A European Montenegro
How are historical monuments politically instrumentalised in light of
future membership of the European Union?
MA Thesis in European Studies
Graduate School for Humanities
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Daniel Spiers
12395757
Main Supervisor: Dr. Nevenka Tromp
Second Supervisor: Dr. Alex Drace-Francis
December, 2020
Acknowledgments
My time at the Universiteit van Amsterdam has been a true learning curve and this paper is only a part of my academic development here. I wish to express my gratitude to all the lecturing staff that I have had contact with during my studies, all of whom have all helped me mature and grow.
In particular, I want to thank Dr. Nevenka Tromp who has been a fantastic mentor to me during my time at the UvA. She has consistently supported my academic aims and has been there for me when I have had concerns.
Lastly, I want to thank the family and friends in my life. My parents, sister and grandparents have always supported me in my development, and I miss them all dearly. I show appreciation to the friends in my life, in Amsterdam, London, Brussels and Montenegro, who are aware of my passion for Montenegro and have supported me at every stage.
Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to the people of Montenegro who have lived through an extraordinary period of change and especially to those who believe that it is leading them to a brighter future.
Abstract
This thesis seeks to explore how historical monuments are politically instrumentalised in Montenegro in light of future membership of the European Union. This paper brings together many themes, including national identity and statehood, Europeanisation and memory politics. This facilitates an intersectional and multifaceted analysis of two case studies, the Njegoš mausoleum on Mount Lovćen and the Roman ruins of Doclea. By utilising the aforementioned themes and approaching the analysis through a historical institutional lens, a study is carried out which can deliver a perspective of the EU enlargement process that is often forgotten
Contents
Introduction ... 1
1. Literature Review ... 4
1.1 Overview ... 4
1.2 Monuments and Memory ... 4
1.3 Montenegrin Statehood and Identity ... 8
1.4 Europeanisation ... 11 2. Methodology ... 14 2.1 Overview ... 14 2.2 Theoretical Framework ... 14 2.3 Sources ... 17 2.4 Limitations ... 18
3. The Njegoš Mausoleum on Mount Lovćen: a struggle between Serbian and Montenegrin identity ... 19
3.1 Overview ... 19
3.2 History of the monument, the material ... 19
3.3 Competitive Memory ... 23
3.4 A Symbol of European Montenegro? ... 25
4. Doclea: Manifestation of Montenegro’s European identity? ... 31
4.1 Overview ... 31
4.2 Materiality, history and interest in Doclea ... 31
4.3 Tourism and National Identity ... 34
4.4 European identity and history of Montenegro ... 36
Conclusion ... 38
Introduction
As of 2020, Montenegro is the most advanced country in the enlargement process of the European Union (EU). In fact, to illustrate this, the country has been labelled as the ‘frontrunner.’1 As physical evidence of this, all of the acquis Communautaire or Community
acquis have been opened with the last chapter on competition policy having being opened in
mid-2020.2 Looking purely at the institutional level, it would appear that Montenegro is on the right path to become the newest member of the European Union in the future. Europeanisation based purely on this implies the EU integration process in the form of conditionality that candidate countries must meet.3 Europeanisation and European integration is, therefore, easy to monitor and assess. The observer simply looks at the status of the accession negotiations and can observe the level of alignment with the EU acquis. Approaching the process of European integration from this perspective, often leaves the observer with only a picture of integration from the institutional level. In addition, it is likely that this process will be viewed purely from the perspective of the European level. This leaves a one-sided impression which, in turn, leaves the observer with a distorted view of the process. This has been raised by literature in the EU enlargement processes of 2004 and 2007, where ten countries (mainly from Central and Eastern Europe) joined the European Union. Antoaneta L. Dimitrova, analysed the enlargement of the EU from the perspective of these new member states. Recognising the transformative effect that membership can have for countries, the author provides a ‘birds-eye’ view of these changes which can be seen as ‘multiple processes of political, economic, societal and state-administrative transformation, affecting at least the spheres of national identity, orientation and (sometimes) statehood…’4 This then demonstrates that viewing the process of acceding to the European Union purely through the lens of conditionality, ignores a large part of this process. For Montenegro, a young country which gained independence as recently as 2006, factors such as national identity and statehood are ignored when looking at the process purely from an institutional perspective.
The perspective of EU enlargement will, therefore, be viewed from the perspective of Montenegro. By doing this, the role of the political elites will need to be explored and evaluated. There are numerous ways this could be done. As an observer, it is possible to track the attitudes of the Montenegrin towards EU membership by simply reading what is published in media outlets. This does not allow for an effective analysis, however. In addition,
1 Sandra Maksimović, “Mrdak: Accepting the new methodology reflects readiness to develop our society”,
European Western Balkans, 23/06/2020, https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2020/06/23/mrdak-accepting-the-new-methodology-reflects-readiness-to-develop-our-society/.
2 European Western Balkans, “Montenegro to open Chapter 8 on 30 June, Serbia not opening new Chapters
this month”, 26/06/2020, https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2020/06/26/montenegro-to-open-chapter-8-on-30-june-serbia-not-opening-new-chapters-this-month/.
3 Zoran Vučkovac, “Against Institutionalised Forgetting: Memory Politics from Below in Postwar Prijedor”, in
Europeanisation and Memory Politics in the Western Balkans, eds. Ana Milošević and Tamara Trošt, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020): 232.
4 Antoaneta L. Dimitrova, “Enlargement-driven change and post-communist transformations: a new
perspective”, in Driven to Change: The European Unions’ Enlargement Viewed from the East, ed. Antoaneta L. Dimitrova, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004): 2.
if the enlargement process affects the sphere of national identity this, itself, must be understood. Scholars, such as Emil Hilton Saggau, have analysed monuments and their competitive materiality in order to provide a picture of contemporary Montenegrin identity. The competing Montenegrin and Serb identities and its effects has infiltrated many aspects of life in the country. This is detailed effectively in his study of Njegoš’ mausoleum on Mount Lovćen. This, however, has not been attempted by scholars in reference to Montenegro and its European identity.
Therefore, the analysis of monuments can provide a picture which relates to Montenegro’s identity and statehood in light of future membership of the European Union. In particular, the political instrumentalisation of these monuments can illustrate this. This is what is missing from academic literature. Academics and authors have analysed Montenegrin identity and statehood but by primarily analysing the history of the country. This includes, amongst others, Kenneth Morrison and Elizabeth Roberts. Therefore, the aspects of Europeanisation and national identity have not been combined in the case of Montenegro. In addition, memory politics also plays a role. In fact, ‘dealing with the past remains a formal–informal condition for EU membership.’5 This highlights many different concepts and themes in Montenegro’s EU accession journey. It also demonstrates the need for a intersectional approach when analysing how monuments are instrumentalised by political elites in light of future membership of the European Union.
