Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change ISSN: 1476-6825 (Print) 1747-7654 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtcc20 Dissonant heritage and promotion of tourism in the case of Serbian medieval monuments in Kosovo Jelena Pavličìć To cite this article: Jelena Pavličìć (2016) Dissonant heritage and promotion of tourism in the case of Serbian medieval monuments in Kosovo, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 14:3, 189-205, DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2016.1169349 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2016.1169349 Published online: 04 May 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 243 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtcc20 Download by: [178.220.76.252] Date: 09 December 2016, At: 04:52 JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE, 2016 VOL. 14, NO. 3, 189–205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2016.1169349 Dissonant heritage and promotion of tourism in the case of Serbian medieval monuments in Kosovo Jelena Pavličìća,b a Faculty of Arts, University of Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia; bCenter for Museology and Heritology, Belgrade, Serbia ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY During and after the war in Kosovo in 1999, Serbian medieval monuments were recognised as symbols and bearers of Serbian identity. This led to the fact that among the Albanian population in Kosovo, they were seen as an undesirable legacy – a reflection of centuries of the existence of Serbs in Kosovo. Although the historical value of these monuments, four of which are on the UNESCO World Heritage list of endangered sites, is not disputed, popular tourist publications open an unfounded debate and are used to alienate the historical identity of these places or to promote a distorted interpretation of them. Through popular media representations this paper will touch on the complexity of these monuments as dissonant heritage in the newly established state of Kosovo and its different uses and interpretations in the promotion of tourism. Received 23 January 2015 Accepted 21 February 2016 KEYWORDS medieval monuments in Kosovo; war; cultural heritage; dissonant heritage; interpretation; tourism Introduction As a consequence of the wars and subsequent socio-political changes in the Balkans, the interpretations of the past remain a contested issue. Significant parts of the heritage became ‘dissonant heritage’, which according to Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996, p. 27) is related to the process of coping with ambivalent and largely unwanted pasts. The problem of interpretation and promotion of heritage is difficult due to various economic and political factors. Not only what is interpreted, but how and by whom it is interpreted, is creating specific messages about the value and the meaning of specific heritage sites and the past they represent. After the war in Kosovo in 1999, the other type of war began and is still being fought, implying the destruction of the Serbian cultural artefacts as a means of dominating the enemy (Bevan, 2006, p. 8). This heritage – selected and interpreted as the ‘heritage of others’ – saw different types of treatment it was used, neglected and interpreted in many ways, especially during the war and later in the transition period in the region. Within this politics of creating a distinct national identity of the new Kosovan nationstate, the heritage from earlier periods was incorporated or rejected as a ‘threat to the national cultural identity’ (Šešić Dragićević & Rogač Mijatović, 2014, p. 12). CONTACT Jelena Pavličić jpavlicic@gmail.com © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 190 J. PAVLIČÌĆ As heritage itself is not a relic of the past but a potential for sustainable development of communities (Faro convention, 2005) it is very often explored and exploited through tourism. Tourism is a phenomenon of great importance in the globalising world – not only because it is in accordance with the patterns of the global economy, but also because it produces an interest in specific experiences, artefacts and local narratives (Šešić Dragićević, 2011, pp. 14–37). It could empower people, but also be used in constituting targeted ‘communities’ by the imagined or real narrative (Salazar, 2012, p. 9). This research paper acknowledges the significance of social and cultural development of Serbia, the region of Kosovo and Metohija, as well as the whole Balkan region, which requires to critically discuss the conflicting interpretations of heritage occurring in this region today. It is essential to approach heritage with all its contradictions and complexities in order to make it an important asset in the development of tourism and, above all, of a cohesive society. According to this, understanding the ways in which heritage is ‘used’ (Smith, 2006) in Kosovo is the first step towards a potential solution of the problem in line with contemporary understanding of the idea of heritage and its treatment in theory and practice. The focus of this paper is on four heritage sites designated as ‘Medieval Monuments in Kosovo’1, which represent Serbia on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Since there are difficulties in monitoring and managing these sites due to the post-conflict political instability in the region, they are inscribed as ‘under threat’ by UNESCO (UNESCO, 2006). On the one hand, these monuments were included in the ‘World Heritage in Danger’ list as an unwanted heritage in contemporary Kosovo society, while, on the other hand, the list made them worthy of remembrance in this young pro-European state. Such characterisation turns these monuments into representative examples of dissonant heritage in Kosovo and Metohija and their contemporary use and actualisation in tourism raise a question about the real danger of this heritage. This paper draws attention to how selected heritage sites are being interpreted for tourists across various media. The empirical data for this article were collected during short visits made in the period between 2008 and 2014. The main research method used in the field has been the content analysis of visual and textual information about heritage that is presented in touristic promotion of the sites. It is recognised as a transmitter of certain messages interpreted here in accordance with contributions of the modern discipline of Memory culture, new theories in Museology and the General Theory of Heritage (named Heritology), which defines theory approach to heritage in the Balkans. Theorising heritage – regional and international perspectives Understanding the past as a means for envisioning the future from the present perspective (Kuljić, 2006, p. 30) corresponds with Jan Assman’s interpretation of history as ‘an expression of certain epoch’s requirements and needs and as a cultural construction’ (Assman, 2001, p. 65). History, then, is not only about the past, but also about the present, because it actively participates in the creation of everyday reality, people’s identity and our vision and comprehension of the world. In such a way, the past is used as a ‘wonder’ able to explain contemporary events