cities, memorial sites, memory: the case of plovdiv

Nikolai VukovInstitute of Ethnology and Folklore StudiesBulgarian Academy of Sciences

Cities, Memorial Sites, Memory: the Case of Plovdiv

Abstract: Based on examples from memorial spaces in Plovdiv (South Central Bulgaria), the article ap-proaches the problems of collective memory and public identity in Bulgarian cities during the post-commu-nist transition. The text makes an overview of the main monuments and memorial sites in Plovdiv and pays special attention to those of the Soviet army, the Brotherly mound, and several of the newly-built monu-ments after 1989. Shedding light on the dynamics of monuments’ functions during the communist period and on the changes in their meaning and interpretation after 1989, the article outlines the monuments’ key role in the public and individual work of memory in the city, and as such seeks to develop a new direction of research in the field of urban ethnology.

Keywords: city, monuments, memorial landscapes, urban ethnology

Issues related to city space, its main locations, and the ways in which they are integrated in the lives of urban communities form an important part of research in urban ethnology. Studying the city from the perspective of different elements of its topography (streets, squares, neighborhoods, markets, etc.) has been stirring a vivid interest among eth-nologists, sociologists, and anthropologists. This interest has been a launching point for re-search into the historical processes in cities and their main components (Mumford 1995; Boyer 1994; Huyssen 2003; Todorov 1972), for cultural analyses of the urban way of life (Ga-vrilova 1999; Georgiev 1980; Hanák 1995), and for various anthropological investigations of city communities (Krastanova 2004; Santova 2001; Zlatkova 2004). Although sharing differ-ent methods and approaches, such studies outline the important role of city space in ex-pressing and maintaining memory, creating a characteristic network where memory is spa-tially attached and preserved, and – through different images of memory – maintaining city identity. Characterized by constant changes and passing through unending negotiations about their function and meaning, the elements of urban landscapes are indicative of a range of social and cultural processes, as well as – in view of their position between permanence and change, material traces and surrounding social practices – capable of becoming useful standpoints for analyzing the variations of public memory in urban environments.

An important element of the landscape and life of every town since the end of the nine-teenth century have been monuments and memorial sites dedicated to figures of special importance in national, regional or local history (see Fabre 2000; Michalski 1998; Riegl 1982).

Reminding about personalities with a recognized political, historical, or cultural signifi-cance, they keep alive the layers of past experience and create a network of imprints of his-tory in space, thus conferring on the latter ‘sacred’ dimensions. With monuments raised in public squares, streets bearing heroes’ names, and memorial signs dedicated to their lives and activities, cities manage to construe a web of commemorative references and shape

p. 129–144Our Europe. Ethnography – Ethnology – Anthropology of CultureVol. 2/2013

Nikolai Vukov Cities, Memorial Sites, Memory: the Case of Plovdiv 131130 Nikolai Vukov Cities, Memorial Sites, Memory: the Case of Plovdiv 131130

their outlook depending on the ways in which they pay attention, remember, and honor their dead. From the perspective of their relationship to memory, monuments thus emerge as having a double nature – on the one hand, they are connected with public commemora-tions, official discourses, and the political culture of their time, and on the other, they consti-tute inseparable elements of the collective memory of every city, of the rhythm of its daily life, of the memoirs and stories told by its citizens.

The present article1 makes an attempt to interpret a particular layer of memory in the city of Plovdiv (the second largest town in Bulgaria, with an ancient culture and with an impor-tant role in Bulgarian history) – one related to monuments and memorial spaces, from the perspective of the changes in form and interpretation of the recent years. In the text, I pay attention to some key moments in the history of monuments after 1944, to the fates that dif-ferent monuments of the communist epoch have had after 1989, and to the visions of the new memorial objects built during the last two decades. The center of attention is on the ways in which monuments and memorial sites are construed as places of public significance and how – inscribed within the landscape of the city – they leave a trace on its collective memory and identity. Focusing on the monuments that were created during the communist epoch, on their new meaning and function after 1989, and on the new monuments that were built during the post-communist transition, the article analyzes the role that memorial sites have played in the processes of memory after the end of the communist rule, and their func-tion as catalysts in the rearrangement of individual and collective identities after 1989. The theoretical impetus for the text comes from the extensive publications on memory and iden-tity as closely intertwined yet interdependent categories (see Halbwachs 1925; Assmann 1955; Gillis 1994; Todorova 2004) and from historical and anthropological research into the relationships between memory, spatial categories, and memorial landscapes (Boyarin 1994; Connerton 1989; Küchler 1993). An important orientation point for the paper is also abun-dant literature on the changes of memorial landscapes in Eastern Europe after 1989 (see James 1999; Levinson 1998; Rihtman-Auguštin 2004; Yampolski 1995), which has revealed the role of monuments not only as instances of ‘sustaining’ and ‘representing’ memory, but also as contested sites of remembrance, where the relationships between memory and for-getting, continuity and change are put on display.

From a methodological point of view, the article poses an attempt to combine the archi-val work and visual documentation related to monuments in Plovdiv during the twentieth century, and fieldwork observations and conversations with Plovdiv citizens about the me-morial sites of the communist period and their fate during the post-communist transition. Whilst the major part of the fieldwork was carried out in 2005 with the purpose of making a snapshot of the ongoing public debates and new memorial initiatives in the city, in the fol-lowing years there were several new visits that complemented the previously accomplished observations. An important resource for the research is comprised of a range of materials from the periodical press published before and after 1989, describing unveilings of memo-rial sites and interpretations of their function. These publications (articles, reports, press analyses) facilitate the shaping of a “thick description” of the memorial sites in Plovdiv over the years, as well as reflect on the gradual transformation of their uses and meanings over the years. A different aspect of the memorial landscapes in the city is, in turn, highlighted by the information appearing in conversations and interviews conducted with the citizens,