This thesis will, therefore, conduct a multifaceted analysis of this instrumentalisation of monuments. It will define what constitutes a monument and how they can be analysed. The paper will also detail academic literature when it comes to Montenegrin statehood and identity. Additionally, it will evaluate analyses relating to Europeanisation and memory politics. Whilst this thesis will encompass many of these different concepts to facilitate the analysis, these will fall under the umbrella of historical institutionalism. Indeed, the history of Montenegro and specific events will be taken into account when analysing the monuments and their political instrumentalisation.
Naturally, not all monuments can be analysed from Montenegro in this thesis. This paper will analyse the political instrumentalisation of two monuments, which will provide a contrasting perspective. Building on the study of Saggau, Njegoš’ mausoleum on Mount Lovćen will be adopted as one of the monuments. As the author has already identified, the monument and site are situated at the confluence of two national, competing identities: Montenegrin and Montenegrin Serb. The instrumentalisation of the mausoleum will be analysed and the two ‘memory actors’ will be identified. In this case, these are the Montenegrin government and Serbian Orthodox Church. The competitive memory of the site will be analysed by looking at the history of the monument but also by providing a context of history. To contrast the analysis of the mausoleum, the Roman ruins of Doclea will be used as the second case study. As the reputed birthplace of Diocletian, the site is the remnants of a Roman settlement which can now be found in a neglected state. As the monument encompasses different symbolism
5 Ana Milošević and Tamara Trošt, “Introduction: Europeanisation and Memory Politics in the Western
Balkans”, in Europeanisation and Memory Politics in the Western Balkans, eds. Ana Milošević and Tamara Trošt, (London: Palgrave Macmillan: London, 2020): 1.
and has a different history to the mausoleum, it will provide an overview as to how the political elites instrumentalise monuments in different forms, in order to meet their political aims. Apart from analysing the secondary sources that surround both sites, primary sources will also be evaluated. These includes a speech that Milo Djukanović deliver in front of the mausoleum on the 200th anniversary of Njegoš’ birth in 2013 and a press release which details EU assistance for the Doclea ruins from 2007.
The overarching research question of this thesis has been defined. The aim of this thesis is to explore how monuments are instrumentalised in light of future membership of the European Union. However, to recognise the intersectional and multifaceted nature of this paper, other questions will be answered. Firstly, as a direct result of the overarching question, the analysis will attempt to answer how the Doclea ruins and Njegoš mausoleum (in particular) are instrumentalised by the political elites in Montenegro. The second question relates to how this instrumentalisation affects the identity of contemporary Montenegro. This refers back to how the EU enlargement process can affect the national identity and statehood of countries which accede to the European Union. Lastly, the third question is linked to this: Does the political instrumentalisation of these monuments impact the EU accession process? This, in turn, can help facilitate an understanding the enlargement process from the perspective of a candidate country which is in the process of joining the European Union.
The thesis will be structured in the following way. This allows for an effective analysis and provides a basis so that the research questions can be answered. Firstly, a detailed review of the literature will be provided. This chapter will give an impression of academic literature that exists on monuments, the national identity and statehood of Montenegro and the process of Europeanisation. The latter will attempt to define this concept beyond the institutional meaning as described in the earlier part of this introduction. The next section will describe the methodology of this paper. In this chapter, the theoretical framework will be laid out and the main concepts which will be utilised for the analysed will be defined. This will facilitate an analysis which adopts the historical institutionalism as an umbrella. Before concluding the results, the two analysis sections will follow. The two monuments will be allocated a chapter each. This will allow for a detailed evaluation to be carried out for both Njegoš’ mausoleum and the Doclea ruins. The results will then be commented on in the conclusion.
In terms of a hypothesis, the proposed outcome of this analysis will be that political instrumentalisation of monuments does take place in Montenegro and that this does have an impact on the national identity of the country but also the EU accession process. In what form this takes, an assumption will not be made at this point. This will be clarified and demonstrated later on in this paper.
1. Literature Review
1.1 Overview
This chapter will review the literature relevant to the political instrumentalisation of the Njegoš Mausoleum on Mount Lovćen and the Roman ruins of Doclea. The section will highlight the intersection of different themes when considering this thesis. Firstly, the literature regarding monuments and memory will be analysed and detailed. This includes introducing concepts to this paper, such as collective memory. This chapter will end on the study of monuments in the Western Balkans, which has been the focus of numerous academics. Secondly, sources surrounding Montenegrin statehood and identity will be detailed and explained. Linked to this is the concept of Europeanisation, which will form the third heading in this chapter. This combined with Montenegrin statehood and identity are intricately linked, especially when considering future EU membership. The last two items will consider the Njegoš Mausoleum and Doclea. These sites serve as the case studies for this thesis and will aim to illustrate how monuments are instrumentalised by the political elites. They will form the basis of the analysis of this paper.
1.2 Monuments and Memory
The aim of this paper to explore how monuments in Montenegro are instrumentalised in light of future membership of the European Union. In particular, the monuments that will be studied are the Njegoš mausoleum on Mount Lovćen and the Roman ruins of Doclea. However, a few aspects need to be defined. Firstly, monuments and their relationship to the surroundings needs to be explored. Then the study of monuments will be detailed as this will assist in framing the analysis of this paper. Lastly, the study of monuments in the Western Balkans will be described. This can provide a parallel example for this paper.
The Njegoš Mausoleum and Doclea are described as monuments in this paper. What constitutes a monument, however? Manca Bajec describes the monuments as: ‘…being representative of the narrative of identity of a nation-state but equally have the potential of presenting fractures within that identity…’6 In addition, Avner Ben-Amos states that: ‘…the form of a monument is only one of the factors determining its meaning. Another and no less important factor is the symbolic usage of the monument…’7 From these two extracts alone, it is evident that monuments are multifaceted and carry meaning that stretches beyond the materiality of the structure. This also implies that there is a symbiotic relationship between the monument itself and, what I will describe as society. More specifically, monuments are objects which interact in the space that they occupy.
6 Manca Bajec, “Effects of Europeanised Memory in “Artworks as Monuments””, in Europeanisation and
Memory Politics in the Western Balkans, eds. Ana Milošević and Tamara Trošt, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020): 122.
7 Avner Ben-Amos, “Monuments and Memory in French Nationalism” in History and Memory, Vol. 5, No. 2,
This relationship has been described by authors such as Maurice Halbwachs. Halbwachs describes the importance that physical objects can have on our daily lives. In his book, The
Collective Memory, he states that: ‘Our physical surroundings bear our and others' imprint.’8 To further cement the claim that our surroundings and objects that occupy them are not limited to our personal selves, Halbwachs claimed: ‘Our tastes and desires evidenced in the choice and arrangement of these objects are explained in large measure by the bonds attaching us to various groups. All we can say is that things are part of society’.9 Referring to our built environment, he writes: ‘Rather, the inhabitants pay disproportionate attention to what I have called the material aspect of the city.’10 The material objects around us and our built environments are, both, a reflection of society but also affect society. Monuments, as objects in our environment, have a symbiotic relationship with society.
