A sleeve in the Museum of the Republic of Srpska comes with an unusually useful description. It is dated to the late nineteenth century: homespun linen, hand stitching, dark blue embroidery. Within a large rectangle, Z-shaped forms connect through hooks and crosses. The catalogue names three techniques, provlak, prutačka and potkic, and records that the museum acquired the piece from Bogdan Nikolić of Banja Luka in 1950.

The name of the embroiderer is missing from that account. The person from whom a museum acquires an object is not necessarily the person who made it. Even so, the description gives us more to work with than the familiar shorthand of a beautiful blue pattern. There is a material, a construction, a date and a trail into a collection. Someone made specific decisions here, even if the catalogue cannot tell us her name.

Zmijanje embroidery is associated with the women of villages in the Zmijanje region of Bosnia and Herzegovina. UNESCO’s account describes its use on clothing and household textiles, including wedding dresses, scarves and bed linen. It also describes women embroidering together while talking and singing. The skill is learnt through watching and doing, with individual arrangements within a shared repertoire. A finished garment is only the most portable part of that process.

The blue is striking enough to become a shortcut for recognising the work. It should not become the whole definition. The regional heritage centre in Sofia describes the use of a single colour, blue or black, and places the museum collection within the ethnographic department’s textile holdings in Banja Luka. Looking beyond colour raises better questions: how are the forms joined, how much cloth is left open, and how does the pattern work around the shape of a garment?

The sleeve appears in an online exhibition hosted by the Ethnographic Museum in Belgrade. Beside it is a very different object: a 2014 silver-filigree bracelet from the Tragovi jewellery collection. That pairing is worth pausing over. A motif can leave cloth and remain recognisable. What does not travel automatically is the knowledge of how to embroider it. Admiring the bracelet and learning to stitch are two different kinds of engagement, and there is room for both.

The teaching has named practitioners. An announcement from the Cultural Centre of Serbia in Paris gives one example: a workshop scheduled for 24 April 2026 with Svjetlana Marković, an embroiderer and collaborator of the Museum of the Republic of Srpska. The advertised programme included history and techniques, supplied materials, and teaching in Serbian and English. The date has passed; the announcement records what was planned, not what participants experienced. Its practical details are still revealing. The exhibition was accompanied by an invitation to handle materials, with a named practitioner responsible for the teaching.

UNESCO inscribed the practice in 2014. Its account also recognises the importance embroidered garments can hold for displaced people, as expressions of local and national identity. That is reason to be careful with the language of decoration. The same pattern can be a pleasing arrangement to one viewer and a connection with home to another.

The pattern maker in this issue is a digital experiment with repetition and symmetry, not an authentic Zmijanje lesson. A screen can reproduce a shape without telling us much about the labour behind it. The old sleeve’s catalogue supplies several of those details, but leaves its maker unnamed. That absence is worth remembering when we encounter work made today. A pattern deserves a description; its maker deserves a credit.

Back to the cover

Besim Nikšić learned woodcarving from Sadik Šašić. The town of Konjic records that he completed his training in 1955. Five years later, he and his brother Mukerem opened a workshop called Neretva. Besim subsequently taught his son Adem, who also trained as an architect. A carved object can contain this much history before anyone begins to explain its ornament.

These names give some substance to the familiar phrase “passed down through generations”. There was a teacher. There was training. There were brothers setting up a business, and a son bringing another profession into it. The work survived because people learned how to do it and found reasons to keep making it.

Konjic’s carving extends from small boxes to furniture and fitted interiors. In the municipality’s account of the Nikšić collection, the materials include walnut, pear, cherry, mulberry and maple. Eighteen pieces in Besim’s collection were designated a national monument in 2006. The list includes cabinets, tables, chairs and the low table known as a peškun: things made to occupy a room and take part in its daily use.

Look at a carved surface and the eye tends to follow the ornament. Then consider the decisions underneath it. How much of the wood should remain plain? Where does the pattern stop? How will a hand meet the edge of a table? An object has to be usable after it has been decorated. These are design questions, and they remain open even when the technique is inherited.

Those questions also run through the work of the family’s contemporary furniture brand, Zanat. In his published account, Orhan Nikšić describes collaborations with designers including Monica Förster and Harri Koskinen, and links the business’s development to hiring and training carvers. It is the company’s account of its own success, not a measure of the whole craft. The useful question is what such commissions make possible for the people doing the carving.

