ISBN 978-961-06-0540-9 9 789610 605409 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries NASLOVKA FINAL.indd 1 18. 10. 2021 11:47:55 Vlasta Zabukov Dr Jelena Er ec is a Professor deljan is prof of Education essor a al t the De- rt Eur M oP igr sy ations in Visual Art is an edited col- - the European Certificate in Psycho- Psychology partmen at the t of ArUniv t H ersit istor y of Ljubljana. y of the F She aculty of logy lec represents tion of essay an s fr educational om differen framework t fields of Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani is the P President hilosoph of the y and a Direc Slo t venian or of the C Psy en cho- tre for and the minimum standards for humanities and social scienc the training es that ad- Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana Ljubljana University Press, logical the S Association and tudy of Jewish Ar a member t and Cultur of e a the t the of dr psychologists across diff esses the issue of the po er w ent European er and mean- Faculty of Arts European Univ A ersit warding y of Belg C r ommitt ade ee for E . Her main ruroPsy esear . ch Visual A countries. Within this framework, a year ing of images and the visual in gener of al in She inthas er an active role in EuroPsy est lies in the field of the var imple- ious as- super the c vis on e t d ex practice t of migr is a required for en tions of people try int , ideas o , mentation pec in Slovenia as ts of visual cultur the founder e of mediev of the al and independent knowledge prac , ar tic tifac e ts . Th , aris book t wor is a scientific ks and sym- network for the supervised practice of psy- Filozofická fakulta Univerzita Komenského Bratislava work which presents an educational program early modern Balkans. bols through the prism of postcolonial and Faculty of Philosophy, Comenius University in Bratislava chologists. Pontes academici for mentors of supervised practice of cultural translation theories, from antiquity ations in psychologists, based on theoretical aspects Dr Martin Germ is professor of late medi- to the present. The complex question of mi- Anja Podlesek is an Assistant Professor of Faculty of Philosophy, igr of competency models and mentoring eval and Renaissance art at the Faculty of grations in visual culture involves far more Psychological Methodology at the Depart- University of Belgrade M processes applied in the different work Arts, University of Ljubljana. His research than just art, all the more so because many ment of Psychology, University of Ljubljana. focuses on iconography and iconology Filozofická fakulta Univerzita Karlova v Praze contexts of psychologists. fields in the humanities and social sciences There she coordinated the Bologna Process Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague with emphasis on humanist themes in early have in recent times taken the “pictorial by which the study programme was modern art. turn”. Moreover, and especially at this point harmonized with the EuroPsy framework for in history, any discussion of the power of the education of psychologists. She is active Dr Ivana Prijatelj Pavičić is professor at the images and their role in migrations in visu- in EuroPsy implementation in Slovenia as the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Chairperson Departmen of the t of Art H National istory a Aw t the F arding aculty of Wydział Filologiczny Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w al art is unavoidably also positioned in the Humanities and Social Sciences, University University of Split Krakowie Committee for EuroPsy. context of current changes in global rela- of Split. She has published several books Faculty of Philology, Jagiellonian University in Kraków tions as well as in the growing impact of about Dalmatian art in the period 14th to social media. The History of Archaeology 18th century. Her further research interests include the artists of Croatian origin known The idea of the present volume originates in the Western Balkans as Schiavoni. in the International Conference of Doctor- Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, al Students and Recent Doctoral Gradu- Dr Marina Vicelja-Matijašić is professor at University of Rijeka ates held at the Faculty of Philosophy, Uni- the Department of Art History of Faculty of versity of Belgrade, in September 2016, Humanities and Social Sciences and a Direc- consecrated to different issues related to tor of the Centre of Iconographic Studies at Predrag Novaković migrations in visual art. The book clearly the University of Rijeka. Her main research demonstrates how in the global era, the interest lies in the field of iconography and connection between (visual) culture and iconology with specific focus on the early migration has become all-encompassing, Christian, early medieval and Byzantine art. influencing politics, economics and social ademici practices. Any aspect of the visual is never ISBN 978-961-237-823-3 simply an expression of one culture but rather part of a process of constructing tes ac ISBN 978-961-237-823-3 meaning in a field characterized by simi- larities as much as by differences. Pon 9 789612 378233 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 1 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 The History of Archaeology in the Western Balkans The Pontes academici book series Pontes academici Editorial Board: Branka Kalenić Ramšak (Ljubljana), Martin Germ (Ljubljana), Marina Vicelja Matijašić (Rijeka), Nataša Lah (Rijeka), Aleksandar Jakir (Split), Ivana Prijatelj Pavičić (Split), Nenad Makuljević (Belgrade), Ivan Stevović (Belgrade) Author: Predrag Novaković Editor: Martin Germ Reviewers: Andrej Pleterski, Mitja Guštin Proofreading: Paul Steed English language consultant: Charles French This book is based on the translation of Historija arheologije u novim zemljama Jugoistočne Evrope, 2015 (translated by Dragana Filipović) Technical editor and layout: Jure Preglau, Eva Vrbnjak Co-published by: Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split Issued by: Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts For the publisher: Mojca Schlamberger Brezar, Dean of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana Ljubljana, 2021 First edition Printed by: Birografika Bori d. o. o. Print run: 300 copies Price: 29,90 EUR The publication of the book was funded by the Slovenian Research Agency within the national basic research program Archaeology (P6-0247). To delo je ponujeno pod licenco Creative Commons Priznanje avtorstva-Deljenje pod enakimi pogoji 4.0 Mednarodna licenca (izjema so fotografije). / This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (except photographs). First e-edition. Digital copy of the book is available on: https://e-knjige.ff.uni-lj.si/ DOI: 10.4312/9789610605393 Kataložna zapisa o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani Tiskana knjiga COBISS.SI-ID=79602691 ISBN 978-961-06-0540-9 E-knjiga COBISS.SI-ID=79454723 ISBN 978-961-06-0539-3 (Filozofska fakulteta, PDF) History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 2 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 CONTENTS Foreword to English edition 7 I. INTRODUCTION 11 II. SLOVENIA 23 Archaeological and historical background of Slovenia 25 Antiquarians, the Landeskunde tradition and the Enlightenment projects 35 Development of the archaeological discipline and practice in Slovenia during the Austrian Empire (1800–1918) 38 Slovene archaeology in the Yugoslav Kingdom (1918–1941) 45 Contemporary archaeology in Slovenia 49 The second wave of modernisation of Slovene archaeology (1980s–1990s) 58 Preventive archaeology on the march (2000s–) 61 Concluding thoughts on Slovene archaeology 64 III. CROATIA 79 A brief survey of archaeology and history of Croatia 81 Antiquarian tradition in Dalmatia (13th–19th centuries AD) 97 The emergence of modern archaeology: museums, academia and the Croatian national archaeology (1750–1918) 101 Croatian archaeology between the two world wars (1918–1941) 107 The power of tradition and continuity: development of Croatian archaeology after the Second World War 110 Croatian archaeology after ‘Yugoslavia’ (1991–) 121 IV. SERBIA 139 Archaeological and historical background of Serbia 141 Travellers, national antiquarians and the first archaeological practices in the 18th and 19th centuries 151 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 3 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 Towards the modern Serbian archaeology and its institutionalisation (1880–1941) 156 Contemporary Serbian archaeology (1945–) 164 Conceptual renewal: coming out of Vasić’s shadow 172 Serbian archaeology after 1991 180 Concluding thoughts on Serbian archaeology 187 V. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 203 Archaeological and historical background of Bosnia and Herzegovina 210 Antiquarianism in the Late Ottoman period (1700–1878) 219 Introduction of archaeology as an Austrian colonial project 224 Stagnation in the Yugoslav Monarchy (1918–1941) 234 The revival of archaeology and return to fame (1945–1991) 237 Archaeology in the conditions of post-war renewal (2000–) 247 Concluding remarks on archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina 256 VI. NORTH MACEDONIA 269 Archaeological and historical background of North Macedonia 271 Archaeological investigations before the foundation of the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1800–1945) 283 Archaeology in ‘Southern Serbia’ (1912–1941) and ‘Bulgarian Macedonia’ (1941–1944) 285 Formation of a national archaeological system in North Macedonia (1945–) 289 Archaeology after 1991 and the ‘Macedonian issue’ 298 VII. MONTENEGRO 315 Archaeological and historical background of Montenegro 318 Intermittent early archaeological activities 326 Establishment of modern Montenegrin archaeology (1945–) 330 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 4 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 VIII. KOSOVO 347 Kosovo in archaeology and history: a brief survey 349 Kosovo’s social conditions and archaeology prior to the Second World War 360 Introduction and development of modern archaeology in Kosovo (1945–2000) 363 Towards a national disciplinary framework: Kosovo archaeology after split with Serbia and independence 368 Concluding thoughts on Kosovo archaeology 372 IX. IN PURSUIT OF A SYNTHESIS: YUGOSLAV ARCHAEOLOGY (1918–1991) 381 Background 381 How to consider Yugoslav archaeology? 389 Putting pieces together: Yugoslav archaeology between 1918 and 1941 391 Towards a ‘new’ Yugoslav archaeology (1945–1972) 398 New Yugoslav and national archaeologies, new people, new institutions, new legislation 405 The major mechanism of making archaeology Yugoslav – the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia 410 Leaders in the renewal of the Yugoslav archaeology 415 Association of the Yugoslav Archaeological Societies (1972–1991) 417 Yugoslav archaeology ‘beyond’ the Yugoslav Archaeological Society 420 ‘Socialist’ archaeology in Yugoslavia 424 Waiting for Marx 427 Short note on women in archaeology in Yugoslavia 431 Post-’Yugoslav’ developments 432 Bibliography 447 Index of persons 487 Geographical index 485 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 5 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 6 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 FOREWORD TO ENGLISH EDITION This book is a revised and updated version of the mon- him a draft of chapters on archaeology in Slovenia and ograph ‘ Historija arheologije u novim zemljama Croatia. The beginnings of archaeology in these two Jugoistočne Evrope’, originally published in Sara- countries date back to the Renaissance, a fact known jevo in the Bosnian language. The groundwork for the only to those with the most extensive knowledge of original book was laid by a longer article entitled ‘ Ar- the history of archaeology in Europe. In the draft text, chaeology in the New Countries of Southeastern it was also clearly shown that, despite the more than Europe: A Historical Perspective’, which appeared seventy-year long period of federal state unity, which in 2011 in the monograph ‘ Comparative Archaeol- included the critical period in the formation of conogies: A Sociological View of the Science of the temporary archaeological discipline, the two nation-Past’, published by Springer and edited by the Amer- al archaeologies were founded on different traditions ican archaeologist Ludomir Lozny (2011). and achievements and, during the Yugoslav period (1918–1991), they preserved their own character Ludomir Lozny asked me to contribute a text on even though Slovene and Croatian national archaeol- ‘Balkan Archaeology’ to complete the section on the ogies have the largest number of common elements in history of less-known national and regional archae- their culture-historical and epistemological evolution ologies in Europe. Less known, that is, from the An- among all Western Balkan archaeologies. glo-American viewpoint. The editor explicitly stated that one of his book’s aims was, by using multiple per- To my astonishment, the editor agreed with my sugges-spectives, to critically reflect on the globally dominant tions and in practice gave me a free hand on the project. Anglo-American discourse in archaeology. Another My insistence on presenting the history of archaeology apparent reason for including ‘Balkan archaeology’ in the Western Balkan region in a more comprehensive was the political turmoil and civil wars in the 1990s and contextualised way was based on my experiences in the former Yugoslavia. In the correspondence that in preparing a proposal for a large research project in followed, I tried to explain that it would be impossible 2008. Together with colleagues from nine Southeast to present such complex issues within such modest European countries, I coordinated an application for a and limited space (20 to 25 pages) without resort- very ambitious and financially demanding project ening to large generalisations and simplifications. If titled Culture and Politics of Sciences of Antiquity Lozny’s collection of papers was conceived mainly as in Southeast Europe (CULPA EST) . The main goal a means of presenting ‘other’ archaeologies to an An- was a detailed reflection on and analysis of the devel-glo-American audience, then such a short text on Bal- opment of several disciplines dealing with the archae-kan archaeology would be understood only by readers ology and early history of Southeast Europe and, in already familiar with the many cultural and political parallel, the creation of a new regional perspective on contexts of this region within which it is necessary these disciplines in modern European society. Though to observe the development of a humanistic discipline the reviewers gave us very high scores, the project was such as archaeology. ultimately not accepted for funding. Nonetheless, the intensive discussions that occurred with fellow ar- I have long been aware of how little is known about chaeologists, historians, philologists, sociologists and the history of archaeology in the Balkan region beyond other scholars from Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, Italy, its borders. Only a few scholars outside this region Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia, have been familiar with the exceptional heterogenei- Greece and Bulgaria revealed a great need for a fresh ty of its cultural and historical development. I thus critical assessment of the cultural history of humani-tried to explain this problem to the editor by sending ties in this region. 7 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 7 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 For a year, I thoroughly studied the relatively rare a population of more than seven million, encompass and hard-to-access texts on the early days of the na- three main religions (Roman Catholic and Orthodox tional archaeologies of former Yugoslavia, Romania, Christianity, as well as Islam) along with the Jew-Bulgaria, Albania, and Moldova. The more effort and ish and Protestant populations; they represent the attention I was paying to these countries, the more zone of influence of three great cultural traditions of I realised how difficult it was to present them in as powers which dominated this region for several cen-much detail and as accurately as I could effectively de- turies (Italian/Venetian, central European/Austrian scribe archaeology in the states of the former Yugosla- and Hungarian, and Ottoman), and numerous local via. Until the last moment, I had hoped to be able also Slavic cultures. Ten major languages are in use here to complete this part of the paper, but the limited time – besides the dominant Slavic languages, Albanian, and the broad scope of the topic represented too large Vlach, Romanian, Hungarian, Turkish, Italian and an obstacle. The information that I was able to find Romani are the mother tongues of the non-Slavic pop-in the literature was simply not sufficient to build a ulations and ethnic groups living in this region. The coherent picture of all national archaeologies in these area has a rich history in terms of the major political areas. The history of institutions, the professional and and demographic shifts in the last two centuries, un-personal biographies, the circumstances that greatly paralleled by any other part of Europe. The archaeol-influenced the discovery of important sites and their ogies of these countries bear traces of all these factors, subsequent investigation, the social, economic and circumstances and historical trajectories. political environment within which certain ideas were expressed, and practices carried out – these and This English edition is intended for a ‘foreign audi-many other aspects represent important sources for ence’, and thus, a certain number of additional ex-understanding the development and fate of archaeolo- planations are required for issues already familiar to gy. However, not much can be found concerning this local archaeologists and others with a good knowledge in standard archaeological publications such as the of Southeast Europe’s history. The most important catalogues of sites and discoveries, excavation reports thing is to understand the political and cultural con-or interpretations of the evidence, not even in mono- texts. The political, social and cultural settings of the graphs. This knowledge is buried deep in the archives, last two centuries were not only changing rapidly, and we still know very little of it. It is also questiona- but these changes were also of a magnitude rarely ble just how much of the data has been preserved and seen outside central and Southeastern Europe. How-systematically archived. Much of the information ex- ever, since the whole region was not always similarly tracted from the published papers had to be discussed affected by these changes, I found it better to present with several colleagues who were personally involved these contexts for each country individually rather in the processes or events that produced the data, or than in one more extensive chapter. had a more comprehensive knowledge of the broader context within which certain archaeological activities The book is divided into chapters dedicated to the indi-took place. vidual modern countries and their archaeologies, with the final chapter reflecting the concept of ‘Yugoslav’ To my great regret, I had to limit my scope to the archaeology. Each chapter starts with a brief geo-seven new countries created after the break-up of Yu- graphical and archaeological and historical introduc-goslavia: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovi- tion of the country in question. In the English edition, na, Serbia, N. Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo. these parts are somewhat enlarged to help readers who Nonetheless, by confining the study to the Western are not well acquainted with the geography, archae-Balkans, I could not escape or reduce the complexi- ology and history of the region to contextualise the ty and diversity of the development of archaeological subject of study better. discipline over the last two centuries. Indeed, it is precisely in this region that the complexity may be This book is not a simple reworking of the original the greatest. These seven countries, none of which has paper from 2011, and not just the translation of the 8 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 8 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 consequent monograph published in Sarajevo. Work- many colleagues across Europe and the experience in ing on the English edition allowed me to revise and preparing proposals for EU funding. Thus in 2011, add some new aspects and topics not included in the with the great help and efforts of the colleague Adnan original two texts. I also had a chance to include some Kaljanc of the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo, we contents that appeared after 2015, when the original succeeded in winning significant funding from the monograph was published, which significantly com- TEMPUS programme, which has enabled the build-plemented the latest developments. To my great sat- ing of the much-needed research infrastructure for isfaction, in the English translation I was also able to archaeological education and practice in Bosnia and include some photographs, which enrich both archae- Herzegovina. Writing the present book was one of my ology and archaeologists’ historical image. tasks on the project. The context in which the 2017 book was published The original paper and the book would not have been is also of significance. I was involved in the project possible without the help of numerous colleagues who entitled Curricular Reform of Heritage Sciences shared their knowledge and experience with me. I am in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIHERIT) in the EU particularly thankful to Božidar Slapšak, my profes-TEMPUS programme frame. The project’s princi- sor and later a colleague at the Department of Archae-pal goal was to design and implement a sustainable ology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. The infrastructural base to renew archaeology and other discussions we had on Slovene and other archaeolo-heritage-related disciplines in Bosnia and Herzegovi- gies of the former Yugoslavia were most satisfying, na after the last war. As the Secretary of the Euro- and I genuinely admire his extremely insightful in-pean Association of Archaeologists (EAA), I had an tellect. Staša Babić and Aleksandar Palavestra, my opportunity to visit colleagues in Sarajevo in 2006, long-term ‘ Gesprächspartners’ from the Univer-20 years after my previous visit to this country. I sity of Belgrade, significantly helped me enlarge my saw the catastrophic consequences of the war on the knowledge of Serbian archaeology and also shared cultural heritage and the archaeological discipline their views on numerous ‘Yugoslav’ issues in archae-itself. As a student at the University of Ljubljana, I ology. Their comments on some of my previous texts would listen to my professors who spoke with great were invaluable for improving the quality of the pres-professional respect about their colleagues from the ent study. The data on the latest developments in ar-Provincial Museum in Sarajevo and the impressive chaeology in Kosovo would have been mostly incom-achievements of Bosnian-Herzegovinian archaeology plete without the exhaustive information and recent since its beginnings over 120 years ago. Few insti- literature on Kosovan archaeology regularly supplied tutions enjoyed such a reputation as their Provin- by Kemal Luci of the Museum of Kosovo. Nade Proe-cial Museum, and the publications of the Centre for va, Nikos Čausidis and Goce Naumov, my colleagues Balkanological Research of the Academy of Arts and from the University of Skopje, and Irena Kolištrkoska Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina were compulsory Nasteva from the Archaeological Museum in Skopje, for degree examinations. The short, two-day meeting provided much important information on Macedoni-with my colleagues in Sarajevo in 2006 remained in an archaeology on whose development, unfortunate-my memory as a very painful experience. It was not ly, not much has been published. During my frequent just the immense damage to Bosnia and Herzegovi- visits to the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo I talked na’s cultural heritage monuments that struck me, but to Enver Imamović, Salmedin Mesihović and Adnan also the realisation of the almost complete helpless- Kaljanc about archaeology’s progress in Bosnia and ness of archaeology deprived of funding, people and Herzegovina and its fate in the course of the recent institutions. The question was whether there was any war. Reading Dubravko Lovrenović’s works revealed immediate prospect of its revival. A major advantage to me some new views of this country and its fasci-of the secretarial position in the EAA has been the nating history. His recent passing robbed Bosnia access to well-developed professional networks in and Herzegovina of one of the most brilliant histo-Europe, the chance to communicate effectively with rians and critical minds. I have also learned a great 9 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 9 22. 10. 2021 11:05:22 deal about Croatian and Bosnian-Herzegovinian ar- chaeology in conversations with Darko Periša from the Catholic University in Zagreb, who has, through his meticulous works, contributed significantly to revealing lesser-known aspects of Croatian and Bos- nian-Herzegovinian archaeologies. I am also very grateful to Dragana Filipović, who translated the 2015 book into English, and especial- ly Charles French and Paul Steed, who checked the English edition. Without their assistance, this vol- ume would not be possible. I am also very glad that I have completed this book with photographic mate- rials. I could not have done this without the help of many people from numerous institutions from all the countries I am dealing with in my study: Arsen Du- plančič, Naser Fereri, Ana Solter, Aleksandar Band- ović, Bernarda Županek, Adnan Kaljanac, Miloš Petričević, Pere Ardžanliev, Ivana Pandžić, Vladimir Milanovski, Dušica Nikolić, Tomislav Kajfež, Toni Čerškov, Darko Periša, Milutin Garašanin jr., Kata- rina Dobrić, Biljana Temelkovska, Smiljan Gluščević, Črtomir Lorber, Jure Krajšek, Nenad Tasić and Milan Milovanović. Finally, I would also like to thank my wife, Olivera. Without her support in private life, my prolonged travels across the Balkans (metaphorically and liter- ally) would not have been made. 10 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 10 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 I. INTRODUCTION Historical and social dynamics of the last two cen- not produce some key contributions to a broader turies and the large cultural diversity of South- knowledge of archaeology other than ‘supply-east Europe, and the Western Balkans in particu- ing’ the ‘raw materials’? Was the archaeological lar, make the study of the history of archaeology discipline in the Balkan countries less known be-of this region very challenging. To many archae- cause of greater difficulties in accessing adequate ologists who do not live and work in this region, literature and archive records from Southeastern the task may, at first sight, seem not too different Europe, mostly written in local languages? Or from similar studies in other European regions was it because the Balkan scholars did not in-or countries. However, to those more familiar vest more efforts to inform the international ar-with the political and social context in South- chaeological community about their works and east Europe, this enterprise would appear much achievements? A bit of all these, I would say. more difficult. The fact that until my book from 2014 there were no comprehensive studies on To enter into the written history of any scientific the history of archaeology in Yugoslavia (and on discipline is a matter of the author’s perspective other countries in the Balkans) speaks for itself. and selection. Good histories pay great attention The awareness of the exceptional complexity of to the context, magnitude or weight of events the history of this region, which requires one to and processes and their effects and eventually possess detailed knowledge of several linguistic, reveal a certain logic behind them. Having said cultural, religious and political aspects and con- this, it is common knowledge that traditional texts to understand the historical, cultural and works on the history of archaeology were writ-other routes of development, calls for caution ten mostly as a history of ideas and intellectual and careful critical consideration to avoid sim- achievements (and their authors). Priority was plifications and superficial inferences. given to places, objects, events and processes for which greater weight in the development of the It could be argued that the ‘Western’ perspective, discipline was assumed and argued. With time which dominates in the principal studies of the such narratives and places eventually became history of world archaeology (e.g. Daniel 1967; canonical, in many ways freed from their origi-1975; Trigger 1989; Murray 1999; Murray and nal contexts and conditions of knowledge, reach-Evans 2008), very rarely considered the archae- ing the status of ‘classical’ cases. The truth is that ological discipline in Southeast Europe. While until the mid-20th century, the centres of produc-some great sites and discoveries from this region tion of archaeological knowledge, and particu-may have found their way to the works of the larly the knowledge of archaeology, were all in principal international texts on the history of the the most developed Western countries. And it discipline, this was rarely the case with scholars is the perspective of these centres within which or ‘schools’ of archaeology. Was this because it the relevance and weight of archaeological de-was considered that archaeological schools and velopmental trajectories and achievements were archaeologists from Southeast Europe perhaps reflected and eventually inserted in the history did not carry such a significant weight in the of the discipline. development of world archaeology in the last century, that archaeology in this region of Eu- Nowadays, critics consider this perspective, com-rope was more at the ‘receiving’ end in terms mon in earlier histories of archaeology, as stem-of knowledge transfer, and that in the past did ming from a colonial discourse that survived 11 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 11 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 even after the break-up of the colonial world. It of Orthodox Christianity as alien to the Cathol-was not until the end of the 1980s when works on icism and Protestantism; an opposition between the history of archaeology attempted to be more advanced industrialisation and capitalism, and inclusive and address the defects of this ‘colonial’ the non-industrialised, post-feudal societies; lan-approach. The first such effort was certainly the guage barriers, and so on. book by Bruce Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought (1989; 2006). While he did not explicitly This attitude continued well into the 20th centu-address the ‘colonial’ perspective, he did pay sig- ry. In the current political discourse, the term nificant attention to other, little-known regional ‘Balkan’ is often replaced with ‘Southeast Eu-archaeological traditions. This was followed by rope’ to avoid disrespectful connotations. How-the highly influential study by M. Díaz-Andreu, ever, this label is also not entirely ‘neutral’ and A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology free of contentious historical contents. ‘ Südost (2007), which not only opened the door to many Europa’ was coined by Johan Georg von Hahn regional and cultural traditions, but was also writ- (1811–1869), an Austrian consul in Janjina and ten from a clear post-colonial view. Nonetheless, Athens. Initially, the term was, perhaps, en-even her remarkable historiographical work on tirely appropriate but was later compromised modern archaeology left archaeology in South- when the German expansionist politics, espe-east Europe mostly underrepresented and poorly cially during the period of Nazism, included discussed. I agree that local archaeology in most Südost in its geopolitical agenda (Todorova countries of 19th century Southeast Europe was 2006, 88–89). Clearly, the present-day re-intro-still largely underdeveloped and poorly institu- duction of ‘Southeast Europe’ is distanced from tionalised, still the book misses an opportunity to any references to the previous meanings, butI-at least briefly reflect the peculiar ‘pseudo-coloni- wonder whether the ‘Eurocratic’ proposers of al’ attitude towards this region. the term have thought through in detail the his- tory of this term and all the implications it had Maria Todorova (1997; 2006, 793) demonstrated in different historical contexts. very clearly the circumstances of how the term ‘Balkans’ entered into the European geopolitical However, my intention is not to delve into discourse relatively late, at the end of the 18th the ‘phenomenology’ of the Balkans. For this century, and how this area became a metaphor study, it is sufficient to point to some key as-for the ‘other’, ‘distinct’, non-European, Oriental, pects of the Western ‘construction’ of the Bal-etc ., a sort of binary opposition to the values of kans that served over many decades as a gen-the West. 1 There are a myriad of reasons for such eral matrix through which the images and idea perception of the Balkans: increased anti-Turk- as about the Balkans and its past and cultures ish and anti-Muslim propaganda in the West spread across Europe.2 No study of the Balkan during the 19th century; insufficient knowledge of cultural, historical and social life of the ‘indig- 2 Some influential scholars (such as Bakić-Hayden 1995) enous’, non-Turkish population; the perception believe that this view is similar to, if not the same as, the concept of Orientalism put forward by Edward Said (1979). Analogous to Said’s view, the West ‘in- 1 In this context emerged the term ‘balkanisation’, used vented’ the Balkans and their ‘content’ to adapt them to describe the division of multi-national countries to its viewpoints, ideology, and politics in relation to into smaller, ethnically more homogeneous units; it is the East. In this context, Balkan studies emerged as also used in reference to ethnic conflicts in multi-eth- a separate scientific field within the tradition of re- nic states. Balkanisation, however, is a somewhat later gional studies at the beginning of the 20th century. term, which was coined as part of the geopolitical dis- One should not forget that this was the period when course after the First World War when it was used to the leading national schools of geography embraced describe the fragmentation following the breakdown anthropogeography as the main paradigm of region- of Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires in South- al studies, and when the most prominent nation- east Europe. al geographers (for instance, F. Ratzel in Germany, 12 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 12 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 historical and cultural phenomena can ignore Since medieval times, large parts of Southern the effects of such impressions and views, Europe were governed by powers with their which, to a significant degree, were reflected centres outside the region (e.g. the Byzantine in the shaping of the archaeological discipline Empire, Venice,3 Hungary, the Holy Empire, and its practice in this region in the 19th and Austria). This ‘marginal’ position was further early 20th centuries. Unfortunately, the wars cemented with the Ottoman rule from the 15th that marked Yugoslavia’s disintegration aided century onwards. However, this position did in the revival of old stereotypes (see, for exam- not necessarily mean the completely ‘inactive’ ple, Allcock (2000, 1–3)). and marginal status of the local population. Bosnia and Herzegovina was, for example, one It should be kept in mind that Southeastern Eu- of the most developed Ottoman provinces in rope is an area of highly contrasting paths of de- the whole Empire, and from Istria and Dalmatia velopment, and perhaps the most controversial came some of the finest scholars in the Renais-ones from the European perspective. It is true sance and Enlightenment periods. Throughout that, during some periods, large parts of the re- this time and across this region, one could find gion did indeed represent the remote outskirts people and achievements that far exceeded its of the dominant political and economic powers. peripheral status. H. Mackinder in the UK, P. Vidal de la Blache in But merely criticising the ‘colonial’ views would France, and in the Balkans certainly Jovan Cvijić and not contribute much to a better grasp of the ori-his school) very seriously investigated political and gins and development of archaeology and associ-geographical aspects of the main strategic issues in modern European politics. Before the conceptualis- ated disciplines in the region. First, what is need-ation of Balkan studies, the most popular source of ed is to understand how the image of the Balkans information on this region was travel journals written (and its past) was created, what and which pasts by travellers and visitors to this area, especially to the were selected and built into ‘Western’ thought, countries under Ottoman rule. Systematic research into Balkan phenomena within the framework akin and ultimately appropriated, and what was left to the Orientalism of Said is more recent, and origi- marginalised and outside. Ancient Greece is un-nates from the early 1990s. A much more detailed in- doubtedly the most famous case of ‘extraction’ troduction to this topic is offered by Maria Todoro- va (1997), which provides a basis for understanding of a phenomenon from its regional historical and the historical and cultural concomitances that led to cultural context and its promotion to the Euro-the ‘discovery’ of the Balkans. Vesna Goldsworthy pean rank. The Antiquity of the southern Bal-in 3, . The Imperialism of the Imagination (Yale Univer- kans (i.e. Greece) has still to be examined more sity Press 1998) explores how the Balkans gave motives, metaphors, landscapes, heroic characters, etc., to the British literary production and entertainment industry. Goldsworthy label this as metaphorical co- lonialism. Milica Bakić-Hayden (1995) produced im- 3 In the discussions of the major political and cultural portant work on the Balkan version of Orientalism. divisions of the Balkans (e.g. Allcock (2000); Todor- The oriental frame of analysis is also the topic of the ova (2006)), foreign scholars somehow tend to ignore oft-quoted paper by Milic Bakić-Hayden and Robert Venice, which controlled large territories in the east- Hayden (1992), which examines the power of symbols ern Adriatic and its hinterland from the 12 th to the end and signs in the cultural geography of former Yugo- of the 18th century. After a short period under Napo- slavia. In a book edited by Andrew Hammond (2004), leon’s rule (1806–1813), these areas were allocated to several papers discuss modern cases of ‘underesti- the Austrian Empire. The influence of Venetian and, mating’ the Balkans. Much of the recent works on the in general, Italian culture was crucial in the cultur- Balkans were driven by the wars and ethnic conflicts al development of modern Croatia and Montenegro, in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The choice of and also had a great significance for the political de- bibliography on this subject is certainly much greater velopment of the Western Balkans. Concerning the than for the other topics, and an overview cannot be history of archaeology, the Venetian period and cul- provided here. For a more insightful presentation, we ture left a strong imprint in the traditions that shaped strongly recommend the bibliographies listed in the modern archaeology in parts of Slovenia, Croatia and publications mentioned above. Montenegro. 13 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 13 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 closely from a regional perspective.4 It is here Another example from the traditional ‘Western’ where Western academic circles played a double model of progress in archaeology is the sepa-and even a paradoxical role. They used to antici- rate consideration of prehistoric and classical pate the prehistoric and ancient southeastern Eu- archaeology. This dichotomy was put in place rope as the region of exceptional cultural achieve- at the beginning of the 19th century, and for a ments in the distant European past; as a bridge long time divided archaeology into two almost towards the advanced civilisations of Egypt and entirely separate sciences, especially regarding the Near East; and the classical Antiquity of the methods and epistemology. But, as was the case Aegean as an inspiration for the creation of mod- with southern Italy, large parts of the Balkans ern European cultures. During the 18th and 19th were also integrated into the Greek world cen-centuries, Western academic circles cherished turies before the Romans’ arrival. One cannot the notion that they, that is – their societies and apply, for example, the standard ‘continental’ states – were the symbolic successors of the most periodisation for the 1st millennium BC in north-significant accomplishments of classical Antiqui- ern Macedonia or southern Bulgaria or southern ty. Doing this also legitimised their ‘right’ to pro- Albania. And yet this was frequently attempted duce the ‘correct’ interpretation of the past. Many in the past, and thus Greece was exempted from relevant examples could be listed here, but I will the Balkans while the ‘barbaric’ neighbours re-remind readers of Susan Marchand’s (1997) excel- mained there. lent study of German Philhellenism. She persua- sively demonstrated how the symbols, contents, The different treatment of prehistoric and clas-and narratives of the ancient ‘virtues’ were strate- sical archaeology can be best observed in the gically manipulated in creating the new German countries that held a prominent place in Eu-citizen (the so-called Bildungsburger process) and ropean archaeology at the start of the 20th cen-how archaeological practice contributed to this tury. For example, in Great Britain before the process. It was not just about replacing diverse Second World war, the archaeology of the Brit- (German) regional identities and values with the ish Isles (i.e. the national region) was mainly ‘universal’ virtues of Classical Greece to create the taught at geography departments (Wilson 1986, all-German middle class or legitimate German im- 7). In Germany, university departments of pre-perialism. It was also about what was left outside historic archaeology were established several (e.g. the Byzantine, Orthodox Christian, ‘Eastern’ decades later than the classical departments. component of Greece) as ‘non-European’. In France, prehistoric archaeology, except for the Palaeolithic studies, advanced significant- 4 The fact that Ciriaco de Pizzicoli (Cyriacus of Anco- ly only after the Second World War. A similar na 1391–1453/55), one of the pioneers of the new anti- situation can also be seen in Italy and Greece. quarian science, was able to present numerous ancient In Southeast Europe, such disassociation of the monuments from Egypt, Anatolia, Constantinople, and many other Ottoman lands was also possible because two archaeological disciplines could not entire-of his service at the court of Sultan Murad II. What we ly follow the same path as in the West. Firstly, would like to point here are two things: Cyriac also de- all the countries in this region were once part veloped his idea about the importance of antiquities in contact with Late Byzantine scholars (e.g. Georgius of the Roman Empire, and large swathes of Gemisthus Plethon) and brought their knowledge to them also represented the margins of the an-Italy; and that Murad II found his work instrumental cient Greek world. There was an abundance for interpreting the Ottomans as descendants of ancient of remains of the Greek and Roman presence, Troyans and the siege of Constantinople as an act of re-venge for Greek, Macedonian, Thessalian and Pelopon- embedded in narratives of the local pasts, and nesian (i.e. Western) destruction of Troy (as reported they were not equally perceived as ‘foreign’ by the Chrytoboulos from Imbros describing the Mu- or ‘exotic’ or ‘imported’, as was the case in the rad II visit to Troy). Both episodes speak of views of antiquities different from the standard ‘Renaissance’ archaeology of Europe north of the Rhine and model and bring new regional perspectives. Danube. The earliest antiquarian traditions in 14 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 14 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 Southeast Europe formed part of a broader in- Take, for example, the eastern Adriatic coast, tellectual movement initiated in the Italian Re- known as the historical region of Dalmatia. Since naissance. To no small extent, they studied the the early days of the Roman Empire, a highly de-local Greek and Roman past for which there ex- veloped urban culture emerged there and con-isted a plethora of epigraphic, architectural and tinued to exist without interruption through the other forms of archaeological evidence. Over Middle Ages into modern times. Between the time, these local traditions were able to include 12th and 18th centuries, much of the Dalmatian later prehistory as well, through the concept of and Istrian territory was well integrated into or ‘regional antiquities’. The ancient Greek and connected to the Venetian state. Its long-lasting Roman texts contain relatively frequent refer- political dominance also had a strong cultural ences to the local ‘prehistoric’ communities and impact. Many Dalmatian writers, scholars and polities. The periods of later prehistory were, in clerics of local Slavic origin cultivated both Ital-a way, approached as ‘extensions’ of the Roman ian and authentic ‘Slavic Renaissance cultures or Greek Antiquity studies a few centuries back (as seen in language, poetry, theatre plays, phil-in time. As such, the local population’s political osophical and theological texts, etc.). In addi-and cultural history, especially in areas of direct tion to this, cultural elements coming from the contact with the Greeks and Romans, was also neighbouring Ottoman Empire also permeated explored in an archaeological way. Dalmatia. This testifies that there was no simple ‘transplantation’ of the Italian Renaissance to One paradoxical characteristic of the West- the eastern Adriatic coast, but a highly hybrid ern perspective reflects in the fact that though regional Dalmatian cultural expression. Such a Southeastern Europe is considered ethnically, cultural and social milieu produced some of the religiously, linguistically and culturally per- earliest antiquarians of Europe. As a matter of haps the most complex region in the whole of fact, it can be easily argued that Dalmatia was Europe, this complexity is rarely adequately one of the centres of antiquarian practice in Eu-taken into account when portraying the region rope and not the periphery. Still, in the over-and its history, and when comparing it with views of the history of European archaeology, it other parts of Europe. On the contrary, the Bal- is mostly forgotten. kans is often restrictively conceptualised as a single entity. But much of the development of The Western ‘colonial’ attitudes towards the Bal-the archaeological discipline in Southeast Eu- kans were, obviously, not the same. To a great rope can, instead, be much better described us- extent, they depended on the politics of differing the model of interactions between the centre ent states, their competition, and conflicting inand periphery as initially proposed by Imma- terests. Habsburg Austria (later Austria-Hun-nuel Wallerstein (1974). In contrast to the ‘colo- gary), which for several centuries ruled the Bal-nial’ model, which, in principle, distinguishes kans’ western parts, intended not only to annex between the two opposing sides (the colonist most of these lands after the Ottomans’ retreat versus the colonised), the centre-periphery after the Congress of Berlin in 1878, but also to model allows, or better to say demands, much strongly ‘Europeanise’ these territories. This greater variability in the relationships between was an enormous political and cultural project the sides involved. Not all ‘Western’ archaeo- which, among other things, also brought ar-logical schools and archaeologists treated the chaeology to Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this Balkan past in the same way and from a single context were also established the first institutes perspective, nor can the Balkans (or Southeast specialised for the Balkans, such as the Commis-Europe) be considered as generalised into a sin- sion for Historical-archaeological and Philologi-gle uniform entity. cal-ethnographic Research of the Balkan Penin- sula ( Kommission für historisch-archäologische und 15 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 15 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 phillologisch-ethnographische Durchforschung der conceptual views of the archaeological discipline Balkanhalbinsel) established already in 1897 at the as in the building of infrastructure and thematic Austrian Academy of Sciences, and which effec- priorities in its development. All over Europe, tively launched the concept of Balkan Studies in but especially in Central and Southeast Europe, Central and Southeast Europe, with archaeology archaeology is considered a national discipline, very high on the agenda of several institutes of closely linked with national history and culture. ‘Balkanology’. But, then again, to what sort of national frame- works am I referring to here? To address this From the text that follows, it can be discerned that question adequately, one must briefly consider I strongly emphasise regional differences and the nature and history of the formation of states specificities whilst, perhaps, in some respects ne- in the region, which had a significant impact on glecting certain common characteristics. I do not the foundation and development of the national deny this, but the position of an ‘insider’ offers archaeological schools. me the privilege of a particular view that, I hope, brings new insights in the discussion on the histo- As an illustration of this argument, it is sufficient ry of archaeological discipline in this region. The to observe this region’s political maps from the fact is that more shared features can be found in last hundred and fifty years. From the Congress the historical, conceptual and infrastructural de- of Berlin in 1878 onwards, radical political trans-velopment within other ‘regional’ archaeologies formations took place at more or less regular in Europe, for instance, of Scandinavian, Baltic, intervals of a single generation time span. They or even Iberian archaeology. Compared to the were of such a magnitude and had repercussions Balkans, these regions are less heterogenous in that not much time was left for their thorough the cultural and historical sense. In other words, reflection, as only a few decades later another if we are to seek more homogeneous regional ar- change was under way. chaeological groupings and associated research traditions in the Balkans, this would require the At the end of the 19th century, the largest part of introduction of many new terms or categories, the region was ruled by two empires, the Otto-such as the Aegean, eastern Adriatic, Alpine, man and Habsburg. At the Congress of Berlin, the Pannonian, Danubian, Balkan ( sensu stricto) and independence of four new states was confirmed: even Black Sea archaeology. Moreover, if we ob- Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Montenegro. serve the development of archaeology from the perspective of cultural history a set of addition- Following the Balkan Wars (1912–1913) and First al categories would be needed, such as Austrian World War (Figs. 2, 3), not only did these two imperial archaeology, Venetian-style archaeolo- empires withdrew from the region, but they gy, or the different national archaeologies of the ceased to exist, giving way to the newly created Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, etc. And even by doing states of the South Slavs (Yugoslavia) and Althis, we still will not have exhausted all the pos- bania, while Bulgaria and Greece considerably sibilities in framing the perspective. expanded their territories. The Slovene Littoral (Primorska) and Istria were merged with Italy Such an outlook could lead to even greater frag- (together with the southern Tirol). mentation of the units under observation, which would be at the expense of coherence. This is an The political map did not change much after important reason why I have decided to pres- the Second World War, except for Italy, which ent Balkan archaeology as individual national had to hand over to Yugoslavia the territories schools of archaeology. Still, the nation-state con- annexed in 1918. However, this time the most cept played a key role in this context, perhaps not significant historical shift was of a different, so much in the formation of epistemological and ideological nature – the rule of the Communist 16 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 16 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 Fig. 1 Political map of the Balkans after the Congress of Berlin (1878). regimes in Eastern Europe, polarisation into two political blocs and the antagonism of the Cold War . Finally, in 1991 the Communist regimes fell, and after the wars in Yugoslavia seven new, independent countries emerged here in the peri- od between 1991 and 2006 (Fig 4).5 5 And also Moldova at the far east end of southeastern Europe. 17 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 17 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 Fig. 2 Political map after the Balkan Wars (1912–1913). Fig. 3 Political map of the Balkans after the First World War (1918) with the borders of the former Austro-Hungary (red line). 18 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 18 22. 10. 2021 11:05:23 Fig. 4 Political map of the region today. Due to such political dynamics and ethnic and re- retained some administrative integrity as the Ba-ligious diversity, it is not always easy to identify nate of Zeta ( Zetska banovina), which also includ-long-lasting national frameworks that could be ed parts of today’s Croatia, Kosovo and Bosnia used for framing the perspective for the observa- and Herzegovina. After the Second World War, tion of the history of national archaeologies in the it re-appeared in today’s territorial extent as one newly established countries. This is easier when of the six constituent Yugoslav republics and pre-countries have a somewhat longer history (such served this status until Yugoslavia’s dissolution as Greece, Romania and Bulgaria). Moreover, it is (1945–1991), still with a considerable number of even more difficult for the multi-ethnic countries Serbians and Albanians within the population. that included multiple ethnic and national groups Afterwards, Montenegro stayed in a federation possessing various degrees of political rights. with Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Complicating this still further is the fact that large 1991–2006, which at one point changed its name sections of some ethnic groups lived outside their to Serbia and Montenegro, 2003–2006). In 2006, national states in the region (e.g. Macedonians, Montenegro became an independent country Albanians, Turks, Serbs, and Croats). again. During this whole period, five to six gener- ations long (130 years), the territory of Montene- To illustrate this problem, I will turn briefly to gro was fully or partially integrated into six dif-Montenegro. This country first occurred as a sov- ferent states. It is hard to imagine what imprints ereign political entity after the Congress of Berlin these changes had on people in Montenegro and in 1878. It lasted until 1918, when it was united their views of the past. with the Kingdom of Serbia and subsequently included in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and In the present book, I have tried to build a some-Slovenes (the Kingdom of Yugoslavia after 1929). what different perspective from traditional texts Within the Yugoslav monarchy, Montenegro on discipline history, which regularly put to the 19 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 19 22. 10. 2021 11:05:24 forefront some extraordinary scholars and their homogeneous to the outside viewers than inter-ideas that determined future trajectories in ar- nally, where it was continuously enacted as a chaeological thought. The present study is not fo- mosaic of national/republican archaeologies en-cused on epistemological questions and neither compassing their own histories, traditions and on an extensive presentation of the region’s main paths of development. This mosaic structure is, sites and discoveries. Instead, I have focused pri- most probably, the main reason for the lack of marily on the history of the ‘infrastructure’ of studies similar to this one. An important, but not archaeology which, in my opinion, represents exclusive, prerequisite for a high-quality con-an indispensable tool for a better understanding sideration of any issue is a reasonable distance of the regional and local developmental trajec- in time. In our case, this distance may not be so tories. Constructing the infrastructure, i.e. form- great, but it is how this distance was abruptly ing institutions, publications, scholarly societies, enforced – with the collapse of a shared coun-legislation, staffing the institutions, etc., is the try – that significantly catalysed the reflections other side of the history of archaeology, which presented here. may frequently speak of a history different to those of the ideas which drove intellectual pro- Finally, one could legitimately address the am-gress in the discipline. Both histories, however, biguous use of the terms Southeast Europe, Bal-are necessary for understanding our discipline. kans, new countries of Southeast Europe, West-While the history of ideas primarily speaks of the ern Balkans, and, in this context, also Yugoslavia. advancement of knowledge, the history of ‘infra- I must admit that I had great problems finding structure’ addresses the discipline’s social and the appropriate terms from the very beginning. cultural history. An unavoidable aspect when Though the book speaks of national archaeolo-analysing archaeology and its practice in the re- gies of the countries which formed Yugoslavia, gion in question is politics. All major changes in I have found the term Yugoslav archaeology in-both conceptual development and practice were, appropriate for several reasons. It was not only to a significant degree, directly spurred by the because archaeological practices in Slovenia and major political transformations of the last two Croatia existed centuries before the actual es-centuries. Over the last few decades, the issue tablishment of Yugoslavia or the emergence of of nationalism has been intensively investigated the Yugoslav idea, but there was simply nothin the European archaeological literature. Al- ing Yugoslav in these early traditions, and also though this topic is of great importance, it will not much genuinely national before the mid-19th not be fully discussed here. Instead, the reader century. On the other hand, the term ‘Yugoslav will be referred to some works that consider this archaeology’ can be legitimately used for what phenomenon more profoundly. can be termed as the ‘Yugoslav school’ of archae- ology, which marks the attempts in the 1950s At the end of this introductory reflection, it is and 1960s to create a more centralised discipli-necessary to note that despite seventy years of nary system in the institutional and conceptual archaeology in Yugoslavia, there has not been a senses in the whole country. single attempt to compile a history of the disci- pline in the common state. In popular science lit- Moreover, the term Balkans was not entirely ap-erature, one can frequently find works present- propriate for general geographical designation. ing the archaeological discoveries or heritage of First of all, it is not about the whole Balkan Pen-Yugoslavia, but no texts discussing the ‘Yugo- insula, but its central and western parts. Moreo-slav’ school of archaeology. More on this topic ver, if we look at the last 500 years through the will be disclosed in the final chapter of this book. lens of historical geography, some parts (e.g. Slo-Here it suffices to say that the post-1945 ‘Yugo- venia, Istria, Dalmatia, and the Pannonian areas) slav’ archaeology appeared far more unified and could not be easily considered Balkan regions. 20 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 20 22. 10. 2021 11:05:24 The ‘19th-century’ Western perception of what the Balkans are and where to put them on the map is simply false. As was said at the beginning of this introduction, the borders of the ‘Balkans’ are elusive and have shifted over time. The term Southeast Europe may seem more appropriate, but, then again, the book generally does not deal with the whole of Southeast Europe, but its parts that belonged to the former Yugoslavia. In my book from 2014 I introduced the syntagm ‘new countries of Southeast Europe’ to avoid confu- sion. I admit in that text, however, that it is a rather complicated term and cannot be elegantly used. Now, after seven years, I find it even more awkward, and have returned to ‘ Western Bal- kans’, and language can withstand only a limited amount of inelegance, and I hope readers would be able to understand this. 21 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 21 22. 10. 2021 11:05:24 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 22 22. 10. 2021 11:05:24 II. SLOVENIA With a population of two million and a terri- Slovenia is composed of several historical prov-tory of a little over 20,000 km2, Slovenia is one inces from the period of the Holy Roman Em-of the smallest countries in the region. Its geo- pire. Except for the province of Carniola, all graphical position between the northern Adri- other provinces (Littoral, Styria, Carinthia) ex-atic, east Alps, southwest Pannonian Plain and tended into neighbouring countries. For this rea-northwestern section of the Dinaric mountain son, large parts of today’s borders with Austria, chain makes this country one of the geo-ecolog- Italy and Hungary did not follow some prom-ically most diverse in Europe, especially when inent terrain features but were established by considering its small size. Slovenia’s identity other factors (e.g. ethnicity, historical adminis-and history have also been conditioned by the trative borders, political agreements, etc.). The fact that it lies at the contact point of the Ger- western and central part of the Slovene northern man, Italian, Hungarian and Slavic peoples. border with Austria runs along the Karavanke Fig. 5 Relief map of Slovenia. 23 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 23 22. 10. 2021 11:05:24 mountain ridge, which, towards the east, grad- comprises Tertiary sandstone and conglomerate ually continues into a terrain of lower hills and rocks (lower hills) and Quarternary alluvial sed-Pannonian Plain. Moreover, there are no particu- iments (gravels, sands, clays) in the river valley lar ‘natural’ barriers that mark the border with plains of the Drava, Sava, Mura and Krka. This Hungary in the country’s extreme northeast. region, which occupies 21% of the country, is the Natural features are more visible in the eastern most suitable for farming due to abundant soil and southern border with Croatia, which follows deposits, numerous rivers and streams, and flat-the Mura, Drava, Sotla, Kolpa and Dragonja riv- ter terrain. Today, it is the most densely settled ers. The border with Italy on the west has been region in Slovenia. Consequentially, this region only recently defined (after the Second World has a much lower ratio of forests (33%). The cli-War) on a political basis, and cuts numerous mate exhibits typical features of the continental local physical-geographical regions in half (e.g. climate of great plains, with cold winters and Karst, Isonzo/Soča Valley, Julian Alps). warmer summers, and is generally drier than the Alpine area. Northern and northwestern areas are consid- ered Alpine Slovenia, presenting an extension of The southern-central and western parts of the the Italian and Austrian Alps. Most of its area country make Dinaric Slovenia which is the is of Triassic origin (the mountains and hills, northernmost extension of the Dinaric Alps. particularly), with Quarternary sediments in The underlying geology is mostly composed river valleys. Igneous and metamorphic rocks of carbonate rocks (limestones and dolomites) characterise eastern Alpine Slovenia, which con- of Triassic, Cretaceous and Jurassic origin. The sists of two major regional units: high Alpine terrain of Dinaric Slovenia is very dynamic mountains with peaks between 1500 and 2800 and heterogenous, ranging from medium-high m, interspersed with numerous small and nar- mountains (up to 1500 m), hills of various row valleys, traditionally suitable for mountain height, large plateaus and highland areas, and pastoralism. According to the proportion of high karstic fields, karstic plains and valleys. Typi-alpine landscapes within the total land area, Slo- cal for most of this area is the so-called ‘deep venia holds third place in Europe, immediately karst’, with relatively abundant soil deposits. after Switzerland and Austria. The second re- However, much of this area is not very suitable gional unit of Alpine Slovenia is the pre-Alpine for farming due to the relative lack of surface region with high and medium-high hills in wide water, steep terrain slopes and forests; the latter river valleys (31% of the total area of Slovenia). make nearly 60% of this region’s total area. The Here conditions for farming are much more suit- climate in this area is generally of the continen-able and, accordingly, the settlement is denser. tal type, but with varying interchanging pat-Alpine Slovenia is a densely forested region terns, especially in contact with other Slovene with almost 65% of the land under forest cover regions (Alpine, Pannonian and Mediterrane- ( Slovenija: pokrajine in ljudje 1998, 34). Typical for an). Significant local variabilities also depend its climate are low temperatures and abundant on the height of the land, terrain orientation, precipitation (rain and snow). All major Slovene etc. In general, the winters are very cold, and rivers either spring from or run across the Al- the summer temperatures are also lower than pine area, bringing large quantities of water in in other parts of Slovenia (except for the High the spring due to the snow melting. Alps). Precipitation is relatively abundant but gradually falls, moving eastwards. The most significant contrast to the mountain- ous areas represent the northeastern and eastern The fourth regional unit is Mediterranean Slo-parts (Pannonian Slovenia), the Great Pannonian venia in the west and southwest of the coun-Plain’s westernmost extension. Most of its land try, at the Adriatic Sea’s northernmost end. It is 24 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 24 22. 10. 2021 11:05:24 the smallest of all regions (ca. 9% of Slovenia), At present, there are about 6,500 registered ar-where alternating areas of Mediterranean and chaeological sites in Slovenia. Considering the sub-Mediterranean landscapes formed a geo- area of the country (20,000 km2), this makes one logical bed composed of limestone, dolomite site every 3 km2.6 Slovenia’s archaeological ‘im-and sandstone. The terrain is very heterogene- age’ corresponds well to its ecological diversity ous, ranging from mountains of some 1000 m and geographic position of the contact zone be-in height to numerous hills and plateaus be- tween the northern Adriatic, eastern Alps, Pan-tween 500 and 1000 m to karstic fields, lower nonian Plain and northern Dinaric mountains. hills, and alluvial plains. There are generally This, of course, does not apply to the Palaeolithic two types of landscapes – karstic landscapes on periods when the natural environment was sig-limestones and dolomites and flysch hills and nificantly different. alluvial plains; the latter having much greater potential for farming, while the former being During the glacial maximums, almost the whole traditionally more suitable for sheep and goat Alpine area was covered with glaciers and ice, keeping and small-scale farming in karstic de- and the surrounding regions had polar or cry-pressions with thicker soil deposits. The karstic ophilic vegetation and fauna. On the other hand, areas have almost no surface water due to the during the interglacial periods (e.g. in the Aurig-very porous limestone geology. The overall ra- nacian), high Alpine areas above 1,500 m were tio of the forests is around 35%. The climate is settled. The changes in sea-level were also con-the Mediterranean on the coast and sub-Medi- siderable. Between some 30,000 and 20,000 years terranean or combined with the continental one BP (the last glacial maximum), the sea level was further inland. about 135 m lower than today (Surić 1976; 2009, 182), making the whole Adriatic Sea north of the Slovenia is, generally speaking, rich in water line Ancona–Zadar dry land. sources, rivers and other streams. The Sava, Dra- va, Mura and Krka rivers, along with their tribu- The geological deposits and sediments that can taries, ultimately flow into the Danube and Black be dated to the Lower Palaeolithic are scarce in Sea; much smaller and limited to the country’s the surface levels. Only a few sporadic finds may westernmost part is the Adriatic river catchment be dated to the end of the Lower Palaeolithic and (Soča/Isonzo, Vipava, Dragonja). derive from caves in the area of Postojna such as Jama v Lozi, Risovec and Betalov spodmol (Bro- dar M. 2009, 90–94). Better preserved are deposits Archaeological and historical in caves and rock shelters from the Middle and background of Slovenia Upper Palaeolithic. The Mousterian period has been recorded in some fifteen sites, all but one Ecological diversity had a significant influence found in caves or shelters (Brodar S. 2009, 100– on historical and cultural pathways in the past. 141), and all located in central and western Slo-The territory of present-day Slovenia has had venia in karstic areas abundant with various rock considerable strategic importance since prehis- shelters and caves. Their highest concentration is toric times, as it occupies the junction of some in the area between Postojna and Pivka. The most large regional systems (Adriatic, Alpine, Panno- prominent place among the Mousterian sites is nian and Balkan). This large ecological diversi- Divje babe I, where the earliest known bone flute ty and pivotal strategic location meant that Slo- ascribed to the Neanderthals was found (I. Turk venia’s territory was for centuries divided into different regional or political and administrative 6 Data on archaeological sites is collected from ARKAS units, which is also well-reflected in its archaeol- ( Arheološki kataster Slovenije), a WEB-GIS based data- base maintained by the Archaeological Institute in Lju- ogy and history. bljana (http://arkas.zrc-sazu.si/index.php). 25 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 25 22. 10. 2021 11:05:24 Fig. 6 Archaeological sites in Slovenia mentioned in this chapter. 1997; 2014).7 From the warmer interglacial peri- mentioned area between Postojna and Pivka. od (Aurignacian) there is another exceptional site Among the Gravettian sites stands out Ciganska – the cave of Potočka Zijalka, which lies at 1675 jama near Kočevje, where a deer’s long bone with m in the Eastern Alps and indicates a warm pe- incised signs (probably symbolising humans) was riod.8 It is known for the remains of the cave bear found (Brodar S. 1991), and Zemono, an open-air (more than 3,000 individuals) and at least 30 bone site from the transition of the Palaeolithic to Mes-points, which is probably the largest ‘collection’ olithic, which contained a slate slab decorated of this type of artefact found in one site in Eu- with incised geometric motives (Kavur and Pet-rope. In the Aurignacian period, the Palaeolithic ru 2003). The number of Mesolithic sites seems settlement also spread across eastern Slovenia, to be similar to those from the Gravettian period, where Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites are but the ratio of cave and rock shelter sites is low-missing. The largest number of sites (20) derives er. The Mesolithic sites are distributed in similar from the Gravettian and Epi-Gravettian periods. zones as the Gravettian sites (of the latter, some One-third of them are concentrated in the already of them contained evidence from both periods). However, recent surveys in high Alpine areas 7 This discovery is still disputed by some scholars who discovered some ten locations, many of them well interpret the holes in the bone as due to animal bites. above 1000 m, with potential indications of Mes-However, after a series of analyses, the ‘flute hypoth- olithic settlements (e.g. Jamnik and Bizjak 2003; esis’ seems still more plausible than the alternative interpretations. 2015; Jamnik 2015). Unfortunately, most of the re- 8 Similar evidence is provided by another Mousterian search on Mesolithic sites was small-scale, involv-site (Mokriška jama) located at 1500 m in the Alps. ing sampling excavations or superficial surveys, 26 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 26 22. 10. 2021 11:05:25 and so far no systematic radiocarbon dating has could have been obtained in the neighbouring been implemented. areas with abundant farming land and evidence of well-developed Neolithic villages (e.g. in the With the Neolithic period (ca. 5000–3800 BC) Friuli plain). In the Karst, open settlements only emerged a clear cultural distinction between the emerge with the Late Eneolithic and Bronze Age. ‘two Slovenias’, the ‘Adriatic’ and ‘continental’, which lasted the whole of prehistory. Though Quite different was the Neolithisation in conti-being in close contact, each of these regions ex- nental Slovenia. The earliest settlements emerged hibited their particular trajectories in cultural in the first half of the 5th millennium BC in pat-and historical developments. The earliest Ne- terns similar to farming settlements in the west-olithic elements emerged soon after the begin- ern Pannonian and western Balkans areas. Early ning of the 6th millennium BC. The earliest evi- farmers colonised the soil-rich river valleys of the dence came from the karst caves from Adriatic Sava, Drava, Kolpa, and their tributaries, across Slovenia, the region extremely rich in all forms the whole continental Slovenia, from low-Alpine of caves and rock shelters. In total, there are and Dinaric areas to the Pannonian Plain. At some 35 Neolithic sites in the whole Karst area present, there are probably more than 70 Neolith- (an area of ca. 700 km2),9 and all of them are in ic sites, but at least half of them are known from caves. Traditionally, the process of Neolithisa- sporadic finds or a smaller number of sherds tion of the Karst region was seen as an expan- found at sites that contain more evidence of later sion of the Cardium Impresso pottery, the Early prehistoric periods. The locations of the Neolithic Neolithic culture on the Eastern Adriatic Coast sites and types of settlements demonstrate inter- (Istria, Dalmatia, Montenegro). The earliest ra- esting variability, from smaller villages and ham-diocarbon dates of the Neolithic contexts at the lets in flat lowland areas (e.g. Dragomelj, sites Grotta dell’Edera (6617 +/– 390 BP; 6590 +/– 100 in Prekmurje region), pile-dwellings (Resnikov BP, 6700 +/– 130 BP) seem to confirm this. More prekop) in marshlands, sites on river terraces recent interpretations speak of the ‘selective’ (Čatež–Sredno polje), river meanders (Moverna use of some Neolithic elements (e.g. pottery) in vas), confluences of rivers and streams, on ele-the late Mesolithic contexts, and that full Neo- vated plateaus (Drulovka, Ptuj), hilltops (Gradec lithisation (i.e. animal husbandry and farming) near Mirna) to cave sites (Ajdovska jama). Based of this area developed somewhat later.10 Since on pottery assemblages, the earliest Neolithic set-all the Neolithic sites are in caves, only a limit- tlements in continental Slovenia exhibit numer-ed image of this period’s economy and culture ous features of the Late Neolithic Lengyel Cul-can be deduced for Adriatic Slovenia. With re- ture matrix, which is most densely present in the gard to the economy, the dominant forms were central and western Pannonian Plain, suggesting sheep and goat keeping (and their stabling in the the direction from where the Neolithic colonised caves) along with hunting. Clear evidence of lo- continental Slovenia.11 Typical features are wide-cal farming and cultivated plants is still missing. open bowls (frequently with inclined lids), bowls The truth is that the Karst, lacking surface water on high legs, biconical pots and bowls, small and deeper soils, is quite unsuitable for tillage spoons, red or brown slipped pottery, decoration and cultivating the ‘Neolithic’ plants in the ‘Ne- with fingernail impressions, appliques, simple olithic’ way. However, some farming products parallel linear incisions and zig-zag motifs. 9 Today, the state border cuts the region of Karst (Kras, Carso) in half, on its western (Italian) and eastern (Slo- 11 In the recent literature, the earliest continental Ne-vene) parts. However, since the Karst is one geomor- olithic in Slovenia was termed the Sava group of the phological and geological area, I will treat it as a whole. Lengyel culture (Guštin 2005). For more detailed over- 10 For different theories on the Neolithisation of the Karst, views of the Neolithic in Slovenia, see Budja (1993), Ve- see Fabec (2003). lušček (1999), Guštin (2005). 27 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 27 22. 10. 2021 11:05:25 The Sava group’s best-researched site is Čatež– assemblages with finds from different periods Sredno polje, which spread over three hectares and diagnosed only based on typology and and contained 24 houses (Guštin et al. 2005). The with very few, if any, reliable stratigraphic con-second cultural phase, which followed the Sava texts (Ferrari et al. 2018, 71). At present, there is group, and falls into the transitional period to the still no distinguishable chronological sequence early Eneolithic (ca. 4300–3900 BC) (Guštin 2005, of the pottery styles on sites in the Slovene and 17) is known as the Lasinja Culture (spread also Italian Karst for the period between the 4th and in western and northwestern Croatia), which 2nd millennia BC. In terms of a general cultural in its settlement patterns, settlement areas and matrix, Adriatic Slovenia continued to exhibit pottery assemblages exhibits strong ties with the stronger ties with the Eastern Adriatic area (Is-previous Sava group (Late Lengyel culture). In tria and Dalmatia) than with continental Slove-continental Slovenia, the Lasinja Culture is most- nia. In terms of the way of life and economy, it ly spread in its eastern and southeastern parts. can be said that local traditional Neolithic pat-One of the most interesting sites belonging to terns (sheep and goat keeping, stabling of flocks this period is Ajdovska jama–a cave site with 29 in caves) continued well into the Eneolithic. individuals buried, very probably, in two inter- vals, at around 4000–3900 BC and 3400–3300 BC The knowledge of Eneolithic settlement is much (Horvat M. 1990). better in continental Slovenia, mostly thanks to recent research on motorways and the more ex- Both Neolithic zones, the Adriatic and continen- tensive use of radiocarbon dating, dendrochro-tal, were somewhat marginal regarding the ma- nology and other laboratory techniques. There jor cultural centres in this part of Europe, and do are two areas with substantial evidence from this not particularly distinguish themselves in terms period: the Ljubljana Marshes ( Ljubljansko barje), of some exceptional sites on the broader region- with pile-dwellings as the dominant type of set-al scale. In the settlement pattern smaller and tlements, and northeastern Slovenia (the Panno-sparser settlements dominated (smaller villag- nian areas in particular) with settlements in lowes, hamlets) which did not last a very long time. land flatter areas. However, the Eneolithic sites The houses were simple and relatively small, were also found in other areas (Alpine and Di-frequently partly dug into the ground and built naric) of continental Slovenia, suggesting similar with wood or other natural materials. distribution and variability compared to the Late Neolithic. Moreover, many sites of the Lasinja The situation changed considerably with the culture also appeared in the Early Eneolithic. Eneolithic period, especially in the continental part. This period in Slovenia is dated between The emergence of new cultural elements came the second half of the 4th and first half of the 3rd with the Middle and Late Eneolithic. In this re-millennium BC. In Adriatic Slovenia, the only spect, the sites in the Ljubljana Marshes are par-known sites are still in caves, so not much can ticularly important. Immediately south of Lju-be said about the settlements, the type of built bljana extends a 160 km2 large peat bog with the structures and many other aspects which can Ljubljanica river crossing it. In prehistory, this be traced in open settlements or cemeteries. To area was composed of a shallow lake or lakes date, there is no evidence of any structures or ob- and marshland, which during the 2nd millennium jects made of stone, which is the most abundant BC started to shrink and leave large deposits of building material in the Karst, and which will be peat, conserving the archaeological evidence of extensively used from the Bronze Age onwards. the earlier pile-dwellings. From the 18th century AD onwards, intensive projects of amelioration Moreover, the Eneolithic finds (mostly pot- (building of channels, regulation of the course tery) were frequently discovered in mixed of the Ljubljanica) were conducted to obtain 28 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 28 22. 10. 2021 11:05:25 more agricultural land. For this reason, the first Overall, it seems that around the mid-4th mil-pile-dwellings were discovered as early as 1875. lennium BC in northwestern Slovenia, in the valleys of the Drava and Mura, there existed The earliest pile-dwellings emerged during relatively dense Eneolithic settlement, especial-the Late Neolithic (Resnikov prekop), but their ly in the areas occupied by the previous Lasinja number increased significantly during the Ene- culture sites. Again, in most cases the settle-olithic and Early Bronze Age. Today, there are ment and economic patterns did not differ sub-some 40 registered pile-dwellings, of which half stantially from those of the Late Neolithic. In have been researched to various extents in the addition to this, the Lasinja culture sites’ sites last 150 years. Their greatest concentration is in were appearing well into the Eneolithic period. the second half of the 4th millennium BC (3500– Some of them also contained finds from the fol-3100) and the first half of the 3rd millennium BC lowing phase, the Furchenstich pottery culture (2900–2400). These short-lived settlements con- (e.g. Turnišče), which seemed to be the most tinued to appear until the beginning of the Late widely present Eneolithic phase in northwest-Bronze Age.12 Due to their number, short time ern Slovenia (ca. 3800–3500 BC). The Furch-span of the individual settlements, relative- enstich pottery is frequently associated with ly numerous excavations and quite extensive the so-called Retz–Gajary style present in the use of dendrochronological and radiocarbon neighbouring regions in Hungary and Croatia. dating, the pile-dwellings proved essential for A very rare type of site from this period is the establishing the developmental sequence for cemetery Pod Kotom–jug, with 173 cremation continental Slovenia for the period between the graves in urns, dated between 3635 and 3497 5th and 2nd millennia BC,13 with a succession of (cal. BC) (Šavel 2009). cultures in central Slovenia from the Late Ne- olithic to Middle Bronze Age. From one of the The Early Bronze Age period (ca. 2300–1600 BC) pile-dwellings came some of the most attrac- did not demonstrate particularly radical changes tive finds, such as a wooden wheel with axle in settlement structure in Slovenia. As a matter discovered at Stare gmajne. The wheel, dated to of fact, in all areas of the Late Eneolithic settle-the mid-second half of the 4th millennium BC, is ment, the local groups continued to exist more or one of the earliest objects of this kind in Europe less uninterrupted. Pile-dwellings were still be- (Velušček 2002). The Ljubljana Marshes also ing built in the Ljubljana Marshes, and represent brought to light the earliest evidence of metal- the major site type there. Similarly, in other parts lurgy in Slovenia, already from the second half of continental Slovenia, the settlement changes of the 4th millennium BC (Velušček 2008). This (the type of sites, locations), compared to the should not be a surprise since the Alpine areas Late Eneolithic, were not particularly significant, are relatively rich in copper ores. Ultimately, except for some new locations. Moreover, the ev-and due to its extraordinary archaeology and idence of metalworking and circulation of metal natural and cultural landscape, the whole area objects is relatively modest. The only noted dif-of Ljubljana Marshes is now listed on the UNE- ference is the appearance of hilltop settlements, SCO World Cultural Heritage List. which are still very rare in the Early Bronze Age but become much more common in the follow- ing periods.14 12 For more precise dendrochronological dates and other chronological data, see Velušček and Čufar (2014). 13 (1) Sava group of the Lengyel Culture ( ca. 4700–4300 BC) – (2) Furchenstich pottery Culture (ca. 3800–3500 BC) – 14 Hilltop settlements and settlements with well-defend- (3) Stare Gmajne Group (Baden type culture, ca. 3500– able positions (e.g. on river meanders, steep plateaus, 3000 BC) – (4) Vučedol culture (ca. 2800–2600) – (5) So-in some cases also with palisades) started to appear al- mogyvár–Vinkovci Culture (ca. 2500–2400) – (6) Early ready with the Late Neolithic period. Still, these were Bronze Age. only recently discovered (see P. Turk (2016)). 29 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 29 22. 10. 2021 11:05:25 The change in settlement pattern is much more contacts over the large area. In this period a se-visible in Adriatic Slovenia, in its karstic and ries of large settlements emerged in Slovenia, flysch areas where numerous hillforts started to probably the largest so far, with flat cremation be constructed from the end of the Early Bronze cemeteries containing hundreds of graves. Such Age. They are mostly characterised by their ram- large cemeteries have been discovered in all parts and other constructions (e.g. ramps, en- Slovene regions – Alpine, Adriatic, Dinaric and trances, etc.) made in the dry-wall technique. It Pannonian. Among the larges cemeteries are Lju-seems that these constructions came to Adriatic bljana–SAZU (Alpine Slovenia); Ruše near Mar-Slovenia from the south, from Istria, Kvarner and ibor, Dobova, Hajdina (Pannonian Slovenia); Dalmatia, where hillforts had already become Novo mesto–Mestne njive, Mokronog (Dinaric the most common type of settlement a couple of Slovenia); and Brežec (Adriatic Slovenia). In the centuries before. In parallel with hillforts, large settlement pattern, probably the most substan-stone barrows were raised, clearly signalling the tial change was a large increase in the number change in mortuary practices. Since the Middle of settlements, almost by an order of magnitude, Bronze Age, the hillforts in Adriatic Slovenia, clearly indicating a large demographic increase. especially in the Karst and Istria, became by far The extent of tilled land and animal husbandry the most common (almost exclusive) type of set- also reached unprecedented levels. New settle-tlements. These lasted for some 1,500 years until ment zones were developed in areas previously the arrival of the Romans in the 2nd century BC, less intensively settled or not settled during the and so created a particular longue durée cultural Late Bronze Age. While in Adriatic Slovenia the landscape of later prehistory. This phenomenon hillforts presented the dominant type of settle-can be seen all along the Eastern Adriatic. It is ment, in continental Slovenia the settlement pat-also important to note that in parallel with the tern presented more mixed features in flat low-appearance of a large number of hillforts there land terrains dominated by larger villages. Still, was also a shift in economic pattern towards there were also hillforts and settlements in other the greater importance of agriculture, and from types of locations (e.g. lower plateaus, conflu-stabling flocks of sheep and goat in caves to ences of rivers, river meanders, etc.). keeping animals in large enclosures, and also substantially increased remains of cattle and In some cases, it is already possible to speak of pig in archaeological sites (Fabec 2018, 106–115). the emergence of a settlement hierarchy, with Changes emerging with the Middle Bronze Age some potential central sites. Such settlement are also visible in continental Slovenia, where density and an increased population laid the the ‘post-Eneolithic’ (i.e. Early Bronze Age) set- foundations for creating regional groups that tlements ceased to exist, and some new cultural shared many general common features of the patterns appeared: burials in large earth bar- Urnfield cultural repertoire and developed their rows, frequently equipped with metal objects, own local variants and identities. However, not and an increased number of metal weapons (e.g. all zones were equally influenced by the Urnfield swords, daggers) in graves or as sporadic finds. culture; their elements are strongest in central and eastern Slovenia, while western parts adopt-But the principal changes occurred with the ed their elements more selectively. In the Late Late Bronze Age, after the 14th century BC when Bronze Age, regional groups started to develop the Urnfield culture with its regional variants their local identities, a process which reached its spread from Pannonia across a large portion of peak in the Early Iron Age. On the other hand, southeastern and south-central Europe. With the cultural similarities, now shared on a much this culture came a series of technological inno- larger regional scale, catalysed the intensifica-vations in metalworking and substantial chang- tion of the contacts with Italy and the Aegean es in social organisation, economy, and cultural and Pannonian regions. The best evidence for 30 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 30 22. 10. 