Are Serbian churches "Serbian"? Criticism of an unwise choice

On September 12 and 19, this newspaper published a two-part article by dr. Bedri Muhadrit, historian, on medieval churches and monasteries in Kosovo. It learns that the publication was unintelligent and will explain why.

I do not have the competence to examine the teachings of dr. Muhadri for the history of these buildings. However, my criticism is limited to his conclusions and does not require any refutation of such misstatements.

My main concern, equally, is the projection of these conclusions in the current situation, which is objectively obtained from the title given in the article: The appropriation by the Serbs of the medieval arboreal monuments in Kosovo *1. So I start with the context in which these words begin, KOHA reports.

Kosovo's independence is irreversible. However, its citizens have more reason to worry than years ago, because the country's Western friends are more divided, many are more demanding in talks with Belgrade, and some support the idea of ​​a land swap.

Indeed, in the first paragraph of his first article dr. Muhadri laments precisely that the idea of ​​"further bitter concessions", beyond Ahtisaari's plan, is circulating again.

Despite remaining largely segregated in enclaves, the Serbian minority in Kosovo is often the target of hostile demonstrations, and sometimes even attacks. These concerns can grow in number. At least this is what has been likely since 1999, whenever concerns about Kosovo's independence or international position became sharper, the target was often religious shrines visited by Serbs.

Among them, Deçani Monastery – a picture of the church appears above the headline in the first article – seems to excite a certain animosity. During the 2004 riots, he almost escaped the fate of the Church of Levishka in Prizren; then he suffered several attacks, somewhat less serious; hostile graffiti is often written on its walls or nearby; a fesat on the lands around it still continues, despite repeated court decisions in favor of the monastery; and works to build a road across its protected area have recently begun, despite being purely illegal, and were soon stopped for that reason. Furthermore, his bishop has been heavily criticized by the Vučić regime for his opposition to the land exchange. These monks seem to be caught between two fires. Indeed, they remain under the direct protection of NATO.

I am returning to the article of dr. Muhadri. It is about "the main Christian cult monuments, which today are considered Serbian Orthodox"*2. Six are listed, including the monasteries of Deçan and Graçanica, the Patriarchate and the main churches of Prizren.

In short, he claims (1) that "all" these monuments were built during the 13th and 14th centuries, on the foundations of earlier churches; (2) that the latter were "Illyrian-Arberian" and "Catholic"; (3) that the Kosovar Albanians were then Catholics; (4) that the Serbs at that time "had no tradition of construction"*3. ; (5) that therefore the monuments we see today were built by non-Serbs; (6) that, in particular, "an Albanian Catholic priest" from Kotor designed the Church of Deçan and supervised its construction; (7) that the Albanian tribes have protected these monuments during the last centuries acting as if these were once their churches.

From these, Muhadri draws two conclusions: that these monuments were "usurped" *4 by the Serbs, and that they "are not evidence of Serbian culture" *5.

Let us sum up all his teachings (1-7). Does this make it possible to speak of "usurpation"?

Historians' worst mistake, anachronism, is to project our categories and values ​​into the past. The point is, wars of conquest and enslavement are now illegal, and sacking cities is a war crime. But in the past these behaviors were legitimate and frequent. Thus, writing in the 17th century, the great jurist Grotius the Elder recognized the right to plunder the city that does not accept surrender. Constantinople resisted Christian soldiers and adventurers led by Venice in the Fourth Crusade, in 1204, and was sacked; resisted the army of Mehmet II Fatih, in 1453, and was plundered. It would be anachronistic – and therefore not only wrong, but meaningless – to say that this was criminal or cruel: contemporaries did not judge it as such.

This is the reason why no one wants the spoils of the Venetians, now mainly in St. Mark, to be returned to Hagia Sophia, which they looted thoroughly. And no one is arguing that the Hagia Sophia – built by Justinian as the largest Christian church, converted to a mosque by Mehmet II, to a museum by Ataturk, and back to a mosque by Erdogan – should go back to being a church.