Conference Myths in south-eastern European textbooks 22-24 October 2014, Tirana Myths in south-eastern European textbooks

Conclusions

It was my aim in the present paper to understand why the Vlora conflict is subject to different representation from Albanian and Italian historiographies. The root of such differences was searched in the incipient myths that characterize dominant ideologies of the social orders where historiographies are developed. By relying on anthropological, historical and philosophical conceptual insights I begun by establishing an initial conjecture concerning the function of myths in society and history. Myth defines collective identity that gives sense to social order thus finally legitimizing the political system that governs the order. From the early nineteen century any national history has become a sacred history thus assuming the resemblance of a myth, both in the structure and in the function, since historical speculation defines not only legitimacy but prescribes also action for a determinant political constituency. The latter concept was borrowed from Marshall Sahlins description mytho – praxis which implies that events involving human relations, in this case conflict and war, are always structured by the cultural background which is defined by the myths of origins or by the myths entailed in modern ideologies such as class, national identity etc. . Therefore, a dominant ideology and the incipient myths not only determine the course or the happening of an event but shape also its inscription into historiography. I named this double conditioning effect as mythical imperative that affects events a priori, by determining collective action and a posteriori, by shaping the narrative. The second part of this process concerns historiography that transposes representation of the events in order to legitimize the political system that follows the prescriptions of the dominant ideology which defines also the intellectual environment where historiography develops. Thus Albanian historiography which was heavily conditioned by a blend of nationalist and Marxist ideology presented the conflict as an ethno – national struggle for the emancipation of national and class rights. Instead, Italians have exploited the event in order to legitimize authoritarian turns during the fascist period. Italian socialist historiography also uses the event to prove the positive incidence of Italy’s proletarian struggles in the fight against Italian imperialist trends. I also noticed that Italian historiography has sought to delete from its manuals the Vlora conflict for reasons that can here only be guessed, but that certainly tried to limit damage do state sovereignty by not harming military prestige. The difference characterizing Albanian and Italian perceptions and representation of the Vlora conflict are also intelligible in the dissimilar attitude reserved to the manifestation of violence as a phenomenon related to the conflict. In Albania the event served as a foundation myth for the independence of the country, and historiography has a posteriori monopolized the violence on behalf of the Albanian state. It has done so by exalting the role of the Tirana government as a determinant factor of success. This data is plainly observable on Albanian monographs and history text books for the high schools. On the opposite side of the Adriatic, Italians still refuse to accept that violence in Vlora conflict was a product of the practice that the state was supposed to exercise in monopolistic terms. Instead responsibilities are attributed by historians of different ideological backgrounds to singular agents such as Piacentini, Tittoni or Nitti, or peculiar political contingencies such as Italian imperialism or Vlora military occupational regime that do not represent the genuine orientation of Italian policy toward Albania which, presumably, was of a collaborative and not of an intrusive kind.

I hope that these reflections, although presenting several limits that the reader is encouraged to define, could enhance contact between historiographies that were separated by political contingencies after the Second World War, and that until now have found only little dialogue. I think this to be the case of Italy and Albania. Revisionist history that has been undertaken lately seem to concern Eastern European more than western, especially when it comes to national myths. New interpretations are sometimes astonishingly daring because, in the attempt to demystify myths of national identity that political regimes forged with the aim to build a national conscience, they underestimate that such myths are products of the same social and cultural European ideas which affirmed during ninetieth and twentieth century, and that such myths contradistinguish interdependently all European states. Therefore myths are functional to the establishment of the state sovereignty both within the premises of a country as well as in the larger international set of actors: in other words, myths do serve also to regulate international relations and perhaps even to reinforce some of the realist theories that dominate the debates of the IR discipline, from both historical and political perspectives. On the other hand, since myths that found collective identities, at least in Europe, supersede social or spatial domain, their study can help us develop a historiography that goes beyond the analysis of subjects inside their national boundaries and mere observation of international relations as if nations and states, in their different historical configurations, were discrete entities.

