you agree with this citation and why?

Tosho: What Anderson says is mostly about national stories, and it’s true. What is the purpose of these stories? The national narrative has one important task – to unite the people of one territory by telling a chronologically constructed story that tells them the historical truth about themselves. He somewhat ignores the past, because there may be facts that will make one doubt whether this society is really as homogeneous as presented, whether there are no separate groups of people in it who think differently, and so on. In other words – if we start from the rule that the nation is a new stage in the ethnic development of society, it must have its own history; with it begins a new ethnic formation.

---

“Remembering the past is a matter of experience, and the experience is either personal or public”

---

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Tosho: The national narrative built on humanism and global solidarity is in the same direction as Anderson’s thinking. The same is important for Holtroff – he thinks that in no cultural heritage can be found in the past that would unite the population of a given country in the present. That is why it is important to find a new heritage – these are new “monuments of cultural heritage”, subordinated to humanism, to solidarity between the people in a country. Leaving aside to some extent the specific suggestion of the old monuments, these new “monuments” are universal, and they will unite people in the name of the future goal. These may be brand new monuments, but they may also be some of the past that will receive a new interpretation, subject to the goal – to unite the population around a single red thread – from the past. However, these old monuments must be carefully selected so as not to disturb the feelings of people who perceive them differently.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Tosho: The past is the past! It must not be distorted or transformed in the light of today’s political or national tasks. Such a transformation will lead to greater complications within the society/state itself and to greater difficulties in solving today’s tasks. A new nation must be built on two main pillars. The first is the past, the second is the future. The past – no matter what it is, is not crucial, it only tells us that a population lived in this area in the past. That is why a certain point in time is chosen, from which the gradual formation of the new nation begins – no matter what the reasons. It is important what the roots are, but more important is what today’s population creates, how they process the knowledge about themselves. It could be as (planting one variety of apple on another tree – a rough but true principle – the roots are old, with their “history”, but the apple already represents a new variety, and this is more important.

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)? 

Tosho: I believe that anyone who deals with cultural heritage and works with good intentions and commitment can solve at least one of the problems. The disputed heritage must be considered in the context of the time in which it was created. At that precise moment it met the requirements of that society. However, viewed in the context of today’s society heritage looks (or presents itself) in a different way. It’s all a matter of how today’s society “sees” this legacy, not what it represented then. In the theory of the ethnos, each new ethnic group is built on the basis of at least two other, relatively different ethnic groups. If we do not recognise these ethnic groups, then obviously we will have difficulties in building “ours”, today’s ethnic group.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Tosho: As is well known, politics is an art of compromise. If the story is written in a way that respects the views of both parties, anyone who reads it can find in it what interests them. Then the cultural heritage will be clearer, understandable and accepted by society.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

Darija: Yes, it’s a challenge because this approach is artificial. It’s redundant.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them,” said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Darija: That’s not the case with cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is alive and intertwined in all segments of our day to day life, in one way or another. It’s in the language (the rhythm), it’s in the lullabies, it’s in the anatomy structure and many other aspects.  This sitation may be applicable to some history books.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Darija: Yes, we can all add up to this and enrich the world, but not on the account of one nation or another.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Darija: I hope not. Having our own cultural heritage, language, history, etc. is a part of our basic human rights.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An interview with Sanja Ivanovska Velkoska, archaeologist and conservator in the National Center for conservation of Skopje, interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator

Sanja Ivanovska Velkoska is a PhD in archaeology, employed in the National Center for conservation in Skopje. As an expert in the field of archaeology and conservation she has considerable experience as an external consultant for other institutions and sites for protection of cultural heritage. Mrs Ivanovska Velkoska wrote a lot of scientific papers, participated in many scientific conferences and was on a scientific residency in Belgrade, Serbia and Lund, Sweden. Her wide knowledge in protection of cultural heritage in theory and practice makes her an excellent interlocutor on the issues related to shared or contested heritage.

What is heritage, how does it work and what does it mean for people with different backgrounds?

Sanja: The material and cultural values we inherited from our ancestors and their ancestors are what should be called cultural heritage. Unfortunately, its interpretation in different environments is often characterised with contrasting content.

Do you think that heritage institutions should be more inclusive or exclusive? Is it important to be clear about whose stories are being presented, by whom and for which purposes? Some practices point towards an inclusive approach through the restructuration of institutions and the fostering of supportive leadership. What do you think about this approach?