1 The current article is a reworked, updated and expanded version of a text in Bulgarian (Vukov 2007). Part of a long-term research on monuments and memorial sites in Bulgaria after 1944, the research for this text was carried out within the collective project “The City: Heritage and Dialogue between Cultures” at the Institute of Folklore, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, with support from the National Science Fund (2005–2006) and contin-ued with subsequent fieldwork visits and observations in Plovdiv.


most of whom had been born or were living in Plovdiv during the said time. The latter en-compass mainly memories connected to the public monuments in Plovdiv during the com-munist period, different debates and actions around these representations after 1989, and opinions about the “new sites of memory” within the city landscape. Besides giving illustra-tion to the observations and conclusions made on the basis of the printed materials, these oral testimonies bring in additional emphases on how monuments are remembered and interpreted, what associations they raise and what role they play in construing various im-ages of the city. Taken together, the archival and oral history materials about the function of memorial landscapes in Plovdiv provide not only different angles of remembrance and in-terpretation, but also an interface between the two discourses and their joint collaboration in the processes of public memory consolidation.

Cities and Memorial Spaces before 1989

Before outlining some of the key moments in the ‘biography’ of the monuments and sites of memory in Plovdiv during the period of transition, several remarks are neces-sary on their role and function before 1989. During the communist epoch monuments were elements of the all-encompassing discourse of the “sacred,” which was grounded in the commemorations of the communist heroes and in maintaining their memory as “undying and eternal.”2 The creation of memorial signs, inscriptions, images and ceremonies enabled the dominant ideology to demonstrate its will to remember a particular group of personali-ties, to “revive” them through commemorative procedures at memorial sites, and to main-tain their vitality. Through the different monuments dedicated to them and through the places associated with their life and death, the heroes played a major role in shaping the cityscape during communism, determining to a large extent the internal organization and symbolic geography of the various towns at the time. This role reflected directly on the shaping of the new city centers and had a major impact on the overall orchestration of streets, boulevards and squares dedicated to heroes and marked with memorial signs in their honor. Thus, until 1970s, there was hardly a town in Bulgaria whose center remained without the presence of a monument or a memorial complex, as well as statues, busts, and other memorial signs. Tradition in this respect had been laid in the first decade after 1944, when, together with the creation of special squares for public gatherings and parades, nu-merous monuments eternalizing the memory of Soviet soldiers were built in most larger cities in the country (Trufeshev 1968: 157). Having as their main impetus the practice of col-lecting deadly remains of soldiers of the Red army in specially created cemeteries and os-suaries (e.g. in Russe, Vidin, Bregovo, Plovdiv, etc.), until the end of 1950s such monuments appeared in almost all Bulgarian towns.3 Most of them were built in central squares and in spatial proximity to the already existing monuments remembering the Russian-Ottoman War.4 Accompanied by military rituals and parades, they were focal points of numerous sober ceremonies dedicated to the ‘second liberation’ of Bulgaria.

2 About this function of monuments and commemorations in Eastern Europe after 1945, see Fowkes (2002); Verdery (1999); Voukov (2002).

3 About the building and history of monuments to the Soviet army in different Bulgarian towns, see the di-verse range of publications in the daily press before 1990: “Rabotnichesko delo” 255, 1.11.1947; “Otechestven front” 1598, 5.11.1949; “Otechestven front”, 8.11.1949; “Otechestven front” 1694, 24.02.1950; “Otechestven front” 3168, 7.11.1954; “Zemedelsko zname” 2564, 6.09.1954; “Rabotnichesko delo” 251, 8.09.1954; “Narodna armia” 1762, 11.05.1954.

4 Taking place in 1877–1878, the war led to the reappearance of the Bulgarian State on the political map of Europe and is known in Bulgarian historiography as the Liberation war.


From a historical point of view, the building of these monuments shows direct connec-tion to those dedicated to the Russian-Ottoman War, which had occupied the main parts of the memorial spaces in Bulgarian towns before 1944. Aside from the numerous memorial signs dedicated to fallen soldiers at the places of the largest battles during the Russian-Otto-man war (Trufeshev 1968: 77), in the first decade after the national liberation there appeared also several “Freedom monuments” (e.g. in Sofia, Russe, Sevlievo, etc.), as well as many temple-monuments and mausoleums (in Pleven, Razgrad, Yambol, etc.). After 1944, the monuments dedicated to the Russian-Ottoman war and to the Liberation were an object of special attention, and to the already existing memorial sites many new monuments, muse-ums and commemorative forms were added, some of them actually dedicated to the “Bul-garian-Russian and Bulgarian-Soviet friendship.” Providing occasions for political rituals and commemorations performed for different purposes, they construed a link of continuity between the national liberation struggle and antifascist resistance, thus maintaining the framework of the ‘double liberation’ by Russia – as propagated by the communist regime at the time (see Vukov 2006).

The shaping of the memorial landscapes in Bulgarian cities during the communist peri-od was not limited only to the monuments to the Soviet army and commemorative celebra-tions around the monuments to the Russian-Ottoman war. Of no less importance for the spatial visualization of memory in the communist period were monuments honoring spe-cific individuals (such as the founders of Marxism and the leading figures of the communist movement), monuments remembering the September uprising of 1923, and those in honor of the partisan and antifascist movements, which marked the topography of almost every town in the country.5 Together with the enhanced interest in grand collective memorials, towards the end of the 1960s the idea of a continuity between the events of national history and those from the period of antifascist resistance was developed, which actually showed a tendency for encompassing the special dead of the communist and national history into a common pantheon. Stronger attention to the celebration of national heroes led to the build-ing of several memorials (e.g. in Russe, Perushtitsa, Batak, Bratsigovo) dedicated to ‘all the dead for the freedom of Bulgaria’ and the ‘three generations of fighters.’ The latter was sup-posed to involve the heroes of the April uprising of 1876, the September uprising of 1923, and the symbolic date of establishing the socialist rule in the country,6 which was also termed as the ‘9th of September uprising of 1944.’ The approaching of the great anniversary – 13 centuries since the creation of the Bulgarian state in 1981 – influenced decisively the national commemorative tone of the 1980s and played a key role in creating new memorial sites in the urban landscapes during the last decades of the communist regime.