Bibliography
Archival sources:
Albanian National Archive (AQSH), Fondi 34 Luigj Gurakuqi, Dosja 8, 1919
Published Documents:
Muin Ҫami, Lufta e popullit shqiptar per çlirimin kombёtar (permbledhje dokumentash), Instituti i historisё dhe i Gjuhёs, Tiranё 1976

Antonino Di Giorgio, Il Problema Militare, La questione Adriatica, L’Albania e la Libia, Discorso sulle comunicazioni de governo pronunciato alla camera dei deputati nella tornata del 1 luglio, Tipografia della Camera dei Deputati, Roma, 1920

Luigi Federzoni, Per la Pace Italiana in Adriatico, Discorso pronunciato alla Camera dei Deputati nella tornata del 7 luglio 1920, Tipografia della Camera dei Deputati, Roma, 1920

Trattati e Convenzioni fra il Regno d’Italia e gli Altri Stati, Volume 23, Tipografie del Regio Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Roma 1930
Encyclopaedic works and dictionaries:
Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Pubblicata sotto l’alto patronato di S.M. Il Re d’Italia, Istituto Giovanni Treccani, (tomo) II, Agro – Ammi, Torino, MCMXXIX – VII (1929)

Enciclopedia Europea, vol I Aachen- Bakuni, Milano 1976

Encyclopaedia Universalis, Volume I, Paris 1973

Grande Dizionario Enciclopedico UTET, Unione Tipografico – Editrice Torinese , Torino, A – Anti, 1984

Great Soviet Encyclopedia, A translation of the third edition, Macmillan educational corporation, London 1973

La piccola Treccani, dizionario enciclopedico, Roma 1997

Newspapers

Avanti, Roma 1920

Idea Nazionale, Roma 1920

Il Popolo d’Italia, Milano 1920

Monographs:

Adriaticus, Da Trieste a Valona, Alfieri Lacroix, Milano 1918

Paolo Alatri, Nitti, D’Annunzio e La Questione Adriatica, Feltrinelli, Milano 1976

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, Verso (revised edition), London 1991

Antonio Baldacci, L’Albania, Istituto per L’Europa Orientale, Roma 1929

Roland Barthes, Mythologies, Noonday, New York, 1991

Massimo Borgogni, Tra continuità e incertezza. Italia e Albania 1914 – 1939, Franco Angeli, Milano 2007

Muin Ҫami (editor), Kongresi i Lushnjes dhe Lufta e Vlores, Akademi e Shkencave e RPSH, Tirane 1974

Muin Ҫami, Shqipёria nё Rrjedhat e Historisё 1912 – 1934, Onufri, Tiranё 2007

Ernst Cassirer, The Myth of the State, Yale University Press, New Heaven, 1946

Kostё Ҫekrezi, Shqipёria, e Shkuara dhe e Tashmja, Naimi, Tiranё, 2012

Federico Chabod, L’Italia Contemporanea 1918 – 1948, Einaudi Scuola, Milano 1994

Mircea Eliade, Mito e Realtà, Borla, Roma, 1985

Salvatore Farina, Le Truppe d’assalto Italiane, Roma 1938, I ed.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (with an introduction and notes by Gregory Moore), Addresses to the German Nation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008

Kristo Frashёri (editor), Historia e Popullit Shqiptar III, Toena, Tiranё, 2007

Vittoria Foa, Questo Novecento (edizione ridotta), Einaudi Scuola, Milano 1998

Kajza Ekholm Friedman and Jonathan Friedman, Modernities, Class, and the Contradictions of Globalization, Altamira Press, Plymouth, 2008

Vincenzo Gallinari, L’Esercito Italiano nel Primo dopoguerra 1918 – 1920, Stato Maggiore dell’Esercito, Roma 1980

Ernest Gellner, Nation and Nationalism, Blackwell, Oxford, 1983

Ruggero Giacomini, La rivolta dei Bersaglieri e le giornate rosse: i moti di Ancona dell’estate 1920 e l’indipendenza dell’Albania, Quaderni del consiglio regionale delle Marche, Ancona 2010

Amedeo Giannini, L’Albania dall’Indipendenza all’Unione con L’Italia (1913 – 1939), Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, Roma 1940

Romeo Gurakuqi, Shqipёria dhe Ҫёshtja Shqiptare pas luftёs sё Parё botёrore, Camaj – Pipa, Shkodёr 2007

Georg Willhelm Friederich Hegel, The Philosophy of History, Batoche Books, Kitchener 2001