2021 11:05:25 this is a large hoard in Škocjan (Jama na Prevali 7,000 are from the Sveta Lucija group alone.16 2, also known as Mušja jama). In this 50 m deep With regard to the settlement pattern, the hierar-vertical shaft, some 800 bronze and iron objects chisation of settlements reached its peak. Within (offensive and defensive weapon, jewellery, met- each of the regional groups, several settlements al vessels) were deposited (i.e. donated) between developed into identifiable ‘central places’ dis-the 12th and 8th centuries BC, speaking of its ex- tinguished through their size, population and traordinary religious importance in the wider relative wealth in their cemeteries. These include regional context. Many objects clearly indicate Stična, Magdalenska Gora, Novo mesto, Vače, their origins in Italy, the Aegean, Pannonian, or Libna in the Lower Carniola group, as well as Alpine areas (Teržan, Borgna and Turk 2016). Most na Soči in the Sveta Lucija Group, Škocjan in the Inner Carniola group and Poštela in the The Iron Age period, especially its earlier phase Styria group, to name just the largest and best (800–300 BC), presents in many respects a contin- researched.17 uation and further intensification of large-scale processes that had already started in the late The decline of these communities started after Bronze Age. With regard to the settlement pat- 300 BC with the arrival of Celtic peoples. In Slo-tern, Iron Age sites continue to appear in even venia, the Celts (Norici, Tauriusci) settled mostly greater numbers. Hillforts became the standard in central and eastern regions, but other regions and most frequent type of settlement all over also underwent substantial transformations. The Slovenia. Regional identities were further en- Celtic settlement’s core areas in Slovenia were hanced, and major regional groups to a great the river valleys of the Sava, Drava, Savinja extent corresponded to the ‘historical’ regions and Krka. The Celtic settlement created a new of Slovenia.15 In general, all the Iron Age groups countryside, abolishing the traditional pattern developed out of their Late Bronze Age (mostly of large regional Hallstatt hillforts. While some Urnfield) phases. The significant distinctions be- of these continued to be settled in the La Tène tween them are in the mortuary practices. Some period, but their importance in the settlement of them buried their dead in large lineage bar- pattern was much less than before. The change rows with many dozens of skeleton graves (Low- was also very evident in the burial record. Celt-er Carniola Group), others cremated their dead ic cemeteries were either at new locations or at-and simply put the ashes in the ground (Sveta tached to the Hallstatt burials in mounds, but Lucija group) or buried the cremated individuals what distinguished them most was cremation under their own barrow (Styrian group), or even and typical Celtic grave goods. combined different modes of burials. Two major Celtic peoples settled in Slovenia. However, in most cases the burials (grave North of the Alps, the Noricans had the core area goods) demonstrated differences in the de- of their Kingdom, which extended to northern and ceased’s social status. Indeed, the Iron Age eastern Slovenia (Carinthia, western Styria). Their cemeteries in Slovenia are among the most and major centre in Slovenia was in Celje (Keleia/Ce-best-researched archaeological sites in the coun- leia), where a powerful local elite developed in the try. In the last 150 years more than 12,000 Iron 1st century BC, which also minted coins. South of Age graves have been excavated, of which some 16 I estimate that a number of the Iron Age sites in Slove- nia exceeds the figure of 1000. More sites are only from 15 Lower Carniola group ( Dolenjska group), Styrian group the Roman period. ( Štajerska group), Upper Carniola group ( Gorenjska 17 The literature on the Iron Age in Slovenia is abundant; group), Carinthia group ( Koroška or Breg–Frög group), for a general overview, see Gabrovec (1987), for radio-Northern Littoral group ( Sveta Lucija group) and Inner carbon dating and chronology of the Iron Age in Slove- Carniola Group ( Notranjska group). nia, see Teržan and Črešnar (2014). 31 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 31 22. 10. 2021 11:05:25 the Norican territory, mostly in Inner and Lower and Poetovio. The eastern road lead from Em-Carniola, was settled by the Taurisci. Opposed to ona to Neviodunum, Siscia and further east to-the Noricans, the Taurisci did not form their ‘king- wards Sirmium and Moesia, along the Sava Val-dom’ but lived in several more loosely connected ley. Crossing southwestern Slovenia, there were tribal units. Particularly densely settled was Lower also two short tracks of roads connecting Terg-Carniola, where the largest Celtic cemeteries were este with Pola and Tarsatica (Rijeka). Altogeth-discovered (e.g. Novo mesto, Mokronog). An es- er, there were some 450–500 kilometres of the pecially interesting site from the 1st century BC is principal roads ( viae publicae) and at least twice Nauportus (Vrhnika) near Ljubljana, where the as many secondary and tertiary roads. Romans established their principal point of trade with regions in the southeastern Alps and western Developed urban centres and a relatively dense Pannonia.18 road network, coupled with the long-lasting sta- ble period of peace, resulted in a very dense set- The Romans had already started to advance to- tlement of Slovenia between the 1st and 4th cen-wards Celtic areas in Slovenia at the beginning turies AD. Indeed, it is this period from which of the 2nd century BC. Their most strategic move the largest number of archaeological sites are was establishing the colony of Aquileia near the known.19 Of course, the richest sites are urban mouth of Soča/Isonzo to the Adriatic Sea in 181 centres with cemeteries that contained thou-BC, making a strong base for further advanc- sands of graves (e.g. Emona, Poetovio, Neviodu-es to the east. Combining political negotiations num). Moreover, their town plans are relatively with military incursions, they soon succeeded in well researched, and those of Emona and Ptuj conquering western Slovenia and Istria, making in particular (Gaspari 2014; Horvat J. and Vičič them part of the province Galia Cisalpina. The 2010). Among the Roman cemeteries in Slove-final stabilisation of Roman rule came with the nia, a special place is given to the cemetery at foundations of the colonies Tergeste (Trieste) Šempeter, with extraordinary monumental tomb and Pola in the mid-1st century BC. With Augus- monuments of the Celeian Roman elite made in tus’s reforms, the territory of western Slovenia the so-called Norican-Pannonian artistic style was included in the 10th region of Italy. The rest (Klemenc 1972). The Roman countryside also of Slovenia was divided among the Provinces of demonstrates a wide variety of different struc-Noricum (northern-central Slovenia) and Upper tures densely dispersed across Slovenia: villas, Pannonia (central and eastern Slovenia). After road stations, villages, hamlets, vicinal roads, successful military campaigns against the west- quarries, workshops and so on. ern Balkans and Pannonian peoples, the Romans established four towns in what is now Slovenia: In addition to this, some significant military Emona (Ljubljana) in AD 14, Celeia (Celje) dur- camps and forts were also constructed, and during the reign of Claudius, and Nevioudunum ing the time of the advance of the Romans (the (Drnovo near Krško (Flavian municipum) and period of Augustus), there was a large military the colony of Poetovio (Ptuj) during Trajan’s camp near Obrežje in Sava valley and some reign. The Romans constructed quite an exten- smaller camps around it, at the very border with sive network of roads. The principal node in the Croatia. During the Markoman wars (168–180 road network was Emona. Towards the south- AD), another large camp was raised at Ločica west, the principal road led to Aquileia, another near Celje. Especially intensive was the building road went north, along the River Sava Valley, of military structures in the Late Roman period. towards the Alpine passes. In the northeastern direction, the road connected Emona with Celeia 19 Based on ARKAS ( Arheološki kataster Slovenije) data, 58% of 5,185 dated sites belong to the Roman period 18 On Nauportus, see Horvat J. (1990; 2020). (other periods: prehistory 33%, medieval period: 8%). 32 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 32 22. 10. 2021 11:05:25 From this time the most important military con- population, with the local inhabitants dominant, struction in Slovenia is associated with the Late but with Goths or Langobards also present. Roman system of defence – Claustra Alpium Iuliarum. This limes-type system was construct- However, only with the arrival of the Slavs, from ed in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD to protect the around the late 6th or early 7th century AD, did a eastern passages to Italy. It consisted of a series more intensive re-settling of major river valleys of forts, towers and wall blockades and other and old settlement areas in lowlands began. The types of barriers extending from Rijeka in Croa- Slavs seem to arrive in several phases, mostly tia across the whole of western Slovenia, ending from the northeast and east. According to the in the Gail Valley in the southern Austrian Alps, jewellery, three phases were proposed for the blocking all major roads and passages to Italy period from the late 6th to 11th centuries AD – (Šašel and Petru 1971). Carantanian culture, Köttlach culture and then Belo Brdo culture, mostly based on the analyses Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, of larger Slavic cemeteries in Slovenia (e.g. Bled, several Germanic and other tribes crossed Slove- Kranj–Župna cerkev, Ptuj) and Austria. In gen-nia’s territory on their incursions into Italy: the eral, the Slavs gradually spread over the areas Huns, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Langobards, which were already densely settled in the Ro-and later also the Magyars. Some areas of Slove- man period. There is no evidence of any larger nia constituted, over short periods, parts of the settlements or forts or ‘burgs’ from the two ear-kingdoms of the Ostrogoths and Langobards, lier Slavic phases, apart from those constructed which also left some traces in the archaeological in the late Roman period and re-settled by Slavs. record. By the mid-5th century AD, all the Ro- Instead, the new Slavic settlements were mostly man urban centres were destroyed, abandoned smaller villages and hamlets, with simple hous-or otherwise ceased to continue, together with es, frequently dug into the ground, with stone numerous villas in the countryside. The Roman very rarely used as a building material. The rep-population sought retreat in mountainous areas, ertoire in these houses speaks to a rather modest building smaller, frequently fortified settlements material culture, with simple and rather coarse ( refugia), which lasted well into the 6th and maybe vessels, sometimes decorated with incised paral-the 7th century AD. More than 40 such refugia in lel wavy lines as the most frequent types of finds. Slovenia have been recorded so far.20 The best re- Only recently, with the ‘motorway’ excavations searched are Ajdovski Gradec above Vranje, Rif- of large open areas, have some more data on the nik, Tonovcev grad and Ajdna nad Potoki (Sag- settlement of Slavs been collected (e.g. Guštin adin 1994). One kind of refugium was a smaller 2010), confirming the relatively simple social community settlement (a ‘parish’), frequently organisation of the new settlers. More complex having its central church as the most elaborated built structures were either those that were re-and largest structure built in stone. Near many of used or which emerged only in the later phases these cemeteries were also discovered, giving a of stabilising the Slavic settlement (e.g. at Ptuj good insight into the local post-Roman material Castle). It took a century or so before the first lo-culture. Significant evidence for this transitional cal Slavic principalities were formed (8th century period also came from larger cemeteries which AD). Before the arrival of the Franks, the largest indicate the existence of some larger communi- and most powerful principality was Carantania, ties (e.g. Kranj–Lajh, Ljubljana–Dravlje) in the 6th with its core area north of the Alps, in today’s century AD.21 The grave goods point to a mixed southern Austria.22 Historical sources, associated 20 Similar refugia are also very frequent in southern 22 Carantania gave the name to the historical province of Austria. Carinthia ( Kärnten), now one of the Austrian federal 21 See more in Slabe (1975) and Stare V. (1980). provinces. 33 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 33 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 with the Christianisation of Carantania from the In the political developments in the Habsburg late 8th century AD onwards, describe its society Empire in the mid-19th century appeared the first as already ranked, structured around a common programmes for uniting Slovenia, which only prince and having hereditary rules regarding grew through time. In 1918, in the collapsing succession to the throne. Austro-Hungarian state, the Slovenes and Cro- ats rebelled against Austrian rule. They chose to After the beginning of the 9th century AD, amidst form a united state with Serbia and Montenegro Charles the Great’s conquests, the largest part of – the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Slovenia was first included in the Kingdom of However, the western part of today’s Slovenia the Franks to be later integrated into the Holy was annexed to the Italian Kingdom.24 Western Roman Empire, where it remained until its of- Slovenia, taken by Italy after the First World War, ficial dissolution during the Napoleonic wars. was incorporated later, after 1945. Despite the sig-After that, Slovenia became part of the Austri- nificant political instability and economic weak-an Empire until 1918. The instalment of a feudal ness of the Yugoslav Kingdom (1918–1941), Slo-system was gradual, and it was also associated venia preserved its territorial unity (as the Banate with colonisation of large, poorly settled areas, of Drava) and continued to strengthen its national which lasted until the 12th century AD. By the and cultural identity that was different from that 14th century AD, numerous mountainous zones of other South Slavic nations. In terms of religion, were also re-settled. The countryside was filled Slovenes are predominantly Roman Catholics, with villages, hamlets and small castles and tow- but a 16th-century Protestant movement left imers. The 13th and 14th centuries AD are also the portant traces in Slovenes’ history and culture, time of the rapid emergence of medieval towns especially in establishing the Slovene language.25 and markets. An essential role in its political de- velopment was played by the formation of so- In 1941, when Germany with its allies invaded called Inner Austrian provinces during the Late Yugoslavia, Slovenia was divided into three oc-Middle Ages in the 14th century: Carniola, Carin- cupation zones: Italian (west of the River Sava), thia, Styria and the province of Gorizia.23 These German (between the Sava and Mura rivers), arose from the early historic territorial units, and and Hungarian (north of the Mura), and all three they became established as the regional division countries planned to annex these territories to of Slovenia which is still present in many cultur- their respective states. The National Liberation al and historical aspects. Movement (NLM), led by the Slovene Commu- nist Party, was soon organised and openly fought The Slovene medieval provinces were well in- the occupiers to prevent this.26 In two years, tegrated, politically, economically and culturally, in the Holy Empire. Centuries of German 24 Even during the first decade of the Yugoslav Kingdom, cultural and political supremacy had a major Slovenia was not administratively united. It was split influence on Slovenia’s historical development between the provinces of Ljubljana and Maribor. Only after forming larger provinces (banates/ banovine) in in many components of its culture. This is why 1929, were both Slovene provinces united into the Dra- Slovenia cannot simply be considered a ‘typi- va Banate. Western Slovenia with the Littoral was un- cal’ Balkan country, even though it was part der Italian rule. of the Yugoslav federation for most of the 20th 25 The earliest prints (abbreviated religious and clerical century. texts) in the Slovene language appeared in 1550. In the next 40 years, a distinguished corpus of more than 50 books in the Slovene language was published, includ- 23 Carniola was the only province whose territory (and ing a translation of the Bible (1583) and the first gram- its capital) is entirely in today’s territory of Slovenia. mar of the Slovene language (1584). All the earliest Slo- Other provinces included large portions of land in Ita- vene prints were made in the Protestant context. ly (Adriatic Littoral), Austria (Carinthia and Styria) or 26 The Slovene NLM was part of the all-Yugoslav NLM, Croatia (Adriatic Littoral). lead by Josip Broz Tito. 34 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 34 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 especially after Italy’s capitulation in 1943, the mainly included various itineraries, travel journals, NLM grew into a well-organised and potent mili- texts on local geography, and notes on epigraphic tary force controlling most of Slovenia’s territory. monuments and the first historiographical syn-After the end of the Second World War, Slovenia thesis of the local past. The author of the earliest became one of the six constituent republics of the mentions of Roman inscriptions in Slovenia was renewed Yugoslavia. The Slovene territories an- Paulus Santoninus (?–1508/10), a secretary at the nexed by Italy in 1918 were returned. Patriarch’s Court in Aquileia. As a member of the Patriarch’s entourage during his inspection travels, ‘New’ Yugoslavia was established on the Soviet he produced the manuscript entitled Itinerarum,27 model, with the socialist system and the Com- where he noted some historical and epigraph-munist Party ruling the state. However, in 1948, ic records in the places they visited, such as Celje when Yugoslavia opposed Soviet supremacy (the Roman town of Celeia). He noted that, due to among the socialist states, the country started to abundant Roman ruins, the inhabitants called it gradually open to the West. With the considera- ‘Little Troy’. The work of Santonini cannot, howev-ble support of the Western countries, a massive er, be considered as a proper antiquarian activity. modernisation and industrialisation campaign Still, already these, for the most part, unsystematic was launched. Being already the most industrial- observations point to the local population’s aware-ised and ‘Western’ among all Yugoslav republics, ness of the rich pasts of their towns. Slovenia made giant developmental steps in this period and fully established its national political, The first true antiquarian of Carniola was economic and cultural institutions. National and Avguštin (Augustinus) Prygl (also known as political tensions in Yugoslavia and the economic Tyffernus,28 about 1470–1535), a secretary and crisis, which all grew in the 1980s, ultimately led to architect of Krištof Raubar, the Bishop of Lju-Yugoslavia’s collapse in 1991 and Slovenia’s proc- bljana, who contributed significantly to the lamation of independence. Slovenia was largely cultural development of Ljubljana Diocese and excluded from the civil war which followed in the entire province of Carniola. Prygl was very Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in 1992 active in his antiquarian endeavours. He main-became a member of the United Nations, and in tained contacts with Italian and other Europe-2004 a member of the European Union. an scholars and was a member of the Academy in Naples. He was undoubtedly one of the most important ‘promoters’ of Italian Renaissance Antiquarians, the Landeskunde tradition culture in Carniola. During his visits to Italy, and the Enlightenment projects Rome and Naples, he recorded Roman inscrip- tions and wrote a preface to a brief study on Other than Croatia, Slovenia had, without doubt, the antiques of a small Italian town of Puteo-the longest tradition of antiquarian and histori- lo.29 Sometimes referred to as Antiquus Austri-ographic activities among the archaeologies in acus in the epigraphic literature, Augustinus the former Yugoslavia, dating from as early as Prygl is also an author of two collections of the Renaissance. The pioneers of this tendency manuscripts on the Roman inscriptions from are found in Ljubljana, the capital of the centrally located Slovene province of Carniola (Kranjska), 27 For more details on his visit, see Santonin Paolo, Popotni and in the coastal towns of northern Istria (ruled dnevnik. Ljubljana 1991. by Venice), most prominently the town of Koper 28 His real name was Auguštin Prug(e)l or Prygl, and he ( Capodistria). was born in Laško (Tüffer) near Celje (in Styria). 29 Libellus de mirabilibus civitatis Puteolorum et locorum vi- The first works that could broadly be classified as cinorum ac de nominibus virtutibusque balneorum ibidem existentium. A study written by an Italian antiquarian antiquarian, historical, and historical-geographical Francesco de Accoltisi (1507). 35 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 35 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 Inner Austrian provinces. These manuscripts historical description of Istria, De commentarii were later sourced by Theodor Mommsen in storici-geografici della provincia dell’Istria libri otto his Corpus Inscriptionem Latinorum and are con appendice.32 Venetian Istria, considered an nowadays kept in Vienna’s National Library. Italian region, was frequently included in var-Many humanities’ scholars from the German ious historical description, itineraries and maps Empire consulted these manuscripts, among of wider Italy. The most notable are the contri-others Konrad Peuntinger and Wolfgang La- butions of Flavio Biondo in his Italia Illustrata zius. That the ancient history of Carniola and (1453), Marino Sanudo in Itinerario per la Ter-the neighbouring provinces was well-known raferma Veneta (1483), Pietro Coppo in Del sito already in the 16th century is also indicated by de Listria (1540) and Leandro Alberti in Descrit-the map created by Wolfgang Lazius,30 show- tione di tutta Istria (see more in Darovec 1999). ing Roman towns and other important places from ancient history, including the places of With the beginning of the Enlightenment in the the ancient legends that circulated in Carniola 17th century, antiquarian activities in the Slo-back then (for instance, the Argonauts myth). vene provinces advanced notably, with some local scholars’ works comparable to those of It is no surprise that antiquarian and histori- Italian and Austrian historians and antiquar-cal activities were very intensive in the Vene- ians. Janez Ludvik Schönleben (1618–1681), a tian coastal towns in northern Istria.31 Here, theologist, philosopher, historian and professor one should point out to scholars such as Pier of rhetoric in Linz, Vienna and Ljubljana, pub-Paolo Vergerio (the Elder), (1370–1444) from lished the first substantial study on the history Koper, a statesman, lawyer and diplomat, and of the province of Carniola in 1681.33 His work an influential thinker on the nature and signif- was continued and notably expanded by Janez icance of humanities. After a career in Florence Vajkard Valvasor (1641–1693), a topographer and Bologna, he moved to Budapest’s Imperial and naturalist, whose research on the karstic court, where he remained until his death. He Cerknica Lake made him a member of the Roy-wrote an essay De situ urbis Iustinopolitanae in al Society in London in 1687. In 1689 Valvasor which he describes the ancient town of Aegida published his monumental study – a synthesis (the assumed predecessor of the town of Kop- of the geography, topography, ethnography er). Giacomo Filippo Tommasini (1595–1654), a and history of the Dutchy of Carniola ( Die Ehre bishop from Novigrad in Istria is the author of, des Herzogthums Krain) in fifteen volumes, also for a long while, the principal geographical and known for its numerous excellent woodcut illustrations of places, towns, castles and scenes 30 Wolfgang Lazius, Ducatus Carniolae et Histriae vna cvm from everyday life. For nearly two centuries, Marchia Windorum (1561). This map was part of the Lazius’ atlas Typy Chorographici Prouin: Austriae cum expli- this work served as a reference source for the catione earundem pro Commen: Rer: Austriacar: concinnati ad Heros fuos Ferdin: Imp: Rom: p.F. & Maximilianum Re- 32 His work was preserved in the form of a manuscript gem (1561). until 1837, when it was published by Domenico Roset- 31 The region of Istria is today divided between Italy (the ti in the journal Archaeografo Triestino (see Tommasini area of Trieste), Slovenia and Croatia. The town of Tri- 1837). este, with its immediate hinterland, belonged to Austria 33 J. L. Schönleben, Carniola antiqua et nova sive annales sac-since the late 14th century together with the Istrian in- roprophani, Ljubljana 1681, vol. 1, encompasses the period terior. Venetian territories were south of Trieste along of early Carniola up to Christianisation in 800 BC. The work the western and eastern Istrian coasts. Though parts of is mostly based on data compiled from the existing bib- Istria are today in Croatia, I have presented the earliest liography; however, he also visited some archaeologi- antiquarian activities in this chapter for the reasons of cal places. Two additional volumes were planned but coherence. Until the Napoleonic era, the town of Koper not published due to Schönleben’s departure from the was the strongest Venetian centre in the region. For fur- area. It is assumed that he was also the author of two ther details on the Renaissance antiquarians in Istria, volumes containing drawings of archaeological finds – see Cunja (1992) and Slapšak and Novaković (1996). Numismata e ruderibus veteris Labaci erruta. 36 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 36 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 historical geography of the Slovene provinces the invalidity of the previous interpretation (Valvasor 1689).34 Towards the end of the 17th of the internal wooden construction of the century, another scholar well connected with It- amphitheatre.36 aly’s antiquarian centres was active in Ljubljana – Janez Gregor Dolničar (Thalnitscher), Schön- Gian Rinaldo Carli’s example is illustrative but leben’s nephew, a jurist and historian. He was also a common occurrence when it comes to in-the author of the first proper historical studies tellectual traditions and achievements that do on ancient Emona and its antiquities, and in not fit easily into the frames of modern national 1693 created a manuscript on the antiquities of schools, mostly since the state borders kept shift-the city of Ljubljana.35 ing over time. Without a doubt, Carli’s work belongs to a broader Italian (Venetian) tradition Of the 18th century scholars coming from Vene- of historians and antiquarians. However, his tian towns in Istria, Gian Rinaldo Carli (1720– impact on the development of local studies of 1795), born in Koper, had the best international Koper and Istria’s ancient history cannot be ig-reputation of his time. He was an economist nored. Later on, both Slovene and Croatian local and founder of the Accademia degli Operosi archaeological traditions were based to a great (1739) in Koper and a member and the Director extent on this work. Indeed, instead of asking of the Accademia dei Ricoverati in Padua. He the question ‘Who does Gian Rinaldo Carli be-was a professor of economics, astronomy, and long to?’ it is thus more useful to look at which geography in Pisa and Milano for a while, and later traditions he contributed to.37 wrote influential studies on monetary systems and the management of public funds, as well In the period between the 17th and 19th centuries as political and philosophical treatises and ge- in northern Istria’s coastal towns (Koper, Trieste, ographical and economics studies. His works Piran, Izola, Novigrad), there were relatively investigating the early history of Istria and It- numerous scholars who studied the local and aly were also extremely important. For the his- regional history. For instance, the town of Kop-tory of archaeology, his most influential works er itself had five different academies in the 18th include Delle antichità di Capodistria (Venezia, century. At that time, academies also existed in 1743), Delle antichità romane dell’Istria (Venezia, Piran, Gorizia and Trieste, making this area a rel-1760; 2 volumes), as well as his most impor- atively strong intellectual region, which contrib-tant work – Antichità Italiche – published in five uted significantly to local antiquarianism and volumes between 1788 and 1791. Gian Rinaldo scientific activities. This became even more ev-Carli is also known as one of the first excavators ident in the 19th century, when some important of the Roman amphitheatre in Pula ( Relazione institutions were founded, such as museums delle scoperte fatte nell’anfiteatro di Pola nel mese and several scholarly societies. di giugno 1750 dal conte Gian Rinaldo Carli-Rub- bi, Venezia 1750). Moreover, he demonstrated 36 See more on Gian Rinaldi Carli’s activities associated with Slovenia in Apih (1973), Šmitek (1997) and Cunja (1997). 34 His other important works include Topographia Duca- 37 Even the inclusion of the description of the work of tus Carniolae modernae (1679), Topographia Archiducatus Gian Rinaldo Carli here (also, in a broader sense, of Carinthiae modernae (1681) and Topographia Archiducatus other early Venetian scholars) is, in this sense, prob- Carinthiae antiquae et modernae (1688). lematic. However, it would be unjustifiable not to men- 35 Dolničar was also a member of the Academy Gelato- tion such an influential figure just because Carli is most rum in Bologna, Academy Arcadum in Rome and the often considered an Italian scientist. Since he originat- academies in Venice and Forlì. His other important ed from Koper, and due to the important work he car- works include Cypressus seu Epitaphia Labacensis (1688– ried out in this town, I have decided to include Carli’s 1691), a systematic collection of historical sources on contribution to the Slovene archaeology traditions. His Ljubljana, and Nucleus selectarum Inscriptionum Vetrum work certainly deserves to be included in the history of et Novarum (1709). Croatian archaeology as well. 37 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 37 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 The earliest works on the national history of the related concept – the way of life as a distinct Slovenes appeared towards the end of the 18th structure that stands between geography and century. They must be viewed in the context history and, in its own way, contributes to the of the late Enlightenment and the beginning of construction of the identity of a nation. the national revival, accelerated by Napoleon’s conquests and formation of the Illyrian Provinc- A close associate of Linhart’s, and a member of es, an autonomous territory within the French the same intellectual circle, was Valentin Vodnik Empire. Here, an important role was played by (1758–1819), a priest, poet, gymnasium professor intellectual circles in Ljubljana, especially the and author of historical and linguistic textbooks. group around Sigismund Zois, an industrialist In archaeology, Vodnik is known for his studies and patron of arts and sciences. His circle united of ancient tombstones and other Roman finds,40 the most prominent and liberal Slovene intellec- which he observed during his travels and field tuals of Carniola at the turn of the 18th century. research. He also commissioned the making of One of them was a historian and man of letters, a copy of the famous Roman itinerary Tabula Anton Tomaž Linhart (1756–1795), who pub- Peutingeriana kept in Vienna. His archaeologi-lished a key piece on the birth of Slovene histo- cal activities were influenced by Etienne-Marie riography, Versuch einer Geschichte von Krain und Siavue41, an officer in the French administration der übrigen südlich Slaven Österreichs (1788–1791). in Napoleon’s Illyrian Provinces, with whom he In this study, the Slovene nation was for the first paid visits to archaeological sites. They probably time defined not only based on the common undertook the first ‘archaeological’ excavations language,38 but also explicitly on the grounds of of an Iron Age barrow in Stična. shared history since the early medieval times. Of particular interest here is the first part of his book, which deals with the history of Slovene Development of the archaeological territory before the Slavs’ arrival. This is where discipline and practice in Slovenia Linhart employed a relatively correct reading of during the Austrian Empire ancient sources and the archaeological evidence (1800–1918) known at the time (mostly from the bibliogra- phy). By the standards of the time he presented In the 19th century, Austria was one of the leading a very good overview of Slovene lands’ ancient European countries in terms of the development history.39 His account of the effect of physical of archaeology. The main centre was certainly Vi-geography on the development of settlements is enna, with its museums, university and prominent especially worth mentioning. Linhart was not a scholarly societies. An essential role in facilitating geographical determinist, which was a relative- the advancement of archaeological research was ly common standpoint in similar studies of this played by the Imperial Court, which had a long period. Instead, he considered a different though tradition of patronage in establishing the collection of antiquities originating from the Empire’s 38 The modern Slovene language developed much ear- provinces, diplomatic gifts and, also, in acquiring lier. Its origin is linked with the works of the Slovene antiquities from Italy, Greece and Egypt.42 In the Protestant scholars from the second half of the 16th century, who published the first books in the Slovene language. 40 V. Vodnik, Römische Denkmähler in Illyrien (LW 1818; 39 Linhart did not confine himself only to questions about Archiv f. Geogr., Historie, Staats un Kriegskunst 1818). national history, but was also an important figure in the 41 Ettiene-Marie Siuave (?–1813), French archaeologist, development of the modern Slovene language, culture and member of the Académie Celtique. He described and literature, and was the author of the first drama his research in Slovenia De Antiquis Norici viis, urbibus written in the Slovene language. For more on Linhart’s et finibus epistola (Verona 1811). historiographical achievements in the development of 42 Here I mention only Anton Lavrin (Anton Ritter von archaeology, see Slapšak and Novaković (1996). Laurin), a Slovene from Vipava, and Austrian consul in 38 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 38 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 Austrian Monarchy, archaeology developed in der Baudenkmäle),44 founded in Vienna in 1850, parallel with the establishment of museum insti- making it so one of the earliest monument protec-tutions. Large museums founded in Vienna and, tion services in Europe. The Commission acted in a little later, in Prague and Budapest,43 were soon the field through its provincial offices managed by followed by numerous museums in the provinc- ‘conservators’. The Commission’s offices respon-es. They all played an important part in promot- sible for the territory of Slovenia were located in ing the new discipline of archaeology. Trieste (Adriatic Littoral), Ljubljana (Carniola) and Graz (Styria). In principle, the conservators The development of archaeology in Slovenia fol- were professional public civil servants, but they lowed the very same pattern. The crucial step frequently combined different positions in their was the establishment of the first institutions that work (heads of museums, gymnasia directors, studied archaeological finds professionally – the etc.). The conservators also maintained networks Provincial Museum of Styria in Graz (1811) and of local ‘correspondents’, local scholars, teachers, the Provincial Museum of Carniola (Kranjska) in clerics and so on, who were informing the con-Ljubljana (1821), along with the Monument Pro- servators about discoveries, potential threats to tection Service of the Austrian Empire (1850). The monuments and the like. Although the Commis-Museum of Carinthia in Klagenfurt (1843) was sion’s main task was to catalogue and protect the less present in the territory of Slovenia, whilst the listed monuments, many provincial conservators two municipal museums in Trieste – the Histori- also carried out archaeological investigations, es-calMuseum (1876) and the Natural History Muse- pecially archaeological topography.45 um (1846) were indeed very active in the field of archaeology and also in Istria and the Littoral. In Among all such institutions, the Provincial Mu-was also in that region, in 1911, that the municipal seum of Carniola had the most significant role in museum in Koper was established. In the province developing archaeology in Slovenia. It was, in-of Styria, three municipal museums (and their re- deed, the central institution (and often the only spective museum societies) were also founded, in one) for archaeological research practically up Celje (1892), Ptuj (1893) and Maribor (1903). until the end of the Second World War. As was the custom at the time, some scholarly societies In the ‘Austrian’ system (but not in the Hungarian were founded and appended to the museum, part of the Empire), in the protection of heritage such as the Museum Society of Carniola (1839) certain crucial tasks were assigned to the Central and the Historical Society of Carniola (1843).46 Commission for the Study and Protection of His- torical and Art Monuments ( Kaiserlich-Königlich 44 Its official name was the Central Commission for the Central Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung Study and Preservation of the Monuments of Architec- ture. In 1873, it changed the name to the Central Com- mission for the Study and Protection of Historical and Art Monuments. It functioned within the Ministry of Alexandria in the 1830s and 1840s who collected Egyp- Trade, Crafts and Public Construction but was overseen tian antiquities for the Austrian Imperial Court. Lavrin by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Education and sold most of his collection to Archduke Maximilian, the Academy of Sciences and Arts. It consisted of three who used the pieces to decorate his Miramare Castle main departments: (1) archaeology (prehistoric and an- near Trieste. Other ‘receivers’ of the Egyptian antiq- cient monuments), (2) history of Art, and (3) Written re- uities were the Austrian Academy, National Museum cords from the Middle Ages up to the 18th century. in Budapest, Art History Museum in Vienna, Imperi- 45 Among the most successful and long-term positive ac-al-Royal Cabinet for Numismatics and Antiques in Vi- tions of the Commission was the decree to collect the Ro- enna, Provincial Museum in Ljubljana. More on Lavrin man (and other) inscriptions on tombstones and similar see in Hamernik (1986) and Šmitek (1987). pieces and immured them into nearest active churches. 43 The museums in Prague (1818) and Budapest (1811) had 46 The tensions and long competition between different an evident political basis, as they were national muse-influential figures in these two societies caused a pro- ums of the Czechs and Hungarians. The museums in found crisis which was eventually overcome by their Vienna, however, had an Imperial perspective. unification in 1885, overseen by Karel Dežman. 39 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 39 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 However, it was not before the mid-1870s that had construed this chronological epoch.48 For the Provincial Museum of Carniola started be- his efforts and the quality of this work Dežman ing actively engaged in archaeological investi- earned great respect from his colleagues in Ausgations. Karel Dežman (1821–1889), head of the tria, who organised a scientific meeting in Lju-museum 1852–1889, encouraged by the chance bljana to honour his discoveries.49 Karel Dežman discovery of pile-dwellings (similar to those also had significant political power as he was the around the Swiss lakes) and supported by the Mayor of Ljubljana and a Member of Parliament Anthropological Society of Vienna, started the in Vienna for a short while. His political influence first large excavations in the Ljubljana Marshes, was probably crucial to his successful lobbying near the village of Ig (1875–1878) (Deschmann for a new building for the provincial museum, 1875a; 1875b; 1876; 1878). In Slovenia, these ex- which was opened in 1888 and represented the cavations are traditionally considered the hall- largest public palace built in Carniola up to then. mark of modern scientific archaeology. Having moved the museum to a new building, Dežman set up a permanent archaeological col- Karel Dežman, a naturalist by profession, suc- lection and prepared the museum guide.50 The cessfully introduced modern scientific standards two became the pride of the scientific communi-into the practice of museums and local scientific ty in Carniola, and a commendable example of societies in which he had some influence.47 He an outstanding activity at a provincial institution strongly criticised the naive and speculative his- in Austria. Unfortunately, Dežman did not pub-torical theories on the origin of the Slovenes, and lish the results of his excavation in the Ljubljana because of this, Slovene historiography consid- Marshes. It took more than 80 years for the Ig exers him one of the first Slovene critical histori- cavations to be published and interpreted as the ans. The novelty that Dežman introduced into richest late Eneolithic site in the wider region. archaeological practice in Carniola was a fresh One could only wonder what impact the early concept of prehistory that, following the existing publication would have had on the development Austrian and German classification of scientific of chronology and cultural interpretations in the disciplines, was seen as part of a broader science late 19th century in the broader context of Central of combined anthropology ( Völkerkunde), palae- European archaeology. ontology and prehistory. The main protagonist of such science in Europe was Rudolph Virchow. Dežman’s successors in the Museum of Carniola could not maintain such a high level of archae-In line with such a concept of prehistory, Dežman ology. Their priorities and scientific approaches brought new anthropological and evolutionary were significantly different from Dežman’s. Al-contents into Slovene archaeology, whose tradi- phons Müllner (museum Director from 1888 to tional perspective up to that point was markedly historical and philological. Through his early ex- 48 Prähistorische Ansiedlungen und Begrabnisstätten in cavations in the Ljubljana Marshes over the ensu-Krain I. Bericht , Denkschriften der k.k. Akademie der Wis- senschaften, Matematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Classe ing decade, he managed to develop a reasonably 42, Vienna 1880 (Deschmann 1880b), 1–54; Zur Vorg- solid conceptual frame for the new discipline. eschichte Krains, in : Die österreichisch-ungarisch Monar- He published the first syntheses of the prehisto- chie in Wort und Bild, Kärnten und Krain, Vienna 1891, ry of Carniola and also distinguished the La Tène 305–324 (Deschmann 1891). period in Slovenia only a few years after Tischler 49 In 1879, Dežman organised an annual meeting of the Austrian Anthropological Society in Ljubljana (Deschmann et al. 1880a, Versammlung österreichischer An- thropologen und Urgeschichtsforschers in Laibach am 28. und 29. Juli 1879, Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen 47 In the literature, Dežman is referred to under different Gesellschaft in Wien X, Vienna, 163–164). names – Dragotin, Karl, and Carl. For further details on 50 Deschmann, K. (1888), Führer durch das Krainische LanDežman, see Novaković (2001). des-Museum Rudolfinum in Laibach. 40 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 40 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 1903), a naturalist just like Dežman, pursued the contribution was on the process of Romanisa-work in different directions. Slovene archaeolo- tion and organisation of the Roman state in the gy usually points out his two greatest mistakes: territory of modern Slovenia. His work in other locating the Roman town of Emona at the village research areas is also of significance, such as the of Ig (ca. 10 km south of Ljubljana) based on the earliest investigations of Slavic cemeteries and relatively large number of Roman inscriptions the excavations of Iron Age hilltop settlements. documented in this area; and his primary mis- After Schmid had moved to Graz in 1909, there take – rearrangement of the museum collections were no archaeologists in the Provincial Muse-according to the principles of typology, without um of Carniola for almost two decades, which noting down the original burial contexts. As a re- was reflected in the notable decline in archae-sult of this rearrangement, in 1900 Müllner pub- ological activities and their quality. The muse-lished the book Typische Formen aus dem archäol- um, which in 1920 changed its status and be-ogischen Sammlung des Krainisches Landesmuseum came the National Museum (of Slovenia), was Rudolphinum in Laibach in photographischen Repro- able to recover from this setback only through ductionen, which some of the prominent archae- a major reorganisation and the employment of ologists of the time, such as Paul Reinecke, val- archaeologists following the end of the Second ued very highly as an excellent example of pub- World War. lishing the catalogues of finds. Moreover, Müll- ner’s mistakes are more understandable when Another fully active archaeological service be-considered in context. When he placed Emona in fore 1918 was the Central Commission with its Ig, the Roman Emona in Ljubljana was not yet provincial offices in Ljubljana, Trieste and, lat-excavated, and thus its existence in this location er, Pula. Some conservation activities were also could not be stated unambiguously. carried out by museums. The most prominent among the conservators was Simon Rutar (1851– More interesting and, for Slovene archaeology 1903), a historian who directed Ljubljana’s of-more important, was the next museum Director fice. Rutar was first a gymnasium professor in – Walter Schmid (1875–1951). He was the head Gorizia, Kotor and Split (today in Montenegro of the Provincial Museum of Carniola for only a and Croatia, respectively). During his service short period (1905–1909), but continued his ar- in Dalmatia, he also worked as an assistant of chaeological work after he moved to Graz and the Archaeological Museum and the Conserva-took up a position as a curator in the Provin- tion office in Split. There he closely collaborated cial Museum of Styria, which also covered large with Frane Bulić, the principal archaeological parts of present-day eastern Slovenia. Schmid authority in Dalmatia.51 Rutar’s most significant was the first such expert with formal education work was a study on the Roman roads and for-in archaeology, which he gained from the Uni- tifications in Carniola, which he wrote together versity of Graz. His archaeological profile was with Anton Premerstein.52 This laid important utterly different from that of the two previous directors of the museum in Ljubljana, and his 51 On Frane Bulić, see more in the chapter on Croatia. approach was distinctively historical, with the 52 A. Premerstein and S. Rutar, Römische Strassen und Befestigungen in Krain, Vienna 1899. Anton Premerstein (1869– archaeology he practised possible to describe 1935), archaeologist and historian, was born in Ljubljana as a regional historical discipline. Although the and studied Classics and Ancient History at the Univer- sphere of interest of archaeologists of the time sity of Vienna; starting in 1898 he was a professor (‘ privat was very wide, his primary focus was on the ar- Dozent’) for Greek and Roman history at the University of Vienna and was later Secretary of the Austrian Archaeo- chaeology of the Roman provinces Noricum and logical Institute in Athens (1906–1912), professor of An- Pannonia, whilst he also investigated archaeo- cient History at the German University at Prague (1912– logical topics of later prehistory (primarily the 1916) and the University of Marburg am Lahn (from 1916 until his retirement), and a correspondent member of the Iron Age). Indeed, his most significant research Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (1934). 41 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 41 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 foundations for future studies in the field of the same time, the archaeological map of Styr-archaeology and military history in Slovenia. ia was published, created by Friedrich Pichler. Another of Rutar’s publications, perhaps less This was essentially a map of numismatic find-significant for its scope but more for the idea, is ings, along with the locations of some other arhis short Slovene-German dictionary of archae- chaeological sites.57 The sites were placed into ological terminology,53 which represents one of three groups – prehistoric, Roman and Merov-the first steps in the formation of archaeology as ingian period sites – and further classified as a national discipline in Slovenia.54 Roman roads, supposed Roman roads, Roman inscriptions and other sites. During the Austrian period, special attention was paid to archaeological topography and Archaeological maps were a vital tool for the Cen-cartography, and so these aspects became tral Commission and its efforts in protecting his-quite advanced in Slovenia. The tradition of torical and archaeological monuments. As such, producing maps dates as far back as the time the Commission ordered a new archaeological of Linhart and even earlier, from the end of map of Carniola, which Anton Globočnik pro-the 18th century. Linhart’s maps did not yet duced.58 His map contained around 190 archae-represent what could be considered proper ological sites, and for nearly half of them biblio-archaeological maps, but were historical maps graphic data was also provided. This was, until complementing the texts. A similar characteri- this point, the most detailed archaeological map sation applies to the map published in 1825 by of Carniola and, with some later additions, rep-Albert Anton Muchar, professor of Classical resented an essential tool for future researchers.59 Philology at the University of Graz. His map ( Tabula Norici Romani) was published as an ap- Among the important cartographic projects of pendix to his book on Roman Norican history this time there is also Carta archeologica dell’Istria, (Muchar 1825–1826).55 designed in 1864 by a historian and conservator from Trieste, Pietro Kandler. Unfortunately, it The map published in 1862 by Peter Radics was not published, and neither were the draft (1836–1912) in his book on the history of Carn- versions preserved. Its content is known indirect-iola can be considered the first genuine archae- ly through Kandler’s contemporaries’ work (see ological map of Carniola.56 About 150 archaeo- Bandelli 1977 for more details). Kandler’s map logical sites, exclusively Roman, were mapped contained over 300 archaeological sites in Istria, and classified into fifteen different categories, which at the time was a vast number. Among although Radics mapped the sites using only in- them predominated prehistoric hilltop settle-formation provided in the literature. At around ments – hillforts ( kaštelirji/ castellieri) and ancient settlements. What distinguished Kandler’s map 53 S. Rutar, Slovensko-nemška starinoslovska termi- is the fact that it was based on authentic field re-nologija. Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko III, Lju- bljana 1893. search by the author and his assistants. 54 In his study of Slovene archaeology in the 19th century, J. Kastelic distinguishes the beginnings of ‘archaeolo- gy in Slovenia’ and ‘Slovene archaeology’. As a pioneer of the former, he considers K. Dežman; in contrast, he 57 Pichler F., Repertorium der Steirischen Münzkunde, Graz declares S. Rutar as the first archaeologist who tried to 1865; comments to the map and description of sites outline the national framework of the Slovene archaeo- were published in 1879 ( Text zur archäologische Karte von logical discipline. Steiermark, Graz 1879). 55 Muchar, in 1844–1847, published an improved version 58 Globočnik A., Die archäologische Karte von Krain, Mit-of the map in which he also included archaeological theilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 2, 1889, 263–264. sites. 59 At the Central Commission’s initiative, J. Pečnik (1904) 56 Radics P., Geschichte Krains. Appendix Archäologische supplemented Globočnik’s map for the region of Karte von Krain. Ljubljana 1862. Dolenjska. 42 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 42 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 Archaeological topography was also in the fo- marks), drew the attention of some prominent cus of A. Müllner. In 1867, long before he be- European scholars (e.g. J. Dechelette and O. came the Ljubljana Provincial Museum Direc- Montelius) who visited her excavations in 1913. tor, he kept sending off questionnaires about After her death most of her immense collection archaeological finds to schools and parishes was sold to the Peabody Museum at Harvard across the entire Styria and Carniola (Dular University. It still represents the most extensive 1992, 41). He failed to publish the final synthe- American collection of (c. 20,000 pieces) of presis of his work, but parts of it were presented historic antiquities from Europe.62 in some of his publications, testifying to the, at the time, unusually high-quality achievements As for the other ‘Slovene’ provinces, the train gathering the data. dition of archaeological research was particu- larly strong in the region of Primorska (the Owing to the local scholars’ efforts, both pro- Adriatic Littoral), where scholarly societies fessionals and amateur archaeologists and his- and the museums in Trieste played the cen-torians, Carniola was relatively well known tral role. However, due to the highly proas an archaeologically rich region by the late nounced irredentist (anti-Austrian and an-19th century. The most researched areas were ti-Slovenian/Croatian) politics of the Italian around Ljubljana and the region of Lower Car- community, which was also reflected in the niola (Dolenjska), particularly the Iron Age bar- research priorities and attitude of the local arrows and the Roman sites (e.g. Neviodunum). chaeological institutions,63 this tradition is not The monumental Iron Age grave mounds in Dolenjska, yielding numerous finds, attracted 62 For more on this collection, see Polizzoti Greis (2006). particular attention. From as early as the end The whole story about this collection and its arrival at of the 19th century, they were frequently exca- the Harvard Peabody Museum is highly illustrative vated by amateur researchers selling finds to of the ‘imperial archaeology’ in the Austrian lands. In 1918, the collection, kept in the Duchess’s castle at provincial and imperial museums.60 The larg- Bogenšperk in Slovenia, was sequestered and moved est excavation campaign was conducted by the to the National Museum in Ljubljana. In 1929, after Duchess of Mecklenburg,61 who between 1906 the death of the Duchess, the collection was returned to her daughter Marie Antoinette who handed it over and 1913 excavated nearly 900 Iron Age graves to the American art dealer Anderson Galleries, New in Lower Carniola in Stična, Magdalenska gora York, for auction. The dealer commissioned a team of and Vinica. She unearthed numerous exquisite highly renowned experts to prepare the auction cat- objects (for example, a set of Greek-style bronze alogue: Adolf Mahr (National Museum of Ireland, Dublin), J.M. de Navarro (Cambridge University), armour from Stična, which she later presented Ferenc Tompa (National Museum of Hungary, Buda- as a gift to the German Kaiser Wilhelm II). Her pest), Emil Vogt (Swiss Federal Museum, Zurich), Ray- activities, abundantly funded by the German mond Lantier (Musée des Antiquités nationales, Paris), Gero v. Merhart (University of Marburg am Lahn), Bal- Imperial Court (to the sum of around 200,000 duin Saria (University of Ljubljana). The catalogue was published in 1934 (Mahr 1934). The first auction failed 60 Especially active was Jernej Pečnik (1935–1914), am- due to very high prices, and less than one-third of the ateur digger and collector, frequently commissioned collection was sold to the Peabody Museum (including by museums in Ljubljana and Vienna for digging ar- items from graves from Magdalenska gora). However, chaeological sites. Altogether he excavated more than soon after, Anderson Galleries went bankrupt due to 60 sites, the results of which he sold to various muse- embezzlement in its accounting department. The Pea- ums. In 1912 he published a brochure ‘The Duchess of body Museum successfully lobbied the judge to repeat Carniola in Prehistoric Age’ ( Vojvodina kranjska v predz- the sale and, consequently, bought the remaining part godovinski dobi). of the collection. For more details on the history of the 61 Princess Marie Gabrielle Ernestine Alexandra von Win- Mecklenburg Collection, see Greiss (2006), Hawkes dischgrätz (1856–1929) came from a noble family of (1934), Hencken (1981). Windischgrätz, which had large estates in Slovenia, 63 Details on the cultural and research agendas of the local and was related to the Austrian and German Emperors Italian scholarly associations and institutions are given (the latter by marriage). by Forlati Tamaro (1984) and Bitelli (1999). 43 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 43 22. 10. 2021 11:05:26 recognised as a constituent component of the first decades of the 20th century. The number national Slovene archaeological discipline. of archaeological finds and sites in Ptuj was so It is, however, necessary to mention one ar- great that already in 1911, Skrabar and Gail-chaeologist from Trieste – Carlo Marchesetti hoffer (1911) made a detailed topographic map (1850–1926), a medical doctor and botanist by (at a cadastral scale of 1: 2880) with archaeo-profession, and the head of the Natural Science logical sites. Museum in Trieste from 1876. Much of his sci- entific career he dedicated to research on the In general, over the last decades of the ‘Austri-prehistory of the Primorska and Istria regions an’ era archaeology in the Slovene provinces ad- (at the time, both parts of the Austrian province vanced to a very respectable level. It was entire-Adriatic Littoral), where he conducted several ly comparable to the archaeologies in developed extensive excavations of the prehistoric necrop- central European countries. It owes this success-olises (for example, Most na Soči, a cemetery ful advance to many outstanding scientists, such with more than 6,000 graves; Škocjan; Tominče- as K. Dežman, C. Marchesetti, W. Schmid and va Jama; Beram). His preeminent work on the S. Rutar, as outlined above, and the relatively northeastern Adriatic hillforts’ topography re- well-organised state and provincial institution-mained an essential study for almost a century, al network, active scholarly societies, scientific making him one of the most influential scien- journals and other publications.65 The ‘pyrami-tists in the north Adriatic.64 In 1911 another mu- dal’ structure proved to be highly efficient. The seum was founded in this region, the Municipal central institutions in Vienna (the University, Historical and Art Museum in Koper ( Museo Natural History Museum, Anthropological Soci-civico di storia e dàrte), after a very politically ety and other historical associations, along with charged exhibition entitled ‘The First Istrian the Central Commission) dictated the general Provincial Exhibition’ ( Prima Esposizione Pro- course and standards of archaeology, and pro-vinciale Istriana). Before the ‘Istrian’ museum, vincial and local institutions implemented them the town of Koper had, since 1881, a municipal locally but with considerable autonomy. Archaeological Commission for the collection and protection of objects and documents (Ro- In such a system, the pre-1918 Slovene ar-goznica 2011). chaeology can hardly be regarded as a nation- al framework. Instead, it represented a good In the province of Styria (whose southern part quality provincial or regional component of a also spanned eastern and southeastern Slove- larger, imperial disciplinary framework and nia), the main archaeological centre was the practice. Its transformation into the national provincial capital Graz, which was an academ- archaeological school ran parallel to the de-ic hub housing the university, large museum velopment of other national institutions of and the provincial office of the Central Com- the Slovene nation. This can be best observed mission. Across the Slovene parts of Styria, in Carniola, the only province entirely with-the main archaeological activities took place in today’s Slovenia territory. Other Slovene in Ptuj, the former Roman colony of Poetovio. provinces had their capitals outside Slovenia, Here, a lapidarium was founded as early as and the ‘Slovene agenda’ had to face much 1830 and a local museum in 1893. The museum kept a vast amount of finds discovered during 65 The main scientific journals published by the Provin-the Roman sites’ large-scale excavations in the cial Museum of Carniola and the Museum and Histor- ical Societies in Ljubljana were Mittheilungen des histor- ischen Vereins für Krain 1–23 (1846–1868); Mittheilungen des Museal-Vereins für Krain 1–20, 1866, 1889–1907; Iz- 64 Carlo Marchesetti, I castellieri preistorici di Trieste e della vestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 1–19 (1891–1909), regione Giulia. Museo civico di Storia naturale, Trieste Argo 1–10 (1892–1903), Carniola 1–2 (1908–1909), and 1903. Carniola (new series) 1–9 (1910–1919). 44 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 44 22. 10. 2021 11:05:27 greater challenges. The key element needed Nevertheless, the foundation of the first univer-for the formation of a national archaeology, sity in Slovenia in Ljubljana (1919) and the introi.e. the politically and administratively united duction of the archaeological curriculum (1923) Slovene nation, was still missing in Austrian were the main steps taken in these years in fur-times. It emerged after the breakdown of the ther developing and institutionalising archaeol-Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918 when the ogy. The beginnings were indeed very modest majority of former ‘Slovene’ provinces in Aus- in all respects.69 Only classical archaeology was tria (Carniola, the southern parts of Styria and taught and to a very limited extent. Due to the Carinthia and the Prekmurje region, which scientific profile of the first professor (Vojeslav was under Hungarian control) came togeth- Molè), the courses comprised numerous ele-er in a newly created state – the Kingdom of ments of art history. The library was only being Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.66 established, the university employed just one professor, and all other lecturers came from oth- er institutions (e.g. the National Museum) and Slovene archaeology in the Yugoslav gave lectures only intermittently. Kingdom (1918–1941) Vojeslav Molè (1886–1973), the first professor The political context for the national autono- of archaeology at the University of Ljubljana, my of the Slovenes seemed to be, at least at the did not leave a significant mark in the history beginning, more favourable in the new coun- of Slovene archaeology. As a doctoral student try, and this additionally reinforced the devel- of the history of art in Vienna (1912), he began opment of the chief national cultural and sci- his professional career in Split as an assistant to entific institutions.67 However, the new state Frane Bulić at the conservation office for Dal-could not compare with regard to the wealth, matia. In the First World War, he was mobi-organisation and quality of the public services lised and sent to the Eastern Front, where he fell from the previous period. A weak economy, into captivity and was interned in Siberia, near disconnection from the former (Austrian) re- the town of Tomsk. In 1917, the University of gional and political networks and partners, Tomsk offered him a professorship in art histo-lack of expert staff and the remarkably weak ry at the newly founded Faculty of Philosophy public service for protecting cultural herit- (1916). His work at this university did not last age,68 soon led to a considerable decline in the long, however, and at the onset of the October level and quality of archaeological research in Revolution and with Russia’s withdrawal from Slovenia. Yugoslavia was, starting from its es- the war, Vojeslav Molè returned to Slovenia. tablishment, a very unstable country, almost There, he soon started assisting at the Universi-continuously in political crisis, and in 1929 the ty of Ljubljana and, ultimately, in 1923, became situation worsened with the proclamation of an associate professor, holding a Chair in Clas-the King’s dictatorship. sical Archaeology. His archaeological courses started in the academic year 1923/1924 but, two 66 The regions of Primorska (Slovene Littoral), Istria and years later, Molè moved to the University of western parts of Carniola were taken over by Italy Krakow, where he initiated the courses of medi- (1918–1945), whereas central and northern Carinthia remained in Austria, as well as northern Styria. eval art history of the South Slavic nations and 67 The long-awaited national university was founded in Ljubljana in 1919, and in 1921, the former Provincial 69 Initially, Chairs in Prehistoric and Roman Archaeolo-Museum of Carniola became the National Museum (of gy were planned in 1919. However, due to the lack of Slovenia). In 1938, the Slovene Academy of Sciences resources and trained professors, only one Chair (Clas- and Arts was established. sical Archaeology) started teaching in 1923. This situ- 68 Altogether, two to three professional archaeologists ation continued until 1943 (Novaković, Lovenjak and were active in the country between the two world wars. Budja 2004, 19–20). 45 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 45 22. 10. 2021 11:05:27 the Byzantine period and achieved his greatest are the first systematic publication of the Roman professional success.70 inscriptions (with comments) from the territory of Yugoslavia (Hoffiller and Saria 1938); coordi- A person of much greater significance for ar- nation of the project for the Archaeological Map chaeology at the University of Ljubljana was of Yugoslavia;71 crucial papers on the Roman Balduin Saria (1893–1974), Mole’s successor. His military history of the western Balkans; series of early career is similar to that of his predecessor texts about the Roman period in the encyclopae-and illustrates numerous social and political cir- dia edited by Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll Realencik-cumstances of the first half of the 20th century. lopedie der Klassische Altertumswissenschaft (e.g. He was of German origin, born in Ptuj. He stud- presentations of the Roman towns Neviodunum ied at the University of Vienna, where, in 1921, and Poetovio and the province of Dalmatia). He he completed his doctoral research in prehistory published in Serbian, Italian, Austrian, German and classical archaeology. After short-term em- and Hungarian archaeological and historical ployment as a librarian of the Archaeological and journals. He was also one of the organisers of Epigraphic Seminar of the University in Vienna, the first major international archaeological meet-he moved to the post of a curator for archaeology ing in Slovenia ( Tabula Imperii Romani in 1937 in at the National Museum in Belgrade (1922), and Ptuj). Saria enjoys a special place in the history in 1925 became an assistant professor at the Uni- of Slovene archaeology because of his efforts and versity of Belgrade. In 1926 he took up the posi- success in maintaining a high level of research tion of an associate professor at the University and vivid communication with international cir-of Ljubljana and became the head of two Chairs cles. However, his conduct during and after the – Ancient History and Classical Archaeology. Second World War made his further career in He remained in Ljubljana until 1942, when he Slovenia impossible.72 moved to Graz where he worked in the museum and at the university. He retired immediately af- Another key figure from the period between the ter the Second World War, but continued to be a two wars, which influenced the development member of the Institute for Southeastern Europe. of Slovene archaeology over the long term, was Srečko Brodar (1893–1987), a geologist and pi-In less than 20 years of his professional career oneer of Palaeolithic studies in Slovenia and in Slovenia, Balduin Saria produced momentous post-war Yugoslavia. Between 1928 and 1935 he results and propelled Slovene archaeology to the level it had attained during the time of Karl 71 Following the design of the German project Archäologis-Dežman. Already as a curator of the National che Landesaufnahme, this very ambitious project of creat- Museum in Belgrade, he conducted investiga- ing maps of archaeological sites in the scale 1:100,000, tions of the ancient town of Stobi in N. Mace- with accompanying explanations, fulfilled the high- est cartographic criteria of the time. Saria (1936; 1939) donia and published several important papers was the author of two volumes: Archäologische Karte about this famous Roman site. His research in von Jugoslawien: Blatt Ptuj, Beograd – Zagreb 1936 and Slovenia was mostly focused on the Roman pe- Archäologische Karte von Jugoslawien: Blatt Rogatec, Za- greb 1939 (with J. Klemenc). riod. Among his most impressive achievements 72 After the Italian occupation of western Slovenia (including Ljubljana), Saria moved to the German (Third) 70 Vojeslav Molè remained in Krakow until the Second Reich. Thanks to his pro-German stance, he immedi- World War in Poland, when he returned to Ljubljana ately got a position at the Graz University and Styrian and stayed there until 1945. After the war, he went back Provincial Museum. Although he remained active in to Krakow, where he had already attained an impor- research after his (probably forced) retirement in 1945, tant scientific reputation (and membership of the Pol- he broke almost all ties with archaeologists in Slove- ish Academy of Science). After his retirement and the nia and Yugoslavia. However, he regularly published death of his son, he moved to the United States. More overviews in Austrian and German journals of impor- information on his life and work can be found in his tant publications from Slovenia and Yugoslavia. See memoirs (Molè 1970). more in Mlinar (2019). 46 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 46 22. 10. 2021 11:05:27 explored the Potočka Zijalka cave, the first Palae- of Walter Schmid in 1909, Ložar was first hired olithic site discovered in Slovenia,73 which turned as a librarian, and only at the beginning of the out to be one of the richest sites of the Upper 1930s did he become an archaeology curator, Palaeolithic (Aurignacian) in the Alpine area in where he remained at this position until 1939 general, and also of importance for the interpre- when he moved to that of the Director of the tation of the process of Würm glaciation in this Slovene Ethnographic Museum. Since he was part of Europe. Potočka Zijalka is located high in the only archaeologist in the museum and one the Alps, at more than 1700 m asl, and displays of only two or three professional archaeologists clear indications of the transitional warmer phase in Slovenia, besides standard museum tasks his of the Würm glaciation (Würm I/II phase). More duties also included the protection of the cultur-than a hundred different types of stone tools have al monuments. been documented at this site, along with 133 bone points. Another peculiarity of the site is the great Moreover, Ložar did not restrict himself only to number of remains of the cave bear; it was esti- archaeology, but also pursued research in eth-mated that this species’ bones represent 99% of nography, art history and literary criticism. He the faunal assemblage and that they came from developed a kind of eclectic and rather diverse more than 3,000 individuals.74 Inspired by this approach to archaeology by applying some basic discovery’s significance, S. Brodar initiated sys- concepts from the history of art and the analy-tematic investigations of the Palaeolithic in Slo- sis of style as a prerequisite for synthesising the venia, whilst he also played a significant role in cultural matrix of time and space. Ložar’s work establishing Palaeolithic archaeology in other re- is of relevance here because he was the first to publics of the former Yugoslavia (Brodar S. 1983). build the concept of the history of archaeology as a national discipline in Slovenia. To this The work of the National Museum in Ljublja- end, he published two major works. One is a na (the former Provincial Museum of Carnio- pioneering study of early Slavic pottery mak-la) in-between the two world wars was mostly ing (Ložar 1938), representing an early attempt limited to the research and publications by Ra- at the chronological and typological systemati-jko Ložar (1904–1985). He was among the first sation of Slavic pottery found in Slovenia. The students of archaeology at the University of Lju- other is the first historical synthesis of Slovene bljana in 1923. Still, he finished his degree in Vi- archaeology (Ložar 1941), in which he provided enna, where he also received his doctorate with an overview of archaeology as a national discia dissertation on the Roman tombstones in Pan- pline, describing all of its constituent traditions, nonia and Noricum. In the National Museum, relevant scholars, biographies of institutions and which lacked archaeologists since the departure the problems of conceptualisation. Unfortunately, this scientist’s highly promising career was 73 Over the same period, investigations of the Palaeolith- abruptly interrupted by the outbreak of the Sec-ic sites took place in regions that belonged to Italy be- ond World War, when his political orientation tween 1918 and 1943. In 1927, the Italian Speleological Institute was founded in Postojna ( Istituto Italiano led him to emigrate from the country in 1945, di Speleologia), whose members also explored cave sites first to Austria and later to the United States.75 in this area and the Middle Palaeolithic site of Betalov Spodmol was one of those. Among the most prominent 75 Similarly to Saria, Ložar also broke all ties with Slavic scholars in the Institute was Raffaelle Battaglia, born in archaeologists after the Second World War. After sev- Trieste, professor at the University of Padua, and au- eral failed attempts to get a position at the Peabody thor of several works on the prehistory of Istria and the Museum and some other US universities – Ložar was Karst. After the Second World War, this institute be- one of the best connoisseurs of the vast Mecklenburg came a research unit within the Slovene Academy of Collection of Iron Age items purchased by the museum Sciences and Arts. in the 1930s – he eventually got a job at the City Muse- 74 For more details on Potočka Zijalka, see Bayer and S. um in Manitowoc, Wisconsin where he remained until Brodar (1928) and S. Brodar and M. Brodar (1983). his retirement. 47 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 47 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 In the domain of heritage protection, archae- simply did not have enough people and funds. ology received much less attention during the Moreover, archaeology was not that high on the Yugoslav monarchy than the museums or aca- national agenda compared to historical build-demia. In fact, one can speak of a considerable ings and larger art objects. regression compared to the previous ‘Austrian’ system. One of the most considerable obstacles As for the municipal museums, the most arwas a very weak legal basis accompanied by chaeologically active was the museum in Ptuj, poor institutionalisation of the public service of which continued its research, mostly on the Ro-heritage protection in the whole Kingdom of Yu- man town of Poetovio and its cemeteries. Here, goslavia.76 In fact, it was only in Slovenia where the most active scholar was Mihovil Abramić, some concepts and practices of the Austrian’s who, among other publications on local ar-Central Commission were kept alive. The her- chaeology also published a guide to the mu-itage protection system’s central point was the seum and architectural monuments in Ptuj in former provincial Monuments Office in Ljublja- German and Slovene (Abramić 1925a, 1925b). na (in 1919 renamed as the Monuments Office Other existing municipal museums in Maribor for Slovenia, with France Stelè at its head). The and Celje were not very active in archaeology responsible ministry was that for public educa- at that time. In the late 1930s, new municipal tion, and this office operated until 1941. In this museums were founded in Ljubljana (1937) context, it is important to note that the former and Škofja Loka (1939), but with no particular Central Commission in Vienna, aside from its of- engagement in archaeology before the Second fices in the provinces, included also some central World War. institutions such as the Archaeological Institute, Archives Council, and Art History Institute. In During the Second World War, archaeological Slovenia, these institutes were substituted by lo- and many other research and cultural activ-cal scholarly societies (Baš 1955, 29).77 Overall, in ities almost completely ceased.78 Following the period between 1918 and 1941, activities on Italy’s capitulation and the arrival of the Ger-archaeological heritage protection were not that mans into the former Italian occupation zone numerous and mostly limited to small emergen- in autumn 1943, the work at the University cy excavations of sites discovered by chance dur- of Ljubljana and numerous other institutions ing construction works. Even these would not be was suspended. possible without the assistance of local institu- tions, mostly museums. The Monuments Office The decline in archaeology between 1918 and 1941 can also be seen in publication activities. 76 Probably the most illustrative aspect of the function- The number of published papers fell due to the ing of a new country, established in 1918, was non-existing laws in the domain of heritage protection. In smaller number of active archaeologists, but 1922, the first meeting of archaeologists in Yugosla- also because there was no proper archaeologi-via was organised in Belgrade with a major topic to cal journal. The only journal which continued discuss and propose a new law on heritage protection. However, such a law was not adopted during to publish archaeological papers was the Bulle-the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In fact, the Statute of the tin of the Museum Society of Slovenia ( Glasnik ‘Austrian’ Central Commission from 1911 and the Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo), with some two following instructions remained the most important to three archaeological papers per issue. working document on which the system of heritage protection was based (Baš 1953, 29, 31). The first con- sistent law was adopted in 1945, a few months after the end of the war. 77 E.g. Museum Society of Slovenia, Art History Society from Ljubljana, Museum Society and Historical Society 78 On activities of Germans and Italians in Slovenia be-from Maribor, Museum Society from Ptuj, Museum So- tween 1941 and 1945, see more in Chapter on the Yugo- ciety from Škofja Loka. slav archaeology. 48 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 48 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 Contemporary archaeology in Slovenia Germans invested significant efforts to prove the German character of the countries south of Extensive transformations in Slovene archaeol- the Alps, and secure ‘historical’ arguments for ogy commenced after the Second World War, the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Slo-in the ‘second’ Yugoslavia. Two major political venes, particularly in Styria where annexation changes determined the subsequent develop- to the Third Reich was planned. ment of the discipline – Slovenia gained the sta- tus of an autonomous republic within the feder- In such circumstances, leading historians, art ation, which gave an additional impetus to the historians and linguists from the University of formation and strengthening of national institu- Ljubljana and the Slovene Academy of Sciences tions, including archaeology; and the introduc- and Arts played a crucial role in re-establishing tion of the Communist regime that initiated a the institutional frame of archaeology. Two new radical transformation of the whole country. In institutions were founded – the Department this context, the Yugoslav (and Slovene) Com- of Archaeology at the University of Ljubljana munist regime followed the ideology that insist- (1946) and the Commission for Archaeology at ed on the modernisation of the country, and thus the Slovene Academy (1947), which was later re-strongly supported the development of science organised into the Institute of Archaeology. and culture and the national emancipation of the Yugoslav nations, but, needless to say, under the For the first time, a complete archaeological cur-control of the Communist Party. One must also riculum was introduced (prehistoric, classical/ not forget that the war left Yugoslavia impov- Roman and medieval archaeology) and taught erished, and that substantial parts of the public by three professors: Josip Korošec (1909–1966), and economic infrastructure were destroyed or Josip Klemenc (1898–1967) and Srečko Brodar remained undeveloped. (1893–1987). All three of them also worked in the Commission for Archaeology at the Slovene The ‘restoration’ of archaeology was far from Academy. Another important moment for ar-an easy task, given that all of the professional chaeology was the appointment of Jože Kastelic archaeologists, except Jože Kastelic,79 had left as the Director of the National Museum in 1945 the country during or immediately after the and Stane Gabrovec (1920–2015) as the head of Second World War. Furthermore, the experi- the Archaeological Department at the Museum ence with the abuses of archaeology by the Nazi in the early 1950s. and Fascist occupiers was quite distressing. The Italian annexation of Primorska and Istria Urgent measures were also needed in the do- (1918–1943) and the later occupation of west- main of protection of cultural heritage. In 1945, ern Slovenia (1941–1943) were also justified by the Institute for the Protection and Scientific Re-claiming that these territories were parts of the search of the Cultural and Natural Monuments historical territory of Roman Italy. Most Ital- was formed (the name was later changed to the ian archaeological institutions in these regions Institute for the Protection of the Cultural and were thus given the task of establishing ‘sci- Natural Heritage). In this field, the principal au-entific’ foundations and demonstrating Italian thority was France Stelè (1886–1972), the last of cultural and racial superiority over the Slavic the Austrian Commission’s conservators in Lju-population (see Bitelli 1999). Moreover, the bljana (1913–1918), and Director of the monument protection service between 1918 and 1938. 79 Jože Kastelic (1913–2003), classical philologist, histori- A number of new regulations were necessary an, in 1942, appointed as an archaeologist in National to secure the adequate protection and manage-Museum in Ljubljana; after 1945, he became the Direc- tor of the Museum, and in 1958 he moved to the Uni- ment of archaeological sites and monuments versity of Ljubljana. since there was no adequate legislation in the 49 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 49 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Another important step Besides the institution-based specialisation, the in completing the archaeological discipline’s ba- most common form of specialisation was based sic framework was launching the journal Arhe- on the period of research, and it was in this ološki vestnik ( Acta Archaeologica) in 1946, which way that the traditional archaeological division was conceived as the chief archaeological sci- emerged: the Palaeolithic (traditionally the do-entific journal in Slovenia and published by the main of geology); the Neolithic and Eneolithic; Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts. the Bronze and Iron Age; classical archaeology and (archaeology of the Roman provinces); ar- In general, the first two decades following the chaeology of the Late Roman period/early Mid-Second World War could be considered the form- dle Ages and Slavic archaeology). These were ative period of contemporary Slovene archaeolo- five primary directions of such specialisation, gy. All key national and regional archaeological which were reflected in the departments’ organ-institutions were established during this period, isation at the University of Ljubljana, coordina-and the fundamental concepts of present-day Slo- tion of the research projects, the archaeological vene archaeology were introduced or improved. society’s structure, publishing activity, etc. The main feature of the discipline’s organisation- al structure was the three-fold division of work: The pivotal figure in Slovene archaeology in the research, education, and heritage protection.80 first two decades after the Second World War was, without doubt, Josip Korošec, one of Milo- Due to the absence of experts and the very few je Vasić’s students at the University of Belgrade, jobs available to archaeologists, there was no who gained his doctorate from the University of real specialisation in the earlier phases of the de- Prague at the end of the 1930s. Korošec’s profes-velopment of Slovene archaeology. Thus, there sional career started in 1939 in Bosnia and Herze-was no real allocation of tasks and responsibil- govina, where he became a curator for prehistoric ities among the archaeologists. The significant archaeology at the Provincial Museum in Saraje-increase in the number of professional archae- vo, the best-known and most developed archaeo-ologists facilitated the process of specialisation, logical centre in pre-war Yugoslavia. He remained which commenced in the 1950s and 1960s. It is, there until the war ended and then moved to Slo-indeed, during these two decades that more than venia, to the museum in Ptuj, where he immedi-half of the present-day regional and local muse- ately initiated a very ambitious programme of ums were founded, and archaeology was one of investigations of early Slavonic cemeteries, which their tasks from the very beginning.81 This pro- unquestionably was one of the largest projects in cess of the spread of archaeological institutions Slovenia in the first post-war years. In 1947, he out of Ljubljana, into other regions, proved later published a monograph about the investigations to be of great significance for the well-balanced in Slavic cemeteries in northern Slovenia,82 the development of discipline and its practice across first archaeological monograph in Slovenia after the country. 1945. The context was, in political terms, high- ly charged given that the research took place in 80 This division of work and organisation was identical in the zone along the northern border of Slovenia, all other Yugoslav republics. whose line shifted during both world wars. The 81 Eight positions were open for archaeologists in new political environment in Slovenia and Yugoslavia regional and local museums established in Postojna demanded urgent advancement of archaeology (1947), Brežice (1949), Novo Mesto (1950), Nova Gorica (1952), Kranj (1953), Piran (1954), Murska Sobo- into a national science to respond to the pre-war, ta (1955), Kamnik (1961), Slovenj Gradec (1981) and pan-Germanic expansionist archaeology. In 1946, Mengeš (1998). New archaeological posts were also offered in the municipal museums established before the Second World War, in Celje, Ptuj, Maribor, Koper, Lju- 82 Josip Korošec, Staroslovenska grobišča v severni Sloveniji. bljana, Škofja Loka. Celje: Tiskarna Družbe sv. Mohorja, 1947. 50 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 50 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 Korošec, during his excavations in Ptuj, discov- Ljubljana since 1946. Before getting the profes-ered an early Slavonic settlement and extensive sorship, he was a curator of the Archaeological necropolis. He also discovered a Slavic temple Museum in Zagreb but was forced into retire-which gave him instant acclaim, but later works ment during the war. Klemenc mainly focused did not confirm this (Janžekovič 2017). Korošec’s on teaching and had only a limited number of investigations in Ptuj undeniably had clear politi- field investigations. Unlike Korošec, who escal connotations, but despite this they were essen- sentially established archaeological studies of tial for further developing national archaeology Slavonic and Neolithic periods in Slovenia (and and history in Slovenia. Yugoslavia), Klemenc could greatly rely on the impressive results of his predecessor at the de- In a country lacking competent archaeology pro- partment, Balduin Saria. Although he never fessionals, especially in Slavonic archaeology, achieved the reputation of Korošec, his accom-Korošec was instantly declared a leading archae- plishments in Roman archaeology were still sig-ologist among the new, post-war generation in nificant. Klemenc’s research and publications on both Slovenia and Yugoslavia. In 1947, he became the monumental pieces of art of the Roman fu-a professor of prehistoric and Slavonic archaeol- nerary architecture in Šempeter represented key ogy at the University of Ljubljana. In the years contributions to the understanding of the Roman that followed, Korošec became one of the princi- provincial art and crafts in general in the prov-pal officials in multiple national and federal sci- inces of Noricum and Pannonia.84 entific bodies and institutions. He was also the main presenter at the first conference of Yugoslav The principal national archaeological project in archaeologists in Niška Banja in 1950, where he the 1950s and 1960s was the Archaeological Map gave a talk on the state of archaeology in Yugosla- of Slovenia. The Institute of Archaeology coor-via; naturally, he was also one of the main authors dinated this long-term project, and virtually all of the resolutions adopted at this event.83 Also of archaeologists in the country took part in it. In note is the fact that in the first decades following 1975, after more than two decades of collecting the war Korošec was the most publicised and cit- and editing the data, a catalogue of more than ed Yugoslav archaeologist in foreign journals and 3,000 archaeological sites in Slovenia was pub-publications. His research agenda spanned almost lished, accompanied by comments and lists of all archaeological periods, though with a clear fo- references.85 The new archaeological map concus on the early medieval times and Neolithic. He tained ten times more sites than previous maps, carried out research projects across Yugoslavia which clearly highlights the project’s signifi- (Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and cance and aptly illustrates the modest scope of N. Macedonia). His most significant contribution Slovene archaeology in the periods before the to the prehistoric studies was the discovery of the Second World War. Furthermore, work on the well-preserved settlement from the Middle Neo- final publication enabled for the first time the lithic at the site of Danilo in Dalmatia and, based production of an empirically well-based synthe-on this site, his definition of the dominant Mid- sis of individual archaeological periods in Slove-dle Neolithic (Danilo) culture in the region of the nia, thus paving the way for many new regional eastern Adriatic (Korošec 1958–1959). studies. Obviously, the new archaeological map also became an essential instrument for protect- The post-war renewal of the Roman and classical ing and managing archaeological heritage. archaeology was carried out by Josip Klemenc, a professor of ancient history at the University of 84 Although since the 1950s he intensively explored these topics, the synthetic publication, edited by Vera Kolšek and Peter Petru, appeared later, after his death (Kle- 83 More details on the Niška Banja Congress are provided menc 1972). in the chapter on Yugoslav archaeology. 