What constitutes a monument, however? As shown before, Bajec links monuments with the national identity, therefore describing the symbolic meaning behind monuments. Nevertheless, this does not answer what form they take: what do they look like, for example. Ben-Amos, in his analysis of four monuments in Paris, observes that: ‘A monument, usually made of durable materials such as stone and iron, gives an impression of permanence…’11 In other words, monuments are constructed to be eternal in some way. In addition, Ben-Amos states that: ‘…the monument can acquire many different connotations, some of which were never imagined by its builder…’12 Regardless of its intended permanence, the symbolism can change over time. This relates back to Halbwachs concept on objects and their relationship with society: it reflects society but also depends on the interpretation of individuals and groups within society.
Is this absolute? An initial answer is no. Numerous authors and academics have attempted to understand what constitutes a monument and their symbolism. This varies, depending on the specific case studies and approaches. For example, Andi Mihalache approaches the topic of monuments by looking at travel writing; specifically, the work of Romanian scholar Nicolae Iorga (1871–1940). In explaining the symbolism of monuments, Mihalache writes: ‘For we look at and think about monuments in order to understand the world we come from, the space to which we feel an allegiance. Travel naturally inspires reflections on the spaces travelled through, but also produces representations of its starting point.’13 Again, the author describes a relationship between the physical monument and the individual (or society). Additionally, another element is added here: that travellers add their own interpretation of monuments. The study by Mihalache effectively describes the travels of Eastern travellers and their curiosity, which was inspired by the writings of Western travellers.
8 Maurice Halbwachs, The collective memory, (New York: Harper & Row Colophon Books, 1980). Accessed
23/11/2020, https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/9579216/hawlbachsspace.pdf?1329663949=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DHalbwachs_Coser_On_Collective_Memory.pdf. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Avner Ben-Amos, 51. 12 Ibid.
13 Andi Mihalache, “Metaphor and Monumentality: The Travels of Nicolae Iorga”, in Under Eastern Eyes: A
Comparative Introduction to East European Travel Writing on Europe, eds. Wendy Bracewell and Alex Drace-Francis, (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2008): 238.
Monuments can also symbolise times of hardship, specifically war. British World War One monuments were analysed in an article by Gill Abousnnouga and David Machin. This is how the authors defined monuments: by looking at how semiotic resources were used by the designers of the war monuments. Specifically, in their article, they aimed to: ‘…investigate how we can describe and characterise how semiotic resources are used in monuments to communicate particular discourses, identities, values and events.’14 In other words, they analysed the form monuments have and how the designers utilised this for symbolic purposes. What is meant by ‘semiotic resources’ in this instance? What is the definition of semiotic? A further look into the analysis of monuments is required to be able to answer these two questions.
Abousnnouga and Machin utilise the work of Michael O’Toole in their article. Specifically, they adopt his functional analysis of sculptures, which ‘…is derived from analysis of the object itself.’15 In O’Toole’s book, The Language of Displayed Art (1994), the author defines semiotics as ‘the study of sign systems.’16 This assists in clarifying with what was meant by ‘semiotic resources’: in other words, ‘symbolism resources’. In particular, he attempts to find a common language in which people’s perceptions of art can be shared. To provide a map of the language of paintings, O’Toole adopts three different communicative functions of language to aid his analysis: 1. Modal function; 2. Representational Function; and 3. Compositional Function.17 Firstly, does this imply that monuments are art or have artistic value? Based on the analysis of Abousnnouga and Machin and their adoption of O’Toole’s method, this would be the case. In addition, the symbolism of monuments can be analysed from an approach of looking the semiotic of the language, used in the design of monuments. Can this be applied to the analysis of the Njegoš Mausoleum on Lovćen or the ruins of Doclea? Can an analysis of political instrumentalisation be undertaken? Perhaps, this can be explained by looking at previous academic work on the study of monuments in the West Balkans region. Bajec analyses monuments in her chapter, ‘Effects of Europeanised Memory in “Artworks as Monuments.”’ In particular, she attempts to comprehend monuments from the perspective of the Western Balkans. She discusses concepts, such as iconoclasm. Bajec states: ‘Iconoclasm or the deliberate removal or destruction of monuments, images or cultural heritage sites is not a recent occurrence but has been a part of history dating back to ancient times when it appeared first as religious iconoclasm, an attack on religiously significant figures and places.’18 She also introduces the idea of a counter-monument, which challenge the traditional notion of a monument by ‘…shedding itself of its monumental form in order to critique its predecessor…’19 Relating back to monuments as art, Bajec writes that: ‘ There is a materiality associated with the notion of the monument, as a physical object in the public space, which is related to our observations of it as an art-form.’20 This further reinforces the symbiotic
14 Gill Abousnnouga and David Machin, “Analysing the language of war monuments”, Visual Communication,
9(2), (2010): 132.
15 Ibid., 131.
16 Michael O’Toole, The Language of Displayed Art, (Abingdon: Routledge, 1994): 4. 17 Ibid., 5-6.
18 Manca Bajec, 124. 19 Ibid., 15.
relationship that monuments have with society. James E. Young, who Bajec utilises to explain the counter-monument, explains the resistance by artists towards traditional artists by stating: ‘They contemptuously reject the traditional forms and reasons for public memorial art, those spaces that either console viewers or redeem tragic events… Instead of searing memory into public consciousness, conventional memorials, they fear, conventional monuments seal memory off from awareness altogether.’21 Continuing this, Bajec informs the reader that Young’s writing: ‘began to reposition the importance of the monument as a figure that is beyond that of a mnemonic tool in the hands of the nationstate and rather initiated thought into its importance as artistic object.’22 This statement is of significance as thesis approaches the intersectionality of national identity and monuments.
How is Bajec’s chapter related to the Western Balkans? Simply put, she later writes on theme of competitive memory in the former Yugoslav states and the issues that this causes within memory politics.23 This topic will be looked into further detail in the next heading. In relating the themes in the previous paragraphs to the Western Balkans, Bajec refers to Jan Kempenaers’ book SPOMENIK, which is made up of photographs of monuments in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Bajec describes how the monuments, all constructed in a modernist, brutalist style, were constructed to foster unity and construction of an identity for the newly founded Yugoslav, socialist state.24 Later, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, they became contested by different groups. This demonstrates the semiotic tools that monument designers utilised but also the symbiotic relationship that monuments and society groups possess.
To further relate this to the Western Balkans but specifically Montenegro, a parallel case study can provide additional perspective. Romeo Kodra in his article, “Architectural Monumentalism in Transitional Albania”, analyses the interrelationship between monumentalisation in architecture and urban planning, and political power; specifically, the three political models which have been present in Albania during the last 90 years. In particular, he regards Albania as being in transition. Kodra writes: ‘…as an independent state Albania is still seen as being under construction and an ongoing process towards something unattainable.25 He utilises the main boulevard in Tirana (Albania) and its architectural monumentalisation as an illustration of this. To explain his use of ‘monument’ and ‘monumentalisation’, Kodra adopts the following definition by Jacques Le Goff: ‘“[A] monument is primarily a disguise, a deceptive appearance, a montage. First of all, it must be dismantled, demolishing the montage, deconstructing the construction and analyzing the conditions in which those documents-monuments were produced.’26 This, again, reaffirms the symbolic meaning that monuments have. It raises a new point, however: it implies that monuments do not reflect the truth but a wish. Could this imply political instrumentalisation
21 James E. Young, The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meanings, (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1993): 28.