Johann Gottfried Herder, Idee per la Storia dell’Umanità, Laterza, Bari 1992

Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: program, myth reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990

Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of national revival in Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985

Ivo J. Lederer, Yugoslavia at the Paris Peace Conference: A study In frontiermaking, Yale University Press, Yale, 1963

Broinslav Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays, Beacon Press, Boston 1948

Paskal Milo, Politika e Jashtme e Shqipёrisё I, Toena, Tiranё 2013,

Aldo Mola, L’imperialismo Italiano, La Politica Estera dall’Unità al Fascismo, Editori Riuniti, Roma 1980

Mario Montanari (editor), Le Truppe Italiane in Albania 1914 – 1920, Stato Maggiore dell’Esercito, Roma 1978

Indro Montanelli, Albania Una e Mille, G. B. Paravia & C., Torino, 1939

Indro Montanelli e Mario Cervi, Storia d’Italia vol.VII 1919 – 1936, RCS libri, Milano 2006

Umberto Nani, Italia e Jugoslavia (1918 – 1928), Librerie d’Italia, Milano 1928

Gabriele Paresce, Italia e Jugoslavia, Bemporad e figlio editore, Milano, 1935

Pietro Pastorelli, L’Albania nella Politica Estera Italiana, Editore Jovine, Napoli 1970

Stefanaq Pollo (editor), Historia e Shqipёrisё III, Akademia e Shkencave e RPS tё Shqipёrisё, Tiranё 1984

Arben Puto, Shqipёria Politike 1912 – 1939, Toena, Tiranё 2009

Giorgio Rochat, L’Esercito Italiano da Vittorio Veneto a Mussolini (1919 – 1925), Laterza, Bari 1967

Marshall Sahlins, Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1981

Marshall Sahlins, Islands of History, The University of Chicago Press, Bristol, 1985

Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers and Bernd J. Fischer (editors), Albanian Identities, Myth and History, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2002

Pietro Silva, Il Mediterraneo, dall’Unità di Roma all’Impero Italiano, Istituto per gli studi di Politica internazionale, Milano 1937

Anthony D. Smith, Myths and Memoires of the Nation, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999

Filippo Tajani, L’Avvenire Della Albania, Ulrico Hoepli, Milano 1932

Giulio Tozzi, L’Albania e il Suo Incerto Destino. Milano Treves, 1920

Gianbattista Vico, The First New Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002

Memoirs:

Ago Agaj, Lufta e Vlorёs, Tregim i njё pjesёmarrёsi, Harmony Printing LTD, Toronto, 1971

Tanush Frashёri (editor), Ali Kelcyra, Shkrime pёr Historinё e Shqipёrisё, Onufri, Tiranё 2012

Giovanni Giolitti, Memorie della mia vita, Garzanti, Milano, 1967

Dino Grandi, Il Mio Paese, ricordi autobiografici, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1985

Eqerem Bej Vlora, Kujtime 1885 – 1925, IDK, Tiranё, 2006

Syrja Vlora, Kujtime, Iceberg, Tiranё, 2013

Sejfi Vllamasi, Ballafaqime Politike nё Shqipёri (1897 – 1942), Neraida, Tiranё 2000

Textbooks in use or previously used in high schools
Ministria e Aresimit dhe e Kultures, drejtoria e Studimeve e botimeve Shkollore, Historia e Shqiperise per Shkollat e Mesme (dispense), Tirane, 1965

Mandu Derguti, Ledia Dushku, Ferit Duga, Sonila Boçi, Historia e Shqiptarёve 12, Albas, Tiranё 2013

Kristo Frashёri, Stefanq Pollo, Historia e shqipёrisё pёr shkollat e mesme, Shtёpia Botuese e Librit Shkollor (I ed.)

Andrea Giardina, Giovanni Sabbatucci, Vittorio Vidotto, Manuale di Storia, 3. L’età contemporanea, Laterza, Roma – Bari 1999

Petrika Thёngjilli, Fatmira Rama, Ajet Shehu, Lorenc Bejko, Liljana Guga, Historia e Shqiptarёve 12, Pegi, Tiranё, 2011

Continuities and Changes in Perceiving the Greek as an “Enemy”in the Albanian National Identity-Building Process (Albanian National Movement to 2010s)

Konstantinos Giakoumis

Ilir Kalemaj

Erika Haxhi

Klaudjo Kavaja


Assoc. Prof. Konstantinos Giakoumis, Ph.D.