85 Arheološka najdišča Slovenije. Ljubljana 1975. 51 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 51 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 Another principal goal agreed by the leading Yugoslavia, established in 1950 (and in 1971 re-Slovene archaeologies included the modernisa- named the Association of Archaeological Socie-tion of the concepts of the study of archaeolog- ties of Yugoslavia), followed the same pattern by ical epochs. One should not forget that before regularly organising similar conferences every the Second World War the only archaeological four years. These symposia turned out to be use-disciplines that managed to reach internation- ful for furthering Slovene archaeology that, over al standards were epigraphy and, to a limited this short period, succeeded in developing all degree, ancient history.86 For this reason, vir- the fundamental aspects of the discipline. Its actually all fields of archaeology urgently need- complishments were thus entirely comparable to ed an improved conceptual infrastructure and those of archaeologies in the neighbouring coun-tools: regional typologies, chronologies, type tries, including Italy and Austria. sites, research priorities, systematisation and standardisation of methods for the analysis and Towards the end of the 1960s there was a short interpretation. The manner in which Slovene crisis in Slovene archaeology due to the death archaeologists (and other archaeologists in Yu- of two leading scholars at the University of Lju-goslavia) intended to solve these problems was bljana – of Korošec and Klemenc. Previously, in line with the spirit of the time: they focused situations like this would have greatly threat-on structured projects for which they believed ened the discipline’s continuity and develop-they could secure the publication of key find- ment, but this was not the case anymore. Slo-ings and data. The number of research pro- vene archaeology recovered quickly thanks to jects increased significantly, some because of the appointment of two new professors recruit-the intensive development for renovation and ed from the ranks of already reputable scientists modernisation of the state’s infrastructure (rail- – Jože Kastelic and Stane Gabrovec, both from ways, roads, housing, etc.), and some because the National Museum, who were temporarily some sites were targeted as reference sites for also assisted by experts from Croatia (Zdenko specific periods. These projects were typically Vinski, Branko Marušić, and Marin Zaninović). designed and coordinated by the chief experts They followed in the footsteps of Korošec and of the national institutions. Klemenc with full competence, and, in many respects, exceeded their predecessors. The re- The main milestones of this progress were a se- silience of Slovene archaeology in this situation ries of national archaeological conferences in was undoubtedly supported by the strength-the 1960s and 1970s, which examined the cur- ened public service for the protection of cul-rent state of affairs in selected geographical ar- tural heritage and the ever-growing network of eas or chronological epochs and made plans for regional and local museums. future research. In the aftermath of such confer- ences long-term development strategies were In terms of the underlying concept, in the period proposed, whilst the results were published in after the Second World War Slovene archaeology the leading national archaeological journal Ar- fully adopted the Central European culture-his-heološki vestnik.87 The Archaeological Society of tory approach, which remained fully dominant up to the beginning of the 1980s, as was also 86 The quality of the works by Karl Dežman from the 1870s the case in other Central European countries. and the 1880s, for various reasons, remained practically irreplicable up until the revival of archaeology after the In the 1980s, some of the essential works of the Second World War. British and American processual archaeologists 87 The topics from 1962 and 1977 related to the Late Iron Age; 1965 was dedicated to the Late Roman, Early Me- the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age; in 1974, the pro- dieval and Slavic periods; the topic in 1967 was the Pal- gress in the research on material culture in Roman aeolithic and in 1968 again the Slavonic period; the top- provinces was discussed; in 1986, the topic was the ics in 1970 were the Neolithic and Eneolithic; in 1972, Bronze Age. 52 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 52 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 (particularly the papers by L. Binford, D. Clarke The merits of Jože Kastelic (1913–2003) are many and C. Renfrew) appeared for the first time in and are not easy to present in a few words. Besides Slovene archaeology.88 his scientific work, Kastelic is credited for his ex- ceptional work on the organisation and manage- The solid basis of the conceptual frame of ar- ment of major archaeological institutions.91 In 1945 chaeology in Slovenia was established between he was appointed as Director of the National Mu-the 1950s and 1960s. It successfully combined seum, where he remained until 1968. In the late some earlier traditions and practices (e.g. Aus- 1940s, he succeeded in launching a series of exca-trian, German, Central European) with the re- vation campaigns (e.g. at the early Slavic necropo-quirements of modern archaeology in the 1970 lis at Bled, Iron Age barrows at Stična), which soon and 1980s. Perhaps the most recognisable in this proved to be key sites for their respective epochs sense is the so-called Ljubljana School of Bronze and went on to be continuously researched in the and Iron Age archaeology, whose central fig- decades after. Kastelic was one of the founders ure was Stane Grabovec89 (1920–2015) and his of the major archaeological journals in Slovenia: doctoral students from the 1970s, who together Arheološki vestnik (1950), Situla (1960), and a series earned the reputation of a top regional archaeo- Arheološki katalogi in monografije (1955), which are logical school. The joint work by these and other all still published. He was very engaged in the or-experts from the National Museum and the In- ganisation and coordination of the archaeological stitute of Archaeology and those from the Uni- discipline and practice on a Yugoslav-wide level: versity of Ljubljana is considered exemplary in a elected President of the Archaeological Society of broader Central European context.90 Yugoslavia, and member of the editorial boards of several archaeological, art historical and his- 88 Unlike other Eastern Bloc countries, in which archae- torical journals and publications. In 1968, Kastelic ologists and numerous other scientists had difficulties or even restrictions in communicating with colleagues became the Head of the Department of Archaeol-from the West and following Western publications, this ogy at the University of Ljubljana (retired in 1983) was not the case in Slovenia or the entire Yugoslavia. and held two Chairs (Ancient History and Roman The libraries at the University of Ljubljana, Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts, and National Museum annually acquired or exchanged hundreds of scientific scientific societies: he was a full member of the Centre journals from all over the world. The principal limit- for Balkanological Research at the Academy of Sciences ing factor was the lack of finances, so the institutions and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1962), associate were encouraged to prepare their own journals and member of the Italian Institute for Prehistory and Pro- exchange them with academic institutions abroad. At tohistory (1963), member of the Institute for Etruscan present, the number of publications at these two insti- and Italian Studies (1972), member of the German Ar- tutions obtained through the exchange reaches the fig- chaeological Society (1967), and an associate member of ure of some 1,400 volumes each year, which have been the Bavarian Academy of Sciences. swapped for the two main Slavic archaeological jour- nals ( Arheološki Vestnik and Documenta Praehistorica). 91 Kastelic can be best described as the last ‘polymath’ The reason for the delay in the arrival of the British and or ‘encyclopaedist’ in Slovene humanities. His scien- American publications on processual archaeology is tific contributions were in archaeology, ancient histo- in the predominantly ‘Continental’ perspective of Slo- ry, epigraphy, art history, classical philology, and lit- vene archaeology. erary history. He was also a poet. In archaeology, he was mostly focused on Roman regional history, classi- 89 Gabrovec graduated in classical philology at the Uni- cal and provincial archaeology, and provincial art. His versity of Ljubljana, in 1962 he obtained his PhD in ar- most memorable contributions include one of the ear- chaeology at the University of Zadar, Croatia, in 1948 liest excavations of Slavic cemeteries in Bled (Kastelic, was appointed curator of prehistoric archaeology at the Škerlj 1950; Kastelic 1960), the international exhibition National Museum in Ljubljana, from 1956–57 studied on the Situlae art in 1962 (probably the first post-war with Wolfgang Kimmig at the University of Tübingen, joint exhibition of Italian, Austrian and Yugoslav ar- Germany, from 1969–1989 was professor at the Univer- chaeologists) (Kastelic 1962), translations of the works sity of Ljubljana, and since 1987 has been a member of of Theodor Mommsen and Gustav Schwab, and an the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts. extensive, more than 725 pages long study on mytho- 90 The international respect for Gabrovec is very well logical symbols on Roman tombstones from Šempeter reflected in his membership in some of the leading (Kastelic 1998). 53 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 53 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 Provincial Archaeology). During his years at the marshlands south of Ljubljana, dating from the university, he also significantly reformed the cur- period between the 5th and 3rd millennia BC. This ricula in archaeology. enabled a much more detailed understanding of the early farmers and the first traces of metal- Another important link with the former tradi- lurgy in this region. Some of the recent discov-tions existed in the field of Roman archaeology. eries in the area are truly spectacular.93 Thanks Large excavations of cemeteries of the main Ro- to the exceptional preservation in tis area, the man towns (e.g. in Ljubljana/Emona, Ptuj/Po- investigations of the sites at Ljubljana Marshes etovio, Drnovo/Neviodunum) and some other were conducive to the systematic development sites, conducted before the First World War, and testing of a range of scientific methods and yielded discoveries that required modern eval- techniques (pollen analysis, dendrology and uation. In the period 1960–1980, great efforts dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, archae-were invested into re-examining the archives obotany, archaeozoology, anthracology, etc.). from these sites and the freshly excavated Ro- The first systematic application of these meth-man urban spaces in Ljubljana, Celje and Ptuj. ods happened in the 1980s, but only to a lesser It is precisely in Roman urban archaeology that extent linked with the rising influence of pro-Ljudmila Plesničar Gec (1931–2008) gained high cessual archaeology from the Anglo-American international recognition for her investigations world. Instead, these were natural and logical of Emona, whilst Vera Kolšek in Celje and Iva steps of the developments in a local context, Mikl Curk from Ljubljana were also experts of a and the impact of processualism came later and similar profile and reputation. The application in a different way. of modern standards in the chronological and typological determination of objects salvaged Srečko Brodar (1893–1987), the pioneer of Pal-vast amounts of the material from utmost dis- aeolithic archaeology in Slovenia (and Yugo-regard. Within the scope of Roman archaeolo- slavia), continued his career at the University gy and ancient history, particularly noteworthy of Ljubljana after the Second World War. Since was the work of Jaroslav Šašel (1924–1988), who Brodar was a geologist and palaeontologist, the in the 1960s and 1970s earned the reputation Palaeolithic studies were hosted at the Depart-of a world-renowned author of studies on the ment of Geology, and he contributed signifi-epigraphy and ancient history of Roman Illyri- cantly to the progress of these in the following cum, Pannonia, Noricum, Dalmatia and Istria.92 decades. Together with France Osole (1920– 2000) and Mitja Brodar (his son) (1921–2012), Similar stages in development characterised the he strongly influenced Palaeolithic archaeolo-research on the Neolithic and Eneolithic peri- gy throughout Yugoslavia. The four decades of ods. Though the onset of Slovene archaeology their research turned Slovenia from a ‘Palaeoas a modern science is symbolically connect- lithic tabula rasa’ to a widely explored country. ed with the first excavations of the Eneolithic However, it must be noted that the research on pile-dwellings in the Ljubljana Marshes (1875), the Palaeolithic in Slovenia (and other Yugoslav it took more than 80 years to re-start a series of republics) was traditionally the territory of nat-studies of the materials discovered in the 19th ural scientists – geologists and palaeontologists. century and launch new excavation campaigns Until recently (2005), the Department for Pal-that revealed more than 40 new sites in the aeolithic studies at the University of Ljubljana 92 Šašel was an author of 160 papers published in Slovenia 93 For example, the discovery of one of the earliest wood-and Yugoslavia, as well as Italy, Germany and France, en wheels and parts of a wooden cart dated to the end in journals and encyclopaedias (see the selection of his of the 4th millennium BC (see Velušček 2002). Another most significant papers in the posthumously published exceptional find from this region is the wooden point collection, Šašel 1992). dated around 40,000 BC (Odar, Erič and Gaspari 2009). 54 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 54 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 existed within the Faculty of Natural Sciences Nonetheless, the situation radically changed af-and Engineering. This ‘geological’ background ter the Second World War, when the Slovenes had a marked effect on the studies of hunt- (and other nations of Yugoslavia) gradually er-gatherer communities, as the emphasis was gained larger autonomy and formed a series of mainly on the geological and environmental their national institutions. There was also an-aspects rather than on cultural and social inter- other incentive that required competent schol-pretation. The successors of Srečko Brodar at ars in the sphere of the archaeology of Slavs the university were all naturalists by education. and Early Middle Ages. The tense international They contributed much to the improvement of political environment at the outset of the Cold the Palaeolithic studies and developed much War, additionally burdened by the recent ex-more refined regional typologies of stone and perience of the racist Nazi and Fascist interpre-bone objects and several scientific approaches tations of the past at the expense of the Slavic and techniques that are mandatory in modern peoples, as well as disputed Slovene (Yugoslav) research in this field, but remained firmly an- borders with Italy and Austria, all made Slavic chored in the ‘naturalist’ agenda.94 Some of the archaeology an even more urgent task. In this discoveries from this period became known context, one should also see some major activi-worldwide, such as the Mousterian flute from ties in this field, such as Korošec’s excavations the cave site of Divje Babe.95 at Ptuj, his monograph on Slavic cemeteries in northern Slovenia (Korošec 1947), and the mon- Archaeology of the Slavs and the Early Middle ograph Slovenes on the Adriatic ( Slovenci na Jad-Ages in Slovenia was established after 1945, ranu 1952).97 After all, in 1950, at the occasion of and its development was considered a nation- the first conference of the Yugoslav archaeolo-al priority. This initiative could not be pursued gists, a resolution was adopted urging the de-in isolation from the general process of the Slo- velopment of archaeology to refute racist and venes’ national emancipation after their separa- imperialist assumptions and theories on the ortion from Austria. The economically and polit- igin of the Yugoslav nations.98 ically underdeveloped Yugoslav Kingdom was not a favourable environment for such aspira- Over the next two decades, experts in Slavic/ tions. The reasons for this should be primarily early Slovenes archaeology and history went looked for in the very weak institutional infra- beyond advocating such ‘targeted’ archaeology structure and small number of archaeologists. and cultivated a much more critical approach to In fact, except for Croatia, the archaeology of the subject. They, in full capacity, participated in South Slavic nations did not exist in the Yugo- the international discourse on the issues of eth-slav Kingdom for more or less the same reasons. nic groups and the history of the Early Middle However, one should also not ignore political Ages. Here, the significant contribution came issues that may have influenced the late development of national archaeologies of the nations political conditions for developing national (ethnic) history and archaeology of the individual nations prob- in Yugoslavia.96 ably worsened. But then again, the case of the Croatian Museum of National Antiquities (established already 94 For more on the development of the Palaeolithic ar- in 1893) in Knin shows that situation was not all black chaeology in Slovenia, see Kavur (2008). and white. The Knin museum, closed in 1930 due to 95 The still contested flute dates back to 45,000 BC and rep- inadequate building, was about to get new venues in resents a challenge in addressing several fundamental the Knin Fortress funded by the regional government. questions on the mental and cognitive capabilities of However, this did not happen because in 1941 the for- the Neanderthals (see Turk I., 1997). tress was turned into an Italian Army barracks. 96 One could think of the proclamation of the King’s dic- 97 Istria was also researched with regard to the Slavs by tatorship in 1929, and the official abolishment of the Croatian archaeologists (e.g. Marušić 1955). Yugoslav nations in the Imposed Constitution in 1931 98 On this conference and adopted documents, see more (replaced by one ‘Yugoslav’ nation). In general, the in the chapter on Yugoslav archaeology. 55 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 55 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 from Zdenko Vinski,99 who published some crit- institutes were also established in the individual ical works in which he developed a much more republics, and Slovenia did it in the same year, substantiated approach to the period of 2nd half 1945. In the following decades, a series of laws of the 1st millennium AD and the question of on protecting cultural heritage was adopted to Slavic settlement. secure an adequate protection system. The In- stitute also developed into strong expert pub- The institution which probably made the most lic service with clear concepts and strategies in considerable advances was the heritage protec- heritage protection, including a wide variety of tion service. Museums and universities, despite tasks in this domain: administrative protection, a small number of experts working in these do- restoration works, education of experts, issu-mains before 1945, nevertheless had some tra- ing licences for expert conservators, preventive dition and frameworks which made re-vitali- research, involvement in spatial planning prosation of archaeology easy. This was much less cesses, etc. The amount of tasks coupled with the the case in the heritage protection sector, where necessity for more efficient organisation – one there was clear and abrupt discontinuity with should not forget that the 1950s and 1960s were the relatively well-developed tradition of the periods of very intensive industrialisation, ur-Austrian Central Commission. In the Kingdom banisation and spatial development in general of Yugoslavia, the sector of heritage protection – lead to the formation of regional institutes in suffered the most. The concepts and practices Maribor (1959), Celje, Nova Gorica, Kranj (1961), stemming from the Central Commission’s tra- Ljubljana (1964), Piran (1961) and Novo Mesto dition continued to some extent with scholars (1980).100 This reorganisation of the national in-who used to work in the Austrian system, like stitutes had an essential impact in many areas, France Stelè in Slovenia. An additional problem one being the increase of the archaeological jobs was a heavily destroyed country and demands on regional levels. In 1946 the national institute for urgent industrialisation and intensive spatial also launched a new journal – Varstvo spomenikov development. How urgent the situation in herit- (‘Protection of Monuments’), which is still pub-age protection was can be seen in the fact that the lished today. first ‘heritage protection’ law was adopted im- mediately after the war (July 1945). Many tasks Before the 1980s, traditional foreign partners were still closely associated with the war, and of mostly came from the neighbouring countries, these the assessment of war damage inflicted to Germany, Austria and Italy. The most fruitful heritage and preparing documents for claiming and influential were collaborations of the Slovene restitution of heritage objects taken out of Yugo- prehistorians with the so-called Merhart School slavia were among the most important. Yugosla- (e.g. H. Müller-Karpe, G. Kossack, J. Werner, via, until the mid-1950s, was a highly centralised W. Dehn) from the 1950s on. Some key Slovene country, so the central role in heritage protection prehistorians (e.g. Stane Gabrovec, France Stare) was given to the federal Institute for Protection specialised at German universities. This collab-and Scientific Study of Cultural Monuments oration was essential for the modernisation and and Natural Sights, stationed under the Fed- re-establishment of research on the Bronze and eral Ministry of Education in Belgrade. Similar Iron Ages in Slovenia on a more positivistic and less Kossina-inspired basis (which can be discerned in the early works of J. Korošec), with a 99 Zdenko Vinski, curator at the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (1945–1979), guest professor at the universi- strong emphasis on the criticism of sources and ties of Ljubljana, Zadar and Göttingen, correspondent member of the German and Austrian Archaeological Institutes, and one of the foremost experts in archae- 100 Prior to 1980, in the region of Novo mesto, the Region-ology of the Migration period, Slavs and Byzantium in al Museum was also authorised by local municipalities the Adriatic. for the protection of heritage. 56 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 56 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 detailed chronological and formal-typological The most substantial was the excavation of a analysis that supported historically focused in- massive, Iron Age princely hilltop fortifica-terpretations. In the early 1970s, when Grabovec tion in Stična over several seasons in the peri-became a professor at the Department of Archae- od 1960–1974, conducted by Stane Grabovec in ology at the University of Ljubljana, the condi- collaboration with the Archaeological Seminar tions for the development of prehistoric ar- of the University of Marburg and the Smithso-chaeology became even more favourable. With nian Institute. It is undoubtedly necessary to his first generations of students, and through a mention here the cooperation between Joachim series of projects, he succeeded in initiating in- Werner and Thilo Ulbert from the University of vestigations of the material culture and chronol- Munich and Peter Petru; together, they excavat-ogy of individual Slovene regions and regional ed at Hrušica (ancient Ad Pirum) and Vranje groups of the Bronze and Iron Ages and creating near Sevnica, both in the early 1970s. A good a high quality and internationally recognised illustration of cooperation with Slovene ar-school of prehistoric archaeology. Most well- chaeologists is also the case of the Eastern Alps known archaeologists of the ‘older generations’ Committee formed in the early 1960s, probably emerged from this school, such as Biba Teržan, at the occasion of the exhibition on Situla art Janez Dular, Mitja Guštin, who, from the 1990s in 1962 in Ljubljana, which joined archaeolog-onwards, gained first-class international reputa- ical institutions from Slovenia, Italy (Friuli and tions thanks to their excellent research results.101 Veneto provinces) and Austria on projects and publications on the Bronze and Iron Ages of the Another person that contributed to the build- Northern Adriatic area. ing of relationships between Yugoslav (includ- ing Slovene) and German archaeology in the It is difficult to determine the reasons for the 1960s was Vladimir Milojčić (1918–1978), a pre- relatively small number of international pro-war student of Miloje Vasić at the University of jects in Slovenia. One could suggest factors Belgrade, who after his doctoral studies with such as the lack of ‘spectacular’ sites, the effect Oswald Menghin in Vienna (1945), stayed in of the greater orientation of Slovene archaeolo-Germany.102 gy towards local and regional topics rather than issues of broader geographical coverage, prior- However, despite the close collaboration with itising publication of finds from Slovenia kept various foreign partners, most evident in the in foreign museums (e.g. in Austria and Italy). numerous joint publications, study visits and In any case, the fact that Slovenia had a socialist so on, there were very few large-scale interna- political system was not a reason for the rela-tional field projects in Slovenia (unlike in some tive absence of large fieldwork projects with the other republics within the former Yugoslavia). ‘Western’ partners. It is common knowledge that communication between the West and 101 For example, Biba Teržan was, for many years, a profes- Yugoslavia was much easier than was the case sor at the Free University of Berlin, while Mitja Guštin received an honorary doctoral degree from the Univer- with other socialist and communist countries of sity of Innsbruck. those years.103 102 V. Milojčić received his habilitation from G. von Mer- hart in Marburg (1946), professor of prehistoric archae- 103 Compared with other countries of the former Sovi-ology at the universities in Munich, Saarbrücken and et Bloc, Yugoslavia was much more open for collabo- Heidelberg. member of the German Archaeological ration with Western institutions. From the end of the Institute, Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and corre- 1950s, archaeologists from all republics of former Yu- spondent member of the Yugoslav (i.e. Croatian) Acad- goslavia participated in several joint research projects emy of Sciences and Arts. Milojčič was an internation- with teams from the USA, Germany, Austria, Italy, ally recognised specialist for the Neolithic period in the France, etc. Moreover, many foreign scholars frequent- Aegean and Balkans, and his major projects were in ly visited Yugoslavian sites and museums. For more on Aegean archaeology. this, see the chapter on Yugoslav archaeology. 57 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 57 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 The second wave of modernisation of staff. All regional museums in the country had Slovene archaeology (1980s–1990s) at least one archaeologist, but frequently more. Also, all regional units of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage had at least one So far, the ‘periodisation’ of Slovene archaeology archaeologist among their staff.Towards the end has corresponded to the major political changes of the 1970s, the number of archaeologists in the since the beginning of the 19th century. Indeed, country rose to more than 70, more than twice with each change of state or ruling regime, ar- the size compared to the 1950s. Such an increase chaeology in Slovenia, as a discipline and frame- was also mirrored in a large rise in the number of work, underwent considerable transformations. research projects, exhibitions, publications, and In addition to this, being a discipline (and prac- archaeologists’ specialisation in various discipli-tice) involving a very small number of profession- nary domains. Similar trends can be seen in oth-als for almost 100 years, each personal biography er republics in the former Yugoslavia. may have greatly influenced the course of archae- ology, and in fact did. However, by the late 1960s, From the mid-1980s onwards, Slovene archae-Slovene archaeology reached a level of stability, ology rapidly changed its identity and devel-when even a departure of major figures (e.g. J. opment pathways, especially in the conceptual Korošec, J. Klemenc, F. Stare) did not cause any perspective. This is best seen in international major distress and developmental regression, as cooperation. Along with the traditional part-was the case in the past. This new capacity of Slo- ners from Germany and other Central Europe-vene archaeology resulted from very successful an scientific circles, collaboration with British renewal and modernisation of the discipline and and American scholars began and started to its institutions in the first two decades after the play an increasingly important role. As a con-Second World War. The situations in the 1930s sequence, new ideas and concepts in archae-and 1960s, covering the span of one professional ological research, methodology and practice career, cannot be compared at all. In 1930, two or were soon adopted. The presence of American three professionals in the country and some five archaeologists and institutions in field projects to six institutions were active in professional ar- in Serbia and N. Macedonia was already signif-chaeology. Thirty years later, the number of pro- icant from the end of the 1960s (more details on fessionals was more than 40, working in some 15 this are provided in the chapters on Serbian and to 20 institutions. Of course, that system under- Macedonian archaeologies), but this had differ-went reforms, but from the late 1960s until today ent effects in Slovenia, where the collaboration only a few new archaeological institutions have with archaeologists from the UK and USA was been established. Even when Slovenia became in- somewhat different. It was upheld mainly in dependent in 1991, the transformation went very the theoretical and methodological discourse. smoothly, with no ruptures in the institutional Scholars from the USA and UK were invited network or structure. To put it briefly, former ‘re- to present ideas and concepts that contributed publican’ institutions became national, while the to the significant changes in the archaeological research and institutional agendas from the late paradigms. The Department of Archaeology 1980s continued and developed organically. at the University of Ljubljana held the central place in communication with ‘Anglo-Ameri- The 1970s were a period of steady growth in all can’ archaeologists. The new generation of staff sectors, which can be best seen in the increase from the early 1980s invested a lot of efforts in in archaeological jobs. The Department of Ar- following the advances in archaeology on the chaeology at Ljubljana University, the Institute international levels (as seen in the work of Boži-of Archaeology at the Academy of Sciences and dar Slapšak, Bojan Djurić, and Biba Teržan, and Arts, and the National Museum all doubled their later also Ivan Šprajc and Mihael Budja). 58 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 58 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 Thus, upon the invitation of Božidar Slapšak, institutions subscribed to it, along with more professor of Roman Provincial Archaeology, than 50% of all archaeologists in Yugoslavia. Lewis Binford came to Ljubljana as a visiting As a direct result of the intensified communi-professor in the winter semester in 1985 and cation with the UK and USA, in 1988, a course sparked interest in archaeological theory and in archaeological theory was introduced at the methodology amongst younger scientists and University of Ljubljana, initially taught by Brit-students. The principle topics included his ish professors (e.g. John Chapman of the Uni-ideas on middle-range theory, frames of refer- versity of Newcastle, and occasionally also John ences in archaeological reasoning, the nature Bintliff of the University of Durham) and later of the archaeological record, and deductive taken over by Slovene scholars (Božidar Slapšak, epistemology, among other issues.104 Binford’s Predrag Novaković). In 1996, a ‘Slovene’ session visit was accompanied by the publication of was organised at the Theoretical Archaeology translations of some of his programmatic arti- Group conference held in Leicester. cles and some other scholars’ works in the new discourse in world archaeology (e.g. Leo Klejn, The intensive collaboration with British and Jean-Claude Gardin). American archaeologists through joint projects as well as the exchange of students and staff An important turning point was the foundation with British and American universities were also of Arheo, the journal of the Slovene Archaeolog- instrumental for significant advances in field arical Society, in 1981, which followed the French chaeology and archaeological methodology in journal Nouvelle d’Archéologie as a model. Arheo general, including the introduction of system-was also the project of the younger generation of atic surveys, stratigraphic excavation methods, scholars at the University of Ljubljana, who had geophysical prospection, aerial archaeology and a strong intent to modernise and further interna- remote sensing. And last but not least, the devel-tionalise Slovene (in earlier years, also Yugoslav) opments in the late 1980s were also instrumental archaeology.105 The principal aim of the journal for a subject where the Department of Archaeol-was to discuss theoretical and conceptual prob- ogy at the University of Ljubljana had a pioneer-lems in Yugoslav and international archaeology. ing role in a global context – in the first applica-Arheo remained for more than two decades the tions of the geographical information systems in leading voice of ‘reflexive’ archaeology across archaeology (see Gaffney and Stančič 1991). That the entire region of the former Yugoslavia. The GIS was already used in Slovene archaeology in main articles varied from translations of theoret- 1990 was not a chance occurrence, but the result ical texts and local contributions, to archaeolog- of intensive collaboration with the UK experts ical theory, analytical philosophy applied to ar- within the project of landscape archaeology on chaeology, and the presentation of new technol- the island of Hvar, Croatia.106 In fact, it is pre-ogies and methods, along with essays about the cisely this project, directed by Božidar Slapšak, role of archaeology in modern popular culture, John Bintliff, Vince Gaffney (University of Brad-and reflections on the nature of ‘Yugoslav’ ar- ford), and Branko Kirigin (Archaeological Mu-chaeology (on the latter see more in the chapter seum, Split, Croatia), that was a real incubator on Yugoslav archaeology). The first texts on gen- for much of the methodological, conceptual and der archaeology also appeared in this journal. In the late 1980s, almost all Yugoslav archaeological 106 Between 1988 and 1990, this project was probably the largest project of systematic archaeological surveying in the Mediterranean. About 50 researchers (archae- ologists, geographers, soils specialists, architects, etc.) 104 On his visit and impact, see more in Novaković (2015). and students from Ljubljana, Zadar, Zagreb, Belgrade, 105 The editors were Božidar Slapšak and Bojan Djurić, Skopje and Bradford, as well as the staff from the insti- and later, in the 1990s, Arheo was edited by Mihael tutes in Split, Zagreb, London and Newcastle, collabo- Budja, Predrag Novaković and Peter Turk. rated in this project. 59 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 59 22. 10. 2021 11:05:28 theoretical innovations implemented by Slovene in Slovenia before the 1990s (Novaković 2003, archaeology since the early 1990s. One of the 234). As is frequently the case with smaller pro-major impacts the Hvar project had was greatly fessional communities, as the Slovene archae-raised interest in spatial and landscape archae- ologists’ community was (and still is), it some-ology approaches. The Department of Archae- times took several years after the retirement of ology at the University of Ljubljana was among the leading scholars to achieve the former levels the first archaeological schools in Europe (1996) of research. Field projects in Ljubljana Marsh-to include GIS studies in its curricula (initially es, with some exceptional discoveries such as taught by Zoran Stančič), accompanied by cur- more than 5,000-year-old wooden cart (Velušček ricular courses in spatial and landscape archae- 2002), continued with the Institute of Archaeol-ology introduced by Predrag Novaković. So, by ogy, while M. Budja, the successor of T. Bregant the early 2000s, the Department of Archaeology at the University of Ljubljana, made an essential had gained an excellent reputation as a school contribution by launching annual internation-for archaeological methodology and landscape al seminars on the Neolithic and renewed the archaeology in the region of Southeast Europe.107 journal Documenta Praehistorica,108 focusing it on The application of these methods and tools rep- the discussion of major aspects of Neolithisation resented a great success in Slovene archaeology in Eurasia (with contributors also coming from in the following decades in preventive archaeol- Iran, Turkey, China and Japan). The result of his ogy (see later in the text). efforts is over 3,000 pages of discussions on the most recent achievements in this field.109 Other aspects of the discipline also benefited greatly from international cooperation. Under It is vital to note that such a developmental the influence of processual (and later, to some ‘boom’ in academic archaeology stems from two extent, also post-processual) perspectives, signif- factors – conceptual changes in Slovene archae-icant progress was made in the research on the ology catalysed by intensified contacts with An-Neolithic period, where since the late 1960s, af- glo-American archaeology110 and increased inter J. Korošec, developments had taken a slightly ternationalisation of the country after the disso-slower pace. Projects with an important impact lution of Yugoslavia.111 Since gaining independ-on the development of Neolithic research were ence, Slovene institutions have increasingly used launched in the 1970s by Tatjana Bregant, the EU and other international funds for joint re-successor of Korošec at the University of Ljublja- search projects, grants, and mobility of students na, focused on Ljubljana Marshes. Her research and staff. Every year, there have been more and gradually evolved into complex excavations, more proposals for collaboration with foreign sampling of sites, and the application of numerous naturalistic methods for reconstructing en- 108 This journal, launched by Josip Korošec, was previ-vironmental conditions of pile-dwellings. Her ously published under the name Poročilo o raziskovanju project in the Ljubljana Marshes is considered paleolita, mezolita in eneolita v Sloveniji. 109 Documenta Praehistorica is available at http://arhe- one of the prime cases of settlement excavations ologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/index_si.html 110 Modernisation in the 1980s is also seen in the num- 107 In the period between 1997 and 2002, members of the ber of new archaeological jobs opened in the country. Department of Archaeology and from the newly estab- Compared to the late 1970s, the number of jobs in Slo- lished Institute for Anthropology and Spatial Studies at vene archaeology in the late 1980s increased by almost the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts (its found- 100% (comparing the figures published in Arheo 1 and er was Z. Stančič, who moved there in 1993) were fre- Arheo 6). quently acting as guest professors of GIS and remote 111 Since 1991 Slovenia, having two major political goals, sensing in archaeology at the universities in Pisa and joining NATO and the EU, greatly accelerated interna- Trieste, Italy (Predrag Novaković, Darja Grosman, tional cooperation with the West in all domains – polit- Zoran Stančič), Stančič also taught at Reading, Santa ical, economic, cultural, and scientific. This process was Barbara (USA) and Sydney, Australia. also well financed by different international funds. 60 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 60 22. 10. 2021 11:05:29 partners. Thus, without exaggeration, the rate Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia that of mobility in research and education over the was founded in 2009. last 15 years has by far exceeded the total mobil- ity seen for the entire 20th century. However, the The changes in the domains of museums were most important event in Slovene archaeology of more gradual than radical over this same peri-the 1990s was the Inaugural Meeting of the Eu- od. In general, one could witness steady growth ropean Association of Archaeologists organised in the number of museums and archaeological in September 1994 by the Department of Archae- staff in them. Before 1945, there were only a few ology, University of Ljubljana. museums on the territory of present-day Slove- nia, some of them with a relatively respectable ‘Austrian’ tradition (e.g. the Provincial Muse- Preventive archaeology on the march um in Ljubljana, Museum in Ptuj), while most (2000s–) of today’s regional and local museums with archaeology departments were established be- In the previous chapter, I intentionally omitted fore 1960.113 In the last few decades, the net-the domain of heritage protection and devel- work of regional and provincial museums has opments of archaeology in it. The reasons were not changed much. The new course was the straightforward–first, not all domains of archae- formation of special, thematic museums and ology are fully synchronised and followed the smaller municipal museums and collections. same rhythms of change and transformation. Nowadays, out of the 65 museum institutions at And secondly, the advances in heritage protec- all levels in Slovenia, 18 employ archaeologists tion in the last two decades were so many that and deal with archaeological heritage systemat-they deserve a separate heading since they have ically. In addition to this, several archaeological substantially transformed archaeology’s image parks and open-air presentations of some sites and its professional landscape in Slovenia. were also created. It is important to note that ar- chaeology had through all these years a clearly As has been shown in this chapter, the aca- defined place and role in the museums, which demic archaeology in Slovenia has undergone themselves became the engines of archaeologi-significant conceptual growth over the past cal research at regional and local levels and still three decades. This growth can also be seen at maintain this role today. In these institutions, the institutional level, where almost all insti- there is a trend of increased focus on commu-tutions, existing from the 1980s or before, in- nication, education, and other forms of inter-creased the number of professional archaeolog- action with the public, whilst research – once ical staff, and some new institutions were also a major component of the museum’s activity – established, among which the one of the most has become a secondary activity. important is the Department of Heritage and Archaeology at the University of Primorska in Yet, when speaking of recent transformations Koper (2006).112 The key role in forming new in- of Slovene archaeology, nothing can be com-stitutions in Koper was played by Mitja Guštin, pared to the scale of effects caused by changes who moved there from the University of Lju- in preventive archaeology in the last two dec-bljana. Another important new institution is ades. The principal external stimulus was the the Centre of Preventive Archaeology, a newly national highway construction programme that established internal unit of the Institute for the 113 Postojna (1947), Brežice (1949), Novo Mesto (1950), 112 Before the establishment of the department there exist- Tolmin 1951 (re-established in 2000), Metlika (1951), ed the Institute for Mediterranean Heritage (since 2003 Nova Gorica (1952), Kočevje (1952), Kranj (1953), Piran called the Institute of Archaeology and Heritage, which (1954), Murska Sobota (1955), Kamnik (1961), later also joined the University of Primorska). in Slovenj Gradec (1981) and Mengeš (1998). 61 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 61 22. 10. 2021 11:05:29 commenced around 1994 and lasted for about a highly efficient organisation on a scale never 15 years. An enormous amount of the work seen before in Slovenia.115 along the more than 300 km of roads presented a challenge that demanded immediate radical Such a large-scale multi-year project of archae-changes in the organisation and practice of res- ological investigations along the motorways cue archaeology, as it was termed at that time. would not have been possible without radical Archaeologists, mostly from the University of changes in the practice of conducting research. Ljubljana, now well equipped with knowledge The capacities and organisational potential of of new field techniques (e.g. systematic field the related public service – the National Institute surveying, stratigraphic excavations, geophys- for the Protection of Cultural Heritage with its ics, aerial reconnaissance, GIS)114 and experi- regional equivalents (the only body legally al-ence from working on international projects lowed to direct rescue archaeology at the time) and studying in the UK, developed a strategy – were mostly insufficient for such an extensive for preventive (‘early warning’) research of the and long-term enterprise. The establishment of new motorway routes (Grosman and Novaković the SAAS was only the first step necessary for 1994), which was adopted by the Institute for the the principal administrative and coordinating Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Slovenia. tasks. Still, the quantity of research required in Furthermore, in 1994 the Institute established the field, and the time pressure, demanded new a special task-group for archaeology on motor- solutions. And indeed, the only viable solution ways ( SAAS – Skupina za arheologijo na avtocestah – allowing the private enterprises to direct the Slovenije) for negotiating with the state agency research, particularly the large-scale excavations for motorways, standardising and coordinating – soon proved to be highly adequate for coping all archaeological projects associated with mo- with this challenge, and had substantial multi-torway construction. plying effects on the further development of ar- chaeology in general. New methods and techniques of early detection of sites and the management and organisation- Due to the scale of the whole motorway project, al infrastructure for conducting the excavations the number of private enterprises involved inover extensive areas were crucial for the success creased markedly in the 2000s, soon reaching the of highway archaeology. Thus in the period be- figure of about 25–30% of the total jobs in Slo-tween 1994 and 2010, over 150 archaeological vene archaeology. These private companies were sites (varying from a few hundred square meters mainly engaged in archaeological fieldwork, and to more than 10 hectares), covering a total area of they quickly took over the largest portion of the more than 2,000,000 square meters, were investi- preventive field projects.116 Notably, this process gated on some 300 km of motorway routes. This required many millions of euros in funding and 115 Further information on the project and its effects are available in Djurić et al. (2003); Novaković (2016); Novaković and Horňák (2016); Brišnik, Kajzer Cafnik and 114 Here, it is worth noting intensive work on improving Novaković (2016). Moreover, some 70 monographs excavation techniques and recording, particularly by on ‘motorway’ sites were published in recent years, the Department of Archaeology, University of Ljublja- and a similar number is planned for the next years na, and that the Slovene Society of Archaeology pub- few years (free access: https://www.zvkds.si/sl/ lished translations of two seminal texts, namely Ed- kategorija-publikacije/e-knjige). ward Harris’s Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy 116 It is important to note that until 2008 when the new in 1989, and Philip Barker’s Techniques of archaeological Law on Protection of Cultural Heritage was adopt- excavation in 1998. In 1991 a special issue of Arheo was ed, a sort of ‘hybrid’ system existed. According to the dedicated to stratigraphic excavation and its recent ap- laws before 2008, only the Institute for the Protection plications in Slovenia. At approximately the same time, of Cultural Heritage was allowed to direct rescue ex- archaeological geophysics was introduced to Slovenia cavations. The solution was found where the Institute on a more systematic basis. technically directed the excavations but hired private 62 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 62 22. 10. 2021 11:05:29 Fig. 7 Archaeological institutions and professional enterprises in Slovenia. did not just include the takeover of tasks from Préventives). In Slovenia, preventive archaeol-the public institutions, which would not be ca- ogy is based on the 1992 European Council’s pable of completing most of this work on time, Convention on the Protection of Archaeological but it also triggered a significant broadening of Heritage (La Valletta Convention). The national the archaeological tasks. In this way, the public legislation requires mandatory preventive ar-institutions could focus more effectively on their chaeological investigations already in the spatial fundamental duties and develop more adequate planning phase. This enables early detection of strategies to protect cultural heritage. archaeological sites and timely preventive in- tervention. The main tendency was to expand The transformations described above were soon the model and practice developed in the motor-echoed in the changes in the public services way-archaeology projects and to apply it at the themselves, among which certainly the most general level of archaeological heritage protec-important was the concept of preventive ar- tion.117 As an illustration, the data for the peri-chaeology, as introduced in legislation in 2008. od 2009–2016 for Slovenia show that there were The concept of preventive archaeology was, to a about 3,000 permits issued for archaeological great degree, designed after the French model of fieldwork of all kinds, sizes and scales, and that archéologie preventive implemented by the INRAP ( Institute Nationale de Recherches Archéologiques 117 Another highly important document was adopted in 2013 – Regulations on Archaeological Research ( Pravilnik o arheoloških raziskavah), which for the first time companies as sub-contractors. After 2008 this system included mandatory standards in performing vari- was abandoned, and private companies could directly ous types of archaeological fieldwork and recording. compete for any kind of archaeological project. ( Pravilnik o arheoloških raziskavah 2013). 63 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 63 22. 10. 2021 11:05:29 99% of the cases were projects of preventive should be added that the major transformation of character. In contrast, a mere 1% represented ac- the discipline witnessed in the last few decades ademic research projects (Brišnik, Kajzer Cafnik is not only a consequence of the establishment and Novaković 2016). of a democratic social regime, independent state and the introduction of the market economy into An important and far-reaching tool for protect- several areas which were previously strictly in ing cultural heritage was developed in 1995 at the domain of public service. It is also a result of the Ministry of Culture, the Register of Immov- the changes that commenced in the 1980s, with able Heritage, aimed at keeping accurate infor- the beginning of intensive cooperation with Brit-mation necessary for administrative protection. ish and American institutions, which soon led This record on an online GIS server has been to the introduction of numerous new methods freely accessible for some years.118 and technologies and, in parallel, provided new insights about the nature and social practice of In reforming the legal and organisational aspects the archaeological discipline. It could even be of heritage protection, a new organisation was argued that it is mostly owing to the experience founded, the Centre for Preventive Archaeology and achievements from the 1980s that Slovene (the unit within the Institute for the Protection of archaeology over the last two decades was much Cultural Heritage), modelled on the French IN- better prepared for the social, economic and po-RAP. The Centre’s main tasks are to provide ar- litical changes that it faced. chaeological preventive research in areas subject to state spatial planning, areas containing monu- ments, and areas changing their status to building Concluding thoughts on Slovene areas. Soon CPA developed into the largest ar- archaeology chaeological professional organisation in Slovenia. Every history of a discipline, especially when the Recent comparative studies about the archae- author of such history made a career in this disciological profession in Europe (Collis 2009; pline, may easily fall into what I have termed the Schlanger and Aitchison 2010; Novaković et ‘teleological trap’, and explain the past as direct-al. 2016; Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe ly serving the present. The history of Slovene ar- (2008; 2014)) showed that Slovene archaeology chaeology – and this can also be said for all other is completely comparable in all professional as- national archaeologies and traditions from the pects, academic and applied, to archaeologies in former Yugoslavia – may fall in this trap: How-countries with much longer archaeological tra- ever, the political, social, and economic changes ditions. At present, there are some 25–30 private of the last century were so substantial – to the companies along with 19 museums, three aca- extent that almost every 30 years re-contextualis-demic institutions, one regional park and eight ation is needed – what clearly objects teleological units of the Institute for the Protection of Cultur- arguments. In one of my earlier papers (Novak-al Heritage. As a rule of thumb, more than 50% ović 2002, 332–345) I proposed major focal points of the professional workforce work directly or for understanding the development of Slovene indirectly in preventive archaeology. archaeology, as follows: In the conclusion to this overview of the mod- a) Requiring demands for re-constitution or ernisation of Slovene archaeology post-1991, it re-adjustments of the discipline. Changes in the political and social context of the states to which Slovenia belonged in the last 200 years 118 In 2013, the Register contained 29,446 registered her- itage units (11,18% or 3,295 were archaeological sites) were mostly of such an order of magnitude (Pirkovič 2014, 82). that they required substantial transformation 64 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 64 22. 10. 2021 11:05:29 of, basically, all domains of social life, science d) If we consider Slovene archaeology a com-included. After each major change (new state plete system of discipline (knowledge) and or new political regime), re-adjustments were practice with its tasks within society, this lev- also necessary for archaeology. One should el of complexity and stability was achieved also not forget that these major changes were, only after the Second World War. Though in most cases, catalysed by wars. some infrastructure existed from a few dec- b) Slovene archaeology was (and still is) a small ades before this time, what was needed was professional community discipline. Until a critical mass of people and institutions, to- 1960, in almost a hundred years of its histo- gether with a well-developed legal and con- ry, there were probably no more than five ac- ceptual background, to demonstrate the full tive archaeological professionals in Slovenia potential of archaeology and its relevance in working contemporarily, sometimes even broader society. The renewal of Slovene ar- fewer.These figures substantially increased chaeology started under the socialist system, after the Second World War; in the 1960, as was the case with other archaeologies in there were some 20 professionals, in the late countries that emerged after the collapse of 1980s, about 70, in 2006 around 180, and in the Yugoslav federal state. A significant part 2014 between 250 and 300. Despite such an of its history was thus within the socialist po- increase in archaeological positions, we are litical landscape. still dealing with a small community, a mat- ter that is not uncommon in Europe.119 In such The socialist regime’s ideological component will conditions, many individual events and per- be dealt with later, in the chapter on Yugoslav sonal biographies can have long-lasting con- archaeology, because it affected all national ar-sequences on the whole discipline’s develop- chaeologies in the federation. However, I would ment. Wars and political disruption through- like to point here to another set of factors deriv-out the late 19th and 20th centuries provided ing from the system of governance of Yugoslavia abundant cases of personal biographies that which created conditions for the rapid growth of directly or indirectly influenced the course of archaeology: stable and rapid economic growth archaeology in Slovenia. In other words, it is after 1950, sizeable political pressure to intensify only in the 1960s that Slovene archaeology the cooperation between the Yugoslav nations, reached a level of stability, in part due to the large investments in the public sector, educa-increased number of institutions and experts, tion, science and culture included, and, last but that it did not so heavily depend on the deci- not least, social and historical sciences gaining in sions, fates or ideas of only a few individuals. weight considering their social role. If we take c) The history of Slovene archaeology is marked into consideration the formative period of the by its episodic nature until the 1950s. There is Slovene post-war archaeology from 1945 to the much more discontinuity than continuity in mid-1960s and compare it to all previous periods the period between 1850 and 1950. The only in its history, Slovene archaeology never previ-anchors of continuity were a few institutions, ously experienced such a level of organisation primarily museums. But this also may be de- and cooperation with other national archaeolo-ceiving, as while museums were there, they gies, it never had so much money available for did not always have archaeological staff international cooperation and diversification of its activities. It also never experienced such growth in infrastructure. The truth is that the 119 Based on simple interpolation of data collected by the regime also expected something in return from project Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe (2008; the science and culture it strongly supported.120 2014), some 20 European countries have less than 500 professional archaeologists, and only ten countries more than 1,000. 120 See more on this in the chapter on Yugoslav archaeology. 65 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 65 22. 10. 2021 11:05:29 Still, to get the expected return, it both first need- ed to make large investments for things to be ad- equately developed. The last episode can be imagined after 1991, af- ter Slovenia gained independence. Still, this time the continuity in Slovene archaeology, both in terms of its conceptual and infrastructural de- velopment, was much stronger. The institutional framework continued to exist without any es- sential changes, demonstrating in its own way that the Yugoslav republics since the 1970s were already states within the state. In conceptual terms, the seeds for significant changes in ar- chaeology were already there in the 1980s. They then quickly grew in new conditions of more extensive internationalisation and cooperation with other European countries after the end of a divided Europe. 66 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 66 22. 10. 2021 11:05:29 Images Fig. 8 Janez Ludvik Schönleben (1618– Fig. 9 Janez Gregor Dolničar (1655–1719), 1681), theologist, historian and author of the jurist, historian and antiquarian from study Carniola antiqua et nova. Ljubljana. Author of the first essays on Roman Emona. Fig. 10 Gian Rinaldo Carli (1720–1795), Fig. 11 Anton Tomaž Linhart (1756–1795), economist, historian and archaeologist, writer and historian. Author of a historical native of Koper, founder of the Accademia study on the South Slavs in Austria. dei Risorti in Koper, excavator of the amphitheatre in Pula. 67 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 67 22. 10. 2021 11:05:30 Fig. 12 Provincial Museum of Carniola in Ljubljana (1890s). Courtesy of the National Museum of Slovenia. Fig. 13 Karl Dežman (Deschmann) (1821– Fig. 14 Simon Rutar (1851–1903). The first 1888). Director of the Provincial Museum Conservator of the Central Commission for of Carniola, excavator of the prehistoric pile- Research and Protection of Historic and Art dwellings at Ljubljansko barje. Courtesy of Monuments for the Province of Carniola. the National Museum of Slovenia. 68 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 68 22. 10. 2021 11:05:30 Fig. 15 Municipal Museum in Ptuj (1928). Courtesy of the Historical Archive Ptuj. Fig. 16 Exhibition of the Maribor Museum Society (1903–1907). Courtesy of the Regional Museum Maribor. 69 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 69 22. 10. 2021 11:05:30 Fig. 17 Gymnasium in Celje, the first venues of the Municipal Museum in Celje lapidarium (1882–1946). Fig. 18 Municipal Museum in Koper (early 1920s). Courtesy of the Regional Museum Koper. 70 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 70 22. 10. 2021 11:05:30 Fig. 19 University of Ljubljana, established in 1919. Site of the first chair in archaeology in Slovenia. (Photo from 1932). Fig. 20 Vojeslav Molè (1886–1973). Fig. 21 Balduin Saria (1893–1974). The first professor of archaeology at the Professor of archaeology at the University University of Ljubljana (1923–1926). of Ljubljana between 1926 and 1942. 71 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 71 22. 10. 2021 11:05:31 Fig. 22 Participants of the Tabula Imperii Romani Meeting in Ptuj 1937. Standing from the left: Viktor Skrabar (Ptuj Museum), Aladar Radnoti (Hungarian National Museum), Mihovil Abramić (Archaeological Museum in Split), Viktor Hoffiler (University of Zagreb), Rudolf Egger (University of Vienna), Balduin Saria (University of Ljubljana), Josip Klemenc (Archaeological Museum Zagreb); Sitting from the left: Vivian E. Halifax Sanceau (UK), Henri Seyrig (Director General of Antiquities of Syria and Lebanon), Osbert Crawford (Ordnance Survey, UK), Gerhard Bersu (German Archaeological Institute), Giuseppe Lugli (University of Rome). Fig. 23 Rajko Ložar (1904–1985), archaelogist, Director of the Slovene Ethnographic Museum in Ljubljana, at an archaeological excavation in Novo mesto in 1941 (right) accompanied by two Italian officials. Courtesy of the National Museum of Slovenia. 72 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 72 22. 10. 2021 11:05:31 Fig. 24 France Stelè (1886–1972), Provincial Conservator for Carniola (1912–1914), Head of the Monuments Office in Ljubljana 1919–1938). One of key scholars in designing the cultural heritage protection system in Yugoslavia after the Second World War. Fig. 25 Jože Kastelic (1913–2003), Director of the National Museum of Slovenia and Stane Gabrovec (1920–2015), Curator for prehistory at the National Museum of Slovenia (early 1950s). Courtesy of the National Museum of Slovenia. 73 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 73 22. 10. 2021 11:05:31 Fig. 26 Museum in Novo mesto in 1958. Courtesy of the Museum of Dolenjska, Novo mesto. Fig. 27 Josip Klemenc (1898–1967), Professor of ancient history and archaeology at the University of Ljubljana (1946–1967) with students and visitors at the Roman cemetery in Šempeter (early 1960s). 74 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 74 22. 10. 2021 11:05:31 Fig. 28 Josip Korošec (1909–1966), Professor Fig. 29 Josip Korošec and Paola Korošec (1913- of prehistory and early medieval archaeology 2006) (with children). Paola Korošec was the first at the University of Ljubljana (1947–1966) at professional female archaeologist in the former excavations in Kevderc in 1959. Courtesy of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Courtesy of Josip Josip Korošec jr. and Darko Periša. Korošec jr. and Darko Periša. Fig. 30 Srečko Brodar (1893–1987) and France Osole (1920–2000) (both sitting on the right), professors of Quarternary and Palaeolithic studies at the University of Ljubljana (at Potočka zijalka, 1960s). 75 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 75 22. 10. 2021 11:05:31 Fig. 31 France Stare (1927–1974) (center, with bow tie), professor of archaeology at the University of Ljubljana, photographed with students of archaeology from the University of Belgrade during their excursion to Slovenia (1959). Courtesy of Mirina Cvikl Zupančić. Fig. 32 Jaroslav Šašel (1924–1988), epigraphist, ancient historian and archaeologist at the Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre at the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana. 76 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 76 22. 10. 2021 11:05:32 Fig. 33 Bernarda Perc (1929–1983) Fig. 34 Tatjana Bregant (1932–2002), and Stanko Pahič (1924-2003) Professor of Neolithic aand Eneolithic at excavations of the Bronze Age archaeology at the University of Ljubljana settlement in Ormož (1956). Bernarda at excavations in Ljupljanica (Bosnia Perc was the first specialist in and Herzegovina) (1970s). Archive of the egyptology in Slovenia. Archive of the Department of Archaeology, University of Regional Museum Ptuj – Ormož. Ljubljana. Fig. 35 Ljudmila Plesničar Gec (1931–2008), Curator at the Minicipal Museum in Ljubljana, Fig. 36 Tone Knez (1930–1993), the principal researcher of the Roman Emona. Curator at the Museum of Dolenjska, Photo taken in 1973 in the lapidarium in Ljubljana. Novo Mesto at the excavations in Novo Courtesy of the Museums and Galleries of Ljubljana. mesto in 1959 (Kambič 2019). 77 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 77 22. 10. 2021 11:05:32 Fig. 37 Iva Mikl Curk (1935–2013), Head of the Archaeological Department at the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia. 78 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 78 22. 10. 2021 11:05:32 III. CROATIA Croatia has been an independent state since The country extends from the eastern Adri-1991. It covers 56,000 km2 and has approxi- atic coast to the Pannonian Plain, encircling mately 4.3 million inhabitants (Croats 90%, Bosnia and Herzegovina from the south, west Serbs 4.5%, other nationalities include Bos- and north. Croatia’s crescent-shaped territo-niaks, Hungarians, and Czechs, among others). ry resulted from the late 15th establishment of Croatia is predominantly a Catholic country, the Austrian Military Frontier around the lands whilst other religious groups include Orthodox ruled by the Ottomans, primarily Bosnia and and Muslim populations (ca. 6% combined). Herzegovina. Fig. 38 Relief map of Croatia. 79 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 79 22. 10. 2021 11:05:33 In terms of physical geography, Croatia is a very fields or flatter areas containing some more soil heterogeneous country. This heterogeneity is also deposits. Traditionally, the Dalmatian hinter-well reflected in the historical regionalisation of land economy was based on small-scale mixed the country. Its western Adriatic parts are marked agriculture, pastoralism, and, to a smaller scale, by a highly indented coast with more than 600 also trade.121 small and medium islands, with some 50 of them inhabited. A distinguished geographical and his- In contrast, with its hundreds of bays, coves, torical region in the Adriatic Croatia is the Istrian peninsulas and islands, the Adriatic coast pro-peninsula in the north, divided today between vides numerous naturally protected routes for Italy, Slovenia and Croatia. Istria was crucial for seafaring and safe ports, making it much more controlling maritime routes in the northern Adri- integrated into cross-Adriatic contacts and trade, atic since prehistoric times. On the other hand, it which consequently led to the early develop-also contains relatively large areas for farming, ment of urban civilisation. The earliest urban animal keeping, vine and olive oil production, settlements in Dalmatia appeared already in the making it attractive for dense settlement in the Hellenistic period with the Greek colonies, Ro-past. Bordering Istria on the south is Kvarner man emporia, and the local communities’ pro- (Quarnaro) or Hrvatsko Primorje (Croatian Lit- to-urban settlements. This ‘urban’ coastal belt toral), a narrow coastal belt with relatively large has existed for more than two millennia. islands (Cres, Krk, Lošinj, Rab). The Velebit high mountain ridge (part of the Dinaric mountains) From Istria to Montenegro, only four larger riv-rises from the sea and extends for some 150 km ers flow to the Adriatic: the Raša in Istria, and along the coast, making a significant barrier to- the Zrmanja, Cetina and Neretva (in northern wards the interior. and central Dalmatia), all being essential core areas for settlement in the past. Northern and To the south is Dalmatia, the largest Croatian central Dalmatia also includes hundreds of is-Adriatic region which extends to Montenegro. lands. The largest and economically the most Both Kvarner and Dalmatia are typical karstic important were in Central Dalmatia – Brač, landscapes with highly permeable limestone Hvar, Vis – all relatively well suited for agri-geology, rare superficial water streams and cultural production, and which also played sparse karstic fields. Their climate is Mediter- an essential role in cross-Adriatic navigation. ranean or sub-Mediterranean, or mixed with a Southern Dalmatia begins south of the River continental climate in the hinterland. Similarly Neretva mouth. At the seashore, the Pelješac to Kvarner, central and southern Dalmatia are peninsula and the island of Korčula (Curzola) blocked inland by the high Dinaric mountains, form a barrier between central and southern frequently reaching more than 1,500 m (Kozjak, Dalmatia. Around the town of Neum, there is a Mosor, Biokovo, Dinara) and dividing coastal c. 20 km wide corridor belonging to Bosnia and Dalmatia from its hinterland ( Dalmatinska zago- Herzegovina cutting through to the Croatian ra) and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Large parts of coast.122 Southern Dalmatia is the smallest and the land, particularly in the Dalmatian hinterland, are extremely rugged and barren, unsuit- 121 One should also not forget that territory of Dalmatian able for settlement. In addition to this, intensive hinterland crossed the border between Venice and Ot- exploitation of wood (construction, fuel, clear- tomans, which frequently shifted in favour of one or another regional force. In this condition, an important ing the forests for pastures or fields, etc.) also part of the local population was serving in the defen- deprived the region of its forests in the last few sive forces of both countries. centuries. In Dalmatinska zagora, the principal 122 This peculiar situation derived from 1699 when the Ot-settlement zones are around numerous small tomans and Austrians ended a war with a peace agree- ment in Sremski Karlovci. The Republic of Dubrovnik, and medium-size unevenly spaced karstic then a vassal of Turkey, demanded two Ottoman-held 80 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 80 22. 10. 2021 11:05:33 least settled of all Dalmatian regions. It con- zone between Pannonian and Adriatic Croatia. sists of a very narrow coastal belt (up to 20 km In terms of Balkan geomorphology, this region wide) and a few larger islands (Korčula, Mljet, is considered as the high Dinaric region with Šipan, Lopud). The principal mainland towns karstic geology. Its northern part is still dense-are Dubrovnik and Cavtat, while historical ur- ly forested today, and due to the high terrain is ban centres on the islands developed only on the least settled part of Croatia. This is also the Korčula. least suitable region for agriculture. Towards the south, the region is more open with large karstic North and northwest Croatia exhibit utterly fields, Gacko, Krbavsko and Ličko, more suit-different geography. The whole area belongs able for agriculture. The climate in Gorska Hr-to the catchments of two main rivers, Sava and vatska is continental and also alpine in the high Drava, which both flow to the Danube. Here, mountains. the landscapes belong to the extensive Panno- nian and sub-Pannonian Lowland. ‘Pannonian’ Croatia extends from Slovenia on the west to the A brief survey of archaeology and Danube and Serbia on the east; its northern and history of Croatia southern borders are formed by the Drava and Sava. Slavonija (including Baranja and western Such geographical variety has substantially in-Srem or Srijem) is a historical region occupying fluenced the archaeology of the country. In terms the eastern part of lowland Croatia and is to- of the Palaeolithic, Croatia is, together with Slo-day the main agricultural region in Croatia. To venia, the most researched country presented in the west is the geographically similar sub-Pan- this book. There are about 100 sites that belong nonian region of northwestern Croatia. It con- to this period. Throughout the whole Palaeolith-tains lowland and hilly terrains and is further ic, two broader regional ‘clusters’ are visible, one divided into smaller regional units. In western along the Adriatic coast and Central Dalmatia and central Slavonija, the only higher terrain is and another in Northwestern Croatia.123 Howev-a 60 km long and 20–30 km wide chain of higher er, to a certain extent, such clustering can also be hills, reaching some 500–600 m of relative height a consequence of uneven research. (Papuk – Psunj – Požeška gora). The rest is low- land, comprised of alluvial deposits and loess terraces. The climate in the whole of northern Croatia is continental. In the past, large parts of Slavonia was marshland and densely forested with oak. With intensive colonisation, starting at the end of the 18th century, and with further development of agriculture in the last century, large plots of land were cleared, drained and turned into agricultural land. The third geographical region is called Mountain- ous Croatia ( Gorska Hrvatska). It is a transitional buffer corridors at its border with Venice – in the area of Neum in the north and near Boka Kotorska in the south. This territorial divide was abolished with the 123 One should bear in mind that the Adriatic Sea was Austrian rule but re-appeared in 1945 when the new much smaller during the glacial periods and that its border between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina northern shores represented the line between Zadar was determined. and Ancona. 81 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 81 22. 10. 2021 11:05:33 Fig. 39 Archaeological sites in Croatia mentioned in this chapter. The Lower Palaeolithic sites are scarce but found 1906). The site contained more than 800 pieces of in both Palaeolithic ‘regions’ (Šandalja I, Don- human remains belonging to at least 24 Nean-je Pazarište, Golubovec, Punikve). They are all derthal individuals (Gardner and Smith 2006).124 open-air sites. They were not systematically re- searched and were distinguished based only on Human remains of the Neanderthals from Krapi-typological analysis of stone tools (Karavanić na were dated to 130,000 BP (Rink et al. 1995). and Janković 2006, 22). The Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal remains were also found in Vindija is probably the best researched of all Palaeolithic and Velika Pećina near Goranci in the same re-periods, mainly because of some very attractive gion (Karavanić and Janković 2006, 29, 30). The discoveries in northwestern Croatia. Most re- Mousterian sites are also relatively frequent in nowned site a Mousterian rock shelter at Krapina, which was extensively researched since the 124 Based on dental analyses, Wolpoff and Caspari (2006) end of the 20th century (Gorjanović Kramberger calculated some 80 individuals. 82 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 82 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 Central Dalmatia, where the best researched is came to this area from the southeastern Panno-Mujina pećina (see Karavanić and Bilich-Kamen- nian Plain and are represented by the Starče-jarin 1997). Altogether there are more than 30 vo culture, the earliest Neolithic culture in the Middle Palaeolithic sites in Croatia, most fre- Pannonian basin and Central Balkans. Today, quently found in caves and rock shelters. During around 100 sites of Starčevo culture are known the Upper Palaeolithic, the number of sites fur- from an area of some 13,000 km2, representing a ther increased, particularly on the Adriatic coast. picture of small and short-lived settlements liv-The layers from this period are frequently found ing by hoe-cultivation of land and cattle rearing also in the Mousterian caves and shelters. Sev- (Šimić, 2013, 15; Hršak and Šošić Klindžić 2014; eral thousand finds make Šandalja II near Pula Šošić Klindžić et al. 2018). Starčevo period settle-the richest Gravettian site, which also contained ments are dispersed all over the Pannonian area, human remains (Malez 1979, 292–294). Worth taking advantage of open and drier land, river noting here is a recent discovery at Vela spila terraces, foothills and similar locations in other-on the island of Korčula, where 36 fragments of wise mostly forested and marshy Slavonia. The clay figurines from the Epigravettian were found individual settlements were generally smaller in (Farbstein et al., 2012). size, short-lived and relatively densely clustered in their micro-regional settings. According to the Similar regional clustering of sites is discernible radiocarbon dates, the earliest Starčevo culture in the Mesolithic period. Still, most of them ap- sites are Zadubravlje and Galovo, from the be-pear along the eastern Adriatic coast – more than ginning of the 6th millennium BC,127 i.e. to the lat-two-thirds out of 55–60 Mesolithic sites in Croa- er phase of the general Starčevo culture chronol-tia.125 They also exhibit a larger variety in terms ogy. The most frequent finds are relatively sim-of their locations; there are more open-air sites, ple and coarse vessels (most frequently globular in northwestern Croatia and Slavonia in par- pots and bowls) of red and ochre colour. Typical ticular. Particularly numerous are sites in Istria for the local Starčevo culture pottery is the dec-and the Croatian Littoral (Hrvatsko Primorje), oration with incised and impressed simple line-where some 25 sites were found (Komšo 2006, ar motifs and fluted barbotine. Finer pottery is 60). Among them, the best researched is Pupići- painted also with white linear motifs. Finds of na peć,126 which is dated between 10,000 and Spondylus shells and obsidian indicate long-dis-7,500 BP. It contained more than 8,000 finds of tance exchange taking place in the 6th millennium flint and bone tools and human remains (Komšo BC. In the northwestern areas of Croatia during 2006, 60). Another interesting Mesolithic site is the same millennium there are also some 20 sites Vela spila near Vela Luka on the island of Korču- containing evidence of the southernmost Linear la, where several Mesolithic graves were discov- Band Ceramic, locally labelled as Malo Korenovo ered (Komšo 2006, 72–73). culture. This culture’s sites are more frequent in western Hungary and eastern Austria, but their The earliest Neolithic settlement emerged at the southernmost distribution also reached Croatia. end of the 7th millennium BC in the Pannonian However, they are usually mixed on the same zone (in Slavonija), in the area between the Sava, sites with materials of other cultures (e.g. Starče-Drava and Danube rivers. The Neolithic settlers vo-type or Sopot-type pottery) (e.g. Težak-Gregl 2014, 37, Balen and Čataj 2014, 61). 125 Komšo (2006, 81) argues that such an uneven geograph- ical distribution results from more intensive research in With the Middle Neolithic, starting at around 5300 the coastal areas in the last decades. Nevertheless, the BC, the cultural changes became quite evident. number of Mesolithic sites is still much larger than the Upper Palaeolithic sites in the same coastal regions. 126 For more on this site, see Miracle and Forenbaher 127 On the earliest radiocarbon dates of the Starčevo sites (2006). in Croatia, see Šošić Klindžić et al. (2018). 83 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 83 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 The settlement became gradually more complex the earliest indirect evidence for metallurgy was and denser. Frequently, the settlements of the So- found (Burić 2014, 54) which points to intensive pot culture were multi-layered and had a longer contacts with the closest core area of Vinča cul-duration than was the case with the settlements ture (near Belgrade). In northwestern Croatia, of the early Neolithic. At that time, the dominant the principal Late Neolithic – Early Eneolithic Sopot culture was the first to construct more com- cultural formation was Lengyel culture, or better plex settlements such as tells (e.g. Bapska, Pepela- to say, its Croatian and Slovene regional mani-na, Osijek–Hermanov vinograd, Sarvaš, Sopot), festation.131 Its most distinctive feature is paint-and settlements similar to wasserburgs. The Sopot ed pottery (red, yellow, white). In neighbouring culture tells are ellipsoid or oval, with an area over countries, particularly in Austria and Hungary, 1 hectare with layers between 2–4 m thick. They the Lengyel culture sites exhibit very complex are also frequently raised above the surrounding features (elaborate site plans, large houses, ‘ron-area, enclosed with ditches, earthen ramparts and dels’, etc. However, such sites are still to be dis-palisades (see more in Balen and Čataj 2014, 65). covered in Croatia. At present, the site of Ozalj Šošić Klindžić et al. (2018, 170) also detected a sub- – Stari grad is the best evidence of this culture in stantial change in the raw materials used for stone Croatia (Težak-Gregl 2005). tools – the Sopot culture changed not only the raw materials but also the technology and typology The earliest Neolithic sites in Adriatic Croatia compared to the preceding Starčevo culture. Pot- appear at approximately the same time as in the tery types are more heterogeneous and numerous Pannonian area, at the turn from 7th to 6th millen-than in the preceding period. The most typical and nium BC, and lasted until the mid-6th millenni-frequent are biconical forms (pots, bowls, etc.). um.132 The development of the Neolithic in this However, the decoration is, in general, very mod- area seems to be independent of developments est and simple, mostly incised linear motifs and in the Pannonian and other continental areas finger-impressed motifs. Sopot culture is a very and influenced by the spread of the ‘Neolith-long phenomenon that spanned from the Middle ic’ culture from the southeast, from Ionian and to Late Neolithic in the late 5th millennium BC. southern Adriatic seas. The earliest sites, charac- terised mainly by impresso-cardium pottery, are In the late Neolithic and early Eneolithic in con- found all along the eastern Adriatic coast, also tinental Croatia (ca. late 5th millennium–3,000 in Montenegro and Albania. In Croatia, they are BC), the development continued with the Sopot predominantly clustered in the northern Adriat-and Vinča cultures (central and eastern Slavonia) ic (Istria and Kvarner), northern Dalmatia (the and Lengyel culture (northwestern Croatia). The area between Zadar and Šibenik), and southern main site in eastern Slavonia is Bapska which is Dalmatia (south of Neretva river). At present, at the contact of two larger cultural complexes – there are some 40 sites in these three regions. Sopot (western) and Vinča (eastern), and, indeed, Some two-thirds were found in caves and rock exhibits the finds of both.128 The Vinča cultural elements129 belong mostly to its later phases (ca. 131 The Lengyel culture was spread over a much larger area, from southern Poland, across Moravia, Low- 5000–4500 BC).130 Bapska is also the site where er Austria, Hungary to Slovenia and Croatia, and is composed of several regional types (Bickle 2014). The Lengyel culture, it could be said, replaced or substi- 128 The site of Bapska spanned a much longer period, from tuted the preceding Linearband Pottery culture that the Late Starčevo/Early Sopot period at the beginning of extended over a very similar area. In Slovenia, the the Middle Neolithic, continued through the Late Neolith- Lengyel culture’s regional manifestation is termed the ic (Sopot and Vinča cultures), and ended in the Eneolithic. Sava Group of the Lengyel culture; under this term, the 129 For more on the Vinča culture see in chapters on Serbia neighbouring Croatian manifestation of the same cul- and Bosnia and Herzegovina. ture can be implied. 130 For the Late Neolithic radiocarbon dates in Slavonia, 132 See Marijanović (2007, 35) and Forenbaher, Kaiser and see Burić (2015, for Bapsa p.150). Miracle (2013) for the earliest radiocarbon dates. 84 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 84 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 shelters, while one-third are open-air sites at var- only in their number but also in size. Howev-ious types of locations. Unfortunately, except for er, the ratio between cave sites and open-air Vela spila on the island of Korčula, none of the sites remained similar. The best and the most Early Neolithic sites has been researched in more considerable evidence came from the sites of detail or extensively enough to provide a more Danilo (the eponym site), Smilčić, Bribir. They coherent image of this period.133 It appears that are all open-air sites with areas between 2 and the acculturation of the local Mesolithic popula- 4 hectares with more elaborate plans.135 They tion played a more significant role in the Adriat- can be considered as major centres of the Mid-ic zone than in the Pannonian Neolithic. Many dle Neolithic settlement in their immediate re-of the Early Neolithic sites in caves also contain gions. Moreover, these sites also existed for a Mesolithic strata, and in their early Neolithic de- larger period of time (Batović 1979, 526). These posits a large ratio of hunting animals was pres- sites also speak for the increased importance of ent (Marijanović 2007, 30). farming and animal husbandry, whereas the re- mains of hunting decreased substantially com- On the other hand, the open-air sites included pared to the Early Neolithic. more remains of domesticated sheep, goat and cereals’ in later periods. These sites also tend- In the Middle Neolithic, Dalmatia inhabitants ed to be close to the areas with cultivable soils, also intensified their contacts with neighbour-rivers and streams. The Early Neolithic phase ing regions across the Adriatic and Balkan in-at Smilčić (the site of ca. 1.5–2 ha in size with land (e.g. trading with Spondylus shells with a semi-circular plan) seems to already have a Pannonian areas, obsidian trade with Lipari). more elaborate structure with roundhouses and Recent radiocarbon dates (Forenbaher, Kai-ditches (Batović 1979, 491–493). There is also ser and Miracle 2013) corrected the traditional some evidence of cross-Adriatic contacts in this dates to a significant degree. In the first place, period.134 it was shown that the Danilo culture (or better to say, Danilo pottery style) lasted for different Substantial cultural change emerged with the periods of time in different eastern Adriatic re-Middle Neolithic or so-called Danilo culture, gions. In its core area, i.e. central Dalmatia, it which spread across all of the eastern Adriat- ended at around 5,000 BC and was replaced by ic coast since the mid-6th millennium BC. This the Late Neolithic Hvar culture (i.e. Hvar pot-change is evident in much more elaborated tery style). and heterogenous pottery, frequently paint- ed or with complex incised relief spiral mo- Hvar culture (the Late Neolithic in Dalmatia) tifs, appliques, decorated bowls on high legs. occupies a period of the whole 5th millennium Compared to the previous Impresso-Cardium BC. Its pottery style exhibits rich decoration period, the number of sites with evidence of (painting, incisions, spiral motifs), not that dif-the Danilo culture increased substantially, not ferent from the preceding period, similar to the Butmir style in central and southern Bos-133 Vela spila is one of the key sites (together with Crvene nia and Herzegovina. At present, it seems that stijene in Montenegro) for understanding early pre- the Hvar culture was more restricted to its core history in the eastern Adriatic. It contains eight major area in Dalmatia, whereas in the northern Adri-layers (Epipalaeolithic, Mesolithic, Early, Middle, Late Neolithic, Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age). Better re- atic various post-Danilo styles remained in use searched cave sites are Markova spilja on the island of (Forenbaher, Kaiser and Miracle 2013, 601). Its Hvar, Škarin Samograd near Šibenik and Jamina Sredi in Istria. 134 E.g. the Campiginian-type stone axe from Markova 135 In Smilčić, two concentric ditches surrounding the set-spilja imported from Monte Gargano in Italy (Batović tlement were discovered. In Bribir, houses were rectan- 1979, 519). gular with clay floors (Batović 1979, 531–532). 