Gertcheva.doc

Seeing the Past in Countries in Transition in Southeastern Europe. The Media Created Image of the Past in Bulgaria.

Vessela Gertcheva, VIR Society

Introduction This paper is outlining the vision of Bulgarians for the past and its’ dynamics between 1991 and 2004. It is suggested that the example of Bulgaria, which didn’t encounter major cross-cultural and ethnic struggles, can be indicative for the status of the problem in South Eastern Europe. Outcomes and conclusions are based on content analysis of publications in electronic and printed media and desk review of relevant documents. The paper is also examining the internal relation between the image of the past and the current profile of Bulgarian archaeology and academic scientists. This review was used as a basis for providing recommendations and suggestions for further media presentations and identifying possible niches of work for local and international experts in the field of social and public archaeology in Bulgaria.

Background Bulgaria has a dual identity. So does other countries in its vicinity. On one hand, in official political discussions and presentations, we are in South Eastern Europe. On the other hand, behind the scene the others say and we admit the Balkans is our label. South Eastern Europe is a region where democracy is consolidated and civil society is under development although with some constraints. The Balkans is a place where “boundaries are unclear, personal and national identities are mostly painful, future is dangerous”. In South Eastern Europe the common agenda, shared by the whole society is most important. In the Balkans it is self-identification and the independence of territory. The vision for the historical past has its’ own reserved place in this complex reality. Before the fall of the totalitarian regimes in early 90s, monuments from the past were intentionally misinterpreted to serve the propaganda mechanisms. In the 90s ethnic destabilisation started in most of the countries in the region. History, historical and archaeological evidences were then often introduced as part of the argumentation of fighting parties. Development experts and historians from Western Europe and the US were right to call attention on how history was taught in primary and secondary schools. Important programs such as the Stability Pact funded “History and history teaching in SE Europe” engaged high level academic experts in harmonizing different visions for the Balkan history. Still, 14 years after the moment, which marked the end of manipulated academic interpretations of the past, the change doesn’t feel exactly right.

Why do we need to investigate how the past is presented? Why Bulgaria? The knowledge for the past is highly needed for people who suffered ethnic destabilisation, disorientation and major change of identity. In the same time the educational function of archaeologists and historians for the general public is not performed. This opens the gap between the need for information and its’ availability. In such situation media is the first to make up with the necessity. This is also the most influential mechanism in disseminating vision (or visions) related to society descent in Bulgaria and most countries in the region. The lack of free media before 1989 was compensated with their significant influence over the society in the last decade of the 20th century. On the other hand, media is the source of information, which would be a reliable basis for understanding how people imagine their past. In a territory, where history created many problems, the dynamic of this vision can be both an early warning signal and a symptom. In both cases it requires special attention. Among all the countries under question, Bulgaria is almost the least of all in terms of territory. It is also a land, where political transition took no victims, which suffered no considerable ethnic destabilization. For these reasons, Bulgaria would probably be the place, where the imagination for the past had been least blurred by prejudices and political interests. This makes our case particularly interesting to analyze. A basic assumption here is that without significant external pressure, the idea for the national roots has been formulated according the society development trends. The specifics of the Bulgarian process could therefore serve as a model and example to the rest of the newly established Balkan democracies.

Methodology and scope of work The paper is based on content analysis of printed and electronic media. The review has classified publications and broadcasting, scrutinizing archaeological finds and monuments either directly or indirectly. Publications in 4 leading daily newspapers, 2 weekly editions, 1 specialized edition, archives of the Bulgarian National Television and 2 private channels have been reviewed as shows table 1 below. Three expert monthly and annual editions in the field of archaeology as well as Internet based on-line editions were taken into account without a detailed classification of publications. This review is covering the period between 1991 and 2004 and is focussing on the following main questions:

• What are the main occasions on which the past is being discussed by media in Bulgaria? Which are main topics of publications?

• What are the underlying value suggestions and messages to the public? What is the overall impression and image for the past?

• Is presenting the past related to the political environment and do political parties influence the presentation of the past and archaeological monuments?

Archaeological findings are not the only source of knowledge for the past. They have been a special focus of this study because of our interest towards the role of archaeology in promoting broader ideas of interest for the whole society.

Table 1 (only available by download)

A brief overview of media development after 1989 Аfter the fall of the communist regime in 1989, printed media in Bulgaria grew in number dramatically reaching up to 1000 newspapers and magazines in 1995. The period between 1989 and 1996/1997 was marked by intensive political pressure over printed and electronic media. Economical and political interests, which defined editorial styles, were not publicly announced. This created significant confusion in interpretation of information. The end of this period is supposedly marked by the civil unrests in the winter of 1997, when tens of thousands of people demonstrated on the streets of Sofia against the socialist government led by Jan Videnov. The only media, which resisted the political pressure and covered the dramatic events, was a privately owned radio (Darik), which was labelled as a “leader of the outcry”. After 1997, supported by the process of privatization, owners of media editions were declared and their political affiliation was clarified. Currently there are some 500 printed media editions. Among them, those specialized in arts and culture, are no more then 5. These are marginalized editions in circulation up to 5 000 issues, which have a handful of devoted readers.