and solve current problems (Kuljić, 2006, p. 214). Cultural heritage as intrinsic part of both past and present seems to keep that JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 191 aura of the miraculous, especially when it comes to religious heritage sites (Chastel, 1986). As opposed to that sacred dimension of heritage, contemporary recognition and evaluation of heritage through heritage organisations is usually done by promoting profane values such as the exclusivity, uniqueness, originality, universality of an object.2 In this reading, heritage is primarily characterised by its duration and unchangeability, by its ability to display lasting signs of certain antiquity in any given social context or circumstances (Bulatović & Milosavljević, 1999, p. 239). Nevertheless, in the second half of the twentieth century the idea of heritage and its uses was challenged across academic disciplines. For example, new theories in museology challenged the idea that heritage value is self-evident and introduced new aspects of memory, identity of an object, local community and participants in exploring the value of an object (Mensch, 1992, p. 32; Vergo, 1989, p. 3). The genesis of this theoretical ‘extensions’ rests upon two approaches: the Anglo-Saxon and Central-European. The first one is based on the foundations of new museology, and is advocated by the theorists from the English-speaking world. The focus of their research is more on the museum practice and museography, so a syntagm museum studies and heritage studies is also in use. The Central-European approach, on the other hand, takes musealia as the primary subject of museological research (Mensch, 1992, pp. 41–46; Popadić, 2015, pp. 154–155). Hence, the basic difference is in the subject of research, recognised through relation objectitem (Bulatović, 2009). In 1970, Czech museologist Zbinek Stransky brings in the concept of museality (Stransky, 1970, p. 35) as a characteristic of musealia – an object of the material world, which documents the ‘reality’ of the primary or archaeological context from which it was removed. When applied to the heritage as immovable property in space, this means that buildings and their complexes can document the physical and spiritual context in which they originated and existed, with all the values and meanings they had acquired during the course of their existence (Maroević, 1993, p. 96). Shortly afterwards, Maroević (1983, 1993) developed an ‘information theory’ of heritage, according to which the characteristics of museality, that is, the capacity of museality as testimony, are attributed to the entire heritage. This theoretical approach had an important impact on the holistic approach in understanding the idea of heritage in the Balkans and beyond. In 1982, Tomislav Šola, a museologist from Zagreb, proposed a unique scientific discipline, which integrated the already existing ones. It was based on the phenomenon of heritage itself and it was named ‘heritology’. This discipline broadens the definition of museology in such a way that it consolidates new museological manifestations and has a holistic approach to the problems of protection and treatment of the entire heritage. In the last two decades, heritology has become a scientific discipline that not only corresponds to the traditional aims of museology, but also aims at understanding the origin and nature of heritage, the purpose of inheritance as well as the forms and potentials of the uses of heritage in the contemporary world. The theme ‘uses of heritage’, as dominant in any transition period, is more elaborately explored in the book of the same name, by Laurajane Smith, published in 2006. She demonstrated that heritage value was not inherent in physical objects or places, but rather that these objects and places were used to give tangibility to the values that underpin different communities and to assert them. Maroević and Šola, as well as, later on, Serbian museologist Bulatović have theorised about cultural heritage as an experience resulting from social, cultural and individual histories, emphasising its material values as 192 J. PAVLIČÌĆ a product of that experience (Bulatović, 2005, 2009; Maroević, 1993, 2004; Šola, 1997, 2014). Mapping the same heritage discourse, Smith presents the idea of an ‘authorized heritage discourse’ and challenges the traditional ‘Western’ (!) definitions of heritage that focus on material and monumental forms of ‘old’, or aesthetically pleasing, tangible heritage. Here, themes such as intangibility, identity, memory and remembering, performance, place, and dissonance are developed and used in various combinations to explore different aspects of the uses of heritage. Smith understands heritage as a cultural process that engages with the acts of remembering that create ways to engage with the present. (Smith, 2006, pp. 3–44). Her position is closely related to the attitudes of the prominent Balkan theorists, who understand heritage as a transmitter of messages and information about different realities in which it originated and developed. Smith observed that the uses of heritage were consequently often bound up with power relations, and specifically the power to legitimise and de-legitimise cultures (Smith, 2006, p. 81). This is because powerful groups have been actively successful, over time, in defining what does and does not qualify as the nation’s heritage. Such hegemonic definitions promote the idea that heritage is about a common national inheritance and it concerns a singular past that must not be tampered with. Nevertheless, such a definition of heritage is focused on the interpretation of heritage in the context of social functions and cultural processes, which are important but not the only contexts for understanding the heritage (Popadić, 2015, p. 33). Smith’s study offers the opportunity to better understand contemporary social processes and the role of heritage in them, but not to affirm them as their only meaning. In interpreting potentially dissonant uses of heritage, we are interested in interpreting the endangered Serbian medieval monuments in Kosovo through the promotion of tourism, it is important to preserve the scientific truth/historical value, despite the challenge of postmodernism with its multitude of narratives. When speaking about the presentation of monuments of a rich and complex cultural past, history of conservation underlines the presentation of historical layer which defines the very identity of a certain place (Maroević, 1993, pp. 243–249). War crisis and a sense of heritage. The case of religious medieval sites in Kosovo and Metohija As Chastel, a French art historian, (1986) reminds us, war crises awake a new sense of heritage and often reveal the true price of it. The war in the Autonomous Region of Kosovo and Metohija in 1999 brings up the question of the fundamental sense and meaning of heritage. Frequently described as a vital cross-roads of cultures in the Balkans, ‘every stone’ in this region may be referred to as a testimony of the presence of different religions and civilisations throughout history. Still, in the years after the 1999, war in Serbia, in the Autonomous Region of Kosovo and Metohija, cultural heritage was