Most of the numerous monuments built in the course of the four decades of communist rule were not only memorial spaces, but also important symbolic points in the Bulgarian towns of the communist period. They were enlivened by annual celebrations, commemora-

5 For information about such monuments from different decades and press editions, see: Balgarska telegraf-na agentsia – byuletin “Vatreshna informatsia” (BVI) 154, 2.06.1956; “Rabotnichesko delo” 305, 1.12.1965; “Otechestven front” 7953, 23.04.1970; “Pogled” 49, 7.12.1970; “Eho” 25, 23.06.1978; “Zemedelsko zname” 278, 27.11.1979; “Trud” 3, 05.01.1980; “Stroitel” 39, 23.09.1981; “Nova svetlina” 114, 22.09.1981; “Chitalishte” 10, 1982; “Kooperativno selo” 43, 20.02.1983. The September uprising of 1923 was an expression of social protest, which was brutally suppressed by state authorities and was later termed by communist historiography as ‘the first anti-fascist uprising in the world.’ The creation of monuments to the uprising started in 1950s and although initially the focus was on its tragic suppression, gradually the memorial forms started to emphasize victory and the cel-ebration of socialist ideas.

6 Termed also as the day of the ‘socialist revolution’, it was actually a coup d’etat that was organized with the participation of partisan guerilla troops on the same day as the Soviet troops entered Bulgarian territory.


tive visits, and by various cultural and historical activities under the patronage of the heroes and communist leaders. Surrounded by remembrance parks and alleys of immortality, the monuments and memorial sites formed main trajectories on the tourist maps and brochures at the time; they were chosen as elements of city emblems and were advertised on postcards, etc. The intensity of their appearance and the various activities organized around them con-strued a dense landscape of memory, characterized by direct interaction between the sites, the memorial forms and the individuals involved. This landscape of memory was – in the words of Maurice Halbwachs – a result of a ‘collective effort of remembrance’, which the ideology mobilized and propagated throughout the years and which was marked by the steadily applied idea of the permanence of ideological representations.

Against the background of these general processes that shaped the memorial spaces and the outlook of the Bulgarian cities after 1944, Plovdiv was both a characteristic case and a specimen of unique specificity. A town with a particularly rich history in the period of resist-ance, it was promoted during the communist years as ‘one of the fortresses against capital-ism and fascism.’ The ideological slogan found concrete realization in a series of spatial and naming practices of maintaining memory. Over the years Plovdiv systematically demon-strated political identity through the images of communist party members who were born or who died there, such as Dimitar Blagoev, Lilyana Dimitrova, participants in the partisan movement, etc. Their memorial signs and monuments formed a substantial part of the pub-lic space in the city during communist times. Following the logic of the enhanced interest in the heroes of the partisan and antifascist struggles, all these memorial objects testified to the accumulation of a separate layer of memory (the one connected with the socialist and revo-lutionary movement) upon the cityscape of the communist period. They also showed the rooting of this memory in the cultural forms from previous epochs and its ‘integration’ with the daily life of the city via festive rituals, ceremonial visits, etc. Furthermore, given the background of such a colorful and historically and culturally rich urban landscape as that of Plovdiv (preserving numerous traces of Thracian, Greek, Roman and Ottoman times), the memory of the revolutionary movement was regularly promoted in the media and propa-ganda materials of the time as holding the strongest historical and cultural value.

Photo 1. Monument to the Soviet Army (“Aly-osha”) – built in 1957. Photo: N. Vukov, 2008.


Among the monuments built during the communist epoch, the highest symbolic signifi-cance duly belongs to the first memorial complex in the city, which actually functioned as the main city emblem – the monument to the Soviet army “Alyosha” Officially unveiled in November 1957, on the occasion of 40 years since the October revolution,7 the monument was built on the so-called Bunardzhik Hill – in the immediate proximity of the memorial of the Russian Emperor Alexander II Liberator – and thus occupied an already established commemorative space. Throughout the entire communist period, the monument was in the center of ideological festivities and ceremonies (anniversaries, festive gatherings, rituals for admitting new communist party members, etc.), including also celebrations of the anniver-saries of its construction.8 Another memorial of special importance as a city emblem during the communist period was the so-called ‘Brotherly Mound’, which was completed in 1974 and opened on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the ‘socialist revolution’ – in memory of those Plovdiv citizens who died for the freedom of Bulgaria.9 Unique by its design and construction, the Brotherly mound attracted incessant interest of Bulgarian and foreign tourists during the entire period until 1989 and was the focal point of an entire system of

7 See about its unveiling: “Rabotnichesko delo” 23, 23.01.1955; “Narodna mladezh” 147, 20.06.1956; “Naro-dna armia” 2847, 6.11.1957; “Otechstven front” 8683, 12.09.1972; “Pogled” 8, 24.02.1975.

8 About the 25th anniversary of constructing Alyosha, see: “Narodna armia”10 240, 24.11.1982.9 The building of the monument started in honor of the 10th Congress of BKP, and one of the first sober mo-

ments on this occasion was the burying of a memorial letter in its base, which was addressed to the forthcoming generations and contained a promise that the heroes’ deeds would be continued. See “Rabotnichesko delo” 42, 11.02.1971; “Zemedelsko zname” 34, 10.02.1971.

Photo 2. “Brotherly Mound” dedicated to all who died for the freedom of Bulgaria – built in 1974. Photo: N. Vu- kov, 2008.


commemorative practices honoring the dead. Similar to most other memorial complexes at the time, it was enclosed in a wide park area and functioned also as an attractive destination of walks, outings and recreation. The latter emphasized the characteristic duality of the me-morial sites in those times – to be simultaneously centers of commemoration and as well as sites for tourist visits; to be equally elements of ideological discourse and parts of everyday practices for rest and leisure. And while during the communist period this function of the commemorative sites was directly connected with their integration in the everyday rhythm of the city and with the unavoidable process of ‘trivialization’, after 1989 it turned out to be the prevailing one actually determining the new function of these sites after the dissolution of the former commemorative framework.