22 Manca Bajec, 124-125. 23 Ibid., 130.
24 Ibid., 135.
25 Romeo Kodra, “Architectural Monumentalism in Transitional Albania”, Studia ethnologica Croatica, Vol. 29,
No. 1, (2017): 194.
of a narrative by means of constructing a monument? In finding a strong correlation between architecture in Tirana and the political system in which structures were built under, this provides an impetus for exploring whether this applies in Montenegro. It should be noted that Montenegro and Albania each have a different history, the main one being that Albania is not a former-Yugoslav state, Montenegro is a state (like Albania) which is in a state of transition. This has been commented on and described by various authors.
1.3 Montenegrin Statehood and Identity
Following the intersectional approach of this thesis, it has to be understood what is meant by Montenegrin statehood and identity. This can help in answering how monuments are instrumentalised in Montenegro. Following the historical institutional approach of this paper, authors’ work will be evaluated. This includes defining factors which constitute Montenegrin identity. Specific studies will then be highlighted, such as that on citizenship policies. This will help in framing the debate for the research question.
As shown throughout the last section, there is a strong correlation between monuments and national identity. The article by Kodra also raises the concept that monuments can reflect the process of state building. Montenegro, as state previously, is described as a state in transition. This should be of no surprise, as it is a young country that only gained independence in 2006. Deeper analysis is required of this simple fact, however. Looking at the history of Montenegro can assist in understanding the complexities of Montenegrin identity and its ongoing state building process.
Kenneth Morrison has explored and analysed Montenegrin identity and statehood partly through two books he authored, Nationalism, Identity and Statehood in Post-Yugoslav
Montenegro (2018) and Montenegro: A Modern History (2009). Both titles approach these
topics by looking at the history of Montenegro. For example, they both look at the DPS (Democratic Party of Socialists/Demokratska partija socijalista) between 1996-1998. The 2009 book looks at the more pre-historic history of Montenegro namely the history preceding the twentieth century. The newer book does not but includes events of more recent years, such as the October 2016 parliamentary elections and the attempted ‘State Coup.’27 Both titles effectively illustrate Montenegro’s multifaceted history, which has produced a multicultural nation that exists today. Morrison provides an effective analysis of the historical events, which help frame the ongoing integration of Montenegro into the European Union. For example, on the 2016 parliamentary elections Morrison observes that a vote for the DPS would also be: ‘a vote for stability, economic growth, increased investment in the country’s infrastructure and an affirmation of Montenegro’s independence and future integration into NATO and the EU.’28
On Montenegrin identity, Morrison explains how this did not exist as a result of the country’s position in the SRFJ (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). He does, however, explain and
27 Kenneth Morrison, Nationalism, Identity and Statehood in Post-Yugoslav Montenegro, (London: Bloomsbury,
2018): 162.
introduce to the reader that the identity but also history of Montenegro is entangled with that of Serbia’s. He states that there were two differing interpretations of who Montenegrins were, reflected by: ‘the historical divergences of Crnogorstvo (Montenegrin-ness) and Srpstvo (Serbness).’29 This is based on the historic dispute between the Klubaši (club members), created by opponents of the autocratic rule of Prince Nikola I Petrović and who attempted to ‘assassinate Nikola and initiate the unification of Serbia and Montenegro.’30 In response, Prince Nikola founded the True People’s Party (Prava narodna stranka) (also known as
Pravaši). They generally supported the independence of Montenegro and the dynasty of
Petrović.31 This analysis can help explain contemporary Montenegro and its identity. Although, as already shown by Morrison, there is a historical debate surrounding a separate Montenegro, the author continually supports the existence of a separate writing in his text. He states: ‘…Montenegro was effectively cut off from Serbia, and Montenegro thus developed its own distinct characteristics, though its leaders, such as Petar II Petrović ‘Njegoš’ and King Nikola I Petrović, would emphasize the close bond between Serbs and Montenegrins.’32 Elizabeth Roberts also explores the question of Montenegrin identity in her book: Realm of
the Black Mountain: A History of Montenegro (2007). In particular, she analyses the
interlinkages between Serb and Montenegrin identities and histories. She states in clear terms: ‘Serbs and Montenegrins have much in common: in many respects their religious and cultural tradition is overlapping; they are closest of all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.’33 This has big implications for Montenegrin identity and the existence of it, as it is closely associated with that of another country. Roberts does, however, echo Morrison and argue for a separate Montenegrin identity. She writes: ‘…other aspects of the Montenegrin experience-history, geography and the persistence till very recently of a clan-based society with its own value system-have made Montenegrins different.’34 Whilst arguing for this for the point of identity, Roberts also explains how an acceptance of an independent Montenegro by some citizens was utilised in order to ‘draw a line’ between Montenegrins and Serbs. This is because of the former being associated with the ‘international pariah’ status that Serbia was gaining in the 1990s.35
Whilst both Morrison and Roberts approached the topic of Montenegrin identity and statehood by looking back at its history, other authors have documented history in a style of a chronological volume. This includes, The History of Montenegro: From Ancient Times to 2003 (2003), by Živko M. Andrijašević and Šerbo Rastoder. The purpose of the book signifies the acknowledgment of the authors of a separate Montenegrin identity, as they describe the need for a contemporary volume in their preface, in order to document Montenegrin history
29 Ibid., 26. 30 Ibid., 5. 31 Ibid., 5. 32 Ibid., 26.
33 Elizabeth Roberts, Realm of the Black Mountain: A History of Montenegro, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
2007): 37
34 Ibid. 35 Ibid., 35.
in an accessible way.36 Whilst this is necessary and significant, this only provides the basis of historical events. Other authors have written pieces which deal with specific topics, such as Montenegrin identity. For example, Jelena Džankić analysed how citizenship policies have been utilised by the Montenegrin elite for their political agenda. In turn, she introduces the terms ‘image of the nation’ and ‘the image of politics.’ Džankić acknowledges that the ‘image of the nation’ has changed over the past few decades. She looks specifically, however, at this through different citizenship acts which were also in tune with the political identity of DPS.37 She cites, as one instance, the Citizenship Law of October 1999, which: ‘…instituted a separate category of Montenegrin citizenship and established a separate visa regime.’38 This reflected the policy of Milo Djukanović’s DPS policy since 1997 of ‘creeping independence.’ Regarding ‘image of politics’, the author explains how citizenship can be utilised as a result of power relations within a state. For example, regulating the electoral process in an electorate of less than half a million.