There is a less photogenic part of the story. In its 2023 account of support for Zanat, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development described delivery delays and quality problems as demand increased. The response included software for quotations, invoices, workstation capacity and the progress of orders.

An order-tracking system rarely appears in a romantic account of craftsmanship. Yet a workshop that cannot keep track of its work will struggle to deliver it. Here, digital organisation supports objects whose appeal still depends on carving by hand. The administrative work belongs in the story too.

UNESCO recognised Konjic woodcarving in 2017. Its description includes people who carve at home alongside workshop craftspeople, and identifies the practice with communities of different religious and ethnic backgrounds. The tradition is wider than any one company.

The Woodcarving Museum, opened by the Nikšić family in 2019, offers another way into it. Zanat’s announcement of its renewed 2026 exhibition describes an “Ideas Factory” containing sketches, prototypes, tools and finished work, together with a demonstration workshop. Those stages are worth paying attention to: the version that was tried, the shape that changed, the tool that made a particular cut.

A finished table carries little of this information on its surface. The teacher’s name, the abandoned prototype and the work of keeping a workshop solvent are easy to leave out of the photograph. They explain rather more about the survival of Konjic woodcarving than the pattern alone.

Back to the cover

A džezva is an easy thing to recognise in a photograph of Sarajevo. The less familiar objects take more explanation. What was an ibrik for? Why does a sahan have that shape? What belongs on a tray, and what was meant to stand in a room?

The metalware collection of Sarajevo’s Bošnjački institut offers a much larger vocabulary than the souvenir coffee set. Its holdings include pitchers, serving dishes, braziers, trays and coffee vessels. Copper served the routines of cooking, carrying water, serving food and furnishing a home. The collection also contains objects brought from Turkey, Persia, the wider Middle East and the Maghreb, including pieces acquired on pilgrimage. Similar needs produced different shapes and decoration.

The old trade can still be read in the name Kazandžiluk. The street takes its name from the kazandžije, makers associated with the kazan, a large kettle or cauldron. At the eastern side of Baščaršija, the craft developed into the production of vessels for domestic life as well as larger commissions. A workshop’s usefulness was measured in things people could put to work.

The street is protected as part of the ensemble of Kazandžiluk, Male Daire and Luledžina, designated by Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Commission to Preserve National Monuments in July 2009. A protected address, though, is not the same thing as a working trade. The buildings need care; the workshops need people who can make things and customers who want them.

Protection of the street tells only part of the story. Individual workshops have their own accounts of how the work continued. At Kazandžiluk 29, the Hidić family identifies Mehmed Hidić as its first generation and Kenan Hidić as its fourth. Its published history dates the business to 1936. Alongside traditional techniques, the workshop describes commissioned pieces and copper combined with silver and gold. This is the family’s own account. It gives the history an identifiable source, though it cannot establish where every object now sold on the street was made.

Further along the same street, Sakib Baščaušević’s workshop describes a range extending from dishes and coffee sets to vases and decorative boxes. Its website distinguishes copper pieces with tin, silver or gold plating and says that its products carry an identifying mark.

Those distinctions give a buyer something more useful to ask about than whether an object is simply “authentic”. Who shaped it? Who decorated it? What is the finish? Is this particular piece intended to be used, or displayed? Ask the maker how to care for it and which uses it was made for. A decorative surface and a food-contact surface are different questions; a general description of the craft cannot answer them for every object in a shop.

There is also pleasure in looking before deciding to buy. Compare the outline of a pitcher with the spread of a tray. Look at where decoration is concentrated and where the metal is left quiet. The museum collection makes the relationship between form and purpose especially clear. Back among the workshops, a name or maker’s mark gives you a way to connect an object with the person responsible for it.

The coffee set has become such a familiar shorthand for Sarajevo that it can obscure the rest of this work. A brazier, a water pitcher and a serving dish belong to different parts of a household’s day. Kazandžiluk supplied those needs long before its name became a destination. That everyday usefulness deserves a place beside the ornament.