Sanja: If we want the general population to know what cultural heritage is and to nurture and preserve it unconditionally, then the institutions must make it easier to access and promote it more and in a suitable manner among the wide public. The reasons for presenting cultural heritage are not important at all because it should not be owned at all.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from Greece and Bulgaria and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Sanja: In the past, we had a greater institutional cooperation with many neighbouring countries, but that practice has slowly been declining in the last eight years. This is not due to any policies, but is a result of the extremely poor management of the institution in which I work. On a personal level, contacts with colleagues are maintained regularly. Even at my own expense, in my free time I establish connections with countries with which we have not cooperated so far. But all work remains based on a personal incentive or at the level of a small interdisciplinary group that has the idea to bring new techniques, technologies and methods of cultural heritage management from all aspects (pertaining to research work, conservation/restoration, presentation and popularisation).

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Sanja: Yes, it is in practice, but it should not be. Cultural heritage must never have ethnic, religious, gender or any other contextual framework. On the contrary, I believe that all cultural heritage belongs to each of us, a part of our past and affects our present and future.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation? 

Sanja: As a SIDA Fellow winner, I participated in an advanced training program on Conservation and Management of Historic Buildings at Lund University in Lund, Sweden, where I presented my case study on “Conservation and Presentation of the South Gate of the Archaeological Site Skopje fortress”. The approach at that time was guided by the principles of Europa Nostra, which have been observed and applied in my professional work regarding the integral protection of archaeological sites as cultural heritage.

---

“Cultural heritage should be treated as a precious accomplishment of people’s creativity of a certain time”

---

What is the impact of cultural heritage on solving issues related with shared or contested heritage?

Sanja: In practice, none. Theorists can find many points of contact and influences, but the operative is aware that in practice in our country it is just a dead letter on paper.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Sanja: The meanings are not as important as the approach and the attitude towards cultural heritage. We are aware that cultural heritage as a category of culture is always on the margins in our country. All efforts to amend that are still in the making, while in practice it is shown that various irrelevant populist manifestations receive more publicity, and thus more funds than any project for the protection of cultural heritage.

No one can say that a piece of cultural heritage belongs to someone, unless they personally inherited it from their parents. What we as a society care about belongs to all of us.Popularisation is the most important way to share the value of cultural heritage, and thus to increase interest in it. In a popular existence, any cultural heritage is much easier to manage and can even be made self-sustaining.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them”, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Sanja: Unfortunately, this is often the case. However, there are occasional attempts to integrate the cultural heritage, which comprehensively analyses the problems, and hence the reactions to action are interdisciplinary. I repeat, this is very rare, but so far it has proven to be a successful practice. And as long as we keep treating cultural heritage from only one aspect, we will never come up with nearly ideal solutions.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Sanja: Yes, of course it can.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Sanja: Yes, I think so. As long as we use rich and cumbersome vocabulary with professional terms in cultural heritage stories, our target group will be the only group of people who can understand us. Those who do understand us are usually part of our professional circles or colleagues. In that case, we have completely missed the goal for popularisation of cultural heritage.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

Love is the cure for painful experiences

I come from a small country in Europe, named Bosnia and Herzegovina. We recently started recovering from consequences of the war that happened less than 30 years ago, and never fully got on our feet again.

For a couple of years now, media headlines have been constantly buzzing about the “refugee crisis”, highlighting articles that propagate intolerance and revulsion towards members of such groups, exaggerating and sometimes even falsely presenting possible conflict situations in which migrants were involved (or maybe not?).

I am immensely sorry for we have become insensitive to other people’s misfortune and pain in hard times, neglecting the fact most of us or our families had to run from their home during a (mentioned) war outbreak. We forget so easily what it’s like to leave everything and run away, simply live by running, but run for life… What it’s like to wish to belong somewhere again, to have a constant environment, at least for a while. Overwhelmed with change and fear of attachment, these people are scared to adopt any habits, because they know they will eventually have to leave and start all over.

Imagine everything beginning to seem strange and no longer being sure if you are completely yourself. Like you left little pieces of you along the way. I would start to wonder if I have anything left…

I started to think if there was something we could all do to make their journey a little more bearable. Suddenly, an unexpected joy came into my life – the great joy of meeting and communicating with with those very same people.

Cooperation experience

Interactive workshops started in December 2019, as a part of the IMPACT project funded by the EU Erasmus + program, and implemented as a process of cooperation between the Local Democracy Agency Mostar and the Mostar Youth Theater, of which I am a member (along with more volunteers). We were meeting for five weeks – a total of 15 times for 2 or 3 hours and, simply put, exchanged Love.