University of New York in Tirana

[e-mail]

Assistant. Prof. Ilir Kalemaj, Ph.D.

University of New York in Tirana [e-mail]

Erika Haxhi

[e-mail]

Klaudjo Kavaja

[e-mail]

From the early Middle Ages throughout the Ottoman rule the Balkans was a terrain in which diverse ethno-cultural groups peacefully co-existed identifying themselves primarily in terms of religion (cf. the Ottoman millet system). During the Ottoman rule such ethnic groups as Albanians, Greeks, Turks, Vlachs and Jews lived together in territories of modern-day Albania identifying themselves not in terms of ethnicity but in terms of religion.

The rise of Balkan nationalisms in the 19th century (Albanian nationalism at the last three decades of the 19th century) applied a powerful, divisive, elites-driven thrust to these groups. In the spirit of the Romantic exaltation of nationalism, the leaders of the Albanian national awakening movement who were intellectually nourished in Turkish or Greek schools felt the urge of cutting-off their educational and intellectual roots and of demonizing Turks and Greeks alike as “enemies”. At the peak of the Albanian nationalism’s momentum, all those who did not identify themselves in terms of ethnicity were labeled “Grecoman” (or Serbophiles) or “Turcoman”. Such divisive thrusts were unconsciously fomented by local religious elites by calling their flocks to entrench Albanian nationalists outside religious enclaves.

The paper investigates the role of historiographies and history schoolbooks in the transformation of the image of the Greek as an enemy in the frame of national-identity building processes. The paper argues that as far as documentary and narrative sources permit us to sense from the worm’s-eyes-view how the middle and lower strata of the local society felt, acted, interacted with other ethno-cultural groups and identified itself, the centuries-old symbiosis of diverse ethno-cultural communities was still deeply rooted in the region at the beginning of the 20th century, until the centralized nation-state national-identity building processes maximized divisive thrusts by further demonizing the Greek “enemies” and led to a certain degree of estrangement of Albania’s population from neighbouring populations, as also evidenced by the results of the 2011 survey conducted in Albania on account of the “Strategies of Symbolic Nation-Building in South Eastern Europe” project. It is noteworthy that for different reasons certain demonization stereotypes have persisted from the Albanian national awakening movement, throughout communist times to our days.

Between History and Politics:

Understanding Antiquitas Myths in Macedonian History Textbooks²⁰⁶

Darko Stojanov

Jovan Bliznakovski

Do I believe in ghosts? No, but I'm afraid of them.

- Marie Anne de Vichy-Chamrond, marquise du Deffand

Precisely by rendering banal the extraordinary and vice versa,

political myth may come to operate within the ambit of that which is out of question,

because it is either apparently irrelevant or too important to be questioned.

- Chiara Bottici

It can be somewhat deranging for a scholar in the humanities and social sciences, who doesn't believe and participate in political and nationalist myth-making, to observe the negative results of that process. It may feel as a sort of a defeat of one's own academic efforts to bring a deeper understanding of the complexity of human affairs.²⁰⁷ Political myths seem to be based on no solid ground, and yet have huge potential for real destruction. Their study poses quite a challenge. Faced with the workings of political/historical myths, scholars have often approached them guided by one of the following principles: the enlightenment principle or the functionalist principle. Spears have been broken debating whether a myth should be deconstructed and “destroyed”, or rather understood in its social context and left in peace. But, as it was suggested by Kolsto, these two approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.²⁰⁸ We strongly support this opinion and we shall, therefore, use their distinctive methodologies in our effort to both understand and deconstruct the myths of antiquitas (the myths of ancient origin, continuity etc.) which are integrated into recent history textbooks in the Republic of Macedonia.