Citizenship and ethnic identity have also been discussed by other authors. As demonstrated above, there is an interconnection between Serb and Montenegrin identities and attitudes towards independence. Kubo Keiichi approaches this in his article, which explores the correlation between ethnic identity and attitude towards independence. Keiichi refers to the theoretical approaches of ‘primordialism’ and ‘constructivism’ in the study of ethnicity and nationality. Primordialism, he writes, ‘considers ethnic identity to be a historical given, something people inherently acquire when they are born.’39 In contrast, ‘…constructivism emphasizes the constructed nature of ethnic and national identity, regarding it as a result of political construction.’40 Keiichi argues that both approaches apply to the population in Montenegro and that this shows the interplay between ethnic identity and politics. This is reflective of the contrasting Montenegrin and Serb identities. A good illustration of this is the change in census results between a period of Serb alignment and then the gradual independence approach. In the 1991 census, Montenegrins constituted 61.8% of the population whilst Serbs accounted for just 9.3%.41 In the census of 2003, Serbs accounted for 31.99% of the population, an increase, whilst Montenegrins made up a lower number of 43.16%.42
The interplay between Serb and Montenegrin identities can also be related to the aforementioned concept of ‘collective memory’. Specifically, how does it relate to the conflict relating to identities and Montenegro? Whilst describing the region as a whole, Bajec provides some clarity on this. When discussing and defining a shared memory politics in the former
36 Živko M. Andrijašević and Šerbo Rastoder, The History of Montenegro: From Ancient Times to 2003,
(Podgorica: Montenegro Diaspora Centre, 2003): 5-6.
37 Jelena Džankić, “Citizenship between the ‘image of the nation’ and ‘the image of
politics’: the case of Montenegro”, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, (2014): 45.
38 Ibid., 48.
39 Kubo Keiichi, “The Issue of Independence and Ethnic Identity in Montenegro.” Southeastern Europe, Vol. 32,
No. 1, (2007): 163.
40 Ibid.
41 Ivan Vuković. “Population Censuses in Montenegro – A Century of National Identity “Repacking””.
Contemporary Southeastern Europe, Vol. 2, No. 2, (2015): 132.
42 Republic of Montenegro Statistical Office (MONSTAT), Census of Population, Households and Dwellings 2003,
Yugoslavia countries, she states that ‘competitive memory’ can cause obstacles.43 Indeed, ‘The validation of one commemoration over the other creates tensions and deep-rooted politicisation of the hierarchical structures existing within national identity and society.’44 In other words, competitive memory implies that more than one version of the past exists in a country. This could also be concerning a past conflict, for example. Ironically, a monument which commemorates one version of events from a conflict could, in itself, create a new conflict. Political elites could also reinterpret the past to fit their political agenda. This will be demonstrated with the next part and will add the factor of ‘Europeanisation’ into this.
1.4 Europeanisation
This paper looks at how monuments are instrumentalised in light of future membership of the European Union. Therefore, Europeanisation and its concepts need to be elaborated and defined. Europeanisation in its purest form will be described, however not exclusively. Europeanisation as a process will be demonstrated as will its use as a form of political instrumentalisation. This begins with the Europeanisation of events from World War One. Nikola Zečević analyses how World War One has been reinterpreted in order to create a narrative surrounding a contemporary Montenegrin identity and statehood. This, in turn, allowed the Montenegrin elites to Europeanise politics of memory in the country. In particular, he argues that: ‘Through this reinterpretation of WWI, a new historical narrative was created, in which Montenegro is represented as a former member of the “European family of nations” that lost its status of an independent country after WWI and became a part of the political and economic periphery in the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.’45 Regarding collective memory, Zečević argues that: ‘…history and memory are particularly susceptible to reinterpretation by elites, especially in times of rapid political and social transformation.’46 Montenegro has undergone rapid change in recent years, which would align with this extract. When discussing political elites, and with potential reference to the political elites in Montenegro, Zečević adopts the following: ‘…political elites have been the major players in the process of “politicizing ethnic historical memories”.’47 This fits in with the fact that when Montenegro adopted the gradual approach to independence after 1997, under Djukanović’s DPS, Europeanisation became an integral part of Montenegrin social and political discourse. This implies a correlation between independence and Europeanisation. To further support this, ‘Research has noted that the ruling elites have used EU policies and
43 Manca Bajec, 130. 44 Ibid.
45 Nikola Zečević, “Europeanising History to (Re)construct the Statehood Narrative: The Reinterpretation of
World War One in Montenegro”, in Europeanisation and Memory Politics in the Western Balkans, eds. Ana Milošević and Tamara Trošt, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020): 177.
46 Ibid., 178.
47 Badredine Arfi, International Change and the Stability of Multiethnic States: Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and Crises
institutions “to ensure survival of current governing elites, to promote their own party programs, and to satisfy voters in order to remain in power”.’48
On the reinterpretation of events during World War One, is also intrinsically linked to the idea of a Montenegro which is independent of Serbia. This further demonstrates the intersectionality of factors which are present in contemporary Montenegro. Zečević writes:
The idea of restoring Montenegro’s independence (after the 1990s wars, it remained in a union with Serbia, first in a new “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” and later in the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro) in the early 2000s required the introduction of a new concept of Montenegrin identity, which meant breaking traditional ties with Serbian identity. The reinterpretation of the First World War (WWI) events was necessary because the epilogue of that war was the disappearance of an independent Montenegrin kingdom. This reinterpretation at the same time demonstrated the declarative political intention of ruling elites to correct the historical consequences of the First World War. The new concept of Montenegrin identity became a state-sponsored project, but it also triggered an escalation of new political cleavage, with ethno-national and ideological prerogatives (Montenegrins vs. Montenegrin Serbs).49
This extract clearly demonstrates instrumentalisation elites to create a contemporary Montenegro by reinterpreting the past. It also highlights the tensions, as mentioned previously in this chapter, between Montenegrins and Serbs; but also their position towards an independent Montenegro.
Another way in which the history can be reinterpreted is in history textbooks. Dubravka Stojanović looks at how communist Yugoslavia is portrayed in the textbooks in the successor states. She demonstrates how Yugoslavia is reflected, depending on whether it is a threat to contemporary threat to the national identity of the successor country. In the context of Montenegro, textbooks reflect the communism from Yugoslavia in a positive way. This is due to the fact that their statehood was attained in the Yugoslav federation.50 This is in contrast to Serbia, where ‘Yugoslavism is seen as a “hostile” ideology opposed to particularistic national interests…’51 This, adds a fresh dimension to the Montenegrin claim of an independent statehood.
This chapter has not clarified what Europeanisation is in its simplest form, however. The analysis by Bajec adopts the formulation according to Claudio M. Radaelli:
‘Europeanisation consists of processes of a) construction, b) diffusion and c) institutionalisation of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, 'ways of doing things' and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the
48 Vladimir Vučković, “From a Good Pupil to a Bad Student of the EU Integration Process: Europeanization of
Montenegro” in Balkanizing Europeanization: Fight Against Corruption and Regional Relations in the Western Balkans, (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2019): 152.
