There is something deeply Balkan in the fact that more than a thousand years after the death of Tsar Samuel, his remains are once again becoming a political issue. On September 29, the Bulgarian government announced that Bulgaria and Greece had reached an agreement on the return of Samuel's mortal remains to Bulgaria. On October 3, the remains should be officially handed over to the Bulgarian state in Thessaloniki, after which they will be transferred to Sofia.
From the Bulgarian side, the message is clear - it is about returning the remains of a Bulgarian ruler to his homeland. On the Macedonian side, however, the reactions show something else: that in Skopje the topic of Samuil continues to be part of the much larger dispute over the historical heritage of the medieval Bulgarian state.
And here comes the line that can hardly be ignored.
Historian Prof. Violeta Achkoska reacted sarcastically to the decision of Bulgaria and Greece. She suggests that the remains of Leonid be given to Greece, and the “remains of Khan Asparuh“ to Bulgaria, as a sign of “common history”. The meaning of her comment lies precisely in the irony that the bones can be “distributed” between countries according to the political situation.
Exact quote: „Here, for example, we should donate the remains of Leonidas to Hellas, and the remains of Khan Asparuh to Bulgaria, as a sign of ‘common history’. It doesn't matter whose bones they are. We have tons of them and we will name them as needed. All for good neighborliness.“
In Bulgarian: „For example, we should donate the remains of Leonidas to Hellas, and the remains of Khan Asparuh to Bulgaria, as a sign of ‘common history”. It doesn't matter whose bones they are. We have tons of them and we will name them as needed. All for good neighborliness.“
This is not an official position of the President of North Macedonia Hristijan Mickoski. It is not the position of the government in Skopje either. This is the position of a specific historian. That is why it should be presented this way, and not become a statement of an entire country.
But the remark is indicative.
Because the mere mention of Asparuh in this context shows how deeply the historical dispute continues to influence contemporary relations between Bulgaria and North Macedonia. Samuil as a test of historical memory
In Bulgaria, Samuil is the king of the Bulgarian state. The Bulgarian state officially presents the return of the remains precisely as the return of a Bulgarian ruler to his homeland. Prime Minister Rumen Radev said that today the memory of Samuil can unite, not divide Bulgaria and Greece.
In North Macedonia - the picture is more complicated
There, some media present the return of the remains as a new episode in the “battle“ for the historical symbolism of Samuil. There have also been claims that there is not enough scientific confirmation that the remains have been identified as those of the king. Other publications view the agreement between Sofia and Athens as a political act, but there is one important nuance.
Historian Mitko Panov, a member of the Joint Multidisciplinary Expert Commission between Bulgaria and North Macedonia, makes a distinction that is actually reasonable: the transfer of the remains should be seen as a contemporary political act and should not be used in itself as a historical argument for the character of Samuil's state.
This is important. Bones cannot resolve a historical dispute.
But the reactions surrounding the bones can show how unresolved this dispute is.
And why Asparuh?
Here we get to the point. Saying “Asparuh“ in such a context is not a random historical reference. Khan Asparuh is a figure who stands at the very beginning of Bulgarian statehood. And Samuil is one of the most significant rulers of the First Bulgarian Kingdom. Therefore, the ironic proposal to “gift“ the remains of Asparuh to Bulgaria actually poses a question: “What is Asparuh?“ Bulgarian or North Macedonian - sorry, then it is not certain whether there was a North Macedonia, but there may have been…
And here the problem is no longer in the bones. The problem is the way in which contemporary societies use the past to explain the present.
The Balkans have a long history of turning historical figures into symbols of contemporary politics. Samuil, Clement, Naum, Tsar Boris, Cyril and Methodius, Gotse Delchev - the names are different, but the mechanism is often the same: a medieval or more recent historical figure becomes evidence of a contemporary national identity.
Thus, history ceases to be a field for study and becomes a territory for possession.
The irony with “tons of bones“ says more than it seems
The most interesting part of Achkoska's comment is actually not the mention of Asparuh itself. It is the expression that “it doesn't matter whose bones“ are. Quite the opposite - in this dispute, it is obviously of great importance whose bones are. Otherwise, there would be no political and media reaction.
History is not proven by who calls a ruler what. But it also does not change by who today controls the place where his remains are.
The most interesting thing is coming on October 3
On October 3, Bulgaria will receive the remains of Samuil. This is a concrete diplomatic act between Sofia and Athens. The Bulgarian side has already extended an invitation to Hristiyan Mitskoski to attend the ceremony in Sofia. The invitation was motivated precisely by the common medieval history and the commitments to good neighborliness between the two countries. And this is the moment when North Macedonia has the opportunity to show whether history can be a reason for conversation, or will it remain an instrument of confrontation.
And if a history is strong enough, it does not need political protection.
And perhaps that is precisely why the remark about Asparuh is so indicative. It shows that even when it comes to the return of human remains, the dispute quickly returns to the old Balkan question: who has the right to own the past. The answer should be simple - no one. But is it so? The past is not property - or maybe it is...