Ethnocentric nationalist myths in Macedonian historiography and history textbooks have already been studied, although not extensively, for at least two decades now. Brunnbauer, Pichler, Vouri and Proeva among others, have contributed in posing and discussing the question. These researchers have observed different types of myths, as well as some ideological issues. E.g., Brunnbauer tried to summarize them, as a part of the “national mission”, as: myth of origin, myth of continuity and myth of victimization.²⁰⁹ Others, like Hasimbegovic and Gavrilovic, accentuate the myth of Macedonia as the promised land.²¹⁰ Proeva analyzed the Macedonian myth of ancient origin in correlation with similar myths in the neighboring countries (Greece, Albania and Bulgaria).²¹¹ In a larger study of education, ethno-centrism and minority policies in Macedonia, Pichler also tackled the question of ancient origin in history textbooks.²¹² It is quite usual, in that context, for researchers to separate or group myths in different ways, and we have a multitude of classifications today. Yet, it is not our goal to propose new classifications or to analyze different myths. In this article we shall focus on one particular group of historical/political myths – the antiquitas myths – following the typology proposed by Kolsto.²¹³

Thus, the aim of this paper is to update the scholarship dealing with the relation between political/historical myths and history education in contemporary Republic of Macedonia. More precisely, we will analyse the myths of ancient origin and ethnic continuity which are being addressed to ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian students in primary and secondary schools. The first target group is being taught of their ancient Macedonian roots, while at the same time, and by the same textbooks, the second target group is being taught about their ancient Illyrian origin. It is worth stressing that after the 2001 armed conflict and the Ohrid Framework Agreement (which marked its end) history textbooks in Macedonia are written by teams of historians and history teachers coming from the two biggest ethnic communities in the country – Macedonians and Albanians.²¹⁴ Thus, a textbook prepared by a ethnically mixed team is used by all the communities, translated into their native language.

In the myth-maker's workshop: enlightenment approach

Bottici argues, following Wittgenstein, that “to define myth, in general, and political myth in particular, in terms of its claim to 'truth' means to bring it to a terrain that is not its own”.²¹⁵ Inasmuch we agree with the general idea of this statement, yet we believe that analyzing and deconstructing the historical veracity of a myth is relevant and useful for the subsequent effort to understand its role in a particular socio-political context. Furthermore, we put strong emphasis on Kolsto's view on the function of demythologization and enlightenment, according to which “... a society that is able to treat its homespun identity myths with some degree of irony and detachment is less likely to be mobilized by political and ethnic entrepreneurs for aggressive purposes”.²¹⁶ Yet, it seems relevant, in this first part of our endeavor, to try to understand and explain how the myths of antiquitas are being constructed in the case of Macedonian history textbooks.

In this section we offer an overview of the “veracity” of the antiquitas myths from our case study. Or, rather, we offer the results from a comparison between the proposed knowledge and the current established theories and concepts in the field of late ancient/early medieval studies. For almost a decade Macedonian history textbooks which deal with the late ancient/early medieval period, which means textbooks for 5^th grade of primary and 1^st class of secondary school, teach students (11 and 15 years old, respectively) that there is an ethnic and cultural continuity between ancient Macedonians and Macedonians, as well as between Illyrians and Albanians. The terminology, the argument and the didactic in the textbooks have been changed in order to meet a new need for autochthony. In an article published in 2010, Stojanov argued that the myth of continuity follows two lines, or it has two ways of operating: an indirect one and a direct one.²¹⁷ Here, in order to better understand the controversy of the question, this argument will be briefly summarized.

The indirect presentation of mythologized historical knowledge in some history textbooks focuses on the vague idea of “fatherland”, and through an inadequate, imprecise, ambiguous and possibly manipulative terminology it suggests a sort of ethno-political continuity with the ancient Macedonians.²¹⁸ Dealing with this written material requires, besides common sense, the employment of discourse and didactic analysis. Authors' propositions are sometimes hidden in the seemingly neutral tone of the narration, and have a striking resonance with the current political situation in the country. E.g., in a 2005 history textbook for 5^th graders (in the opening chapter entitled “Macedonia, our fatherland”) it is stated that “The name of our fatherland is very old. It is mentioned for the first time in the 7^th century BC”, as well as that “Our fatherland has a long and rich history. In antiquity it was a strong state”.²¹⁹ These statements act not only as suggestions for ancient origin, but also as a reversed mirror of the contemporary political situation. They can have multiple implications. The most important one is the indirect suggestion that ancient Macedonia (and even politically the Kingdom of Macedon) was/is equally “our” fatherland. Furthermore, the students can also be reassured that Macedonia is not something new, “our” name does belong to “us”, and that “our” country has not always been “small” or “weak”.