not protected as ‘common heritage’, in accordance with international legal acts, conventions and standards. On the contrary, it became a repressed and instrumentalised national product of the political situation. By means of the Resolution 1244, adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 1999, a mandate of warrant for the freedom, justice and peace in the Autonomous Region of Kosovo and Metohija was given to the United Nations. Responsibility for protection of human lives, freedom and security was thus transferred to the JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 193 international public authorities, the administration of United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and the international military forces – Kosovo Force (KFOR).3 Unfortunately, as early as in June 1999 this responsibility was seriously challenged – more than 220,000 Serbs and members of other non-Albanian communities were exiled, while about 120 Christian religious objects and cultural monuments were devastated or destroyed (Jokić, 2003; UNESCO, 2003). The repression was continued, and the last significant eruption of violence of Albanians against Serbs living in the region, was organised and carried out between the 17th and 19th of March 2004. In these destructive assaults, thousands of Albanians, led by armed groups of extremists and members of the Kosovo Protection Corps, carried out the ethnic cleansing, which also included destruction of houses, private property, Orthodox Christian religious sites and cultural monuments (Jokić, 2004, p. 8).4 If we speak about orthodox medieval churches as cultural monuments, then, this was only the beginning of their ‘deliberate suppression’ and destruction. During and after the war in Kosovo in 1999, Serbian medieval monuments were recognised as symbols and bearers of Serbian identity within the region. They extend the Serbian presence into the past and legitimise it in the present and into the future, which is the model that Bevan (2006, p. 8) recognised in many others conflict areas. Although historical facts about these monuments are not disputed, popular publications open an unfounded debate and are used to obliterate the historical identity of these places and to distort interpretation. Among sites on the UNESCO World Heritage in Danger List (inscribed in 2006), and generally titled ‘Medieval Monuments in Kosovo’ are four Serbian Orthodox edifices and complexes: the Dečani Monastery (included on the World Heritage Site List in 2004), the Patriarchate of Peć Monastery, The Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš (Prizren) and the Gračanica Monastery. They are recognised as a unified group of churches that represent important Byzantine-Romanesque ecclesiastical culture between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries.5 These monuments have not had their own curators since 1999, so tourists could rely only on printed guides, local Albanian tourist guides and, ultimately, the monks. However, due to the inaccessibility of the monuments themselves, printed and internet publications have the primary role in informing tourists. Through them, these monuments are often misinterpreted and used for creating an ideologically desired image of the newly established state and its new, ‘pure’ identity. This is unsurprising because beside national cultural canons and traditions, cultural tourism recalling the historical significance of the nation is very often used within the process of identity building (Šešić Dragićević & Rogač Mijatović, 2014, p. 14). ‘Heritage in everyday life’ One personal story from visiting Prizren in 2013 will be used here as paradigmatic experience, relevant for understanding the contested uses of heritage, here in the case of The Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš in Prizren. We are in front of the church of St. Friday, now. Some people say it is from the middle ages, but it has seven stages of development. It was built on the foundations of an Illyrian basilica, and then in the eighteenth century it was the mosque. Now it is the church. I do not know why it’s closed, why nobody wants to open the door. Otherwise, this church is on the UNESCO World Heritage in Danger List. I don’t know what else to tell you about it. (personal memos from 28.10.2013) 194 J. PAVLIČÌĆ These are the words of an architect, responsible for guiding the participants of the regional seminar ‘Past Stories & Future Memories’ organised by the Swedish organisation Cultural Heritage without Borders (CHwB) in Prizren, a town in southern Kosovo, in October 2013.6 The motto of the seminar was summarised in the sentence ‘Stories bring places alive and make them relevant to people in contemporary settings, but many stories get buried or lost’, so the aim of the meeting was to encourage and educate participants ‘to focus around uncovering and reclaiming stories related to heritage sites – their past use and their future potential’7. Still, the organisers, all of whom were ethnic Albanians, did not act according to that idea in practice. During the short tour around Prizren, we went from the hammam to the Archaeological Museum and reached the medieval church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš (Figure 1), the endowment of King Milutin of Serbia in the fourteenth century. It was built in 1306/7 upon the remains of the thirteenth century cathedral, which had also been built on the foundations of an earlier basilica dating back to the ninth century. When the Ottomans converted the church into a mosque, probably in the eighteenth century, the existing frescoes (thirteenth to fourteenth century) were covered with mortar and whitewashed. The substantial readjustments that were made indicate that the meaning of the place was partially preserved, but ‘upgraded’ by changing the function and purpose of the building. When the Ottomans departed in 1912 the process was reversed, with the minaret being removed from the church in 1923 (Nenadović, 1963; Panić & Babić, 1975). Due to the aesthetic qualities identified in this episcopal church from the fourteenth century, as well as the historical significance of the place, the Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš in Prizren was declared a cultural monument in 1948 by the Republic Institute for the Protection and Research of Cultural Heritage of Serbia – Belgrade, and in 1990 due to the changed legislative was categorised Figure 1. Church of Holy Virgin of Ljeviš in Prizren, fourteenth century (photo taken after 1953);. source: Institute for protection of monuments in Prizren JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 195 as a cultural monument of great importance (Pejić, 2007, p. 322). During the war in 1999 and later in 2004, the church was damaged.8 Later on in 2006 the church was inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage List and simultaneously to the List of World Heritage in Danger. However, when the participants of the seminar in Prizren arrived at this church, their guide spoke about it with a different tone compared to his informed narratives about previously visited locations. He neglected basic historical facts in favour of new, unfounded allegations, and such change was