85 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 85 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 eponym and still the richest site is Grapčeva 3800 BC.136 It retained several traditional Late spilja on the island of Hvar, researched in the Neolithic features, e.g. general settlement pat-1950s (Novak 1955). Hvar culture frequently tern, economy, and many elements in its pottery. appeared on the same sites of the preceding It is important to note that on the Lasinja sites Danilo culture, and in the cave sites in particu- in Croatia no metal objects or objects indirectly lar (e.g. Markova spilja, Jamina Sredi, Škarin associated with metallurgy have been found so Samograd ), indicating that the caves were in far. As in Slovenia, the Lasinja group was grad-constant use for similar purposes throughout ually replaced by Retz–Gajary culture followed the Neolithic period. Moreover, the open-air by Baden culture. sites frequently contain evidence of both cul- tures (e.g. Smilčić, Bribir, Danilo) speaking The Retz–Gajary group is distinguished by its to the fact that the same settlement areas or furrow-incised pottery decoration (Furchen-niches not only were in extended use, but also stich), which was very common on the much retained similar economic and settlement pat- larger territory; it extended from Moravia and terns throughout the 5th millennium BC. southwestern Slovakia, lower Austria, western Hungary down to the Sava valley in the south, In general in the Eneolithic of Croatia (ca. reaching continental Croatia and Slovenia. In 4300–2500 BC), and in both major regions, con- Croatia, this group is dated between ca. 3,900 tinental and coastal, traditionally defined early and 3,500 BC (Balen 2008, 20). While the different Eneolithic cultures (pottery styles) are not very pottery style compared to the previous Lasinja clearly distinguishable from the Late Neolithic culture was quite distinctive, other aspects reveal ones. Most of the authors speak of a relative- much smaller differences. In terms of the settle-ly smooth transition concerning the material ment, the Retz–Gajary sites are in similar local culture in the first centuries of the new period. settings, predominantly in plains. In the earlier Significant changes emerged towards the end of literature, this culture was traditionally consid-this transitional or early period, in the first half ered as nomadic or semi-nomadic cattle-breed-of the 4th century BC. ers, but more recent discoveries speak of more sedentary forms of life and larger villages (Čataj Three larger cultural groups Lasinja, Retz–Ga- 2018b), while the settlement at Hrnjevac is one of yary and Baden c all spread over much wider the earliest settlements on an elevated position territory between Moravia, Lower Austria, west- in the continental Croatia (Čataj 2018b, 52–53). ern Transdanubia and Sava Valley in Slovenia On some Retz–Gajary sites outside Croatia, trac-and Croatia in the south – were also present in es of metallurgy were found (e.g. in Slovenia). most of continental Croatia in various regional forms. The earliest is the Lasinja group, which is The Baden culture – the radiocarbon dates from generally considered a continuation of the Late Croatia put it the second half of the 4th millenni-Neolithic Lengyel and Sopot cultures into the um BC (Balen 2018, 68–70) – extended over sim-Eneolithic period. In Croatia, it covers a large ilar territory in Croatia as the preceding Retz– territory from the northern Lika region across Gajary culture, but with much more significant Northwestern Croatia and Slavonia in the east. clustering of sites in eastern Slavonia along the So far, the settlement evidence of the Lasinja cul- Danube (e.g. Vučedol, Sarvaš, Bapska, Aljmaš). ture speaks of smaller villages or hamlets with a The most diagnostic and typical for Baden cul-smaller number of houses relatively widely dis- ture are black-polished vessels with a high, al-persed (Čataj 2018, 28). Radiocarbon dates from most metallic sheen, with cylindrical necks the eastern Slavonia suggested its emergence at around 4350 BC and its duration until around 136 For new radiocarbon dates of the Lasinja culture, see Balen (2008). 86 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 86 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 with one handle. Another typical form is the so- settlements around major centres, e.g. Sarvaš called Fischbutte (vessel with an elongated spin- or Vučedol (Đukić 2018, 93). Recent research of dle-shaped neck) (Balen 2018, 76–77). Many of the site of Đakovo–Franjevac, with an area of the Baden culture sites were found on multi-pe- 38,000 m2, revealed very good evidence of the riod sites occupied in the earlier and also later architecture and settlement structure with sev-Eneolithic. For this reason, the internal struc- eral multi-room objects, wooden roof construc-ture of settlements is not well known. However, tions, internal wooden enclosures, and large at Saloš near Slavonski Brod, where an area of pits used for burials (Balen 2011). The most dis-16,500 m2 was researched, 34 large pits were dis- tinctive feature of the Kostolac-type pottery is covered (6–20 m2 in size), with some of them con- the decoration of various forms of vessels with taining up to four ‘rooms’. Saloš also contained white incrustation. several finds pointing to developed metallurgy (kilns, moulds, casting vessels) (Balen 2018, 74). Rich decoration in a similar style is also typical Throughout the whole 4th millennium BC, the for the subsequent Vučedol culture dated be-dominant type of subsistence was mixed farm- tween ca. 3000 and 2500. The density of settle-ing, with a high proportion of cattle in animal ment is similar to that of the Kostolac group, be-husbandry. Concerning subsistence, the Baden cause the Vučedol settlement tended to occupy culture did not differ much from the preceding the settlements already occupied in the previous Retz–Gajary culture. periods (Miloglav 2018, 116). Another common feature of the Kostolac culture is the ditches or Towards the end of the 4th millennium emerged palisades enclosing the settlements or elevated a significant change in pottery styles – pottery locations. The core area of this culture in Cro-with furrows, stamps and incisions filled with atia is in eastern Slavonia, with top sites (e.g. white incrustation, which is also one of the pri- Vučedol, Sarvaš, Vinkovci–Tržnica) between mary criteria for defining the Late Eneolithic (ca. the Danube and Sava rivers. The best-recorded 3200–2500 BC) in this part of Europe. In Croa- plan of settlement structure is from Vučedol (so tia, two cultural groups are highly distinguished far the largest site of this culture), with tightly for this style – the Kostolac and Vučedol. Both packed rounded houses with cycles of destruc-groups extended over much larger areas; the tion and construction on the same places, like Kostolac group was present mostly in the wid- at tell sites. In farming, the Vučedol culture did er Danube area, from Transdanubia to northern not exhibit any particular changes compared Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. The Vučed- to the earlier periods. Cereals (wheat, barley) ol group with its regional variants extended fur- dominate among the cultivated plants and cat-ther to the west (Slovenia) and south, reaching tle in animal husbandry. the Adriatic coast. The Vučedol culture is distinguished for its ad- In general, the density of settlement increased vanced metallurgy, with traces were discovered in the Late Eneolithic. In Croatia, its sites are on many Vučedol culture sites (kilns, moulds, significantly clustered in central and eastern and metal objects, among which the flat fan-Slavonia (ca. 50 sites Đukić 2018, 90–92), with shaped axes are the most attractive pieces). A many sites ’discovered’ in revisional analyses of high level of metallurgical activities is also doc-already excavated materials. One widespread umented with hoards that contained moulds, feature of the settlements containing the Kos- pieces of weapons or tools. The most distinc-tolac-type materials is their defensive character; tive feature of the Vučedol culture is richly they are either on naturally protected locations decorated pottery with geometric motifs – tri-or defended with ditches and ramparts. Anoth- angles, rhombs, rosettes, circles, chess-boards – er significant feature is the clustering of smaller filled (incrusted) most frequently with a white 87 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 87 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 material. A significant number of types of ves- cave sites), the Nakovana culture is defined as sels (and other clay objects such as, for example, the earliest proper Eneolithic culture in Adriatic anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines) are Croatia. At present, there are some 25 sites with decorated in this way, usually on their most vis- pottery attributed to this culture (Forenbaher ible parts. This kind of decoration is spread over 1999, 376), extending from Istria to the Monte-a much larger area than in the broader Panno- negrin coast. (e.g. Javorike on Brioni islands, nian and western Balkans area, but it is in the Grapčeva spilja on Hvar, Vela spila on Korču-Vučedol culture when it reached its peak in the la, Nakovana, Gudnja). There are only a few late Eneolithic. The Vučedol pottery style domi- open-air sites, and none of them excavated in nated almost all continental Croatia (and partly more detail (e.g. Buković–Lastvine, Javorike). In in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia and Hun- most cases, the Nakovana culture sites did not gary,) and is echoed in the Adriatic areas. contain the Nakovana-style pottery exclusively, but also the pottery of some other earlier or lat- So far, nothing has been said here about the Eneo- er styles. Indeed, this culture’s content is limit-lithic burials in continental Croatia. The evidence ed to the diagnostic pottery with vertical chanis still very scarce and limited mostly to individ- nelling or grooving, most often biconical bowls ual burials or smaller groups of buried people. with cylindrical necks and rounded or angular At present, it seems that in the Lasinja culture shoulders (Forenbaher 1999, 373). According to the deceased were inhumated in an extended or the radiocarbon dates (see Table 2 in Forenbaher crouched position. In other cultures (Retz–Ga- 1999, also p. 380), the time span of the Nakovana jary, Baden, Kostolac, Vučedol), bi-ritual burials culture seems to cover the period between 3600 were practiced, and there is no clear geograph- and 3000 BC. Almost all Nakovana culture sites ic or temporal pattern. The skeletons were laid are in karstic terrains and very close to the sea, down in a crouched position, while the cremated and the subsistence patterns reveal the predomi-remains were put in urns. In a few cases, earthen nance of sheepherding. barrows were raised above the graves. The period after the Nakovana culture (between The Eneolithic period in Adriatic Croatia is less 3,000 and 2,500 BC) is even less known, and known than in the continental parts. The main does not reveal any particularly dominant cul-reason is that almost all sites are in caves and ture or pottery style in Adriatic Croatia. In the rock shelters, already occupied in previous pe- local archaeology, this period of the 3rd millen-riods. Their Eneolithic phase was recorded pri- nium BC is frequently described as the Vučed-marily on the base of pottery assemblages. In ol-influenced Adriatic culture or style (Forenba-addition to this, only in a few cave sites, more her 2018). Again, this culture was distinguished extensive areas were excavated. At the present based on diagnostic pottery in multiperiod sites, state of knowledge, the Early Eneolithic in this mostly caves. area (i.e. based on pottery assemblages and ev- idence of the use of sites) reflects the Late Neo- The Early Bronze Age in continental Croatia, lithic tradition of the Hvar culture. Moreover, no especially in the Pannonian parts, is attributed dominant pottery or other material culture style to the Vinkovci culture, which spread after the has been recognised for the whole of the Adriatic mid-3th millennium BC from the Balaton Lake in area, but rather the appearance of more regional Hungary to the Sava river in Croatia. As was of-and local manifestations in the material culture ten the case in the Pannonian area, also the Vink-has been found. ovci group frequently settled the same areas and even sites already occupied in the previous However, despite limited evidence (in terms of period (i.e. Vučedol culture). In this sense, not the number of sites and their limitation to the many changes can be observed in the settlement 88 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 88 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 patterns or subsistence patterns compared to the the Urnfield cultural complex (and its local vari-Late Eneolithic. All major sites are of the tell-type ants), which in Croatia extends across the whole on riverbanks, such as Ilok, Vučedol, Vinkovci, continental zone and is strongly echoed in the Osijek, Sarvaš (Ložnjak Dizdar and Potrebica Adriatic region. This period sees the extensive 2017, 29). Graves in the Vinkovci culture are only use of metal objects, hoarding and large settle-rarely discovered (e.g. Vinkovci, Osijek, Drljano- ments with large flat cremation cemeteries. The vac, Josipovac Punitovački, Selci Đakovački), cultural changes that emerged with the Urn-mostly as single cremated graves in urns. field culture were remarkable, with a signifi- cant increase in the number and size of sites, the In the later periods of the Early Bronze Age number of objects deposited in graves, number (roughly after 2000 BC), there emerged in Slavo- of metal objects, and last but not least, not only nia another three pottery styles, frequently re- evidence that similar metal objects circulated placing the Vinkovci culture on the same sites. over large areas in this part of Europe, but that These are the Vatin culture and the so-called spiritual life and religion exhibited much larger Transdanubian incrusted pottery in eastern supra-regional similarities with neighbouring Slavonia, and Litzen pottery (Corded Ware) in regions than before.137 The Urnfield culture in central and western Slavonia and northwestern Pannonian Croatia appeared around 1300 BC Croatia. They are all considered regional man- and lasted until around 800 BC. ifestations of the broader cultural complexes, which lasted until around 1700 BC. The earliest regional group was the Virovitica group (1300–1100 BC), mostly known from the The transition to the Middle Bronze Age (1700– cemeteries with cremated burials in urns from 1300 BC) was not marked by any radical chang- northwestern Croatia. More than 100 graves in es in settlement or economy. All core settlement urns were found in the eponym site, but most areas from the Early Bronze Age continued to of them were destroyed. Other cemeteries of be occupied with a similar type of small village this group (e.g. Sirova Katalena, Moravče near settlements, which mostly lived of agricultur- Sesvete) are known from only a few graves. al resources from their immediate vicinity. In Partly in parallel with the Virovitica group, or many respects, the pottery styles to a large extent later, developed other regional groups of the also either continued or evolved from the earlier early Urnfield culture in Croatia. This includ-forms (e.g. Vatin culture) – such as the Vatin–Bel- ed the Barice – Gređani group, which extend-egiš style or phase (Ložnjak Dizdar and Potrebica ed along the Sava river and is distinguished 2019, 51) – as did the burial of cremated human mostly for not using urns to deposit cremated remains in urns. Concerning the metallurgical remains in graves, and the Belegiš II group in record, the Early Bronze Age trends continued eastern Slavonia, distinguished by pottery dec-and further developed in the Middle Bronze Age. oration. Particularly important evidence for the Bronze objects are mostly found in hoards (e.g. Urnfield culture in continental Croatia comes Lovas, Vukovar) which contained bracelets, dag- from numerous hoards with metal objects. Be-gers, battle axes and pieces of golden jewellery. tween 1300 and 1100 BC, hoards are clustered The Transdanubian incrusted pottery tradition in two major areas: northwestern Croatia (ca. 12 was preserved in the Dalj–Bijelo Brdo group of hoards) and central and eastern Slavonia (ca. 22 eastern Slavonia sites. The cemetery at Bijelo Brdo is particularly interesting because inhumation and 137 Due to a great number of sites and complex regional-cremation burial were practised simultaneously. isation, a more detailed presentation of the Urnfield period exceeds the scope of this book. For this topic, The Late Bronze Age represents a period of see Vinski-Gasparini (1973; 1983), Ložnjak Dizdar and Potrebica (2017), Dizdar, Dizdar-Ložnjak and Mihelić much greater cultural homogenisation within (2011). 89 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 89 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 hoards).138 These hoards contained a wide vari- Ljubljana Adriatic culture. The approximately ety of objects made mostly of bronze, e.g. axes, 100 Cetina culture sites are concentrated mostly daggers, knives, helmets, sickles, jewellery, in central and southern Dalmatia and adjacent pieces of dress, vessels, etc. Through time, and areas of southern Bosnia and Herzegovina.139 especially after 1000 BC, the number of hoards diminished, as well as the number of types They are distinguished by their numerous ceme-of objects deposited in them. The reasons for teries of stone barrows containing skeletal or cre-hoards are still not very clear, but some of them mation burials. Usually, in barrows, only a sin-were associated with religious practices. gle (crouched or cremated) burial was deposited in a stone ’box’. The settlements of this culture In contrast, some other hoards (probably those are still not well known. Based on the stone bar-containing ingots and ‘scrap metal’) might be as- rows’ distribution and clustering, it is possible sociated with exchanging bronze raw materials. to assume the major settlement niches, but very The later phase of the Urnfield culture (1100–800 little is known about the settlements themselves. BC) is marked by an increase in the number of The pottery of this culture appears on some hill-settlements and cemeteries, their density and forts from later periods but with no precise con-size. Two major regional groups developed, texts. The Cettina-type pottery was also found the Dalj group in eastern Slavonia, between the in cave sites (ca. 25% of sites, Forenbaher 2018, Lower Sava, Lower Drava and Danube, and the 131), which also contained evidence from sever-Velika Gorica group in northwest Croatia. al earlier or later periods (e.g. Škarin Samograd). There is also evidence of the Cetina-style pottery The Late Bronze Age period is also marked by being found in more distant areas such as Puglia increased social ranking, the emergence of re- in Italy and even the Peloponnese (Forenbaher gional centres, and intensified farming associ- 2018, 131). Metal objects are still very scarce in ated with a demographic increase. Significant this period on the Adriatic coast, and are limit-changes in the social ranking must have repre- ed mostly to a few daggers, axes and pieces of sented the control of the long-distance exchange, jewellery. Concerning the metal finds, the most sources of metal ores and rituals. important sites are from two barrows from Mon- tenegro (Velika gruda and Boljevića gruda). As On the other side of Croatia, along the Adriatic for the Cetina-style pottery, its best and the most coast and its hinterland, the development of the refined pieces exhibit the supra-regional tradi-Bronze Age took a different path than in conti- tion of incised, impressed and incrusted decora-nental Croatia. The most substantial change was tion, which probably evolved from broader Late in settlement patterns, with the emergence of Eneolithic rich decorative styles. hillforts and burial rites involving the construc- tion of large barrows over graves. It seems rea- However, it is with the Cetina culture that the sonable that both the construction of defended Adriatic prehistoric landscapes were signifi-hilltop settlements and large stone barrows were cantly transformed. Large stone barrows and associated and contemporary phenomena. In hillforts with stone ramparts were the earliest Dalmatia, these traits emerged with the region- large monumental structures that will only in-al group called the Cetina culture towards the crease in their number in the following centuries, end of the 3rd millennium BC, which replaced creating one of the most significant long-term the Late Eneolithic post-Vučedol style of the landscape features that essentially lasted until the arrival of the Romans. Dry-stone-walled 138 Based on data from Ložnjak Dizdar and Potrebica 2017, 87). For a more detailed insight into most of the hoards 139 See list and map of sites in Forenbaher (2018, 130, fig. 8, in Croatia, see Vinski-Gasparini (1973). for radiocarbon dates fig. 14). 90 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 90 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 hillforts and barrows are trans-cultural phe- Another substantial developmental boost came nomena that mark the Bronze and Iron Ages of with the Late Bronze Age (ca. from the 14th/13th the eastern Adriatic. In these periods, the num- century BC onwards) from the Pannonian Basin’s ber of hillforts in Adriatic Croatia alone has spreading Urnfield culture. This influence may probably reached close to 1,500.140 not be very much present in terms of population in the eastern Adriatic but strongly influenced In the Middle Bronze Age, Istria emerged as one regional groups and polities, as documented in of the principal regions of development. Situ- Greek and Roman historical sources (e.g. Histri, ated at the crossroads of the northern Adriatic, Delmati, Liburni, Japodes). In older archaeolog-Alps, northeastern Italy and northern Panno- ical bibliography, they are frequently referred to nian and Balkan areas, Istria became an impor- as Illyrians or Illyrian peoples. All these peoples tant ‘bridge’ between the Mediterranean and who settled along the coast were also intensive-continental worlds in this part of Europe. In the ly engaged in seafaring. This is demonstrated by 19th century BC, there started to appear complex the numerous grave objects originating from Ita-well-defended hillfort settlements such as Mon- ly (i.e. Etruria, Picenum, Apulia) and the Aegean kodonja. The site comprises two walled areas, area. The formation of the earliest polities gave inner (acropolis) and outer areas with highly rise to large ‘central’ hillforts (e.g. Nadin near elaborated entrance gates.141 Monkodonja was, Zadar or Varvara in Bosnia and Herzegovina). as it seems, one of the principal settlements in Burial rite remained bi-ritual, cremation in urns the Middle Bronze Age between 1800 and 1400 in flat cemeteries and inhumation under stone BC in Istria. Its pottery assemblage demonstrates barrows. Intensive circulation of metal objects its close incorporation in the exchange and cul- (and their production) can be deduced from rel-tural networks in the broader northern Adriatic atively numerous hoards and grave inventories. area.142 In Dalmatia, in the Middle Bronze Age, The formation of larger coastal polities at the be-the construction of hillforts was further intensi- ginning of the 1st millennium BC further boosted fied in all settlement niches. The barrows were seafaring development. In the next centuries, it clustered in groups (e.g. in cemeteries) and ar- was these polities that controlled the navigation ranged across the landscape to serve as spatial or in the Adriatic. territorial markers of borders, passes, pathways, etc., indicating, together with hillforts, the for- The Early Iron Age in continental Croatia is gen-mation of stronger and larger communities. In erally considered the period when local polities the 2nd millennium BC, the Adriatic was also a – which developed out of the Urnfield culture sphere of interest for Aegean Bronze Age civili- regional groups – formed stronger hierarchical sations. The earliest contacts were probably es- societies (traditionally referred to as chiefdoms) tablished towards the late Middle Bronze Age, led by warrior elites in the context of the broader which only intensified through time and sub- Eastern Hallstatt culture in Central Europe. The stantially influenced cultural developments in evidence comprises the so-called ‘princely bur-the eastern Adriatic and its hinterland. ials’ with rich grave goods, frequently with the Greek-type objects or those imported from the Greek area. The most illustrative case in Slavonia 140 Together with southern Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mon- is the hillfort site of Kaptol–Gradca near Požega tenegro and northern Albania, Adriatic Croatia ac- (in the Papuk hilly region),143 with monumental counts for more than 3,000 hillforts and is probably the earthen barrows. The largest such barrow (ca. richest hillfort landscape in Europe. 141 For the architecture and plan of the settlement, see Hänsel, Mihovilić and Teržan (2015). 143 It is several sites of barrow cemeteries that are fre- 142 For analysis of the Monkodonja pottery assemblage, quently labelled Kaptol. The settlement Kaptol–Gradca see Helmut Kramberger (2017). occupies an area of ca. 7 hectares (Potrebica 2019, 498). 91 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 91 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 75m in diameter, 8m high) was found at Kaptol– (e.g. active ‘international’ diplomacy, minting Jalžabet (Potrebica 2019, 489). Still, most of the their own coins, building extraordinary archi-Iron Age sites must have been in the lowland ar- tecture, etc.). These centres were established in eas which dominate Slavonia, and very probably the Early Iron Age, if not even in the Late Bronze many of them were destroyed due to the inten- Age. They became the first local proto-urban sive farming. centres during the Late Iron Age: e.g. Nesac- tium (Istria), Metulum (Viničica near Josipdol), The earliest incursions of Celts in the Danube Nedinum (Nadin near Zadar), Delminium (near were towards the end of the 4th century BC. A Tomislavgrad), Daorson (Ošanići in southern few decades later, they also settled in Pannoni- Herzegovina). Celts did not conquer and settled an Croatia, in two areas in particular. In west- on the eastern Adriatic coast. ern Croatia were Taurisci, which also settled in central Slovenia, with their major settlement in Moreover, the penetration of the Greeks into the Sisak. In eastern Slavonia were Scordisci, whose eastern Adriatic was limited compared to the op-territory extended eastwards to Belgrade and posite side of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas. Before the Lower Morava Valley. In Croatia, their major the 4th century BC, Greeks in the northern and settlements were in Osijek and Vinkovci. Celts central Adriatic limited their presence mostly to frequently occupied the Early Iron Age settle- large trading emporia (e.g. Adria and Spina, near ments and also used their necropoleis. They in- the River Po delta). However, at the beginning of troduced several cultural changes, highly visible the 4th century BC, the Greeks finally established in new styles and technology of pottery produc- two colonies on the Dalmatian islands – Syra-tion, types of weaponry, jewellery, different bur- cuse established a colony of Issa on the island of ial rites, and last but not least, in the minting of Vis, while, a few years later, the Knideans had coins. Celtic political and military dominance, their colony of Pharos on the neighbouring island coupled with more advanced technology in pro- of Hvar.144 Later, Issa also established some sec-ducing various types of objects, also made sever- ondary colonies (e.g. at Lumbarda on the island al aspects of the Celtic culture accepted among of Korčula)145 and several emporia on the main-the indigenous Early Iron Age population, creat- land, Tragurion (Trogir), Epetion (Stobreč near ing a specific regional La Tène cultural syntheses. Split). The presence of Greeks and their political In western Croatia, the principal ‘Celtic’ strong- and cultural influence gave an additional boost hold was Segestica (later Siscia, today Sisak) at to the development of strong regional prince-the confluence of the Kupa (Kolpa) and Sava riv- doms and proto-urban settlements. ers, which was founded in the late 4th century BC (Buzov 1996, 48). The Romans conquered it first The Romans fought several wars against the in 119 BC and finally in 35 BC. ‘kingdoms’ from the eastern Adriatic to secure safe seafaring and eastern mainland borders. In Adriatic Croatia, the Iron Age could be easily actually considered as the protohistoric period. 144 The most impressive and exciting remainder of the Intensive contacts with Greeks and later also Re-Greek colony at Hvar is Starogradsko polje (Starigrad publican Rome caused significant cultural and field) – some 20 km2 of the cultural landscape with the social transformations in regional polities – e.g. ancient Greek land division is still reflected today in formation of large proto-urban central places, the position of field roads, field boundaries, walls, and cairns. In 2008, Starogradsko polje vas put on the UNE- accumulation of great wealth and political pow- SCO World Heritage List. er of the elites, and eventually also a formation 145 From Lumbarda came another extraordinary find – the of larger territorial ‘kingdoms’ or ‘princedoms’ so-called Lumbarda Psefysm, a unique epigraphic doc- (as they are reported in ancient written sources) ument describing the land division between the Greek colonists (Zaninović 2001; M. Solarić and N. Solarić which in many respects emulated the early states 2009). 92 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 92 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 The Roman occupation of the Croatian lands with probably more than 50,000 inhabitants at its along the Adriatic coast gradually advanced peak in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. In the Late from north to south, from the beginning of the Roman period, a strong Christian community 2nd century BC to the end of the 1st century BC, grew, which in the 4th century started to raise during which they founded colonies (towns) in exceptional basilicas, an episcopal palace and Pula ( Pola), Zadar ( Iader), Split ( Salona), Vid near other monumental buildings. With more than Metković ( Narona) and municipium at Cavtat 1,000 stone sarcophagi from late Antiquity, Salo-near Dubrovnik ( Epidaurum). Except for Pola (Is- na is one of the principal places in Europe for the tria was part of the 10th region of Italy), all oth- archaeology of Early Christianity. Some 10 km er Roman towns were in the Roman province of away, another monumental structure was raised Dalmatia with its capital in Salona. In the follow- – Diocletian’s Palace within and around which ing centuries, several other settlements received developed the medieval and modern town of municipal status (e.g. Aequum (Čitluk near Sinj), Split. Moreover, some extraordinary architec-Burnum (Ivoševci), Metulum (Viničica), Paren- tural remains were preserved from other Roman tium (Poreč)). In addition to them, there were towns: e.g. the amphitheatre, Sergii’s Triumphal also some twenty lower-level urban settlements Arch, Hercules’ Gate and Augustus’s temple in ( civitates Romanorum), making Dalmatia the most Pula, Augustus’s temple with 17 large marble urbanised Roman province in Illyricum. statues in Narona, the Basilica of Euphrasius in Poreč (Later Roman period), Amphitheatre at Continental Croatia was ultimately conquered Burnum, Roman palaces on the islands of Brioni somewhat later, in a series of Octavian’s mili- (Verige) and Mljet (Polače). On the other side of tary expeditions (35–33 BC), and after crushing Croatia, in the northwest, the Roman spa with the rebellion of the Delmati and Pannonians numerous sculptures at Aquae Iassae (Varaždin- (AD 9). Here Roman urbanisation started later ske Toplice) is particularly worth noting here. due to prolonged military administration of the territory. The first two municipal centres were In Dalmatia, soon after its transformation into established in Sisak (Siscia) by Emperor Vespa- a province began the construction of the princi-sian and in Ščitarjevo near Zagreb ( Andautonia, pal roads ( viae publicae). During the rule of the 1st century AD), and later, during the reign of Provincial Governor Publius Cornelius Dollab-Hadrian also in Osijek ( Mursa) and Vinkovci ( Ci- ela (AD 14–20) alone, 885 km of roads were con-balae), which were all former centres of the Celtic structed connecting Salona with inland Dalma-Taurisci or Scordisci. Here, it is important to note tia (today Bosnia and Herzegovina),146 linking that in the first decades of the 2nd century AD, the mining areas with the coast on the south and Roman limes (frontier line of forts, watchtowers Sava river on the north.147 Another vital road and other military structures) on the Danube was the via public a, which ran parallel with the was completed, allowing the establishment of coast, connecting northern and southern Adri-civil administration in the region. Continental atic. Traffic infrastructure on dryland supple-Croatia belonged to two Roman provinces, the mented several dozens of ports of various size, western part to Pannonia Superior (Upper Pan- indicating very intensive navigation for trade nonia, capitol: Carnuntum near Vienna, Austria), along the coast and Italy. Further evidence of and the eastern part to Pannonia Inferior (Lower very intensive navigation is supplied by several Pannonia, capitol: Sirmium, today Sremska Mi- hundred Roman shipwrecks (Bekić and Mihol-trovica, Serbia). jek 2009), some of which contained astonishing Of the Roman urban sites, Salona is especially 146 See more in Bojanovski (1974; 1977, 1978; 1981). worth mentioning here. During its six centu- 147 On the Roman exploitation of mines, see the chapter on ries of existence, it developed into a metropolis Bosnia and Herzegovina. 93 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 93 22. 10. 2021 11:05:34 finds – for example, a 1.9 m tall bronze statue of Dalmatia, in the Renaissance period. According an athlete Apoxiomenos found in the sea near to the Epigraphic Database Heidelberg,150 there the island of Lošinj. are 5,638 various inscriptions in Croatia dated to the Imperial period (27 BC-AD 476), of which The roads, urban settlements and army troops some 90% are from the Croatian part of the on the Danube limes significantly boosted the province of Dalmatia. None of the neighbouring countryside’s development and agricultural provinces can match Dalmatia in this regard. production. Hundreds of villages and similar settlements developed, many of them already With the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the existing from the pre-Roman period, whereas continental parts of Croatia came under the rule in the agers of the towns numerous villae rusti- of different migrating peoples (e.g. the Ostro-cae were constructed. Their number was espe- goths, Gepids, Langobards, Avars, Slavs, etc.). cially high in Istria and Dalmatia, where they At the same time, the Byzantine Empire re-were specialised in the production of olive oil mained in control of the coastal areas until the and wine, which were not consumed only lo- end of the 10th century. Since the beginning of the cally but also exported to the Italian markets. 7th century, the Avars’ presence (along with that In both regions there are probably more than of the Slavs) was especially strong in northern 100 villas combined. Another type of villa and eastern Croatia until Charlemagne broke the could also frequently be encountered in this power of their cagans at the end of the 8th cen-area – luxury villas for leisure. Such villas were tury. The withdrawal of the Avars and Frankish more frequent in Istria (e.g. Verige and Val Ma- rule enabled intensive colonisation and settling dona on Brioni, Barbariga, Valbandon, Katoro, by the Slavs, who soon settled large areas along Sorna near Poreč) and Dalmatia (e.g. on the is- the Drava and the Danube rivers in the north lands of Murter and Mljet, Stari Trogir near Se- and central Adriatic in the south. vid, Orlić near Knin), but also encountered in Pannonia (Drenje near Zaprešić, Osekovo near In the archaeology of the second half of the 1st Popovača).148 millennium AD, this dual image – the contin- uation of the Byzantine (post-Roman) culture The primary source for studying the small objects on the coast and incoming Germanic peoples, is the cemeteries of the already mentioned major Avars and Slavs – is particularly evident. In towns, particularly those in Dalmatia in Zadar.149 the Byzantine sphere development continued Their necropoleis provide an abundant source of in architecture, urban life, seafaring and trade. evidence of jewellery, tools, vessels, glass objects, The primary archaeological evidence came from other small objects, and of course, decorated sar- small urban centres along the whole eastern cophagi, tombstones, and inscriptions. Adriatic coast, numerous military fortifications aimed at securing coastal navigation and pro- The abundance of epigraphic evidence was tecting small towns, and from necropoleis of the one of the main reasons for the development of urban population in Dalmatia and Istria.151 On antiquarian activities in Croatia, especially in the other hand, the Late Roman urban centres in continental Croatia ceased to exist between the 148 For the Roman villas in Istria and Dalmatia, see Bego- late 5th and late 6th centuries, being destroyed or vić and Schrunk (2002; 2003). occupied by the arriving peoples. 149 In the Zadar area, more than 40 Roman cemeteries and sites of individual graves were recorded (Serventi and Jurjević 2012, 196). The map of their distribution is also very indictive for dense rural settlement in the hinter- 150 For Epigraphic Database Heidelberg see https://edh-land of Zadar (i.e. the ager of the Roman Iader). The www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/home. cemetery Zadar–Relja contained more than 900 graves 151 On the early Byzantine fortifications in Eastern Adriat- (Serventi and Jurjević 2012, 203). ic, see Tomičić (1988/89). 94 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 94 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 The local (post-Roman) population from the first the 7th century who came from the north, cross-two centuries after the fall of the Western Empire ing the Drava and Sava. In the archaeological re-can be discerned from the so-called cemeteries cord, Slavs, sometimes autonomously and some-with graves in rows, cemeteries located near Ear- times together with Avars, appeared in several ly Christian churches, and cemeteries in more re- places, in Istria, Slavonija, and central Dalmatia, mote and hidden places (Vinski 1971, 50). In most and belonging to different Slavic peoples. The cases, the local population remained in the old most stable Slavic settlement was in Dalmatia, (Roman) settlements or their vicinity. Such sites with the earliest cluster of 7th-century Slavic are not large but relatively frequent compared to cemeteries also containing cremation graves the evidence of the migratory peoples (Goths, Ge- (e.g. Kašić near Zadar, Dubravice near Skradin, pids, Langobards, Avars), which either remained Donje polje near Šibenik, Knin–Biskupija, Glav-for a very short time on Croatia’s territory or con- ice near Sinj) in the area between Zadar, Knin trolled it from the outside. Sites exclusively attrib- and Šibenik. This settlement might be associated uted to migratory peoples are scarce, with few with the Avar and Slavic siege of Salona and its small necropoleis at best. More frequent cases are ultimate fall in 614, and continued for a century where the ‘Germanic’ objects (e.g. jewellery, parts or more under the Byzantine re-conquest of Dal-of the dress, and similar) were found in the lo- matia. By the 9th century, Slavic settlement in the cal population’s cemeteries. In such cases, it isn’t Dalmatian countryside stabilised and the popu-easy to distinguish whether these objects were lation Christianised, as evidenced by numerous used by the local population or maybe by some smaller churches raised between the 9th and 10th Germanic troops who lived for a certain period of centuries and necropoleis around them. In this time together with the locals. The Gepids were a area, the Croats (one of the Slavic peoples) grad-people who since the late 5th century were present ually formed their first polity (Goldstein 1995, for almost 80 years in the broader region of Srem 91). This transitional period is best recorded in and the town of Sirmium, but their archaeological cemeteries at Nin. At Nin–Ždrijac was a large evidence is still scarce.152 Extremely rare are sites (mostly pagan) inhumation cemetery with 337 attributed to the Avars. So far, the best evidence graves spanning from the 8th century to the first has come from the sites of Gradina u Otoku near half of the 9th. Only a few kilometres away, in the Vinkovci (22 graves) and Šarengrad–Klopare (32 town of Nin (Roman Aenona), the Church of the graves), both in eastern Slavonia (Rapan Papeša Holy Cross was raised in the 9th century on the and Šmalcelj Novaković 2016; Dizdar, Rapan Pa- site of an 8th century (pagan?) cemetery. Soon, peša and Rimpf 2017). Concerning the archaeo- a new Christian cemetery was formed around logical image, the situation is not much clearer in this church.153 The Slavs (Croats), which settled Dalmatia either. Historical sources clearly speak the Nin area did not come to an empty place of periods of Ostrogoth and Byzantine rule, but, but settled with the local post-Roman popula-except for some smaller objects that can be at- tion. These two populations mixed through time tributed to Ostrogoths, the general image in ar- with different outcomes. In the countryside, it chitecture, urban centres, and the majority of ne- seems that the Slavic population was stronger cropoleis speak of the dominant regional Byzan- and consequently assimilated the indigenous tine-type culture. inhabitants. The situation was additionally complicated with In comparison, in the coastal towns with a strong-the arrival and settlement of Slavic peoples in er Romano-Byzantine population and culture, the process seems to be have been the opposite. 152 There are only some individual objects found on sites A crucial force here was the Dalmatian Slavs’ in eastern Slavonia; the only ‘cluster’ is the area of Vinkovci, where several graves were attributed to Ge- pids (Gračanin 2007). 153 See Belošević (1980 for the Slavic cemeteries in Nin. 95 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 95 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 Christianisation, where the vital role was played the local community in Zadar and is not attribut-the Franks. They controlled a great deal of Croa- ed to the Croatian settlers. tia after their victory over the Avars in Pannonia at the end of the 8th century, and became great Since the incorporation of Croatia into the Hun-rivals of the Byzantines in the Adriatic. garian kingdom at the end of the 11th century and until the end of the Austro-Hungarian Em- It also seems that after the beginning of the 9th pire in 1918, most of continental Croatia effec-century, Slavs (Croats) in Dalmatia became the tively belonged to Hungary. However, it legally dominant population. This process is visible in retained the title of the Croatian kingdom, kept the change of jewellery types in graves – the Byz- its ‘parliament’, and had its viceroy. Large parts antine jewellery of the 7th and 8th centuries was in of Istria and coastal Dalmatia were gradually an-the 9th and 10th centuries replaced by local ‘Early nexed to the Venetian state from the 11th century Croatian’ production after the Byzantine mod- onwards. Central and western Istria belonged els. Another indicator of this demographic pres- to Habsburg Austria. Croatian history, from the sure is numerous Croat settlements raised in the high medieval period onwards, was also strong-vicinity of the Dalmatian (Byzantine) towns and ly influenced by Ottoman conquests. The Otto-ports (Goldstein 1995, 125). mans in the mid-15th century conquered Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in 1526 also Hungary (in- Croatian Slavs in the 9th and 10th centuries de- cluding the Croatian lands in Slavonia). In Dal-veloped stronger local communities ( županije) matia, the Ottoman state bordered on Venetian joined in regional political entities (princedoms) territories, whereas southern Dalmatia, south of which, in the following century, were united by the Neretva river, was most of the time under local dynasties under the Kingdom of Croatia the Ottoman rule with some coastal towns’, e.g. (in the broader area of Dalmatia). In Pannonian Dubrovnik, given a certain level of autonomy. Croatia, the local (Croatian) ‘princedoms’ devel- oped under the Frankish rule, established after To reinforce the defence against the Ottomans, in the end of the 8th century and defeat of the Avars. 1553 the Austrian Court established the Military Frontier (Militärgrenze/Vojna krajina), which in The best archaeological evidence of the Early the 17th century extended from the confluence of Croatian period between the 9th and the end of Sava and Danube rivers at Belgrade in the east, the 11th centuries (when Hungarians took over across southern Slavonia along the river Sava, the Croatian crown) is again from Dalmatia, the then turned southwards towards northern Dal-core area of the Croatian kingdom. Archaeolog- matia, where it ended at the contact with Vene-ical research revealed numerous small churches tian Dalmatia, thus encircling the whole territory frequently decorated with an architectural orna- of what is today northern and northeastern Bos-ment – ‘Croatian interlace’ – reliefs of interlaced nia and Herzegovina. The Austrian government waves, strings, and other geometric forms. Very also settled the immigrants and refugees from the often local village cemeteries were found around Ottoman lands (i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina) as these churches. Some of the prime examples are soldiers against the Turks. The Military Frontier the Church of Holy Salvation at the spring of was officially abolished in 1873 when it was unit-River Cetina, churches near Knin, the Church of ed with the ‘Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia’. Holy Cross in Nin and Church of Holy Trinity The long-term existence of the Military Frontier, in Split. A special place is occupied by St. Do- as an autonomous territorial unit under military nat’s Church in Zadar, the largest pre-Roman- administration, was of extraordinary historical esque structure in Croatia and one of the prime significance for the identity and subsequent de-examples of the architecture of the 9th and 10th velopment of Croatia, and its demography and centuries in Europe. The church was raised by ethnic and religious structure in particular. 96 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 96 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 In the period between 1500 and 1800 the territo- the Yugoslav Liberation Movement led by Tito ry of today’s Croatia thus belonged to Venetians and the Communist Party) freed Croatia from (Dalmatia), Habsburgs (Civil Zone and Mili- the Italians, Germans and local quisling troops tary Border) and Ottomans (parts of inland and and re-established Yugoslavia, in which Croa-southern Dalmatia).154 This complex historical tia became one of the constituent republics. In situation and geographic borders also enhanced this process, new territorial changes were intro-the political, cultural, and linguistic divisions duced. Parts of Srem were given to Serbia, while reflected in Croatia today. At the beginning of Bosnia and Herzegovina were exempted from the 19th century, a strong national movement Croatia’s pre-war Banate. On the other side, a emerged in Croatia, primarily in the continental large part of Istria and some Dalmatian territo-region under the Hungarian crown. A similar ries, which before 1941 were parts of Italy, were process also emerged in Austrian ruled Dalma- incorporated into the Republic of Croatia in the tia.155 Gradually, Croatia won a certain degree of Yugoslav federal state. political autonomy within the Hungarian part of the Habsburg monarchy (the so-called Croa- In 1991, at the same time as Slovenia, Croatia tian-Hungarian Settlement from 1868) and start- declared independence. But, in contrast to the ed rapidly including other Croatian lands into its former, the declaration of independence led to a national programme. civil war in Croatia (and later in Bosnia and Her- zegovina), in which the local Serbian population After the First World War, Croatian territories (largely orchestrated by Milošević’s regime in (except for Istria, some of the islands of the Kvar- Serbia), in territories where they formed a major-ner archipelago and the town of Zadar, which It- ity of the population, entered into armed conflict aly annexed) were included in the Kingdom of with Croatian forces and temporarily held about Yugoslavia. Croatian territory was divided into a third of Croatian territory under their control. different administrative units, but in 1939 they In 1995, Croatia regained full control over its ter-were united (along with the part of the pres- ritory, and in 2013 became a member of the Eu-ent-day Bosnia and Herzegovina) into the Ba- ropean Union. nate of Croatia. The whole period of the Yugo- slav kingdom (1918–1941) was marked by high political tensions between Croatian and Roy- Antiquarian tradition in Dalmatia al-Serbian politics. In April 1941, after the Third (13th–19th centuries AD) Reich and its allies invaded Yugoslavia, a fascist marionette state was formed in Croatia (the Inde- Of all the countries of southeastern Europe, Cro-pendent State of Croatia), controlled by Germans atia unquestionably has the longest and richest and Italians. This ‘state’ included most of today tradition of antiquarian studies, where the local Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Italy early archaeological, historical and epigraphic occupied central Dalmatia.156 After four years of activities are entirely comparable with those in war, the Croatian Liberation Movement (part of Italy and France. The reasons for this high level of development are many, but here I will list three. The first is the exceptional wealth and ex- 154 A large number of Croatian people also lived in the neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina, which re- cellent state of preservation of the Roman mon-mained under Ottoman rule until 1878. uments and sites in Dalmatia and Istria. Aque- 155 After 1867, when the Austrian Empire adopted the sys- ducts, theatres, amphitheatres, arches, hundreds tem of ‘dual’ state organisation (Austro-Hungarian of stone sarcophagi, basilicas, early Christian Monarchy), all Croatia, except Dalmatia, belonged to the Hungarian part. churches, palaces and mausolea such as those 156 There was also a territory occupied by Hungary, the in Split, Pula, Poreč, Zadar were parts of the Baranja region, north of the Drava river. everyday image of Dalmatian and Istrian towns 97 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 97 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 for centuries. The second reason is centuries of period and continues until his own time. The Venetian rule in Istria and Dalmatia, which firm- earliest periods are based on historical accounts ly tied these lands with Italy and its culture and of earlier authors. For us, especially significant science, and created local centres of high culture is his chapter on Diocletian’s Palace. The wealth and knowledge. But the culture in these lands of the Roman ruins from Dalmatia did not slip was not just an extension of Venice to Adriatic’s the attention of some of the most famous anti-opposite shores. Indeed, the high achievements quarians, such as Ciriaco Pizzicolli (Cyriacus of Italian culture also boosted the development of Ancona, 1391–1452).158 He visited eastern of a genuine local Slavic (Croatian) Renaissance Adriatic towns several times (i.e. Pula in Istria and development of the Slavic language, liter- around 1420; Zadar, Trogir, Split, Solin, Korču-ature and humanities in general. Finally, one la in 1435–1436, Dubrovnik 1443)159 and collected should not ignore the influence of the Byzantine numerous inscriptions, which were published un-scholars who fled to Italy (and to the Venetian der the title Epigrammata reperta per Illyricum a Cyri-eastern Adriatic) after the fall of Constantinople aco Anconitano much later, in 1660, by Carlo Moroni, in AD 1453. The Republic of Dubrovnik in par- which is one of the earliest catalogues of Roman in-ticular maintained excellent diplomatic and mer- scriptions in European archaeology in general. Ciri-chant liaisons with Constantinople. And there aco de Pizzicoli kept close contacts with local schol-were also scholars, natives from Croatian lands, ars, especially with Giorgio Begna (Juraj Benja)160 active in the European courts, universities, and (?–ca. 1437) from Zadar and Pietro Cippico (Petar diplomacy. They may not have been so tied to Cipiko)161 (?–1440) from Trogir (Špoljarić 2019, 83, 87). their country of birth, their legacy being more internationally valued, but nevertheless, they 158 Ciriaco de Pizzicoli (AD 1392–1452, also known as belonged to a broader cultural and scholarly mi-Ciriaco d’Ancona or Kyriacus Anconitanus, is gen- erally considered as the pioneer of systematic anti- lieu to which belonged Croatian lands since the quarianism. He was a merchant and diplomat who medieval period. travelled extensively around the Mediterranean and recorded ancient inscriptions. His major work, six volumes of Rerum antiquarium commentaria was de- The earliest evidence of antiquarian activities in stroyed in a fire in 1514. Only fragments are pre- Dalmatia comes from the towns of Zadar, Trogir, served, published by some later author. See more on and Split, major Venetian urban centres on the Ciriaco de Pizzicoli in the account of his contempo- eastern Adriatic coast, along with Dubrovnik, a rary Francesco Scalamonti (1996). semi-independent ‘municipal republic’, all be- 159 Ciriaco maintained important diplomatic links with Dubrovnik municipal government. To honour him, the ing strongly permeated by the Italian cultural municipal government of Dubrovnik commissioned matrix, but which through time also developed two inscriptions from him honouring the major works a local Slavic Renaissance. The first known local of the architect Onofrio (who designed the Big Foun- tain and Rector’s Palace) (Kokole (1990), From mate- historian was Archdeacon Thomas (Toma Ar- rials which he collected in Trogir and Zadar, Ciriaco hiđakon/Thomas Archidiaconus Spalatensis, compiled two codexes of inscriptions ( Codex Tragurius 1200–1268), priest, politician and chronicler of and Jadestinus antiquus) which are kept in Venice, Rome and Paris (Zaninović 1993, 16). the town of Split, who provided several observa- 160 Benja’s major work is De viris illustribus.Georgius Beg-tions on the Diocletian’s palace and the nearby na excripsit suo optimo et amantissimo amico Petro Cepi- ruins of the Roman town of Salona. His major oni Tragurino. Jadere MCCCCXXXIIII, kl. fbr.), a codex work was Historia Salonitanorum pontificum atque of various manuscripts also containing notes on local Spalatensium (‘History of Bishops from Salo- antiquities. Benja was also in contact with other known antiquarians of his time, such as Niccoló Zancani and na and Split’), a history of the Church from the Lorenzo Giustiniani (Kolumbić 1983). early Christian period onwards.157 Archdeacon 161 His son, Coriolan Cippico, also undertook voyages and Thomas starts his Historia with the pre-Roman described many ancient Greek monuments in De bello Asiatico Coriolani Cippici Cepionis... libri tres. Opera Joan- nis Cippici nunc iterum impressi. Venetiis: Apud J. A. Ram- 157 For Croatian translation, see Arhiđakon (2003). pazettum, 1594; De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum libri 98 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 98 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 A very strong Renaissance centre was Dubrovnik We continue our brief survey of early scholars ( Ragusa). Some of the Byzantine scholars set- with Šimun Kožičić Benja (Simon Begnius; ca. tled in Venetian Dalmatia, among them Xen- 1460–1536), the bishop of Modruš (Simon Mod-ophont Philelpho, who became a Secretary of rusiensis, a distant relative of Juraj Benja), trans-the Dubrovnik Republic (Neralić 2014, 297). lator of old Glagolitic texts.163 Šimun Kožić Benja He was also known for teaching about ancient was one of the earliest printers of texts and books monuments and maintain good contacts with in the Croatian language. Concerning the histo-the Greek scholars’ community in Florence. ry of Croatian archaeology, his manuscript of Janeković-Römer (2006, 12) noted that in 1490 sources for the ancient history of Dalmatia ( Mon-the Dubrovnik town council also attempted to umenta vetera Illyrici, Dalmatiae, Urbis et Ecclesiae bring a certain Demetrius Graecus to teach the Salonitanae ac Spalatensis) is of particular impor-Greek language, and there are some indica- tance. Ivan Lucić (Ioannes Lucius, before 1604– tions that this was none other than Demetrious 1679), a historian and cartographer from Trogir), Chalkokondyles, the leading Greek scholar in holds a special place in early Croatian histori-Italy, also known for publishing the first printed ography. He published an influential work De editions of Homer. From Dubrovnik also came Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri sex (1666) which Ivan Stojković ( Yoannes Stoycus or Ioannes de Ra- covers the history of the area from Roman times gusio, 1395–1443), a Dominican priest, professor to the late 15th century. This study is considered at the Sorbonne, and a diplomat at the Vatican, the first systematic and critical historical study Sigismund’s Imperial Court, and the Byzantine in Croatia. In 1673, he also published a work on Court. During his stay at Constantinople, he Roman inscriptions – Inscriptiones Dalmaticae. managed to organise translations of many Greek texts about the Islamic religion and world. Upon It therefore, makes perfect sense that Dalmatian returning to Europe, he brought a collection of scholars were also the first to develop the notion texts and manuscripts, including Strabo’s Ge- of the early ‘national’ history of the Slavs. Vinko ography, Plato’s Phaedrus, and materials for the Pribojević (Vincenzo Pribevo/Vincentius Pri-major edition of the Ptolemy’s G eography and a boevius; born in the mid-15th century, died after critical edition of the Bible, which was later edit- 1532), a historian and Dominican priest from ed by Erasmus of Rotterdam.162 Another scholar Hvar, gave a political speech entitled De origi-from Dubrovnik who maintained contacts with ne successibusque Slavorum (On the origin of the Ciriaco de Pizzicoli was Marin Rastić (Marino de Slavs) in his birth town in 1525.164 In the speech, Rastis Ragusino), collector and researcher of an- he drew a link between the Slavs and ancient cient inscriptions (Lučin 2011, 30–31). However, Illyrians and their glory. Pribojević was one of the most well-known scholar from this town was the first promoters of the pan-Slavic idea, and Marko Marulić (1450–1524), one of the founders his discourse inspired Mauro Orbini (1550?– of literature in the Croatian language, who wrote 1611), another historian from Dubrovnik, nick-an essay on epigraphy ( In epigrammata priscorum named ‘Dalmatian Thucydides’, who published commentarius) in which he published 142 inscrip- the book Il regno de gli Slavi (The Kingdom of tions from Italy and Dalmatia (Marulić, Hrvat- the Slavs) in 1601 in Pesaro, Italy. He frequently ska enciklopedija; Lučin 2011). It also seems that Marulić possessed a collection of ancient inscrip- 163 The Glagolitic alphabet and script, together with Cy-tions from Salona (Zgaga 1990, 8). rillic, were invented in the 9th century by missionaries Cyril and Methodius from Thessaloniki. The alphabet was aimed at Slavic languages and in its original form decem... Adiecimus... de rebus Turcorum adversus Christia- existed for some three centuries. nos et Christianorum contra illos... gestis diversa opuscula. 164 The speech was published in Latin in Venice in 1532; Basileae: Per I. Oporinum, 1556. the Italian version was published in 1595. The trans- 162 On Ivan Stojković see more in Janeković-Römer (2006) lation into Croatian, edited by Grga Novak, was pub- and Šanjek (2015). lished in 1992 in Split (Pribojević 1992). 99 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 99 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 referred to Flavio Biondo, a famous Italian anti- some other Mayan monuments (e.g. pyramids, quarian from Forli (Orbin 1968).165 Another im- temples, palaces). 167 portant figure in this regard was Faust Vrančić (1551–1617), a native from Šibenik, Dalmatia, The second ‘centre of excellence’ in early anti-historian, Bishop of Csanada in Hungary, sec- quarian and historical science was located in retary of Emperor Rudolph II, and member of Istria, which was at the time divided into Vene-the circle of intellectuals at the Royal Court in tian and Austrian parts. Some of the early Istri-Hradčani, Prague (Tycho de Brache, Johannes an scientists associated with the town of Koper Keppler, Jacopo de Strada) (Kurelac 2005, 175). have already been mentioned in the chapter Vrančič was the author of the first dictionary of on Slovene archaeology. However, the cartog-the Croatian language.166 In 1606 he published rapher Pietro Coppo (Petar Kopić, 1469/70– an essay De Slowinis seu Sarmatis, proposing 1555/56) from Izola, Slovenia, merits being a Sarmatic origin of Slavs, and another man- mentioned again. He was the author of one of uscript titled Illyrica historia. This unfinished the first maps of Istria (1525) and manuscripts work is a compilation of ancient sources and on its history ( Del sito de l’Istria, Venice, 1540). quotes about ancient Illyricum by 32 authors Coppo’s maps were used by Abraham Ortelius (24 Latin, eight Greek) (Kurelac 2005, 179). in his world-famous ‘ Theatrum Orbis Terrarum’. The most influential study on the history of Is- That Dalmatia was well integrated into the tria was written by Giacomo Filippo Tomasini Mediterranean Renaissance since the 15th centu- (1595–1654) – De’ commentarii storici-geografici ry can be seen in the numerous cases of Dalma- della provincia dell’Istria libri otto con appendice. tian scholars and artists working abroad. One Tommasini, a bishop from Novigrad in Istria, such case was Vinko Paletin (Vincenzo Paleti- not only compiled earlier sources and text, as no, Vincentius Cosulensis; 1508–1571/2), a na- was frequently the case in his times, but also tive of Korčula, Dominican priest and philoso- made several field trips and collected data from pher, who made his career in Spain and with local people. Unfortunately, his widely known the conquistadors of Mexico. Paletin was an manuscript remained unpublished until the expert in navigation and produced one of the edition of Domenico Rosetti in 1837 in the Tri-best maps of Spain (1550 or 1551) at that time. este journal Archeografo Triestino. He joined the Spanish expedition of Francisco de Montejo Snr. to America, where he stayed Due to the abundant remains of ancient architec-between 1537 and 1546 (Lapaine et al. 2003, 87). ture and other monuments, Dalmatia and Istria His best known work is a treatise in which he also attracted foreign scholars. Jacob Spon (1647– justifies the Spanish conquest of the New World 1685), a world-known antiquarian from Lyon, ( De iure et justitia belli contra Indos), which also and George Wheler (1650–1723), an English cler-includes descriptions of the Chichen Itza and gyman, made a stop in Dalmatia during their trip from Venice to Constantinople (1675–1676) 165 Orbini presented not only the history of Slavs in Dal- and visited several sites, including Diocletian’s matia but also of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, con- Palace. They published details of their journey tinental Croatia and Bulgaria. This work was very popular among Slavic rulers in Europe because it follows 167 Based on the depiction of soldiers, their armour and in-the pan-Slavism idea and glorifies the distant Slavic cised ‘text’ (in letters he assumed to be of the Carthag- past. Peter the Great had a short version of Orbini’s text inian origin), Paletin argued that Carthaginians built translated and published in St. Petersburg in 1772. the monumental architecture. Bošković A. (1997, 203) 166 Faust Vrančič is better known as a naturalist and inven- and Laird and Šoštarič (2019, 197–198) add another ar- tor of items such as a parachute, flat spring, a windmill gument for the Paletin’s Carthaginian interpretation – with a horizontal rotor, a mill using tidal changes, and his description of the temple at Chichen Izta and sol- a bridge made of bronze ( Machinae novae Fausti Verantii dier images resembled very much the description of Siceni, Florence 1595). the Temple of Iuno in Virgil’s Aeneid. 100 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 100 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 in the book Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatia, de Grece, In this short chapter on early antiquarian activi-et du Levant (Spon 1878). In Istria, the city of Pula ties in Dalmatia, covering mostly the period be-had become an important place for the study of tween the 15th and 18th centuries, my intention Roman architecture, and from the 16th century was not to go into great detail as this would be onwards many scholars from all over Europe beyond this book’s scope. I have not mentioned paid study visits to it.168 many other scholars and texts here, but instead limited myself to the most important and influ- Along with the West’s increased interest in the ential. However, already this short presentation Ottoman countries in Europe in the 18th and 19th demonstrates the excellent local scholarship, centuries, another group of intellectuals emerged fully informed about the achievements and in Dalmatia interested in regions bordering with knowledge in other parts of Europe. This fact the Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina – the trav- was probably less known outside of the circles ellers who explored Dalmatian and Bosnian-Her- of highly specialised connoisseurs of the history zegovinian hinterlands. The most well known of culture, literature, and civilisation in general, of these was undoubtedly Alberto Fortis (1741– of Croatian and neighbouring Slavic and Italian 1803), an Augustinian priest born in Padua. For- lands in the last six centuries. tis travelled extensively across Europe and visit- ed Dalmatia several times in the period between Of all the scholars I have mentioned here, none 1765 and 1791. The result of his travels was the of them was solely an antiquarian. They were book Viaggio in Dalmazia, published in Venice in scholars of much broader profiles and with very 1774. In this travelogue he collected copious ac- dynamic careers: historians, philosophers, the-counts on the archaeology, history, ethnography ologians, naturalists, jurists, geographers, pol-and geography of the Dalmatian mountainous iticians and diplomats, but most of them were hinterland.169 Worth noting here is Vitaliano Do- heirs of and contributors to European human-nati (1717–1762), the teacher of Alberto Fortis, ism. Antiquarian ‘science’, combined with histo-botanist, archaeologist, and collector of Egyptian ry, philology, philosophy, and natural sciences, antiques from Padua. In his work Della storia natu- contributed essential components of what would rale marina dell Adriatico (Venice 1774), he also lists become the science of archaeology in the 19th and the underwater archaeological remains from Dik- 20th centuries. In Croatia’s case, archaeology had lo, Zadar and Vis. Alberto Fortis followed Dona- a very firm basis and tradition in local scholar-ti’s practice of observing submerged antiques.170 ship on which it could rely. 168 Among them were: Andrea Palladio (1508–1580), fa- mous Venetian architect; Inigo Jones (1573–1652), Eng- The emergence of modern lish architect; Jacob Spon and George Wheler; James Stuart (1713–1788), English painter; Gianbattista Pira- archaeology: museums, academia and nesi (1720–1778), Italian graphic designer and painter; Julian David Le Roy (1724–1803), French architect; the Croatian national archaeology Robert Adam (1728–1792) English royal architect; Lou- (1750–1918) is François Casas (1756–1827), painter; Thomas Allason (1790–1852), English architect. For more details on the The beginnings of 19th-century archaeology in travellers and scientists who visited Pula and Istria, see Croatia are marked by the figure of Matija Pe-Kečkemet (1966–1969). tar Katančić (Mathius Petrus Katancsich, 1750– 169 The digitised version of Viaggio in Dalmazia, edited by Eva Ivani (2010), can be obtained at http://www.viag- 1825), a Franciscan priest, who for a short period gioadriatico.it/biblioteca_digitale/titoli/scheda_bibli- of time was also a professor of antiquities at the ografica.2010-09-08.0871920231. See Pizzamiglio (2010) University of Budapest and curator of the unifor a biography and other works of Fortis. versity library (1795–1800). In many respects, 170 John Strange edited and published in 1775 and 1779 two papers of A. Fortis in the Journal Archaeology of the Katančić can be considered one of the pioneers Society of Antiquaries (Granić 2015). of modern Roman provincial archaeology in 101 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 101 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 Central Europe. His major works included phil- imperial statues discovered near Zadar in ological research on the old homeland of Croats 1768.173 ( In veterem Croatorum patriam indagatio philologi- ca, 1790), a philological and geographical study In Istria, in 1802, during Napoleon’s rule in of Pannonia in ancient times ( Specimen philolo- Dalmatia, French Marshall Auguste de Mar-giae et geographiae Pannoniorum, 1795 – Hrvat- mont established the first collection of ancient ska enciklopedija), and numismatics research monuments in the Temple of Augustus in ( Elementa numismatice, 1799).171 He was also the Pula. In Dalmatia, in 1820, following the visit author of works essential for the development of Austrian Emperor Franz I two years before, of Croatian historical geography and ancient the Provincial Government established the Ar-history ( Orbis antiquus ex tabula itineraria, 1824– chaeological Museum in Diocletian’s Palace in 1825, and Istri adcolarum geographia vetus, 1826– Split. In 1832, the Austrian government issued 1827). The latter text contains the first textbook a decree to establish the National Museum of on epigraphy, Geographiae epigraphicae proemi- Dalmatia in Zadar. Thus, with its wealth of ar-on. Katančič is also known for his thesis of the chaeological remains and excellent infrastruc-autochthonous origin of Croats as descended ture (two public and several private local muse-from the ancient Illyrians. ums), the Dalmatia of the mid-19th century was among the most advanced regions in Europe in Rich traditions of antiquarian and historical in- terms of the degree of development in (Roman) vestigations in Croatia led to the establishment archaeology outside Italy. Another important of archaeological institutions in Dalmatia very instrument in achieving this was the journal early on. The earliest museums were private Bulletino di archeologia e storia dalmata, launched collections, and these were quite numerous. in 1878. One such collection, which is often referred to as almost a proper museum, was owned by the The institutionalisation of archaeology in conti-Dubrovnik family Aletin (also Aletić/Alethy/ nental Croatia took a different pace and direction Alletti Natali). In the mid-18th century Antun compared to that in Dalmatia. In the cultural-his-Aletin (1716–1774) founded a museum with a torical sense, Croatia’s continental areas were library, numismatic collection and collection much more oriented towards central Europe of naturalia (Zgaga 1990, 8). The town of Split and its centres in Vienna, Budapest and Prague. had its first museum already in 1750, the Arch- Dalmatian antiquities also attracted scholars bishop’s Museum (also named Museum Spalat- in continental Croatia; only later, in the second inum), which housed ancient inscriptions and half of the 19th century, did the focus broaden objects from Salona. It can be considered one to include archaeological sites in its continental of the earliest ‘public’ archaeological museums part. We know of private collections with local (a de facto lapidarium) in this part of Europe.172 ancient materials from the Roman towns of Ci-In Zadar, a local medic Ante Danieli Tomma- balae (Vinkovci), Mursa (Osijek) and Sirmium soni possessed the largest collection of Ro- (Sremska Mitrovica, today in Serbia) owned by, man sculptures in Dalmatia, including eight among others, Bishop Antun Mandić and Ivan Labaš Blašovečki, the Major of Varaždin. In this 171 He also edited for print a series of important historical short account of Croatia’s earliest museums, one works supplemented with his geographic comments: Pliny, Ptolemy, Herodotus, Strabo, and Homer, pub- lished between 1804 and 1813. 173 According to the catalogue published in 1818, this col- 172 This statement also depends on the definition of a mu- lection comprised some 300 statues, 6,000 coins, nu- seum and the historical development of the concept merous inscriptions and a library. Later on, the col- of the museum as we know it for some two centuries. lection was sold to Italy. Today the objects from this More on this subject concerning Croatia may be seen in collection can be found in several museums in Europe Vujić (2007). (e.g. in Zadar, Vienna, Aquileia, Milano, Copenhagen). 102 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 102 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 should also not ignore Mijat Sabljar (1790–1865), From the 1870s, museums started to emerge considered the pioneer of museology in Croatia. across Croatia in places rich in historical and ar-For some years, he served in Trsat near Rijeka as chaeological sites, especially in coastal regions, a keeper of Count Laval Nugent’s private mu- such as Dubrovnik (1872), Osijek (1877), Poreč seum, which kept objects from the count’s exca- (1884), Knin (1893), Rijeka (1893), Pula (1902), vations in Italy. Sabljar also lobbied intensively Zagreb (municipal museum in 1907), Cres (1910), for the establishment of the National Museum and Nin (1910). in Croatia. Over the years he accumulated a rich collection of antiquities, coins, minerals, mol- One of the crucial achievements of Šime Ljubić luscs and so on, which he later donated to the concerning the development of archaeology was National Museum, and where he served as cura- the foundation of the journal Viestnik narodno-tor for numismatics.174 ga zemaljskoga muzeja u Zagrebu in 1870, which, under the name Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Za- The first major national institution in Croatia grebu, continues to be published today and is was the National Museum, founded in 1846 in considered one of the prominent archaeological Zagreb.175 In 1866 it was divided into the De- journals in Croatia.179 partment of Archaeology and the Department of Natural Sciences.176 This museum was a great In 1850, the first archaeological scholarly soci-national pride of Croatians.177 In the beginning, ety in Croatia was established – Družtvo za ju-most of its collections came from donations. One goslavensku povestnicu i starine (Society for Yu-year after the new building’s inauguration, it al- goslav History and Antiquities).180 Its initiator ready hosted 13 different collections, including was Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski (1816–1889), a two archaeological ones, ‘ Sbirka numizmatička’ politician, historian and writer. In 1851 the soci-and ‘ Sbirka archaeologička’ (Solter 2013, 19), both ety published the first issue of its journal Arkiva established by Mijat Sabljar. From 1867, when za povestnicu jugoslovensku (‘Archive for Yugo- Šime Ljubić started work at the museum, archae- slav History’), and in 1875 the instructions for ological activities intensified further.178 research and keeping antiquities.181 The socie- ty organised a network of collaborators on lo- cal levels which informed it about discoveries, 174 Hrvatska enciklopedija, http://www.enciklopedija. the state of historical heritage, local collections, hr/natuknica.aspx?id=53906. etc. (Solter 2013, 23), analogous to the Central 175 The first attempts at establishing the National Museum Commission in Vienna. Ivan Kukuljević Sakcin-were much earlier, at least from the beginnings of the 19 ski soon, in 1855, became a Conservator of the th century. Already in 1812, this had been attempt- ed by Josip Sermage, Canon of Zagreb (Solter 2013, 13). The Illyrian Movement also lobbied strongly for a 179 In 1870, the journal changed name to Viestnik Narodnog museum. muzeja, and in 1879 was re-named to Viestnik hrvatskog 176 For more on the history of the Archaeological Museum arheologičkog društva. in Zagreb see in Solter (2013). 180 In those days, the pan-Slavic attribute ‘Yugoslav’ de- 177 In the opening year, the museum was visited by more noted primarily South Slavs in the Austrian Empire, than 4,800 visitors, more than a quarter of the popula- but in certain contexts also Croats. In 1850 Croatia was tion of Zagreb at that time (Solter 2013, 19). still not administratively united. Istria and Dalmatia 178 Šime Ljubić (1822–1896), historian, archaeologist, assis- were Austrian provinces, Slavonia and northwestern tant to Petro Kandler (the Central Commission’s con- Croatia (Croatia sensu stricto) were under Hungarian servator in Trieste), head of the Archaeological Muse- administration, and the Military Frontier still existed um in Split, and high school professor in Split, Rijeka with its special status in the Empire. In this context, the and Osijek, in 1867 moved to the Archaeological Muse- ‘Yugoslavs’ were frequently Croats but not exclusively. um in Zagreb. Head of the museum between 1871 and 181 Naputak kako se imadu istraživati, sakupljati i čuvati starine 1892. His major works included mostly essays on Croa-u Hrvatskoj, Dalmaciji i Slavoniji (Instructions on how to tian and Dalmatian history, and relations with Venice. research, collect and keep antiquities in Croatia, Dalmatia In 1860 he published Studi archaeologici sulla Dalmazia. and Slavonia), Zagreb 1875. 103 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 103 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 Central Commission for Croatia and Slavonia. Vienna,183 where he also received his doctorate In 1878, the Society for Yugoslav History and (1895). In the history of Croatian archaeology, Antiquities ceased to exist, but the Hrvatsko arke- his expert contribution to the formation of mod-ologičko družtvo (Croatian Archaeological Socie- ern archaeology in Croatia is considered crucial, ty) was established in the same year thanks to especially in terms of prehistoric archaeology, the efforts of Šime Ljubić. the archaeology of the Roman provinces and medieval archaeology. His research interests The beginnings of academic archaeology in Cro- and career followed a pattern typical for many atia are dated to 1877 when Isidor Kršnjavi (1845– scholars from southeast European countries at 1927), newly appointed professor of art history the end of the 19th century. After completing his and archaeology, introduced the first archaeolo- studies, Brunšmid started his professional career gy curriculum at the University of Zagreb. Kršn- first in the National Museum in Zagreb (1893) javi was an exceptionally well-educated scholar; and, a few years later, continued it at the Uni-he completed his doctorate in art history in Vien- versity of Zagreb. At the time, museums in most na (1870) and then a doctorate in jurisprudence countries of central and southeastern Europe at the University of Graz (1891); he also attended represented central research institutions. They courses in classical archaeology at the Univer- also often took part in the protection of archaeo-sity in Munich. He taught classical archaeology logical and historical monuments, and their staff and the history of art at the University of Zagreb taught at universities. Brunšmid was an unusu-and published the first textbook in archaeology ally active scientist and professor. He directed written in a South Slavic language.182 The studies numerous fieldwork projects across the country, in archaeology became a single subject in 1893 and his archaeological expertise spanned all ar-when the Institute of Archaeology was formed chaeological periods and site types,184 though he and separated from art history studies. Some ar- taught almost exclusively ancient archaeology at chaeological topics were also taught by Franjo the university. Following his death, Viktor Hof-Maixner and Franjo Petričić, both professors of filer, a scholar of broadly similar interests and classics (Periša, in press). reputation, succeeded him.185 A separate curriculum in archaeology was Two other scholars from the time before the First designed and put into practice in 1896. Josip World War who were remarkably influential Brunšmid (1858–1929), curator at the National and earned worldwide recognition were Frane Museum in Zagreb since 1893, was appointed Bulić and Dragutin Gorjanović-Kramberger. as professor. Brunšmid studied history, geog- raphy, classical archaeology and epigraphy in 183 The University of Vienna was the most important academic centre for southeastern Europe, and numerous 182 Oblici graditeljstva u starom vieku i glavna načela local archaeologists were trained there. More than half građevne ljepote / Construction forms in ancient times of the archaeology professionals, who worked in the and major principles of architectural aesthetics (Kršnja- western Balkan countries before 1941, acquired a de- vi 1883). Some other Kršnjavi’s accomplishments in gree from this university. For more on this, see in No- teaching archaeology include the compilation of a vaković (2012). collection of more than 200 gypsum copies of famous 184 Among his major research projects are the early Slav-ancient sculptures, among which most spectacular is ic cemetery at Bijelo Brdo near Osijek, the Bronze and the more than 160 m long Parthenon frieze. Rare are Iron Age necropoleis from Slavonija and Lika. His ma- museums or universities of the world in possession jor publications include: “Die Inschriften und Münzen of such a collection that even today represents exqui- der griechischen Städte Dalmatiens” (1895.), “Colonia site material. Only two complete copies exist, one in Aurelia Cibalae” (1902.), and “Antikni figuralni bron- Zagreb and the other in Basel, Switzerland. More on sani predmeti u Hrvatskom narodnom muzeju u Za- Kršnjavi’s museum work can be found in Vujić (2012), grebu (1913–14). and on the gypsum copies of ancient sculptures and 185 For further details on J. Brunšmid and V. Hoffiler, see the Parthenon frieze in Matijaško (2012). Kolar-Dimitrijević and Wagner (2008). 104 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 104 22. 10. 2021 11:05:35 Frane Bulić (1846–1934), a priest, studied phi- Second World War.189 More about his work and lology and archaeology at the University of Vi- legacy could be seen in Don Frane Bulić – kalatog enna, was a curator at the Archaeological Mu- izložbe (1984). seum in Split (1882), and from 1883 the muse- um’s Director. Bulić also served as conservator Dragutin Gorjanović-Kramberger (1856–1936) of the Central Commission for the Protection was a scholar with an entirely different profile. of Historical Monuments in the Austrian prov- He studied geology and palaeontology in Mu-ince of Dalmatia. His research scope was vast nich and Tübingen, and became the head of the and diverse, but in general it stemmed from Mineralogy Department of the National Muse-the long tradition of historical, antiquarian um in Zagreb (1880) and a professor at Zagreb and archaeological research in Dalmatia. In his University (1884). In 1899, he explored the cave more than fifty-year career, spanning from the in Krapina in northwest Croatia, where he dis-1880s to 1930s, he excavated an unprecedent- covered numerous Neanderthal remains, and the ed number of sites and monuments, founded results of his research had a significant impact scholarly journals, led the restoration of some on the research of early humans in Europe.190 of the most famous monuments in Dalmatia, What also put Gorjanović-Kramberger amongst and acted as a mentor to many younger Cro- the top scientists in this field were key innova-atian (also Slovene) archaeologists. However, tions in methods and the exceptional quality of his name remains most closely associated with his investigations at Krapina. Detailed analysis Salona, capital of the Roman province of Dal- of the osteological remains enabled him to point matia, research into Diocletian’s Palace in Split, out the differences between the Neanderthals and Early Christianity archaeology.186 In 1894, and modern humans. His fluorine dating meth-he organised the first world congress of Early od also represented a significant innovation and Christian archaeology in Split and Solin. Bulić is regarded as one of the earliest techniques of is also to be credited for his contribution to the absolute dating developed in archaeology and development of archaeology of the early Cro- palaeontology in general. Moreover, Gorjano-ats and the foundation of the journal Bulletino vić-Kramberger was also a pioneer in applying di archeologia e storia dalmata (1878), published X-ray analyses to early osteological material, by the Archaeological Museum in Split.187 He only a few years after Röntgen’s discovery. was also the founder of Bihać, the society for research into Croatian history (1894).188 Without In 1906, Gorjanović-Kramberger published an any doubt, Bulić was the most world-renowned extensive monograph on the finds from Krapi-Croatian archaeologist and historian before the na; at the time, this was thought of as one of the most complete and influential studies in human palaeontology in Europe, and it assisted signif- 186 After Bulić’s decades-long excavations of Salona, this icantly in the promotion and implementation site became the second most important archaeological location in Europe, second only to Rome, for Ear- ly Christian archaeology. Bulić produced of two series of monographs, Forschungen in Salona, three volumes 189 He was a member of numerous international scholar- (Austrian Archaeological Institute, Wien) and Recherch- ly societies, such as the German Archaeological Socie- es a Salone, two volumes (in collaboration with Danish ty in Berlin, Rome and Athens, Yugoslav (i.e. Croatian) Foundation Rask-Oersted). Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Pope’s Academy in 187 The journal is still published today under the Croatian Rome, Imperial Russian Society in Saint Petersburg, title Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku (since Anthropological Society in Vienna, French Institute in 1920). Paris, Royal Academy of Archaeology in Brussels, and 188 At the end of the 19th century, there were three Croa- the Serbian Royal Academy. tian archaeological societies, the Croatian Archaeologi- 190 D. Gorjanović-Kramberger, Der diluviale Mensch von cal Society (1878), Knin’s antiquarian society (1887) and Krapina in Kroatien, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Bihać (1894). Gesellschaft in Wien, 1899, 1901–02, 1904–05. 105 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 105 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 of the theory of human evolution.191 The Pal- The Service for the Protection of Cultural Herit-aeolithic and palaeoanthropological studies in age developed in two directions. The first such central European countries were convention- service was already established during the Illyri-ally the domain of geology and palaeontology. an Provinces at the beginning of the 19th century, Thus, in the history of science in Croatia, the when the French administration appointed Piet-work of Gorjanović-Kramberger lies at the in- ro Nobile, an Italian architect from Trieste and a tersection of several disciplines, prehistoric ar- connoisseur of ancient architecture, to the posi-chaeology, palaeoanthropology, palaeontology tion of Chief Provincial Engineer, also responsi-and geology. As such, the humanities tradition ble for historical monuments, work he continued tended to consider Gorjanović-Kramberger less after the end of French rule. He restored some a mainstream archaeologist and more as a nat- major monuments in Pula (i.e. the amphitheatre, uralist. In any case, he was a brilliant scientist the temples of Augustus, Diana, Arch of Sergii, of world renown, as confirmed by the fact that Hercule’s Gate, and the Nymphaeum), and also UNESCO declared 2006 as the year of Dragutin excavated the amphitheatre in Pula and Diocle-Gorjanović-Kramberger. tian’s Palace in Split. He was the author of the Projet relatif aux Antiquités Architectoniques d’Illy- Croatia is the only state of former Yugosla- rie, a document submitted to the French admin-via that succeeded relatively early, at the end istration on implementing Italian restoration and of the 19th century, in developing its ‘national’ research practices in Istria and Dalmatia, and a archaeology (i.e. the archaeology of the Croa- proposal for the establishment of the scholarly tian Slavs). The first steps in this direction were archaeological society in the Illyrian Provinces taken in the 1880s and 1890s in Dalmatia by (Špikić 2007). Stjepan (Lujo) Marun (1857–1939), a Francis- can priest and self-taught archaeologist who The next phase in the development of heritage conducted excavations of the early medieval protection service was associated with the estab-church in Knin–Biskupija, established a Society lishment of the Austrian Central Commission of Croatian Antiques (1887) and, later on, also for the Study and Protection of Historical and founded the first museum of Croatian nation- Art Monuments in 1850. In the Austrian parts of al monuments (1893) in the town of Knin, one Croatia (Dalmatia and Istria), the commission’s of the early medieval capitals of the Croatian offices were formed more-or-less simultaneous-kings. His efforts were essential in the further ly with those in other Austrian provinces. Of sig-advancement and institutionalisation of Croa- nificant importance was the office in Split, with tian national archaeology. In 1895, he founded Frane Bulić acting as the provincial conservator. Starohrvatska prosvjeta, the first journal special- Other archaeologists who collaborated with the ised in the Middle Ages in Croatia. In the years Dalmatian Conservation Office were Simon Ru-to come, he carried out numerous archaeolog- tar and Vojeslav Molè from Slovenia and a local ical and topographical investigations of vari- archaeologist Ljubo Karaman. At the start of the ous scopes, considered as a sort of an archae- 20th century, a conservators’ office was opened in ological roadmap of early Croat’s archaeology Pula and managed by Anton Gnirs (1873–1933), in Dalmatia. His work thus became one of the a Sudeten German who started his career in Pula pillars for the further development of national as a gymnasium professor (1899) and went to archaeology.192 become the provincial conservator for the wider region of Istria in 1901.193 Despite the very brief 191 By 1929 Gorjanović-Kramberger published more than 193 During the First World War, the jurisdiction of the 80 papers on the Krapina Neanderthals in Budapest, Pula office also covered Carniola, because France Stelè Frankfurt, Zagreb, Jena, Berlin, and other places. (the conservator in Carniola) had to serve in the Aus- 192 For more on L. Marun, see Zekan (2007). trian army. 106 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 106 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 period spent in the service (excluding the war The museums established between 1918 and years), Gnirs intensively investigated Istria and 1941 did not systematically include archaeolo-left behind valuable results.194 gy, but they nevertheless provided the potential for the later development of the archaeological In continental Croatia, such a service was estab- discipline in their regions. The leading schol-lished just before the First World War in 1910 ars, e.g. Brunšmid, Gorjanović-Kramberger, and – the State Commission for the Art and Histo- Don Frane Bulić, who all achieved brilliant ca-ry Monuments in the Kingdom of Croatia and reers in the decades before the First World War, Slavonia – and it existed in this form until 1914. continued their work without any particular Under the directorship of Tadija Smičiklas and interruption because of the new political situa-with Gyula Szabo’s endeavours, this office was tion. The change of state (from the Austro-Hun-predominantly dealing with architectural herit- garian Empire to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats age, whereas archaeology was represented to a and Slovenes) united Croats more than any pre-very modest degree.195 vious state, though not wholly. Regardless, the major national Croatian cultural institutions had already existed since the late 19th or early Croatian archaeology between the two 20th centuries. The same goes for the major sci-world wars (1918–1941) entific journals and publication series. The sta- ble archaeological infrastructure thus consisted In many respects, a section on the period be- of the relatively wide network of museums in tween 1918 and 1941 can rightfully be criticised Dalmatia and continental Croatia, and the decas somehow arbitrary, as the development of ades-long tradition of the National (later Archae-Croatian archaeology shows much greater con- ological) Museum in Zagreb, already founded in tinuity and tradition stemming from the last 1836. This infrastructure remained solid even in decades of the Austro-Hungarian state than any the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.196 In terms of Cro-other comparable country (i.e. Slovenia, Bosnia ats’ national politics, the priorities were to rein-in Herzegovina, and partially also Serbia). One force their national status within Yugoslavia and could say that not many new archaeological in- claim Istria, Kvarner and towns of Rijeka and stitutions were established between 1918 and Zadar, which were annexed to Italy after 1918. 