Museum Tusculanum Press :: University of Copenhagen :: www.mtp.dk :: [email protected] MEMORY, HERITAGE AND ETHNICITY Constructing Identity among the Istanbul-based Orthodox Bulgarians Magdalena Elchinova, New Bulgarian University The community of Istanbul-based Orthodox Bulgarians traces its origins as far back as the end of the eighteenth century. With the passage of time, it has decreased in number and changed its composition, but its members preser ved a strong feeling of Bulgarian ethnic belonging. The article discusses the transformations of their ethnicity in a challenging historical context. How is ethnicity sustained at the margins of two nation states? How did the restrictive politics of the Turkish Repub­ lic towards non-Muslim minorities affect the Bulgarian Orthodox community in Istanbul? W hat is the role of religion and material heritage in the identity formation of the community at focus? These and related questions are discussed in the article. Keywords : Orthodox Bulgarians, Istanbul, ethnicity, religion, material identity Introduction rely on material anchors (places, buildings, cultural This article studies the small Bulgarian Orthodox monuments, churches, etc.)? How does ethnicity in­ community in Istanbul, which has its origins from tertwine and interact with citizenship, nationality the end of the eighteenth century. This is a tightly­ and religious belonging? knit and well-organized community, which cur­ The discussion of these and related questions rently consists of about 450 people. The following draws upon anthropological fieldwork conducted study aims at presenting and discussing processes in Istanbul between 2010 and 2013 in the form of of ethnic identification and community (trans)for­ several short research trips.1 On two of these trips mation among its members, the bulk of whom were I was accompanied by anthropology students from born and socialized in Turkey, have never lived in the New Bulgarian University. The study is based on Bulgaria, do not have Bulgarian citizenship, yet, de­ 12 in-depth interviews and a few shorter ones with fi ne themselves as Bulgarians. What are the means community representatives, as well as on participant of constructing ethnicity outside the borders of one’s observation. Most interviewees are between 40 and “own” nation state, without employing the instru­ 75 years old – the generations that make the bulk of ments of national policies (education, media, citi­ the community. Younger people rarely showed up at zenship) and in the context of competing, even rival, the community gatherings I and my students visited national ideologies ? To what extent does ethnicity (many study abroad), do not speak Bulgarian, or Magdalena Elchinova 2016: Memory, Heritage and Ethnicity. Constructing IdentityETHNOLOGIA among the Istanbul-based EUROPAEA 46:1 Orthodox Bulgarians. 99 Ethnologia Europaea 46:1, 99-113. © Museum Tusculanum Press. Ethnoologia Europaea :: Journal of European Ethnology 46:1 E-journal Copyright © 2016 Ethnologia Europaea, Copenhagen :: ISBN 987 87 635 4507 5 :: ISSN 1604 3030 http://www.mtp.dk/details.asp?eln=300378 Museum Tusculanum Press :: University of Copenhagen :: www.mtp.dk :: [email protected] were reluctant to take part in the study. Most of the based Bulgarians characterize their ethnicity by, interviews and observations took place at the Bul­ firstly, presenting a succinct historical overview of garian Exarchate House, which is the major centre the community’s formation and of its current situa­ of the community’s activity, as well as at a few more tion. Secondly, I will discuss different configurations Bulgarian sites in the city. We were also invited to between ethnic identity, citizenship and nationality, the work places of some of our interlocutors. No­ which derive from the cultural and political con­ body invited us to their homes ; obviously our in­ nections of this community with two nation states. terviewees felt more comfortable to meet us at the Thereafter I will analyse how Istanbul-based Chris­ premises of the Exarchate where they gather and act tian Bulgarians construct and perform their ethnic as a community. belonging by tying it to religion and specific “lieux Istanbul-based Bulgarians have scarcely attracted de mémoire” (Nora 1999). scholarly attention. A notable exception is Darina Petrova’s monograph (Petrova 2000), which pre­ The Bulgarian Orthodox Community sents a historical and ethnographic study of this in Istanbul : Past and Present community inspired by her immediate contacts In this section I will briefly discuss the historical with its members between 1995 and 1998. A number formation of the Bulgarian Orthodox community of publications (Zhechev, undated; Temelkov 2005; in Istanbul, as well as its current situation in terms Hristov 2009) is