Historiography in North Macedonia

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Historiography in North Macedonia is the way Macedonian historians study and tell their past. It began in the 1940s, when the region then known as SR Macedonia became part of Yugoslavia. The first generation after World War II traced the Macedonian people and nation to the 19th century. But after the Tito–Stalin split, relations with Bulgaria cooled and Bulgaria began denying the existence of a separate Macedonian nation and language, which it had recognized in 1946. This created a break, and many Macedonian historians started pushing the origins of a Macedonian nation further back in time, to medieval rulers like Samuel of Bulgaria and the Cometopuli dynasty, which they presented as Macedonian rather than Bulgarian.

After Macedonia gained independence from Yugoslavia and during the dispute with Greece over the country’s name, historians extended the search for origins even further back—to antiquity and the ancient kingdom of Macedon, with strong emphasis on Alexander the Great. In this way, the history presented by Macedonian historiography shifted from a modern nation-building story to claims about a long, continuous Macedonian past.

Communism and Macedonian nationalism were closely linked in this historiography. When communism collapsed, the new state did not fully rethink its earlier, communist-era foundations, because those ideas had helped create a distinct Macedonian nation. Debates with Bulgaria and Greece also reshaped how the past was written, sometimes producing revisionist interpretations that favored a continuous Macedonian identity.

A central aim for many historians has been to present Macedonian history as free from foreign manipulation and biased neighboring accounts. They have, at times, emphasized a Slavic Orthodox population in the 19th and 20th centuries as Macedonian, even where written records describe people in various ways. Education has played a powerful role in spreading certain narratives to generations of students, which some critics say obscures the complexity of the region’s past.

Iconic symbols of this trend include the Skopje 2014 project, which promoted a continuous line from antiquity to modern times. Critics have called such moves neglectful of evidence and accused them of negating more nuanced histories. Some domestic and foreign scholars argue that this kind of “negationist” historiography aims to prove the continuous existence of a separate Macedonian nation, sometimes at the expense of other historical possibilities. Because of economic and political pressures, divergent approaches are discouraged, and scholars who explore alternative views can face career obstacles and social stigma as traitors.

From the start, Macedonian historiography has been deeply interested in the nation’s formation. In 1892, Gjorgjija Pulevski wrote an early history of the Macedonian Slavs, influenced by pan-Slavism and limited by his own knowledge. During the interwar period, leftist and communist groups supported the idea that the Macedonian nation formed through a break with Bulgarian identity. They argued that the Macedonian awakening in the 19th century began as part of the Bulgarian National Revival but gradually developed a separate Macedonian path in the early 20th century. Some historians claimed that many Bulgarian historical figures were, in fact, ethnic Macedonians, a view that became more widely accepted only after World War II.

A history department was created at the University of Skopje in 1946, and the first national historical institute, the Institute for National History of the People’s Republic of Macedonia, was established in 1948. Under Yugoslav leadership, historical work stressed the distinctness of Macedonian history from Bulgarian history and focus on building a sense of Macedonian national consciousness, sometimes framed in opposition to Bulgaria. Early Macedonian revivalists and revolutionaries who had identified as Bulgarians were reinterpreted or downplayed, often through censorship and control of information, in order to support a Yugoslav-led nation-building project.

As the new state began to look for its ancient roots, some historians supported claims that ancient Macedon and the early medieval realms were part of a continuous Macedonian heritage. This period also saw scholarly debates about how to treat the Bulgarian Exarchate and its influence in the region. Later, after the Yugoslav era, some scholars argued that a strong link existed between ancient Macedonians and modern Macedonians, while others emphasized the complexity and overlap of identities in the medieval and Ottoman periods.

In the late 20th century, the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts (MANU) participated in debates about national heritage, and in 2009 published a controversial Macedonian Encyclopedia that many criticized as hastily prepared and politically driven. The controversy led to the encyclopedia being withdrawn. International observers and scholars have noted that post-Communist Macedonian historiography often reflects the dominant political narratives of the time.

Relations with Bulgaria and Greece continued to shape historical writing. A 2017 friendship treaty between Bulgaria and North Macedonia led to a joint historical and educational commission in 2018 to discuss contested readings of history. In 2019, a Macedonian co-president of the commission acknowledged that some past historical artifacts had been altered or presented differently in textbooks, recognizing that nation-building narratives had influenced the story told in schools. In 2020, Bulgaria’s demands to protect its own historical narrative affected North Macedonia’s path toward European Union membership, with Sofia arguing that certain historical interpretations were part of a Bulgarian legacy, not a purely Macedonian one. The tensions resurfaced in political debates and protests when officials spoke about how the past should be understood.

By 2022, the two countries reached an agreement to jointly commemorate certain historical figures, including Cyril and Methodius and other church and state figures, signaling a possible path toward shared, more nuanced history. In 2024, debates continued, with some historians arguing that national interest can shape how history is written and that not all views are equally accepted within North Macedonia. Critics from within and outside the country have urged caution about turning history into a tool of political advantage.

Today, Macedonian historiography remains highly contested. Many scholars acknowledge that the modern Macedonian nation emerged in the 20th century and was shaped by a combination of local developments, regional rivalries, and international politics. Others push for a broader view that recognizes shared Balkan histories and the way national myths can influence the interpretation of evidence. The field continues to wrestle with big questions: how to balance ancient heritage with modern identity, how to weigh competing sources, and how to teach a history that reflects a diverse past while acknowledging contemporary realities.