1941 because there were all already there, and all the major ‘archaeological’ museums, schools, And yet, I still define the 1918–1941 years in and heritage protection offices were established the ‘First Yugoslavia’ as a separate period. One before the First World War, and some of them of the reasons is to make comparisons with the had quite a long tradition of 50 or more years. But other countries of former Yugoslavia easier. the situation shows a different picture on local The period of First Yugoslavia is clearly distin-levels wherein medium- and small-sized town guishable in the case of Slovenia. In the cases of museums continued to be established, such as in N. Macedonia and Kosovo, the distinction with Požega (1924), Varaždin (1925), Šibenik (1925), the situation when these countries were still part Slavonski Brod (1934), Varaždinske Toplice of the Ottoman Empire is also very sharp, as well (1937), and Sisak (1942). Moreover, in 1925, the Italian government raised the Municipal Muse- 196 Before 1914, museums were founded in Zagreb, Osium in Pula to the rank of Royal Museum. jek, Split, Zadar and Knin. They were continuously or occasionally active in archaeology, and continued their work after the formation of the Kingdom of Yu- goslavia. In addition to these, museums were opened 194 F. Stelè (1932) gives more information on the life of in Karlovac (1904), Virovitica (1913) and Zagreb (1907, Anton Gnirs. the City Museum) that initially did not include archae- 195 More details on the commission’s work in the period ology, but offered important infrastructure for its sub- 1910–1914 can be found in Horvat (1976/1977). sequent development. 107 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 107 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 as in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the two wars, new museums and cultural insti-archaeology, being introduced as an Austrian tutions, though not archaeological, played sig- ‘colonial’ enterprise, in many respects changed nificant roles in the general cultural and scientif-after becoming part of Yugoslavia. Serbia and ic progress on both local and regional levels. De-Montenegro were, indeed, the only sovereign spite the centralist tendencies of many unstable states before 1918. While Serbia, to a certain de- Yugoslav governments, the political recognition gree, resembled Croatia in terms of the continui- of the Croats as the constituent nation in the Yu-ty of institutions from the late 19th century, Mon- goslav kingdom offered even more possibilities tenegro was still very undeveloped in terms of for the establishment of national institutions and its own archaeological disciplinary framework their structuring at the local level. before 1945. In any case, while one cannot easily apply the same conceptual tools (e.g. the same The Archaeological Museum could develop periodisation) for all countries in question, ob- relatively freely within the financial and other serving different national archaeologies in the material affordances it was given, but the Mu-same period can be of use. Another reason lies seum of Croatian Antiquities was less fortu-in the fact that with the formation of Yugosla- nate. Whereas initially, it enlarged its collection via, Croatian archaeology definitely became a significantly over a short period, mainly due to national disciplinary framework. If before one the successful work of L. Marun, from 1912 on-could still speak of ‘Austrian’ and ‘Hungarian’ wards, it had to be moved from one location to Croatian lands with different administrative and another in Knin. In 1933, it was given space at political settings, after 1918 this is much less the the Knin Fortress to store the archives, but these case. Despite being divided into several admin- had to be transferred again during the Second istrative units, which also included large Serbian World War, this time to Sinj. However, despite and Bosnian (Muslim) populations, these units the difficulties in finding support for securing had no historical background. However, during a permanent location for the museum, its staff the ‘Yugoslav’ period between the two world kept the work going, albeit in unfavourable con-wars, the Croats were well aware of their identi- ditions. Finally, after the Second World War, it ty and national institutions. was possible to establish the museum perma- nently. Many local museums also suffered from The cessation of the Austrian state slowed down poor funding and lack of trained staff, but kept some of the institutions previously tied to the a modest level of activities. central offices in Vienna (for instance, the Service for the Protection of Cultural Heritage). Still, the Archaeological work at the University of Zagreb delay was minor when viewed in the context of continued from the Austrian period onwards the entire archaeological discipline. Indeed, the mostly uninterrupted, mainly owing to the uninterrupted work of pre-war Croatian institu- continuity of Brunšmid’s activities. His succes-tions was also possible because several special- sor Viktor Hoffiler (1877–1954), a German from ists from these institutions were already active Slavonia, completed his doctorate in Vienna, in promoting Croatia’s national emancipation started work in the Archaeological Museum in through archaeology and history before the First 1901, taught archaeology at the Higher School World War, and they remained active in this of Pedagogy and, in 1926, became a professor at sphere after the war. In other words, the extent the university and had a similar scientific profile of discontinuity in archaeological practice and to Brunšmid. Hoffiler expanded the curriculum activities of the institutions in Croatia was too from Brunšmid’s times by introducing prehis-small to challenge the development of the insti- toric archaeology, for which he even prepared a tutions, or archaeology as such, as was the case textbook (Periša 2014). By doing this and by his in Slovenia. Furthermore, in the period between quality work on ancient archaeology he further 108 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 108 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 strengthened the status of the discipline in Cro- in Aquileia (1913–1919). After 1919, and almost atia.197 In fact, Hoffiller was the only archaeolog- two years of internment in Rome, he returned to ical professor who did some systematic teaching Croatia and worked first as a vice-head of the Ar-of prehistoric archaeology as well. During his chaeological Museum in Split. He soon became very fruitful career, Hoffiler excavated many its Director for the next 25 years (1926–1950). important sites ranging from prehistory to me- The beginning of his directorship coincided with dieval times, primarily in Slavonia and Srem (Bi- opening a new museum building that released jelo Brdo, Dalj, Sremska Mitrovica, Osijek). His the great potential for archaeology in Split. How-papers on epigraphy and numismatics brought ever, he still continued his research of the Roman him a solid international reputation (above all cemeteries in Ptuj, Slovenia, where he excavated for the monograph on the Roman inscriptions in 1911 and discovered the famous Mithraeum. from Yugoslavia, co-authored with B. Saria from Ljubljana).198 Based on his contribution to the ar- Most of Abramić’s research in Croatia was fo-chaeological profession, V. Hoffiler received an cused on ancient sites in Dalmatia (e.g. Aenona, honorary doctorate from the University of Vien- Asseria, Burnum, Aequum and Issa). He was un-na (1950). In the period between the two wars doubtedly one of the scholars who made possi- (1918–1941), Hoffiler taught numerous impor- ble extensive excavations in Salona between the tant archaeologists and other experts who would two wars; there, he collaborated with E. Dyggve later become important scholars (e.g. Josip Kle- and Rudolph Egger (see series Forschungen in Sa-menc, Ivo Bojanovski, Branimir Gabričević, Mate lona and Recherches a Salona). The results of these Suić, Duje Rendić-Miočević, Cvito Fisković, Ivan investigations significantly expanded the knowl-Marović, Ivo Petricioli, Ksenija Vinski-Gaspa- edge about Salona that had been acquired previ-rini, Mladen Nikolanci, etc.). In this sense, the ously through the work of F. Bulić, and contrib-Department of Archaeology in Zagreb was by uted significantly to the presentation of this site far the most important university institution in to international circles.200 the interval between the two wars in Yugoslavia between 1918 and the 1950s.199 With the Italian annexation of Istria (togeth- er with western Slovenia, some of the Kvarner The archaeologist who took over the leading role and Dalmatian islands and the towns of Rijeka in the Archaeological Museum in Split succeeding and Zadar) in 1918–1920, the former ‘Austrian’ Frane Bulić was Mihovil Abramić (1884–1962). He institutional structure was replaced with Italian was born in Pula, gained his doctorate in Vienna institutions and scholars. The Italian irredentist and was Director of the Archaeological Museum movement had deep roots in Istria, especially in Trieste and other Istrian towns (e.g. Poreč, Kop-197 Moreover, being a curator (later also the Director) at the er, Pula), where numerous local Italian cultural Archaeological Museum in Zagreb since 1901, he had a societies and institutes were established in the chance to coordinate two major institutions in Zagreb, 19th century.201 In 1930, the Royal Museum in if not in the whole of Croatia. In fact, in the year he became the museum Director (1920) he also established Pula was established and soon became the cen-the Department of Prehistory there (Periša 2018). tral institution for archaeological research in Is- 198 For more details on V. Hoffiler, see Kolar-Dimitrijević tria. The other important Italian institution was and Wagner (2008) and Mirnik (1977a; 1977b). 199 Also from the University of Belgrade came several graduates from the 1930s who played an essential role 200 See publications Forschungen in Salona, I-III, 1917–1928 in the post-war renewal of Yugoslav archaeology. But and Recherches à Salone, I-II, 1928–1935. there, the situation was somewhat different. On this, 201 In archaeology, the best known was Società istria-see more in the chapter on Serbia. On the other hand, na di archeologia e storia patria, established in 1884. only one or two of the 1930s graduates in archaeology This society had a long history of conflict with the from the University of Ljubljana worked in archaeolo- Austrian government; see more in Bitelli (1999) and gy in the period after 1945. Novaković (1999). 109 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 109 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 the Superintendency for Cultural Heritage, with activities focused on architectural monuments.202 its seats in Trieste and Pula, which was primarily During the war (1914–1918), the commission res-responsible for heritage protection and restora- cued many metal objects that the army sought to tion work. Technically speaking, we are dealing melt down (Horvat 1978/79, 24).203 Besides the here with Italian archaeology and its system of Zagreb commission, the Provincial Conservation heritage protection, and as such, this is not with- Office for Dalmatia also continued to exist, with in the scope of this book. However, in the case of Frane Bulić and Ljubo Karaman being its leading multi-ethnic Istria, where state frameworks were scholars. Thanks to them, this office was much radically changing since the end of the 18th cen- more active in the domain of archaeology than tury (Venetian, French, Austrian, Italian govern- the one in Zagreb. Indeed, it is in the 1920s and ments until 1945, the division between Italy and 1930s when massive research campaigns in Salo-Yugoslavia, i.e. Slovenia and Croatia, 1954; Free na were undertaken. Territory of Trieste 1947–1954), it is difficult to isolate one single cultural or scholarly tradition. However, what is valid for the entire Kingdom of They all left traces and influenced each other in Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, i.e. Yugoslavia, also different ways. For this reason, I have includ- applied to Croatia’s territory. The quality of work ed this episode with Istria here and in the final of the service for the protection of archaeological chapter on ‘Yugoslav’ archaeology. monuments dropped substantially compared to the previous Austrian era. The main reason was As already noted, in Croatia there were two of- the absence of adequate laws and the minimal fices for the protection of the cultural heritage, human resources and material infrastructure one in continental Croatia founded in 1910 in available to the service.204 Thus, at the beginning Zagreb, and another in Dalmatia in Split, both of the 1920s, Zagreb’s commission virtually had founded within the ‘Austrian-Hungarian’ frame- no suitable working conditions, and it was almost work. The office in Zagreb was initially intended dissolved (Horvat 1978/79, 30). for the territory of the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia only. In 1914, it changed its name to the Commission for the Preservation of Monuments The power of tradition and continuity: and was then renamed again in 1928 to the Con- development of Croatian archaeology servators’ Office in Zagreb (1928–1946). In the after the Second World War early years, the Commission paid most of its attention to architectural monuments. This did not During the Second World War in the former Yu-change much in 1914, after the death of Tadija goslavia (1941–1945), a marionette fascist and Smičiklas, the first chair of the commission, who dictatorial Independent State of Croatia ( Neza-was succeeded by Josip Brunšmid. With this visna država Hrvatska – NDH) was organised in appointment, Brunšmid essentially combined the territory of Croatia under the control of the the most important positions in the Croatian ar- occupying German and Italian forces. It encom-chaeology of the time (head of the Archaeologi- passed most of the former Croatian Banate terri-cal Museum in Zagreb, professor of archaeolo- tory, including most of today’s Croatia, Bosnia gy at the University of Zagreb and chair of the Commission for the Protection of Monuments). 202 For more details on this commission’s activities, see One of the archaeological members of the com-Horvat (1976/77, 1978/79, 1980/81). mission was V. Hoffiller. The membership in the 203 Especially active in this rescuing was Viktor Hoffill-commission was free of charge, and so was the er, who recorded more than 200 inscriptions from membership in the conservators’ service. How- church bells before they were handed over to the army (Kolar-Dimitrijević and Wagner 2008, 92). ever, although archaeologists were well rep- 204 The first law on the preservation and protection of cul-resented in the commission’s main body, most tural heritage was enacted as late as 1940. 110 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 110 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 and Herzegovina, and Srem in Serbia. The Ital- probably some plundering of the museums, gal-ians occupied Kvarner and northern and central leries and private collections. 208 The most mas-Dalmatia. Since the marionette state under the sive war damage was suffered in Zadar, which rule of Ante Pavelić’s Ustashas (Croatian Fascist was bombed by the Allies in 1943 and 1944. military organisation) was a close ally of Ger- many and Italy, the new ‘state’ was left some lo- After the war and with the new (Communist) cal autonomy. In these circumstances, all major regime, the situation concerning archaeology cultural and scientific institutions were allowed and its institutions changed substantially. The to continue their work. The significant changes new regime strongly supported education and were more in terms of personnel. Many Jewish, culture, especially on the local levels. In the next Serbian and Croatian scholars and intellectuals fifteen years (1945–1960), 27 new museums were who opposed the new regime lost their jobs, mi- established in Croatia alone: grated, were prosecuted or joined the National Liberation Movement led by Josip Broz Tito. 1946 – Vinkovci, Vukovar The Independent State of Croatia’s racial laws 1947 – Korčula prohibited Jews and Serbs from studying at the 1948 – Bakar University of Zagreb. 205 However, institution- 1949 – Bjelovar, Samobor al stability remained, as was not so much the 1951 – Nova Gradiška, Đakovo, Koprivnica, case in Slovenia or Serbia, where the Germans Novi Vinodolski suspended several national institutions such as 1952 – Split (Municipal Museum), Karlovac, universities. 206 Moreover, in Italian-occupied Križevci, Ilok Dalmatia all museums and other archaeological 1953 – Virovitica, Županja institutions continued to work at least until Ita- 1954 – Čakovec, Rovinj ly’s capitulation in September 1943, when these 1955 – Pazin regions were re-occupied by the Germans. 1956 – Sinj, Valpovo 1958 – Čazma, Gospić, Drniš Relative local autonomy and institutional stabili- 1960 – Labin, Kutina, Velika Gorica ty, mostly in Zagreb and some other major towns in Slavonija and Dalmatia, allowed certain (low) Thus by 1960 there were altogether 46 museums. level of archaeological activities at the University While the truth is that many local museums were of Zagreb (mostly studying) and some museums small and not all equipped with trained staff and in Split, Zagreb, Osijek, in Conservation offices adequate venues, they played an important role in Zagreb and Split. At present, we do not know in educating local people and preserving local much about the Germans and Italians’ specific heritage (archaeological included). A similar activities in archaeology in Croatia, compared museum ‘boom’ can be seen in all other Yugo-to Slovenia and Serbia. 207 However, there was slav republics in the same period. 205 Nevertheless, Periša (in press) found a few individual All pre-war institutions continued their work, cases where professors Viktor Hoffiler and Mirko Šep- while those temporarily closed were re-opened. er helped Serbian students to continue or finish their The significant changes were, again, in personnel. studies in this period. 206 For more details on the Department of Archaeology, 208 M. Kolar-Dimitrijević and E. Wagner (2008, 94) report University of Zagreb, and Archaeological Museum in a case of the flag and chessboard that belonged to the Zagreb, see Periša (in press). Prussian King Friedrich II the Great and which Croa- 207 The only archaeological excavations financed by Ah- tian soldiers took in the Prussian-Austrian wars. The nenerbe in Croatia that we know of were Rudolph Germans forced the Croatian Historical Museum to Schmidt’s campaigns in eastern Slavonija in 1943 in hand over these objects. Viktor Hoffiler openly object- Sarvaš. But, R. Schmid researched in this region contin- ed, and this was probably one of the reasons for his re- uously since the late 1930s at Vučedol and Bapska. moval from the museum and university. 111 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 111 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 Depending on the ‘degree of collaboration’ (as and assisted in creating suitable conditions for judged by the new rulers), some people were archaeology and hiring younger scholars. removed from their positions (e.g. Mirko Šep- er) and others suspended for a certain period of Among the newly established institutions of time, whilst some were re-appointed (e.g. Hoffil- crucial importance for furthering Croatia’s ar-er), and others were appointed for the first time. chaeological profession was the foundation of However, compared to all the other countries the Faculty of Philosophy in Zadar in 1956.210 presented in this book, the pre-war period con- From the very beginning, the study of archaeol-tinuity was the strongest in Croatia. There were ogy was possible as a three-year second major scholars like Viktor Hoffiler, Grga Novak, Miho- combined with history, art history or other sub-vil Abramić, Ljubo Karaman, Stjepan Gunjača, jects at Zadar’s Faculty of Philosophy. In 1962, and to some extent also Zdenko Vinski, who when the Department of Archaeology was es-were crucial in bridging the pre- and post-war tablished, the archaeological curriculum was periods. The relative institutional stability and extended to a four-year second major. In 1975, regional dispersion of archaeological institutions it could also be taken as a single major subject in pre-war Croatia, as well as the largest num- (Marijanović 2013). The first professors were ber of graduates in archaeology in the pre-1941 Šime Batović (prehistoric archaeology), Mate Yugoslavia, gave Croatian archaeology much Suić (ancient archaeology) and Ivo Petricioli greater continuity in the concept of archaeology (early medieval archaeology). Later joined them than in any other country from the former Yugo- Nenad Cambi. Instrumental for implement-slavia. The number of archaeologists in Croatia ing the archaeological curricula in these early in the years immediately after 1945 was almost years was the Archaeological Museum in Za-equal to the number of active archaeologists in dar, where the most important professors (e.g. the rest of Yugoslavia. Moreover, Croatian ar- M. Suić and Š. Batović) worked. Zadar was pre-chaeology also incorporated the ‘Italian’ institu- cisely the place where archaeology, art history, tions from Istria.209 and ancient history had the greatest potential in Croatia, and they were among the fundamental Among the scholars who had a great impact and most advanced scientific disciplines of the on the development of archaeology in the first freshly formed faculty. Many renowned schol-post-war years was Grga Novak (1888–1978), an ars from the broader region of Dalmatia were ancient historian, assistant of Frane Bulić in the associated with the major institutions in Zadar. Archaeological Museum in Split, later professor Since the 1960s, thanks to the Faculty of Philos-at the Universities in Skopje and Zagreb, presi- ophy and the Archaeological Museum, Zadar dent of the Yugoslav (today Croatian) Academy has been one of the key centres for the devel-of Arts and Sciences (1958–1978), and a research- opment of the archaeological discipline in both er of Grapčeva spilja on the island of Hvar (ep- Croatia and all of Yugoslavia. onym site for the late Neolithic Hvar culture). Novak, who held many important positions in A crucial scholar who started his career in the academic hierarchy, successfully lobbied Zadar was Mate Suić (1915–2002), a classical archaeologist and historian who studied with 209 Among the Istrian museums, the most prominent V. Hoffiller in Zagreb. In the period between was the Royal Museum of Istria, established by join- 1945 and 1956, he worked as the Director of ing the City Museum of Pula and the regional museum in Poreč in 1925 (the latter was already established the Archaeological Museum in Zadar and was in 1884). Interestingly, the first collection of antiquities (mainly from Nesactium) was created in Pula in 1902, 210 Between 1956 and 1974, the faculty was a unit of the when the Societa Istriana di archeologia e storia patria University of Zagreb; between 1974 and 2003, it be- moved to Pula from Rovinj. Besides Pula, under Italian longed to the University of Split, and from 2003 on- rule there were also museums in Poreč and Rovinj. wards to the University of Zadar. 112 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 112 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 also a professor at the University of Zadar. In Latin inscriptions (CILMA), Corpus Inscriptio-1968 he moved to the University of Zagreb, num Latinorum (CIL) Committee, and the Cen-where he taught ancient history. His contri- tre for Balkanological Research, Sarajevo.212 bution was valuable in research and teaching activities, as well as the organisation of the At the same time, the Department of Archaeolo-archaeological discipline in Croatia and Yugo- gy at the University of Zagreb also grew. In the slavia. Among his management achievements first post-war years, the continuity was secured he first needs to be credited for reviving the with Hoffiller, who did not retire until 1951.213 Archaeological Museum in Zadar. Long after He lectured in these years in all major courses 1945, Zadar, which suffered heavy bombard- on classical and prehistoric archaeology. Before ments during the Second World War in which his retirement, he succeeded in establishing the the museum building was destroyed and the Chair in Prehistory (1948). For a short period, library burned, was still largely destroyed as Hoffiler was replaced by Grga Novak, at that a town. The Italians, retreating from Zadar in time professor of ancient history, and Josip Ko-1943, took a great deal of museum inventory, rošec, the guest professor from the University including the inventory books. of Ljubljana, Vladimir Mirosavljević, contract lecturer and assistant to Grga Novak, Branimir The endeavours of Mate Suić were crucial for Gabričević, assistant for classical archaeology, moving the museum to new venues, first in the and Zdenko Vinski, Head of the Archaeological building of a newly formed Faculty of Philoso- Museum in Zagreb. After a decade of tempo-phy (1954) and later (1972) to the present ven- rary and guest professors and other teachers, ues. Suić was also the founder of Diadora, the the Department of Archaeology started to sta-Archaeological Museum’s journal (1960), and bilise in the mid-1950s with the arrival of Duje the first president of the revived Croatian Ar- Rendić-Miočević (ancient archaeology) and chaeological Society. He was also a top expert Stojan Dimitrijević (Prehistoric archaeology). in ancient archaeology and history, contribut- Zdenko Vinski established a Chair in Medie-ing some major reference works on epigraphy, val and Slavic Archaeology. A few years later, Greek and Roman colonisation, the archaeol- Marin Zaninović also joined the department. ogy of Liburni and the early urbanisation of However, the leading role for some ten years Dalmatia.211 For his scientific excellence, he was was by Rendić-Miočević, who contributed sig-awarded membership of many Croatian and nificantly to the development of curricula in international academies and eminent societies: ancient archaeology. Especially significant was the Yugoslav (Croatian) Academy of Arts and his collaboration with foreign scholars, who he Sciences, German Archaeological Institute, In- invited to teach in Zagreb (J. Leclant, V. Du-ternational Committee for publishing medieval mitrescu, W. Hensel, R. Pittioni, M. Wegner, G. Daux, A. Leroi-Gourhan; see in Periša (in 211 For example Suić, M. (1952), Liburnski nagrobni press), a clear sign of the opening of Yugoslavia spomenik “liburnski cipus”. Vjesnik za arheologiju i his- to the West.214 It is also important to note that toriju dalmatinsku 53, 1950–1951, Split 1952; Suić, M. (1955a), Limitacija agera rimskih kolonija na istočnoj obali Jadrana. Zbornik Instituta za historijske nauke u Za- 212 More on M. Suić, see in Tomičić (2002). dru 1, 1–36; Suić. M. (1955b), Istočna jadranska obala 213 Hoffiler, under the pressure of German Wermacht com-u Pseudo Skilakovu Periplu. Rad JAZU 1955, 121–185; manders in Zagreb, was first forcibly retired in 1943. At Suić, M. (1958), O municipalitetu antičke Salone, V jesnik the University, he was succeeded by Mirko Šeper until za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 1958, 11–38; Suić, M. 1945. After his imprisonment (1945–1947) by the new (1981), Zadar u starom vijeku. Filozofski fakultet Za- government, he did not return to the University of Za- dar. However, his most important, and in many re- greb but continued his career at the Yugoslav Lexico- spects unprecedented, work is the monograph on the graphic Institute. development of ancient towns in the eastern Adriatic 214 Similar cases of foreign professors in the 1950s were also region ( Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu, 1976). noted at the Department of Archaeology in Ljubljana. 113 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 113 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 the University of Zagreb was important for ed- of Archaeology in Zagreb or Zadar. Besides the ucating archaeologists from other republics of older generation, represented by Duje Rendić- the former Yugoslavia.215 Miočević and Branimir Gabričević, and Zdenko Vinski from the Archaeological Museum in Za- In 1961, the first archaeological research insti- greb, positions at the Department of Archaeol-tute was founded in Croatia. It first operated as a ogy were also given to Vladimir Mirosavljević, special organisational unit within the Faculty of Marin Zaninović, Stojan Dimitrijević, Nives Ma-Philosophy (the Institute for the History of Art jnarić-Pandžić and Marija Šmalcelj, who notably and Archaeology), to become, in 1965, an inde- improved the studies of archaeology and set pendent entity (the Archaeological Institute).216 the frame which, in its general outline, is still in His first Director was Mate Suić. With the forma- place until today. tion of this specialised scientific research institu- tion in the 1960s, Croatia completed its academ- The number of newly established museums can ic institutional landscape, similarly to Slovenia also illustrate the successful growth of archae-and Serbia, wherein the late 1940s, along with ology from the 1960s onwards. The museum the universities in Belgrade and Ljubljana, cen- ‘boom’ from the 1945–1960 period continued, tral scientific institutes were also founded within although not at the same level. Still, the number national academies of sciences and arts to create of 24 new local museums and cultural centres, national centres of excellence. which includes archaeological collections estab- lished between 1961 and 1991, speaks for itself. The 1960s were marked by the general growth of archaeology in Croatia in many respects. The In the period between 1960 and 1979, 16 new mu-number of staff at the University of Zagreb rose seums or individual collections were founded: in markedly, enabling a complete archaeological Labin (1960), Velika Gorica (1960), Rijeka (1961), curriculum. The newly established archaeological curriculum also gave a significant boost to 1961 – Buzet archaeology in Zadar. This came after many dec- 1962 – Senj, Otočac ades of archaeology being customarily taught 1963 – Trogir by one or two professors and occasional exter- 1965 – Jastrebarsko nal lecturers, a situation quite typical for many 1967 – Ogulin universities in Central Europe before the Second 1969 – Knin, Krapina World War. In the post-war period, archaeolo- 1971 – Kalinovac, Daruvar gy students obtained their own departments for 1973 – Zaprešić, Biograd na moru teaching and research that employed substantial- 1974 – Cavtat, Našice ly more staff. Indeed, numerous eminent Croa- 1975 – Obrovac tian specialists have worked at the Departments 1976 – Umag 1978 – Mali Lošinj 215 Until the mid-1970s, in Yugoslavia, it was pos- sible to study archaeology at the Universities of Lju- 1979 – Škrip bljana, Zagreb, Belgrade, and Zadar’s Faculty of Phi- 1983 – Benkovac losophy (from 1957 onwards). In 1974 a curriculum in 1985 – Slatina archaeology was also introduced at the University of 1986 – Omiš Skopje, N. Macedonia. Regarding the number of stu- dents, the Universities of Zagreb and Belgrade had 1988 – Zelina the largest cohorts. 216 The Archaeological Institute was later included in the By 1991, Croatian archaeology was in one way or Centre for Historical Sciences of the University of Za- another present in 70 museums. There was vir-greb (1976) or the Institute of Historical Sciences of the University of Zagreb (1987). Eventually, in 1992, it be- tually no town with 10,000 people or more with-came a fully independent scientific research institution. out its own museum, and even several smaller 114 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 114 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 towns had some sort of permanent or temporary Istria after the war, who assisted in the revitali-facilities. In this sense, Croatia was by far the sation of the museum in Poreč, and was credited most developed of all Yugoslav republics. for intensive research on Roman Pula during the restoration of the town after the bombing during Less than 25 years after 1945, the number of ar- the war, and as a pioneer of underwater archae-chaeology professionals rose from 10 to 15 to more ology in Istria.217 Important pioneering works in than 50 ( Arheo 1, 1981, 54–56). How highly valued Slavic archaeology in Istria were done by Branko cultural heritage was in Croatia is also illustrated Marušić (1926–1991), who was also the contract by the fact that from the late 1940s students in Za- professor for medieval archaeology at the Uni-greb could take courses on about museum work. versity of Ljubljana. On the other hand, Vesna In 1984, the Chair in Museum Studies was estab- Jurkić (1944–2012), a specialist in ancient archae-lished at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Univer- ology, achieved remarkable results in promoting sity of Zagreb, which soon provided complete un- the museum and Istrian archaeological heritage dergraduate and graduate curricula on heritage in the 1970s and 1980s.218 During the whole pe-management, protection and presentation. This riod after the Second World War, the Archae-was and still is the only such curriculum in all the ological Museum of Istria was a genuine ‘hub’ countries of the former Yugoslavia. of archaeology in this region. Its staff were also instrumental in developing other archaeological Some larger regional museums also gave a boost institutions, such as the recently (2006) founded to the development of academic archaeology. the University of Juraj Dobrila at Pula, where One such case is the Archaeological Museum archaeological topics are included in the history of Istria in Pula. Its tradition already stemmed curriculum.219 from the 19th century, though it was not official- ly founded as a municipal museum until 1902. Among the museums that made a significant Between the two world wars (the period of Ital- contribution to archaeology’s status in Croatia ian rule), it developed into the most important was also the Museum of Croatian Archaeologi-museum in Istria. In 1947, it was renamed with cal Monuments in Split. Its tradition goes back to its present title. In 1960, a major refurbishment the 19th century, but the museum had great prob-of the museum venues began, which enabled a lems with its venues for seventy years. Finally, significant expansion of museum work, displays in 1976, when the new building was opened, the and the inclusion of the open-air monuments museum displayed its rich collections and re-into museum collections and sites. A central role search potential. With numerous field projects, was given to Roman monuments in the town – mostly of late Roman, medieval and Slavic Dal-the amphitheatre, arch of Sergii and forum tem- matia, and intensive publishing endeavours, ple. In the 1970s, the museum had five archaeol- the museum became one of the centres of me-ogists, which made it one of the largest regional dieval archaeology in Croatia and Yugoslavia archaeological museums at that time, not only in Croatia but in the whole of Yugoslavia, and more archaeologists were only found in the na- 217 His major works include monographs on the Roman tional museums. The museum has published its amphitheatre in Pula (Mlakar 1957), the Roman town journal – Histria archaeologica – since 1972, and of Pula (Mlakar 1958) and a monograph on Roman Is- tria (Mlakar 1962). its staff have been engaged in several important 218 In 1994 she founded the International Center for Ar-projects throughout Istria. chaeology Brioni-Medulin, a research institution under UNESCO patronage. Among the staff who revived the work of mu- 219 Most recently, in 2015, at the Faculty of Philosophy seum after the Second World War was Štefan (University of Pula), a Centre for Interdisciplinary Ar- chaeological Landscape Research ( Centar za interdisci- Mlakar (1913–2001), the first archaeologist in plinarna arheološka istraživanja krajolika) was founded. 115 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 115 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 as a whole.220 Stjepan Gunjača (1909–1981) and Culture), which significantly improved the quali-Dušan Jelovina (1927–2008) were the most prom- ty of the service and its presence in the field. Natinent directors and scholars from the museum urally, with the establishment of new regional whose contributions to the development of the units more positions for archaeologists became national archaeology of Croatia were essential. available. In the early years of post-war Yugosla- via, each republic had at least one central Institute The development of the public heritage protec- for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, and tion service was equally successful and fast, and Croatia had three – in Zagreb (1948), Split (1947) is probably the best example of such a project in and Rijeka (1947) – not only due to its geograph-former Yugoslavia before 1991. If we take into ac- ical shape but also because of its comparatively count the complexity of the development and im- rich heritage and tradition. With the decentralisa-plementation of legislation, the establishment of tion of the heritage service, there soon followed institutional networks,221 and enormous pressure branches in Zadar (1954), Dubrovnik (1960) and exerted by developments in post-war Croatia (and Osijek (1967), and later one in Šibenik.222 Another Yugoslavia as well), one could only admire what important institution that worked in the restora-was achieved in this field and the level of quality tion of monuments and objects was Restavrator-that was reached in less than three decades. Tak- ski zavod Hrvatske (est. 1966), which greatly ex-ing into account only the very high number of panded restoration workshops at museums such architectural monuments (e.g. Roman, medieval, as those in Split Zadar and Zagreb. castles, civil and monastic palaces and other build- ings, along with monuments, historical towns) In the 1980s, archaeology reached its pinnacle in – Croatia was probably the richest of all the Yu- the former Yugoslavia. Compared to the other goslav republics – the level of heritage protection republics, archaeology in Croatia was the most service and restoration works was, indeed, admi- developed in terms of infrastructure. In several rable. The reasons behind this were a long tradi- fields, e.g. classical archaeology, architecture, epig-tion of such service, dating to as far back as before raphy, history of ancient art, Croatian archaeology the First World War, a relatively good museum was the undisputed leader in Yugoslavia, and the network at the regional and local level (at the time, figures are quite impressive. In 1989, in a country museums were an essential element in the protec- of 4.7 million, about 160 archaeologists were em-tion of cultural monuments) and the significantly ployed in 68 institutions (54 museums, from local improved legislation (federal and republican). to national, ten institutes for heritage protection, two universities, two research institutes). Also instrumental for further advancement of the service was the setting up regional units of the In- What also contributed to the success of archae-stitute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments ology, and especially its penetration to local lev- (today the Conservation Office at the Ministry of els, is decentralisation, which emerges as one of the powerful features of Croatian archaeology. 220 It is also worth noting that this museum was the only The development of archaeology in Croatia, at one in the former Yugoslavia traditionally dedicated to least since the 1970s, did not depend on devel-national antiquities. opments in a single main centre, as was the case 221 Based on the Yugoslav Law on Protection of Cultural in Serbia and, to an even greater degree, in Bos-Monuments from 1945 (amended in 1960), several new nia and Herzegovina. The regular appearance of institutions were established: the Institute for Restoration of Artworks (1948), Croatian Restoration Institute (1966), Society of Professionals and Associates of Mu- 222 Until the early 1990s, alongside the central office, five seums, Galleries and Conservation offices ‘Museion’ regional branches of the Institute for the Protection of (1946), and the journal Vijesti muzealaca i konzervatora Cultural Monuments of the Republic of Croatia existed. SR Hrvatske (News of Museum Professionals and Con- Today, after several reforms in the last two decades, the servators in Croatia 1952). number of regional branches is 22. 116 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 116 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 quite numerous archaeological institutions at a discovering thousands of previously unknown regional level became the cornerstone of Croa- prehistoric sites. This enabled cultural and chron-tian archaeology, which in the second half of the ological systems for the Palaeolithic through to 20th century ensured constant development and the Iron Age in Croatia’s territory to be re-defined high quality performance despite the economic and updated. Some prehistoric sites – aside from and political crises in Yugoslavia, and contribut- the well-known Neanderthal remains from Krapi-ed immensely to the strengthening of the archae- na – like Vučedol, the Eneolithic settlement above ological profession even after 1991. the Danube near Vukovar, or Kaptol near Požega, and the large Iron Age cemetery of monumental Already since the end of the 1970s, there have barrows, became famous for their richness and been four regional archaeological centres with cultural importance across the whole of south-strong institutions – in Zagreb, Split, Zadar and eastern Europe. The exceptional wealth of archae-Pula. Each of them contributed to archaeologi- ological sites and discoveries re-state the high cal progress in their own regional framework, position and publicly recognised the importance and at the national and even federal levels. The of archaeology in Croatia. In no other republic of absence of a strong hierarchy and ‘division of the former federation has archaeology received work’ proved to be an outstanding advantage in such recognition.223 In this respect, it is important many respects compared to the conditions seen to re-iterate that, until recently, all archaeologi-in the other national archaeologies in the former cal activities in Croatia were financed by public Yugoslav republics. sources and carried out by public (state, regional or municipal) institutions. Even today, when pri- Strong encouragement for such evolution vate companies implement a large portion of the stemmed from the fact that Croatia is extremely archaeological research in preventive projects, the rich in archaeological, historical and other cul- rate of public financing is still very high. tural monuments of the highest class, even in a broader European context. The well-developed In international cooperation, especially concern-archaeological structure and public service in ing joint collaborative projects, Croatian archae-Croatia, in combination with the copious and ology already had a tradition before the Second highly spectacular sites and monuments that World War. For foreign scholars, the most at-generally, but not exclusively, originated from tractive were, obviously, major Roman sites and Roman Dalmatia, resulted in investigations monuments, e.g. Salona and Diocletian’s Palace. and restoration of several world-famous loca- In the 1920 and 1930s Eynar Dyggve, a Danish tions and structures (e.g. Diocletian’s Palace in architect and archaeologist, worked in Croatia, Split, the Euphrasian Basilica in Poreč, both on and continued to do so after the Second World the UNESCO Cultural Heritage List, the am- War.224 In Salona there was also Rudolf Egger, an phitheatre in Pula, the Roman town of Salona and, more recently, the Greek field division at 223 There are currently 225–230 public museums, art gal-Stari Grad field on the island of Hvar (also on leries and collections in Croatia, an impressive number for a country with approximately 4.7 million inhabit- the UNESCO list), the Temple of Augustus in ants (data from http://www.mdc.hr/muzeji. Aspx). In Narona and many others, all of which require comparison, Slovenia has a population of around two very competent scholars. million and a much higher GDP, but there are far fewer institutions of this kind, at around 70–80. Over the last six decades, prehistoric archaeolo- 224 For his work in researching Salona, he was awarded honorary citizenship of the city of Solin. His major gy has also made an enormous leap forward. In works on Salona include papers published in the series a relatively short period of only a few decades, Recherches à Salone I (1928) with J. Brønsted ; II (1933) the dense network of archaeological nation-with F. Weilbach; Forschungen in Salona III (1939), with R. Egger; Salona christiana, 1934. For a complete bibliog- al, regional and local institutions contributed to raphy, see L’Orange (1962/63). 117 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 117 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 Austrian archaeologist and professor at the Uni- studying antiquities and ancient history. Nowa-versity of Vienna. However, during the first two days, it is mostly oriented towards classical, that decades after the Second World War, foreign is, Roman provincial culture. This has always scholars were most frequently present at the Uni- focused on researching the Roman, Greek and versity of Zagreb (as occasional guest teachers or Byzantine sites and monuments, emphasising visiting researchers), some also in joint muse- the study of written, epigraphic, art, and archi-um exhibitions and restoration projects. In this tectural sources. The principal frame of reference first stage, there were not many international re- is based on ancient history and the history of an-search projects in Croatia. Full cooperation only cient art. This is not only a consequence of the started in the 1980s, again on sites in Dalmatia. centuries-long cultural and political link between Project Hvar (from the late 1908s onwards) is the Dalmatia and Venice and Italian culture, but also best example of this.225 However, the full flour- of the exquisite wealth of ancient monuments in ishing of international cooperation emerged in the wider area of Dalmatia. The ancient regional the years after 1991, when Croatia gained inde- history provides plenty of important events and pendence, and within the gradual process of be- underlying historical narratives against which coming a full member of the EU. new archaeological discoveries and knowledge can be tested. There were no significant or radical Concerning the main conceptual guidelines in changes and shifts in this field in the 20th centu-Croatian archaeology, there are multiple direc- ry, including the period after the Second World tions of development characterised through the War. What is discernible is the gradual improve-major regional centres. From a historical per- ment of knowledge and widening of the topics spective, two chief components or traditions are or agendas in classical archaeology and the ar-in the foreground – ‘Dalmatian’ and ‘continen- chaeology of the provinces to include the study tal’ archaeology. Today these can be identified in of key historical events and processes such as the the biographies of two archaeological university foundation of Greek and Roman towns, regional departments, in Zadar and Zagreb. This dualism military and political history, the development is by no means exclusive, and there are numer- of Roman art and architecture, prosopography, ous examples of mixing and hybridisation of the ancient cults and religion and numismatics, as two components. With professors moving from well as new investigations of the economic, cul-one university to another, they also brought their tural and symbolic aspects of the process of Ro-own perspectives on archaeology with them manisation, settlement patterns, landscape stud- (e.g. Mate Suić moved from Zadar to Zagreb, ies, research on identity and so on. followed by his student Marin Zaninović, also following the ‘Dalmatian’ tradition). However, Moreover, a significant local tradition of the ar-a certain level of duality has been preserved in chaeology of early Christianity was established the character of the two archaeological traditions within this field. Croatia, and more specifically present in Croatia. Dalmatia, is one of the European regions with the most extensive evidence pertinent to this The roots of the Dalmatian tradition reach back topic. This tradition represents a kind of bridge many centuries and connect this component of between Roman and national archaeology (i.e. Croatian archaeology with Italian schools for the archaeology of the early Slavs in Croatia) and benefits from the abundance of remains of 225 This project involved collaboration among the Archae- sacral architecture. ological Museum from Split, Centre for Cultural Her- itage Hvar, University of Ljubljana and University of Examples of several major protagonists can Bradford. Scholars and students also came from the University of Newcastle, University College London, be used to illustrate the Dalmatian tradition’s and other universities in the former Yugoslavia. agenda and its impact on the whole of Croatian 118 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 118 22. 10. 2021 11:05:36 archaeology. Mate Suić (1915–2002), professor of mainly dealing with the Illyrians and their con-ancient archaeology at the Universities of Zadar tacts with the Greeks and Romans, Romanisation (1956–1968) and Zagreb (1968–1981) and a Di- of the eastern Adriatic, and the culture and reli-rector of the Archaeological Museum in Zadar gion of the indigenous peoples in Dalmatia. The (1954–1966), is probably the key figure in the tradition of Suić and Rendić-Miočević continued Dalmatian component of contemporary Croa- with the work of Marin Zaninović (1930), also a tian archaeology. His opus in protohistoric and professor of ancient archaeology at the Universi-classical archaeology, epigraphy, history of art, ty of Zagreb. ancient religion, and toponymy brings together practically all of the essential aspects that demon- The routes of development of continental Croa-strate the Dalmatian component’s excellence. tian archaeology in the first half of the 20th cen-His most significant piece of work and the cli- tury were strongly influenced by the traditional max of his research was the comprehensive syn- central European idea of cultural history. This thesis of the development and history of ancient was promoted in the broader region by the ar-landscapes and urbanisation (Greek and Roman) chaeological school of the University of Vienna, in the eastern Adriatic, which he systematised in whose prominent figures at the time in Zagreb a comprehensive monograph (Suić 1976). This were Brunšmid and Hoffiller. After the Second true masterpiece maintained its status as the key World War, cultural history traditions were built reference work in the following decades. upon ideas and concepts deriving from post-war German archaeology. This was particularly the Another equally important scientist of a similar case in prehistoric archaeology. profile and research orientation was Duje Rendić- Miočević (1916–1993) (more in Zaninović 1992). Continental archaeology was not as uniform as His career began in 1941 in the Archaeological the Dalmatian school; instead, it developed by Museum in Split, where after the Second World relying on several directions of the central Eu-War he was appointed the Director. He invested ropean school. The tradition of using the natural great efforts to rescue Salona’s archaeological re- science disciplines geology and palaeontology mains and revive the major archaeological jour- were very influential in Palaeolithic archaeology nal in Dalmatia ( Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju (from Gorjanović-Kramberger to Mirko Malez). Dalmatinsku), the leading publication in the area Only some two or three decades ago was this for nearly a century. In 1954 he transferred to the area of research taken over by an archaeologist University of Zagreb, where he became the chief who, in addition to the embedded dominant dis-professor of classical archaeology and the Direc- course of natural science, introduced elements tor of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. He of anthropology and other disciplines studying was also one of the founders of the Institute of human culture. Archaeology at the University of Zagreb and the University’s archaeological journal Opuscula ar- A much more significant shift in development chaeologica. His excellence in science made him occurred in the archaeology of the Neolithic and a member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences Eneolithic. Here, a distinct, systemic approach and Arts, Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bos- was inaugurated by Stojan Dimitrijević (1928– nia and Herzegovina, German Archaeological 1981), a professor at the University of Zagreb, Institute, Austrian Archaeological Institute, and who continued his specialisation at the Univer-Italian National Institute for Prehistory and Pro- sity of Heidelberg with Vladimir Milojčić (1918– tohistory in Florence. He was also a member of 1978), one of the leading specialists in Europe of the UNESCO International Committee for Greek the 1950s and 1960s for southeast European and and Latin epigraphy. During his long career, D. Aegean prehistory. Dimitrijević’s approach em-Rendić-Miočević published about 200 papers, phasised the analysis of morphology and style of 119 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 119 22. 10. 2021 11:05:37 pottery as the basis for determining regional ty- the material culture, but with cautious use of po-chronological groups and cultures of the Ne- historical analysis in the interpretation.227 Slo-olithic and Eneolithic of the western Balkans and vene archaeologists, who in the 1950s were in Slavonia. The level of systematisation brought close contact with Merhart’s successors, played by Dimitrijević was almost non-existent in Cro- a significant role in introducing this approach, atian archaeology before his major publications, above all France Starè, a guest professor from which were entirely in line with the current ar- Ljubljana. Later on, this direction was followed chaeology of cultures and were a dominant ten- and further developed by K. Vinski-Gasparini dency in the central European idea of prehistor- and Nives Majnarić-Pandžić. Another approach ic archaeology. His view can be described as a stems from the local tradition of ancient history, mixture of German positivistic archaeology and that is, the study of communities of protohis-Childe’s early ideas, emphasising diffusionism. toric periods based on historical and epigraphic With his papers and the typo-chronological sys- sources. This school offered an important contem, Dimitrijević became an expert in the Neo- tribution by integrating linguistic and philo-lithic and Eneolithic of the western Balkans, and logical studies in its research, along with their his concepts were relatively widely accepted in application to the protohistoric period. Indeed, Yugoslavian archaeology.226 This tradition has the most influential promoters of this approach only recently been supplemented by topics that were the already mentioned Mate Suić and Duje encompass other aspects of the early farming Rendić-Miočević. cultures and communities (such as early metal- lurgy, symbolic systems and social structures). The early Slavic (or early Croat) archaeology is Another scientist who made a significant contri- a particular chapter in the history of archaeolo-bution to Neolithic archaeology (and in the re- gy. In this sphere, Croatia had the longest tra-search on other prehistoric epochs) in Dalmatia dition of all the national archaeological schools was Šime Batović. Similarly to Dimitrijević, he of former Yugoslavia, originating from the end also proposed the main chronological and typo- of the 19th century. However, the onset of gen-logical schemes for prehistoric periods, but his uine, systematic research, including clear, criti-work remained mainly focused on the narrow cal reflection on the archaeological evidence and Adriatic region. setting-up of the concept of early medieval ar- chaeology, can be placed in the period after the The Bronze and Iron Age archaeology in Cro- Second World War. The crucial role in Croatia atia was systematically built after 1950. It is, (and at the same time also in Slovenia and Yugo-perhaps, this field where one can get the best slavia in general) was played by Zdenko Vinski impression of the integration of the two tradi- (1913–1996), from the Archaeological Museum in tions, or schools, of Croatian archaeology. The Zagreb. His major contribution was in the thor-central European archaeological school is rep- ough distinction of the cultural traditions of the resented by the approach introduced into Ger- Late Roman and Byzantine manifestations from man archaeology in the 1940s by Gero von Mer- the early Slavic ones. This work laid the foun-hart from Marburg and his students at the time. dations for the well-grounded critical approach This view is primarily based on the analysis of and standards of the national archaeology of the Slavic peoples. It also brought the Dalma-226 Some of the extremely influential works by Dimitrije- tian tradition of early Croatian archaeology out vić include his overviews of the Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures within the series Prehistory of Yugoslavian of its ‘confinement’ within a strictly national Countries ( Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja, vol. 2 – Neolithic, vol. 3 – Eneolithic) in which he established a ref- erence system for the two periods in the regions of the 227 More details on this school are given in the chapter on then western (continental) Yugoslavia. See Dimitrijević Slovene archaeology, where the activities of Stane Ga- (1979a-f). brovec are described. 120 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 120 22. 10. 2021 11:05:37 framework. It enabled it to develop into one of Croatian archaeology after ‘Yugoslavia’ the competent regional schools with important (1991–) institutions, such as the Museum of the Croatian National Monuments, and prominent scientists (e.g. Janko Belošević from the University in Za- Immediately after declaring independence in dar). One should not forget that for several dec- 1991, war broke out in Croatia (later also in ades after the Second World War this was still a Bosnia and Herzegovina) in the territories with highly politically charged topic, concerning both a Serbian majority. The nation’s cultural her-the archaeologies of the neighbouring countries itage suffered extensive damage in the years (Italy, Austria, Hungary) and the republics and of war, 1991–1995, and thus the restoration of nations within Yugoslavia. monuments was one of the chief priorities for all of the heritage-related disciplines after the In terms of more recent aspects of the develop- conflict. The 1990s were definitely far from idement of theoretical and critical epistemology, al for the development of archaeology, above the elements that could potentially be designat- all due to the war amidst which communica-ed as processual or post-processual could, until tion with the institutions from the largest part recently, rarely be found in Croatian archaeol- of the former Yugoslavia ceased for some years. ogy. International cooperation with European Additionally, many relationships in archaeo-archaeologists was considerable, and the tra- logical research became tense because of some ditional international partners in Croatian ar- actions taken by Serbian institutions.229 Further, chaeology used to come from either central Eu- the Croatian government exerted intense ide-ropean institutions or from the Mediterranean ological pressure on many historical sciences, area, where the topics being considered were including archaeology,230 requiring them to pertinent to the Anglo-American schools’ theo- create new narratives about Croatian history. retical discourse. It is only in recent times, with One of the consequences of such a situation in the intensification of contacts with British and Croatia (and in other countries from the former American archaeologists who have excavated Yugoslavia) was a significant rise in pseudo-ar-in Croatia, that elements of this discourse have chaeology and pseudo-history. For the most started to emerge.228 Compared to Slovenia, part, pseudo-archaeology was nationalist, even where the truly new (processual and post-pro- racist, and thus contributed in its own way to cessual) trends can already be followed from the ethnic and religious conflicts. Still, despite the beginning of the 1980s, Croatian archaeol- the highly charged atmosphere and strong ogy showed a somewhat more conservative at- pressure from the highest political circles to titude. However, it was still advanced enough create an ‘alternative’ past, professional Croa-not to be labelled old-fashioned anymore. In tian archaeology managed to preserve its sci-fact, the ‘mainstream’ Croatian and Slovene entific integrity and credibility. It resisted the archaeologies remain very similar, given their attempts to undermine the fundamental aca-modern-day conceptual development. demic interpretations of the national past. This was mostly possible thanks to the high quality 228 Croatia, in recent decades, probably holds the top place among all of the countries of former Yugoslavia 229 Among these is the removal of the displayed objects in terms of the international teams from Germany, It-from the Museum in Vukovar on behalf of the National aly, France, the UK, and the USA with which collab- Museum in Belgrade during the Serbian occupation of orative research had been conducted. The presence of the town. foreign scientists has increased from the 1980s onwards 230 The Croatian president at the time, Franjo Tuđman, a in particular. One of the recent important international historian by profession, on many occasions publicly events was the 13th Meeting of the European Associa- promoted pseudo-archaeological ideas about the Irani- tion of Archaeologist, held in Zadar in 2007. an (prehistoric, non-Slavic) origin of the Croats. 121 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 121 22. 10. 2021 11:05:37 and long-lasting tradition of the archaeological Faculties of Philosophy in Pula (est. 2006), Split discipline that, over decades, developed into a (re-established in 2005, after the previous fac-competent participant in international scientific ulty became a part of the Zadar University), discourse. Its stability is demonstrated by the Osijek (est. 2004), Rijeka (est. 1998) and at the fact that, after 1991, there have been no major Croatian Catholic University, Zagreb (est. 2006) ideological or epistemological upheavals in all have professors (archaeologists) teaching se-Croatian archaeology.231 lected archaeological topics, most often within the curricula in history or historical heritage. In the period from the late 1990s onwards, once the new state was stabilised after the war of The museum network continued to grow. Not at 1991–1995, Croatia began its process of gradu- the previous speed, but still at a significant pace. ally joining the European Union, opening ex- Since 1992 some 11 new museums have been tensive possibilities for its development in all added to an already well-established network of major sectors, science, culture and education museums across the country. included. With independence, several reforms were needed to adjust to the new state and so- 1992 – Kaštela cial regime. In the fields pertinent to archae- 1995 – Makarska ology, these changes were not as radical as in 1996 – Trilj some other sectors because culture, science and 2005 – Orahovica education were already the domains of individ- 2006 – Novigrad, Ozalj, Zadar (Museum of Anual republics and not the federal state. In these cient Glass) fields, it was more about adjusting to some new 2007 – Vid administrative and organisational frameworks 2008 – Crikvenica than to any radical changes. At the Universities 2018 – Ludbreg of Zagar and Zagreb, the major reform was the adoption of the so-called European ‘Bologna At present, there are somewhere between 80 and system’ of 3 + 2 years of undergraduate and 85 museums or similar institutions in Croatia.232 graduate studies. What also changed signifi- If we add other archaeological institutions (e.g. cantly at the universities is a much higher level provincial Conservation Offices, academic insti-of international cooperation than ever before. tutions and private archaeological enterprises), In the last decade or so, more than a hundred we get a figure of some 125 to 130 institutions in students from Croatia have been involved in Croatia dealing with archaeology. student exchanges and international schools or courses in cooperation with many Europe- an universities. Moreover, the number of guest professors increased to a level at which this is now routine. In the domain of education in ar- chaeology, new institutions were established, which also included archaeology. Today the 231 Further discussion on the Yugoslav ideology of frater- nity and unity and the Marxist doctrine is in the chap- ter on Yugoslav archaeology. Suffice to say here that the disappearance of both of these ideological doctrines did not change Croatian archaeology’s make-up (or that of the other national archaeological schools) sig- nificantly after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The tra- 232 For some five institutions I could not get dates of their ditional model of cultural history remained the basic establishment or whether their programmes include paradigm after 1991. archaeology or archaeological heritage. 122 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 122 22. 10. 2021 11:05:37 Fig. 40 Archaeological professional institutions and enterprises in Croatia. The major changes have been in the domain of notably contributed to the increase of preventive heritage protection, where the former semi-au- archaeology. However, much more substantial tonomous regional Institutes for the Protection and long-range changes were made concerning of Cultural Monuments were abolished and re- the regulations for preventive archaeology. If placed by Conservation Offices directly subordi- previous regional institutes for the protection of nated to the Ministry of Culture. In this process, cultural monuments were the only bodies legal-former large regional institutes were divided ly eligible for prescribing protection regimes and into more Conservation Offices. From the begin- research (i.e. rescue archaeology) and monitor-ning of the 2000s, each province ( županija) had ing monuments’ status, the Conservation Offices its Conservation Office. Altogether, there are 18 were eligible only for issuing protection regimes, such departments today, compared to some sev- conditions and recommendations. They are ex-en or eight before 1991. This change increased empted from ‘rescue’ research, which became the presence of archaeologists in the field and a service provided by other entities (e.g. other 123 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 123 22. 10. 2021 11:05:37 public institutions, museums, universities, in- One thing we should not ignore is some signif-stitutes, private enterprises). Indeed most of the icant problems that Croatian archaeology has field research works undertaken in the context of been facing in recent years. The most striking is preventive archaeology were on the open mar- the pressure of widespread urban development, ket, just as in Slovenia. especially in the areas attractive for tourism, such as on the coast and in historic town centres. This process was greatly accelerated with the The pressure seems so great that the state and its construction of motorways in Croatia and is mechanisms for protecting historical landscapes very similar to that seen Slovenia. The amount and cultural monuments are hardly coping with of work and time pressure for motorway con- it. In this respect, the development of more sus-struction required new solutions in preventive tainable strategies is an urgent matter. archaeology. Allowing private enterprises to do the fieldwork was one of the crucial solutions in this respect.233 Soon, the private enterprises, as direct contractors or sub-contractors, took over a large share of the market for preventive archaeology.234 To conclude, compared to other countries in this book, Croatian archaeology was able to maintain a comparably higher and better status within so- ciety in the last century or so. The facts outlined in this chapter, such as the number of archaeo- logical institutions, number of archaeologists within the whole population, well-organised networks of museum and heritage protection services, the number of published papers and books, put Croatia on the very top regarding the overall structure and functioning of archaeology as a discipline and practice. If we look at the map of archaeological institutions in Croatia (Fig. 25), we can see the densest network compared to all other countries presented in this book. What is an especially positive characteristic of the Cro- atian network is a very large number of institu- tions on local levels. 233 The whole ‘motorway’ archaeology and the emergence of private enterprises in Croatian archaeology were also based on the Slovene experience, where this pro- cess started some ten years earlier. In Slovenia, high- ly demanding motorway projects frequently hired ar- chaeologists from Croatia, especially between 2002 and 2010, who soon transferred their experience and knowledge to Croatian motorway archaeology and preventive archaeology in general. 234 In 2013 the Association of Archaeologists was regis- tered at the Croatian Chamber of Economy. 124 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 124 22. 10. 2021 11:05:37 Images Fig. 41 Marko Marulić (1450–1524). Fig. 42 Ivan Lucić (1604–1679). One of the founders of literature in Historian and cartographer, Author Croatian. Marulić published the Roman of the very influential study De inscriptions from Italy and Dalmatia. Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri Painting from 1903. sex and Inscriptiones Dalmaticae. Fig. 43 Mauro Orbini (1550?–1611), historian from Dubrovnik, nicknamed the 'Dalmatian Thucydides', author of Il regno de gli Slavi published in 1601 in Pesaro. 125 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 125 22. 10. 2021 11:05:38 Fig. 44 Alberto Fortis (1741–1803), Fig. 45 Matija Petar Katančić (1750–1825), Venetian traveller and naturalist; collected Franciscan priest, professor of antiquities at copious accounts on the archaeology, history, the University of Budapest, numismatician ethnography and geography of Ottoman and epigraphist. Dalmatia. Author of Viaggio in Dalmazia, Venice 1774. Fig. 46 Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski (1816– Fig. 47 Isidor Kršnjavi (1845–1927), art 1889), politician and historian, Conservator historian, painter, and the first professor of of the Central Commission for Croatia art history and archaeology at the University and Slavonia, and founder of Society for of Zagreb. Author of the first archaeological Yugoslav History and Antiquities. textbook written in a South Slavic language. 126 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 126 22. 10. 2021 11:05:38 Fig. 48 The first venue of the Archaeological Museum in Split (est. 1820), photographed in 1908. The museum building was attached to Diocletian's Palace. Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum Split. Fig. 49 New building of the Archaeological Museum in Split (1930s). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum Split. 127 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 127 22. 10. 2021 11:05:38 Fig. 50 Amphitheatre in Pula. Painting by Louis François Cassas (1802). From: Voyage pittoresque et historique de l'Istrie et de la Dalmatie rédigé d'après l'itinéraire de L. F. Cassas, par Joseph Lavallée. Ouvrage orné d'estampes, cartes et plans, dessinés et levés sur les lieux par Cassas, Paris, 1802. Fig. 51 National Palace (Narodni dom), Zagreb. The first seat of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (1846). 128 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 128 22. 10. 2021 11:05:39 Fig. 52 Roman town of Salona (Solin near Split). Capital of the province of Dalmatia. Aerial photo 1930s. Courtesy of the Arhaeological Museum Split. Fig. 53 Participants at the First Congress of Early Christian archaeology in Split (1894). Holy Mass at Manastirine basilica. Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum Split. 129 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 129 22. 10. 2021 11:05:40 Fig. 54 Frane Bulić (1846–1934) in his cabinet in Tusculum in Salona (1920s). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum Split. Fig. 55 Frane Bulić and Arthur Evans in Diocletian's Palace in Split (20th – 21st of June, 1932). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum Split. 130 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 130 22. 10. 2021 11:05:40 Fig. 56 Dragutin Gorjanović Kramberger (second from the left) at the Neanderthal site of Krapina (around 1900). Fig. 57 Dragutin Gorjanović Kramberger Fig. 58 Šime Ljubić (1822–1896). Historian, (1865–1936). Founder of palaeontology and archaeologist, and Director of the National Palaeolithic archaeology in Croatia. Museum in Zagreb 1871–1892). 131 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 131 22. 10. 2021 11:05:40 Fig. 59 Josip Brunšmid (1858–1929). The first Fig. 60 Lujo Marun (1857–1939). professor of archaeology at the University of Zagreb, Franciscan priest and founder of the first also Director of the Archaeological Museum Zagreb. museum of Croatian national antiquities in Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. Knin (1893). Fig. 61 Viktor Hoffiler (1877–1954) at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb (early 1930s). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. 132 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 132 22. 10. 2021 11:05:41 Fig. 62 Town Hall in Osijek, the first venues of the museum in Osijek established in 1877. Photo: https://mso.hr/home-3/. Fig. 63 Ejnar Dyggve (1887–1961). Danish Fig. 64 Mihovil Abramić (1884–1962), researcher of Salona between 1922 and Director of the Archaeological Museum 1960. Honorary citizen of Solin. Photo taken in Split. Courtesy of the Archaeological in 1926. Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum Split. Museum Split. 133 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 133 22. 10. 2021 11:05:41 Fig. 65 The church of Saint Donat (9th century) in Zadar. Venues of the Archaeological Museum in Zadar between 1877 and 1954. In front: Slovene painter Božidar Jakac (1961). Fig. 66 Fontana House in Knin, venues of the Museum of Croatian Antiquities between 1893 and 1934 (Gunjača 1958). 134 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 134 22. 10. 2021 11:05:42 Fig. 67 Grga Novak (1888–1978), historian and Fig. 68 Mate Suić (1915–2002). archaeologists, professor at the Univesrity of Zagreb, Curator and Director of the President of the Yugoslav (i.e. Croatian) Academy of Archaeological Museum in Zadar, Sciences and Arts, excavator of the Neolithic sites on and professor of ancient history at the the island of Hvar. Universities of Zadar and Zagreb. Fig. 69 Duje Rendić-Miočević (1916–1993). Curator Fig. 70 Stojan Dimitrijević (1928– and Director of the Archaeological Museum in 1981). The first professor of prehistoric Zagreb, and professor of Classical and Roman archaeology at the University of Zagreb archaeology at the university of Zagreb. Courtesy of (1961–1981). the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. 135 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 135 22. 10. 2021 11:05:42 Fig. 71 Ksenija Vinski-Gasparini (1919–1995). Fig. 72 Zdenko Vinski (1913–1996). Curator Curator for prehistory at the Archaeological for medieval archaeology at the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (1944–1979). Courtesy of Museum in Zagreb (1945–1979). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. Fig. 73 Ružica Drechsler Bižić (center) (1931–2008). Curator at the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. Photo taken in Lika (Dautbegović (2009). 136 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 136 22. 10. 2021 12:02:46 Fig. 74 Vesna Jurkić Girardi (left) (1944–2012), Director of the Archaeological Museum of Istria, Pula, guiding Queen Elizabeth II and Josip Broz Tito in amphitheatre in Pula (1972). Glas Istre 20. 10. 2019. Fig. 75 Šime Batović (1927–2016), curator at the Archaeological Museum Zadar and professor of prehistory at the University of Zadar, excavating the Roman cemetery in Zadar (1953–1954). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum Zadar. 137 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 137 22. 10. 2021 11:05:43 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 138 22. 10. 2021 11:05:43 IV. SERBIA Serbia is a landlocked country with a territory and densely forested mountain ridge rising for of about 77,000 km2 (excluding Kosovo) extend- some 500 m between the alluvial plains of the ing from Hungary in the north to N. Macedonia Danube and Sava rivers, and the Vršac moun-in the south. To the west, it borders with Croa- tains ( Vršačke planine), composed of Palaeozoic tia and Bosnia and Herzegovina along the line minerals in the extreme southwestern edge of of the Danube river, the western slopes of Fruš- Vojvodina, reaching a height of 650 m. Lowland ka Mountain (Fruška Gora) and the Drina river. areas at an altitude of about 200 m are mostly In the clockwise direction, Serbia’s northern and composed of alluvial deposits and large loess northeastern borders with Hungary and Roma- terraces dissected by numerous rivers, other sur-nia in the Pannonian Plain are not marked by face streams and artificial drainage channels. Be-morphological features or rivers, but result from fore the intensive amelioration of large areas of historical territorial changes after the First World Vojvodina, which started in the 19th century and War. Southwards, the border with Romania is continued for more than a century making Vo-marked by the River Danube with its 100 km long jvodina highly suitable for large scale farming, Iron Gorge ( Đerdapska klisura). South from the Iron this region contained extensive marshlands and Gorge, the border with Bulgaria crosses western- floodplains around major rivers. most parts of the Balkan mountains ( Stara Plani- na) and then continues southwards towards the Serbia ‘proper’ (or Serbia in the narrow sense of Osogovo mountains and the border with N. Mac- the word) extends from peri-Pannonian areas edonia. From then on, the Serbian southern bor- south of Danube and continues between the Riv-der with N. Macedonia goes in the east-west di- er Drina in the west and Balkan mountains in the rection. At Preševo the border with Kosovo starts, east. The central axis, north-south oriented, is a and turns northwards and crosses mountainous large alluvial Morava River Valley connecting the terrain up to the Kopaonik mountains, then turns Danube on the north with N. Macedonia to the southwest and reaches mountains of Rogozina south. The Morava Valley is flanked on western and Mokra gora, and northeastern Montenegro. and eastern sides with high mountains, Dinaric The border with Montenegro continues for some to the west, Carpathian, and the Balkans to the 120 km towards the northwest, where it reaches east. Along the northern part of Morava Valley eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. lies the hilly region of Šumadija ( ‘Forested coun- try’), Serbia’s core area in the 19th century. West Serbia is also very heterogeneous in geograph- of Šumadija lies Western Serbia, a high mountain ical terms, although not to the same extent as area draining to the Drina river, intersected with neighbouring Croatia. In general, there are two small and medium-size valleys suitable for settle-major geographical and historical regions. The ment and agriculture. Eastern Serbia is a similar first is Vojvodina (ca. 28% of Serbia’s entire ter- country but with mountains that are, on average, ritory) in the north. This region is part of the lower. This is the least settled area of Serbia, with broader Pannonian Plain and extends north of nearly 50% of it covered with forests on the Bal-the Sava and Danube rivers. In many respects, it kan mountains. Major settlement areas are indi-is similar to the neighbouring region of Slavonia vidual basins spread around the region and areas in Croatia. For the most part, the Vojvodina is along the Timok river. Southern Serbia extends a plain of up to 200 m in altitude. The only two along the Southern Morava river, from Stalać higher hilly areas are Fruška gora, a limestone Gorge in the north to N. Macedonia in the south, 139 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 139 22. 10. 2021 11:05:43 flanked by Kosovo and Bulgaria. Here, the ma- Today, the most suitable land for traditional ag-jor town is Niš, near the confluence of the Rivers riculture is in Vojvodina and the Middle and Nišava and Southern Morava. In this region, the Lower Morava Valley and other major rivers’ val-settlement areas are along southern Morava Val- leys. The hilly regions have smaller, widely dis-ley and in basins between the major mountains. persed areas of cultivable land, but they are more Fig. 76 Relief map of Serbia. 140 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 140 22. 10. 2021 11:05:44 suitable for livestock breeding, especially for rear- was found at Šalitrena pećina, Hadži Prodanova ing sheep and goats. Serbia is rich in ores, particu- pećina and Smolućka pećina, while in Vojvodina, larly the areas south of the Danube and Eastern the best known site from this period is Petrovara-Serbia (e.g. the regions of Bor and Majdanpek), din fortress (Mihailović 2014, 46–51). where the earliest copper mines were already lo- cated in the Late Neolithic. The mining wealth in The number of known Upper Palaeolithic sites Serbia was also intensively exploited in later peri- is, somewhat surprisingly, very low. Mihailović ods, especially in Roman and medieval times. (2014, 81) lists only 11 sites, with no particular geographical patterning. Two Aurignacien sites Throughout history, two corridors were domi- near Vršac–At and Vršac–Crvenka in SE Vo-nant as the primary communication routes. One jvodina are the richest in terms of finds.235 extended in a north-south direction, following the Morava and the Vardar Valleys, and con- The earliest Neolithic sites emerged in Serbia tonected the Aegean Sea with the Danube region. wards the end of the 7th millennium BC. They be-The other route went from east to west, along longed to the Starčevo culture,236 which became the Danube and the Sava rivers, and connected a synonym for the early and greater part of the south-central Europe with the eastern Balkans. Middle Neolithic across the central Balkans and Other vital routes linked Serbia’s western re- Southern Pannonian basin.237 Starčevo culture gions with the Adriatic (through the valleys of sites number in hundreds in Serbia, and strong-the Drina and Drim) and southern Serbia with ly suggest population growth associated with western Bulgaria (via river Nišava and towns of Niš, Pirot and Dimitrovgrad towards Sofia). 235 Most of the finds, a few thousand, were collected with- out excavations and brought later to the Museum in Vršac. Only recently have a few test excavations been Archaeological and historical made (Mihailović 2014, 81–85). 236 Starčevo culture and similar cultures of Körös (Hun- background of Serbia gary), Criş (Romania) are frequently considered as a closely related complex of cultures. Together with cul- Palaeolithic archaeology in Serbia primarily de- tures of Anzabegovo–Vršnik (N. Macedonia), Karano- vo (Bulgaria) and Protosesklo (northern Greece) cul- veloped after the Second World War. Before this tures, these cultures are considered the first European period, only sporadic Palaeolithic finds were re- Neolithic in temperate zones. corded. In the present state of knowledge, Low- 237 Traditionally, Starčevo culture was considered early er Palaeolithic sites are still scarce, and not all Neolithic. However, more recently it became under- stood more as culture formed towards the end of the are fully confirmed. The sites of Kosovska Kosa Early Neolithic and lasted for most of the Middle Neo- near Čačak and Samaila – Vlaška glava stand lithic in the 6th millennium BC. At Lepenski Vir, Vlasac out regarding the number of flakes and artefacts, and some other neighbouring sites in Serbia and Ro- which can be dated to this period. Another site mania in the Iron Gorge, the earliest Neolithic mani- festations were discovered (so-called Proto-Starčevo), that seems to belong to the Lower Palaeolithic is but very locally limited. The problem with the periodi- Kremenac (near Niš) (Mihailović 2014, 22). sation and chronology of the Starčevo culture is due to its wide area, which covers the whole central Balkans and central and eastern Pannonian lowland. This made The Middle Palaeolithic sites are more numerous chronological synchronisation very difficult since and also better researched. Even when compared chronological analyses were most frequently made on to the Upper Palaeolithic sites (Mihailović 2014, regional scales and mostly based on pottery styles from 81), Eastern Serbia stands out with some hundred a selected number of sites excavated decades ago. Only recently, more systematic use of radiocarbon dating is caves containing Middle Palaeolithic finds (e.g. giving a clearer, wider picture. At present, in Serbian Pećina above the Trayan’s Table in Đerdap, Veli- literature, it is accepted that Proto-Starčevo (still rarely ka Balanica, Mala Balanica, Pešturina. In western encountered) and Starčevo belonged to the same cul- ture, the former being of the Early Neolithic but with Serbia, the evidence of Middle Palaeolithic sites Middle Neolithic dates. 141 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 141 22. 10. 2021 11:05:44 general migrations from the Near East (Porčić, raised terraces. In general, they are not large or Blagojević and Stefanović 2016, 1). In this re- long-lasting. They frequently appear in clusters, spect, it is also important to note that Starčevo suggesting that short-lived settlements ‘moved culture is manifested with already well-devel- around’ due to farmed land rotation. They ap-oped technology in farming and pottery pro- pear in all major farming zones and areas in Ser-duction, additionally speaking in favour of bia, from Vojvodina in the north (e.g. Starčevo, new populations (and technologies) expanding Iđoš, Krstićeva humka, Kozluk), in the Morava across Serbia, probably via the Morava Valley. Valley (e.g. Drenovac, Crnokalačka bara, Bubanj, The large majority of Starčevo culture settle- Velika Grabovnica, Pavlovac), and in western ments were located near the rivers or streams on Serbia (e.g. Grivac, Divostin). Fig. 77 Archaeological sites in Serbia mentioned in this chapter. 142 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 142 22. 10. 