dedicated to the Bulgarian sites in of demography and social characteristics. The ma­ Istanbul – to buildings and churches of cultural and jor question underlying this description is about the historical value closely related to the histor y of the resilience of their Bulgarian identity in the face of Bulgarian Christian community in the megalopolis. pressures to assimilate and demographic decrease. They, however, pay little attention to the community itself, which remains little known among the wider Historical Background Bulgarian public. Similar is the situation in Turkey, Bulgarians started migrating in large numbers to Is­ where Orthodox Bulgarians are not recognized as tanbul during the eighteenth centur y. By the second a minority and are only sporadically discussed in half of the nineteenth century, the cit y was already scholarly works (cf. Andrews 1989 ; Ozil 2013). a centre of a large and well-organized Bulgarian Hereafter, I regard ethnicity after Fredrik Barth as colony.2 This was the period of the so-called Bul­ a dynamic categor y of self-ascription of the individ­ garian Revival – a time of rising national awareness ual to a certain ethnic group, which surfaces in the and struggles for national liberation, which ended process of interaction between ethnic groups. The in 1878 with the formation of the Bulgarian nation present case study confirms to a great extent Barth’s state (Daskalov 2004). The colony consisted of peo­ thesis that ethnicity does not depend primarily on ple of diverse social backgrounds. The majority of the cultural traits which can be used selectively in its members were craf tsmen (Petrova 2000 : 63) but different situations to express ethnic identity (Barth there were also wealthier members of the emergent 1969). Nevertheless, the case study reveals that bourgeoisie, some of whom became proponents ethnicity “needs” material artefacts and cultural of the new national ideas on the Balkans (Jelavich practices to achieve objectification and posit tan­ 1983a: 191). By the mid-nineteenth century Istanbul gible attributes for the community. These material had become one of the centres of the Bulgarian na­ manifestations of ethnicit y serve simultaneously as tional liberation movement. warrants against potential contestation of their Bul­ An important part of this movement at the time garian identity and give evidence of a particular ex- was the struggle for an autonomous Bulgarian pression of the “Bulgarian-ness” which they carr y. church, independent from the Constantinople Patri­ In the following discussion I will try to define the archate. The Bulgarians in Istanbul played a major categories and meanings through which Istanbul­ part in this struggle. Their efforts led to the forma­ 100 ETHNOLOGIA EUROPAEA 46:1 Ethnoologia Europaea :: Journal of European Ethnology 46:1 E-journal Copyright © 2016 Ethnologia Europaea, Copenhagen :: ISBN 987 87 635 4507 5 :: ISSN 1604 3030 http://www.mtp.dk/details.asp?eln=300378 Museum Tusculanum Press :: University of Copenhagen :: www.mtp.dk :: [email protected] tion of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 18703 (Jelavich same time a number of them were in the direction 1983a: 350 ; Petrova 2000 : 13, 81). The Exarchate of Istanbul. After the Second Balkan War of 1913, soon became an organizational centre not only for Macedonia was divided into three parts, between the Bulgarians residing in Istanbul but also for those Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. The largest of those, the from other regions of the Empire. It opened many so-called Aegean Macedonia, remained under Greek churches and schools, entering into direct confl icts governance. The assimilator y pressure of the Greek with the Greek-dominated Patriarchate over dis­ authorities against the Slavic-speaking population putes of spiritual and political influence. In certain (Mazower 2000 : 135 –152), coupled with the eco­ places, for instance in Macedonia, these confl icts nomic ruin of the region, spurred continuous mi­ were especially severe.4 grant waves throughout the following decades and The Bulgarians in Istanbul formed associations some of them were directed to Istanbul. In this way around the Exarchate, church and school boards, in the af termath of 1878 as the city was vacated by and different charity organizations, among which Bulgarians whose birth places fell within the borders was the Radost (Joy) charity association, founded in of the new Bulgarian state, in their place appeared 1876, which is preserved to this day and is known Bulgarian-speaking migrants coming mostly from as the “women’s association.” The community was rural Aegean Macedonia. consolidated around various initiatives related to the In 1913, the Ottoman authorities undertook a building of a church, the opening