49 Nikola Zečević, 180.
50 Dubravka Stojanović, “The crossed swords of memory: the image of communist Yugoslavia in the textbooks
of its successor states”, EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 18, No.1, (2017): 17.
EU policy process and then incorporated in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, political structures and public policies.’52
This definition describes the institutional way of Europeanisation, that comes along with acceding into the European Union. This entails the accession negotiations in which a country must adapt its legislation in order to comply with the acquis chapters that cover all topics of legislation. This definition, however, adds another dimension. It mentions the terms ‘styles’, ‘ways of doing things’ and ‘shared beliefs and norms.’ This allows for this definition to be applied to the topic of this thesis, which discusses the political instrumentalisation of monuments in light of future EU membership. As shared beliefs can be applied to memory and, more specifically, a shared memory between the countries of the European Union. It also highlights how Europeanisation can be incorporated in the domestic discourse, political structures and public policies. This has been described throughout this chapter and will be taken forward into the analysis chapters of this paper.
52 Claudio M. Radaelli, “Europeanisation: Solution or problem?”, European Integration online Papers (EIoP),
2. Methodology
2.1
OverviewThis paper will use a mixture of analysis in order to explore the political instrumentalisation of the monuments of the Njegoš Mausoleum on Mount Lovćen and the ruins of Doclea. As two different monuments will be analysed, this requires a differing approach for each one. Each monument has its own history and context. To name one example, the ruins of Doclea were not built as an intended monument. They are simply what is left of a pre-existing settlement. Firstly, the theoretical framework will be defined. This ensures a structure for the analysis and to exploring whether monuments are politically instrumentalised. Secondly, the types of sources will be identified. Lastly, this chapter will detail some short comings and limitations that were experienced in the writing and research stages of this thesis.
2.2
Theoretical FrameworkAs previously stated, many theoretical concepts and definitions will be adopted for this paper. This recognises the multifaceted nature of the analysis. This paper will look at how monuments are instrumentalised in light of Montenegro’s future membership of the European Union. This thesis, additionally, will explore how the Njegoš Mausoleum on Mount Lovćen and the Doclea ruins have been instrumentalised by the political elites. Reflections will then be made on contemporary Montenegrin identity and the EU accession process. This also provides impetus to fully adopt a multidimensional, intersectional approach to the analysis. This thesis will approach the analysis from an historical institutionalism perspective. This means that historical events will be taken into account whilst explaining the contemporary situation. Applied to this essay, when analysis the political instrumentalisation of both Njegoš’ mausoleum and the Doclea ruins, the history of both the sites and Montenegro will be taken into consideration. The detailing of the past will lay a basis to facilitate an effective analysis. This is also required in order to fully assist the concepts of national identity and statehood but also memory politics.
‘Political instrumentalisation’ as a concept needs to be defined. What does it mean to instrumentalise something? In addition, how is this applied to a political context? Marxian economist Paul Sweezy defines an instrumentalist theory of the state. He claims that the state is an ‘instrument in the hands of the ruling class for enforcing and guaranteeing the stability of the class structure itself.’53 Does instrumentalisation then refer directly to the apparatus of the state? Indeed, political instrumentalisation (as an action) is a result of activity from the state. In Sweezy’s definition, however, the state is referred to as the object which is utilised or taken advantage of. The ‘ruling class’ would appear to be the actor in this definition as well as in the concept of political instrumentalisation. Sweezy argues that this is done with the aim of maintaining the class structure. If the ruling class were to be defined as the political elites
for the purposes of this paper: what would their aims entail? To assist in the explanation, it is necessary to look at what constitutes a nation.
Anthony D. Smith defines what a nation, but also nationalism, is in his book entitled: The
Nation: Invented, Imagined, Reconstructed? When discussing nationalism, Smith writes:
‘…nationalism serves as a vital political discourse (or argument) able to mobilise different strata, uniting divergent social interests and legitimising their potential aspirations.’54 This echoes Sweezy’s theory on the instrumentalist theory of the state: a ruling class utilising a tool in order to fulfil their aims. Smith’s definition, however, adds the missing element required for this paper. The ruling elites, or political class’s, aims are potential aspirations. This could be mobilising the population or legitimising a particular belief. In the case of Montenegro, this can be identified as the DPS party.55 As demonstrated in the literature review, they can be credited to leading Montenegro to independence. In addition, Milo Djukanović appears to have played a significant role in political instrumentalisation in Montenegro. Overall, however, the definition can apply to the Montenegrin authorities as a whole. This assists the analysis for aspects which precede the accession and creation of the DPS. Therefore, for the analysis of this paper, the aforementioned definition will be adopted. Political instrumentalisation also entails the construction of the Njegoš Mausoleum on Mount Lovćen. This is due to the fact that the mausoleum was erected in the space of a Serbian Orthodox chapel and was constructed in the year 1974 after a request from the Montenegrin authorities.56 Apart from analysing the political instrumentalisation in terms of actions from the ruling elites, the materiality of the site should be taken into account. In his study of the mausoleum but also Mount Lovćen itself, Emil Hilton Saggau looks at the contested materiality of the site but also the organisations and actors. He identifies the two actors as the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro and the Montenegrin government.57 This allows for the social mapping of a site apart from considering the materials and site itself. This approach will be applied to the mausoleum but also Doclea. For Doclea, however, the actors will be identified as the Montenegrin government but also the European Union. The EU is, indeed, a foreign actor but it will be considered a player especially as the European Parliament can now be considered a vital stakeholder in the field of memory politics in the post-Yugoslav states, as one example.58 Indeed, to further connect the analysis of political instrumentalisation and monuments, memory politics needs to be considered.
Regarding memory politics, for the purpose of the analysis, the concepts of ‘collective memory’ and ‘competitive memory’ will be adopted. Competitive memory, defined by Bajec in the literature review, implies that more than one version of history exists in which ‘The
54 Anthony D. Smith, “The Nation: Invented, Imagined, Reconstructed?”, Millennium: Journal of International
Studies, Vol 20, No. 3, (1991): 354.
55 Although they now longer are in power after the elections of 31 August 2020, they were the ruling party for
the best part of three decades. This is why they are identified as the ruling class for the purpose of this paper.
56 Emil Hilkton Saggau, “A Shrine for the Nation: The Material Transformation of the Lovćen Site in
Montenegro, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 20, No. 5, (2018): 499.
57 Ibid., 496.
58 Ana Milošević, “Back to the Future, Forward to the Past: Croatian Politics
validation of one commemoration over the other creates tensions and deep-rooted politicisation of the hierarchical structures existing within national identity and society.’59 In terms of the Njegoš Mausoleum, by looking at the history of its site and its materiality and instrumentalisation, it will be explored whether this has created tensions within the national identity and society in Montenegro. As was explored in the literature review, the conflict would appear to be between Serbian and Montenegrin identities. For Doclea, this differs due to the fact that Montenegro’s European identity does not conflict with that of the national identity; in fact, it strengthens it. Zečević demonstrated this with his analysis on how events in World War One are revised in order to demonstrate the ‘Europeanness’ of Montenegrin history and identity.