2021 11:05:44 More permanent and long-lasting tells emerged pottery production, construction of houses, with the Late Neolithic Vinča culture (mid-6th their decoration, the first settlement enclosures to mid-5th millennia BC), which brought sub- (ditches and ramparts), elaboration of stone stantial cultural changes in almost all aspects of and bone objects and the density of settlement. life, but especially the long-term fully sedentary The Vinča culture developed the earliest copper settlement. This culture is spread over a similar mining and metallurgy in the Balkans, a Neo-territory to the previous Starčevo culture – the lithic culture’s true culmination.239 Such a high Central Balkans and southern Pannonian Plain level of technological and cultural progress also with several regional core areas in Vojvodina, reflected very developed exchange networks on Šumadija, and Southern Serbia, but the number regional and larger scales. of sites is much larger. It is also frequently the case that Vinča culture sites are found on earli- Given the conventional archaeological prac-er Starčevo culture sites (e.g. Vinča, Pavlovac, tice of grouping archaeological sites and finds Crnokalačka bara, Grivac, Divostin, Iđoš), but into geographically and chronologically distin-occupied larger areas with a longer occupation guished units (i.e. cultures, cultural complexes, time span. also dominant styles), the Eneolithic period (ca. 3500–2500 BC) brought much larger cultural The eponymous site of Vinča, near Belgrade, is fragmentation compared to the Late Neolithic. also the site of this culture researched in most The distinction between the great plain (Pan-detail in Serbia. It is located on the right bank nonian and peri-Pannonian areas) in the north of the Danube, right across the site of Starče- and the hilly and mountainous terrains and river vo, which is at some 10 km distance. Vinča is a valleys of Central Balkans in the south became tell-type settlement with more than 10 m of de- more enhanced. It remained one of the major posits. The archaeological research of this site features in subsequent archaeological and his-started in 1908 and, with pauses, continues to torical periods. Traditionally, in Serbian archae-the present day.238 ology and the archaeology of the neighbouring countries, such dynamics were frequently inter- Vinča culture sites appear in much more heter- preted in terms of migrations, internal colonisa-ogeneous forms and sizes, varying from large, tion, progressing of the nomadic and semi-no-long-living tells with several hundreds of objects madic herdsmen from the east, and, last but not to smaller and shorter-lived villages. They have least, also due to the large-scale movements of also spread across more different ecological and the Indo-European peoples, and also the move-topographical settings than was the case in the ments of the populations from Eastern European early Neolithic with Starčevo culture. steppe regions. However, in general, the early Eneolithic cultures are frequently interpreted as What also makes large Vinča culture settle- being developed from the earlier, Late Neolith-ments very interesting are their internal plans ic period, especially in the Pannonian part. (e.g. which frequently reveal the regular ordering Tiszapolgar–Bodrogkeresztur cultural complex of houses, especially in big village settlements in Vojvodina, sites: e.g. Srpski Krstur, Čoka). (e.g. Stubline, Drenovac, Selevac, Gomolava). While the interpretations of the spread of later The cultural changes associated with the Vinča Eneolithic regional cultures in the central Bal-culture covered the full range of all major cul- kans are much more prone to migrations as pri-tural and technological domains in farming, mary causes of cultural changes (e.g. cultures 238 An excellent short overview of the major environmen- 239 Among the most outstanding features of Vinča culture tal and economic basis for the long existence of the and the Vinča site itself is the number of clay figurines. Vinča tell is published by Filipović, Marić, Challinor, On the Vinča site only, until today, there were probably Bulatović and Ne. Tasić (2018). more than 2,000 figurines discovered. 143 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 143 22. 10. 2021 11:05:44 of Bubanj–Salcuţa–Krivodol240 in central Serbia, goods (e.g. daggers, swords...), imported goods, and Baden241, Kostolac and Vučedol cultures in large defended settlements, etc. Sites like a ceme-Pannonian and sub-Pannonian areas). In this tery at Mokrin or Feudvar tell well illustrate these context, the emergence of relatively numerous trends, which are even more visible in the Middle hilltop settlements (some also with enclosures) Bronze Age in the Vatin group (large cemetery at is explained, along with the emergence of large Vatin with golden objects, clay idols from Vatin, barrows that are frequently interpreted as the Vršac, Dupljaja, Kličevac) and in large barrows influence of the steppe cultures (Indo-Europe- in western Vojvodina containing burials with ans?). More considerable cultural ‘homogeneity’ metal daggers and swords in western Vojvodina can be observed in the Late Eneolithic in the Pan- with (e.g. Horgoš, Sombor, Velebit, Apatin). The nonian Serbia and Lower Morava Valley areas Vatin culture was the dominant Middle Bronze with more or less contemporary Kostolac and Age culture in Vojvodina, implying a new cycle Vučedol cultures, characterised by highly deco- of cultural ‘homogenisation’. rated pottery, incrusted pottery, developed met- allurgy and the rise of enclosed settlements.242 In central and southern Serbia, the Bronze Age period is less known and researched. It is most- For the major part of the Bronze Age (ca. 2400– ly for this reason that the cultural groups are 1000/800 B.C), cultural differences between the less clearly defined. Milutin Garašanin (1983c, Pannonian and Central Balkan areas continued 704), the major expert in the Balkans Bronze to exist. The Bronze Age can be seen in a great Age, speaks of the Danubian-Balkan complex of number of archaeological cultures and groups cultural groups to encompass the regional varias defined by the traditional cultural-historical eties in Early and Middle Bronze Ages (e.g. Be-approach.243 Again, Vojvodina was much better lotić – Bela Crkva, Bubanj – Hum III, Paraćin and researched. Here, with the Early and Middle Western Serbia Vatin groups). One frequent Bronze Age increased the number of enclosed common feature of almost all of them are large (defended?) sites, new tell settlements and, last (bi-ritual) burial mounds with single or multi-but not least, also numerous large cemeteries. All ple burials. With the Middle Bronze Age also these phenomena are clearly cross-cultural and started to emerge enclosed and hilltop settle-speak of general tendencies. One such tendency, ments in greater number. The major sites from clearly observable from the Late Eneolithic on- the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Serbia are wards, which continued throughout the Bronze cemeteries in Belotić, Bela Crkva, Dragačevo (in Age, was the emergence of more stratified soci- Drina area); Bubanj, Gornja Toponica, (in Niš eties. ‘Chiefs’ can be discerned from rich grave area), Paraćin, Jagodina, Đurinac, Maćija (in the Middle Morava Valley). 240 Sites: Zemun, Bubanj, Zlotska pećina, Krivelj. 241 Sites of this culture are highly concentrated in Srem Much greater cultural homogenisation emerged and Bačka regions in western Vojvodina: Bačka Palan- with the late Bronze Age with the influence of ka, Novi Sad–Rimski šančevi, Pančevo, Zemun. Srem-ka Mitrovica, Vinča... the Urnfield culture’s supra-regional expansion. 242 The Kostolac culture seems to be spread in two ma- Its regional variants are present in Pannonian jor zones. in Srem in western Vojvodina, frequently Serbia and also exercised its influence south of mixed with Vučedol culture on the same sites (e.g. Ze- the Danube. The cultural matrix of the general mun, Belegiš, Vrdnik, Ruma, Gomolava) and in eastern Serbia in sites, also with ‘mixed’ pottery styles (e.g. Urnfield culture, a high level of technology in Bubanj, Zlostka pećina, Bogovinska pećina, Kostolac). metalworking, pottery production, engagement 243 Bronze Age cultures and groups in the Pannonian area: in long-distance exchange, stratified society and Vinkovci and Moriš groups (Early Bronze Age); Vatin, largely shared symbolism and religious concepts, Dubovac–Žuto brdo, Transdanubian Incrusted Pottery, and Grave Barrows groups (Middle Bronze Age), and made a strong basis for forming the Iron Age pol-Urnfield group (Late Bronze Age). ities of Pannonians. The major sites of this group 144 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 144 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 in Vojvodina are Kalakača, Belegiš, Karaburma, Višesava, Godljevo, Kremna). Simultaneously, Gradina–Bosut, and Kovačica. A special group the river basin of Middle and Southern Morava of sites represent hoards with metal objects (e.g. is ascribed to Tribali and Dardanians. Mounds at Topolnica, Uljma, Gaj, Novi Kostolac, Barajevo, Atenica and Novi Pazar are the most notable cas-Jakovo – Ekonomija Sava, Šimanovci). Altogeth- es of local elites buried with Aegean materials, er, there are some 30 to 40 hoards from Pannoni- amber and objects from precious metals. an and peri-Pannonian Serbia. The Later Iron Age in Serbia is closely associat- In central and southern Serbia, the Urnfield ed with Celtic peoples’ expansion in the Dan-culture influences were much less present. The ube area in the second half of the 4th century BC. principal late Bronze Age cultures seen in the The core area of the Scordisci, a Celtic tribe, was Mediana and Donja Brnjica – Gornja Stražava between Sava and Danube (Srem region) with groups (sites: Mediana, Dojevići), still more some 20 sites (e.g. Jarak, Gomolava, Batrovci). local elements from the Middle Bronze Age. At the confluence of these two rivers (today Bel-Here, the cultural and social processes led to grade), Scordisci built their centre, Singidunum, central Balkan peoples’ formation, e.g. Darda- which later became the Roman town. A fascinat-nians, Tribali, Thracians, Moesi, mentioned lat- ing hoard of silver jewellery came from the Žido-er in the ancient sources. var settlement. Scordisci frequently made incur- sions to the south, where Early Iron Age cultural The beginning of the Iron Age (ca. at 1000 B.C. in groups continued. The best site for observing the south, 800 BC in the north) in Serbian archae- the archaeological presence of Celtic Scordisci is ological literature was traditionally associated their large cemetery at Karaburma in Belgrade. with major migrations in SE Europe and Aegean area, Dorian, Thracian, Cimmerian and Scythian, The Romans initiated their conquest of today’s from the beginning of the 1st millennium to ca. Serbian territory from the west in Augustus’s 600 B.C. However, in recent decades, this idea is campaigns against Pannonian tribes (35–33 BC), less in use, giving way to more complex interpre- a few years later from the south. Until the mid-1st tations of cultural change. Northern, Pannonian century AD, the situation consolidated enough Serbia continues its development based on the for the establishment of the province of Moesia. Late Bronze Age Urnfield cultural matrix, such During the reign of Domitian, in AD 87, Moe-is the case with the Bosut group with more than sia was divided into two provinces; the western 50 sites in Vojvodina (e.g. Gradina–Bosut, Stari part became Moesia Superior (Upper Moesia) Slankamen–Gradina) which also exhibit contacts which included the territory of today’s Serbia, with eastern cultures (e.g. Besarabi pottery types while Moesia Inferior (Lower Moesia) was given and ornaments). the territory on the east, on the Lower Danube.245 South of the Danube, along major river basins, 245 The Roman administrative division went through sev-several different regional groups emerged. In eral changes in the following centuries. The province of the west, in the Drina river basin, the dominant Dacia was established during the Traian’s military oper- ations at the beginning of the 2nd century AD against the cultural matrix is that of the Glasinac culture,244 Dacians, included Banat (part of Vojvodina between riv- hillforts, burial mounds, ornaments, connecting ers Tisa and Danube). Trajan also divided the province western Serbia with the core area of the Glasinac of Pannonia into Pannonia Superior and Pannonia Infe- culture in Bosnia and Herzegovina (sites: e.g. rior. The latter included today’s southwestern Vojvodi- na, with Sirmium as its provincial capital. Diocletian’s reforms introduced new changes, the establishment of new provinces of Dardania and Praevalitana, which in- 244 For more on this culture, distinguished for its hillforts cluded southern areas of Moesia Superior. The province and especially numerous large barrows, see in the of Pannonia Inferior was also divided; the Serbian terri- chapter on Bosnia and Herzegovina. tory belonged to the province of Pannonia Secunda. 145 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 145 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 There were two provincial capitals, Sirmium In Moesia, where predominantly hilly and moun- (Pannonia Inferior) and Viminacium (Moesia tainous terrain intersected with river valleys, this Superior), on Serbian soil. process took a somewhat different shape. In this province, besides two large towns (Viminacium The Romans first founded cities in Pannonia in and Naissus), there also existed several small-the 70s AD when they founded Sirmium (Srem- er municipal or semi-municipal settlements in ska Mitrovica), located some 70 km east of the Ćuprija ( Horrea Margi), Smederevo ( Semendria), Sava and Danube rivers’ confluence at Belgrade. and Pirot ( Tures). There were also some larger In Moesia Superior, this happened later. Had- settlements developed out of the military forts rian, ruling between AD 118–35, granted mu- (e.g. at Ravna ( Timacum Minus), Bela Palanka nicipal status to two large military forts on the ( Remesiana)). Danube, Singidunum (Belgrade) and Viminaci- um (near Kostolac), some 50 km east of Belgrade, Moesia’s real economic importance was in its near the confluence of the Morava and Danube. ores, and for strategic reasons a great deal of Viminacium also became a provincial capital. In extraction of minerals was managed by imperi-Serbia’s southern parts, the Roman city of Nais- al officers. The principal ores were silver, lead, sus (Niš) was founded later, during Marcus Au- and copper. The so-called territoria metallorum, relius’s reign (AD 161–180). It is situated near which generally had a special administrative the confluence of Southern Morava and Nišava, status, were located in Kosmaj, south of Bel-at the crossroads of important roads leading to- grade ( Metalla Tricornensia), near the town of Bor wards the Danube, Thessaloniki, southern Adri- in eastern Serbia ( Metalla Pincensia) and in the atic and Sofia in Bulgaria. areas bordering what is today northern Koso- vo ( Metalla Dardanica). In this territoria emerged Roman settlement differed in Moesia Superi- settlements with some municipal characteris-or and Pannonia Inferior. Throughout the flat tics but not proper cities. Imperial property and Pannonia developed a more or less standard large areas left to the indigenous population Roman pattern of municipal settlements with ( civitates peregrinae) made typical Roman villas villas in their ageri, surrounding villages and less common in the countryside until the 3rd farmsteads already in the 2nd century AD, if not century AD (e.g. Anine near Lajkovac, Višesa-a few decades before, typical for agriculturally va near Bajina Bašta, Mediana near Niš, Krivelj suitable regions. After Sirmium, the largest Ro- near Bor, and Gamzigrad, prior the construction man town was Bassianae near Donji Petrovci, of the imperial palace).247 founded at the end of the 1st century AD, raised to municipium in 124 AD, and in 214 AD to a Another important Roman feature that exercised colony. There were also relatively numerous long-term influence on economic, social, and smaller municipal settlements, e.g. Acumincum historical development in subsequent centuries near Slankamen, Bononia (Bonoštor), at Petro- was limes (or the military frontier) on the Dan-varadin. The countryside was densely settled ube.248 The limes line in Serbia, almost 600 km by numerous villages ( vici, pagi) and farming villas (e.g. Hrtkovci–Vranj,246 Dumbovo). Sim- 247 Traditionally, the border between the provinces of ilar countryside with numerous vici and villas Moesia and Dalmatia was most frequently considered was in the Lower Drina Valley (i.e. region of at the River Drina, but this is not yet confirmed. For this reason, Anina and Višesava may belong to the Dalma- Mačva), which also belonged to the Province of tia and not Moesia. Pannonia (Ilić 2012, 119–123). 248 Limes Pannoniae began at Carnuntum near Vienna and followed the course of Danube through Slovakia, Hun- gary and Croatia. It ended at the confluence of the Sava 246 Five Roman villas are recorded in the area of Hrtkovci and Danube rivers at Belgrade. From then on, con- (Dautova Ruševljanin 2005, 329). tinued Limes Moesiae via the Iron Gorge and today’s 146 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 146 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 long, was heavily fortified with several dozens memorial complex at Gamzigrad, eastern Ser-of various forts and other military structures. bia, built by Emperor Galerius (AD 293–311).249 Amongst them, the most spectacular was Tra- Another site, also associated with Tetrarchs’ pe-jan’s Bridge in the Iron Gorge. Containing some riod, is the residential and memorial palace at 80 sites, the Serbian part of the limes is presently Šarkamen, near Negotin in eastern Serbia, attrib-on UNESCO’s tentative list. Most of these sites uted to Emperor Maximin Daja (AD 308–313), in the Moesian part (e.g. Boljetin, Diana, Donji co-emperor with Constantine the Great.250 Out-Milanovac (Roman Taliata), Ram (Fortress Led- standing imperial constructions were also found erata), Pontes (remains of Trajan’s Bridge) were at Sirmium (Imperial Palace, end of the 3rd centu-researched due to the construction of large pow- ry BC). The group of Roman imperial construc-erplants in Đerdap. tions in Serbia completes the town of Justiniana prima (Caričin grad near Leskovac, southern Ser- Crucial for the limes’ functioning was also a bia). Justinian I (AD 527–565) founded this town series of (military) roads connecting the forts (nearby his birthplace?) in 535, and the town ex-themselves and their hinterland. These roads isted until AD 615.251 also had a significant impact on the develop- ment and economy of other settlements in the With the collapse of the Western Roman Em-area. Of these roads, the most important was pire, ‘Pannonian’ Serbia, and Sirmium in par-Via Militaris, constructed in the 1st century AD. ticular, became an arena of changing rulers and It connected Singidunum, Viminacium and migrating peoples. These included Sarmatians, then turned south to Naissus. From there, one Eastern Goths, Huns, Gepids, Langobars, Av-road led to the east, to Serdica (Sofia), Philippopo- ars, Slavs, Magyars and Byzantines. This very lis (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) and Adrianopolis (Edirne, dynamic period between the mid-5th century Turkish Thrace), to end in Constantinople. The and the Frankish defeat of the Avars at around other road from Naissus went south, towards 800, is quite well reflected in archaeological Thessaloniki and Athens. 249 The palace of Felix Romuliana was built as an imperial After the Romans’ retreat from Dacia (ca. AD residence where Emperor Galerius would retire from 272), Moesia and Lower Pannonia gained more his 20 years of office. The same type of palace is Dio- strategic importance. Being located in the hin- cletian’s Palace in Split, Croatia. Such imperial palac- terland of limes and commanding large military es were built only during the era of the tetrarchs (AD 285–313). Both palaces are on the UNESCO World troops at the frontier, the generals from Sirmium Heritage list. and Viminacium frequently usurped the impe- 250 This attribution is still not completely confirmed. The rial powers in the 3rd and 4th centuries. On the palace was researched first by Dragoslav Srejović in other hand, Naissus is known as the birthplace the mid-1990s. Later research revealed a residential and memorial complex extending over 10 hectares, of Constantine the Great. Regarding the Roman with some ten towers, a mausoleum outside the pal- emperors from Moesia and Lower Pannonia, one ace (presumably of the Maximin’s wife, sister of Gale- archaeological site is of particular importance, rius), monumental gates, external walls, pieces of im- perial jewellery, remains of imperial statues. The style the imperial palace of Felix Romuliana with its of architecture and construction is very similar to those at Gamzigrad. border between Romania and Bulgaria, down to the 251 Iustiniana Prima was also made the capital of the pre-Danube’s delta. During the Roman occupation of Da- fecture of Illyricum and the seat of the Archbishop of cia, a series of other similar military structures were the Dacian Diocese. The fortified site, over 4 hectares constructed (e.g. Constantine Wall and Limes Transal- large, was divided into the Upper and Lower Town. utanus in Romanian Wallachia). Major parts of the On the ‘Acropolis’ there was a large episcopal basili- Moesian lime were built during the reign of Emperors ca with baptistry; altogether, there were ten basilicas Trajan and Hadrian in the first decades of the 2 nd cen- in Iustiniana Prima. As one of the extraordinary cases tury AD. Major reconstructions were done by Septimi- of the early Byzantine architecture, Iustiniana prima is us Severus (AD 193–211) and Antoninus (AD 211–217). listed on UNESCO’s tentative list. 147 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 147 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 sites, especially in the cemeteries (e.g. Mokrin, the Danube started a century or so later, form-Vrbas, Slankamen, Vojka). Of particular in- ing their polities or Sclaviniae, as they were terest is the cemetery at Čelarevo, near Bačka termed in the Byzantine sources.253 The archae-Palanka, where in 1972 some 650 graves from ology of the Slavs in Serbia developed relative-the 8th and 9th centuries were excavated. The ly late, after the Second World War. Today the graves belonged to three different groups, Av- situation is very different. Earlier phases of ars or similar (burials with horses), group bur- Slavic colonisation in the Danube and Panno-ials with Judaistic symbols (menorahs incised nian areas fall into the period of the Avar’s rule on bricks), and Slavs.252 (until ca. AD 800). The sites are mostly ceme- teries and are considered mixed Avaro-Slavic In the Moesian part, after the Roman Empire’s sites, such as at Odžaci, Vrbas, Mali Iđoš and collapse, the most significant sites are the Byz- Vojka (see more in Vinski 1971, 65–67). In the antine forts that controlled this territory. There central Balkans, the situation is far less clear are probably over 100 such sites, including the concerning the archaeological evidence. Slavic Danube limes. The best researched case is Grad- finds were discovered around the Late Roman ina na Jelici near Čačak (Milinković 1995). or Byzantine towns or palatial complexes. Still, no exclusively Slavic site (cemetery or settle- A few words need to be said about early Chris- ment) from the period between the 6th and 10th tian monuments from Late Antiquity. Christi- centuries AD has been discovered. anity mostly developed in towns with bishop’s seats emerging in the mid-4th century (e.g. Sir- Another people who also had a strong influ-mum, Viminacium, Horreum Margi (Ćuprija)). ence on Slavic settlement in the Balkans and In 535, the archbishop’s seat was established in Pannonia were the Bulgars. They originated Iustiniana prima. The most frequent Christian in western Eurasia from where they frequent-monuments outside towns were small village ly raided the Danube and Balkan areas in the churches (Milinković 2015, 36). The Byzantine 5th and 6th centuries, especially the areas con-Empire was able to control the Danube limes trolled by Byzantium. Towards the end of the and most of the territory south of the Danube 7th century, they formed their first ‘empire’ in until the beginning of the 7th century AD. How- northeastern Bulgaria and soon extended it to-ever, various Slavic groups appeared in Ser- wards the west. In the 8th and 9th centuries, they bia’s territory in the 6th century AD, but mostly became absorbed by the Slavic majority popula-raided Byzantine towns in Lower Pannonia, tion. This process was further strengthened by Macedonia and central Greece. More extensive Christianisation (mid-9th century AD) and by and stable Slavic colonisation of areas south of accepting the church liturgy in the Slavic language, as developed by Cyril and Methodius.254 252 Some Serbian archaeologists assume that Judaistic symbols mark the Khazars, the Turkic-speaking peo- 253 According to Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus’ text ple ruling the territory between the Caspian and Black On the Governance of the Empire, dated to the mid-10th Seas, allies of Byzantine against Persians (first half of century, the Slavs settled in Central Balkans during the the 7th century). In the 8th century, they expanded to the reign of Emperor Heraclios (AD 610–641). west, and among peoples they subjected were also Bul- 254 Cyril, also Constantine (AD 827–869) and Methodius garians, Magyars, and Slavs. For a long time, Khazars (AD 815–884), Byzantine clerics scholars whose mis- remained allies of the Byzantines (Emperors Justinian sionary work had the greatest impact on the Christian- II and Constantine V married Khazar wives). There isation of Slavs in Moravia (western Czech Republic), is one striking feature associated with Khazars, their Slovakia, Hungary and the whole of Balkans, Serbia in- adoption of the Judaist religion in the mid-8th century. cluded. They were also associated with the attempts to The whole process of conversion and its wider effects Christianise the Khazars. They translated the Bible into are still rather unknown and a matter of dispute. The the Old Church Slavonic language and invented appro- Khazar khaganate ceased to exist after their defeat to priate alphabets (Glagolitic and Cyrillic) for using this the Kiev Kingdom in the mid-10th century. language. Some of their disciples later formed several 148 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 148 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 During their first empire (7th–10th centuries), the period prior to the arrival of the Ottomans are Bulgars controlled a large territory between the castles and fortresses (e.g. Smederevo, Golubac, Black Sea and Adriatic.255 In terms of archaeol- Pirot). Both ecclesiastic and military monuments ogy, several hundred years of Bulgarian rule is were also archaeologically examined whilst they not particularly visible. Most of the sites that were being renovated. can be attributed to this period are either eccle- siastical buildings, which did not differ much This brief archaeological survey needs to be com-across the whole area of the Balkans (they have pleted with a few notes on the Ottoman-period been all built in a similar, Byzantine influenced archaeology, which only developed in archaeo-style), or some military forts. logical terms a few decades ago. Previously, the Ottoman and Ottoman-period monuments were The Slavs in Serbia did not form stronger polit- mainly the research domain of architects, histo-ical polities until the 9th or 10th centuries, when rians and art historians. Most of these sites and the first Sclaviniae (local Slavic polities) in south- monuments were also researched in the context western and southern Serbia emerged, and of heritage protection (e.g. due to development which generally remained under the Byzantine in towns and renovation of older churches). Such rule until the end of the 12th century. Gradually, cases were mostly in towns (e.g. Belgrade, Niš), some local Serbian dynasties were able to form where massive Ottoman fortresses were built on larger and stronger principalities. The House of the Roman towns of Singidunum (Kalemegdan) Nemanjići, the rulers of the Principality of Raška and Naissus. (SW Serbia), paved the foundation to the medie- val Kingdom of Serbia and the establishment of Following the Ottoman conquests of the Balkans the autonomous Serbian Orthodox Church from (mid-14th to mid-15th centuries), Serbia came the beginning of the 13th century. The Kingdom under Ottoman rule for the next 400 years. The of Serbia, at the peak of its power in the mid-14th history of Vojvodina followed a different path century, conquered the area between the Danube until the end of the First World War. Between and Aegean Sea, down to Peloponnese. It is the the 11th and mid-16th centuries it belonged most high medieval sites and objects in Serbia which of the time to Hungary, then for a century or so are more distinguishable, especially church- it fell under Ottoman rule, to become Hungar-es and monasteries in prominent ecclesiastical ian land again within the Habsburg Empire at places, most of them are in southwestern Serbia: the beginning of the 18th century, and stayed as Sopoćani and Stari Ras, Đurđevi Stupovi, Stu- such until the end of the First World War when denica, Žiča, and Kosovo: Patriarch’s seat at Peć/ it belonged to Serbia. Throughout its history, Pejë, monasteries at Dečani/Deçan and Gračan- especially in recent centuries, Vojvodina was ica/Graçanica. Most of them were endowments an ethnically diverse region, settled by Serbs, of the medieval Serbian kings and high nobles.256 Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, Czechs and Other monumental sites from the high medieval Croats. The Serbian settlement was, similarly to Croatia, also associated with the military fron-schools across the Slavic countries, further spreading tier north of the Sava and Danube rivers. Cul-the new religion and the Slavonic language. Pope John tural development in Vojvodina, also of Serbs, Paul II made them the Apostles of Slavs in 1985. was strongly influenced by Austrian and Hun- 255 In historiography, the term Proto-Bulgars is frequently used for denoting Bulgars prior to their Christianisa- garian culture. In contrast, the culture, society tion and assimilation with the Slavic majority, whilst and way of life of Serbs in the Ottoman Empire Bulgars (or Bulgarians) is used for subsequent periods. was distinctively different. 256 Stari Ras, Sopočani and Studenica (Serbia), and a Patri- archate at Peć, Church of Holy Virgin at Dečani/Deçan and Gračanica/Graçanica monasteries (Kosovo) are Serbia’s national movement began build-listed as UNESCO World Heritage Sites. ing strength from the end of the 18th century 149 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 149 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 onwards, first among the Serbs living in Vojvodi- constituent republics, which also included two na, followed by Serbs in Šumadija. After a series autonomous provinces, Vojvodina and Kosovo. of uprisings and diplomatic manoeuvres in the Montenegro and N. Macedonia were exempted first half of the 19th century, Serbia succeeded from the territory of Serbia, and likewise pro-in achieving the status of a semi-autonomous claimed themselves federal republics. principality. At the Congress of Berlin in 1878, Serbia was finally recognised as an independent Such an administrative-territorial structure country whose territory extended across pres- stayed in place until the collapse of Yugoslavia. ent-day Serbia proper . Vojvodina remained un- In 1992, following the declaration of the indeder the Austro-Hungarian rule, while the Otto- pendence of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and mans remained in Sandžak (SW Serbia). Serbia Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montene-expanded notably after the Balkan Wars (1912– gro formed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 1913) when it annexed Sandžak and large parts In 2003, this new country changed its name to of Macedonia.257 After the First World War it also Serbia and Montenegro. Montenegro stepped annexed Vojvodina, practically doubling the size out of this union in 2006. Significant changes took of its territory. Moreover, immediately after the place after 1998 when, after a series of rebellions First World War Montenegro proclaimed the by the majority Albanian population in Kosovo end of its independence and unification with who assisted with the military intervention of the Kingdom of Serbia. Such an enlarged Serbia the NATO alliance, this previously autonomous joined with the State of the Serbs, Croats and province de facto separated from Serbia. After a Slovenes258 and formed the Kingdom of Serbs, decade as a United Nations’ protectorate, Koso-Croats and Slovenes (which in 1929 changed its vo declared independence in 2008, although thus name into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), which is not yet fully recognised by all international orwas ruled by the Serbian royal dynasty. ganisations and is also disputed by Serbia. During the Second World War After (1941– Between 1991 and 1995, Serbia was also involved 1945), Serbia was divided among the occupying in the civil war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herze-countries. Hungary occupied western Vojvodi- govina. Amid the disintegration of Yugoslavia, na, while eastern Vojvodina became a German the regions in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzego-protectorate. N. Macedonia became divided be- vina, inhabited by a relatively substantial Serbi-tween Italy and its Albanian allies and Bulgar- an population, openly confronted the newly de-ia, while in central Serbia, a marionette quisling clared independent states and insisted on joining state was formed under a German protector- their resident territories to Serbia. Their claims ate. In most of its current territory, Serbia was were strongly orchestrated by the regime of Slo-formed immediately after the Second World bodan Milošević in Belgrade. This led to several War in the context of the renewed (Social- years-long armed conflicts with very tragic con-ist) Yugoslavia. It became one of Yugoslavia’s sequences for all sides involved. Following the end of the war and a major exodus of Serbs from 257 In the Balkan wars, the historical region of Macedo- Croatia in 1995, the remaining Serbs in Croatia nia was taken away from the Ottomans and divided gained local cultural autonomy. In the same between Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria. Serbia annexed year, the Dayton Peace Treaty ended the war in the Macedonian territory, which corresponds to today Republic of North Macedonia. See more on this in the Bosnia and Herzegovina. There, a new territorial chapter on N. Macedonia. entity was created and given a high level of in- 258 The State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed in dependence, Republika Srpska (the Republic of the days of the final collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Srpska), which extended over nearly 50% of the Empire by South Slavic nations living in Empire. It lasted only one month before its union with the Kingdom territory of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. of Serbia on the 1st of December 1918. 150 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 150 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 Great cultural and social changes accompanied be followed. This is, for example, clearly visible these remarkable political transformations in in the architecture, urban planning, the forma-Serbia over the last two centuries. From a long- tion of new public institutions, adoption of West-term perspective, Serbia’s political and cultur- ern aesthetics and attitudes. These tendencies al history was, in a regional context, defined rapidly replaced the old traditions of Ottoman mainly by two factors. One of them is the strong times, especially in Belgrade. In rural areas, this cultural (and political) influence of the Byzan- process was much slower.259 Vojvodina played tine culture in the Early and High Middle Ages, an essential part in this process. After the end which as a consequence, had a predominantly of the Turkish wars and the ultimate stabilisa-Orthodox Christian population. Another factor tion of the Danube border in the 18th century, the is the Turkish rule of Serbia from the mid-15th gradual establishment of the first institutions of until the mid-19th centuries. In the period im- significance for Serbian national and cultural de-mediately preceding the Turks’ arrival, Serbia velopment began in Austrian-ruled Vojvodina. succeeded in developing itself into a strong re- gional political and cultural (mostly religious) power. However, Serbia declined to a more- Travellers, national antiquarians and or-less marginal area of chiefly military impor- the first archaeological practices in the tance during Ottoman rule, as a zone bordering 18th and 19th centuries Austria or Hungary. The Serbs, who from the 15th century onwards lived in several different In Serbia, as in the other Balkan countries under states – Turkey, in conquered Bosnia and Her- Ottoman rule, the advancement of antiquarian-zegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Hungary, ism and archaeological practices took a different the Austrian Military Frontier, and also in the path compared to the countries under Habsburg Venetian lands on the Adriatic coast – lacked or Venetian rule (e.g. Slovenia and Croatia). The a more potent unifying political force until the local antiquarian activities in the ‘Ottoman’ Bal-end of 18th century. The principal element of kans generally remained poorly developed until their cultural identity for a long time remained the 19th century, when they started to increase, the Serbian Orthodox Church. often associated with the formation of national movements of the non-Turkish peoples and the Due to its marginal position in the Ottoman Em- emergence of the notion of the national history pire, larger urban centres developed relatively of these peoples. late in the area to the south of the Danube. They started occurring more intensively only towards The reasons behind such a late development of the second half of the 19th century, parallel with antiquarian and archaeological practices in the the first attempts at industrialisation. This ex- Ottoman culture remain to be explored. Texts ample adequately illustrates the different role on the history of the Ottoman Empire, gene-and status of Bosnia and Herzegovina. From alogies of the rulers and similar overviews, the 16th century onwards there developed local travel journals and geographical descriptions Bosnian-Ottoman urban areas (e.g. Sarajevo, – regular components of the early antiquarian Travnik, Mostar), and the related economic and activity in western Europe – were certainly not cultural activities. 259 Acknowledging the myriad of ethnographic works When in the final decades of the 19 produced by domestic scientists that describe the Serbi- th century an village culture, one of the most significant studies by Serbia achieved independence, an accelerated foreign scientists is recommended here, a monograph process of modernisation (i.e. Europeanisation) A Serbian Village published in 1967 by Joel Halpern. commenced, evident in several aspects of public Based on it, one can clearly distinguish the long-pre- served patterns of the traditional life and social organi- and private life, where western models started to sation in the mid-20th century. 151 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 151 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 unknown to the Ottoman elites, which could since the Renaissance period, and was strong-find the origins of such texts both in (ancient) ly influenced by Italian antiquarian scholar-European and Arabian sources. Likewise, nu- ship. The development of medieval urban cen-merous Turkish travel writers, among which tres and culture generally was rather abruptly the most famous was Evliya Çelebi (1611–1682), stopped with the Ottoman conquest. The Otto-contributed some of the best descriptions of mans introduced a new administrative division the vast Ottoman Empire of the 17th century. and a different feudal system. They raised sev-His major work was The Book of Travels ( Seya- eral large military garrisons across Serbia while hatname), a travelogue where he describes his traditional medieval centres (political and re-numerous travels and encounters with peoples, ligious) lost the political and economic power including those to the Balkan countries.260 Trav- they used to have in the 14th century. Many of ellers, both Ottoman and later also those from them declined to a level of small towns ( kas-western Europe, frequently noted down much bahs). Larger settlements were mostly military historical data about old fortresses and towns garrisons (e.g. Belgrade, Niš). as well as old tales as part of their observations. Serbia, landlocked by other Ottoman provinces, One of the frequently considered reasons why was not considered strategically or economical-antiquarianism was not popular in the Ottoman ly important in Ottoman eyes. The mines, one of culture was the religious ban on representing the major economic and strategic assets of me-images (figurative art) in religious contexts in dieval Serbia, became governed directly by the Islamic art and decoration; hence collecting Sultan’s office. Despite the proximity to highly them in the form of statues or other figural rep- developed urban culture in coastal Dalmatia, resentations was undesirable. However, this ar- continental Croatia and Hungary, and intensive gument is not entirely valid because there are trade contacts and diplomacy of the Ottomans cases of such practices, even at the Sultan’s court, with Genoa, Venice and also with Dubrovnik, such as Ciriaco de Pizzicoli, who for some time for the next two or three centuries Serbia did served as a secretary to the Sultan responsible not become urbanised at a similar pace as the for collecting antiquities, mainly from Greece. neighbouring Austrian or Venetian lands. In However, the fact remains that collecting antiq- fact, the level of urbanisation was not even uities between the 15th and 18th centuries was far comparable to the development of the Ottoman less common and popular in the Ottoman coun- urban centres in Bosnia and Herzegovina.261 In tries than in Christian Europe. addition to this, the Christian Churches (Catho- lic and Orthodox) were generally tolerated but Another reason for the late development of an- not supported by the state, and non-Muslims tiquarianism was the poorly developed urban were frequently considered as raya (citizens culture, especially in the Balkan countries. A with minor political and economic rights). The brief look at the social context of antiquarian- situation was different in Vojvodina, which was ism clearly shows that it developed in courts under Hungarian rule in the Habsburg Empire. of many nobles (high and lower-ranked) and There, general economic and social develop-towns with high urban culture, significantly ment followed the Central European patterns. Vojvodina from the 18th century onwards be- 260 Evlya Çelebi visited an astonishing number of coun- came increasingly settled by Serbs from ‘Otto-tries: Anatolia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Ethio- pia, Arabia, Caucasus, Crimea, Romania, Hungary, man’ Serbia, and soon became the cultural cen-Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Slovenia, Cro- tre of the Serbs (see below). atia, Albania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Macedonia, Aus- tria, Poland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Crete. It is estimated that he travelled more than 300,000 km. UN- 261 An excellent brief account of Serbia during Ottoman ESCO proclaimed 2011 the year of Evlya Çelebi. rule is provided by Ćirković (2004). 152 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 152 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 The Ottoman Balkans nevertheless attracted 1553, Hans Dermschwam, Anton Brančič, and western merchants, diplomats, travellers and Johannes Belsus, the envoys of Emperor Ferdi-adventurers of all sorts. Their motives differed, nand I on their way to Istanbul, stopped at Niš. from diplomacy and espionage to searching for On this occasion, some Roman pieces built in the opportunities for trade, serving as mercenaries walls of the caravanserai where they stayed were in the Ottoman army, and so on. In doing this, recorded (Petrović 1989, 259). A similar episode they frequently and significantly contributed to came from the end of the 17th century when Eu-the Balkans’ ‘unveiling’ and their history, both gen of Savoy, commander of the imperial army from the international and the local perspec- who defeated Ottomans and conquered large tives.262 These travellers had a wide range of parts of Ottoman territory south of the Danube, incentives, from personal pursuits and adven- recommended that his officials search for ancient tures, sympathy with the local non-Turkish pop- monuments.264 Before giving back the previous-ulation, entrepreneurship and trade, geographi- ly conquered territory to the Ottomans in 1739, cal and ethnographic curiosity and the demand several scholars succeeded in compiling some to acquire a better knowledge of the Ottoman evidence of Serbia’s earlier history. Damien regions in Europe, along with genuine military Hugo von Virmont, Kornfiz Urfeld, the military and economic espionage for the then European officer De Monti, and Jesuits J. Deyrer and P. powers that competed for more effective dom- Erdschlanger brought some information on such inance over the territories which the ‘sick man topics, mostly from Niš and Viminacium. upon the Bosphorus’ found increasingly difficult to control.263 However, the most important scholar who came with the Austrians was Luigi Ferdinando Mar- The first reports on antiquities in ‘Ottoman’ sigli (1658–1730), an Italian nobleman, military Serbia are quite early and associated with the commander in the Habsburg army, naturalist, diplomatic activities of the Habsburg court. In diplomat, and member of the Royal Society. Marsigli undertook several travels in the Otto- 262 Cyriacus of Ancona carried out most of his research on man lands in the Balkans and Asia Minor.265 As old monuments as part of his service to the Ottoman sultan – as a commissioner for ancient monuments. a commissioner for Emperor Leopold I, working One of his tasks was to make a list of the monuments, on the demarcation of the Balkan border between which would serve not only to reaffirm the honour and Austria and Turkey after the Austro-Turkish glory of the Sultan’s court but also to confirm the his- war (1683–1699), Marsigli inspected large are-torical right of the Ottomans to the Aegean and Ioni- an lands. The narrative of Trojan origin, which, until as along the Danube and recorded natural and the 18th century, was a frequent element in the histories historical phenomena. His collaborator in the of several European states, dynasties and even cities, commission was the Croatian scholar Pavel Rit-was also present in the tales about the Ottomans. Here, however, it was used to support an opposite interpre- er Vitezović266 (Mihajlović 2018, 88). The results tation. The Ottomans were in this telling descendants of his work were published in the six-volume of the Trojans (Asians) and had regained the territories monograph Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus in 1726 conquered by the Hellenes (Europeans) after the Tro- jan War. Sultan Mehmed II in particular cultivated this in Le Hague. In the second volume of Danubius, interpretation. 263 The literature on western travellers in the Balkans (and 264 Eugene of Savoy was quite fond of the antiquities he Serbia) is relatively large and is not specifically referred possessed, including the Tabula Peuntingeriana, the fa- to here. Among the earliest such records, one should mous Roman itinerary. mention a travel journal by Edward Brown, A Brief Ac- 265 For more details on Marsigli’s career and works, see count of Some Travels in Hungaria, Servia, Bulgaria, Mac-Stoye (1994). edonia, Thessaly, Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and 266 Pavel Riter Vitezović (1652–1713), a nobleman from Friuli from 1673. The frequency of visits to the Balkans Croatia, historian and disciple of J.V. Valvasor in Slo- was the highest during the 19th century and into the venia; author of several historical texts on Croatia and first decades of the 20th century. See more in Todorova Croatian rulers, Serbia (manuscript Serbia illustrata libro (1997 and 2006). octo), and Bosnia and Herzegovina ( Bosna captiva, 1712). 153 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 153 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 entitled De antiquitatibus Romanorum ad ripas considered a typical travel journalist of the time, Danubii, Marsigli published numerous Roman but more a scholar who wanted to examine the tombstones, coins, architectural remains (mostly Balkans’ archaeology and history systematically, ruins of fortresses on Danubian limes), and Ro- Serbia and Bulgaria in particular. man roads. Marsigli lists some 40 sites along the Middle and Lower Danube, among them Vimi- In 1858, he made his first journey to Montene-nacium, Sirmium, Trajan’s and Constantine’s gro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Dalmatia Bridges, and several Roman forts on limes. His (a year later also to Serbia) as a journalist of a descriptions are accompanied with excellent newspaper from Leipzig to report on upris-graphics, geographical maps and drawings of ings against the Ottomans. It was Vuk Karadžić the inscriptions, architectural remains and other (1787–1864), a famous Serbian linguist and eth-small finds, documentation which remained un- nographer, who spent several years in Vienna, paralleled for more than a century. who recommended Felix Kanitz to Serbian high circles.268 Kanitz’s visits to Serbia continued, and In the 18th century, the majority of the Serbs re- in 1861 the Austrian Academy of Sciences pub-sided in four main territories: in central Serbia lished his first archaeological paper, ‘Die römis-and Bosnia and Herzegovina, under Ottoman che Funde aus Serbien’, which included some rule; in parts of Croatia including the Military 40 sites from the territory of the Princedom of Frontier, under Austrian control; and in Vo- Serbia.269 A year later, he published a survey of jvodina, which, at the turn from the 17th to the Byzantine monuments from Serbia ( Serbiens byz-18th centuries, switched from Turkish to Austri- antinische Monument) , while in 1868 followed his an hands.267 In the centuries to come, this mosaic historical and ethnographic itinerary – Serbien. had far-reaching consequences for the Serbian Historisch-etnographische Reisestudie. His main nation’s cultural and political history, and its re- works followed some two decades later, Römis-lationships with the neighbouring nations and che Studien in Serbien (1892) and Das Königreich countries. For more than a century there were Serbien und das Serbenvolk von der Römerzeit bis no foreign or local scholars in Serbia who could zur Gegenwart (1904). His ‘Roman Studies’ was, match Marsigli. It was only around 1850 when by all measures, the best and most exhaustive archaeological activities were revived, this time archaeological monograph on archaeology in in the context of the national liberation of Serbs Serbia published until that time. It contained de-and their modern nation-building process. scriptions of more than 300 sites and was fully comparable to similar works in other countries. Among foreign scholars whose legacy had a sig- His exquisitely detailed graphics and paintings nificant effect on the development of the mod- of archaeological monuments and sites, as well ern archaeological discipline in Serbia was Felix as other destinations and historical landscapes, Kanitz (1829–1904), a historian, ethnographer remain memorable (Kostić 2011). Kanitz also and archaeologist, and, for a while, also a cura- did some authentic research at Viminacium and tor of the collection of Archaeological and Pre- Mediana and helped establish an archaeological historical Society from Vienna. Kanitz cannot be society Sirmium in 1869 in Sremska Mitrovica. It is interesting to note that Kanitz did not have 267 Following the Great Turkish War between Vienna great reception among the first Serbian archae-and Istanbul (1693–1699) and a series of peace trea- ologists, such as Mihajlo Valtrović or Miloje ties (1699, 1718), the territory of Vojvodina was given to Austria, which immediately started intensive colo- nisation of this region. Vojvodina thus grew into one 268 Karadžić also met Ami Boué (1794–1881) author of the of the ethnically most diverse areas in Europe, where highly influential study La Turquie d’Europe (1849) (Mi- the Serbs, Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, Slovaks, hajlović 2020). Croats and the Ukrainian Russinians and Vlachs set- 269 Serbia was a semi-autonomous princedom under offi-tled in a territory of about 21,500 km2. cial Ottoman rule, not including Habsburg’s Vojvodina. 154 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 154 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 Vasić. The first translation of his major works when the centre of Serbian cultural and nation-came very late, in 1980 (Mihajlović 2018). al development was in Vojvodina – in Novi Sad, and in Serbian Orthodox monasteries in Fruška Among the famous foreign travellers in Serbia Gora that were built as early as the 16th century. who also contributed to archaeological research, Here, among the priests, the first ideas about na-one should not ignore two other scholars, Arthur tional history and national antiquities emerged.272 Evans (1851–1941) and Alfred von Domaszewski Zaharije Orfelin (1726–1785) published a call for (1856–1927). Evans first came to the Balkans in collecting antiquities, and Lukijan Mušicki (1777– 1871 and kept visiting this area until 1931. His 1837), a writer and poet, frequently visited and archaeological and historical research was most- documented old ruins. Mušicki was also one of ly published in his Antiquarian Research in Illyri- the founders of the Serbian Annals ( Serbski letopis), cum.270 During his numerous visits he developed a journal that sparked Matica Srpska’s formation a great sympathy for Slavic peoples, and was – the first prominent Serbian national cultural the first English scholar who systematically pre- organisation, founded in 1826 in Budapest (and sented South Slavs to an English-speaking audi- transferred to Novi Sad in 1864).273 It is indeed ence.271 Domaszewski was an Austrian historian the Matica Srpska where the initiative for estab-from Timişoara (in today’s Romania) and a pro- lishing a national museum came from. The muse-fessor at the University of Heidelberg. In 1886 he um was officially founded in 1844 ( Muzeum Serb-visited numerous Serbian towns to collect infor- ski), together with the adoption of the first Culmation on Roman monuments, and especially tural Heritage Protection Act.274 The museum’s inscriptions for CIL ( Corpus Inscriptionum Lati- beginnings were very modest, it was more just a norum) established by Theodor Mommsen. place for keeping valuable objects. It was not un- til twenty years later (1864) that the first display Today, Serbia’s political, cultural and economic was put on by the first professional archaeologist, centre is indisputably Belgrade (a city of about Mihailo Valtrović, appointed in 1881. 1.7 million inhabitants in a country of 7.5 mil- lion, whereas Novi Sad, the second-largest city in Of the early local scholars, a pioneering role in the country, has six times fewer residents). This, the second half of the 19th century was played however, was not the case in the 18th century, 272 It should be noted that it was among the Serbian schol- 270 Arthur Evans, Antiquarian researches in Illyricum. (Parts ars in Vojvodina where the Kosovo myth and the idea I–II). The Archaeologia Vol. XLVIII (1883), Westminster: of historical and political continuity of the modern Ser- Nichols and Sons and Antiquarian researches in Illyricum, bian statehood from the medieval Kingdom of Serbia Parts III, IV. Archaeologia: or, Miscellaneous Tracts Relat- emerged. The Kosovo myth and the narratives of me- ing to Antiquity, Volume XLIX. London: Nichols and Sons, dieval Serbia under the Nemanjić dynasty, along with for the Society of Antiquaries of London. pp. 1–167. the onset of activity of the renewed Patriarchate of Peć 271 He was especially engaged in 1875 during the large an- in the middle of the 18th century, played a key role in ti-Ottoman uprising in Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the building of the modern Serbian nation and national that, he continued to support the South Slavs in their identity. There is no need to point out that a large por- political emancipation. During the First World War, tion of historical tractates of the 19th and the 20th cen- he made the acquaintance of some members of the ex- turies are characterised by romantic exposition and re- iled Yugoslav Committee (e.g. Frano Supilo and Ante flections on the glory of medieval Serbia and the quest Trumbić) who resided in London; in November 1918 for historical continuity. The power and perseverance this Committee proclaimed the State of Serbs, Croats of these myths also became evident in the recent Yugo- and Slovenes (after the collapse of the Austro-Hungar- slav wars (more details on this can be found in Novak- ian Empire) and strongly lobbied for the pan-Yugoslav ović 2007a, b). cause (i.e. liberation of South Slavs from Austro-Hun- 273 Some details on these two scholars were obtained in garian rule and union with Serbia) (Seton-Watson 1946, personal communication with Aleksandar Palavestra 50). For more on Evans’s political activities regarding of the University of Belgrade. the Balkan Slavs, see ‘On Evans in Serbia and Bosnia 274 An important law in this domain was also adopted in and Herzegovina’ in R. W. Seton-Watson (1946). 1882. 155 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 155 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 by Janko Šafarik (1811–1876), a Slovak by origin, three-age system and archaeological research for born near Budapest. He studied medicine in Bu- understanding the emergence of human civilisa-dapest and Vienna and became a gymnasium tion (Pančić 1885). He was the first to present to a professor in Novi Sad, later also a professor at Serbian audience the work of the pioneer of Pal-the Belgrade Lyceum. His uncle, Pavel Jozef Ša- aeolithic archaeology, Boucher de Perthes. He farik,275 directed him to study the Slavic peoples’ also maintained contacts with Gabriel de Mortil-history and antiquities. In 1848, Janko Šafarik let (Palavestra, pers. comm.). was appointed the first Director of the Serbian National Museum in Belgrade and remained in Another remarkable expert in the field of natu-that position until 1870. He also successfully lob- ral sciences was Jovan Žujović (1856–1938), who bied for a Decree on the Prohibition of Demolish- studied natural sciences in Belgrade with Pančić. ing Old Towns in 1844. In 1846, Šafarik launched He also studied geology and anthropology in what is considered the first local archaeological Paris with Mortillet. Žujović is nowadays con-topographical research in Serbia (Milinković sidered a pioneer of geological and palaeonto-1998, 427). In 1865, he set out on a proper ‘ar- logical research in Serbia. He was a professor at chaeological journey’ across western and central the University of Belgrade and the founder of the Serbia, where he carried out small-scale excava- Natural History Museum in Belgrade. He also tions (Milinković, ibid.).276 In 1867, he founded served as the Minister of Education and Foreign the Society for Archaeology and Ethnography in Affairs of Serbia. His book The Stone Age ( Kameno the Balkans. He was a member of several foreign doba), published in 1893, represents the first syn-scientific societies, including the Archaeological thesis of the European and world prehistory in Society in Moscow, the Society for History and Serbian. Žujović cited all critical European spe-Antiquities in Zagreb. He was also an external cialists in this field (Mortillet, Lubbock, Hoernes, member of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences Quatrefages, Zaborowski, Lartet and others). and Arts in Zagreb. Žujović was also co-founder of the Serbian Ar- chaeological Society (1883). A notable impetus to the development of the archaeological discipline in the second half of the 19th century came from natural sciences. The Towards the modern Serbian most prominent scholar was Josif Pančić (1814– archaeology and its institutionalisation 1888), a Croat by origin who studied medicine (1880–1941) in Budapest, was also botanist, a professor at the University of Belgrade, the first president The development of the archaeological disci-of the Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences and pline in Serbia accelerated considerably after Arts, and pioneer of evolutionism in Serbia. In the 1880s. A crucial move represented the estab-the 1870s, he advocated the importance of the lishment of the National Museum in Belgrade in 1844.277 However, it took a few decades before ar-275 Pavel Jozef Šafarik was an expert in Slavic languages, literature and history. He was a Director of the Gym- chaeology was institutionalised in this museum. nasium in Novi Sad, editor of the journal of the Czech Museum, library curator at the University of Prague, The ‘Austro-Hungarian’ Vojvodina continued a poet and the author of several important works on its leading role in Serbia’s cultural development, Slavic philology, of which some represent the first systematic studies of Slavic languages, the history of lit- erature and antiquities. His best-known publication is 277 The original name of the Museum was Muzeum Serps-Slavic Antiquities ( Slovenske starine), Prague 1837, and ki (Serbian Museum). In the initial years, the museum this was translated into most Slavic languages. did not have any real venues. Museum objects were 276 Šafarik’s excavations of a Roman temple on the moun- kept in the vaults of the Ministry of Education. Interest- tain of Rudnik are considered the earliest archaeologi- ing enough, the Minister (Jovan Sterija Popović) made cal excavations in Serbia (Milinković 1998, 427). the first classification of objects (Kuzmanović 2012, 53). 156 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 156 22. 10. 2021 11:05:45 which could also be seen in the early establish- became a Serbian Royal Academy member, Cro-ment of local museums (Bela Crkva 1877, Vršac atian Archaeological Society, Moscow Imperial 1882, Sombor 1888, Sremska Mitrovica 1895, Sub- Archaeological Society, and the Imperial Ar-otica 1895, Zrenjanin 1906), which corresponds chaeological Institute in Berlin. to the general trend in the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy. Among them, the museums in Vršac In the research domain, a considerable improve-and Sremska Mitrovica devoted much of their ment was offered by two experts who succeeded activities to archaeology. In the Kingdom of Ser- Valtrović: Nikola Vulić and Miloje Vasić. Niko-bia, there were only two museums before 1914, la Vulić (1872–1945) was a student of Valtrović the already mentioned National Museum in Bel- and completed his doctorate at the University grade and the local museum in Požarevac (1895), of Munich. In 1897, he took up the position of a established to house the great wealth of archae- professor of ancient history at the University of ological finds from the nearby Roman military Belgrade. Shortly after his appointment, he em-camp and town of Viminacium. barked on a very ambitious work in ancient his- tory. He gained a reputation as one of the most In Belgrade, a significant step forward was the important ancient historians of southeastern Eu-appointment in 1881 of Mihailo Valtrović (1839– rope in the first decades of the 20th century. This is 1915),278 who completed studies in architecture best exemplified by his authorship of many texts at the University of Karlsruhe. He became a cu- in the Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie der clas-rator of the National Museum in Belgrade and sischen Altertumswissenschaft. He was an external the first professor of archaeology at the Univer- member of the science academies in France, Visity of Belgrade.279 Valtrović’s achievements are enna and Romania. His highly impressive bibli-mostly in the domain of the organisation of the ography of over 550 works shows that he dealt archaeological discipline in the country, enlarge- with more or less all the main topics of ancient ment of the museum and development of the regional history, classical philology and epigra-first curriculum in archaeology. Valtrović was phy.280 In epigraphy, his series Antički spomenici also credited with the foundation of the Serbi- naše zemlje (Ancient Monuments of our Country) an Archaeological Society (1883) and the estab- published together with Anton Premerstein, in lishment of the first archaeological journal in the the Memoirs of the Serbian Academy of Sciences country, Starinar, launched in 1884, which has and Arts, provided a necessary basis for modern been published ever since and represents the studies of the ancient history of the central Bal-most important archaeological scientific period- kans in general.281 ical in Serbia. In terms of archaeological inves- tigations in the field, Valtrović’s contribution is Vulić’s contribution to archaeology was also im-relatively small. He devoted much of his career pressive. He was famous for discovering prince-to studying and conserving medieval architec- ly graves containing golden masks from the 6th ture and art and fulfilling numerous organisa- century BC in Trebenište near the Ohrid Lake, tional and infrastructural needs in the new, still numerous excavations in N. Macedonia (e.g. quite undeveloped state and administration sys- Scupi theatre at Zlokučani), epigraphic studies, tem. Valtrović’s minor excavations in Viminacium (1882) have often been cited as an example 280 For details on the bibliography of N. Vulić, see Marić of his fieldwork. For his achievements, Valtrović (1958/59). 281 See in: Spomenik srpske kraljevske akademije XXVII, 1900; Spomenik srpske kraljevske akademije XXXIX, 1901; Spome- 278 He was of German origin; his original name was nik srpske kraljevske akademije XLII, 1905; Jahreshefte des Michail Walter. Österreichischen Archaölogiscen Instituts in Wien 3, 1900; 279 Valtrović was also a professor of architecture at the Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archaölogiscen Instituts in Great School of Belgrade, a predecessor of the Univer- Wien 4, 1901; Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archaölogis- sity of Belgrade. cen Instituts in Wien 6, 1903. 157 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 157 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 analyses of ancient art production, prehistoric Their first field investigations at Vinča took place ceramics, and so on. His research was also of in 1924; they were relatively small in scale and great significance for the development of ar- not completed due to a lack of funds. But this chaeological cartography in the wider Yugoslav did not stop Vasić from seeking new funding area. Within the joint project Archaeological Map sources and sponsors. Vasić’s friendship with of Yugoslavia, he published two volumes – one Alec Brown, a lecturer in English at the Uni-presenting the area of Bitola (Vulić 1937) and the versity of Belgrade, and his wife Catherine, en-other covering the Kavadarci area (Vulić 1938), abled Vasić to get in touch with Charles Hyde, both in today North Macedonia. The principal a philanthropist and the owner of a publishing importance of Vulić in early Serbian (but also house in Birmingham, UK. Hyde offered sub-Yugoslav) archaeology and ancient historiog- stantial funds to continue excavations in Vinča raphy lies in his introduction of the critical and and establish an archaeological collection at the positivistic approach and his insistence on strict University of Belgrade. Indeed, Hyde’s dona-scientific research standards. With such an ap- tions proved crucial for carrying out the most proach and backed with numerous works, Vulić extensive investigations at Vinča in general. The created a stable conceptual framework of classi- principal field campaigns were conducted becal archaeology and successfully dismissed the tween 1929 and 1931, and then in 1933 and 1934. many then popular, national-romantic ‘theories’ Vasić investigated more than 2,500 cubic meters and speculations about Serbia’s ancient history. of archaeological deposits, reaching a depth of about 10 meters from the site’s surface. These ex-An equally prominent and influential figure in cavations, along with the following publications the first half of 20th century Serbian archaeology (Vasić 1932–1936), inaugurated him as authority was Miloje Vasić (1869–1956). He studied in Mu- for the Balkan’s prehistory and Vinča as one of nich with A. Furtwängler and succeeded Valtro- the most fascinating and intriguing prehistoric vić at the University of Belgrade (1903) and in the sites in Europe.282 National Museum (1906). With a short break dur- ing the Second World War, he remained a pro- In his more than 50-year career, M. Vasić con-fessor until 1955. He earned a high international ducted fieldwork or artefact analyses at many reputation thanks to his investigations of the Ne- other sites in Serbia,283 but Vinča brought him olithic site of Belo Brdo in Vinča, located on the international fame. However, as it soon turned right bank of the Danube near Belgrade. This site out, Vinča was also his greatest professional attracted attention much earlier, during the 1890s, disaster, which had considerable consequences because of hundreds of objects (terracotta figu- for the development of prehistoric archaeology rines, prosopomorphic lids, fine vessels, etc.) that in Serbia. Vasić undoubtedly discovered one people used to bring to the National Museum in of the most important sites for understanding Belgrade. In 1908, Vasić conducted the first sys- the Neolithic of southeastern Europe and the tematic excavation campaign in Vinča. Due to the earliest metallurgy,284 but in his final synthesis extraordinary quantity of finds and large dimen- (Vasić 1936) he argued for a chronologically and sions of the site, new excavation seasons followed three years later (1911–1913) and were also fund- 282 In the 1930s, Vasić kept receiving numerous invita-ed by the Royal Archaeological Institute in Saint tions from the most prominent scientific societies and archaeological conferences in Europe. Also, many re- Petersburg. Vasić’s early research results were nowned European scholars visited him in Vinča (such published only as short articles, but even this was as V. Gordon Childe, W.A. Heurtley, etc.). enough to attract experts from other countries. In 283 Especially important were his studies of the Žuto Brdo 1918, M. Vasić established contact with the British site, which served him as the basis for outlining the Iron Age in Serbia (Vasić 1907; 1912; 1914). archaeologist John Lynton Meyers and agreed on 284 For the whole series of Prehistoric Vinča, see Vasić a joint project on Balkan prehistory. 1932; 1936a; 1936b; 1936c). 158 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 158 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 historically completely erroneous character of far from the ‘mainstream’ discourse in Neolithic the site. According to him, Vinča was a Greek archaeology and persisted in his stance. This had (Ionian) colony dating from the Archaic period a significant effect on the generations of his most (7th – 6th centuries BC). Despite the well-grounded talented students with whom he could no longer local and foreign criticisms (e.g. Grbić 1933–1934; have quality cooperation, because their interpre-Fewkes 1936; Grbić and Vulić 1937; even Childe tations of the Vinča site diverged from his own. in 1929 in his famous book Danube in Prehistory Thus they parted from him and, immediately af-states the Neolithic date of Vinča), Vasić stub- ter the Second World War, set a different path bornly insisted on very late dates for the site.285 for the development of prehistoric archaeology This soon set him apart from most of the Euro- in Serbia.287 pean researchers of the prehistory of southeast Europe. It was not only the Vinča site’s age, but Along with Vulić and Vasić, the work of Miodrag also his ‘short’ chronology of the Neolithic and Grbić (1901–1969) was also of significance in the Bronze Age that was entirely unfounded. period between the two world wars. Grbić stud- ied archaeology and geography at the Charles The reasons behind his insistence on the late University in Prague, where he also received dates remain unknown. Some Serbian scholars his doctorate with Lubor Niederle in 1925. Gr- (for example, A. Palavestra) have suggested that bić studied in a different tradition than that of Vasić’s attitude reflected his personality and the the Vienna School of Altertumswissenschaftliche great authority he enjoyed in Serbian archaeol- archaeology, as was the case with Vulić or Vasić ogy of the time. It may have also resulted from or most of the archaeologists in the former Yu-the competition with N. Vulić or his rather un- goslavia in the first half of the 20th century. The critical fascination with the Aegean civilisations Prague School was more closely connected to and the opposition to the German ‘Nordic’ inter- ethnology on one side and a more critical pos-pretations.286 In any case, M. Vasić took a step too itivist approach to prehistoric typology and chronology on the other.288 A year later, he was 285 It is of interest to analyse the ‘sliding’ of Vasić’s estimat- made a teaching assistant at the Seminar for Art ed dates for Vinča. In his first publications on Vinča, he attempted to synchronise the discoveries and chro- History in Belgrade, whilst he also worked at the nology with Near Eastern and Aegean sites, especially museum in Skopje for a short while. In 1926, he with the lowest layers of Troy (Troy I and II, which he interpreted as dating from the Bronze Age), and with 287 The most illustrative is the case of Milutin and Draga A. Evans’ findings during the excavations at Knos-Garašanin and Alojz Benac, leading prehistorians in sos. He thus rejected the ‘Nordic’ theories advocated Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina after the Second by German scientists, for example, Kossina, Furtwän- World War. They all received their first degrees with gler, Schuchhardt (Palavestra 1999–2000: 17). Instead, Vasić but, due to the disagreement with Vasić’s views he proposed a kind of diffusionist, Ex Oriente lux theo- on Balkan prehistory they had to conduct their doc- ry, more as an idea than in a clear chronological sense. toral studies with J. Korošec in Slovenia. In the 1950s This was in contrast to V. Gordon Childe’s theory pre- and 1960s, together with some other prehistorians of sented in his book Danube in Prehistory (1929), where the younger generation in Yugoslavia (e.g. B. Čović, Vinča is placed in the Neolithic period (the 3rd millen- F. Starè and S. Gabrovec), they made great efforts to- nium BC). In 1932, Vasić dated Vinča in the middle of wards developing new concepts of prehistoric archae- the 2nd millennium BC and described it as a settlement ology in Yugoslavia, using as a basis the same founda- of Cycladic colonists. Finally, in 1936, he proposed lat- tions laid in German archaeology by G. Merhart and er dates for the site, the 7th–6th century BC, and suggest- his successors from the so-called Marburg School (H. ed Ionian colonists as its founders. Vasić insisted on Mueller-Karpe, W. Dehn, G. Kossack, J. Werner, etc.). his ‘Ionian’ attribution of Vinča even after the Second V. Milojčić, a pre-war student of Vasić, played a nota- World War (Vasić 1948). ble role in the reformation of post-war German Neo- 286 Palavestra (2013, 687) supplies another important de- lithic archaeology. tail on this issue. Namely, in some of Vasić’s early pub- 288 After returning from his doctorate studies in Prague, lications about the Belo Brdo site, from 1907, 1912 and Grbić also looked for a job at the University of Ljublja- 1914, he introduced a model of Greek influences in the na (Bandović 2016, 835). For a biography and the works Danube Region in the 1st millennium BC. of Miodrag Grbić, see Gačić (2005). 159 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 159 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 moved to the National Museum in Belgrade. In 1932, extensive excavations were carried out on 1941, he was appointed the Belgrade City Mu- this site by a Harvard University team (Vladimir seum Director and kept this position until 1944. Fewkes, Robert Erich and Hetty Goldman) with During his time as the Belgrade City Museum Grbić as co-Director. The Starčevo excavations Director, he founded the Municipal Institute for were one of the rare examples of scientific col-the Protection of Antiquities. He also acted as a laboration with American institutions in pre-war high governmental official for museums and an- Serbia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Some tiques at the Ministry of Education.289 Accused other of Grbić’s excavations that contributed sig-of loyalty to the German occupiers,290 Grbić was nificantly to the understanding of the Neolith-suspended and placed under investigation im- ic in this region also include one of the earliest mediately after Belgrade’s liberation in autumn Neolithic cemeteries with crouched skeletons, 1944, but he was soon acquitted of any serious located in Botoš near Zrenjanin (1931), and the crimes. He moved to Novi Sad, where he start- investigations in Pločnik near Prokuplje. This ed to work in the Museum of Vojvodina. He re- latter subsequently became an eponym for the turned to Belgrade in 1949 and worked at the In- latest stage of the Vinča culture. stitute of Archaeology until he died in 1969. In the period between the two world wars, Ser- Miodrag Grbić was more active in fieldwork bian archaeological institutions carried out quite compared to Vasić, and was somewhat more a lot of research on the territory of today’s North versatile. He investigated many sites from al- Macedonia, considered South Serbia at that most all archaeological periods in Serbia and time. The reasons for intensified archaeological N. Macedonia. At the beginning of his profes- activities in this region were part of the broader sional career, in 1928, he initiated what turned politics of ‘Serbianisation.’291 The largest project out later one of the most critical research pro- there was the research on the ancient town of jects – the excavation of the Early Neolithic site Stobi (‘the Serbian Pompeii’, as promoted in the at Starčevo near Pančevo. A few years later, in media in Serbia in the 1930s), but there were also several smaller prehistoric projects. Grbić for a 289 It is necessary to mention Grbić’s attempt at maintain- shorter period excavated Stobi and another aning the continuity of the university studies in archaeol- cient town (Heraclea Linkestis near Bitola), but ogy through the war years. During the German occu- also in the area of Ohrid Lake (Gradište Sv. Eras-pation, the University of Belgrade was closed, so Gr- mo, a site from the Hellenistic period, famous bić organised a special ‘museum course’ in the Prince Paul Museum, where he taught classical and prehistor- for its ‘cyclopean’ walls), jointly with the Ger-ic archaeology on his own. Among the attendees of the man archaeological team lead by Wilhelm Un-course were Jovan Kovačević, Milutin Garašanin, Dra- verzagt and Wilhelm von Reiswitz. In 1933 Grbić ga Aranđelović (Garašanin), Vladimir Milojčić (Gačić 2005) and Irma Čremošnik (Bandović 2014). The course was one of the organisers of the Fifth Excursion participants had practical instruction in archaeolog- of the Danube archaeologists ( V. Studienfahrt der ical excavations at Kalemegdan, where Wilhelm Un- Donauländischen Archäeologen). 292 Following his verzagt, Director of the Prehistoric Museum in Berlin, excavated in 1942. He later became one of the leading prehistorians in the Democratic Republic of Germany; 291 On effects of the ‘Serbianisation of North Macedonia Grbić had already collaborated with him in N. Macedo-see more in the chapter on North Macedonia. nia in the 1930s. 292 The excursion was organised by the Roman-German- 290 These accusations were aimed at Grbić’s collaboration ic Commission of the German Archaeological Insti- with Wilhelm Unverzagt (German Archaeological In- tute. Among the participants, there were several fa- stitute) and Johan von Reiswitz (the German military mous Central European scholars: Paul Reinecke, Os- consultant for art and heritage in Belgrade). In the or- wald Menghin, Rudolf Egger, Ferenz Tompa, Gerhard ganisation of Ahnenerbe and Rosenberg’s office, they Bersu, Ronald Syme, Albert Egges van Gifen, Ray- both conducted archaeological research in Belgrade mond Lantier, and Andreas Alföldy. From Yugoslavia and in other places in Serbia during the German occu- came Miodrag Grbić, Nikola Vulić, Mihovil Abramić, pation (1941–1944). and Balduin Saria (Bandović 2016, 839). The excursion 160 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 160 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 rehabilitation after the Second World War, Grbić institutions and had relatively good opportuni-continued intensive field research within the In- ties to direct the progress of still the poorly de-stitute of Archaeology in Belgrade.293 His efforts veloped archaeological discipline, but the truth and pre-war reputation were fundamental in es- is that there was no proper synergy between tablishing the links with international archaeo- these central figures. On the contrary, due to logical centres and the promotion of Serbian and many disputes between leading scholars (e.g. Macedonian cultural heritage among an expert between Vulić and Vasić), they followed parallel European audience. rather than converging paths in their work. Not even Grbić, who entered professional archaeol- For the period between the two world wars, it is ogy in Belgrade sometime later, could improve also worth mentioning Balduin Saria. Although the relationships between the two of the most he made a great career in Slovenia at the Univer- prominent archaeologists in Serbia. sity of Ljubljana, he also left traces in Serbian ar- chaeology. He started his professional career in In the first half of the 20th century, Belgrade the National Museum in Belgrade and as an as- was basically the only archaeological centre in sistant professor at Belgrade University. Though possession of some research infrastructure for he stayed in Belgrade only four years (1922–1926) archaeology (the National Museum 1844, Uni-before transferring to Ljubljana, he led extensive versity of Belgrade 1881, Municipal Museum excavations at Stobi. Later, when he became one 1903, Municipal Institute for the Protection of of the most renowned Yugoslav archaeologists, Cultural Monuments 1941).294 Besides Vojvodi-he used his experiences from Serbia and ties na, where several local museums were already with Serbian colleagues to coordinate some ma- created in Austrian times, museums were very jor projects, such as the Archaeological Map of rare and modest in other Serbian regions. It was Yugoslavia and Tabula Imperii Romani. only in the 1930s when small local museums started to emerge in central and southern Ser- It is evident that during the period between the bia: Niš (1933), Negotin (1934), Šabac (1934). In two world wars three internationally recognised 1923 the museum in Pančevo (Vojvodina) was scholars had a dominant role in Serbian archae- also established. ology – Nikola Vulić, Miloje Vasić and Miodrag Grbić. In this sense, Belgrade certainly gained One of the main reasons behind this situation a reputation as an important regional centre of was the poorly developed middle class and thus archaeological research of the Balkans and the the related urban culture and traditions. In this Danube region. This reputation was addition- respect, Vojvodina had a significant advantage ally supported by the archaeological discover- over the rest of Serbia. Data from the 1931 pop-ies of a broader European relevance (e.g. Vinča, ulation census ( Statistical Yearbook/ Statistički Starčevo, Trebenište, and Roman sites on Dan- godišnjak 1934–1935 from 1936) shows that Danube limes) that aroused the interest of a broader ube Banate (encompassing today Vojvodina and professional public. Nevertheless, it seems that parts of Šumadija region south of Danube) had the potential represented by Vulić, Vasić and Gr- only 17% of the population who lived in towns, bić was not fully taken advantage of. All three and that out of the 430,000 urban residents (in of them worked in the most important national 15 cities in the Danube Banate), only 52,000 lived in towns outside Vojvodina (in Kragu- visited archaeological sites and museums along the jevac, Smederevo and Požarevac). The urban Danube, from Budapest to Iron Gorge. A similar excursion to Dalmatia was organised in 1931. 293 Grbić’s field projects are described in more detail in 294 In Belgrade the Military Museum also existed, which Gačić (2005, 10–14) and Grbić’s bibliography (Gaj-Popo-was established in 1878 (re-established in 1937) but vić 1969). which did not include archaeology until the 1960s. 161 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 161 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 population was even smaller in the Morava Ba- of which the most well-known are excavations of nate (today central and eastern Serbia); there, out the Bronze Age settlement and cemetery in Vatin of the total of 1.5 million inhabitants listed in the – the eponymous site for the Middle Bronze Age census, fewer than 75,000 were from urban are- regional culture. as (Jagodina, Kruševac, Niš, Pirot and Zaječar). Belgrade had about 265,000 inhabitants and rep- As we have seen, during the Yugoslav Kingdom resented a special census unit.295 not many new institutions were established that dealt professionally with archaeology. Ex- Of the local museums, the Museum in Vršac was cept for the museums in Vršac, Požarevac and in effect the only institution in which systematic Sremska Mitrovica, local museums’ contribu-archaeological work was carried out thanks to tions to archaeology before the Second World the efforts of Felix Milleker (1858–1942), a Ger- War remained very limited. In principle, they man from Banat, who did not possess a formal did not include archaeologists in their activities archaeological education but, nonetheless, in- because of the limited funding and lack of ex-vested significant energy in the discovery and perts in the field. protection of archaeological remains in south Banate.296 Milleker was a typical polymath of the It is interesting to observe the ‘fortunes’ of Serbi-time, and published more than 200 articles on an archaeology during the Second World War.299 the history, culture and archaeology of Banate The war started on the 6th of April 1941 with a and Vojvodina. He turned the City Museum of massive bombardment on Belgrade,300 ten days Vršac into an example of an already successful after a coup d’etat by the Yugoslav Army officers local institution in the time of Austrian rule, and who, supported by British diplomacy and intelli-managed to preserve its reputation in the follow- gence, overthrew the government, which signed ing decades.297 His activities were very success- the accession to Tripartite Pact (Germany–Italy– ful and put him side-by-side with other prom- Japan). Yugoslavia was invaded by Germans and inent figures in the development of Serbia’s ar- its allies, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania, chaeological discipline. He conducted numerous and capitulated on the 17th of April 1941. Along excavations and topographical investigations,298 with most of his government, the King went into exile in the UK, and a marionette government 295 In comparison with continental Croatia, the size of the under the German protectorate was established urban population in the Sava Banate was slightly less on Serbia’s territory (without Vojvodina, Kosovo than 400,000 inhabitants across 19 towns, including and N. Macedonia). Zagreb, or about 14% of the total population of the Sava Banate. 296 Milleker gained some basic archaeological knowledge Due to the war and German occupation, the lev-by accompanying Karl Torma, prominent Hungarian el of archaeological work declined substantially. archaeologist, during his investigations of south Banat (Medaković 2008, 20). investigations are listed for Milleker. Concerning his 297 The excursion in 1933 (the Fifth Study Trip of the Dan- topographical research, attention should be drawn to ube Archaeologists) of some 30 archaeologists from Milleker’s archaeological map of Banat created over 22 ten European countries could serve as an illustration years and ultimately containing 500 pages (Milleker of the museum’s reputation. The excursion visited im- 1887–1909; Medaković 2008, 25). portant sites in the Yugoslav Danube region (Mursa, 299 See more on this in the chapter on Yugoslav archaeology. Vučedol, Vinča, Starčevo, Viminacium), as well as the 300 Some 20,000 people were killed in this bombardment. City Museum in Vršac and the sites in the surround- Massive damage was caused to the town infrastruc- ings explored by Milleker. The organisers of this study ture and its buildings, including the National Library, tour were Ferenc Tompa from Budapest, Balduin Saria where 350,000 books and 500,000 manuscripts and doc- from Ljubljana and Miodrag Grbić from Belgrade (Me- uments were destroyed. The damage inflicted on the daković 2008, 48; Gačić 2005, 15). National Library was estimated to be some 116 million 298 In the catalogue of the exhibition about Felix Milleker USD in 1945 (more than 1.6 billion USD in 2018) (Kreso (Medaković 2008, 53–55) more than 40 different field 1979, 42). 162 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 162 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 The few existing museums continued to exist at Another episode was associated with the activi-a minimum of their capacities, while teaching ties of Adam Oršić (1895–1968), from a Croatian at the University of Belgrade was suspended. noble family, a civil servant in Niš and later in However, there were two episodes worth not- Belgrade, and one of the founders of the muse-ing for their later consequences. The first is the um in Niš (1934). During his service in Niš in so-called ‘museum course’ organised between the 1930s, Oršič undertook several archaeolog-1942 and 1944 in the Prince Paul Museum301 by ical excavations (most important were those at M. Grbić and under the Serbian collaboration the multi-period prehistoric site at Bubanj) and government’s aegis. The course was meant as a surveying campaigns in the Niš region. In these temporary substitute for the suspended teach- years, he closely collaborated with Grbić. He also ing at the university.302 In this course some 50 participated in the Fifth Excursion of the Danube students of archaeology, art history and archi- Archaeologists ( V. Studienfahrt der Deutscher und tecture participated, among them Milutin and Donauländischer Bodenforscher) in 1933, where he Draga Garašanin, Vladimir Milojčić, Dušan- met some of the most influential scholars from ka Vučković Todorović, Irma Čremošnik, and Germany, Austria, Hungary, France and Yugo-Jovan Kovačević, who all made excellent careers slavia. On this occasion, Oršić met Oswald Meng-in archaeology in post-war Serbia, and Bosnia hin from the University of Vienna and Wilhelm and Herzegovina, and also strongly influenced Unverzagt from the Berlin Museum, with whom the development of archaeology in Yugoslavia he developed closer collaboration in the years to as a whole. At a certain point, some students of follow. During the Second World War, Oršić was this course were engaged in the excavations at appointed as Civil Commissioner of the Vranje the Kalemengdan fortress in Belgrade, led by Region (Janković 2018, 59) and was also engaged Wilhelm Unverzagt from the Ahnenerbe organ- by Kunst und Denkmalschutz, the central German isation and assisted by Grbić. German involve- office for the protection of art and heritage mon-ment was certainly ideologically framed – to dis- uments in occupied Serbia, and the Ahnenerbe cover and promote early Germans (i.e. Goths) at organisation which worked in Serbia between the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers in 1942 and 1944.304 Adam Oršić was in close con-the context of their imperial politics, and claim tact with Kurt Willvonseder, and Austrian prea German historical right over this region. The historian, former student of Oswald Menghin, collaboration with the Germans was one of the and Head of Ahnenerbe in Serbia. Oršić also met reasons why Grbić was suspended immediately Herbert Jankuhn, German prehistorian, Head after the liberation of Belgrade in autumn 1944. of the Excavation Unit of Ahnenerbe, and Wolf-On the other hand, the course itself was praised ram Sievers, Ahnenerbe Secretary, who recom-by the participant students who learned several mended Oršić as a local partner of Ahnenerbe technical skills in archaeological excavation and (Janković 2018) and ordered the German and helped maintain some archaeological education continuity and systematics during the war 304 M. Janković (2018, 67–89) presents reports on Ahnener- (Bandić 2014, 639).303 be’s activities in Serbia. The reports include excavations of Kalemegdan fortress, recording of major archaeolog- ical collections, particularly the Vinča collection, and 301 The Prince Paul Museum was established in 1935 by catalogues of major historical monuments. Ahnenerbe merging the National Museum with the Museum of had a monopoly over archaeological research in Serbia. Modern Art. As a special task, the establishment of a central institute for the protection of monuments was planned. Among 302 For more on the ‘museum course’ see in Bandović other details, these reports also bring information on (2014). the training of local students (probably those from the 303 M. and D. Garašanin (1953b) published the manual for ‘museum course’), because they could not find enough archaeological excavations largely based on their expe- trained archaeologists in the country. The Ahnenerbe riences learned from Unverzagt’s excavations and re- records and catalogues were shipped to Germany be- cording techniques (Bandović 2014, 640). fore the liberation of Belgrade in October 1944. 