Past-related publications in printed and electronic media Publications related to the past can be rarely found in both mainstream and specialized media. For the period 1991–2004 a total of 532 texts related to the past were published in the editions, included in the review. Some 18% of these were published in 2003-2004 on the occasion of the major archaeological finds in the Valley of the Thracian Kings and in the Rhodopa Mountains. The Bulgarian National Television broadcasted an average of 82 hours per year dedicated to culture. The portion dedicated to the past, archaeological finds and historical materials, is no more then 10%. Comparison with, for example, sports programs, is clear–the public television has had an average of 461 hours per year for sports and sports related topics. Private televisions have approximately 75 hours of programming and news for each of them, dedicated to the past and archaeological finds for the whole period of review. Texts and broadcasting related directly or indirectly to the past share the same characteristics in terms of volume and positioning. They are short (up to half an hour for broadcasted programs and up to 1500 signs for printed publications) with only a few exceptions, which form aprox. 10% of all publications and are considerably longer. Almost all of them are provoked from:

• Exceptional archaeological finding

• Potential for or actual scandal on the political level based on different interpretations of the past or an archaeological find.

Publications, news and programs, which deal with the past, are usually positioned in either of the following sections:

• In the “Culture and Arts” (or closely related) sector of printed media;

• Under the heading of “Interesting facts” or related.

• In the morning block or in the weekend out of the prime-time zone of electronic media.

The analysis of the position of past-related publications reveals that these are only rarely placed in sections and time zones, which deal with society and social development. In more then 90% of all cases, including issues such as ethnic stability and good neighbourhood, materials in both printed and electronic media are positioned in the “curiosities” section. Authorship of texts and programs scenario is in less then 5% of all cases related to academic archaeologists. Most often journalists from other areas (mainly culture and arts and only rarely civil and social sector) are authors of the texts, which describe the past and materials finds from distant periods to the general public.

Occasions and central themes of media publications related to the past are as follows:

• Significant archaeological finding (criteria for importance are: 1. The discovery is containing gold, 2. Materials are revealing evidence for the greatness and importance of Bulgarian territories and their rulers in the past)–82%

• Lack of funding for archaeological scientific institutes; detachment of the state; the need to prevent private ownership and business interests of archaeological monuments and collections–7%

• Treasure hunting, the need for legal protection of cultural-historical heritage–8%

• Sources of non-governmental project based funding for archaeology and cultural heritage protection–5% • Ownership of cultural heritage–2%

A conclusion of this analysis is that central substance and basic characteristics of media publications as described above have not changed significantly since 1991. This is especially true for printed media. Major trends in positioning, authorship and topics of publications have not marked considerable dynamics. Even publications presenting project-based sources of funding have increased with only 1–2% in the period 1997–2004. For comparison such sources have actually more then doubled in number after 1996/1997. Electronic media kept the same characteristics while the quality and performance was considerably improved. Independent programs related to the past were introduced in the national media in 2001. Topics within their focus still stayed the same mostly presenting significant archaeological finds and sites.

The following underlying value suggestions and messages to the public could be identified within the publications reviewed:

• Bulgaria has glorious past with proofs for powerful rulers, who were among the leaders of the civilised world. Publications, which review golden findings, major architectural constructions, centres with supposedly religious and cult function do not examine these findings in their context. Archaeological sites are always described separately from each other without being positioned in a general framework. Whenever a comparison is being made it is usually with archaeological findings and sites famous world-wide such as those in Troy and Greece.

• The remains of the past in Bulgaria are connected with neither its’ present nor its’ future. Specifics of positioning past-related texts, television series, news, send the message of isolation. Findings and their interpretation are more of a curiosity, which is not in any way connected with social development, ethnic background, and neighbourhood in the region, policy and policy making. Any case in which this assumption can not be further supported is presented through interviews and analysis is avoided as much as possible. Such example was the scandal between archaeologists and the political party, representing the Bulgarian Turks. An archaeological team was excavating a Thracian sanctuary situated under a functioning Islamic sanctuary in Northern Bulgaria. The construction of the Muslim shrine grew unstable as a result of the excavation technique, chosen from archaeologists. The topic of discussion, which followed was focussed on which of the two sanctuaries is more important. During the public debate, which lasted 10 days neither the politicians, nor the archaeologists or the media offered an alternative point of view towards the two sites.

• The “archaeologist as hero” image is persistently being imposed especially by the tabloid press. The image of archaeologists is contrasted to those of treasure hunters. The actual everyday archaeologists’ work is not presented.

• Bulgarian cultural heritage is national treasure and should be well protected from being associated with private interests, neighbouring countries, and global heritage. Nationalistic tendencies in Bulgarian media are quite obvious as related to interpretation of the past. Several editions publish analysis and proclamations of purely nationalistic character. Such are, for example, a series of publications, which discuss the relations between Republic of Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia and archaeological findings on both territories.