As to the direct presentation of the idea of ancient origin and continuity, it focuses on the late ancient history of the region, and the group identities at that time period. One textbook published in 2006 suggests ancient origins and continuity through a process of ethnic mix between ancient Macedonians and Slavs in the 7^th century. While it is quite logical to assume a cultural assimilation between the newcomers and the local population in the early medieval Balkans, what is striking in this particular case is one precise point of departure from the generally accepted theories in the field of late Roman and early Byzantine studies, which then build the basis for a new national myth. Namely, in order to make the “Macedonian” continuity possible, the textbook teaches that a clear ancient Macedonian identity persisted until the time of the Slavic invasions/migrations in the Balkans (late 6^th / early 7^th centuries).²²⁰ In this case, it is “ancient Macedonians” who mixed with the Slavs, as opposed to the more complex and academically more acceptable “local Romanized population”, which we find in earlier textbooks. The new formula makes the link possible. Not taking into consideration the theories of group identity in the late empire, as well as those dealing with the group identities among the so-called “barbarian” tribes at the age of migrations, the textbook gives a “frozen” image of an unchangeable Macedonian identity, at least until the arrival of the Slavs. As a support from the written sources the textbook uses selected quotations from three Byzantine writers (Theodoret of Cyrus, the Miracles of Saint Demetrius, Simeon the Metaphrast) which mention the ethnonym Macedonians. What is omitted in this case is the classicist tendency among numerous late Roman and Byzantine writers which made particular efforts to imitate their models from classical times. Besides the style of writing and the use of some old techniques, one of the major traits of this literary tradition is the use of classical names (toponyms, ethnonyms etc.) in the post-classical period.²²¹ The generally accepted knowledge in the field of Late Roman/Byzantine studies holds that in the considered time period the term Macedonia/Macedonians had a geographical and administrative meaning, and certainly not an ethnic one. To make sure that the students incorporate this new “knowledge”, in a space of few pages and as a tautology the authors repeat four times their main argument for the supposed longevity of the ancient Macedonian identity – basically, the idea that the Roman Empire did not and could not assimilate the Macedonian people, because of the latter strong collective consciousness based on the traditions originating in the times of Alexander the Great.²²² The suggestion is not only transmitted through the core textual parts of the particular lesson (unit), but also through its didactic section. The authors pose the following question: “What was the mutual relationship between the Slavs and the ancient Macedonians and how did their mutual symbiosis develop?”²²³ The main argument for the continuity concept was then taken by other textbooks too, which usually do not discuss it in detail, but rather repeat its proposition.²²⁴ In addition, there are also a few textbooks which touch upon the question of the relationship between the ancient Macedonians and the Slavs, but their propositions are mixed up in such a way that they lack not only academic support, but also a basic sense of literacy and historical knowledge – which makes them even unsuitable for analysis.²²⁵

Similar to the previous case, a mythical historical narrative is being proposed to ethnic Albanian students from Macedonia, too. In a 2009 textbook, a chapter entitled “Illyrian-Albanian continuity” proposes that contemporary Albanians are direct descendants of the Illyrians. The authors claim that “The archaeological investigations in several Albanian regions confirm the ethno-cultural continuity of the Illyrians”. As in its Macedonian counterpart, here too the focus of the historical narrative is set on late antiquity. The Komani archaeological culture is interpreted as an ethnic Illyrian (i.e. Albanian) culture. Again, what is omitted is the well known concept in archaeology, at least from the 1960's onwards, that archaeological culture does not equal ethnic group. According to Bowden, one of the leading archaeologists working on sites in Albania, the Komani culture is not an expression of ethnic identity, but rather an indication of a more localized and fluid social structures.²²⁶ He claims that the population of the Komani culture “participated in a European-wide medium of funerary practice, rather than constructing an identity that consciously expressed their difference from their neighbors”.²²⁷ In this case too, the didactic section motivates the student to adopt the new “knowledge”: “Was there an ethnogenetic link between the Illyrians and the Arberians and how did this reflect on culture?”.²²⁸