163 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 163 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 Serbian police in Belgrade to issue all the nec- Contemporary Serbian archaeology essary permits for Oršić.305 In 1942 Oršić guid- (1945–) ed Willvonseder in his trip to southern Serbia and Niš and lobbied for research in this region. Oršić proposed a unique plan for archaeological As with the national archaeological schools in research – “Urgeschichtlichen Forschungsarbeit in the other former Yugoslav republics, Serbian Serbien und Macedonien in Sommer 1943, Vorschlag archaeology made much more progress only zur Organisation der urgeschichtliche Forschungsar- after the Second World War. The development beit in Serbien und Macedonien in Sommer 1943” is predominantly seen in the expanding institu- (Janković 2018, 83, footnote 167) – which also in- tional network at regional levels and creating cluded a ‘Horsemen Archaeological Expedition” positions for a much greater number of archae- (Janković 2018, 84–89) aimed at surveying this ologists. Yugoslav society (including in all its region. However, due to several, mostly logis- republics) also underwent a radical transforma-tic reasons, Oršić failed to implement his very tion under the rule of the Communist Party in ambitious plan.306 After the war, Oršić migrated, all social domains, science included. New po-first to Austria, where he occasionally worked litical and ideological circumstances required with the Provincial Museum in Linz, and then to re-thinking the direction and basis for further Brazil in 1951.307 development of archaeology. However, the German military occupation However, the most visible change that the in-caused considerable damage to several cultural tensive post-war modernisation brought was institutions. The National Museum had already the appearance of many regional and local mu-been bombarded and plundered during Bel- seums. In the period between 1945 and 1960, grade’s Austrian occupation in the First World new museums were established in 22 towns. War; in the German bombardment in 1941, the Considering also the developments in Cro-National Library was completely destroyed. atia and Slovenia, where similar trends can moreover, massive plundering of archives be observed, one can imagine the magnitude and art collections (belonging to Serbian Jews, of modernising Yugoslav society. Of course, mostly) took place, and some of the most val- there were also ideological reasons included uable pieces were taken from the estates of the in establishing such a great number of muse-Karađorđević’s (royal) family.308 ums across the whole country. Still, one can- not deny the positive impact on education 305 Interestingly, Oršić had the citizenship of the Croatian and general cultural development. After 1960, marionette State of Independent Croatia (Janković 208). however, such dynamism was never repeated. 306 Oršić was also lobbying for joint projects with the Bul- It is also fair to say that archaeology was not garian King Boris III and Prime Minister Bogdan Filov, included in all museums from the very begin-who was also teaching archaeology at the University of ning. Still, gradually many of them started to Sofia, known for its excavations of the Iron Age graves with golden mask at Trebenište, nowadays in North collect archaeological objects systematically Macedonia, at that time in Serbia. and hire archaeological experts, and it proved 307 Adam Oršić continued his archaeological career in Bra- essential to have an institution first for this zil, where he made an important contribution to the whole process to be successful, with far-reach-development of the archaeological discipline. Togeth- er with José Loureiro Fernandes from the University of ing consequences for archaeology. Parana, he is considered the principal reformer of Bra- zilian archaeology. They worked on introducing mod- ern archaeological field methods in traditional anthro- pological research (see more in Janković 2018, 92–101). 308 See the chapter on Yugoslavia for more on German ac- tivities during the Second World War. 164 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 164 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 Fig. 78 Trend in establishing museums in Serbia. 1895 – Subotica handful of scholars, and it was mostly upon them 1896 – Požarevac and their work that the progress of archaeology 1903 – Beograd (Municipal Museum) hinged. Their biographies, political and social in- 1906 – Zrenjanin fluence, personal interests and even some traits 1923 – Pančevo of their personalities had a much greater impact 1933 – Niš on the discipline pathways than was generally 1934 – Negotin, Šabac the case in larger scientific communities. Each 1946 – Kikinda country had its own story regarding the tran- 1947 – Novi Sad (Museum of Vojvodina), Pirot, sition of archaeology before the Second World Užice War. Slovenia is highlighted as an example of 1948 – Prokuplje, Leskovac discontinuity in terms of people and concepts. In 1949 – Kragujevac, senta 1945, it was essentially abandoned by all but one 1950 – Kraljevo, Smederevo, Bor professional archaeologist. In contrast, in Croa- 1951 – Čačak, Zaječar, Kruševac, Valjevo tia archaeology managed to preserve continuity 1953 – Bečej, Novi pazar over time. Serbian archaeology could be placed 1954 – Novi Sad (Municipal Museum), Ćuprija, somewhere in between these two situations. Jagodina 1955 – Zemun Several factors enabled continuity. Vasić, who, 1960 – Vranje regardless of his advanced age became active once again after the war and restored archaeolo- However, for archaeologies in the former Yugo- gy studies at the University of Belgrade. Miodrag slavia in the first half of the 20th century, it is fair Grbić, despite his short suspension, was another to say that their institutions were only as strong vital source of support to this continuity. Then and influential as the key archaeologists work- there was Vladimir Petković, former Director of ing in them. Archaeology was practised by a the National Museum in Belgrade (1921–1935) 165 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 165 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 and professor at the University of Belgrade. He hinder such limiting tendencies, and ensure the became the first Director of the newly estab- continuity of the work and institutions. lished Archaeological Institute in 1947. Howev- er, Vasić and Grbić could not assume a leading It has already been mentioned that the network role in the renewal of archaeology in post-war of urban and industrial centres in Serbia (exclud-Serbia – Vasić mostly because of his age, but also ing Vojvodina) was much less developed than due to the disagreements he had with his most the ones in Slovenia and Croatia, and that Bel-prominent students about the issue of Vinča and grade was by far the largest and most developed the prehistoric developments in the Balkans and economic and industrial centre in the country.310 the Danube region, and Grbić for political rea- Such structural disparity effectively fuelled the sons. Grbić was soon allowed to continue his ca- centralisation of the country’s governing power, reer in archaeology, where he soon regained a which was imposed by the ruling regime in the high scholarly status, but not at the executive po- early post-war period. In archaeology, this result-sitions. Vladimir Petković could be considered ed in a greater concentration of personnel and fi-instrumental in bridging the pre- and post-war nancial and other material resources in national periods, especially in renewing the institutional institutions in Belgrade (i.e., the Institute of Ar-infrastructure rather than its conceptual renew- chaeology, University, National Museum, Insti-al.309 Another ‘channel’ of continuity can be seen tute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments). in some participants of the ‘museum course’ at It is not before the late 1950s that the develop-the Prince Paul Museum (e.g. Milutin and Draga ment of a regional network for museums and Garašanin), who soon assumed influential posi- the service for the protection of cultural heritage tions in archaeological academia in Serbia (and commenced. This co-occurred with increased in-Yugoslavia). Their concepts of archaeology were dustrialisation and urbanisation of Serbia, and no longer those from the 1920s or 1930. pronounced economic growth in several centres in the areas outside Belgrade. Notably, before To better understand the paths of development the war there was almost no locally institution-of the archaeological discipline over this period alised archaeological tradition in many of these in Serbia, the issue must be examined from dif- regional centres. Except for few museums that ferent perspectives. Probably the most crucial as- employed archaeologists (e.g. Vršac), virtually pect is the further institutionalisation of archae- all other archaeological institutions founded or ology. It is only through the successful expansion renovated after the Second World War began to of the network of institutions at regional and lo- do professional archaeology from scratch. cal levels that archaeology could change its sta- tus as a ‘discipline of a few individuals’ in which Serbian archaeology entered into the 1970s with personal interests, attitudes and behaviours a relatively developed museum and heritage could significantly influence the discipline’s pro- protection infrastructure. Several smaller muse-gress. A developed and branching system can ums established in the 1950s and 1960s already completed their staff with archaeologists and 309 His research was focused more on Serbian medieval ar- conducted archaeological investigations. Insti-chitecture (churches and monasteries) and art, the do- tutional development and expansion continued, mains considered at that time more as subjects of art although maybe not at the same pace as in the history. However, he was able to gather several already first two post-war decades. The institutional sys-established scholars, architects, art historians and his- torians, who were active in archaeology since the 1920s tem of archaeology became more robust, and the and 1930s, e.g. Aleksandar Deroko, Đurđe Bošković, Svetozar Radojčić, and Đorđe Mano Zisi in the newly 310 Excluding Vojvodina, where before the war, the larg-established Archaeological Institute, and make the in- est town was Subotica with about 100,000 inhabitants, stitute the largest and strongest archaeological institu- Niš, the second-largest city in Serbia, had seven to eight tion in Yugoslavia after 1945. times fewer citizens than Belgrade, about 40,000. 166 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 166 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 development of the discipline did not depend so Institute for the Protection and Scientific Study much on individuals. In the period between 1961 of Cultural Monuments was founded in 1947 and and 1990, 17 new museums were established: based in Belgrade. Following the autonomous status of Vojvodina, a similar Provincial Insti- 1963 – Aleksinac tute was established in Novi Sad in 1951. Until 1966 – Smederevska Palanka the beginning of the 1960s, these two institutes 1972 – Ruma were the only conservation institutions in Serbia. 1978 – Paraćin To perform their tasks productively, they had to 1979 – Bačka Palanka work closely with regional and local museums in 1980 – Knjaževac conducting fieldwork and monitoring the state 1981 – Aranđelovac of monuments. In the early 1960s, the formation 1982 – Mladenovac of regional conservation branches or units be- 1983 – Vrnajčka banja, Trstenik, Bela Palanka gan. The first wave included the establishment 1984 – Loznica of the institutes for the protection of cultural 1987 – Gornji Milanovac monuments in Belgrade (1960, for the metropol- 1988 – Petrovac na Mlavi itan area), Sremska Mitrovica (1961), Kraljevo 1990 – Prijepolje, Odžaci, Priboj (1965), Niš (1966) and Kragujevac (1966). The second wave came in the 1980s, when the insti- By 1990, 52 museums, dealing directly or indi- tutes were opened in Subotica (1980), Knjaževac rectly with archaeological heritage, were in Ser- (1980), Smederevo (1981), Novi Sad (1983, for bia; 38 were established after 1945. However, the city area) and Valjevo (1986). The creation of the development was not fully comparable in the regional network was completed by forming all Serbian regions. While in Vojvodina literally the institutes’ regional units in Vojvodina – in every town of more than 10,000 inhabitants had Pančevo (1993) and Zrenjanin (2003).312 its own museum, southwestern Serbia (Sanjak) and Kosovo were much further behind. Along with the expansion of the regional net- work of institutions, significant progress was The process of ‘regionalisation’ is also observa- made in terms of the improved infrastructure in ble in the heritage protection domain. Although the central national archaeological institutions in Serbia passed one of the first laws in southeast Belgrade. In 1947, the Archaeological Institute Europe that concerned the protection of cultur- of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts al heritage in 1844 (the Decree on the Protection (SANU) was founded, planned as the central na-of Monuments of Antiquity) and a similar law in tional institution in charge of strategic planning 1881, it was only after the Second World war that the formation of a more efficient public service for heritage protection took place. 312 There exists another institution of this kind – the Pro- 311 vincial Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monu- ments in Prishtina, with the central office in Leposavić. As was the case in other Yugoslav republics, This institution was created in the years when Koso- creating a modern and efficient protection ser- vo was gaining independence, whose statehood Serbia still does not recognise. In this context, some Serbian vice was initiated immediately after 1945. The institutions (e.g. the University of Prishtina and some other public institutions) called for a formal continuity 311 Miodrag Grbić, working as a high official at the Min- with the previous institutions of the province. Serbia istry of Culture of the Quisling Serbian governments established their temporary offices either outside Koso- (under the German military protectorate), founded the vo or in the parts of Kosovo with the Serbian local gov- first Municipal Institute for the Protection of Antiqui- ernments. Details on the activity or the current status of ties in Belgrade during the Second World War. This in- the institute in Leposavić/Leposaviq are not available. stitution was abolished with liberation in 1944, but lat- The official website of the Institute for the Protection of er re-established as a branch of the Institute for Protec- Cultural Monuments of Serbia does not list the institute tion of Cultural Monuments of Serbia. in Leposavić among its regional units. 167 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 167 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 for archaeology and carrying out the most im- the first inventory of archaeological sites came to portant research projects nationwide. The idea light, authored by Milutin Garašanin and Dra-of establishing a central, i.e. national institute for ga Garašanin. In 1953 and 1956, it was supple-science and research, had almost no roots in the mented by a much more detailed publication (in previous traditions.313 Instead, it was conceived two volumes) of the Institute of Archaeology.316 following the Soviet model of the organisation of However, regarding the number of listed sites, scientific work and institutional hierarchy. Such the Serbian gazetteer could not match the sim-institutes were at the top of the institutional dis- ilar publications in Slovenia ( Arheološka najdišča ciplinary pyramid, and were responsible for sci- Slovenije 1975), Bosnia and Herzegovina ( Arhe-ence’s strategic development. ološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, in seven vol- umes, 1988) or N. Macedonia ( Arheološka karta na In Yugoslavia, this model was followed in Slove- Makedonija, three volumes, 1994, 1996, 2002). nia and Serbia and, to a certain extent, in Croatia. The first task of the institute was to organise and In the 1950s and 1960s, the Institute of Archaeolo-coordinate local specialists, as well as to build its gy continued to expand, and provided significant own team of archaeological experts. Besides, it help in the development of other institutions in was expected to design middle and long-term Serbia. Its members not only conducted research strategic plans. The institute, in its early years projects at key sites in the country but also fre-under the directorship of Vladimir Petković, was quently lectured at the University of Belgrade. very successful in this respect. In less than two At the regional and local levels, they coordinated decades it institute hired more than 20 profes- with increasing success the work of local institu-sional researchers, the largest team of archaeolo- tions and also contributed significantly to creating gists in Serbia and the former Yugoslavia.314 On new positions for archaeologists in them, making a more specific level, the most important project these institutions capable of conducting larger ar-of the institute over the first two decades was chaeological projects. The institute also played a the publication of Serbia’s archaeological map. key role in improving the conservation service, For many years, this project was considered the especially in conducting field research of the en-main instrument for developing the archaeolog- dangered sites. The service was initially organical discipline and the conservation service. It ised only at the national level. From the 1960s on-already had a predecessor – in the Archaeolog- wards, it started developing its regional network. ical Map of Yugoslavia from the 1930s, which In its early days, the service could not carry out remained uncompleted.315 Thus, already in 1951 substantial rescue projects due to the lack of competent staff; therefore, the work was accomplished 313 In the mid-1920s, Miloje Vasić (1927) published a short by archaeologists from the institute and associat-paper advocating the establishment of the Yugoslav In- ed scholars. In the context of strong administrative stitute of Archaeology which would be based in Bel- centralisation in the entire country during the first grade and hire the best archaeologists from the coun- two decades after the Second World War, the in-try, but this was his more his personal view and not an official proposal. stitute’s plan effectively represented a major part 314 For more on the early activities of the Institute of Ar- of Serbian archaeology’s national agenda. chaeology, see Bošković Đ. (1968). 315 The concept of this project, in which Balduin Saria and Klemenc 1939). However, it was renewed in post-war Miodrag Grbić played a major role, followed the best Yugoslavia and given a different methodological and standards at the time of archaeological topography and structural frame. cartography (see Novaković 2003, 228–229). The project 316 Milutin Garašanin and Draga Garašanin, Arheološ- was suspended due to the Second World War (by then, ka nalazišta u Srbiji, Prosveta-Beograd 1951; Arheološki only five maps had been published, for two areas in spomenici i nalazišta u Srbiji, Knjiga 1: Zapadna Srbija; Ar-Slovenia, Ptuj and Rogatec, two areas in N. Macedonia, heološki spomenici i nalazišta u Srbiji, Knjiga 2: Istočna Sr-Bitola and Kavadarci, and the area of Zagreb in Croatia bija, Arheološki institut, Srpska akademija nauka, Be- (Saria 1936; Vulić 1937; 1938; Klemenc 1938; Saria and ograd 1953, 1956. 168 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 168 22. 10. 2021 11:05:46 The leading experts from the institute, together overlapped or was complementary to that of the with archaeologists from the University of Bel- much larger Institute of Archaeology. grade and the rapidly growing Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, were fully Considerable progress was made at the Universi-aware of their responsibilities and roles (as well ty of Belgrade from the end of the 1950s. During as their institutional powers). Thus, they suc- the Second World War, teaching in archaeology ceeded in establishing a much more stable in- ceased for almost six years due to the German frastructure at the national and regional levels closure of the university. I have already men-within two decades. tioned that some professors and specialists tried to compensate for this by conducting alternative Under the umbrella of the Serbian Academy of teaching forms (e.g. the ‘museum course’).318 The Arts and Sciences (SANU), another institution be- teaching was re-established in 1947, but the main gan to operate more intensively in the field of ar- problem was the lack of teaching staff. Vasić was chaeology – the Institute for Balkan Studies ( Bal- thus called upon from his retirement to re-acti-kanološki institut). The predecessor of this institute vate the Archaeology Seminar. In 1947, Branko was the Balkan Institute, founded in 1934. In its Gavela (1914–1994), a classical philologist by ed-early years this Institute was primarily focused ucation, was employed as Vasić’s assistant for on research in history, ethnography, linguistics, protohistoric archaeology. Balkan culture, and also archaeology to a certain extent (Palavestra 1999–2000, 16). However, in the Only after Vasić’s definitive departure in 1955 period before the war there were no archaeolo- were the first significant steps taken towards gists among its members. Still, the institute had in modernisation and growth of archaeology with-its possession some infrastructure and equipment in the university. Two new subjects were intro-which it offered to archaeological projects. Miloje duced in 1954, Slavic Archaeology, taught by Vasić, for instance, often published his papers in historian Jovan Kovačević, and Near Eastern the journals of this institute in the 1930s, especial- Archaeology, taught by Dušan Glumac (1899– ly in the Revue Internationale des Études balkaniques, 1980), a former professor at the Faculty of The-which was very much international thanks to its ology and a student at the Universities of Mu-character and the foreign collaborators.317 The in- nich and Leipzig.319 Assistance in teaching was stitute was closed down in 1941 and in 1969 was also provided by the experts from the Institute revived under the name the Institute for Balkan of Archaeology. Significant changes occurred Studies. When Nikola Tasić joined the institute, between 1957 and 1962 when the new genera-he put together a small team of archaeologists en- tion of scholars was appointed: Milutin Garaša-abling an additional infrastructural framework nin and Aleksandrina Cermanović Kuzmanović for the archaeological research programme. How- for classical and Roman archaeology, Dragoslav ever, the Institute for Balkan Studies did not de- Srejović for prehistory, while Savo Tutundžić velop a distinct profile or academic identity in the archaeological sphere; instead, its research area 318 Apart from the ‘museum course’, professors and students of archaeology also had meetings and discussions with professors (mostly with Vasić) in private homes 317 Other authors who published in the 1930s were: N. and other places to preserve some level of teaching and Vulić, Rudolf Egger, Tadeusz Zelinsky, Guglielmo the social network of ‘professionals’ in archaeology. Ferrero, Ronald Syme, Carl Patsch, Marin Nilsson, For more on the personal experience of these ‘private’ R. Marić, Karl Kerényi, Charles Dilles, George Ostro- courses, see interviews with M. Garašanin (who was gorsky, Alexander Solovyov, Vladimir Moshin, Franz one of these students) by Babić and Tomović 1994 (also Delger, Ivan Skazov. Another very influential publica- Milinković 1998: 435). tion was the monograph The Book on the Balkans (1936– 319 More detailed information on the history of the Depart-1937), where the authors included Mikhail Rostovtsev, ment of Archaeology at the University of Belgrade is Charles Piccard, Paul Kretschmer and others (Palaves- available in Milinković and Tasić Ne. (1990) and Mil- tra 1999–2000: 21–23). inković (1998). 169 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 169 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 and Vojislav Jovanović became lecturers in Near Archaeology. Needless to say that the scholarly Eastern and medieval archaeology, respective- authority of D. Srejović, the famed discoverer of ly. It was in this period when different archae- Lepenski vir and Gamzigrad, played an essential ological courses and chairs joined into a single role in the centre’s success. department. In comparison with the universities in Slovenia, Croatia and N. Macedonia, by the The relatively favourable social and econom-mid-1960s the Department of Archaeology at ic circumstances from the end of the 1950s on-the University of Belgrade became the largest wards, and the increased investments in science in Yugoslavia in terms of teaching and research and culture, coupled with great efforts of crucial personnel. This upward trend continued in the figures in the organisation and realisation of ar-following years; around the mid-1980s, more chaeological projects, turned the Belgrade of the than one-third of the total teaching and research mid-1980s into one of the largest and most im-personnel in Serbian archaeology was affiliated portant archaeological hubs in this part of Eu-with the Department of Archaeology at the Uni- rope. More than 80 professional archaeologists versity of Belgrade. were employed in institutions in the capital city, representing more than 60% of all professional The Department of Archaeology expansion led to archaeologists in Serbia (and about 15% of all arthe foundation of two additional research units, chaeologists in the former Yugoslavia). active from the 1970s onwards: the Archaeologi- cal Collection and Centre for Archaeological Re- Simultaneously with the accelerated develop-search. The Archaeological Collection was initi- ment of archaeology in Serbia, international co-ated as early as 1929 (Lazić 1998a), based on the operation was also on the rise and, consequently, agreement between M. Vasić and Charles Hyde, the reputation of Serbian (and also Yugoslav) ar-who financed the excavations in Vinča. Accord- chaeology improved. International cooperation ing to this agreement, all findings from the inves- already emerged in the period before the Second tigations in Vinča were donated to the Faculty of World war when Vinča held a prominent place Philosophy. Later on, when archaeology evolved among prehistoric sites in Europe. It aroused into an independent discipline and was included considerable interest not only because of invesas a separate organisational unit at the Faculty of tigations of the site itself, but for Neolithic stud-Philosophy, the collection was integrated into the ies in general. Along with some other discover-Department of Archaeology. Its main tasks were ies (e.g. the site of Starčevo excavated by W.A. technical support in fieldwork, restoration of ob- Heurtley), Serbia’s Neolithic sites demonstrated jects, publication and presentation of archaeolog- great potential for research on the earliest agri-ical finds, and assistance in students’ training in cultural communities in Europe and the process practical skills. The second unit, the Centre for of Neolithisation. Besides Vasić, Nikola Vulić Archaeological Research, was founded in 1978 and Miodrag Grbić were also internationally (Lazić 1998b) to coordinate research projects and quite recognised and frequently participated at the Department of Archaeology infrastructure. international conferences and published in for-The promoter of this centre was Dragoslav Srejo- eign publications. Foreign research teams from vić. One of the centre’s principal tasks was the de- Great Britain, the United States and Germany velopment of specialised research domains with- were involved in investigations in Serbia and in archaeology, such as archaeobotany, faunal North Macedonia. With the Second World War analysis, etc., to meet the new needs of archaeo- and then change in political regime after 1945, logical research. Soon after its establishment, the these old international networks were broken centre began to carry out many large-scale pro- up. Moreover, Nikola Vulić died in 1945 while jects (mostly directed by D. Srejović). It became a Vasić could not act as a true Gesprächspartner in sort of a university equivalent of the Institute of the international cooperation, not only because 170 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 170 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 of his great age but also due to a certain level this overview includes only some of the largest of isolation caused by his refusal to accept al- projects. Harvard University and the University ternative interpretations of the site of Vinča and of California at Berkeley conducted joint projects prehistory of the Balkans and Danube region. with the National Museum in Belgrade and the An additional aggravating circumstance was Institute of Archaeology at the Vinča culture sites the rather strict regime in Yugoslavia, which of Selevac (1976–1978) (Tringham and Krstić 1990) implemented very lengthy and complicated ad- and Opovo (1983–1984, together with the Institute ministrative procedures for permitting foreign for History from Novi Sad; see Tringham, Brukner research teams’ work. In this context, the very and Voytek (1985)). The Brooklyn College of the unfavourable economic situation in the late City University of New York worked on a project 1940s and 1950s in Yugoslavia should also be which explored the archaeological topography of mentioned. On the other hand, and contrary to prehistoric sites in the Donja Morava river valley some expectations, Serbian (and Yugoslav) ar- (1977–1980) and excavated some sites in the area, chaeologists had relatively good opportunities e.g. Novačka Ćuprija (Bankoff and Winter 1981; for studying abroad during these years.320 1982; 1983). The University of Pittsburgh made the first caesium magnetometer survey in Yugo- From the 1960s onwards, the situation began to slavia on the sites Divostin, Grivac, Rajac and Do-improve significantly. In this respect, it is neces- brovodica in 1969 (McPherron and Ralph 1970). sary to point out the already relatively well-estab- In the 1980s, together with a German team from lished and strengthened institutional networks. the Free University of Berlin, excavations began The important role also had some new archae- of the Bronze Age settlement of Feudvar in Vo-ologists who were increasingly gaining a high jvodina (Hänsel B. and Medović 1998). reputation in international circles (e.g. M. Garaša- nin, D. Srejović). The well-known sites in Serbia Among the Roman towns, Sirmium was of the represented central points around which interna- highest interest to international teams, and this tional cooperation was arranged. Some of them site had already had a long tradition of investi-had already been recognised (i.e. Vinča, Starčevo, gations conducted by local teams, and a local Sirmium and Viminacium), but also new, highly museum existed from 1946. The first internation-attractive sites were discovered in the 1950s and al project here included a collaboration between 1960s that became the focus of the attention of Yugoslav (Serbian) archaeologists and the Den-international circles (e.g. Lepenski Vir). The Insti- ison University in Ohio, the University of New tute of Archaeology coordinated the largest part York (1969–1971), and the Smithsonian Institu-of international collaboration. The main areas of tion in Washington (1968–1972). The leader of investigations were the Neolithic and Eneolithic these international projects on the Serbian side periods and Roman cities (Viminacium, Sirmium) was Miodrag Grbić. The international research in and palaces (Caričin Grad, later also Gamzigrad). Sirmium lasted between 1973 and 1975 with partners from France – the Louvre Museum and the Collaboration with foreign research teams in Ser- French School of Rome.321 The Serbian-French in-bia significantly increased through time, especial- vestigations of the Early Byzantine site of Caričin ly with the US teams, such that it is almost im- Grad (Iustiniana Prima) are of somewhat later possible to list all of the international projects and date (Mano-Zisi 1979; Duval, Popović 1984). Ad-even more challenging to list individual engage- ditionally, over the last two decades, intensive ments of archaeologists from abroad, and thus research has been carried out at Gamzigrad (as a cooperation with the Free University of Berlin) 320 On internationalisation of archaeology in Yugoslavia in the 1950s and 1960s, see more in the chapter on Yugo- 321 See the Sirmium series published by the Institute of Ar-slav archaeology and in Lorber and Novaković (2020). chaeology in Belgrade (1971–1982). 171 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 171 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 and Viminacium (in collaboration with the State The main act of promoting Yugoslav archaeology University of New York from Albany, USA). at this congress was the publication of a special volume – volume IV or the ‘blue’ volume (named In the early 1970s, the most important moment in after the colour of the cover). It contained all essen-promoting Serbian (and Yugoslav) archaeology tial information about the country’s archaeologi-was the 8th Congress of the International Asso- cal institutions and short presentations of some of ciation for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archae- the republics’ most important archaeological sites. ology ( Union internationale des sciences préhistori- This volume came out during the conference, ques et protohistoriques; UISPP), the largest world whilst the three remaining volumes with collated organisation of archaeologists. The conference conference papers were published two years later. was organised in 1971 and was the biggest ever Although this was, without doubt, a highly signif-archaeological scientific meeting in Yugoslavia, icant event, it is surprising that the meeting and which brought together hundreds of archaeolo- its importance from the aspect of the promotion gists and other scientists worldwide. The meeting of local archaeology were seldom mentioned in was organised under the coordination of all prin- the years that followed. Moreover, there are very cipal archaeological institutions in Yugoslavia at few records and comments in the domestic liter-the time. Since this was a joint Yugoslav project, ature about the congress. It would be very inter-the congress’s description thematically fits bet- esting to find out the circumstances and activities ter in the chapter on Yugoslav archaeology, and that preceded the election of Belgrade as a host for thus here only some details are mentioned that the 8th Congress of the UISPP, given that often the are more relevant to Serbian archaeology. With important (political) events in archaeology around 13 papers published in the conference proceed- the world tend to be linked with the respective as-ings,322 archaeologists from Serbia were the most sociation and the congresses it organises.325 represented of all Yugoslav archaeologists. Eight papers have been published from other repub- lics (two by Slovene authors, four by Croatian Conceptual renewal: coming out of and two by Macedonian authors). These figures Vasić’s shadow appear quite logical, since Serbian archaeologists were the hosts of the meeting and, thematically, To better understand the processes of modern-the congress was about prehistory, which was rel- isation of Serbian archaeology after 1945, it is atively well developed in Serbian archaeology at necessary to point out some significant changes that time.323 It is worth noting that all of the leading Serbian prehistorians of the at time middle 325 The UISPP was experiencing very turbulent years before generation were at this conference: Milutin and the Second World War, when the organisation was about Draga Garašanin, Bogdan Brukner, Borislav Jova- to dissolve due to German and Italian archaeologists’ nović, Dragoslav Srejović, and Branko Gavela. political views. In 1940, the congress was supposed to be 324 held in Budapest but was cancelled because of the war. In 1949, Budapest was seen as a place where the UISPP could be renewed, but the congress was cancelled again 322 Actes du VIIIe Congres International des Sciences préis- and then held in Zurich the following year. In 1985, the toriques et protoistoriques, Belgrade 1973, Vol. 1–3. congress was supposed to take place in Southampton in the UK, but two factions of the congress emerged follow- 323 Only two out of the seven sections (Sections 6 and 7) ing the decision of the national organiser not to allow were dedicated to the Greek and Roman periods and participation of archaeologists from the South African the early Middle Ages. Republic (at the time, the UN embargo on cooperation 324 Along with them, R. Vasić, Đ. Mano-Zisi and D. Piletić with the SAR due to apartheid was in force). The partic- published their papers in Section 6. The papers by J. ipants who concurred with the organiser formed a new Kovačević and a joint work of V. Jovanović and Lj. world archaeological organisation, the World Archaeo- Vuksanović were published in Section 7. Z. Letica pub- logical Congress (WAC); the UISPP organised its next lished her paper in Section 3 (the Paleolithic-Mesolithic congress in Mainz, Germany in 1987. For more on the section) (see Actes 1971–1973). Southampton divide, see in Ucko (1987). 172 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 172 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 in its conceptual domains. The conceptual re- early on imposed himself as the dominant figure construction of Serbian archaeology began im- in Serbian archaeology, primarily in prehistoric mediately after the Second World War and archaeology, and maintained this status until the went along with similar tendencies in the other end of his career.327 His infamous mistake – the Yugoslav republics’ archaeologies. To a great interpretation of the settlement in Vinča as an Io-extent, this was a synchronised process across nian colony – and his decades-long persistence the whole country, and similar changes could in this view excluded him from the international also be tracked in other European countries that community of prehistorians of the time, which had a much longer tradition of archaeological naturally also harmed the development of pre-research.326 There were, however, certain local historic archaeology in Serbia in general.328 peculiarities in Serbian archaeology that are also important for understanding the more general Branko Gavela became Vasić’s assistant in the trends of development. field of prehistoric archaeology at the Universi- ty of Belgrade in 1947. However, Gavela did not Of the leading pre-war archaeological trio (N. possess such a scholarly profile that would allow Vulić, M. Vasić, M. Grbić), Vasić was probably him to change the main direction and postulates the most influential figure in Serbia, although af- of Vasić’s idea of Balkan prehistory. On the conter 1941, not the most active one. For the field of trary, in his first papers he even adopted some classical archaeology and ancient history in Ser- of Vasić’s main principles.329 By comparison, bia, the death of Vulić (1945) meant a consider- Milutin Garašanin was a much more important able loss of an internationally recognised expert, figure in changing the course of prehistoric ar-and it took some time to find a scholar who was chaeology in Serbia. He was a pre-war student his equal. Indeed, it could be said that the subject of Vasić, also a participant at Grbić’s ‘museum of ancient history went through a period of stag- course,’ who commenced his professional career nation, which ended around the beginning of in 1947 at the Municipal Museum of Belgrade. A the 1960s when the leading role was taken up by year later, he moved to the National Museum, Fanoula Papazoglou, a professor at the Universi- and in 1950 took up a researcher’s position at ty of Belgrade. Grbić, most active among the pre- the newly established Institute of Archaeology. war prehistorians in the 1930s, was involved in He gained his doctorate in 1951, with the thesis many different research projects, spanning from on the Vinča group’s chronology defended in prehistory to the Middle Ages, but failed to form front of Josip Korošec at the University of Lju-a specific, homogeneous scholarly group. His bljana. In 1957, he became a professor of classical ‘controversial’ past during the German occupa- tion may have prevented him from getting cru- 327 For the discussion on the authority and influence of M. cial decision-making positions in Serbian archae- Vasić in Serbian archaeology, see Palavestra (2013). ology after 1945. Vasić, on the other hand, very 328 It is known that Vasić opposed the ideas of some of his most prominent students, such as, for example, M. Ga-rašanin and D. Aranđelović (later D. Garašanin), who 326 Due to the number of casualties and amount of mate- went on to complete their doctoral studies in Ljubljana, rial damage, along with the genocide against ‘inferior’ with Josip Korošec, who himself was a student of Vasić nations, races and unwanted social groups, the Second in the mid-1930s. By 1944, Korošec had already devel- World War became deeply engraved in the conscious- oped a career in the National Museum. Immediately af- ness of humankind as a trauma after which it was nec- ter the war in 1946 and 1947 he took up the main role in essary to reconsider fundamental ideas about man, his the restoration of Slovene archaeology. existence, culture, history and development. Such an 329 Palavestra (2013, 687, footnote 2) identifies Vasić’s intellectual and spiritual climate also required a deeper idea of parallel development of the Neolithic, Eneo- reflection of and searching for new view of archaeolo- lithic and Bronze Age in the Danube at the beginning gy. The methods and pathways used to explain (ear- of the 1st millennium BC, expressed in Gavela’s doc- ly) history to legitimise ideological and political goals toral thesis on the multi-period site of Židovar (Gave- were no longer acceptable. la 1952, 59–62). 173 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 173 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 archaeology at the University of Belgrade, and authorities. This ‘void’, in a way, gave the new by default succeeded M. Vasić in prehistoric ar- generation of archaeologists more freedom to chaeology. He remained in this position until the introduce their concepts in archaeology. M. Ga-end of his professional career. It is precisely in rašanin (Babić, Tomović 1996, 91–93) described M. Garašanin that Palavestra (2013, 685) sees the the situation in the following way: leader of the group of Vasić’s pre-war students (D. Aranđelović, A. Benac, J. Korošec) who be- The lucky set of circumstances was that, in 1949, if gan their careers “as a result of resistance to Vasić’s I recall correctly, a large excavation was organised ideas, which culminated in the joint criticism of [the in Ptuj under Korošec’s directorship... The excava-notion of] the Ionian colony” (Palavestra 103, 685), tions were organised as a training course. The Fed-jointly published in Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u eral Ministry of Culture organised them – I do not Sarajevu (Korošec, Benac, M. Garašanin, and D. know its exact name at the time; the name kept being Garašanin 1951).330 changed every couple of months. A group of young Yugoslav archaeologists got together at the dig. From Nonetheless, M. Garašanin did not confine him- Serbia, there were Rastko Rašajski, Jova Kovačević, self only to mending the chronology of the Vinča Mirjana Ljubinković, Branko Gavela, Draga and me. culture, that is, the dating and interpreting the Irma Čremošnik came from Bosnia, where she was central Balkans Neolithic. Instead, he soon start- appointed a curator at the National Museum. From ed introducing modern, far-reaching concepts Croatia, there were Duje Rendić, Zdenko and Ksenija and methods in prehistoric archaeology that also Vinski, Stipe Gunjača, and Ivo Petrićoli, who later significantly echoed in the Yugoslav archaeolog- completely focused on art history. From Slovenia, ical community. At this point, another important there was Korošec, who led the excavations, and Pao-fact should be noted, that the conceptual mod- la Korošec accompanied him. Of the younger people, ernisation of archaeology, especially prehistoric, there was also France Stare. From Macedonia, which in Yugoslavia in the early post-war years was, did not yet have professional archaeologists, came to a great degree, a project of a particular group Dušanka Vučković, the then Director of the Archae-of scholars. The leading promoters of this move- ological Museum. I am not sure if Blagoja Aleksova ment were J. Korošec, J. Kastelic, S. Gabrovec, F. also joined. In fact, for the largest part, this was a Stare in Slovenia, M. Suić, D. Rendić-Miočević, team of those who, across the whole Yugoslavia, were Z. Vinski in Croatia, M. and D. Garašanin in Ser- in some way already connected with archaeology and bia, and A. Benac in Bosnia and Herzegovina. were trying to create something. These excavations They belonged to a group of young scientists lasted for a month, and we had many discussions. Of between 30 and 40 years of age when they took the older generation, it was only Grga Novak who up influential positions in the national archae- cooperated with us. Miloje Vasić distanced himself ological institutions. Half of them were Vasić’s from all these activities. Anyway, he died soon after. pre-war students.331 In the 1950s and 1960s, they Viktor Hoffiller withdrew completely, as did Mihovil frequently very closely collaborated on all-Yugo- Abramić. Rajko Ložar and Balduin Sari emigrated... slav issues in archaeology. Many of them started their careers in the positions previously held by Among the trends that considerably changed their professors, who either died or had left Yu- the prehistoric archaeology in Central Europe goslavia or had to resort to less prominent roles were the ideas developed by a group of prehis-because of their loyalty to the Axis occupation torians gathered around Gero von Merhart at the University of Marburg on Lahn, Germany.332 330 M. Garašanin published the first critique of the re- spective idea in 1949 in the Historical Gazette (Gara- 332 Gero von Merhart (1886–1959), not being a šanin 1949). member of the archaeological institutions or groups 331 J. Korošec, A. Benac, D. Rendić-Miočević, M. Gara- that were loyal to the Nazis, paid a price for criticis- šanin, D. Garašanin. ing the Kossienan-style archaeology in Germany. In 174 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 174 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 Merhart’s ideas strongly influenced most of the Following these guidelines and collaborating ‘young Turks’ in post-war Yugoslav archaeol- with Merhart’s former students, who focused ogy, especially Gabrovec and Stare in Slovenia their research on the Balkans and Danube areas, and Garašanin in Serbia. This is how Gabrovec the new generation of Yugoslav archaeologists remembered Merhart’s approach: succeeded in shaping prehistoric archaeology based entirely on positivistic approaches. This Merhart strictly adhered to the material culture; the also represented an attempt to ‘cleanse’ archae-object itself to him was the primary source of knowl- ology of the speculative and uncritical interpre-edge of history. Through a precise analysis of an ar- tations as was also proposed in the Resolution of chaeological find, i.e. an object, through its accurate the First Meeting of the Yugoslav Archaeologists description and the comparison of all the compiled in 1950 in Niška Banja (Korošec 1950, 214; more data, he would explain the object’s creation, changes, on this meeting see in the chapter on Yugoslav disappearance, distribution, and routes of its spread. archaeology). The successful introduction of The knowledge acquired in this way Merhart wanted new ideas was also supported by the visits of the to translate into the historical discourse. Based on the German archaeologists Wolfgang Dehn, Joachim described analysis of material culture, he defined re- Werner and Georg Kossack, and the study visits gional groups, that is, ‘cultures’ in the archaeological of Yugoslav archaeologists to Germany. In Ser-sense. In the prehistoric world, culture is the agent of bian archaeology, M. Garašanin was the princi-development, an outcome of social, that is, historical pal advocate of these ideas, upon which he con-entities. In the emergence, transformations and disin- structed his archaeological credo. The application tegration of culture, in the mutual relations of indi- of Merhart’s methods and categories made it vidual cultures and their expansion, the identifiable possible to constructively modify outdated, of-history lies, and which an archaeologist can demon- ten too speculative theses and interpretations strate with archaeological material. Concerning his of the previous authors. In this view the case method, Merhart logically continued in Reinecke’s of Vinča and M. Vasić is the most conspicuous footsteps: temporal and spatial determinations were one, but certainly not the only example. One of not his ultimate goal. They were, instead, the means the key priorities, to which M. Garašanin (often of acquiring historical knowledge. with his wife Draga) dedicated most of his sci- entific work until around the mid-1970s, was the On the other hand, this theoretical approach itself ex- establishment of a chronological and cultural-ty-erts pressure on archaeological material. This resist- pological system of the prehistory of the central ance is not only scientific but is also highly ethical. Balkans (i.e. the broader region of Serbia and N. In Hitler’s Germany, with Reinerth featuring in Ko- Macedonia) from the Neolithic to the Iron Age.333 ssina’s methodological approach, German prehistoric His bibliography deals with these problems archaeology became a part of the National Socialist ideology. Merhart stood up against this and left the 333 Garašanin, M.: Arheološka nalazišta u Srbiji (Archaeolog-professorship in Marburg. In this way, he saved Rei- ical sites in Serbia, with D. Garašanin), Prosveta, Be- necke’s positivism; all totalitarian regimes are against ograd 1951; Hronologija Vinčanske grupe (Chronology facts because facts are of minor importance relative to of the Vinča group), doctoral dissertation at the Uni- versity of Ljubljana; Neolithikum und Bronzezeit im Ser- their ideological truths... (Gabrovec 1984, 5, trans- bien und Makedonien, Bericht der Römisch-Germanisch lated by P. Novaković) Kommission 39, Berlin-Frankfurt 1958, 1–130; Chronol- ogische und Ethnische Probleme der Eisenzeit auf dem Bal- kan, Atti VI Congresso Internazionale delle scienze pre- 1938 he was forced to resign from the University of istoriche e protostoriche I, Firenze Sansoni ed. 1962, Marburg am Lahn, then retired in 1942, to be rein- 179–195; The Neolithic in Anatolia and the Balkans, stated in 1949. Archaeologists who replaced him at Antiquity 35, Cambridge 1961, 246–280. Praistorija na tlu the university after 1938 either died during the war SR Srbije ( Prehistory in Serbia). Srpska književna zadru- (Friedrich Holste) or were temporarily ‘ entnazifiert’ – ga, Beograd, 1973. For the complete bibliography of M. denazified (Wolfgang Dehn). Garašanin – about 350 works – see Miletin (1989–1990). 175 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 175 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 quite clearly and reflects his systematic building The monograph by Garašanin and Kovačević of a comprehensive picture and structure of the was written in the period of an especially heated prehistory of Serbia and its neighbouring are- political climate (there was an issue of the border as. This brought him the reputation of being a with Italy, the special status of the Free Territo-pre-eminent expert in Balkan archaeology, and ry of Trieste and the question of Istria and the he became a member of numerous international Primorska region, the open conflict with Stalin scientific associations, including the German Ar- and the states of the Eastern Bloc, the unresolved chaeological Institute, the Bavarian Academy of status of the Slovene minority in Austria, and Sciences, the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Yugoslav support to the communist movement the Italian Institute for Prehistory, and the Slo- in the Greek civil war, among other issues). vene Academy of Sciences and Arts. At that time, Merhart’s critical concept of mate- In the early post-war years, M. Garašanin also rial culture analysis was not yet fully developed attempted to contribute to the renewal of Slav- and applied in Yugoslav archaeology, nor had ic archaeology, which was the most underde- Garašanin fully adopted it yet. Hence, the meth-veloped research topic in all the then Yugoslav od of studying ethnogenesis was, in general, still republics, with the exception of Croatia. The de- very much influenced by Kossina-like views, in-velopment of Slavic archaeology was one of the cluding all the simplifications and reductions of top priorities in Yugoslav archaeology following social and cultural categories used in the analyt-the war. Together with Jovan Kovačević, profes- ical and conceptual apparatus. Bogo Grafenau-sor of medieval archaeology at the University of er (1916–1995), a leading Slovene medievalist, Belgrade, Garašanin published one of the first clearly pointed out numerous problems in terms monographs on the material culture of the Slavs of the simplified archaeological and historical in the territory of Yugoslavia (Garašanin M. and methodology used in this monograph, which Kovačević 1950). Though this study was con- led to ungrounded constructions and interpreta-ceived as one of the fundamental archaeological tions that did not satisfy modern historiographic handbooks for this period in Yugoslavia, it was standards (Grafenauer 1951, 170–174). Neverthe-challenged by the harsh critiques of historians less, despite Grafenauer and some other histori-and archaeologists from Croatia and Slovenia. ans’ critique, the monograph by Garašanin and Naturally, such a project was not only motivated Kovačević served as an important textbook for by the need for developing Slavic archaeology, generations of archaeology students in Yugosla-but was also determined by internal and external via. It took almost twenty years to start apply-political circumstances and factors. ing more critical methods and develop more de- tailed scholarly analysis in Slavic archaeology.335 The internal factors include the ideology of the Indeed, Slavic studies even today continue to brotherhood and unity of the Yugoslav peoples, have a political undertone and represent a latent strongly promoted by the ruling Communist political issue. This became clearly evident in the regime that sought a historical context and le- recent wars in Yugoslavia. Here again, the at-gitimacy for this ideology. Externally, the main tractiveness of “simple and effective methods in driver was the need to respond to the neigh- ethnogenesis” was obvious (for telling examples bouring countries’ territorial aspirations by us- in Serbia, see Babić S. 2002, 318). ing historical (i.e. archaeological) arguments.334 334 The development of Slavic archaeology is listed among 335 In this respect, Croatian archaeologist Zdenko Vinski the chief priorities in the Resolution of the First Confer-played a significant role. In his works, he established ence of Yugoslav Archaeologists held in Niška Banja in more credible standards in this research area; as a pro- 1950 (for the conclusions of this conference and the rel- fessor, he directly influenced younger generations of evant documents, see J. Korošec, 1950). archaeologists in Slovenia and Croatia. 176 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 176 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 Another very influential figure in Serbian post- Vir, a Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic site war archaeology was Dragoslav Srejović. He in the Iron Gorge (Đerdap) encountered during came to the fore of Serbian archaeology some- the construction of the hydroelectric plant. Sre-time in the late 1960s and can be seen as a sort of jović conducted a relatively long-term research a ‘complementary opposition’ to Milutin Garaša- project in the Đerdap area (1965–1970), where he nin. The pathway of his professional career and was able to unveil some truly spectacular find-how he gained international recognition diverge ings that significantly affected the interpretation significantly from those of Garašanin. Without of Neolithisation in southeast Europe. The site a doubt, Srejović was an excellent archaeologist of Lepenski Vir consisted of several dozen small who, like Garašanin, dealt with many archaeo- house structures of trapezoidal layout, located logical topics; his approach, however, was sig- on the very banks of the Danube and containing nificantly different. For decades, Garašanin kept hearths, altars, beneath-floor burials, and small building the system of Serbian and Balkan pre- stone sculptures, which proved to be unique in historic archaeology upon detailed analytical the broader regional and chronological context work based on strictly positivistic starting points. of the 7th and 6th millennia BC.337 Srejović, on the other hand, displayed different qualities in his work – an exceptional intuition, The research at the site of Gamzigrad made Sre-eclecticism and, indeed, excellent organisational jović even more famous. The immense complex and media skills. In Serbian archaeology, Milu- of Roman buildings’ remains had been known tin Garašanin’s name is more associated with the since the mid-19th century when Felix Kanitz essential type-chronological studies and defini- made the first drawings of the site during his vis-tions of the main cultural group. At the same its to the area in 1860 and 1864. In the early 1970s, time, Dragoslav Srejović is directly linked with Srejović started with extensive excavations and, discovering some of the Balkans’ most attractive after a decade of work, demonstrated that the sites – Lepenski Vir and Gamzigrad.336 site represented Emperor Galerius’s palace ( Fe- lix Romuliana) – one of the architecturally most Unlike Garašanin, who insisted on rigorous pos- beautiful buildings in the central Balkans. His itivist methodology, Srejović’s archaeological in- research’s significance was even greater because terpretations went beyond the typical “cultural the palace exemplifies a rare, purpose-built type historicism” of Garašanin’s school (Babić S. 2002, of architecture erected exclusively during the 313). Srejović observed archaeological practice period of the Tetrarchy (AD 293–313). Therefore, as “the art of discovering past human culture”. He the site of Gamzigrad was placed on the UNES-never explicitly justified his idea of archaeologi- CO World Heritage List (Srejović 1983; Srejović cal interpretation that remained highly intuitive and Lalović 1991). throughout his career; he labelled his approach ‘poetic’ archaeology (Babić 2002, 313). He be- It would be wrong to observe Srejović and his gan his career as a prehistorian. He received his role in the development of archaeology in Ser-doctorate in 1964, and in the following year be- bia only through the lens of his most important came a professor at the Department of Archae- discoveries. However, these discoveries indeed ology at the University of Belgrade. His first brought him a worldwide reputation,and he major appearance in international archaeology knew how to use these sites quite effectively to was associated with the discovery of Lepenski promote the archaeological heritage in Serbia 336 In the obituary for Srejović, the Independent newspa- 337 Among the numerous studies and publications on Lep-per labelled him as “the archaeologist with golden fin- enski Vir, two ‘classical’ ones stand out: D. Srejović, gers”. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/ Lepenski Vir, Beograd 1969; D. Srejović and L. Babo- news/obituaries/obituary- professor-dragoslav-srejo- vić, Umetnost Lepenskog Vira (The Art of Lepenski Vir), vic-1315345.html (December 20, 1996). Beograd 1983. 177 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 177 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 (and Yugoslavia) and archaeological discipline collaborated with her husband in several semi-in general. From the 1980s onwards, Srejović nal publications in the 1950s.341 was practically a synonym for archaeology in the eyes of the popular media in Serbia. Still, Other prominent scholars include Nikola Tasić his lexicographic projects were also well recog- (1932–2017) of the Institute for Balkan Studies at nised (e.g. Srejović 1997). In addition to such the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and work, Srejović was a prime organiser, and the Bogdan Brukner (1931–2006) of the Institute for number and size of his investigations in Ser- the Study of History of Vojvodina in Novi Sad bia (and Montenegro) put him at the very top (who later worked at the University of Novi of Serbian archaeology. In 1978, he founded Sad). Most of their research relates to the archae-the Centre for Archaeological Research (Lazić ology of the Neolithic and Copper Age. It is also 1998b) at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, necessary to mention Borislav Jovanović, who, which soon became one of the most important together with Tasić and Brukner, co-authored institutions for carrying out field research in the major synthesis of the prehistory of Vojvodi-Serbia and Montenegro.338 na (Brukner, Jovanović and Tasić Ni. 1974) that was published a year after Garašanin’s synthe- Garašanin and Srejović were, by all measures, sis of the prehistory of Serbia (Garašanin 1973). the most prominent figures in Serbian archaeol- Jovanović was also a researcher who produced ogy in the period between 1970 and 2000. They the first key papers on early metallurgy in Yugo-significantly contributed to the development of slavia (Jovanović 1971). contemporary Serbian (and Yugoslav) archae- ology. However, with the increasing number of Before the Second World War, Roman archae-archaeologists employed in the Institute of Ar- ology was developed primarily by Vulić, who chaeology, the National Museum in Belgrade represented a competent discussant in the inter-and the University in Belgrade, other scholars national discourse. However, for some time after also came up with substantial achievements, the war, ancient archaeology could not return and prehistoric archaeology in Serbia certainly to its former high standards. But the quality of took great steps forward. Alongside Garašanin studies in this field began to increase when Fan-and, later, Srejović, a prominent place was un- ula Papazoglou, in the 1960s, assumed the role doubtedly held by Draga (Aranđelović) Garaša- of a reference historian for the Greek and Roman nin, Milutin’s wife,339 one of the first female ar- periods. At the beginning of the 1970s, Alek-chaeologists in then Yugoslavia. She graduated sandrina Cermanović-Kuzmanović (1928–2001) in 1946 and received her PhD in 1953 with Josip started systematically teaching ancient archae-Korošec in Ljubljana. Her thesis on Starčevo ology at the Department of Archaeology, Uni-culture (published in Aranđelović-Garašanin versity of Belgrade. She did not carry out large D., 1954) was the first updated text on the Early field research projects during her career; instead, Neolithic in Serbia.340 Later on, she frequently she mostly limited herself to studies of certain types of material culture from Antiquity and 338 From 1980 to 1996, and mainly within the centre, Srejo- vić conducted more than thirty field projects in Serbia and Montenegro. The list of his field projects and bib- at Belgrade, Miolje Vasić, was unwilling to accept alter- liography was published by Lazić (1997b; 1997, 74–83). natives to his interpretation of the Neolithisation. For the evaluation of Srejović’s work in archaeology, 341 For example, Garašanin D., (1954), Katalog Metala. see also Rad Dragoslava Srejovića (1998; 2003). Beograd Narodni muzej, 1954; Garašanin M. and Ga- 339 They both studied together in the late 1930s with M. rašanin D. (1953b), Priručnik za arheološka iskopavanja. Vasić and participated in the ‘museum course’ during Savezni institut za zaštitu spomenika kulture, Beograd; the Second World War. Garašanin M. and Garašanin D. (1951), Arheološka nala- 340 She submitted her PhD in Ljubljana for the same rea- zišta u Srbiji, Prosveta Beograd). son as her husband Milutin Garašanin; their professor 178 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 178 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 epigraphy and the analysis of ancient art objects. The establishment of new archaeological insti-Her cooperation with Dragoslav Srejović was of tutions outside Belgrade and increased interna-importance, and they jointly published a lexico- tional cooperation enabled the development of graphic work – The Dictionary of Greek and Roman high-quality expertise in other parts of Serbia, es-Mythology (Srejović and Cermanović-Kuzmano- pecially in Niš and Novi Sad, and to some degree vić 1979) – which has so far seen several editions. in Sremska Mitrovica. After Belgrade, Novi Sad became the second archaeological centre in the In the development of modern Serbian archae- country with a large Museum of Vojvodina, Mu-ology, it is particularly important to consider nicipal Museum of Novi Sad, Provincial Institute the tremendous boost catalysed by large hydro for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, and plants’ construction in the Iron Gorge. The dam the University of Novi Sad. In the 1970s, some of hydro plant Đerdap I would cause a consid- fifteen archaeologists were employed in these inerable rise of the water level of Danube more stitutions. Among them, Bogdan Brukner (Uni-than 100 km upstream and flooded or endan- versity of Novi Sad) and Olga Brukner (Provin-gered many archaeological sites, among them cial Institute for the Protection of Cultural Mon-also those of the Roman Danube limes.342 An in- uments) were some of the experts with consid-tegrated salvage project started in the mid-1960s, erable scholarly authority in the whole of Yugo-coordinated by the Archaeological Institute slavia. Bogdan Brukner (1931–2006) was already from Belgrade. The project included detailed briefly mentioned in the text above as an expert surveying of the riverbank and several dozen in Neolithic and Eneolithic archaeology of the of excavations in two extensive field campaigns Danube and Balkan areas, well known in broad- (1964–1972, 1978–1988). This project was by far er central European archaeology. Olga Brukner the most extensive archaeological project in Ser- (1930–2018) was an expert in the Roman period. bia, and also in Yugoslavia. Considering the cir- Her study on Roman pottery in Pannonia (O. cumstances and state of development of archae- Brukner 1981) was, for a long while, the primary ology in Serbia, this salvage project was a great reference work in the field and among the most success not only in terms of what was recorded, frequently consulted study on ancient pottery researched and salvaged – more than a hundred in the former Yugoslavia. A highly influential sites were recorded in total – but also in proving scholar from the Museum of Vojvodina was also the infrastructural capacity of Serbian archaeol- Predrag Medović (1930–2021), a specialist for the ogy to answer challenges of such a magnitude. Bronze and Iron Ages of the Danube region. The final result was that the broader area of the Iron Gorge became one of Serbia’s most detailed For a long time, medieval archaeology lacked researched regions. 343 advanced systemic tools (typology, chronol- ogy, reference collections and archaeological 342 It is exactly in this context where the sites of the Lepen- materials) of the kind available to prehistoric ski vir group were discovered on both river banks. and classical or ancient archaeology, both hav- 343 Major publications of the Iron Gorge projects include ing long tradition and practised by a greater the special issue of the journal Starinar XXXIII–XXXIV (1982–83) where a complete bibliography of the first re- number of experts. In 1954, a new subject was search campaign was published. The results of the sec- introduced in the curriculum of the Universi-ond research campaign were published in a special edi- ty of Belgrade – Slavic archaeology. From 1955 tion of Đerdapske sveske/Cahiers des Portes de Fer I (1980), it was taught by Jovan Kovačević (1920–1988), II (1984), III (1986), IV (1987) by the Archaeological Institute from Belgrade. Today, more than 100 archaeological whose first degree was in history. He began sites are recorded on the Serbian Danube bank alone. In his career at the National Museum in Belgrade 1974, Đerdap National Park was founded, encompassing (1944–1948) and subsequently transferred to nearly 640 km2 along 100 km along the right riverbank. In 1996 the Archaeological Museum of Đerdap (branch the Historical Institute at the SANU; in 1955, of the National Museum) was established in Kladovo. he started at the Faculty of Philosophy in 179 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 179 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 Belgrade. Kovačević was the author of pioneer- Institute of Archaeology, the National Museum ing studies on the material culture of the Slavs, and the Faculty of Philosophy expanded the among which stands out the study of jewellery most, especially the latter. There, alongside the (Kovačević 1949; 1950). His most well-known Department of Archaeology, also worked the early work is the monograph on the material Archaeological Collection and the Centre for culture of the South Slavs, created in co-au- Archaeological Research. thorship with M. Garašanin (Garašanin and Kovačević 1950). Among his later works, par- In the conceptual sense, Serbian archaeology ticularly significant is the archaeological and of the 1970s and 1980s was entirely at the same historical synthesis of barbarian colonisation in level as the schools of culture-historical archae-the Yugoslav regions (Kovačević 1960).344 Sim- ology elsewhere in central and southeastern Eu-ilar to medieval archaeologists in the other re- rope. This was also evident in the excellent rep-publics, Kovačević had to explore the quite un- utation of some leading Serbian archaeologists developed area in Serbia, in which several key who intensively collaborated in the international instruments were missing in the first decades arena. Concerning the international cooperation after the Second World War, such as the typol- and its intensity, especially in comparison with ogy and chronology of pottery and jewellery other countries in the region, one should not for-in Slavic material culture; a clearer distinction get that, already from the 1960s, Yugoslavia was between Slavic and Byzantine material cultures much more open than any other East European and that of the Late Antiquity; and the lack of country of the time, which greatly facilitated data on the settlements in the early Middle communication and cooperation with archaeo-Ages. The archaeology of the early Slavs was logical academic and research centres in Europe a topic with significant political weight, which and the wider world, and paved the way for an meant an even stronger pressure placed on the extensive exchange of scholars and acquisition researchers in this field to establish a valid crit- of foreign literature.345 ical scientific and classification system. In the 1970s and 1980s, the development of ar- Serbian archaeology after 1991 chaeology in Serbia, just like in the other repub- lics of the former Yugoslavia, took large steps Archaeology was affected in different ways in in virtually all domains – academic, museum the countries involved in the wars marking the and heritage protection. This can be best illus- breakup of Yugoslavia. It is true that the social trated by the fact that from 1971 to 1988 there and cultural circumstances and views of the fu-was exceptional progress in the development ture differed significantly among the former re-of the infrastructure. The number of archaeo- publics/emerging states, just like the experience logical institutions increased by about 50%, of the conflicts was different in Croatia, Bosnia from 27 to 40, while the number of profession- and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro (and al archaeologists increased by 60% in less than later Kosovo). Therefore, comparing how indi-twenty years, from 79 to 137. Such growth, vidual national archaeologies responded to the however, was not even across Serbia. Though dramatic social events and changes must be very several new institutions (museums and insti- precisely contextualised. On the other hand, tutes) were founded in ‘inner’ Serbia (the terri- from Slovenia to N. Macedonia, what was com-tory excluding Belgrade, Vojvodina and Koso- mon to all was the surge of nationalist ideas and vo), more jobs were available in Belgrade. The 345 Among the numerous scholars who visited Serbia was Lewis Binford. In 1986, during his guest teaching in 344 The bibliography and a short biography of Jovan Ljubljana, he also gave a couple of lectures at Belgrade Kovačević are available in Jovanović V. (2003a, 2003b). and a longer interview on Serbian national television. 180 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 180 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 demands for revising the past. Such tendencies institutions and initiatives, in which some ar-reverberated through archaeology in the late chaeologists actively participated. Nevertheless, 1980s and 1990s.346 the fact is that the ‘mainstream’ of Serbian ar- chaeology remained to a great degree passive. The discussion of the social role and responsi- Quite the opposite was Croatia’s case, where bility of archaeology, catalysed mainly by the archaeologists were very actively engaged in wars in Yugoslavia, initially unfolded in Slove- alerting national and international communities nia, where the experience of the joint state’s dis- about the damage inflicted to their archaeologi-solution was quite different from in other parts cal heritage (and their country in general). How-of Yugoslavia. The development of such a dis- ever, a very effective method for increasing apa-cussion was supported by the already existing thy and neutralising criticism that was adopted critical distance and reflection cultivated by the by the ruling regime was to tighten control of younger generation of Slovene archaeologists the distribution of the basic means of existence gathered around the journal Arheo. Under the and the elementary functioning of several insti-influence of Anglo-American archaeology, this tutions and the media. group tried to develop its own critical stance in the 1980s. Indeed, between 1985 and 2000, nu- An additional aggravating factor was the Unit-merous topics urgently required critical reaction: ed Nations’ economic embargo upon Serbia and the boom in pseudo-archaeology, the relations Montenegro (then the Federal Republic of Yu-between archaeology and nationalism, the ideo- goslavia), which stayed in place for almost the logical assumptions of archaeology, the concept entire first half of the 1990s.347 Due to the em-of national archaeology, the justification of po- bargo and introduction of a rather rigorous visa litical programmes and goals using ‘archaeolog- system, almost all communication between the ical’ arguments, the social responsibility of sci- local and foreign academic institutions stopped. ence (i.e. archaeology), and other similar issues. There were also no funds for purchasing litera-These were the questions addressed by many ture and travelling to international conferences. European archaeologists in the 1990s, who were One of the repercussions was the very weak ex-stunned by such an unexpected burst of nation- change of critical ideas with colleagues in neigh-al, ethnic and religious conflicts in the former bouring countries and Europe in general. Staša Yugoslavia and some other countries in Eastern Babić (2002) well described the situation, as Europe and the Soviet Union. one of the main protagonists of the new, critical wave in Serbian archaeology, in her paper sug- Serbian archaeology did not participate in the gestively entitled “Still innocent after all these critical discussion in the 1990s, at least not with- years? Sketches for a social history of archae-in international forums. However, such criticism ology in Serbia”, the first domestic critical text did exist and was directed against the war and published in a foreign publication after the wars dominant politics of Slobodan Milošević. Still, in Yugoslavia. Babić (2002, 318) describes the its expression was mostly limited to small circles inclination of Serbian archaeology in the 1990s of critical intellectuals, often present as groups towards “self-marginalisation”, its retreat to the within various non-governmental organisations periphery of the contemporary social life, where and associations, or in ‘alternative’ educational there was no expectation, and no need felt, for active public opposition to the political views of 346 In the Serbia of the early and mid-1980s, and in Koso- vo’s political turmoil, a particularly vexed archaeolog- 347 In 1992 the annual rate of inflation in Serbia and Mon-ical issue was the thesis on the Illyrian origin of Alba- tenegro (then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) nians. There was a continuous discussion on this topic, reached a level of more than 19,000. In 1993 the Nation- even at the Central Committee of the League of Com- al Bank of Serbia issued a banknote with a nominal val- munists of Serbia. ue of 500,000,000,000 dinars. 181 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 181 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 the governing regime. Also characteristic was Babić and Aleksandar Palavestra) who intro-the lack of movement against numerous popular duced courses on archaeological theory, the his-pseudo-theories about a “magnificent” Serbian tory of archaeology and other topics involving past and the historical rights to territories. In fact, critical analysis and the discipline and practice in some cases, part of the ‘mainstream” archae- of archaeology, including a very critical reflec-ology was actively involved in revising the past tion on the character and role of archaeology in following the then-dominant national ideology’s Serbia. In this discussion,349 the nationalist dis-goals (Babić 2002, 318). The most unfortunate course that largely permeated Serbia’s historical episode was with Slavic archaeology (i.e. ‘ar- sciences in the 1990s was very clearly and com-chaeology of Serbs’), where some Serbian schol- petently analysed. This process has not been ars (e.g. Đorđe Janković from the Department easy and is still going on, not only in Serbian of Archaeology, University of Belgrade) carried archaeology but also in neighbouring countries. out research in Croatia in areas controlled by the rebel Serbian minority, to prove Serbian ‘histori- In terms of the most recent developments, especal’ rights to the territory. cially in the domain of organisation and infra- structure, archaeology in Serbia is still strongly Following the end of Milosević’s rule and of feeling the economic consequences of the ‘bleak the wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1990s’.350 We should not forget that almost all and Kosovo (1999), Serbian archaeology after archaeological activities are funded from pub-the year 2000 began to rapidly emerge from the lic funds. While in central institutions in Bel-isolation. The broken connections with foreign grade, the shortage of resources was relatively partners and those from the countries of former less felt, the situation in ‘inner’ Serbia is much Yugoslavia were quickly revived. This process worse. There have been very few investments clearly could not happen without a reflection on the 1990s. In Croatia, the archaeological dis- 349 The main instrument of this group, which is mostly cipline’s fundamental standards and integrity composed of doctoral and master’s students of S. Babić were very much preserved, despite the intense and A. Palavestra, became the journal Ethnoantropolog- pressures from the nationalist authorities to cre- ical Problems published by the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. In it, many young archaeologists have in the ate a “new and different” past. Similar could last several years published a relatively large corpus of be said for Serbian archaeology in general. In some forty papers that analyse the cognitive process the more open atmosphere after 2000, some of and classification mechanisms of archaeology; criticise the most striking examples of nationalist in- the archaeological discourse and practice in Serbia; of- fer new, critical readings of classical works of Serbian strumentalisation of archaeology, ranging from archaeology, and so on (see issues EAP 2006, Volume pseudo-archaeological theses to ‘serious’ theo- 2, 2008, Volume 3, 2009, Volume 1 and 2; 2010, Volume ries about early medieval ethnogenesis of the 1 and 3; 2011, Volume 3; 2012, Volume 2 and 3; 2013, Volume 3 and 4). It is fair to say that this is today the Serbs on account of the neighbouring nations, most progressive and most active group of (younger) were successfully marginalised. The key fac- authors in the field of archaeological theory and episte- tor in this process was intensified international mology in the region of former Yugoslavia. communication. The leading role in this process 350 According to the World Bank (https://data.world-bank.org/country) Serbia’s 2017 GDP per capita was was played by a younger generation of archae- 5,900 (current) USD, which corresponds to Yugosla- ologists at the University of Belgrade,348 cen- via’s GDP in the mid-1980s. A lower GDP is found in tred around critically oriented professors (Staša N. Macedonia (5,442 USD), Bosnia and Herzegovina (5,180 USD) and Kosovo (3,894 USD). Slovenia (23,597 USD), Croatia (13,294 USD), and Montenegro (7669 348 It must be emphasised that Milutin Garašanin, as an USD) fare much better. Moreover, other neighbouring unquestionable authority in Serbian archaeology, ap- countries, which in the mid-1980s had a lower GDP pealed for the integrity of archaeology and did not than Yugoslavia, are today considerably better off bet- want to participate in such an abuse of the discipline ter than Serbia – see Hungary (14,224 USD), Romania (Babić and Tomović 1994, 123–125). (10,813 USD) and Bulgaria (8,031 USD). 182 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 182 22. 10. 2021 11:05:47 in archaeological infrastructure or its public 1991 – Aleksandrovac presentation in the past two decades. Indeed, 1996 – Kladovo even in the case of the two largest investments 2002 – Bačka Topola in ‘inner’ Serbia – the visitor centre at the Lep- 2008 – Sokobanja enski Vir (opened on 25th of June 2011) and the 2012 – Nova Varoš visitor centre at Viminacium (steadily growing 2014 – Veliko Gradište after 2000), are both part of the central institu- 2015 – Vrbas tions in Belgrade, the National Museum and 2016 – Žagubica Archaeological Institute, respectively.351 In the heritage protection sector, the changes The general impression is that almost all re- were of a much lesser magnitude than in Slogional and local museums can maintain a cer- venia and Croatia. In general, the system and tain (low) level of archaeological activities organisation of heritage protection as it de- (small research projects, small exhibitions, etc.) veloped in the 1970s and 1980s is still largely but with no larger or longer-lasting impact, es- in use, with more or less the same institution-pecially compared to the local and regional mu- al framework, and only with some minor im-seums in Slovenia and Croatia. The situation provements (see more in Rajkovača 2019). The with archaeology in museums is still problem- principal legal act ( Law on Cultural Properties) atic. The National Museum in Belgrade opened dates from 1994 and is firmly based on previ-its doors after more than ten years of very slow ous acts. These problems increased significant-and contested renovation; the Municipal Muse- ly during the recent construction of motorways um in Belgrade is still without venues for the in Serbia. While in Slovenia and Croatia, the permanent exhibition, and in many cases of construction of a network of motorways cata-other regional and local museums, their venues lysed significant changes in legislation and the and equipment for exhibiting items and infor- practice of preventive archaeology, this was not mation related to archaeology (and also many so much the case in Serbia, where Rajkovača other topics) are far from adequate. Especially (2016, 282) notes that Serbian archaeology is at the regional and local levels, the museums re- still heavily reliant on tradition. Due to govern-main largely underfinanced and understaffed. ment pressure to construct motorways as fast However, there are also cases of successful and as possible, there were numerous cases of se-highly attractive displays of archaeological sites vere time constraints on archaeological salvage and discoveries made in the last twenty years, works and last-minute rescue campaigns done such as at Lepenski Vir, Viminacium, Gamzi- in rather inappropriate conditions and with grad, Kalemegdan fort in Belgrade, and Caričin poor organisation (see Rajkovača 2016).352 The grad ( Iustiniana Prima), to list just the most fa- main reason for not fully exploiting the motor-mous examples. Another positive aspect was way development’s potential should be looked the emergence of new local museums founded at in the outdated legislation. after 1991, completing the already rather dense network of the local museums in Serbia. 352 Tonko Rajkovača, a former curator at the Museum of Metallurgy in Bor, Serbia, and geoarchaeologist at the University of Cambridge. For several years he worked in development-led archaeology in the UK. Between 351 Quite illustrative is the case of Mediana near Niš. In 2012 and 2019, he also acted as a consultant archaeol- 2013, a large visitor centre started to be constructed for ogist for ARUP, the consultant company to the World the occasion of the celebration of the 1,700th anniversa- Bank, which provided loans for the motorway con- ry of the Edict of Milano (proclaimed by Constantine struction in Serbia. His first-hand observations and the Great, who was born in the area of Niš). After a year texts on the heritage protection system (2016; 2017) are or two, due to the shortage of resources, the construc- crucial for understanding today’s preventive archaeol- tion was stopped. ogy in Serbia. 183 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 183 22. 10. 2021 11:05:48 Preventive archaeology is not fully considered motorway projects were concluded to a level in the planning phases of the development, which can sustain some 20–30% more jobs than and almost all ‘protection’ is concentrated in a before 2000, in Serbia, after the cessation of the few weeks prior to or during the construction major field projects on motorways, the teams – works. In addition to this, it is only the Institute mostly operating on short-term contracts with for the Protection of Cultural Heritage and a the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Her-few other public institutions which are allowed itage – were dissolved. The discussion to allow to carry out the excavations and all preventive private or some kind of hybrid (public-private) research in general (Rajkovača 2016, 288). While arrangements in archaeology in Serbia lasted this, per se, may not be the problem, since it de- for more than a decade, and this practice is now pends on the individual countries in Europe encouraged by the successful development of with regard to how they will organise and fund this domain in Slovenia and Croatia. However, preventive archaeology (varying from a fully the opposition to this idea is still very strong, public model in France to fully ‘commercial’ including in archaeological circles.354 However, development-led archaeology in the UK), the despite severe problems in the organisation and Serbian public institutions simply do not have implementation of preventive archaeology on enough staff to carry out such challenging pro- motorways, the actual research has produced jects in a short time-frame. The problems were some genuinely spectacular discoveries (e.g. also in the monitoring system, where the insti- Neolithic settlements at Drenovac and Pav-tute was legally authorised to monitor the exca- lovac, Late Antique basilica at Kladenčište, Via vators, including itself.353 Militaris at Dimitrovgrad, Thracian burial with a chariot at Mađilka near Pirot and more). In Slovenia and Croatia, where archaeological heritage services faced similar challenges some The situation with academic archaeology in ten to fifteen years earlier, a solution to public Serbia is somewhat different. After 2000 when institutions' insufficient capacities was found the country gradually came out from the isola-in allowing private archaeological enterprises tion, the University of Belgrade and Archaeo-to be hired for preventive projects. The conse- logical Institute successfully renewed interna-quences in both countries were far-reaching. tional cooperation and access to international For some years, many younger archaeologists in funding (EU and other), which also proved to Slovenia and Croatia were employed in preven- be instrumental for conceptual renewal after tive projects, which contributed considerably to a decade or more of stagnation. With great ef-meeting the challenges of rapid motorway con- forts, some new intellectual circles of younger struction. Moreover, the concepts and practices scholars were formed to follow global develop-that developed in the motorway archaeology ments in archaeology (e.g. Centre for Theoret-over the years significantly raised the level of ical Archaeology, Centre for Digital Archaeol-archaeological expertise and in practice made ogy, and Laboratory for Bioarchaeology Uni-archaeology a very competent partner in spa- versity of Belgrade). Significant improvements tial planning. Unfortunately, this was not the can also be seen at the University of Novi Sad, case with Serbia. While in Slovenia and Croatia preventive archaeology developed after major 354 It seems paradoxical that the actual Act on Cultural Goods (1994) states, in its article 102, that “Investigations of cultural goods, defined by the successful application 353 A similar model also existed in Slovenia and Croatia of the project and the accompanying archive, could be car- for a few years, but it was soon changed for obvious ried out by institutions responsible for the protection as well conflicts of interests. Today, in both countries, the Insti- as other firms and companies, other parties and commercial tutes for the Protection of Cultural Heritage set out ob- units, employing adequately qualified and trained staff, with ligatory conditions for rescue research and monitoring, the necessary equipment and in accordance with this act”. and re not allowed to carry out the field research. ( See more in Rajkovača 2017, 148–152). 