surprising at least. However, the seminar participants, mainly coming from Western European countries did not react, even though they probably knew a somewhat different history of this place. The others, from the former Yugoslavia, conscious about the possibility of disrespect of the past, did not seem to know whether their reaction would reflect professional collegiality or personal conflict with the organisers of the seminar. On my initiative, the conversation about historical meaning of the Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš was continued after the appointed guide concluded that there was nothing left to say. The irony of this event is reflected in the fact that both the visitors and the guide in Prizren assumed expert roles in the field of cultural heritage and memory interpretation. The initial presentation at the seminar was focused on cultural tourism, but in actual life, in Prizren, we get a notion of heritage as disturbing, not a cohesive agent in a multicultural environment (as we agree as experts), so some of the historical facts should be ignored. This event could have likely been taken as an excursus justified by tiredness or the architect’s lack of experience in guiding. Still, printed brochures that we got at the same occasion (see Basha, 2012), as well as other promotional material of the official Kosovo (see endnotes), make us think differently and observe the whole situation in a broader context. ‘Heritage in everyday life’, as Serbian museologist and art historian Popadić (2012) named his book, becomes a paradigm of social acceptance, understanding and the use of the past. The guide in Prizren and his (brief) exposure may reveal a real problem of instrumentalising heritage. Specifically, the presentation of the architect revealed that: (1) the best preserved heritage layers that indicate the Serbian history, are clearly suppressed and (2) the ‘alienation of cultural heritage’ is present, through emphasising the fictional and the real historical layers that indicate the Illyrian and Ottoman history as the principal foundation for the national and religious identity of Kosovo Albanians (Pavličić, 2015, pp. 120–121). If we take into account that the Virgin of Ljeviš was attacked in 1999 (Garić, 2002, p. 40) and again in 2004 by Albanian extremists, then we know that it could not have been perceived as ‘their’ own heritage, but as a Serbian Church. This trend of ‘alienation of heritage’ can be traced from the moment when this church, along with three other medieval monasteries, has been put on the UNESCO World Heritage in Danger List. Therefore, if we consider the perception of these Serbian medieval monuments in Kosovo, the period since 1999 cannot be seen as integral. It has two phases, with the cutoff year flexible, within the period from 2006 to 2008, that is, between the inscription of the Serbian medieval monuments on the UNESCO’s list and Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Heritage interpretation in the Kosovan tourist brochures If we agree with the definition of heritage as ‘contemporary uses of the past’ or ‘active processing’ of the past, then the problem of understanding the idea of heritage is moved on 196 J. PAVLIČÌĆ to the problem of inheritance, as the process of preserving and transmitting the experience ‘stored’ in heritage (Bulatović, 2005). The ‘figures of memory’, such as narratives, texts, images, etc. have an ability to transfer the meanings of collective experience (Assman, 2001; Kuljić, 2006), so we will present some of the most representative ones relevant for our case study. Official publications, in which Serbian medieval monuments in Kosovo are represented, are the best indicator of perception of this heritage in public memory. One of these is the tourist brochure ‘Prizren, Kosova – The Visitor’, published by the Municipality of Prizren, Department of Tourism and Economic Development in 2012. This publication is free of charge, and, as such, the most available to tourists. Since it comes from a public institution, it is believed to deliver reliable and accurate information. In the brochure, some basic facts about the state and society are followed by the history of the town and sightseeing recommendations. Although there are several medieval orthodox churches preserved in Prizren, which are also the oldest examples of architectural heritage from the period, only three of them are presented in the guide. Despite the fact that the Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš was inscribed into the UNESCO World Heritage List several years ago, this information is completely left out in this publication. It has not got its rightful place among the monuments for being the oldest church in Prizren either – if we consider the age-value (Riegl, 1903). On the contrary, the description of this church comes only after information concerning the Sinan Pasha Mosque (seventeenth century), the Shadervan, the Prizren springs, the Whiteriver, the old houses (nineteenth century), the Catholic Church of the Helpful Lady (nineteenth century), the traditional clothing of Hasi, the (Orthodox) Church of St. George (nineteenth century), the tekke of tariqa Rufai, the bridges over Lumbardhi, the (Orthodox) Church of St. Savior (fourteenth century) and the Prizren Castle. It is interesting that this tourist brochure was written in very bad English and Serbian, and that it contains dubious information. For example, the Sinan Pasha Mosque is said to be from the eighteenth century, whereas it is from the first half of the seventeenth century, the church of St. Savior allegedly dates from the second half of the eighteenth century, whereas it dates from the fourteenth century (Bošnjak, 1959; Marković, Ristić, & Bačkalov, 2005). Also, the photograph of church of St. George is the wrong one. The most serious mistakes were made about the Church of the Virgin of Ljeviš and this text can be interpreted as the source for the aforementioned architect’s speech, but also as a paradigmatic indicator of public opinion in Kosovo, and as such will be fully quoted: Church of ‘Shen Premta’ (Saint Friday) of VI–XIV century Many times before the arrival of the Slavs in Prizren, this church served as the pagoda to Dardania residents. This pagan temple was devoted to the goddess Illyria Prem-Friday, goddess of fertility. Later Christian invaders-Slavic-Orthodox, ‘Saint Friday’ turned into Orthodox church named in ‘Sveti Petak’ which in translation means the same ‘Saint Friday’. In the second half of the XVIII century when Prizren was conquered by the Ottomans turns church into a mosque (1756) by adding the minaret and name ‘Juma mosque’ which in translation means – Friday. Later with changing of rulers, the minaret was removed from ‘Juma mosque’ and in its place put the bell and back again the name ‘Sveti Petak’. (Basha, 2012, p. 44) More detailed information about the church can be found on the official web site of the publisher – the municipality of Prizren,9 but the ‘Dardanian pagoda’ is there changed into ‘Byzantine’. Heritage appears to be of so little importance in public life that the authors could not agree even on basic facts. This is probably due to the fact that the experts JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 197 from relevant scientific disciplines were not consulted. However, academic support for the thesis about the distant analogies between Dardanian history and the medieval church can be found in the book by archeologist Shukriu, ‘Kisha e Shën Prendës’, also published in 2012. Yet, her ‘new scientific achievements’ are quite problematic and have not been directly incorporated into the monument’s interpretation. It is not only because they have not been widely accepted within the scientific community, but also because such distant analogies are not relevant for the visual qualities of the church, based on which it was categorised as a World Heritage Site.10 The question of the name of the church, and the idea of hagiotoponym was marked even before, suggesting a completely different theory (Loma, 1989). But, it was never considered as significant in further research and evaluation of this monument. However, the aesthetic, historic and age-value are just some of this monument’s values, and they certainly do not satisfy, but should provoke our interest in it, as Alois Riegl noted in his seminal article entitled The Modern Cult of the Monument: Its Character and Its Origin [1903]. In the aforementioned presentations, printed and web tourist guides, the described monument is strictly seen as a religious object. On the tourist map of the same web site, the Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš is marked as church without the UNESCO emblem.11 There is no specially marked road to its location and, since it is in the densely built urban core, there is only a signpost with the drawing. In 2009 the Tourism Department of the Ministry of Trade of Kosovo also published the map – ‘Tourist map of the Republic of Kosovo’ in which monuments were recognised only by their function. It is also noticeable that, when it comes to the orthodox churches and monasteries they are marked without an adjective.12 The same organisation published a tourist prospect in the same year. It looks rather like a photo album, not as an official presentation of natural and cultural heritage. Gračanica is the only monastery mentioned in the prospect, but without a wider and precise explanation. The UNESCO emblem is missing.13 The same Tourism Department of the Ministry of Trade with Industry of Kosovo (MTI) and the German Agency of Technical Cooperation developed the Tourism Development Strategy of Kosovo in 2006. This was examined to discover strategic consideration of the challenges of tourism development. The main challenges were political problems, limited expertise and professionalism, particularly due to political nepotism in staffing processes, which renders the problem of interpreting heritage much more complex.14 There are also several popular tourist web sites that refer to cultural heritage in Kosovo. One of them is a German widely known organisation ‘In Your Pocket’, which has, so far, published tourist guides of Prizren and Priština. Prizren in Your Pocket is produced in partnership with the aforementioned Swedish Foundation CHwB – Kosovo Office. This short publication contains more objective information, although in a very limited form dictated by the space available.15 The same, but even shorter, is the one on the web site of Kosovo Tourism Center, the organisation that seems to be a non-governmental organisation.16 On the first web site, the Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš is still categorised as a church, although without any UNESCO promotion. It is mentioned only after the Prizren fortress. On the other web site it comes after the Albanian League of Prizren, the Prizren fortress and the Sinan Pasha Mosque. The situation is similar with presentations of the Patriarchate of Peć Monastery, Dečani and Gračanica, the three monasteries that are also on the UNESCO World Heritage in Danger List. The Patriarchate of Peć is the last on the list of recommended heritage in Peć on the web site of Kosovo Tourism Center. All monuments 198 J. PAVLIČÌĆ preceding it belong to traditional nineteenth century architecture.17 The Gračanica Monastery is completely missing from the Prishtina promoting list and the Dečani Monastery is the only one properly presented, as the first on the list ‘To See’ in the Dečani Municipality. It is listed before kullas (traditional Albanian houses from the nineteenth century) and before the cemetery of Ramush Haradinaj (Kosovo Liberation Army fighter) family.18 However, these monasteries retained their monastic function as spiritual centres after the war in Kosovo. But, their position is not the same, neither geographically, nor in terms of social role. The Gračanica Monastery (Figure 2), King Milutin’s last monumental endowment, is situated in the Serbian enclave, in the village of Gračanica, 5 km from Priština, the administrative centre of Kosovo and Metohija region. Today, Gračanica is a female Monastery, an active place of worship. The role of tourist guide here is in the hands of the nuns and orthodox community. The Patriarchate of Peć Monastery (Figure 3) is an active female monastery located at the very entrance of the Rugova gorge near Peć. This complex of four churches is the spiritual seat and mausoleum of Serbian archbishops and patriarchs. The churches were built in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and possess a rich history of styles of medieval wall painting on their walls (Đurić, Ćirković, & Korać, 1990). However, it does not have any active role in the social life of citizens, only few of them being Serbs. In the official Tourist map published by the Municipality of Peć, the Direction for Economic Development – Tourism Sector, the Monastery is presented as religious heritage, of no great significance. The area is presented as ‘wild mountainous region’ with ‘breathtaking landscapes’.19 The Municipality of Dečani is also promoted as a tourist and recreation centre with fresh ‘forests, multiple pastures, rich fauna, fresh mountain air’.20 This corresponds to a new Figure 2. The Gračanica Monastery, fourteenth century (photo taken in 2009). JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 199 Figure 3. The Patriarchate of Peć Monastery, thirteenth to fourteenth century (photo taken in 2007). representation of Kosovo as ‘a land of youth’.21 The entire tourist offer is primarily oriented towards younger population as a target group. The international marketing campaign focuses on improving Kosovo’s image – Kosovo the young Europeans.22 The latest Regional Tourism Strategy for western Kosovo, which includes the Municipality of Peć23 indicates that the Serbian Orthodox Church is not considered as a stakeholder, and thus part of history is completely omitted. For example, in 2012, Peć had the largest increase in the number of overnight stays in its hotels by domestic and foreign visitors. But, it has nothing to do with the two nearest UNESCO sites. These monuments are not even recognised as resources for cultural tourism. Archaeological discoveries of Illyrian and Roman sites in Siparunt, Dresnik and Rakoc, and architectural heritage of the ‘kullas’ are highlighted instead. Prizren, Kosovo’s ‘cultural capital’, is also promoted as a town ‘with