The history of places is fragmented by natural change or destruction, but it does not cease. Places continue to preserve the memory of the past, and with it the stories of those whose lives are connected to the site. The researcher Aleida Assmann argues that continuity, which is interrupted by various circumstances: wars and destruction, natural and man-made disasters, and finally time and forgetting, cannot be restored. However, through people’s stories, their memories and ideas, as well as preserved objects, it can be reconnected by stitching and interweaving the experiences of the past.
Today, we are becoming increasingly aware of how overlooked places and stories, often marginalized, are provoking interest and gaining new value. This, in turn, provokes broader questions: what is history, what is heritage, and how do we interact with its legacies today?
The legacy that we have inherited from the twentieth century and its long silence is complex and made up of fragments of global ideologies and sociopolitical crises, wars and reconstructions, repeated changes in borders and life trajectories, intercultural neighborhoods, opportunities and challenges, progress and creative experimentation. Even before the Second World War, ethnic borderlands continued to exist in some Ukrainian regions-not as a space of real borders, but rather as a traditional way of life in conditions of cultural isolation.
Representatives of different ethnic-confessional groups (Ukrainians, Jews, Poles, Czechs, and Germans) coexisted in the same neighborhood, speaking different languages and practicing different religions, but still interacting and cooperating with “others” in various situations (everyday communication, economic affairs) and sometimes conflicting due to different value systems and confrontation for limited resources. In Western Volyn, Eastern Galicia, and in some other regions of Ukraine, the ethnic borderland, as an element of the traditional world, did not survive the Second World War and the clash with modern ideological projects. Its disappearance did not result in the erasure of the memory of this special traditional space of coexistence between different ethnic groups as a way of completing the construction of “modern Soviet identity” by rewriting/redefining the common past.
However, even the totalitarian government capacities in the twentieth century were limited. Hence, the fragmented borderland continued to appear through the painted and reconstructed according to new ideological canons objects of material heritage as various spatial markers. These include silent buildings of an unusual architectural style, exotic names of people (which became increasingly difficult for new generations of residents to pronounce correctly), and inscriptions in unfamiliar languages, which sometimes, like a palimpsest, were uncertainly and indistinctly visible from under the new and not very high-quality plaster or paint that quickly crumbled off the old premises over time, unwilling to take root. The fragmented memory of the borderland continued to function at the level of stories of older family members who remembered this world and various forms of linguistic discourse.
The list of legacies is endless. Yet, how does this legacy allow us to imagine the past, and with it the future? How do we build a dialogue between the memory of those who lived in cities and villages before and the present, but also future, inhabitants? How do we intertwine the experiences of different environments by noticing intersections and interactions in the past-unexpected and patterned, progressive and destructive? How do we tell the story of places through the voices of new residents? How can we, should we, “talk” to places and spaces that are used to being silent? And at the same time, how, despite the significant revitalization of conversations around heritage and the past, can we undermine the extractive approach to heritage?
These questions will accompany the Weaving the Heritage series, in which we will try to intertwine the experiences of different cities, towns, and villages, the voices of their inhabitants, and their broader historical contexts. In the experience of the past and the practical challenges of the present, we will look for answers on how to interact with the past and heritage responsibly today. The event program will take place mainly in Lviv, Medzhybizh, Rivne, Uman, and other cities.
“REHERIT 2.0: Common Responsibility for Shared Heritage” project strengthens the vision of the multicultural heritage of Ukrainian cities and towns as a common heritage that revitalizes cultural development, promotes critical thinking and overcomes discrimination, and stimulates local socio-economic potential, in particular through tourism growth, investment attraction, and support for cultural businesses. “REHERIT 2.0” is implemented by the teams of the Center for Urban History and the Regional Development Center of the PPV Economic Development Agency with the financial support of the European Union.
THE TEAM
- Petro Dolhanov, Victoria Panas, curatorial team
- Sofia Dyak, Maria Kravchenko, Maryana Mazurak, consulting
- Inna Zolotar, coordination
- Sofia Andrusyshyn, organizational support
- Yelyzaveta Bobrova, communication support
- Yaryna Paniv, financial support
This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. Its content is the sole responsibility of the partners of the “REHERIT 2.0” project and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.