Who are Our Ancestors? "Race", Science, and Politic in Bulgaria 1879-1912. Lambert, 2010 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ex Novo Journal of Archaeology (printed version published by Archaeopress), 2017
It is now widely acknowledged that Bulgarian academic discourses of the country’s so-called communist era (1945-1989) were heavily politicized with the aim of nationalizing and ethnicizing the history of the Bulgarian people. This communist era phenomenon subscribes to a chronologically vaster process of nationalist continuum recognized to have spanned from the middle-end of the nineteenth century to at least the early 1990s. Despite this trend, Bulgarian academics, especially in the field of archaeology, have more recently presented their post-communist, transition period disciplines as ideology-free, objective, scientific research. In this paper, we provide examples of recent theoretical developments and interpretations in the sub-field of thracology – studies of ancient Thracian culture – that indicate that this claim to objectivity is unfounded. Based on the examples provided we argue that not only have Bulgarian academic discourses in the fields in question not severed with the ethnicizing practices of the so-called nationalist continuum of the pre-communist and communist eras, but they are now flourishing on the nationalist foundation of the preceding century and a half. As such discourses are reproduced unquestioningly in specialized publications, their influence on right wing populism is incontestable as they provide the latter, wittingly or not, with the scientific authority it needs to justify its ethnicizing of “historical” tenets of racial and social discrimination.
From a comedy of evidence to epiphany: Jovan Cvijić and Fernand Braudel on being Bulgarian
Papers of BAS: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2017
The present article is a journey through texts of several authors in trying to find out the sources and reasons for accusing Bulgarians being " less gifted than other people, slow thinking or clumsy " , attributed by Machiel Kiel (1985, 352) to the French historian Fernand Braudel (1972-1973). During the journey we find out that the main source and argumentation for this claim comes from the Serbian historian Jovan Cvijić (1918) whom Braudel cited as if congenially on the subject. After establishing the facts on file in dealing with the problem we come to two conclusions that point in radically different directions. The first of them amounts to expected confirmation-that prejudices persist whatever the evidence. Wherever there is an appropriate intentional stance, corresponding means for its fulfillment will be found or forged. The second conclusion, however, is rather surprising-that by providing and apparently relying on a falsified evidence one can nevertheless come to high apprehension of what remained firm below the surface of historical dynamics that went on for millennia for Bulgarians in Bulgaria even in such troublesome case as theirs involving a 'clash of civilizations' with Ottomans.
The Theory of the Hun Origin in Contemporary Bulgaria
The article is devoted to the history of the formation and transformation of the theory of the Huns in contemporary Bulgaria through the prism of the political history of the country from the beginning of the debate about the origin of Bulgarians up to present day. The article examines how political reality impacted the processes of shaping scholarly and educational images, i.e. constructing a "convenient" usable past by the Bulgarian academic and non-academic circles. The main aspect in the study is related to the question of various interpretations of the ethnic origin of the Bulgars, the Huns and the role of the Slavic factor in the ethnogenesis of the contemporary Bulgarians. The milestones of the difficult history of Bulgaria and changes in political regimes have become the reasons for rejecting "Slavic" origin or, in some case, returning to it depending on external and internal circumstances. Today the Hun theory in all its variations and interpretations lies outside the professional scope of academic circles but is becoming the domain for various marginals. However, increasing activity of the right and the far-right in the politics of Europe capitalizing on the 2015 refugee crisis might return to the mainstream of official academic discourse the theory of the Hun The upcoming challenges of foreign policy (Euro-skepticism, ambitious projects outside the EU framework) and internal political issues (the question of national minorities) may also have a significant impact on this issue.
K. Popek, Southern and Western Slavs in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century in Bulgarian Historiography after 1989: Research Trends and Directions, „Slavonic Review” (Praga), 2021, no. 1, pp. 87–115. | This article aims to present the main trends in the Bulgarian research conducted after 1989 into the history of the Southern Slavs (Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Bosnian Muslims, and Montenegrins) and the West Slavs (Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks) as well as various forms of cooperation between Slavs as Yugoslavism, pan-Slavism, and Neo-Slavism in 1848–1908. The review allows to recognize trends that have been developing after the fall of communism (Bulgarian relations with Serbs, Croats, and Czechs) and those that have been neglected to a greater or lesser extent (Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Bosniak, and Montenegrin issues). While we can easily explain this regress in Slovak, Bosnian, and Slovenian topics – after all, Bulgarians have only limited relationships with these nations – this cannot be said of Polish and Montenegrin issues, with which Bulgarians had strong relationships in the second half of the 19th century.