many summertime festivals and the prettiest city centre in the country. This old city with its young population is a great place to visit ( … ) or for a longer stay in the beautiful mountainous surroundings’.24 Perhaps this orientation towards youth and economic principle of tourism justifies the lack of a serious and precise discourse surrounding cultural heritage, especially the one referring to the Serbian presence in this territory or to the recent war and political chaos. This confirms that in wars, according to Bulatović and Milosavljević, heritage is destroyed when its bearers cease to exist and are replaced by new communities. In other words, when cultural heritage gets destroyed in wars, its values are preserved only by its guardians, never by those who succeed, because some of them, following the mode of possession, are equally destroying people and cultures, while the others, following the mode of ideology, are creating historical falsifications, invented traditions and new kinds of heritage. (Bulatović & Milosavljević, 1999, p. 238) 200 J. PAVLIČÌĆ The case of the Dečani Monastery: (self)promotion One of the biggest and most active monastic communities have been preserved in the Dečani Monastery (Figure 4), which is located 12 km from the city of Peć. The monastic catholicon is the largest medieval church in the Balkans containing the most extensive preserved fresco decoration.25 Legitimacy given to this monument by the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2004 brought the confirmation of its universal values recommending its protection and asserting that its preservation is in the interest of the entire humanity. However, they are not perceived in that way, because the reasons that threatened this heritage have not changed. Croatian museologist Šola reminds us that heritage is a priori democratic in its nature, and therefore its appropriation and instrumentalisation is an intervention in public opinion (Šola, 2014, p. 78). Thanks to this idea the Dečani Monastery was brought in focus again. It was the first monastery printed in a series of three postmarks of Kosovo Post Direction in 2009.26 It seems that the nomination of the Dečani Monastery for the UNESCO List resulted in Kosovo officials’ heightened awareness about the endangered heritage, especially after the self-declaration of the independent state of Kosovo on 17 February 2008. Many European countries accepted its independence and encouraged the development towards European integration.27 This certainly prompted the introduction of a new cultural policy in Kosovo, based on tolerance, multiculturalism and other European values.28 It thus happened that the heritage from the UNESCO List gained new importance and came into focus again. However, even then, more comprehensive information about these monuments and their history has been omitted, and such behaviour was recognised in the Serbian public as heritage appropriation.29 As already mentioned, the Dečani Monastery also has not been properly presented in official tourist publications in Kosovo, which speaks in favour of different politics of remembering: the one organised in the name of the ‘return to national roots’, and the Figure 4. The Dečani Monastery, fourteenth Century (photo taken in 2012). JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 201 other facing towards ‘European values’, the respect of which is a prerequisite of successful integration. Nevertheless, the brotherhood of monks from the monastery has published a multilingual tourist guide (2007), which illustrates this monument’s historical development. Although there are no official records about the number of visitors, the publication informs us of this location’s growing popularity among different types of tourists. This monastery also has developed activities within the local community, primarily helping those in need, regardless of their nationality. These activities define a spiritual continuity of the place and designate monks as rightful heirs and guardians of this heritage. It should be said that they respond to the principles of heritage protection as formulated in Yugoslavia, and also in the Republic of Serbia, after the Second World War – when the first Institute for Protection and Research of Cultural Heritage was established (Brguljan, 2006, pp. 47–71). One of the first actions was related to the Serbian medieval monuments in Kosovo and Metohija (Bataveljić, 1951, p. 207). After being subjected to scientific research and initial protection measures, the most important monuments (the ones that are on the UNESCO List today) got their keepers and curators. Their task was ‘to convey, interpret and promote the values of the monuments’. Also, for the first time they started recording the number of tourists visiting these places. These monuments were seen as museums of Serbian medieval art.30 At that time, travel guides, brochures and popular publications were written, edited or supervised by experts and art historians. There was heightened state of awareness of the need to improve the tourism offer through visits to monuments, achieved via intensive collaboration of tourism organisations and Institutes for the protection of monuments (Zdravković, 1982). It is interesting to note that the first tourist guide in Prizren, edited by Sreto Bošnjak, an art historian and the first curator of the Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljeviš, was entitled ‘Prizren – town museum’ and was published in 1959. The whole town was perceived as a museum, and this medieval church and monument was treated here as a museum object, which in a way anticipates the later development of museological theory. In 1962, the publication that promote museums in Yugoslavia, also listed Prizren as ‘town museum’ (Janković, 1962, p. 59). The Dečani and the Peć Monastery treasuries were listed as well. Emphasis and interpretation of monumental features increases their significance and introduces the concept of authenticity as one of the fundamental characteristics of the monument (Maroević, 2004, p. 141). Meanwhile, the monuments continued their lives in accordance with their primary purpose, therefore, mainly as orthodox monasteries and churches. Conclusion: guide in accordance with heritage The presented illustrations refer to the complexity of dissonant heritage in the newly established, partially recognised, state of Kosovo and its different interpretations in touristic promotion. National narratives are constructed in such ways that are silencing certain historical phenomena, which are not compatible with the given ideological frame, and selecting only the suitable ones. The destruction of the examined monuments, both physically (as in the case of the Church of Holy Virgin of Ljeviš) and semantically, emphasises their symbolic value. As rarely preserved material and spiritual achievements of the Serbian people, these monuments are powerful memories of war, of the people who are practically exiled from Kosovo, and of the complexity of historical changes. Their destruction, repression and instrumentalisation are the methods of modern iconoclasm 202 J. PAVLIČÌĆ (Kolrud & Prusac, 2014). The ‘intention’, clearly recognised in this case, is what