Nemanja Smičiklas, senior conservator and long-time head of Serbia’s heritage protection service, has publicly rejected accusations from Culture Minister Nikola Selaković, who claimed that delays in utilizing funds for one of Serbia’s most important archaeological sites, Caričin Grad, were due to the heritage protection service.
During a visit to Lebane, Selaković criticized the pace of work at the site, stating that although Caričin Grad was included in a three-year capital project, less than 25% of the allocated funds had been used. He suggested that the heritage protection service had failed to align with the financial support provided by the Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Finance, and the Government.
In response, Smičiklas asserted that Selaković’s claims are false and misleading, targeting and undermining the work of heritage professionals:
“Caričin Grad became a capital project thanks to the tireless efforts of the protection service, despite bureaucratic obstructions from the Ministry of Culture. While funds were allocated, the Ministry of Finance never approved their use,” Smičiklas said.
He added that funds spent so far largely went to non-essential projects, such as a visitor center and access path, which do not contribute to the preservation or scholarly value of the site. According to Smičiklas, these works were often carried out without the guidance, approval, or expertise of the heritage service, and in some cases were poorly executed, risking Caričin Grad’s placement on the UNESCO tentative list.
Smičiklas emphasized the historical importance of Caričin Grad, dating to the 6th century CE and linked to Emperor Justinian I, noting its complex infrastructure including multiple churches, an aqueduct, and fortifications. He also highlighted the efforts of the heritage service in securing recognition from UNESCO, which required years of comprehensive reporting and documentation.
The conservator criticized what he described as a pattern of marginalization and politicization of heritage protection work under the current government, echoing similar concerns raised earlier regarding the controversial Generalštab case in Belgrade.
Selaković’s visit to Lebane coincided with his scheduled appearance at the Organized Crime Prosecutor’s Office in connection with the “Generalštab” investigation. Reports indicate he failed to appear and did not provide justification, later claiming on pro-government media that he “had smarter things to do.”
Smičiklas called on colleagues to speak out against misinformation, underlining the need to protect both the integrity of Serbia’s cultural heritage and the professional expertise of those tasked with its preservation.