It is a well known fact that during the centuries after the Ottoman conquest of the Bulgarian territories the population of the enslaved Bulgarian lands maintained connections with Wallachia, although the issue of mutual contacts in this period has not been specifically investigated and considered systematically. Regarding the 17th century the emphasis in scientific research has been placed so far mostly on the contacts of the Bulgarian Catholics with the Wallachian ruler Matei Basarab and his entourage, as well as on the donations of Matei Basarab and Constantin Brâncoveanu in Bulgarian territories. Apart from these links, however, there are data on other aspects of the complex picture of the bilateral relationship. The aim of the present text is focusing on the different transmitters of influence: Wallachian rulers, representatives of the high clergy, wealthy people, craftsmen and icon painters, all of them viewed through the perspective of the question who were the benefactors and beneficiaries during this epoch and what were some of the mechanisms that triggered them. Today we live in a digital age. Never before has the access to such a diverse and vast amount of information been so easy. Instant information exchange and the acquisition of the latest scientific achievements lead to one great advantage: today we have an even better idea of what we do not know. Romanian libraries and archives preserve arrays of historical documents from the late medieval era, many of which have been published, but remain unknown to the majority of Bulgarian specialists 1. For various reasons, in Bulgaria we do not have such a rich heritage of written sources and while sometimes for a Romanian or a Russian it is possible to trace one's ancestral lineages up to the 15 th century, in Bulgaria it is often difficult to ascertain our family roots more than three generations back. To recapture the past through genealogy may be only one of the many discursive practices for acquisition of historical knowledge, yet it is an eloquent example. The evidence is 1 I am especially grateful to Radu G. Păun for reading the draft of this article, suggesting important improvements and bibliographical references, some of which I was able to implement in this text. I would like to also thank Ivan Biliarsky, Ovidiu Cristea and Ovidiu Olar for providing me with access to publications impossible to obtain in Bulgaria.
Quo vadis, Bulgarian studies: Prof. Machiel Kiel on Bulgaria and Bulgarians. Part II
Izvestiya na Instituta za balgarski ezik, 2020
Why Bulgarian studies? Each professional in the field has a personal story to tell on the subject. For Bulgarians, it is a matter of definite interest to find out why a foreigner may choose to dedicate their professional life to Bulgaria and Bulgarians instead of many other possible alternatives. In this discussion monograph I look for clues of what may have motivated Prof. Machiel Kiel to undertake research in Bulgarian studies in the Balkan context and later move to Ottoman studies with the orientation toward 'Bulgaria during the Ottoman period'. Part I of the monograph aimed to identify the leitmotifs in Kiel's oeuvre and the corresponding intentional stance in dealing with subjects related to Bulgarian studies. Part II is devoted to analyses of specific cases related to the nature of this author's scientific output, which illustrate his style of thinking and the peculiarities in his way of expression. On this basis, I draw generalizations regarding the problem with the point of view (intentional orientation) of this author, with the perspectives to which he committed himself in the interpretation of Bulgarian history and culture, as well as with the leitmotifs in his work. Against the background of the presented and discussed contributions of Prof. Kiel, I conclude my exposition with an analysis of some of the opportunities that Bulgarian studies offers for the investigation of problems related to the presentation of national history and culture in the first, second and third person perspective in a cross-civilizational (Christianity-Islam) context in historical discourse.
We, the People: Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe. Central European University Press. Retrieved from http://books.openedition.org/ceup/895 , 2009
Are Bulgarians barbarians or civilized? Answering this question consumed a considerable part of the intellectual energy of the Bulgarian elite in the 19th century. The dilemma was first put up for discussion at the beginning of the century and ever since then, each new generation has been joining a fresh round of the debate. Interest in the topic has been sufficiently lively to lend legitimacy to the “barbarism–civilization” taxonomy as the main framework within which the nation builds its identity. This research aims to explore the origins of this process. The analysis covers the period from the 1830s to the rise of the independent Bulgarian state in 1878. This is the chronological framework in which the intellectual elite imported and promoted the ideological grammar of modernity and the taxonomies of progress. The objective is to shed light on the history, mechanisms and results of their transfer.