These mythical historical narratives have certain differences and similarities. What is different is that the Macedonian narrative is based mostly on written sources, while the Albanian one on archaeological sources. Also, the first one proposes an assimilation of two ethnically and culturally different populations, while the second one proposes a change and evolution of one autochthonous population. On the other hand, both myths of antiquitas presented to students as historical “knowledge” share two common features. They seek the solution for the continuity problem in the late ancient/early medieval period and they largely ignore basic historical and archaeological concepts and theories. Group identity in the Later Roman Empire mainly manifested itself in terms of citizenship, religion and finally region, as well as social status, profession etc. Contemporary research in the history and archaeology of the region does not speak of a transmission of ethnic identity from classical to late ancient times. To quote again Geary, who rightly considers nationalist interpretations and (ab)use of history to be the very antithesis of history: “The flux and complexities of Late Antiquity belong to a different world from the simplistic visions of ideologies”.²²⁹ Actually, contemporary scholarship challenges and re-examines even the group identities and the related terminology from classical times (Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, Gauls and genos, ethnos, phylon etc.), which are often taken for granted, showing their complexity.²³⁰ That poses additional problems for any effort to link two different groups of people over such a long period of time, which myth-makers either ignore or forget.

In order to provide a context which can illustrate the shift of the historical narrative in history textbooks, i.e. to illustrate the myth at work, we shall briefly turn to the aftermath of the fall of socialism and communism in the Balkans. The researchers that studied the place of ancient history in Macedonian history textbooks in the 1990's have reached different results. E.g., Vouri, who examined textbooks from four Balkan countries (basically Greece's neighbors: Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Turkey) observed that this historical period has been attested in four particular ways: thematic exploration of ancient history in the curriculum, incorporation of ancient history in the body of national history, ethnocentric narrative of ancient history and a revision of the Marxist approach to the ancient past.²³¹ What these textbooks/countries had in common was that: “they all lay emphasis on the passing need to rehabilitate the 'downgraded history' of ancient Trace, ancient Macedonia or Illyria”.²³² Studying the mainstream Macedonian historiography from the 1990's, Brunnbauer also emphasized the inclusion of ancient Macedonians in the national narrative. He, too, points to historians' general suggestions for a mix between Slavs and Macedonians in the 6^th/7^th century.²³³ Yet, this case differs from our more recent case study, because: 1. The “symbiosis” theory was more vague then today, and actually was not yet theorized, and 2. It was not included in history textbooks. Our point can be illustrated by Brunnbauer's conclusion that “academic historians usually do not go so far as to claim a shared ethnic identity between the ancient and the Slav Macedonians – although they recognize a contribution of the ancient Macedonians to the ethnogenesis of the Macedonian people – but stress the tradition of statehood that the ancient Macedonians had established in the region and handed down to the Macedonian nation”. Apart from the political “pedigree”, the first part of this statement means that Macedonian historians did not question the Slavic identity of the modern Macedonian people. Ancient history was part of the national narrative, and it did claim that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, but it did not have a leading role and it did not explicitly suggest an ancient origin of the modern Macedonian identity. At the same time, the myth of ancient origin of the Albanians was already elaborated in detail,²³⁴ but not in Macedonia. It was elaborated in communist Albania. Off course, we must be aware that these were processes in two different countries, but it does not mean that they could not influence each other. In any case, our point here is not the chronological order of myth construction, but the changes in the historical narrative from the 1990's to the post-conflict period. We argue that the myth of antiquitas in Macedonia, as seen in history textbooks, is today much more elaborated and explicit, it is based on limited and hypothetical historical interpretation which provided new (pseudo-)arguments and conclusions. It can be seen as a manifestation of an ideological use of history, as theorized by K.-G. Karlsson, because it is related “to attempts to arrange historical elements into a relevant context of meaning, made mainly by groups of intellectuals and politicians in control of public representations”.²³⁵

Yet, proving the “incorrectness” of the myth in textbooks seems, not only to be the “easiest” thing to do, but also the perhaps the least useful thing to do. Therefore, we shall now move to the functionalist approach to the myth of ancient origin, and basically try to understand what is its precise role in the contemporary Macedonian society.