Memorial Sites and Memory after 1989

The monuments of the communist epoch were among the elements of the city landscape most directly affected by the changed notions of power, death, and the sacred after the end of the communist rule. The changes that occurred brought the possibility to “disenchant” the spaces around the monuments and memorial sites and to affirm a message directly opposed to that which had been propagated during the communist regime.10 The ways in which monuments were treated after 1989 were various: they were destroyed, re-shaped into new sculptural compositions, removed from central locations to remote parks and gardens, preserved in store rooms and basements, covered with slogans and advertise-ment materials, etc. Besides any vandalizing acts against them or their use for metal scrap or as construction materials, there also appeared multiple projects for their reworking and new symbolic utilization. Sometimes difficulties with the demolition of the grand complex-es of the communist period led to them gradually being left at the disposal of time and weather. Thus, whilst they were previously places of memory and commemoration, after 1989 they frequently turned into emblematic sites of forgetting.

The wave of demolition and relocation attempts did not leave untouched the city with the ‘long-lasting revolutionary traditions’ – Plovdiv. A series of monuments dedicated to figures of the antifascist and partisan movement, to Dimitar Blagoev, Lenin, etc., were re-moved and replaced with “more legitimate” representations. Their fate spawned numerous polemics among representatives of different political affiliations, intellectuals, ordinary citi-zens, etc. The monument that provoked one of the most intensive debates after 1989 was that in honour of the Soviet army, Alyosha. The pressure for its destruction or overall trans-formation started immediately after the political changes, when the opposition groups car-ried out special actions against its presence. In the course of such acts, the monument was covered with paint several times as well as with inscriptions and graffiti – “Enslavers,” “Lib-erate us from the Liberators,” “45 years are enough,” etc. For all the enhanced debates and actions that demanded its destruction, there also appeared various projects for the reuse of the memorial object.11 A monarchist organization collected donations for the transformation of Alyosha into an obelisk that would symbolize independence of Bulgaria; the Bulgarian

10 Adequate treatment and interpretation of monuments was an important problem in all the countries of Eastern Europe after 1989 (see James 1999; Verdery 1999; Voukov 2003). Varying in intensity over the years, it retained its importance throughout the entire post-communist period.

11 Already in the 1990s there were more than 35 projects proposed by artists, architects and designers, who insisted on turning the monument into ‘something else.’ Among the suggestions were, for example, those of shaping the figure of the Soviet soldier into the national hero Vassil Levski or into a bottle of Coca Cola (“Duma” 153, 1.07.1996; “Kontinent” 157, 7.07.1996; “24 chasa” 238, 31.08.1099).


antifascist union envisioned the possibility or replacing the monument with a memorial sign to the fallen in the Second World War; the municipality of Plovdiv suggested a monu-ment to the unknown soldier to be built near the Soviet memorial and commemorating with it all those dead for the national unification of Bulgaria.12 The idea of transforming Alyosha and of removing its impact on the image of the city included also the building of a sculpture of Christ on one of the hills in Plovdiv,13 covering the monument with a metal sphere like a sun disk,14 and even its removal to another city.15

A radical position in these debates in 1996 was taken by the mayor of the city, who de-clared his firm intention to remove the monument from the hill. These proclamations met with protests from the Russian diplomatic mission, members of governmental and business circles in Russia, and antifascist organizations in Bulgaria.16 The diplomatic objections found ground in the agreements signed between Bulgaria and Russia after 1989 about the preser-vation of historical and cultural monuments.17 Put under enormous public pressure, the mayor promised that actually Alyosha would not be “destroyed,” but would be enclosed within a metal disk resembling a sun or else exposed in a specially created park for such monuments.18 The mayor’s position changed several times, but it was only in 1997 that the idea to destroy the Soviet memorial was finally deserted – probably due also to warnings that a destruction of the memorial might ruin the entire hill.19

Alongside the range of new ideas for the monument’s use, there continued protests of socialists, antifascists and veterans in Plovdiv against any possible assaults on the memorial. Sign-up sheets in support of Alyosha were gathered also by intellectuals, by the Federation for friendship with the people of Russia, by the Fatherland Union, by the Democratic Wom-en’s Union, etc.20 Legal procedures were also initiated against public institutions which ac-cepted the idea of the demolition of the monument,21 and proposals for the monument’s preservation were addressed to the President, state institutions, and international organiza-tions.22 The tension escalated particularly around the celebrations of May 9th, when the mon-ument had to be cleaned from graffiti, swastikas and anti-Russian slogans.23 At the end of

12 See BVI 361, 27.12.1995; “Trud” 116, 29.04.1996; “Trud” 105, 18.04.1996; “Trud” 284, 16.10.1996.13 The idea was objected by the church authorities, who noted that the Orthodox Church excluded the pos-

sibility of making sculptural representations of Christ (“Duma” 60, 11.03.1996).14 See “Trud” 112, 25.04.1996; “Standart” 133, 5.06.1996.15 In 1996, the citizens of Silistra showed the intention for the monument to Alyosha to be transferred to their

city (BVI 115, 24.04.1996). The same year, another option was also discussed – to move the monument to the House of humor and satire in Gabrovo (BVI 115, 24.04.1996).