distinguishes modern iconoclasm from motivated vandalism as a barbaric act and a ‘seemingly neutral’ destruction (see Gamboni, 1997). The politics of oblivion in Kosovo, as a cause of the act of iconoclasm, should be transformed into an active policy of memory, which should find its stakeholder in tourism. Meanwhile, it can be argued that tourism is used as a tool of modern iconoclasm. The potential that heritage interpretation through tourism affects the audience (not only the visitors of the site itself) calls for reconsideration of the role of tourism in cultural development. Also, it shapes our understanding of iconoclasm, on one hand, and dissonant heritage, as a consequence of the Kosovo case, on the other. In addition, it answers the key question addressed in this paper about the real danger that threatens this heritage. So, what kind of protection and (tourist) promotion of heritage do we need is not only a question to be posed in war and postwar context, but also the question of understanding heritage as a discourse. The integrity of the monument as a ‘living being’ that communicates requires organised protection, but it is still not on the agenda of the agents in charge of heritage protection (in a wider sense that includes cultural tourism, too). In the social verification of heritology, as the learning about the art of memory, it is taken for granted that the established system of protection (legal and technical) be upgraded with a predilection for social protection. Such reconsideration of the protection system would include the socialisation of heritage, not only as an ideological problem, but also as a codified system of individualisation of human values. It necessarily assumes that heritage is a social measure of values, and therefore that heritage is a public good. Every society articulates this awareness through defining public interest and common values, that is, by way of accepting a general consensus around issue of world heritage as an integral heritage: natural, cultural, economic, sustainable development (Bulatović, 2005, pp. 14–15). However, in practice, technical protection is the latest range of protection. Tourism as a social approach is not a conscious part of it. There is a slight difference between interpretation and managing heritage in the academic sphere and (contemporary) tourism, even if they function and occur simultaneously. As Mc Kercher and Du Cros conclude (2012, p. 232) ‘Sustainable cultural tourism cannot occur until and unless the promotion roles are integrated with conservation goals.’ Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Notes 1. In this paper we will use both the terms ‘Kosovo and Metohija’ and ‘Kosovo’. The first one is in line with the official policy of Serbia and refers to Kosovo as an Autonomous province and geographic area. The second term will be used to emphasise the position of the Serbian medieval monuments in the self-declared Independent state of Kosovo. 2. Example: Criteria for the selection of sites to be included on the UNESCO World Heritage list http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/371562.stm Retrieved 20 December 2014. JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 203 4. See more on: http://www.kosovo.net/default2.html Retrieved 1 January 2015. 5. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/724 Retrieved 19 December 2014. 6. CHwB is an independent non-governmental organization dedicated to rescuing and preserving cultural heritage affected by conflict, neglect or human and natural disaster. The regional seminar in their organization entitled ‘Past Stories and Future Memories’ was held between October 28 and October 30, 2013 in Prizren. 7. http://chwb.org/albania/news/open-call-for-the-regional-heritage-seminar-in-prizren-kosovo/ Retrieved 19 December 2014. 8. See also: http://spomenicikulture.mi.sanu.ac.rs/spomenik.php?id=328 9. http://prizren360.com/en/what-to-visit/monuments/01-the-saint-friday-church-levishka# Retrieved 19 December 2014. 10. See the criteria on: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/724/ Retrieved 20 November 2014. 11. http://prizren360.com/en/touristic-map Retrieved 21 December 2014. 12. http://www.mti-ks.org/en-us/Publications2 Retrieved 20 November 2014. 13. http://www.mti-ks.org/repository/docs/prospekti_eng.pdf Retrieved 20 November 2014. 14. The presentation of Shiperim Reka ‘The importance of strategic tourism development in a post/conflict context’ available on: http://www.regionalstudies.org/uploads/The_ Importance_of_Strategic_Tourism.pdf 15. http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/prizren/Sightseeing/Churches/Church-of-Our-Lady-ofLjevis_62360v 16. http://kosovotourismcenter.com/prizeren.html Retrieved 20 November 2014. 17. http://kosovotourismcenter.com/peja.html Retrieved 20 November 2014. 18. http://kosovotourismcenter.com/decan.html Retrieved 20 November 2014. 19. Publication available on: http://www.pejatourism.org/en/pdf/informatori-turistik.pdf 20. http://kosovotourismcenter.com/decan.html Retrieved 20 November 2014. 21. Youngest population in Europe – almost 50% are under 20 years old. 22. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQRGHAdQjR0 23. The document has been produced with the assistance European Union Office in Kosovo. 24. http://kosovotourismcenter.com/prizeren.html Retrieved 20 November 2014. 25. See: http://www.srpskoblago.org/Archives/Decani/index.html Retrieved 20 November 2014. 26. http://www.postakosoves.com/?page=3,31 Retrieved 20 November 2014. 27. See the list on: https://www.rks-gov.net/sq-AL/Pages/ShtetKaneNjohurKosoven.aspx Retrieved 22 November 2014. 28. Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo available on: http://www.assembly-kosova.org/ common/docs/Constitution1%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Kosovo.pdf Retrieved 22 November 2014. 29. http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/9/Politika/59021/De%C4%8Dani±na±po%C5% A1tanskim±markama±Kosova.html Retrieved 20 November 2014. 30. These information are known from the documentation of Archive of the Republic Institute for Protection of Monuments – Belgrade, Register ‘Kosovo’, Letter from the Director of Institute for Protection and Research of Cultural Heritage to the Council for Education (26 September 1951). References Assman, J. (2001). Verständigung über Geschichte und Repräsentation von Vergangenheit im alten Orient [Understanding of the history and representation of the past in the ancient Near East]. In H. Welzer (Ed.), Das soziale Gedächtnis (pp. 63–88). Hamburg: Hamburger Edition. Basha, B. (2012). Prizren, Kosova – The visitor. Prizren: Municipality of Prizren, Department of Tourism and Economic Development. Bataveljić, O. (1951). Kratak pregled rada Zavoda za zaštitu spomenika kulture NR Srbije [A brief overview of the Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments of PR Serbia]. Zbornik zaštite spomenika kulture, Knjiga 1, sveska 1, 1950, 202–207. 