Radaelli’s definition of Europeanisation will be adopted for the analysis of this paper. This is because, apart from including the institutionalisation of the EU accession process, it includes the elements of ‘shared beliefs and norms.’ How can this be applied to the analysis? Apart from looking at how the political instrumentalisation of the monuments affects Montenegrin national identity, statehood and maintains elite political control; Europeanisation can serve a lens as to see how these factors affect future membership of the European Union. It can demonstrate how the elites try to foster a common European identity within Montenegro, for the purpose of EU membership but also strengthening national identity, for example. In relation to this, this paper will also recognise Montenegro’s journey to statehood. It will take this into account in the analysis by exploring how the country’s path to independence is linked to that of political instrumentalisation, competitive memory and Europeanisation.
To add a different element into the analysis, Montenegro’s status as a tourist destination can also be taken into consideration. In particular, it would be interesting to combine the analysis of Montenegro’s national identity with that of tourism. In fact, Kalyan Bhandari did this in his analysis of the linkages between tourism and nationhood in Scotland: Tourism and National
Identity: Heritage and Nationhood in Scotland. Bhandari claims that tourism is ‘important in
the ideological representation of a nation.’60 In addition, he states: ‘…tourism becomes interwoven with the meaning or ideology of the nation which at times produces a “version” of its national identity and in a way articulates its “nationhood”.’61 In other words, tourism can be a direct reflection of a national identity and serves as a medium to transmit this. It could, also, be used as a political tool by elites which is also expressed by Bhandari. When applied to Montenegro and the two monuments (which happen to be tourist attractions, it will be explored as to whether the political elites have exploited tourism to reach their aims. In addition, Bhandari raises a relevant aspect to this thesis in terms of Njegoš. Petar II Petrović-Njegoš can be credited with the formation of the modern Montenegrin nation, and forms a central part of Montenegrin identity and statehood.62 Bhandari, when discussing Scottish national identity, discusses the importance of the figures Robert Burns and Robert the Bruce. Indeed, ‘…celebrations of Robert Burns and Robert the Bruce are not limited to
59 Manca Bajec, 130.
60 Kalyan Bhandari, Tourism and National Identity: Heritage and Nationhood in Scotland, (Bristol: Channel View
Publications, 2014): 17.
61 Ibid.
specific times of the year, but they are marked each day at tourist sites and attractions.’63 National heroes, in fact, serve as a reminder to members of a nation of their ‘common heritage, identity and belonging.’64 This has implications for the mausoleum on Mount Lovćen and the role of Njegoš in the Montenegrin nation. The fact that it serves as his resting place makes for an interesting analysis.
As has been demonstrated previously, the analysis requires numerous concepts and theories due to the intersectional research questions of this paper. In addition to these, sources are needed which allow for a multifaceted analysis to take place.
2.3
SourcesIn order to fully answer the questions that this paper proposes, a variety of sources is needed. This includes both primary and secondary sources. This also allows for the wide range of concepts and theories to be applied in the analysis. It continues the multidimensional approach of this thesis.
In terms of primary sources, a variety have been chosen which cover mausoleum of Njegoš on Mount Lovćen and the ruins of Doclea. For the mausoleum, a management plan for the Lovćen national park (where the mausoleum is located) will be analysed. This will provide on how the site is managed and, therefore, instrumentalised. In addition, a visit to the mausoleum by Djukanović will be analysed. This includes a speech that he gave in 2013, which is detailed in an educational leaflet which is produced by the Montenegrin government. The speech was delivered by the figure (at the time the Prime Minister of the country) at the site on Njegoš’s birthday. A news article which also details this visit and speech will be analysed. The article was originally published by Montenegrin newspaper Pobjeda. For Doclea, documents that detail European Union support will be utilised. This will demonstrate political instrumentalisation by both the Montenegrin government and European Union. This includes a press release from the now defunct European Agency for Reconstruction. In addition, a book produced by J.A. R. Munro et al. detailing an archaeological expedition in 1893 will be used. This will provide an insight into the former settlement and gives a detailed description of the site and its history from the point of view of archaeologists. This provides context for the analysis to be effective. Additionally, five figures will be included to illustrate the materiality of both of the sites. These pictures were taken whilst completing an internship in Montenegro in August 2016.
A variety of secondary sources will be used for the analysis. As the historical context will be referred to in the analysis, books detailing the history of Montenegro mentioned in the literature review will be utilised. This includes the significance of Njegoš, whose body rests at the mausoleum and is key to political instrumentalisation of the site. In addition, other studies of the site will be referred to. They assist in explaining the analysis, by echoing points that will be made. The same sources will be used for Doclea. Repeating what was stated earlier, using
63 Kalyan Bhandari, 20. 64 Ibid.
a variety of sources will enable an effective analysis which will help answer how monuments are instrumentalised in light of Montenegro’s future EU membership.
2.4
LimitationsWhilst best efforts were given to maximise the effectiveness of the analysis, so that it can provide answers to the research questions, limitations were nevertheless faced. In terms of the types of sources, it would have brought more value if interviews had been undertaken. The reason that they did not take place was down to time constraints. Interviews, especially with representatives of the EU, Montenegrin government and Museums and Galleries of Podgorica, to name a few. These interviews would have brought additional qualitative data to this paper, perhaps first-hand accounts. Although this thesis includes primary sources, verbalised information would have filled gaps in research, which are difficult to locate or do not exist at all.
3. The Njegoš Mausoleum on Mount Lovćen: a struggle between
Serbian and Montenegrin identity
“I want to tell you something about Lovcen, about a beautiful Montenegrin hill. The first thing that emerges in front of you, that is it; the first spoken Montenegrin word is its name; the first step on the Montenegrin soil is the stone of the Lovcen mountain. Wherever you go, you can see it; it is a polar star for Montenegrins”65 - Jacques Cousteau
3.1 Overview
This section will explore the political instrumentalisation of the monument of the Mausoleum dedicated to Njegoš which is situated on Mount Lovćen. In particular, it will explore how this is executed in light of future membership of the European Union. This analysis chapter will use Emil Hilton Saggau’s study as a basis and inspiration for further analysis. In his piece entitled, A Shrine for the Nation: The Material Transformation of the Lovćen Site in
Montenegro, Saggau analyses how the ‘material transformation’ of the site on Lovćen
demonstrates the conflicts surrounding the religiosity of the monument which, in turn, reflects a wider conflict between Montenegrin and Serb identity in the country. By analysing the materiality and symbolism of the mausoleum, the author effectively delivers an analysis which provides an insight into issues surrounding identity in modern-day Montenegro. For the purposes of this thesis, however, the questions surrounding identity need to be analysed in light of EU membership and the process of Europeanisation. Therefore, an analysis will be conducted which examines the materiality of the site but also the symbolism. In addition, the political rhetoric will be looked at. This will demonstrate the political instrumentalisation undertaken by the elites. Firstly, a brief history of the mausoleum will be given. This will be provided with the context of Montenegrin history during the same period. Secondly, an analysis on the significance of Petar II Petrovich-Njegoš will be detailed. As has already been established in this paper, Njegoš plays a huge role in the identity of the modern Montenegrin state. This, therefore, needs to be related back to the mausoleum. Finally, the management of the site along with political events will be looked it. In particular, the government celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Njegoš will be explored.