16 See “Demokratsia” 91, 17.04.1996; “24 chasa” 14.05.1996; “Trud” 133, 17.05.1996; “Duma” 96, 25.04.1997. 17 See “Trud” 120, 5.05.1996; BVI 172, 20.06.1996; “Duma” 145, 21.06.1996.18 See “24 chasa” 128, 12.05.1996; “Demokratsia” 112, 13.05.1996.19 See “24 chasa” 231, 23.08.1997.20 See “Duma” 109, 9.05.1996; “24 chasa” 115, 28.04.1996.21 See “Trud” 151, 5.06.1996; “Standart” 1315, 17.05.1996; “24 chasa”, 14.05.1996. Voices in the monument’s

support came also from the Russian soldier who once acted as the prototype for Alyosha and who came to Bul-garia in the midst of the debates (“Duma” 109, 9.05.1996; “Demokratsia” 109, 9.05.1996), and from the newspa-per “Komsomolskaya pravda,” which dedicated special publications to the “second murder of Alyosha” (“Duma” 109, 9.05.1996).

22 See “Duma” 96, 23.04.1996; “24 chasa” 108, 21.04.1996; “Kontinent” 95, 22.04.1996; BVI 127, 7.05.1997.23 Particularly exasperating was the 1997 debate stirred by the insistence of the Russian embassy on the

cleaning of the monument for the day of the victory over fascism, 9th of May (See “Duma” 96, 25.04.1997; “24 chasa” 116, 1.05.1997). Due to the mayor’s refusal to organize this, the monument’s conservation was carried out by representatives of political parties and by the Russian diplomatic mission in Bulgaria (BVI 126, 6.05.1997; “Duma” 103, 7.05.1997).


the 1990s, the political struggles over the monument were gradually reduced to clashes be-tween various youth groups over the symbolic use of the surrounding space.24 Although it has not ceased to be an object of visits on the occasion of various holidays, both for tourists and local citizens, over the years that followed Alyosha gradually lost its commemorative functions and became mainly an area for walks and recreation. Since the end of the 1990s, the debates around the memorial standing atop the hill calmed down and although episodic provocative acts against it appear recurrently, it has retained its solid place on the map of the historical sites in the city.

The complicated biography of the monument and its special place in the life of Plovdiv’s citizens emerge distinctively in memories shared during conversations and interviews. Most Plovdiv citizens are well aware of, and actively comment on, the different attempts at the monument’s destruction, rewritings of its inscriptions and images, the political gatherings over its fate and the various projects on the reworking of the neighbouring space.25 The de-struction of various parts of the complex and of some of its adjacent facilities, the abandon-ment of the area and vandalizing acts against the monument stir up reactions of indigna-tion, but opinions about the possible fate and future function of the memorial are not unanimous. It remains a fact, however, that for the representatives of the older generation, Alyosha stands as a firm reference point in memory – connected but not limited to its politi-cal functions. While preserving the memory of the numerous political celebrations and ritu-als around the memorial complex,26 for most of the elder citizens the hill with the monument has also been an attractive area for rest, socializing, and an opportunity to enjoy the city-scape from above. Also, as a reference point for various interpretations, the monument helps uncover a particular resource of memory – one connected with collective and individual remembering, with cultural events and everyday activities in the city. This is because apart from the political rituals and celebrations, Alyosha held a steady presence in the lives of Plovdiv’s citizens also as a place where graduation balls and school festivities were organized,27 a destination where people went on evening walks and met, and where repre-sentatives of alternative religious and cultural groups gathered for their activities.28 All this helps with interpreting the memorial object not only as an emblem of a particular political culture, but also as a launching point that accumulates memory references across time and that addresses a plethora of events and discourses.

Similar pendulum moves of interpretation and reassessment after 1989 have been ac-companying the Brotherly mound in Plovdiv. Protests against it started already in early 1990s and ideas about its future fate ranged from destruction to preservation as a regional

24 Consider, for example, the clashes between Satanists and Skinheads about their right to make use of the monument (“Demokratsia” 167, 25.06.97).

25 “Many people wanted to topple down this monument, there were various meetings, [with] members of the opposition. My children were also of this opinion before. But now they are silent. People are confused now.” (Interview with К. I., born 1937 г., living in Plovdiv since 1955)

26 “Ever since my childhood years, Alyosha was a site of cult meanings – for political reasons… People went to Alyosha on pilgrimages before. It was mandatory to pay a visit – for tourists, diplomats, etc.” (Interview with А. А., born in 1955)

27 “There was no theatre building in Plovdiv before, and all school graduates went to Alyosha to celebrate.” – Interview with A. A.

28 “Before the building of the monument, there was a big hole on the top of the hill. There people organized so-called Verdi celebrations. The area was surrounded like a park before the beginning of the communist rule – like a house with a fence. There was a water source on the top of the hill. … In 1950s, the monument was built and the graduation balls took place on the hill. Adventists gathered there, and rockets were shot from that place on 2nd of June (the day of Hristo Botev and all who died for the freedom of Bulgaria).” – Interview with N. Е., born in 1930.


history museum. One of the proposals for transforming the monument came from its au-thor, Prof. Lyubomir Dalchev, who insisted on the restoration of the monument back to the initial idea, that is, to it being dedicated to all the dead from Plovdiv and for the freedom of Bulgaria.29 Although this idea did not receive approval of the municipal authorities, the need to take a decision about the memorial turned out to be a pressing one. The monument continued to function as a department of the regional history museum, but it did not cease to be attacked, smeared with graffiti, covered with dirt, regarded as the meeting point for different youth groups. In order to prevent some of these practices and to prevent the me-morial from ultimate destruction, the municipality took a decision to block the entrance with a metal bar, thus turning it largely into an object isolated from direct observers and visitors. After the undertaking of these measures and calming down of the political demon-strations and debates around the monument itself, another issue popped up: that of the role of the space around to be used for rest and recreation – non-political functions which, previ-ously unnoticed, started to constitute the major part of the monument’s usage after 1989.