Analysis and major outcomes It can be concluded that archaeological finds and the past are underrepresented in Bulgarian media. Journalists have not followed the dynamic development of the need for information in this area. Topics, which were most common in past–related publications in 1991, remained almost unchanged 14 years after. Publications and programs in this area are approximately 15–17 times less then those dedicated to sports. The past is envisioned separately from the present and future development of the Bulgarian society and its’ position in the region. It is suggested that Bulgarians have to be proud with their past and any argument for this is being excessively represented. In opposition, cases in which the relation between the past and the present can not be neglected are reviewed without a significant analysis part.

This situation could be explained easily with the lack of public interest towards the past and past related topics. Still, internet fora, chat rooms, accessible web counters of sites and internet based publications reveal this is not the case. Most of on-line discussions are dedicated to treasure hunters, the relation between archaeology and policy making, manipulations and misinterpretation of Bulgarian past and history. Some of the on-line postings have gained up to 9 000 unique views and up to 300 answers and comments In Bulgaria, where only 5,2% of all households have regular access to Internet at home, this marks significant interest. What could possibly explain the media disparagement for a potential target group, highly interested in its’ national past? What has prevented Bulgarian journalists to adequately develop this niche in its’ full potential?

The answer should take in mind two major personage groups: academic archaeologists and journalists in Bulgaria. Academic archaeologists are only in rare occasions engaged in popularisation of their finds. Even then, good communicators are an exception and do not belong to closed academic circles. As Neil Silberman put it for the much more advanced case of US archaeology “It is archaeologists, not scriptwriters, who are not yet ready for the prime time”. In other words, Bulgarian archaeologists are not an active part in proposing to the general public a vision for the past. Academic institutes do not work with professional PR consultants nor do they maintain such positions. While the budget constraints can be an immediate explanation, it is worth considering also other options. The exact level of participation of Bulgarian archaeologists in the propaganda machine between 1945 and 1989 is unclear and haven’t been yet publicly discussed. Such discussion has already taken place in countries such as Poland and even Germany. An uncomfortable part of one’s personal past can be an explanation for the reluctance to let Bulgarian archaeology go public.

On their side, journalists follow a different agenda. Without an external provider of objective information and an active professional partner the first choice of any media would be the most scandalous, the one that captures imagination, the brilliant, splendid and glorious. Which covers the main topics of past-related publications as described above. Bulgarians, envision themselves as heirs of:

– “rich and unique material culture, which can be traced back to 10 000 years B.C”,

– “glorious Thracians”,

– “multiple ethnic and cultural groups, which left here pieces of their life such as Greeks and Romans.”

The media created vision for the past in Bulgaria is influential but not related to actual results from academic researches. It is neither in line with the widening debate for “archaeology as heritage and the need for communication of archaeology to the general public.” Still, this is the idea for national roots, which spreads over school textbooks, advertising materials for tourists, guides, movies, etc.

For Bulgarians and most of their neighbours on the Balkans, the past remains a strange territory, a man without a face, a frightening paradigm. If compared with the official propaganda of the state and the communist party before 1989, the modern vision for the past has not changed significantly. Ideological clichés have been expurgated in a rather mechanical manner and substance remained the same. The end of the political pressure over media ironically marked also the finale of the traditional partnership between journalists and archaeologists. In a territory, which hosts different ethnical groups and territorial disagreement is only a moment of inattention away, the lack of information is a basis for speculations.

Conclusion Representation and popularisation of the past is clearly an open niche in the Bulgarian society. The lack of leadership in this area can be felt in primary and secondary education, media and cross-cultural dialogue. It influences in a negative way the financial resources available to Bulgarian archaeologists and hence the quality of their work. Bulgarian past remains marginal and disintegrated from its’ future. Even if this can be explained with the totalitarian experiences, such informational gap is counter to social development in a direct way. In a broader framework it is possible to suggest that envisioning the past is what separates South Eastern Europe from the Balkans. One of these identities has future, the other has not. In the light of this practical assumption, archaeology in the region can not be accepted as a purely academic undertaking any longer.

Still, academic archaeologists, have both the responsibility and the opportunity to individualize the past for the general public. They are qualified to interpret material remains and can be as close to media as needed to guarantee an objective picture is being presented. Although bright this way forward is unrealistic at this point of development of Bulgarian archaeology. There are at least two possible alternatives: inviting and securing technically and financially large international research centres or developing a group of new professionals dedicated to communicating archaeological finds. In the first case Bulgaria and the region will benefit from a know-how, which is well developed and preliminary tested. In the latter–from its' young generation and their ambitions. The second option appears to be more in line with the cultural identity of the region. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that introducing a new set of skills and knowledge will make its’ way through the stubborn academic systems in Bulgaria and the surrounding countries. It is our believe that international expertise will be needed in completeing the sensitive task of giving the past back to people on the Balkans. An incentive is needed to stimulate academic scientists to take over their responsibilities to the public. The global understanding for the internal connectedness between the past and future of any nation might be the only one working.

One of the famous Bulgarian fiction writers, Stanislav Stratiev once said “Our ancestors mounted their horses and changed their geography. We are, instead, changing our history”. Now, five years after this statement, the Bulgarian idea for our roots is still influenced and still unclear. The only difference is that our successors have started preferring a different geography. And the connection in between can be closer then it seems.

return to conference participants

return home