Usually, different families would come to each workshop, often there were children, too. But, some of them came two, three or even more times and always begged us to participate and come with us again, when we came to the Salakovac Refugee Camp in a van, in which the number of passengers is limited to seven. Sometimes, one of us, organizers and volunteers, would undertake additional transportation by their personal vehicle, so that no one of the refugees would be disappointed. Read More History of France

At first, it was very difficult sparking them to open up. We did not want to push it, since it’s understandable how painful it can be to talk about everything they’ve run away from, to share shocking experiences that we, especially young ones, have heard only in the stories of the elderly, who took part in the war.

We tried to encourage the conversation with music, dance, jokes and games. On one occasion we placed several objects on the stage. Those were objects commonly seen in one’s home: an undershirt, a pot lid, a coffee cup, one shoe… They were scattered, almost as if someone had left them in such a hurry, grabbing everything he could manage to bring. This shook them, probably revived the memories and they started to speak more honestly and openly about their feelings. We listened, quietly. Because, what clever can be said about the testimony of the man whose brother was killed, in front of his eyes?! That you understand!? His pain??!!
NO, we could, nor say or feel that…

---

“The motive that guided us through this whole process is the ideal of equality.”

---

Just listen…

From that moment, many encounters, that took place in Studentski hotel Mostar, passed by us listening to these unimaginable experiences, and slowly becoming more aware that it could have befallen any of us. To feel still unhealed scars of their pain, loss and fear, but to be a pillar, a support, a crying shoulder, to someone, without him feeling weaker because of it, is truly a great success and a blessing.

As nights passed by, each one of them burdened my consciousness with the same dream, over and over again. Whenever I wake up, turn around and go back to sleep, it just goes on like someone pressed play. I was waking up visibly tired. War, fear, uncertainty, suspense, danger, escape… The list just went on and on. At least, while sleeping, I felt, at least a part of those intimidating feelings. I realized on some strange level, what it’s like when fear becomes your main actuator, but also a source of inconceivable strength. Helplessness, loss, persecution… All that matters, is to survive and escape.

People often claim that we cannot significantly help a person if we haven’t experienced similar life circumstances on our own. I usually agree with the popular saying about “walking in someone’s shoes first”. But isn’t it even easier for us, young people, who have not yet tasted this torment, to be supportive, to take a part of that pain, which we still don’t understand, onto ourselves, to gift them humanly compassion, a smile, a hug?

We sang together, drew each other, and then rolled in laughter. We played sports with the children and taught them to draw an elephant, a flower, a tree… They showed us their traditional steps in dance. One kind Iraqi gentleman even brought ukulele and performed and old Kurdish song.

Nothing can stop you

Although we often had language barriers, even when there were no translators, we managed to communicate with our hands, eyes, sounds. The result was a magnificent synthesis of many different cultures. While we always organized a snack, toured the city, took them to try delicious cakes – physical and material support could hardly be compared to the strength of the mental help we succeeded to provide, for which they were deeply grateful.

The motive that guided us through this whole process is the ideal of equality. So, during one of the workshops, we were making masks. Whoever wanted his mask to be made, would lie on the nylon and we would start working. That wasn’t a short process. Sometimes it lasted up to 20 minutes or more. Most of the “models” were children who were lying still and patiently all the time. We were delighted with the absence of hyperactivity and the need to constantly provoke someone’s attention, which we almost always encounter among younger ages. When the masks were done, we would explain to them why we made them in the first place:

“Looking at the mask, we can’t conclude anything about the skin color, nationality, religion or any other imaginary traits we associate with people as padlocks of prejudice.”

The message is quite clear. We are all the same kind, we are all human, and we all need Love. It is the source of energy that drives the world and brings together even complete strangers. LET’S JUST LOVE EACH OTHER!! Read Oldest Language in the World

Changing the world

Civic activism at this time, except political turmoil and business scandals, must focus on other burning questions of the community in which it inhabits, without ignoring the above, no matter how much it is subject to insecurity and prejudice by passive citizens and stereotypically, never discussed among them.

From the collected stories and experiences, we decided to make a play and speak publicly about the life of refugees. We hope that with this act we will remind other people to do to others only what they would like to experience on, and in their own skin.

The play is called “GAME”, for many symbolic reasons. The premiere is coming soon and, in the future, we are determined to travel across the world, sharing this painful, but beautiful experience through forms of art, and perform on many famous stages in honor of human compassion and the almightiness of LOVE!

In the end, no matter how small your country might be on the map, you can still make a BIG difference in world becoming a better and a warmer place! Keep on going.

 By: Kljajić Sara