At this juncture, it is worth drawing a comparison with another area in Plovdiv, where, in a series of memorial signs, other special personalities have imprinted their visible pres-ence onto a place of rest and relaxation – the City Garden. There, in a very overt way, the past mixes with the present, and the pulse of everyday life intertwines with the immediate accompaniment of the national heroes and emblematic figures from the history of the city – mostly heroes of the struggle for national revival in the nineteenth century (Hristo Botev, Nayden Gerov, Vassil Petleshkov, etc.) The lively dynamics of the City Garden (as a venue for walks, meetings, conversations and gatherings of different age groups, political and sport events) take place amidst the iconic presence of the monuments (busts, sculptures, etc.) of important historical figures. By juxtaposing the older monuments with new com-memorative forms, the City Garden thus expresses a characteristic “ideal” of a memorial space – simultaneously both present in the ongoing rhythm of the city and concentrated upon its own, self-sufficient standing beyond the fuss of everyday life.

The memory of the city and its visualized presence in monuments has found expression in a series of other memorial objects on the city map. Steadily present in the urban topogra-phy have been well-known monuments, such as that of Captain Burago in the central mar-ket square,30 the national hero Vassil Levski on the steps of the Bunardzhik Hill, the famous soldier Gyuro Mihaylov near the military club, etc. Each with a history of its own, they are not only inseparable from the memory of the city, but are often pointed out as ‘inherent’ to the public landscape in Plovdiv. It is also worth mentioning that throughout the city one can find numerous memorial plaques to participants in the national-liberation struggle, cultural and educational figures of the late 19th and early 20th century. Indicating major highlights in the historical and cultural memory of the city, they all weave a characteristic topographic network, where memory is positioned in a state that aims to outlive the political affiliations and moods of the present.

The observations made above found confirmation in the conversations and interviews held with the Plovdiv citizens, in which various details about the fates of significant monu-ments in the city cropped up: the idea, going back to the 1930s, to have a monument honor-ing the Unification of Bulgaria and the revived debates on the topic from the 1990s;31 details

29 Dalchev insisted on dropping the ideological scenes from the sculpted composition of the memorial, as well as on returning some of those which were once disapproved of by the communist party authorities (See “Sega” 30, 24.11.1997; BVI 328, 24.11.1997).

30 The Russian officer under whose commandment Plovdiv was liberated in 1878.31 “Many people argued against this monument – that it lacked aesthetics, that it was too abstract, etc. But,

actually, it seems like a bird. And there definitely should be such a monument – Interview with A. A.


concerning the monument of the prominent communist leader Yordanka Nikolova-Chank-ova and its subsequent destruction after 1989; the transfer of the dead remains of communist partisans and activists from the municipal cemeteries to the Brotherly mound, etc.32 In the memories of the interviewed, various opinions appeared which related to the dynamics of the memorial sites, as well as to the overall spatial dynamics of Plovdiv over the years – the shaping of Bunardzhik Hill as a memorial area with distinctive political and propaganda functions, the destruction of the so-called “Royal Island” near the Hunting Park before the construction of the Brotherly mound, the creation of new squares and crossroads and their decoration with monuments of heroes, the renaming of streets, squares and important city locations after 1989, etc. Very often, in the conversations and interviews there also appeared topics which had no direct connection to monuments, but which revealed interesting as-pects of the city history, of the socialist culture and everyday life, of the political and cultural processes after 1989. Among those topics were also the hunger and crisis of the first years after the Second World War, the labor camps during the totalitarian regime,33 the organized marches and visits on special days,34 etc. Spurred by the initial impetus of questions related to monuments, a frequent element in the conversations were comments about prominent personalities in the city, stories about the history of schools and cultural centers, of the fa-mous city fair, etc.

The memories and narratives of the Plovdiv citizens outlined the contours of a series of monuments that had been removed from public spaces after 1989, but which were still present as topoi in the memory of the elder generation. Among them, one can list, for exam-ple, the monuments to the “communards” Petar Chengelov, Lilyana Dimitrova, Alexander Dimitrov, etc., once placed in central locations, of which, after 1990s, the only remaining traces are empty pedestals. References concerning the history of the city often intertwined with memories and associations regarding the neighboring villages and towns – mostly the fate of their monuments after 1989: the dismantlement of the monument of a communist in the nearby town of Assenovgrad, the removal of the monument of Phillip Shabanski in the village of Markovo, the toppling of several monuments in Hrabrino (known as “The Red Village,” because of its pro-communist affiliation) and Stryama, etc. Almost all of the people with whom I talked remembered cases from the towns and villages near Plovdiv where similar situations had occurred, and were excited to share comments and opinions. Most of the interviewees could not restrain regret over the destruction of many of the monuments of the communist period and lack of maintenance of the previously well kept memorial spaces. Among the frequently stated opinions were those that every historical period dictates its own aesthetic taste; that monuments should stay, as they were major carriers of memory; that history needed to stand beside political partiality. Although the political leaning of these opinions to the Bulgarian Socialist Party was not concealed, they were also generally representative of the prevailing attitudes of the elderly generation towards memorial arti-

32 “They unburied them out of their graves and gathered the remains together until they built the monu-ment. But then – when they were about to put them in the ossuary – they could not find the remains. Obviously, the chemical in which they preserved the bones had dissolved them. That was how they constructed the ossuary – empty. All citizens of Plovdiv knew that there were no bones in the ossuary.” – Interview with Т. R., born in 1926.

33 “Sending people to labor camps was for truly innocent and absurd reasons. Everybody who had long hair, a beard, or if a woman had a short skirt or her hair was in a bun, could end up in a labor camp. ” – Interview with К. I.