204 J. PAVLIČÌĆ Bevan, R. (2006). The destruction of memory. Architecture at war. London: Reaktion Books. Bošnjak, S. (1959). Prizren - grad muzej [Prizren – town museum]. Prizren: Narodni odbor opštine Prizren – Savet za kulturu i prosvetu. Brguljan, V. (2006). Spomeničko pravo [Monumental law]. Beograd: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture. Bulatović, D. (2005). Baštinstvo ili o nezaboravljanju [Inheritance or about unforgetting]. Kruševački zbornik, 11, 7–20. Bulatović, D. (2009). Museology and/as Hermeneutics. In Ivi Maroeviću baštinici u spomen, Spomenice, knjiga 2 (pp. 6–71). Zagreb: Zavod za informacijske studije Odsjeka za informacijskeznanosti Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Bulatović, D., & Milosavljević, A. (1999). Baština i rat: cinizam nužnosti [Heritage and war: Cynicism of the necessity]. Nova srpska politička misao,Časopis za političku teoriju i društvena istraživanja, posebno izdanje, 1, 237–250. Chastel, A. (1986). La notion de patrimoine. In Les lieux de mémoire, II.2: La Nation (pp. 405–450). Paris: Gallimard. Đurić, V., Ćirković, S., & Korać, V. (1990). Pećka patrijaršija [The Patriarchate of Pec Monastery]. Beograd: Jugoslovenska revija/Jedinstvo. Faro Convention. (2005). The framework convention on the value of cultural heritage for society. Faro: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/ DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680083746. Gamboni, D. (1997). The destruction of art: Iconoclasm and vandalism since the French revolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Garić, Z. (2002). Urbano graditeljsko i spomeničko nasleđe Prizrena i okoline danas [Urban architectural and monumental heritage of Prizren and the environment today]. Glasnik DKS, 26, 40–41. Janković, D. (Ed.). (1962). Muzeji Jugoslavije [Museum of Yugoslavia]. Beograd: Savez muzejskih društava Jugoslavije. Jokić, B. (Ed.). (2003). Final report: Project urgent protection of natural and cultural heritage in Metohia: July 2001–June 2002. Belgrade: Mnemosyne Center. Jokić, B. (Ed.). (2004). March pogrom in Kosovo and Metohia March 17–19, 2004 with a survey of destroyed and endangered Christian cultural heritage. Belgrade: Ministry of Culture the Republic of Serbia/Museum in Priština (displaced). Kolrud, K. & Prusac, M. (Eds.). (2014). Iconoclasm from antiquity to modernity. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kuljić, T. (2006). Kultura sećanja. Teorijska objašnjenja upotrebe prošlosti [Memory Culture. Theoretical explanation of the use of the past]. Beograd: Čigoja. Loma, A. (1989). O imenu Bogorodice Ljeviške [About the name of The Virgin of Ljevisa]. Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta, Serija A, knj, XVI, 91–100. Marković, R., Ristić, J., & Bačkalov, A. (Eds.). (2005). Prizren carski grad [Prizren royal city]. Priština: NUB ‘Ivo Andrić’. Maroević, I. (1983). Museology as a part of information sciences. In Methodology of museology and professional training. Addenda 3. (Joint colloquium ICOM International Committee for Museology). London: ICOM. Maroević, I. (1993). Uvod u muzeologiju [Introduction to museology]. Zagreb: Zavod za informacijske studije. Filozofskog fakulteta u Zagrebu. It was translated and published on English as: Maroević, I. (1998). [Introduction to Museology – European approach]. München: Verlag Dr. Christian Müller-Straten. Maroević, I. (2004). Baštinom u svijet [Into the world with the cultural heritage]. Petrinja: Matica hrvatska. Mc Kercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2012). Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Mensch, van P. (1992). Towards a methodology of museology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Zagreb, Zagreb. Monks of Decani. (Ed.) (2007). Visoki Decani Monastery. Decani: Visoki Decani Monastery. JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 205 Nenadović, S. (1963). Bogorodica Ljeviška, njen postanak i njeno mesto u arhitekturi Milutinovog doba [The Holy Virgin of Ljeviš, its origins and its place in the architecture of Milutin’s time]. Beograd: Narodna knjiga. Panić, D., & Babić, G. (1975). Bogorodica Ljeviška [The Holy Virgin of Ljevisa]. Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga. Pavličić, J. (2015). Zaboravi i modeli zaštite: Crkva Bogorodice Ljeviške u Prizrenu [Oblivion and models of care and protection: Church of the Holy Virgin of Ljevisa in Prizren]. In S. Pajić & V. Kanački (Eds.), Zbornik radova Umetničko nasleđe i rat & Muzika i mediji (Vol. 3, pp. 111–124). Kragujevac: Filološko-umetnički fakultet. Pejić, S. (Ed.). (2007). Spomeničko nasleđe Srbije [The monumental heritage of Serbia]. Beograd: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture-Beograd. Popadić, M. (2012). Čiji je Mikelanđelov David? Baština u svakodnevnom životu [Who owns Michelangelo’s David? Heritage in everyday life]. Beograd: Centar za muzeologiju i heritologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu. Popadić, M. (2015). Vreme prošlo u vremenu sadašnjem: Uvod u studije baštine [Time past in time present: Introduction to heritage studies]. Beograd: Centar za muzeologiju i heritologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu. Riegl, A. (1903). Der moderne Denkmalkultus, seine Wesen und seine Entstehung. Vienna (English translation: Forster and Ghirardo. (Fall 1982) ‘The modern cult of monuments: Its character and its origins’, in oppositions, number 25, pp. 21–51). Salazar, N. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 9–22. Shukriu, E. (2012). Kisha e Shën Prendës-Prizren [The church of Saint Prend – Prizren]. Prishtinë: Minstria e Arsimit, Shkencës dhe Teknologjisë. Smith, L. (2006). The uses of heritage. London: Routledge. Stransky, Z. (1970). Temelji opće muzeologije [Basics of general museology]. Muzeologija, 8, 37– 74. Šešić Dragićević, M. (2011). Cultural policies, identities and monument building in Southeastern Europe. In A. Milohnić & N. Švob-Đokić (Eds.), Cultural identity politics in the (post-)transitional societies: Cultural transitions in Southeastern Europe (pp. 31–46). Zagreb: Institute for International Relations. Šešić Dragićević, M., & Rogač Mijatović, L. L. (2014). Balkan dissonant heritage narratives (and their attractiveness) for tourism. American Journal of Tourism Management, 3(1B), 10–19. Šola, T. (1997). Essays on museums and their theory: Towards the cybernetic museum. Helsinki: Finnish Museums Association. Šola, T. (2014). Javno pamćenje. Čuvanje različitosti i mogući projekti [Collective memory. Preserving differencies and possible projects]. Zagreb: Zavod za informacijske studije. Tunbridge, J. E., & Ashworth, G. J. (1996). Dissonant heritage, the management of the past as a resource in conflict. New York, NY: J. Wiley. UNESCO. (2003). Cultural heritage in South-east Europe: Kosovo. Venice: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001344/134426e.pdf UNESCO. (2006). Decision: Inscription on the list of the world heritage in danger (Medieval monuments in Kosovo). Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1029 Vergo, P. (Ed.). (1989). The new museology. London: Reakiton Books. Zdravković, I. (1982). Spomenici culture i turizam [Cultural monuments and tourism]. Saopštenja, 14, 263–267. Archived material Letter from the Director of Institute for Protection and Research of Cultural Heritage to the Council for Education (26 September 1951), Register ‘Kosovo’, Archive of the Republic Institute for Protection of Monuments – Belgrade.