3.2 History of the monument, the material
As stated in the methodology, the mausoleum itself has only existed since 1974. The monument itself is, therefore, younger than the usage of the site. It would appear that the site has religious significance, and this is argued by the Serbian Orthodox Church. Saggau provides a brief historical overview of the ‘material transformation’ of the site. Material transformation here refers to the change in monument or structure which is present. This, in turn, changed the materials present at the site.
Initially, after the death of Njegoš in 1851, a chapel was built on the top of Mount Lovćen. This was then destroyed less than a century later by the Austrian forces after the Montenegrin
state capitulated.66 Recognising the significance of the site, the invading powers facilitated the moved of Njegoš’ corpse to a monastery in Cetinje, under the supervision of Orthodox clergy. This also raises the point that the site is of religious significance.67 Further cementing the religiosity of Mount Lovćen and the site of the future mausoleum, Brendel details how it was hoped that the move of the burial site to Cetinje would stop Serb pilgrims visiting the mountain. This was considered alongside plans to utilise Mount Lovćen to protect the Bay of Kotor.68 These events demonstrate the sensitivities that surround both Njegoš but also Mount Lovćen. It also highlights the religious nature of the structure (a chapel) which preceded the mausoleum.
Another chapel was constructed after the destruction of the former, however. After Montenegro became a part of the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, newly crowned King Alexander Karađorđević wished to see Njegoš buried (again) on Mount Lovćen. Perhaps it is of significance to consider that he was the grandson of the last king of the Petrovich-Njegoš lineage; a significant dynasty in the history of contemporary Montenegro. In addition, King Aleksandar I wished to foster a single Yugoslav identity, combining national identities which were often in conflict with one another.69 Relating to Njegoš, he was made the ‘the posthumous prophet of Yugoslavdom.’70 Here we witness an attempt of the political elites to instrumentalise the figure in order to meet their political aims. In this case, it was in creating a pan South Slavic identity. Although the idea of a mausoleum designed by pro-Yugoslav art nouveau artist, Ivan Meštrović, was toyed with, a chapel was reconstructed. It happened to be a near identical version of its predecessor.71
The chapel was to be then replaced by a mausoleum. The local republican Montenegrin government (as a part of Yugoslavia) suggested the construction of a new monument on Mount Lovćen.72 This came in light of the 150th anniversary of Njegoš’ birth. Ivan Meštrović was approached, again, to design a mausoleum. After delays, the new mausoleum was inaugurated in 1974 and replaced the former chapel. In terms of materiality, the site than notably became secular in nature, as the chapel was demolished. The demolition of the chapel could serve as an illustration as an abrupt end to the monument’s religiosity. This could be viewed as a form of iconoclasm. As stated in the literature review, iconoclasm (as defined by Bajec) involves the deliberate removal or destruction of a monument. In addition, religious iconoclasm was introduced as a concept which describes the destruction of monuments that have religious symbolism. As the site was occupied by a chapel, a religious structure, it could be argued that the Montenegrin state undertook an act of iconoclasm. This would be the case from the perspective of the Serbian Orthodox Church, who believe it to be an act of
66 Heiko Brendel. “Lovćen -1914-1918-online”, International Encyclopaedia of the First World War, 08/10/2014,
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/lovcen.
67 Ibid. and Emil Hilkton Saggau, 498. 68 Heiko Brendel.
69 Christian Axboe Nielsen, Making Yugoslavs: Identity in King Alexander’s Yugoslavia, (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2014): 3.
70 Ben Fowkes, Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World, (London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002):
52.
71 Emil Hilkton Saggau, 498. 72 Ibid., 499.
vandalism. They continue to argue for the religiosity of the site and this will be explored with the reaction of the Metropolitan of Montenegro.
Ivan Meštrović was an artist, whose international career spanned alongside numerous political events. He was born in Croatia but lived around the world, including in Italy. Despite building churches at his own expense73, Meštrović was a believer in a Yugoslav identity. Indeed, this was demonstrated after winning first place for sculpture at an international exhibition in Rome in 1911, for a sculpture of Serbian hero Prince Marko. When asked about the statue, he stated that “this Marko is our Yugoslav people with its gigantic and noble heart.”74 Therefore, a believer in a South Slavic identity designed a new mausoleum to mark a figure which had been placed at the centre of a new Yugoslav identity. Interestingly, this marks a departure from both individual Montenegrin and Serbian identities. It also moves away from giving the monument a religious meaning.
This is also illustrated in the design of the mausoleum. Saggau provides an analysis of its design, materiality and symbolism. Immediately, the author highlights how the mausoleum structure distances itself from Orthodox heritage in Montenegro. It clashes with the standard plan of churches.75 In addition, Saggau details how aspects of the monument are symbolic of that of Yugoslavia. This is in line with the artist, Meštrović, being a believer in a Yugoslav identity. Saggau writes: ‘Their clothes bear no clear resemblance to the traditional folk costume of the Montenegrin tribes or clans, and they lack traditional necklaces or other objects with religious or royal symbolism. Instead, Meštrović has given them a generic folk costume, depicting them simply as symbols of the collective Yugoslav “we” rather than any religious or regional stereotype. The caryatids are symbols of a “new” Yugoslavia that has been rid of any religious and regional division.’76 This is important for answering the main research question of this thesis. It demonstrates that the materiality of the monument along with the symbolism, as intended by the designer, was intended to promote a Yugoslav identity. It does not directly relate to Montenegro identity and its symbolism. This is in contrast to what both the Montenegrin authorities and Serbian Orthodox Church claim. Although for the latter, the mausoleum does depart from the religiosity of the preceding chapels.
As what would be expected, Njegoš is represented in the design of the mausoleum. This is fitting as the figure is buried here. In describing the room in which a statue of Njegoš stands, Saggau states: ‘The statue of Njegoš stands alone, and no classic Orthodox or Slavic symbols are present around him. But behind him a one-headed eagle rises and spreads its wings. This signifies, first of all, that all religious symbols have been removed from his very presence… The one-headed eagle does not carry the same Orthodox symbolism; it is rather used by republics such as France and the United States to signal their Western, Roman heritage.’77
73 Maria Meštrović, “Ivan Mestrovic Papers”, University of Notre Dame, accessed 12/12/2020:
http://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/html/MST000.htm.
74 Ivo Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1984): 204-205.
75 Emil Hilkton Saggau, 502. 76 Ibid., 503-504.