34 Thus, on the occasion of the solemn marches that take place on June 2nd, a female respondent eagerly shares: “We had marches that consisted roughly of 300 people. Along the route, we visited monuments, death spots, we sat for a while, and we talked to partisans, took photos of them.” – Interview with N. E.


facts – major reference points in their lives.An important part of the conversations were also opinions on the newly-raised monu-

ments and memorial plaques in the town. Some of the new constructions (e.g. for the painter Tsanko Lavrenov, the writer Aleko Konstantinov, the journalist Nedko Kableshkov, etc.) are attempts to mark key moments in the history of Plovdiv and to overcome the previous over-whelming presence of ideological monuments – by recreating the memories of figures that have enriched the city’s cultural life. Other monuments that have appeared after 1989 (e.g of the Bulgarian politician of the early twentieth century, Stefan Stambolov, or of the nine-teenth-century hero Kocho Chestimenski) provoked contradictory opinions about their poor artistic realization, about their proximity to the style of communist monumentality, and about the choices of their location. For example, for several years, intensive public de-bates surrounded the monument of Phillip the Macedonian, raised in one of the emblematic squares of Plovdiv to assert the long cultural traditions of the city going back to Greek An-tiquity. During the debates, various aspects of the monument were attacked, among them the choice of place, the scale, the posture of the ruler, who had given the city its ancient name (“Phillipopolis”), etc.35 In 2012, due to reconstruction works around the monument’s initial location, it was removed and placed in front of the Municipal Council of the city with an intention that this would be its ultimate location. Albeit with much less debate, the mon-ument to the famous Bulgarian King of the Medieval period, Khan Krum, also raised specu-lations about the appropriateness of its construction and the overall need to spend public funds on such expensive projects. Dedicated to the anniversary of 800 years after the ruler integrated Plovdiv within the territory of the Bulgarian State, the equestrian figure of the king added an important input to the monumental landscape in Plovdiv, particularly to the efforts to revive the earlier periods of state glory and to overcome the patterns of communist monumentality. Another widely discussed monument was that to the city’s crank Milyo – a weird personality who entertained the main street of the city with his strangeness, feeble-mindedness, and communicative spirit. Milyo used to be a city emblem and was remem-bered by many after his death. Thus, although there were at the beginning some reserva-tions about the legitimacy of having a statue of such a figure, the sculpture was perceived positively by many people and soon turned into a popular site attracting photos from both tourists and local citizens.

Many memorial signs that were raised during the post-communist transition resulted from the impetus to commemorate victims of the totalitarian regime or to recall figures and events kept aside from public attention before 1989. Thus, in 1996, in the schoolyard of “Vas-sil Levski” school, a monument to the victims of communism was built, and a memorial sign was placed upon their common grave.36 In 2000, at the initiative of the “Nikola Petkov” Ag-ricultural Union (named after the famous opposition leader in the first years of the commu-nist rule), a monument was raised to the perished members of the union and other Plovdiv citizens who were repressed and died after 1944.37 Similar commemorative functions can be attributed to the memorial plaque to Priest Kamen Vichev at the Plovdiv University, and the plaque at the entrance to the Catholic Church nearby – in memory of three priests shot in 1952 and pronounced as blessed by Pope John Paul II. In 2005, a monument to all the re-pressed people after 1944 was built in front of the municipal administration building of the town. The memorial was founded at the initiative of the Union of the Repressed by the Com-

35 As one of my interviewees commented: “Its place is not supposed to be there, the pedestal is ridiculous, and the scale is unacceptable too: the opinions are largely split.” – Interview with А. А.

36 See “Demokratsia” 43, 10.11.1996; “Trud” 121, 6.05.1997; “Standart” 1675, 20.05.1997.37 See “Standart” 2636, 27.03.2000.


Photo 4. Monument to the repressed by the communist regime in Bulgaria – built in 2005. Photo: N. Vukov, 2009.

Photo 3. Monument to the members of “Nikola Petkov” Agricultural Union and to the victims of the communist rule – built in 2000. Photo: N. Vukov, 2008.

munist Regime in Bulgaria and was designed to resemble an old tree in whose base is an inscription is laid saying “Cut down (like tree) back in Time we (contemporaries) Read through.” Although nowadays it looks rather enigmatic to visitors to the city, it provides an important illustration of the policies of memory during the post-communist period.

An interesting case is that of the group of monuments and memorial signs dedicated to the salvation of Bulgarian Jews during World War II – an event that did not receive adequate monumental representation during the communist period. In 1998, on the occasion of


the 55th anniversary of this event, a monument was built in honour of the salvation of the Bulgarian Jews in the garden near the Jewish Cultural Centre,38 and two years later, a memo-rial plaque commemorating Jewish participants in the antifascist struggle was unveiled in the Synagogue of Plovdiv. Making possible the long-conceived idea of placing commemora-tive signs to Jewish people who perished in the wars (an idea dating back to 1930s, but re-maining unrealized), the unveiling of the memorial plaque turned out to be a sober and significant event for the Jewish community in the city, and is pointed out at with pride by representatives of this community.

These examples of new foci in the public memory after 1989 testify to the symbolic sig-nificance that monuments and memorial sites hold for Plovdiv and its different groups, generations, and communities. Taken together, they point to a peculiar coexistence of cul-tural and historical references in the city’s topography, visualizations of its wanted or un-wanted, remembered or forgotten past, and representations of its contact with the present. Customarily associated with their ability to hold a lasting and unchanging presence, they are actually a lively and dynamic element of the urban landscape – one that changes both in its spatial and visual aspects, and in the flexible contours of the individual and collective memory.

Conclusion

The cases analyzed in the text demonstrate how in the last two decades the city has construed elements of its history, worked out its identity and “connected its present-day being with a ‘once-upon-a-time’ that actually ‘belongs’ to the dead” (Zhivkov 2000: 275). At the same time, they touch upon important aspects of the everyday experience of the living, maintaining important points in the surrounding landscape and forming major references in their memory. As a crossing point for different approaches (political, ideological, journal-istic, etc.), monuments and memorial sites are not only a thematic focus, but also a key ori-entation point for how to present and assert cultural, historical and collective identities. And it is namely this perspective that permits their being perceived as ‘heritage,’ whose mainte-nance and transmission originates from of active dialogue between different cultures and discourses, between political and everyday uses, between the past and the present.