Back to the cover

The letters on Vlatko Vlađević’s tombstone are upside down. They run around three sides of a heavy stone chest from Vlađevine, near Rogatica, now in the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its upper edges are damaged; the inscription remains. The museum suggests that the lettering’s unusual orientation may have been intended to protect it. That is a possibility, not a solved mystery. Centuries later, even a legible surface can keep its reasons to itself.

We tend to meet stećci as pictures: a raised hand, a deer, a row of pale blocks against grass. Their silhouettes travel well. They can become a shorthand for Bosnia and Herzegovina before we have thought much about whose graves they mark, or whose labour gave them their shape.

At Boljuni, near Stolac, some of that labour has a name. The official World Heritage site record identifies the stoneworker Grubač and the scribe Semorad, alongside other craftsmen and scribes. Here, making a memorial could involve both shaping the stone and composing or cutting the words. The signatures interrupt the comfortable idea of an anonymous folk tradition. Somebody did this work, and sometimes made sure the work would remember them too.

The same record describes a striking range of images at Boljuni: hunting, dancing, shields and swords, a woman holding a child, fantastic creatures. The cemetery does not supply a tidy dictionary beside each carving. Looking closely means tolerating the difference between recognising a figure and knowing what it meant to the people who commissioned it. A deer is visible. An explanation of why that particular deer belongs on that particular grave requires more than a pleasing story.

Stećci were made between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, with their greatest flowering in the fourteenth and fifteenth. The 28 cemeteries inscribed by UNESCO in 2016 lie in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia. UNESCO’s account also stresses their use across Orthodox, Catholic and Bosnian Church communities. Those facts make any attempt to squeeze them into one modern national or religious label look particularly inadequate. The stones belong to a regional history whose relationships were more complicated than a souvenir caption allows.

Preserving the surface is part of preserving that complexity. The National Museum documents conservation work on a stećak from Radimlja that included cleaning deposits and repairing small cracks. That is specialist intervention, not a reason for a visitor to improve the view with a brush. Missing details cannot simply be put back once they have been worn away.

Our digital slab lets you uncover an invented carving. Nothing touches a real monument. At a cemetery, leave the stone alone: no chalk, rubbing, wetting or climbing to get a better photograph. Use the light, move around it and look again. A change of position may reveal a line you missed. If it does not, an unreadable mark is still worth keeping intact for the next person.

Back to the cover

Fifteen textiles were chosen for a National Museum exhibition in Sarajevo in 2018. The credit line names ethnologist Marica Filipović, textile conservator Azra Bečević-Šarenkapa and preparator Damir Lazzari. Choosing a piece was only the beginning. Someone also had to prepare it for display, making a household object legible to people who might never have used one in the same way.

That change of setting can be considerable. A textile spread beneath furniture is encountered differently from one hanging on a museum wall. At home, its pattern has to share the room. In an exhibition, the object gets space and attention of its own. Neither view is complete: a museum can bring the work closer while taking it further from the life it furnished.

The Federal Ministry of Culture and Sports describes ćilimi covering floors, beds and sećije, the low upholstered seating found in traditional interiors. They also served as curtains and wall decoration, and formed part of a young woman’s marriage trousseau. The familiar English label “rug” accounts for only some of that work. These were furnishings that could shape the feel of a room without being furniture themselves.

The photograph here shows a textile dated 1908 in the Franciscan monastery museum in Fojnica. Its stepped medallions and broad borders are visible even in this issue’s single-colour treatment. Colour, however, is missing. The image is useful for studying an arrangement; it cannot reproduce the object. Nor does its caption identify the weaver. A surviving date is not a surviving life story, and there is no reason to invent one to make the work worth attention.

The National Museum’s collection stretches from the early nineteenth century to the 1980s. Its description distinguishes flat and piled surfaces, as well as pieces woven whole or assembled from sections. That variety is lost if every Bosnian ćilim is described as identical on both sides. The construction matters as much as the outline of the pattern.

The word “preservation” can sound as though an object is put away and left untouched. The exhibition credit suggests something more demanding: selecting a piece, preparing it and deciding how it can be displayed. The work of the original maker is joined by the work of people responsible for its survival. A photograph may record the pattern, but keeping the textile itself calls for other skills.

On the digital loom, you can clear the pattern and start again. The textile in Fojnica is dated 1908. Behind its motifs is work that still deserves a closer look.

Back to the cover