Bibliography

Assmann Jan (1955), Collective Memory and Cultural Identity, “New German Critique” 65, pp. 125–133.

Boyarin Jonathan, ed. (1994), Remapping Memory: The Politics of Timespace, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Boyer, Christina (1994), The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architec-tural Entertainments, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Connerton Paul (1989), How Societies Remember, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fabre Daniel, ed. (2000), Domestiquer l’histoire: Ethnologie des monuments historique, Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Fowkes Reuben (2002), The Role of Monumental Sculpture in the Construction of Socialist Space in Stalinist Hungary in: D. Crowley & S. E. Reid (eds.) Socialist Spaces: Sites of Eve-

38 Known as the “monument of gratitude,” it was built from personal donations of the Plovdiv Jews and bears the inscription “In gratitude to all those who helped in our salvation in 10.03.1944. From the grateful Jews of Plovdiv.”


ryday Life in the Eastern Bloc, Oxford, New York: Berg, pp. 65–84.Gavrilova Rayna (1999), Koleloto na zhivota: Vsekidnevieto v balgarskia vazrozhdenski grad

[The Wheel of Life: Everyday Life in Bulgarian Towns in the Revival Period], Sofia: Univer-sitetsko izdatelstvo “Sveti Kliment Ohridski” (in Bulgarian).

Georgiev Georgi (1980), Etnografia na balgarskia grad [Ethnography of Bulgarian Cities], So-fia: Izdatelstvo na Balgarskata akademia na naukite (in Bulgarian).

Gillis John (1994), Memory and Identity: the History of a Relationship in: J. Gillis (ed.) Com-memorations: The Politics of National Identity, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univer-sity Press, pp. 3–24.

Halbwachs, Maurice (1925), Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire, Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan.Hanák Peter (1995), The Garden and the Workshop: Essays on Cultural History of Vienna and

Budapest, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Huyssen Andreas (2003), Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsests and the Politics of Memory, Stan-

ford: Stanford University Press.James Beverly (1999), Fencing in the Past: Budapest’s Statue Park Museum, “Media, Culture,

and Society” 21 (3), pp. 291–311.Krastanova Krassimira (2004), Kulturni praktiki i konstruirane obrazite na grada [Cultural

Practices and Construing Images of the City], “Balgarski folklor” 1–2, pp. 38–55 (in Bulgarian).

Küchler Susanne (1993), Landscape and Memory: The Mapping of Process and Its Representa-tion in a Melanesian Society in: B. Bender (ed.), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Ox-ford: Berg, pp. 85–106.

Levinson Sanford (1998), Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Michalski Serguisz (1998), Public Monuments: Art in Political Bondage 1870–1997, London: Reaktion Books.

Mumford Lewis (1995), The City in History, London: Routledge.Riegl Alois (1982), The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin, “Opposi-

tion” 25, pp. 21–51 (originally published as: Der modern Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung, Vienna-Leipzig, 1903).

Rihtman-Auguštin Dunja (2004), The Monument in the Main City Square: Constructing and Erasing Memory in Contemporary Croatia in: M. Todorova (ed.), Balkan Identities, Nation and Memory, New York New: York University Press, pp. 180–196.

Santova Mila (2001), Kultura i traditsia na malkia grad [Culture and Tradition of the Little Town], Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov” (in Bulgarian).

Todorov Nikolay (1972), Balkanskiat grad ХV-ХІХ v. [The Balkan City, 15th–19th cc], Sofia: “Nauka i izkustvo” (in Bulgarian).

Todorova Maria (2004), Introduction: Learning Memory, Remembering Identity in: M. Todor-ova (ed.), Balkan Identities, Nation and Memory, New York: New York University Press, pp. 1–24.

Trufeshev Nikolay (1968), Monumentalnite izkustva i arhitekturata v Bulgaria [Monumental Arts and Architecture in Bulgaria], Sofia: Tehnika (in Bulgarian).

Verdery Katherine (1999), The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change, New York: Columbia University Press.

Voukov Nikolai (2003), Death and Desecration: Monuments of the Socialist Past in Bulgaria after 1989, “Anthropology of Eastern Europe Review” 21 (2), pp. 49–55.

Voukov Nikolai (2002), Death and Vitality in the Monuments of the Socialist Past in Eastern Europe, “New Europe College Regional Program Yearbook,” Bucharest, pp. 253–298.

Vukov, Nikolai (2007), Grad i memorialni prostranstva (po materiali ot Plovdiv) [The City and Its Memorial Sites: Materials from Plovdiv], “Balgarski folklor” 1, pp. 46–55 (in Bulgarian).

Vukov, Nikolai (2006), “Brotherly Help” Representations or “Imperial” Legacy: Monuments to the Soviet Army in Bulgaria before and after 1989, “Ab Imperio” 1, pp. 267–292.

Yampolski, Mikhail (1995), In the Shadow of Monuments: Notes on Iconoclasm and Time in: N. Condee (ed.), Soviet Hieroglyphics: Visual Culture in Late Twentieth Century Russia, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 93–112.

Zhivkov Todor Iv. (2000), Uvod v etnologiata [Introduction to Ethnology], Plovdiv: Izdatel-

Nikolai Vukov Cities, Memorial Sites, Memory: the Case of Plovdiv OR144

stvo na Plovdivskia universitet (in Bulgarian).Zlatkova Miglena (2004), Gradski obshtnosti i prostranstva na grada – nasledstvo i kulturno

vzaimodeystvie [Urban Communities and City Spaces – Heritage and Cultural Interaction], “Balgarski folklor” 1–2, pp. 56–67 (in Bulgarian).

Biographical note: Dr Nikolai Vukov is Associate Professor at the Institute of Ethnol-ogy and Folklore Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. He has published exten-sively on monuments and museums in Eastern Europe after 1945; communist rule and post-communist transition; memory and commemorations of the dead after the Two World Wars in Bulgaria. Email: [email protected]

cities, memorial sites, memory: the case of plovdiv

Documents