184 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 184 22. 10. 2021 11:05:48 where the teaching of archaeology (as a part However, the events and massive economic cri-of the history curriculum) was renewed with sis of the 1990s also took a toll on the academ-the appointment of new and younger staff. At ic sector, especially with regard to accelerating the universities, a significant step forward was the ‘brain drain’. A relatively large number of made with new regional programmes of stu- younger scholars, especially compared to oth-dent exchange starting in 2005 (with the AR- er former Yugoslav republics, went abroad and HEOPED Network within the Central Europe- continued their careers in foreign countries (the an Exchange Program for University Studies). USA, UK, Germany, Spain...), to a great extent However, Serbia only became a full member of due to the rather bleak prospects at home for the EU Erasmus+ programme in 2019. The com- their careers. petencies of Serbian archaeological researchers have been recognised and also awarded with research funds from the EU.355 In general, in- ternational cooperation has mostly increased in the last decade, with foreign teams from the UK, Ireland, Germany, Slovenia, the USA and other countries regularly present in the modern Serbian archaeological ‘landscape’. At the very end of this chapter on Serbia, one rather peculiar institution also deserves to be noted – the Petnica Research Station. The sta- tion, a non-profit institution established in 1982 near Valjevo, is aimed primarily at the extracurricular education of high-achieving el- ementary and high school students in various sciences (chemistry, physics, astronomy, ecolo- gy, biology, anthropology, and also archaeolo- gy). Its venues, a campus which can host some 170 people, plus fully furnished laboratories, along with very dedicated teachers, have made this station an exceptional place for educating young people. For its achievements, Petnica re- cently gained the official support of UNESCO. Archaeology was part of Petnica’s programmes already from the mid-1980s, and so far proba- bly more than a thousand young students have participated in numerous workshops, field training schools and courses. One can hardly find an educational institution with a similar impact on the promotion of archaeology any- where else in the southeastern Europe. 355 Currently, Sofija Stefanović (University of Belgrade, Bi- oSense Institute Novi Sad) coordinates a project fund- ed by the ERC, one of the most prestigious EU research funding schemes. 185 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 185 22. 10. 2021 11:05:48 Fig. 79 Archaeological institutions in Serbia. 186 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 186 22. 10. 2021 11:05:48 Concluding thoughts on Serbian of Serbs (and the Serbian Orthodox Church) de- archaeology veloped their first national and cultural institu- tions. In this process, Belgrade soon developed as the principal political, economic, and cultur- Compared to Slovenia or Croatia, Serbian ar- al centre, with the country’s first museum and chaeology lacked local antiquarian traditions and university. Thanks to some outstanding schol-started to develop later, in the second half of the ars who all studied abroad and became the first 19th century. The main reasons for this were two- professors at Belgrade University, Serbia soon fold. The Ottoman political and cultural domi- caught up with neighbouring countries with renance in the period between the 15th and 19th cen- gard to the sciences, archaeology included. turies introduced different principal cultural and intellectual trajectories than in the rest of ‘Chris- However, the development of science and artian’ Europe, which went through the Renais- chaeology was not a cumulative linear process. sance and Enlightenment periods in which mod- Since 1900, Serbia has been involved in three re-ern scientific thought gradually developed, and gional and two world wars. After each of them, where antiquarianism presented a firm base for radical social, political and cultural changes en-the development of the archaeological discipline. sued, often including the replacement of lead-The second reason is the poorly developed urban ing figures in numerous important social and culture in Serbia during the Ottoman rule, includ- cultural institutions. This, inevitably, left a mark ing the whole 19th century. The development of on archaeology as well. In addition to this, ar-medieval centres, which would eventually grow chaeology in Serbia, being practised by a small into towns after the 15th century, was abruptly number of scholars, was also very vulnerable stopped with the Ottomans’ arrival. They intro- and exposed to the positive or negative effects of duced a completely different administrative and the interests, attitudes and ideas of the individ-economic system that prevented urban centres’ ual scholars. The episode with M. Vasić’s dec-autonomous development in Serbia. New ‘urban’ ades-long insistence on the completely wrong places were associated either with larger military dates for the Vinča site and the overall image garrisons or some mining areas, but both were un- of the Balkan Neolithisation illustrates well the der the strict control of the central court in Istan- long-lasting effects of such conditions. bul. In addition to this, until the beginning of the 18th century, when the border between the Aus- Significant developmental change in Serbian ar-trian and Ottoman Empires was stabilised on the chaeology emerged after the Second World War Danube, Serbia did not have such a strategic and in the context of Socialist Yugoslavia. Archaeol-economic importance as did Bosnia and Herzego- ogy in Serbia, as a national disciplinary frame-vina, which was considered as an outpost of the work, was established at the turn of the 19th to Ottoman Empire in Europe. It is also important to 20th centuries, but it remained mostly concen-note that Serbia in the 18th and 19th centuries expe- trated in the capital. It was only after 1945 when rienced substantial migration processes of mostly most of the actual regional and local museums rural populations both to and out of Serbia, which and regional network of the public heritage pro-considerably changed the population structure in tection service became established. This process this country and neighbouring areas. went hand-in-hand with the intensive indus- trialisation and urbanisation of Serbia between However, soon after gaining independence Ser- the 1950s and 1970s. In academic archaeology, bia started an intensive process of ‘Westernisa- this was a period marked by a large increase of tion’, mostly following Austrian cultural pat- teaching and research staff at the University of terns which for a century or so had existed in Voj- Belgrade, research institutes at the Serbian Acad-vodina, where the sizeable national community emy of Arts and Sciences, and National Museum. 187 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 187 22. 10. 2021 11:05:48 Academic archaeology. Assisted by local and re- of the Province of Vojvodina), has more than five gional institutions, these central institutions be- professional archaeologists in all its archaeolog-came capable of undertaking large-scale projects ical institutions combined; in most cases, there (e.g. Iron Gorge project and similar). In terms are one or two.357 The 1990s were years of iso-of conceptual development, one could say that lation and stagnation in the development of al-Serbian archaeology reached a certain maturi- most all domains of archaeological practice: eco-ty towards the end of the 1970s. Publications of nomic, infrastructural and conceptual. All the Serbia’s archaeological maps, chronological and archaeological institutions survived through this typological studies enabled the first in-depth period, but they were left with modest resources syntheses of prehistoric periods, while the ex- and potential in the ‘new capitalism’ era, which perience gained in joint international projects was particularly obvious at the local levels. It is and intensive participation at international con- here, I believe, where one of the critical problems ferences also helped to develop the discipline. lie, and thus the responsibility of archaeological These all illustrate the positive outcomes of the centres in Serbia in assisting in establishing a successful modernisation of Serbian archaeology much more robust network of regional and local and its communication with other archaeologies archaeological institutions. The case of preven-in Yugoslavia and abroad. tive archaeology on the motorways illustrates very well this problem. Belgrade’s dominant position in the ‘hierarchy’ of Serbian archaeology was incontestable for all The large concentration of ‘archaeology’ in Bel-these years. It only grew in importance through grade has also resulted in a dominant position time, particularly during and after the wars and of academic archaeology, mainly when reflect-crisis since 1991. This fact has much to do with ing the discipline’s achievements. Compared to the country’s overall traditionally centralised Slovenia, where considerable changes in preven-structure and the influential weight of its cap- tive archaeology led to much more comprehen-ital.356 Centralisation is also reflected in the or- sive discussion about the status of archaeology, ganisation of archaeology, which is structurally its organisation and practice in all domains, and far more centralised and hierarchically organ- heritage protection in particular, such discussion ised than, for example, in Croatia, where a much did not develop in Serbia. To a great degree, ac-larger number of archaeologists is employed ademic archaeology remained a raw model for compared to Serbia. It appears that such central- measuring the achievements of archaeologists in isation had (and still has) two opposing effects. the museums or at the Institute for the Protection On one side, the large concentration of scholars of Cultural Monuments, making the discussion (and for that matter also resources and assets) about the role of archaeology in non-academic resulted in a series of outstanding achievements, domains less profound, analytical and elabo-especially in academic archaeology in the last 50 rated. In this context, one could observe the re-or more years. But the situation is very different luctance to allow the engagement of private en-when observing the level and extent of archaeol- terprises in archaeology. While the questions of ogy in regional and local institutions. No other how, where, and to what degree should private major city in Serbia, except for Novi Sad (capital enterprises be allowed in archaeological practice 357 In contrast, in Belgrade today there are about 100 pro-356 Today, the population of Serbia is estimated at 7 mil- fessional archaeologists in seven institutions: the Na- lion. Belgrade’s municipal area has a population of tional Museum, Municipal Museum, University of around 1.6 million, nearly five times larger than Novi Belgrade, Archaeological Institute, Institute for Bal- Sad (340,000), and six times larger than Niš (260,000). kan Studies, Republic Institute for the Protection of Such differences, and the large concentration of popu- Monuments of Cultural Heritage, and Belgrade Mu- lation in the capital, cannot be seen in any of the other nicipal Institute for the Protection of Monuments of countries presented in this book. Cultural Heritage. 188 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 188 22. 10. 2021 11:05:48 are entirely legitimate, the negative attitudes and reactions against such developments were never adequately discussed. The successful examples from Croatia and Slo- venia clearly show the positive effects of open- ing up the market for archaeological research (primarily in preventive archaeology). The les- son learned was that a significant outcome was not the replacement of public institutions with private ones, but the engagement of a much larger professional population which, altogeth- er, was able to cope with a significant increase – by several orders of magnitude – of the num- ber of archaeological experts and researchers re- quired. The final result was a great amount of new knowledge acquired about the archaeologi- cal past, opening up many new potential areas of interest for academic and heritage archaeology. 189 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 189 22. 10. 2021 11:05:48 Images Fig. 80 Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli (1658– Fig. 81 Janko Šafarik (1814–1876), 1730), Italian scientist, military officer Slovak scholar who worked in Novi Sad who mapped border between Habsburg and Belgrade, Director of the Serbian and Ottoman Empires after the peace National Library, professor at Belgrade treaty in Sremski Karlovci (1699); during Lycaem, Director of the National this work he also recorded ancient sites Museum in Belgrade, conducted the and ruins along the Danube. first archaeologcal excavations in Serbia. Fig. 82 National Museum and University in Belgrade (early 1910s). Courtesy of the National Museum in Belgrade. 190 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 190 22. 10. 2021 11:05:48 Fig. 83 Serbian Archaeological Society. Fig. 84 Felix Kanitz (1829–1904), Fig. 85 Mihajlo Valtrović (Michail Walter) Austrian-Hungarian journalist, (1839–1915), first professor of archaeology ethnographer and archaeologist. at the University of Belgrade, curator at the Researcher of Roman antiquities in Serbia National Museum (1881), founder of the from the 1850s to 1890s. Serbian Archaeological Society. 191 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 191 22. 10. 2021 11:05:49 Fig. 86 Vršac, Palace Concordia, the seat of Municipal Museum established in 1882. Photo from early 1910s. Courtesy of the Municipal Museum Vršac. Fig. 87 Felix Milleker (1858–1942) in his cabinet in the Museum of Vršac (around 1910). Courtesy of the Municipal Museum Vršac. 192 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 192 22. 10. 2021 11:05:49 Fig. 88 Serbian King Alexander and Queen Draga visiting excavations at Viminacium in 1902 (D. Jacanović, http://archanthis.org/arheoloski-vremeplov-pogledajte-fotografije-viminacijuma-iz-1902-godine/. Fig. 89 Miloje Vasić (1869–1956), professor Fig. 90 Nikola Vulić (1872–1945), of archaeology at the University of Belgrade, professor of ancient history at the Director of the National Museum in Belgrade, University of Belgrade. researcher of Vinča site. 193 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 193 22. 10. 2021 11:05:49 Fig. 91 Miloje Vasić in Vinča (1908). Courtesy of the Archaeological Collection of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Fig. 92 House of the Chrystodolous family in Niš, the first venues of the Museum of Niš (1933). Courtesy of Marko Janković. 194 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 194 22. 10. 2021 11:05:50 Fig. 93 Excavations in Starčevo (1931–1932). Courtesy of the Archaeological Collection of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Fig. 94 Miodrag Grbić (1901–1969). Curator at the National Museum in Belgrade (before WW2), researcher at the Archaeological Institute in Belgrade. Photo: Gačić (2005). 195 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 195 22. 10. 2021 11:05:50 Fig. 95 German excavations at Kalamegdan, Belgrade (1942). Courtesy of the National Museum in Belgrade. Fig. 96 Vladimir Petković (1874–1956), Fig. 97 Đurđe Bošković (1904–1990), Director of the National Museum in professor at the University of Belgrade, Belgrade (1921–1935) and Archaelogical Deputy Director of the Archaeological Institute in Belgrade (1947–1956). Institute in Belgrade. 196 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 196 22. 10. 2021 11:05:50 Fig. 98 Reichel Palace, the seat of the Municipal Museum in Subotica (1948–1968). Fig. 99 Municipal Museum in Negotin (1934). 197 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 197 22. 10. 2021 11:05:50 Fig. 100 From left: Milutin Garašanain (1920–2002) Draga Garašanin (1921–1997) and Galaba Palikruševa in Ohrid, N. Macedonia (1960). Courtesy of Milutin Garašanin jr. Fig. 101 Milutin Garašanain at Anzabegovo, N. Macedonia (1969). Courtesy of Milutin Garašanin jr. 198 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 198 22. 10. 2021 11:05:51 Fig. 102 Dragoslav Srejović (1931–1996) and Zagorka Letica at Lepenski vir (late 1960s). Courtesy of the Archaeological Collection of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Fig. 103 Relocation of Tabula Traiana (1967–1969) during the construction of the Đerdap powerplant. Photo Mihailović M. (2016). 199 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 199 22. 10. 2021 11:05:51 Fig. 104 Aleksandrina Cermanović Fig. 105 Fanula Papazoglu (1917–2001), Kuzmanović (1928–2001), professor of professor of ancient history at the classical archaeology at the University of University of Belgrade. Belgrade. Fig. 106 Nikola Tasić (1932–2017), Director of the Balkanological Institute, Belgrade, at Gomolava (1970s). Courtesy of Nenad Tasić. 200 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 200 22. 10. 2021 11:05:51 Fig. 107 Olga Brukner (1930–2018) (second from the left), conservator at the Provincial Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Vojvodina., visiting the site of Rimski Šančevi near Novi Sad (1962). Other archaeologists: Dragutin Vilotijević (fourth) and Predrag Medović (seventh). Courtesy of the Provincial Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Vojvodina. Fig. 108 Bogdan Brukner (1931–2006), curator at the Museum of Vojvodina, Novi Sad, professor of archaeology at the University of Novi Sad. 201 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 201 22. 10. 2021 11:05:51 Fig. 109 Visitor centre at the dislocated site of Lepenski vir (opened in 2011). 202 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 202 22. 10. 2021 11:05:51 V. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Bosnia and Herzegovina occupies an area of continental areas; it consists of densely forest-51,129 km2. It currently has about 3.5 million ed mountains cut by river valleys in the central inhabitants (according to the 2013 census).358 parts and lower sub-Pannonian and Pannonian Three major ethnic groups live in Bosnia and terrains in the north. Herzegovina, Bosniaks (50%), Serbs (31%), and Croats (15%), with these proportions also corre- Bosnia and Herzegovina is situated between sponding to the major religions in the country, the Pannonian Plain and the Adriatic Sea in Islam, Orthodox Christian and Catholic Chris- the south. Except for a 20 km wide corridor at tian, respectively. The country comprises two Neum, where Bosnia and Herzegovina reaches historic regions, Bosnia, extending over north- the Adriatic shore (cutting Croatian Dalmatia), ern and western parts of the country (ca. 75 % it is a landlocked country. It is predominant-of the total territory) and Herzegovina (ca. 25% ly mountainous; almost 50% of its terrain is of the territory) in the south.359 The difference made of high hills and mountains covered with between the two regions is discernible in the dense forests, mostly in its central parts. From geological and ecological characteristics (see the north, west and south, Bosnia and Herze-below). The border between the two regions govina borders on Croatia, while its eastern runs along the line connecting the mountains and southeastern neighbours are Serbia and Vran – Raduša – Vranica – Bitovnja – Bjelašni- Montenegro. The northern border with Croatia ca – Treskavica – Zelengora – Maglić. Herze- runs along the rivers of Una and Sava. govina occupies a typical Adriatic hinterland area, with large, bare karst areas and rocky re- In contrast, the western and southern bor-lief and several relatively flat, low-lying karst der with Croatian Dalmatia runs across high plains. In contrast, Bosnia is more typical of mountain ridges of the Dinaric Alps. The major part of the border with Serbia is marked by 358 Bosnia and Herzegovina suffered the greatest depop- the course of a river, the middle and lower Dri-ulation among all countries of former Yugoslavia. In the 1991 census, Bosnia and Herzegovina had a popu- na. The southeastern border with Serbia and lation of nearly 4.38 million. In less than three decades, Montenegro runs along high mountain tops its population decreased by 20%. The major reason was and ridges. migration during and after the 1992–1995 war. 359 The name Bosnia ( Bosna) very probably derives from a hydronym, River Bosna, the central river which springs near Sarajevo and flows northwards to the Sava. Inter- pretations associate the Roman hydronym Bathinus flu- men with the River Bosna. In its current form, the name appears in the 10th century, in the works of the Byzan- tine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenetus (Imamov- ić 1995, 25). On the other hand, the name Herzegovina ( Hercegovina) came from the title of a medieval Duke ( Herzog), Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, ruler of this region in the 15th century. It literally means ‘the land of Herzog’. The joint form – Bosnia and Herzegovina ( Bosna i Her- zegovina) – first appeared in 1833 after Ottoman admin- istrative reforms. Before that period, under Ottoman rule, today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina was the Bosnian elayet (also Bosnian vilayet or Bosnian Pashaluk; i.e. Bosnian province). 203 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 203 22. 10. 2021 11:05:52 Fig. 110 Relief map of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of three ma- territory. The Dinaric mountains represent a ‘back-jor physio-geographic regions. Along the whole bone’ of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The dominant northern border with Croatia (or River Sava) ex- geology here is ‘deep’ karst with relatively thick tends a ca. 50–80 km wide belt of lowlands and soil deposits, with alluvial areas along the rivers. lower hills presenting the Pannonian lowland’s This area is the most wooded region. The third southern edge. This region is called Northern region, Herzegovina, lies further in the south. It Bosnia, also Bosanska Posavina (Bosnian Sava is also a karstic landscape of predominantly bar-Valley). Here, the natural landscape is very simi- ren karst with large areas of rugged landscapes. lar to Croatian Slavonia north of the river, mostly Bosnia and Herzegovina is hydrographically a made of alluvial and periglacial deposits. Bosan- relatively rich country. Some 70% of rivers (e.g. ska Posavina is well-drained terrain with large the Una, Vrbas, Bosna, and Drina, with their trib-soil-rich areas, making it the most suitable region utaries) flow towards the north, to the Sava (and for agriculture. To the south begins a large re- then to the Danube). Herzegovina, with its main gion of central Dinaric mountains and high hills river Neretva, belongs to the Adriatic river catch-intersected with river valleys. This region (called ment. Bosnia and Herzegovina is also relatively Central Bosnia) extends across the whole country, rich in minerals, such as iron, copper, silver, and from east to west, occupying more than 50% of its coal. Another vital resource, especially in the past, 204 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 204 22. 10. 2021 11:05:52 is salt in the area of Tuzla in northeastern Bosnia, in Bosnia or its parts: Serbian princedoms, Bul-already exploited from Neolithic times. garians, Byzantines, and Croat kings. In the sec- ond half of the 12th century, Bosnia started to Very dynamic relief and high mountain barri- develop its own political autonomy with its first ers make the climate in Bosnia and Herzegovina bans (viceroys of the Hungarian kingdom which regionally diverse. In general, there are two ma- annexed Croatia), especially under Ban Kulin jor climatic zones which are divided by the Di- (1180–1204). The largest territorial expansion naric mountains. In the south and southeast (in Bosnia achieved was in the 14th century under lowland Herzegovina), the climate is Mediter- the local Kotromanići dynasty. Bosnia’s medi-ranean and sub-Mediterranean, while in central eval state reached its peak under Ban Tvrtko I and northern Bosnia the climate is continental, (1338?–1391), crowned as the first Bosnian King in high altitudes also alpine. The major climatic in 1391. During his reign, Bosnia became the larg-zones also correspond to the major types of veg- est kingdom in the western Balkans, extending etation, varying from Mediterranean to continen- over most of today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina, tal and alpine types. Bosnia and Herzegovina Dalmatia, western Montenegro and southeast-is a densely forested country (50% of the land). ern Serbia. Following Tvrtko’s death, a period of Deciduous forests, predominantly beech, extend fragmentation along with the rise of local princes across the central and outer Dinarides, while co- and dukes started. The most well-known among niferous forests dominate the terrains above 1000 them was Duke (Herzog in German) Stjepan m. Except for the peri-Pannonian area of Bosan- Vukčić Kosača, the ruler of Herzegovina, which ska Posavina and Lower Neretva Valley, Bosnia soon took its name after his ruling title. and Herzegovina is not very suitable for agricul- ture. In central Bosnia, suitable land for farming Ottoman raids in Bosnia and Herzegovina started is sparsely found in major river valleys, karstic towards the end of the 14th century, and by 1463 fields and other flatter areas below 1000 m. the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II conquered what remained of the Bosnian Kingdom, with Her- During the Roman Empire (1st to mid-5th century zegovina conquered two years later. After that, AD), most of the territory of today Bosnia and both regions remained under Ottoman rule for Herzegovina was part of the province of Dal- more than 400 years, until 1878. Initially, Bosnia matia; the northern region, along the Sava, was belonged to a large province ( beylerbeylik) of Ru-in Pannonia Inferior. Being in the hinterland melia and was divided into three sanjaks (military of major Roman urban and military centres on administered regions). In 1580 the Bosnian sanjaks the Adriatic coast, Bosnia and Herzegovina was were united into one province ( elayet or pashaluk) rather modestly urbanised in the Roman period. of Bosnia. The provincial capitals were Banja Luka Having no large urban centres, it did not attract (1580–1639), Sarajevo (1639–1697; 1850–1878), large migrations of peoples after the fall of the and Travnik (1697–1850). The governor of Bosnia Western Roman Empire, as the neighbouring had the title of beylerbey ( Pasha of Pashas).361 The Pannonia did, until the arrival of Slavs. Parts of reasons for making Bosnia a province were stra-Bosnia were settled by Early Croats, during their tegic; Bosnia was the westernmost frontier prov-settlement in Dalmatia, probably sometime in ince surrounded by Christian countries (Austria, the 7th century.360 Later on, large parts of Bosnia Venice, Hungary) which all organised a military were included in the Kingdom of Croats in the late 9th and early 10th centuries. From the 10th to 361 The formation of a united province enabled the territo-12th centuries, several different rulers changed rial integrity of Bosnia (and Herzegovina) throughout the period of Ottoman rule, which continued as a prov- ince in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire (1878–1918), 360 Until the 15th century, the territory of today Bosnia and and as a republic in Socialist Yugoslavia (1946–1991), Herzegovina was named Bosnia. and then an independent state from 1992. 205 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 205 22. 10. 2021 11:05:52 buffer zone around Bosnia. The Ottomans also or- Austrian Military Frontier. A more significant ganised a similar military buffer zone in Bosnia. number of Muslims came to Bosnia later, after the Great Austrian-Turkish war (1683–1699), With regard to Sarajevo, it is important to note when the Ottomans lost all their lands north of that the Ottomans actually built the city, as be- the Sava and Danube rivers. fore their arrival no urban settlement existed there. Under the Ottomans, Sarajevo, in the first However, the most far-reaching and intriguing half of the 16th century, developed into a very process was the religious conversion of the local prosperous city with a fairly strong local elite. Christian (Orthodox and Catholic) population, It was home to the first high school (Hanikah) a process that took time and different form. The in the land for studying Islamic theology, law fact is that Christian subjects had comparably and philosophy. The school was opened in the fewer rights, and they belonged to the class of 1530s, together with the university library, and raya (flock), together with the Muslim peas-was of the same rank as the Madrasah of the ants. In contrast, Muslim subjects had more Sultan Bayezid (a university) in Istanbul. The opportunities for careers in state jobs (admin-Ottomans’ most beautiful architectural monu- istration and the army) which were inaccessible ments in the Balkans date from the 16th century for non-Muslims. Other reasons for conversion (e.g. the Gazi Husref Bey’s mosque). At the end should also be looked for in the weaker organi-of the 16th century, Sephardic Jews settled in sation of both Catholic and Orthodox churches. Sarajevo and contributed to the city’s economic In Bosnia, between the 13th and mid-15th centu-and cultural prosperity. According to the data ries, there was a strong local heresy (‘ Bosnian from censuses between 1520–1530 (Sugar 1996, Church’) supported by local rulers. Neither Or-51), in that period 100% of all households were thodox nor Catholic ecclesiastic authorities were Muslim, clearly showing that a new population able to establish more robust religious centres settled in the town after its establishment, as or institutions in medieval Bosnia. Both church-well as a high religious conversion rate (vol- es had their bishops ‘authorised’ for Bosnia out-untary or forced) among the local population. side the country itself, and had not been able to The city reached its peak in the mid-17th century exercise their powers effectively for some 200 with an estimated population between 70,000 years before the arrival of the Ottomans (Džaja and 80,000, making Sarajevo one of the largest and Lovrenović 2007). With the lack of a more Ottoman cities in Europe in general. robust tradition of Orthodox and Catholic cen- tres in Bosnia, and traditions of different, her- Compared to Serbia, Montenegro and N. Mac- etic and local churches (officially abandoned edonia, the population in Ottoman Bosnia be- in the mid-15th century), the new and strongly came more ‘Islamised’ over time. However, organised Muslim religion had a much greater Islamisation and religious conversion were a appeal and more chances for more large-scale, slow and gradual process, and it probably took peaceful conversion.362 more than 100 years for Muslims to become the majority. Islamisation and conversion included 362 In addition to this, there were some saints who were different processes. The immigration from Asia worshipped by both Christians and Muslims (e.g. St. Minor and other formerly occupied countries in Elia/Alidjun). Since the Ottomans did not ban the the Balkans (e.g. Serbia, Bulgaria, N. Macedo- Christian faith, syncretism was quite widespread and nia) probably had the least impact with regard popular among the local peasants, especially when mixed with popular magic. Such a situation is well il- to numbers, and it included mostly military of- lustrated by the phrase Dopodne Ilija, popodne Alija ( Elia ficials, troops, and state administrators. In fact, in the morning, Ali in the afternoon). Frequently there many people fled from Bosnia to neighbouring were cases where members of one family were Mus- lims and Christians, especially when looking at differ- countries, and many of them were settled in the ent generations (e.g. parents and children). 206 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 206 22. 10. 2021 11:05:52 In general, the process of conversion was thus a giving equal rights to the non-Muslim popula-peaceful and gradual one, and not aggressively tion. However, after losing Greece and its effec-forced on the population. Technically, the Otto- tive powers in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, the man state did not prohibit other religions, but did Ottoman Empire soon renounced Bosnia too. At not assist them in their lives and practices. On the the Berlin Congress in 1878, Austria was given margins of the predominantly Muslim cultur- the mandate to occupy Bosnia, and after a short al, public and political life, the Catholic and Or- period of local resistance they had established a thodox populations, although economically and protectorate.364 Though this country de jure still politically disadvantaged, managed to preserve belonged to the Ottoman Empire, it became de a large part of their identity at the local level.363 facto Austrian. In 1908, Bosnia and Herzegovina Islamisation was the strongest in towns, espe- was made a province of the Austrian part of the cially in those established by the Ottomans (e.g. Habsburg Monarchy. Sarajevo) or those that were given important ad- ministrative or military roles (e.g. Travnik, Banja Austria, which became the first European state Luka, Mostar). Most of the pre-Ottoman medieval with a relatively large Muslim population, started towns in Bosnia were established relatively late, a very ambitious programme of ‘Westernisation’ in the 14th and the 15th centuries, mostly as forti- of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Based on the policy fied castles with small settlements around them. of a multi-national Empire, Austria attempted With the arrival of the Ottomans, many of them a similar model for Bosnia and Herzegovina by were used for military purposes. On the other promoting a new national identity of inter-con-hand, Ottomans established new towns or moved fessional ‘Bosnians’ (Muslim, Orthodox and some older settlements to a lower municipal lev- Catholic) loyal to the Emperor. In this way, the el following their traditions of town organisation. Austrians also attempted to challenge the rising The result was a relatively dense network of small Serbian, Croat, and Muslim nationalisms. Sub-towns ( kasbahs) throughout the country. stantial modernisation of the country was needed for such a concept to come to life. Austria de facto Numerous wars with Austrians and Venetians invested considerable efforts and funds to build a mark the period between the 16th and 18th cen- new province in Bosnia and Herzegovina accord-turies. In the 19th century there were uprisings ing to the political and cultural matrix of the West. of the local populations, both Christians and Muslims. Christians, encouraged by uprisings in The idea was to fundamentally change the prov-other parts of the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Serbia, ince’s character by radically improving the eco-Greece), started to associate their national iden- nomic well-being of the country and thus ensure tities with neighbouring nations (Serbs and Cro- loyalty to the crown. Priority was given to indus-ats), gradually abandoning the notion of Bosnian trialisation, urbanisation, modernisation of the identity. Bosnian identity grew stronger among communication infrastructure, and Western-style the local Muslim nobility, which also rebelled social, political, and economic institutions. A sig-against Istanbul, claiming Bosnian autonomy. nificant role in changing the country’s identity The Muslim nobility in Bosnia and Herzegovi- was given to new cultural politics of ‘bringing na strongly opposed Tanzimat (i.e. reforms for back’ Bosnia and Herzegovina to the West, which, modernising the Empire, 1839–1876) as their traditional privileges were threatened by in- 364 Some seventy years before the takeover of Bosnia and troducing a more secular type of government Herzegovina, Austria – after Napoleon’s defeat – took control of the former Venetian Dalmatia, becoming so the strongest power in the Balkans. The shift of Austri- an focus towards the Balkans was also the consequence 363 Their main institutions in this respect were monaster- of the rising power of Prussia, which pushed Austria ies; the Franciscan Order was particularly active in this out from being a uniting force of the new united Ger- area. man state. 207 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 207 22. 10. 2021 11:05:52 last but not least, included the introduction of It is worth noting that during the first incarna-Western education and science. In this way, Bos- tion of Yugoslavia (1918–1941), the only nations nia and Herzegovina became an object of Austrian officially recognised were Serbs, Croats and Slo-proxy-colonial politics. However, despite substan- venes.367 Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and tial economic improvements, tensions in the coun- Sanjak in southeastern Serbia combined (more try did not diminish during the period of Austrian than 90% of whom were Slavic speaking) com-rule. Local Muslim, Croatian and Serbian national prised some 8% of Yugoslavia’s total population. movements constantly opposed Austrian attempts However, in terms of their nationality, they were to create an integrated Bosnian-Herzegovinian na- considered as ‘Muslimised Croats or Serbs’. Ex-tion; they also often clashed among themselves. cept for their religious rights, no other political or Austrian politics met its ultimate failure with the national rights were conceded to the Muslims. assassination of the Austrian Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, orchestrated by na- During the Second World War in Yugoslavia tionalists from neighbouring Serbia. This occurred (1941–1945), Bosnia and Herzegovina was the re-in a political atmosphere of highly tense relation- gion of the largest battles against the Germans, ships among the great European powers of the Italians and various Croat and Serb quisling time, and Ferdinand’s assassination became into formations. Until 1944, the National Liberation casus belli for the First World War. Movement’s headquarter, led by Tito, mostly operated within Bosnia and Herzegovina. In No- After the war, Bosnia and Herzegovina, together vember 1943, in the town of Jajce, the second meet-with other Austro-Hungarian countries and prov- ing of the Anti-Fascist Council for the National inces in the Balkans (Croatia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, Liberation of Yugoslavia formed the provisional Vojvodina), joined with the Kingdom of Serbia365 government of Yugoslavia, forming the basis for into a new state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and the post-war federal organisation of the country. Slovenes (the Kingdom of SHS). The new state’s Following these resolutions, Bosnia and Herzego-territorial division (33 provinces or oblasti) ignored vina, after the war, gained the status of a constit-former historical or ethnic territories and their uent Yugoslav republic within the borders from relative autonomies. The territory of Bosnia and the Austrian period (1878–1918).368 In 1971, with Herzegovina was divided among nine provinces. amendments to the Yugoslav Constitution, the With the reforms of 1929, when the Kingdom of Muslims were given the status of the constitutive SHS changed its name into the Kingdom of Yu- nation.369 Bosnia and Herzegovina also amended goslavia, a new territorial division with nine banates was introduced.366 Bosnia and Herzegovina 367 In 1921, in the Kingdom of SHS, some 30% of the pop-was divided among four banates with their seats ulation (nearly 4 million) were members of other Slav- ic and non-Slavic national or ethnic groups. Approxi- in Banja Luka (Banate of Vrbas), Sarajevo (Drina mately 15% were Slavs (Macedonians, Muslims, Mon- Banate), Split (Littoral Banate) and Cetinje (Zeta tenegrins, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Jews) and a Banate). Another change came in 1939 when the similar percentage of non-Slavic people/non-Slavic speaking groups: Germans, Hungarians, Albanians, Littoral Banate joined other Croatian banates in Romanians, and Turks. the united Banate of Croatia. In 1941, Bosnia and 368 In fact, there were some minor readjustments, one of Herzegovina was annexed to the quisling Croa-them was the 20 km wide corridor through Croatian tian state (i.e. Independent State of Croatia). Dalmatia at Neum, giving Bosnia and Herzegovina contact with the Adriatic Sea. 369 The official name of the nation was Muslim, while the 365 The Kingdom of Montenegro, before the proclamation term muslim (in lower case) was used as a generic term of the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (on for the people of the Muslim religion. In the 1971 cen- the 1st of December 1919), joined the Kingdom of Ser- sus Muslims (ca. 8.4%) represented the third the larg- bia, which after the Balkan wars (1913) annexed Vardar est nation in Yugoslavia, after Serbs (39.7%) and Croats (Northern) Macedonia. (22.1%). In 1991, Muslims represented 10% of the total 366 The 10th banate was the city of Belgrade. population. 208 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 208 22. 10. 2021 11:05:52 its constitution to become a republic with three Bosnian-Herzegovinian national communities constitutional nations (Muslims, Serbs, Croats). confronted each other and came into armed con- flict. The statehood of Bosnia and Herzegovina Following the Second World War, the Republic was preserved mostly due to pressure from in-of Bosnia and Herzegovina went through rapid ternational powers that in 1996 implemented the growth over four decades, which significant- Dayton Agreement and the current administra-ly changed the country. The new Communist tive structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The regime in Yugoslavia launched a massive pro- country emerged from the war markedly impov-gramme of modernisation of social and economic erished, with numerous casualties and extensive life in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g. industrialisation, material damage, along with significant emigra-urbanisation, education, etc.).370 Between 1960 tion. Some 100,000 people were killed, more than and 1980, Bosnia and Herzegovina experienced 1,500,000 displaced, and ethnic cleansing and significant economic progress. Heavy industry movement of the population resulted in regions complexes were erected in areas rich in ores, ac- being ethnically ‘compact’. The damage inflict-companied by modern transport infrastructure ed to towns, industrial infrastructure, and roads and many new urban centres. Large industrial was also enormous. and urban centres thus developed (Sarajevo, Tu- zla, Banja Luka, Mostar, Prijedor, Zenica).371 Be- Today’s administrative structure of the country tween 1953 and 1971, the population working in is the outcome of the Dayton Peace Agreement. industry and mining in Bosnia and Herzegovina The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is highly grew from 97,000 to 225,000 (Vrišer 1980, 213). federalised. It has three federal units, two major ‘entities’: the Federation of Bosnia and Herze- Along with the republican political and econom- govina (around 50% of the state territory with a ic institutions, several institutions in culture, sci- dominant Bosniak and Croatian population) and ence, and other aspects of social life were quickly the Republic of Srpska (49% of the territory, with founded. The gradual liberalisation and federal- the Serbian population dominant), and a special isation of Yugoslavia led to increased autonomy District of Brčko (1% of the territory with a mixed of the individual republics. The economic crisis population and with no absolute majority). This and dissatisfaction with the ruling Communist district in northeastern Bosnia and Herzegovina Party’s ability to cope with it also accelerat- with a territory of around 500 km2 located at the ed the rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia in the border with Croatia is separated due to its pe-1980s. Bosnia and Herzegovina, ethnically and culiar strategic position at the contact of the two religiously inextricably mixed, was particularly other major entities.372 Such a complicated form vulnerable in this respect. of constitutional and territorial organisation was imposed primarily to end the war and secure the Amid the breakup of Yugoslavia and the war necessary stability. Today, however, it compli-that, in Bosnia, began in 1992 and was mostly cates the country’s development and reconstruc-engineered by the neighbouring republics – Mi- tion. More than twenty years after the war, the lošević’s Serbia and Tudjman’s Croatia, whose country is still under the EU Special Representa-aim was to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina – the tive’s supervision, and the process of recovery is still very slow. Bosnia and Herzegovina suffered 370 One should also not ignore the intensive and frequent- the most among all the former Yugoslav repub-ly forced secularisation of the country, which severe- lics in the war. According to the World Bank, in ly limited the economic powers of all religious institutions in Yugoslavia. 372 The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is adminis- 371 Before the Second World War, approximately 20% of tratively divided into ten cantons that possess high lev- the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina lived in ur- els of autonomy, while the Republic of Srpska is much ban settlements; some 50 years later, it was 50%. more centrally administered. 209 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 209 22. 10. 2021 11:05:52 2000, the Bosnia and Herzegovina GDP per capi- had a joint project with the University of Mich-ta was less than 1,500 US dollars, making it one of igan at Badanj near Stolac in Herzegovina (see the poorest countries in Europe. The situation is Whallon 1989; 1999). Palaeolithic research inten-gradually improving but still at a very slow pace. sified in the last decade. The University of Cambridge, together with the museums from Banja Over the last century and a half, of all the countries Luka and Doboj, organised a project Paleolithic in of former Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina Northern Bosnia, which took place between 2006 probably went through the most significant polit- and 2012. More than 190 sites were registered in ical and cultural transformations. Different cultur- this project, re-evaluated or discovered anew, al traditions came together here – principally the mostly by small test excavations, surveying and tradition of Ottoman culture, largely supplement- sampling (see more in Pandžić 2014). Due to the ed by the traditions of the national cultures of the late beginnings of the Palaeolithic archaeology in Serbs and the Croats and cultural practices from Bosnia and Herzegovina and the limited nature the surrounding regions. Together, they contribut- of the data derived mostly from surface surveys ed to forming a specific cultural amalgam that can- and small test excavations, it is still difficult to not be simply incorporated into the classical mod- obtain a comprehensive archaeological image els of national cultures development in Europe. of Bosnia and Herzegovina for this period.374 At present, it appears that the region of the Sava Valley (Bosanska Posavina, i.e. Pannonian and Archaeological and historical peri-Pannonian area) has a much greater density background of Bosnia and of sites compared to other parts of the country. Herzegovina373 Interestingly, more than 90% of sites in Bosans- The first Palaeolithic sites in Bosnia and Herzego- ka Posavina are not in caves or rock shelters but vina were discovered in the late 1940s and 1950s, open ground, frequently in more elevated places while more systematic research (i.e. small test (Pandžić 2014, 46, 48). All Palaeolithic sites (com-excavations and surface surveying) was initiated bined) span a period from approximately 87,000 in the 1970s. Thanks mostly to the pioneering en- BP to 18,000 BP. The lithic assemblages exhib-deavours of Đuro Basler from the Provincial Mu- it chrono-typological features of the Mousterian seum of Sarajevo, some 80 Palaeolithic sites were (e.g. Danilovića Brdo, Kadar, Kamen, Londža, Zo-registered by 1990, most of them in northern Bos- bište, Rastuša), Aurignacian (e.g. Kamen, Luščić, nia (Basler 1998, 15). However, no Palaeolithic Londža, Visoko Brdo, Mala Gradina), and Gravet-site in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been the sub- tian periods (e.g. Kadar, Londža). Palaeolithic sites ject of more extensive excavations until the late in Herzegovina are much less known. So far, only 1980s, when the Provincial Museum of Sarajevo the Late Upper Palaeolithic finds were discovered in this region. At present, the only relatively 373 Due to the war, prolonged political and economic re- well-researched site is Badanj near Stolac, dated to covery, and last but not least, a significantly smaller the Epigravettian period.375 This site is particularly professional archaeological community, archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina suffered a great recession in all domains. Its gradual recovery started only a decade 374 The major synthesis was published by Đuro Basler ago. With the increasing presence of foreign research- (1979) based on data collected until the mid-1970s. In ers from Germany, Great Britain, Slovenia, Croatia and recent decades, new research made an important con- Serbia, jointly working with local institutions, the situ- tribution, mainly in terms of the number of new sites ation is changing. However, not all research domains and new settlement zones. However, these are still not have been equally developed since 2000; some topics researched in more detail. are still waiting for a step beyond the ‘old school’ views 375 Radiocarbon dates for Badanj suggest a span of site be-from the 1970s and 1980s. In my short sketch of Bosnia tween 14,179 +/- 439 and 10,000 BC (calibrated) (Whal- and Herzegovina’s archaeological periods, I have tried lon 2007). The site also contained finds from the Eneo- to use the newest data where possible. lithic and Early Bronze Age periods. 210 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 210 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 interesting because of the cave art (an engraved in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Northern and central image of a horse on one of the stone walls) and jew- Bosnia exhibit substantial similarities with the Ne-ellery made of animal bones, teeth, and molluscs olithic developments in neighbouring continental (Basler 1976). The Mesolithic period is even less areas (southern Pannonia and western Balkans), known, with only a few lithic artefacts which may while Herzegovina was connected with the Adri-belong to this period found in the Neolithic cave atic Neolithic. It is also worth noting that from the sites in Herzegovina. Neolithic period onwards, the Bosna river valley became the primary settlement zone and commu- In the Neolithic period, clear cultural-geograph- nication route connecting central Bosnia with the ical differentiation developed, mainly corre- Pannonian Plain; its communication importance sponding to principal physio-geographic zones will only increase over time. Fig. 111 Archaeological sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina mentioned in this chapter. 211 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 211 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 The earliest Neolithic finds are dated to the be- low number of the Early Neolithic sites and the ginning of the 6th millennium BC. They appeared missing evidence from the late 7th millennium BC first in central and northern Bosnia, while the speak more in favour of considering Bosnia and earliest Neolithic sites in Herzegovina are some Herzegovina as a secondary settlement zone of 300 to 400 years later. In cultural terms, the Early early farming communities spreading from Pan-Neolithic in continental Bosnia and Herzegovina nonian or Adriatic areas. Reasons for this ‘delay’ is represented by the already developed Starče- probably lie in the very mountainous relief of the vo culture, which expanded from its centres in majority of the country. Southern Pannonia across the Sava river. The earliest site with Starčevo culture is Obre I (Ras- The settlement density substantially increased kršće) near Kakanj in central Bosnia, a tell-type with the Late Neolithic (end of the 6th and the site of some 2 ha in size which was excavated by first half of the 5th millennia BC) when settlement Alojz Benac (1973a) and Marija Gimbutas (1974a; spread across the country.377 Three major zones 1974b) between 1964 and 1970. The beginning of denser settlement can be discerned: central of this site’s occupation is dated to the first two Bosnia (area of Kakanj, Visoko Basin and Sara-centuries of the 6th millennium BC. Altogether, jevo) in the Bosna river valley, northeastern Bos-its occupation lasted for some thousand years nia, and Herzegovina. In the continental part, (for C-14 dates, see Vander Linden, Pandžić and the settlement was concentrated mostly in the Orton 2014). The Obre I site is also interesting Bosna river valley (Butmir culture), in northeast-because of the earliest Neolithic burials found ern Bosnia in the region of Tuzla and the Lowin Bosnia and Herzegovina. Another site with er Drina area (Vinča culture), and in the north-evidence of the Starčevo culture is Gornja Tuz- ern plain along the Sava river (Vinča, Sopot/ la (5674 BC–5475 BC; Vander Linden et al. 2014, Lengyel cultures). Butmir culture, colloquially a 17), excavated by Benac in 1950. This area was ‘synonym’ for the Late Neolithic in Bosnia, has particularly attractive throughout prehistory for been discovered on more than a hundred sites in its rich deposits of salt.376 In terms of the general continental parts. sequence of Starčevo culture, the Bosnian sites emerged in this culture’s middle and late phases. 377 Recently, the Middle Neolithic as a special ‘cultural’ period has been contested for Serbia and Bosnia. Ear- lier interpretations (e.g. Benac 1979, 392–412) followed On the other side of the country, in karstic Herze- the traditional three-period scheme and saw the Kakanj govina, the earliest Neolithic was part of the Adri- culture as continental Bosnian Middle Neolithic. The atic Impresso cultural area and is dated to the be- Kakanj culture was defined by Benac mostly based on pottery forms and decoration style, but with no firm ginning of the second half of the 6th century BC, stratigraphic evidence – as a local ‘transitional’ culture e.g. Žukovička pećina (5478–5340 BC, 5486–5361 from Starčevo (Early Neolithic) to Butmir culture (Late BC; Vander Linden et al. 2014, 18) and Zelena peći- Neolithic). Benac found this culture’s pottery in sites na. This area also lacks the earlier Impresso phase of Arnautovići, Plandište, Okolište (all in Visoko ba- sin) and in neighbouring Obre I. However, based on of the late 7th to early 6th millennia BC recorded in more recent results of radiocarbon dating (Perić 2012; neighbouring Dalmatia. At present, in both areas Vander Linden et al. 2014) and revision of the strati- of continental Bosnia and Herzegovina, the early graphic data on several sites in Serbia and Bosnia (so- called Kakanj culture layers also contained Butmir Neolithic sites (in local chronology) are still rela- type pottery on several sites) Perić (2012) proposed a tively rare, and it isn’t easy to discern any particu- two-period scheme for the Bosnian Neolithic – Early lar settlement patterning. Though this may also Neolithic (Starčevo culture, 5700–5400 BC) and late Ne- be due to the relatively poor state of research, the olithic (Butmir culture, 5400–4500 BC). In the late Neo- lithic, in northern and eastern bordering areas of Bos- nia also appeared evidence of Vinča (e.g. Gornja Tuzla) and Sopot/Lengyel cultures. In Herzegovina, the situ- 376 The name Tuzla comes from Turkish tuz, meaning salt. ation is different. Here the Middle Neolithic is marked In the Late Roman and Early Medieval periods, Tuzla with the emergence of evidence of the Danilo culture or was known as Salines. the Eastern Adriatic Middle Neolithic. 212 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 212 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 The eponym site of Butmir near Sarajevo was research of any Neolithic sites in Herzegovina. extensively excavated in the 1890s, so the data is However, new data and new interpretations, of relatively limited use today.378 However, these backed by better-contextualised data and radi-early excavations revealed large amounts of rich- ocarbon dating, challenge traditional interpreta-ly decorated pottery and rather unique ‘realistic’ tions of the Neolithic in Bosnia and Herzegovina. clay sculptures (heads with faces). Being one of the largest and richest Neolithic sites excavated in This is not the case with the Eneolithic, which Europe in the late 19th century, revealing some of is probably among the least researched periods the earliest examples of Neolithic art, Butmir was in Bosnian and Herzegovinian archaeology in for a long time the most internationally known general. Brunislav Marijanović (2003) described site from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Recently, the how difficult it is to understand the Eneolithic of Visoko basin area (some 40 km northwest of Sa- Bosnia and Herzegovina described in his mono-rajevo) has been a subject of intensive research graph. He points to four major problems (Mari-between 2002 and 2008 in a joint project of the janović 2003, 4–5): a) stagnation in field research Provincial Museum in Sarajevo with a German of Eneolithic sites since the 1970s379; b) highly team from the Roman-Germanic Commission unequal state of research in different parts of the from Frankfurt and Universities of Bamberg and country, with Herzegovina having been espe-Kiel. The most extensive and detailed research cially poorly researched;380 c) all Eneolithic sites was done at the site of Okolište, where archae- in Bosnia and Herzegovina were attributed to ological excavations (combined with geophysics the cultures whose major settlement areas were and various environmental studies) provided outside Bosnia and Herzegovina; and d) very a much more complete and accurately contex- uneven quality and validity of data accumulated tualised dataset which can serve as a basis for over time. In addition to this, the very concept the current understanding of the development of the Eneolithic in the Balkans has been recent-of the late Neolithic in central Bosnia (Müller, ly questioned.381 However, this being said, the Rassmann and Hofman 2013; Benecke et al. 2008, Benac 1952). The example of Okolište and neigh- 379 Among other problems, there are also far fewer C-14 dates of the Eneolithic sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina bouring sites (including Nebo near Travnik) compared to the previous period. clearly demonstrates a high development level 380 Marijanović (2003, 28) speaks of only 14 Eneolithic sites in terms of economy, technology, and settlement in Herzegovina. organisation during the Butmir culture. 381 Recently Blagoje Govedarica (2011; 2016), one of the best experts in the prehistory of Bosnia and Herzegovina (and the Balkans in general), expressed doubts about whether On the southern and southeastern edge of the the Eneolithic period can be used at all in for western Bal- country, in Herzegovina, after the initial Adri- kans, Adriatic and central Europe. According to him, the atic-type Impresso wares, the development fol- Eneolithic proprie dicti is present only in the central and lowed the general cultural and chronological eastern Balkans, the only areas where systematic use of non-alloyed copper in the 5th millennium BC was pres- pattern of the Eastern Adriatic Neolithic – the ent. He claims that the whole later period of Vinča cul- Middle Neolithic was marked by Danilo culture, ture (first half of the 5th millennium BC is of Eneolithic and the Late Neolithic by Hvar–Lisičići culture. character, and the Vinča culture settlements in the Mora- va Valley, which produced copper chisels and axes, are Here two areas distinguish themselves as host- to be considered the core area of the Balkan Copper Age. ing relatively larger concentrations of sites, the The systematic use of non-alloyed copper in the central region of Posušje and the area around Stolac. and eastern Balkans was also closely associated with ma- Unfortunately, since 1990 there has been no field jor social changes (e.g. large settlements, large communi- ties, considerable population growth in the 5th millenni- um BC, ‘markets’ for surplus production, the emergence 378 In 2002 only small test excavations were made for ob- of social ranking...) corresponding to the area of tell set- taining samples for C14 and other scientific analyses. tlements in the central and eastern Balkans. Govedarica More than one hundred years after the excavations in the proposes a longer Late Neolithic chronology instead. For 1890s, no new field research has been done on this site. discussion on the Eneolithic, see also Schier (2014). 213 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 213 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 long-term effects of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s same time, new cultural elements appeared with transitional position between Pannonian, Balkan grooved- and corded-style decorated ware as and Adriatic regions are evident during the Ene- influences from the Pannonian area (Baden and olithic, resulting in a very heterogeneous devel- Vučedol cultures, respectively). An important opmental and cultural picture of the country. new element in the Herzegovinian Eneolith- ic, present also on a larger regional scale in the The principal reasons for such heterogeneity eastern Adriatic zone, are burials under barrows are at least two geographic and environmen- (e.g. Ošanići barrows, Guvnine, Lazaruša, Zetal influences (mountain barriers, openness to lena pećina, Ljubomir) (Marijanović 2003, 235); large geographical-cultural regions north and Grabovica near Buško Blato (Čović 1983a, 138), south of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the course a feature which will substantially mark the fol-of major rivers flowing to the Pannonian basin, lowing Bronze Age period. Many authors from highly wooded landscapes, a limited quanti- Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then Yugoslavia, ty of areas suitable for farming in continental frequently associated both phenomena, Corded Bosnia), and social and historical changes in Ware and burial barrows, with the direct and in-the principal Eneolithic areas in the neighbour- direct effects of the migrations from the east (see hood, including migrations. Both Marijano- Marijanović 2003, 116–118). vić (2003) and Govedarica (2011) see the latest phases of the most widely distributed Late Ne- Developmental differences between Bosnia and olithic cultures in Bosnia (Butmir culture) and Herzegovina continued in the Bronze Age. How-Herzegovina (Hvar–Lisičići culture) continuing ever, two significant features are common to ‘deep’ into the Early Eneolithic period (in the both regions – the defended hilltop settlements sense of traditional periodisation). This speaks (hillforts) and burials under barrows; they disin favour of a thesis that the settlement reached tinctively mark the Bronze and Iron Age land-a certain level of stability maintained for more scapes across large parts of the territory. The extended periods of time during the Late Neo- essential features of the settlement and land-use lithic. Marijanović (2003, 217) argues that there patterns of hillforts created at least in the Mid-are only two periods in the Bosnian Eneolithic dle Bronze Age (in some regions even earlier) that can be distinguished by ‘proper’ Eneolith- are locations near areas suitable for farming, ic material culture: Early and Late. In the ear- micro-regional ‘niches’ of settlement containing lier phase, the real novum, appearing from the farming land, woodland, pastureland, location second half of the 4th millennium BC, is rep- at communication routes or locations enabling resented by new types of pottery of the south monitoring them, ramparts made of stone or Pannonian Eneolithic origins: Lasinja (Vis near combined materials, and a hierarchy of settle-Modran, Visoko Brdo, etc.) and Baden cultures ments and sites, and these existed throughout (Dvorovi, Vinogradine, Alihodže, etc.), while the Bronze and Iron Ages, virtually until the arthe later phase (or Developed Eneolithic, to use rival of the Romans. Traditional cultural classi-Marijanović’s term) is marked by Kostolac cul- fication and regionalisation for local Bronze Age ture (Pivnica, Vis near Modran) and, especially, groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina are made by Vučedol culture, which in the Late Eneolith- principally based on pottery and metal finds. In ic spread across the whole region of Bosnia (e.g. continental Bosnia, sites distinguished for their Hrustovača, Zecovi, Crkvine near Turbe, Debe- duration and importance for understanding the lo Brdo, Banja Luka–Kastel, etc.). development of the Bronze Age are Debelo brdo near Sarajevo, Pod near Bugojno and Varvara In Herzegovina, the traditions from the Late hillforts occupied from the Early Bronze Age Neolithic Hvar–Lisičići culture continued in and continued for a millennium or so. Anoth-the Early Eneolithic (e.g. Ravlića pećina). At the er group of sites are from the Glasinac plateau, 214 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 214 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 some 50 km northeast of Sarajevo. There, al- made in dry-wall construction technique (as ready with the Late Eneolithic, probably in the also the hillforts in this area). The central area mid-3rd millennium BC, emerged the first bar- of this culture was in neighbouring Dalmatia, in rows, which, subsequently, in the Bronze and the region of the river Cetina. The barrows typi-Iron Ages, grew into one of the largest barrow cally contained single cremation or inhumation groups in Europe. burials only, and the ratio of these two rites is almost equal. The ‘richer’ graves contained Glasinac Middle Bronze Age burials (1600–1300 bronze and stone daggers, axes, and richly dec-BC) also contain the richest collection of bronz- orated vessels on high legs. es in Bosnia and Herzegovina (especially a wide variety of jewellery and ornaments), clear- In the Late Bronze Age there emerged signifi-ly indicating cultural contacts in the broader cant changes in the broader region of southeast regional setting of southeast Europe. Another Europe, including Bosnia and Herzegovina. very intriguing group of barrows was found in These are associated with the direct spread of Kupres field, south of Bugojno. Here, barrow 16 the Urnfield culture in northern Bosnia or in-at Pustopolje brought to light some extraordi- directly with its cultural influences in central nary findings: a wooden sleigh as a coffin with Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the princi-the remains of a woollen body cover, with an pal change in Bosnia and Herzegovina was de-ochre topping of the coffin. Radiocarbon anal- mographic, and the number of sites increased ysis suggested Middle Bronze Age dates (mid- considerably compared to the Middle Bronze 17th century BC; Benac 1986, 66).382 According Age, as people settled all areas except the high-to the excavator, A. Benac (1986, 76), this was est altitudes. Compared to the earlier period, an elite burial typical for the steppe peoples, the variety of settlements increased (hillforts, more frequently found in regions east of Bosnia lowland settlements, pile-dwellings, defended and Herzegovina, in the southeastern Panno- and undefended settlements). The spread of the nian Plain and Bulgaria. In general, the Early Urnfield culture is also visible in the appear-and Middle Bronze Ages in continental Bosnia ance of flat cremation cemeteries with a larger are not distinguished by any particularly rich number of burials (e.g. Barice in northern Bos-metal finds, ornaments or artistic objects. Dom- nia). Hoards with bronzes, typical for the Urn-inant is relatively coarse pottery with corded field culture, are very rare in Bosnia and Her-or grooved ornaments, which are typical of a zegovina. In central Bosnia, the primary centre much wider region and can be considered a continued to be at the Glasinac plateau, where post-Vučedol tradition. There are also no par- traditional inhumation burials persisted. The ticularly large settlements that could serve as Late Bronze Age period in Herzegovina is much centres of regional elites. Even in cases of large less known. In terms of cultural attribution, this barrow groups, it is almost certain that more area is associated with neighbouring Dalmatia, settlements used one such barrow cemetery. where similar processes with regard to the con-In the case of Glasinac, some 50 hillforts are re- centration of settlements and the emergence of corded in the area surrounding barrow burials. local central places can be observed. These centres continued their existence in the Iron Age In karstic Herzegovina, the classical Early and were associated with the first historically Bronze Age is attributed to the Cetina culture recorded peoples in the Adriatic and its hinter-distinguished for its large barrows, mostly land (e.g. Delmati). The Iron Age period is best represented by the 382 Benac (1986, 83), using the traditional chronology, dated this barrow in the middle part of the Early Glasinac group, which extended over central Bronze Age. 215 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 215 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 and eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina.383 Major known.386 The settlement pattern remained rath-Bronze Age characteristics, hillfort settlements er traditional, with densely dispersed hillforts and inhumation burials under barrows re- of different sizes and functions, some function-mained almost unchanged.384 One of the factors ing as local central places, as the dominant type for the long-term development of the Glasinac of settlements. Less frequent and smaller were area since the Early Bronze Age – its geographi- undefended settlements in open areas. Hillforts cal position at the crossroads of Adriatic, Panno- are most densely found around karstic fields nian and Central Balkans – became even more and other areas with a relatively larger accu-evident in the Iron Age. One of the most prom- mulation of soils suitable for farming. The sig-inent features are elite burials, traditionally nificant change here was in burial rites. In the termed as princely graves, with grave goods im- Iron Age, burying under barrows almost com-ported from the Aegean and central and south- pletely ceased to exist and became replaced by ern Italy (e.g. helmets, knemidae, metal vessels). flat cemeteries. However, inhumation remained In the region of Bosnian Posavina (northern Bos- dominant. Since Herzegovina and Dalmatia are nia) developed another important site distin- generally very poor in metal ores, most of the re-guished by its metal production and trade role sources for metallurgy (and also plenty of metal in the Iron Age, Donja Dolina near Bosanska objects) must have had been exchanged with the Gradiška, on the right bank of the Sava. The site neighbouring communities, most probably from was formed first as a pile-dwelling settlement central Bosnia. in the 7th century BC and later, in the Late Iron Age, as a large site with a rectangular arrange- Celtic migrations and settlement in the west-ment of larger houses. The finds at Donja Do- ern Balkans concentrated in the Pannonian ar-lina speak of intensive contacts with neighbour- eas north of Bosnia and Herzegovina, avoiding ing regions of Pannonia, Macedonia, Italy and going south.387 This, to a large extent, enabled Greece, and long-distance exchange (e.g. amber polities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and on the jewellery, Graeco-Illyrian helmets). In the Iron Adriatic shores to continue their development Age in western Herzegovina there continued until the arrival of the Romans. Intensive con-the development under the strong influence of tacts with Hellenistic Greek and Roman civilisa-the Central Adriatic cultural area,385 which had tions in the last centuries BC further accelerated intensive contacts with the Ionian and Aegean the formation of stronger proto-state polities areas and Italy. Another large area of Iron Age (princedoms, chiefdoms). The best example of pile dwellings was discovered at Rimač near Bi- Hellenistic influences – in the 4th century BC, hać in northwestern Bosnia and Herzegovina. two Greek colonies were established on Vis and Hvar islands – can be seen at Ošanići near During the Iron Age in the Adriatic area there de- Stolac (supposed ancient Daorson) in eastern veloped several local polities known or assumed Herzegovina, the probable seat of the people of from the ancient sources, Delmati being the most Daorsi. This site has an impressive monumental rampart – the so-called ‘cyclops walls’ made of very large rectangular stone blocks. It con- 383 The Glasinac culture, as defined by the Yugoslav au- tained a significant quantity of Hellenistic finds thors (e.g. Benac, Čović), extended over western Serbia and Montenegro and was similar to Mati culture and, what was even more indicative, a mint for in northern Albania. Both were considered as core Illyrian groups. 386 These larger polities include Histri and Japodes in the 384 Though at marginal areas of the Glasinac group crema- northern Adriatic, Liburni. tion was becoming more frequent towards the mid-1st 387 The so-called ‘western Celtic group’ settled Upper Sava millennium BC (Čović 1987b, 639). and Middle Drava Valleys, while ‘eastern Celtic group 385 Eastern Herzegovina had a much stronger character of occupied Lower Drava Valley, the region of Srem and the Glasinac group in this period. Danube area between Belgrade and the Iron Gorge. 216 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 216 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 producing coins with the images of local ‘kings’, The most known and probably the largest colo-dated from the mid 2nd century BC onwards. ny in Bosnia and Herzegovina was in Ilidža near Sarajevo ( Aquae S). It is located in the old Bronze Since the end of the 3rd century BC, the Romans and Iron Age settlement area, near the River Bos-fought several wars for control over the Adri- na’s springs. The place was also known for its atic Sea. In the mid-2nd century BC, the Romans mineral-rich springs used for medicinal baths. established control over the eastern Adriatic Aquae S is probably the largest excavated Ro-shores and southern Herzegovina. The annexa- man site in Bosnia. It brought to light typical ur-tion of western Herzegovina to Roman Illyricum ban architecture, houses, temples, baths, roads, happened in 135 BC, while the expansion inland etc. Another important colony was Domavia at started during Julius Caesar’s wars against the Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia, in the core mining allies of Pompeius and continued with Augus- area for silver and lead. For a century or so, Dotus (36–33 BC). The final pacification of most of mavia was the seat of procurator metallorum Pan-Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territory followed nonicorum et Delmaticorum (Superintendent for after crushing the rebellion of the Dalmatian Pannonian and Dalmatian mines).389 In Herzego-and Pannonian tribes (6–9 AD). After this re- vina, the municipia were also historical centres bellion, the Romans established two provinces, of the pre-Roman communities raised to urban Dalmatia and Pannonia.388 Central and southern status rather than founded anew.390 Another vi-Bosnia and Herzegovina belonged to Dalmatia, tal factor in the Romanisation of the inland of the northern Bosnia to Pannonia. The Roman prov- province of Dalmatia, Bosnia in particular, was ince of Dalmatia extended from almost as far as the construction of state roads that began at the the Sava river in the north to the Adriatic Sea in beginning of the 1st century AD and continued the south, and eastwards nearly to the Morava for some 50 years. Most of the viae publicae led river in Serbia; its capital was Salona near Split. from Salona, the provincial capital, towards the The province of Dalmatia remained almost un- north, to the Sava Valley in Pannonia, crossing changed for the whole duration of Roman rule. the Dinaric mountains. These roads were instru-Romanisation in this province was much more mental for securing appropriate transport routes intensive in the coastal areas, where all principal for mines and founding urban and semi-urban towns were established in the first century BC settlements in inland Bosnia. (e.g. Iader, Salona, Narona). In inland Dalmatia (i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina), Romanisation Compared to the coastal (Croatian) parts of the was a much slower process. For the Romans, Roman province of Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herze-Bosnia was particularly crucial for its mines (sil- govina has been the focus of less archaeological ver, lead, copper and iron ores, and salt) monop- research. Most of the ancient history in Bosnia olised by the state. Most local communities were and Herzegovina was reconstructed on the basis given the lesser legal status of civitates peregri- of relatively numerous inscriptions. Except for nae, save some local elites that formed the core Aqua S,391 and partly Domavia and Malvesatium of citizens in local municipia. Romans founded urban settlements in the Bosnian and Herzego- 389 Other municipia in Bosnia: Bistue vetus in Rama Val-vinian part of the province of Dalmatia relative- ley, Bistuensium in the Upper Vrbas Valley and Stanecli ly late, some 150 years later than on the coast. In near Kiseljak (all central Bosnia), Castra (Banja Luka) and Raetinium near Bihać (northwestern Bosnia), Mal- most cases, the new municipia were centres of vesatium near Skelani (eastern Bosnia). the pre-Roman local communities. 390 Pelva in Livanjsko field, Delminium near Tomislavgrad, Bigeste near Ljubuški, Diluntum near Stolac. 391 Most of Aquae S’s excavations were done rather early, 388 So far, the most exhaustive synthesis on the Roman pe- at the end of the 19th century and in the mid-1950s. The riod in Bosnia and Herzegovina was published by Ivo best known finds are the statue of Apollo, baths, luxury Bojanovski (1988). houses, sanatorium, and mosaics. 217 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 217 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 (Skelani), no larger urban areas or cemeteries in the 9th and 10th centuries, gradually developed have been excavated, and even less is known into stronger local princedoms (e.g. of Croats). about the rural settlements. From Herzegovina, Among the early Slavic sites, the most interest-with its landscape typical for the Adriatic (i.e. ing are their settlements (e.g. Jazbine near But-Mediterranean) hinterland, several countryside ković in northeastern Bosnia, mid-7th to 9th cen-villas are known. The most spectacular Roman turies (Miletić 1988, 42) and the burg-type site at site is a large fortified villa at Mogorjelo near Berek near Banja Luka. The remains of churches Čapljina. It was built in the 1st century AD as a from the 9th and 10th centuries indicate Slavic set-typical countryside villa rustica but turned into tlements (e.g. Crkvine near Rogačići and Crkvine a heavily fortified castra (?) with 11 towers and near Vruce, both in the Sarajevo region).394 Early a palace in the 4th century. From the Late Roman Slavic settlement was also documented in the period, the major researched sites were Early cemeteries. The richest and largest cemetery was Christian basilicas. At present, there are some 50 at Gomjenica near Prijedor in northwestern Bos-known basilicas (and more than 20 still uncon- nia, which contained 246 graves dating to the firmed) found mostly in central Bosnia and Her- 10th and 11th centuries, linked to the Belo Brdo zegovina, clearly indicating the centres of local culture (Miletić 1967). Archaeological research communities between the 4th and 6th centuries.392 of the medieval state of Bosnia (12th to 15th cen-Among them, the basilica at Breza, some 30 km turies) was mostly focused on architectural re-north of Sarajevo, stands out for its dimensions mains: castles, churches, fortresses, mausoleums (nearly 600 m2), stone sculptures and German- etc., and on the analysis of small objects (e.g. jew-ic runic inscription (sic). Other Germanic finds ellery, pottery, weapon) and inscriptions. were discovered in cemeteries in Rakovčani near Prijedor, Korita near Tomislavgrad, Vrba near A great deal of research on the medieval period, Mostar, and Varošište near Sarajevo. especially after the Second World War, was done in the context of preventive archaeology due to The Early Medieval period (6th to 12th centuries) the development of the historical town cores in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the archaeological- throughout the country. Such research was fre-ly least known epoch, since systematic research quently in collaboration with architects and art on it began only after the Second World War. historians. Many architectural objects, including Historically, the earliest raids of Germanic peo- those from the Ottoman period, were also reples (Visigoths and Ostrogoths) are dated to the stored (e.g. royal castles at Bobovac and Kraljeva 5th century. Though their presence was not very Sutjeska, the crown church of Saint Luke in Ja-long, they left some interesting archaeological jce, Jajce fortress, the castle of Srebrenik, Banja traces.393 More considerable consequences for Luka–Kastel). It is interesting to note that, until Bosnia and Herzegovina arose from the raids of very recently, the Ottoman period’s archaeolo-Avars and Slavs who conquered Sirmium and Sa- gy was not considered a special branch or spe-lona at the beginning of the 7th century. After the cialisation of archaeology.395 Nevertheless, the Byzantines re-established their rule over Dalma- archaeological studies of Ottoman architecture, tia and the Balkans and allowed the settlement art and small objects existed from the beginning of Slavs (Early Croats and Serbs) in Dalmatia of archaeology’s institutionalisation in Bosnia and its hinterland, the Slavic communities start- and Herzegovina. Due to the vast number of ed to form their first polities ( sclaviniae), which, 394 Some ten smaller churches from the 9th and 10th centu- ries were found in Bosnia and Herzegovina, mostly in 392 See more in Veletovac (2014). Herzegovina. They are frequently made and decorated 393 For example, Ostrogothic burials were found in Roman in the ‘Byzantine’ style (Miletić 1988, 42). sarcophagi at Vrba near Mostar (Radimsky 1890) and 395 For more on this issue see in the chapter on Yugoslav Varošište near Sarajevo (Miletić 1956). archaeology. 218 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 218 22. 10. 2021 11:05:53 researched and restored Ottoman architectur- the 19th century was more radical and includ-al monuments, impossible to list here, we will ed not only the transformation of towns by the mention only two of the most spectacular ex- radical removal of old ’Turkish’ architecture and amples of the urban culture – the late medieval mosques, but also the complete replacement of town of Počitelj, built-in Oriental-Mediterranean social, political and economic institutions, and style, and the Old Town with the Old Bridge in last but not least, changes in demography (em-Mostar, both in Herzegovina.396 igration of local Turks and Muslims to Turkey). Austrians in Bosnia and Herzegovina attempted more inclusive politics to make a ‘multiconfes- Antiquarianism in the Late Ottoman sional Bosnian nation’. Though the local Muslim period (1700–1878) elites in Bosnia and Herzegovina saw a decrease in their political strength, they still managed to For more than four centuries (1463–1878) in Bos- maintain significant influence in many cultural nia and Herzegovina, the dominant cultural mi- and religious aspects of social life. The situation lieu was Ottoman and Islamic. Thus, naturally, was somewhat different concerning the Croatian the advancement of archaeology cannot be ex- and Serbian populations. They could not attain pected to have been similar to that seen in the any significant political power or autonomy dur-neighbouring countries with their Renaissance ing Austrian rule unless adhering to the Aus-and Enlightenment traditions. Neither can the tro-Bosnian ideology . early days of archaeological research be explic- itly linked with the emergence of national move- How the archaeological discipline was estab-ments in the 19th century, as noted, for instance, lished in Bosnia and Herzegovina is an excellent in Serbia and Macedonia. Though both were un- example of such a situation. In the Ottoman cul-der the same Ottoman rule, the Muslim popula- ture, antiquarianism, or similar ‘archaeological’ tions in these two countries were not as strong activities, were considered of lower importance as in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Slavic nations in than in the neighbouring Christian countries. In Serbia and Macedonia could, to a large extent, fact, except for the activities of the Franciscan legitimise their idea of a nation using history priests from Bosnia and Herzegovina,397 the ev-and historical narratives and myths referring to idence of antiquarian practices by local Muslims the period before the Turkish conquest, and in the case of Macedonia, even from before the 10th 397 After the arrival of the Ottomans, the Catholic Church century AD or earlier. However, this was not the almost completely withdrew from the country. The only regulated Catholic organisation that remained in case with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina was the Franciscan monks, who established their first monasteries in Bosnia in With the arrival of the Austrians in 1878, the the 14th century. Before the arrival of the Ottomans, shift in the character of elites in Bosnia and Her- the Franciscans were organised into the Bosnian Vi- cariate. In 1463 the Sultan Mehmed II issued a decree zegovina was less radical compared to other ( Ahd-nama) granting the Franciscans freedom for their Balkan countries under Ottoman rule. While in activities among the Christians. They also kept their other Balkan countries (except for Albania) the monasteries, churches and other property. In 1517 they were organised in the church Province of Bosnia ‘Westernisation’ after gaining independence in Srebrena. However, the relationships between Otto- mans and Franciscans varied considerably from toler- ance to open aggression and the destruction of mon- 396 The original Old Bridge in Mostar, one of the most asteries and churches. Nevertheless, the Franciscan famous monuments in ‘Ottoman Europe’, was de- province, effectively the only working Catholic struc- stroyed in 1993 by Croat paramilitary forces. After the ture in Bosnia, survived, and through time their mon- war, the bridge was rebuilt with the original materials asteries became important cultural centres nurturing as much as possible. Today, the bridge and Mostar’s Christian traditions in Bosnia. By contrast, the Serbian Old Town are listed on the UNESCO World Heritage Orthodox church was far more fragmented during the List (since 2005). Ottoman period. 219 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 219 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 is very scarce until the 19th century. In the chap- Empire in the mid-19th century, although some ter on Serbia we have already mentioned the fa- thoughts on this have already been presented in mous traveller Evliya Çelebi from Istanbul, who the chapter on Serbia. also visited several Bosnian towns in the period between 1660 and 1665 (e.g. Sarajevo, Srebren- Nevertheless, the fact is that the Ottoman culture ica, Jajce, Foča, and Zvornik) and, among other had a different view of the ‘old’ history and its observations, also wrote short notes on some material remains, especially of the times before major buildings, monuments and sometimes the Ottoman arrival to Europe. However, before also on some historical events. However, there jumping to conclusions, it is necessary to consid-are no systematic accounts in his work on any er that this aspect of archaeological thought in kind of antiquities. Islamic countries is still largely unexplored. In fact, at local levels there is evidence that throws One may also ask why such accounts are missing a somewhat different light on archaeology’s cul-in the works of local (Muslim) scholars between tural history in this region. This especially per-the 15th and 19th centuries. Ottoman Bosnia had a tains to the areas along the state borders, where relatively well-organised education system up to cultural development progressed through a the level of higher secondary/university schools mixing of the local traditions with those of the ( madrasahs). 398 Such schools were in Sarajevo neighbouring countries, particularly among the (1537), Mostar (1557), Tuzla (1627), and Travnik non-Islamic population. (1706) (Kulanić 2015). Most of the teaching in these schools was in religious and moral subjects It is only recently that the first study has been and Sharia law. Over time secular subjects were published on the history of antiquarianism and also taught (e.g. natural sciences, philosophy, early archaeological practices in Bosnia and and history) but were considered appendices to Herzegovina in the late Ottoman era (Kaljanac the standard curricula. The Gazi Husfrev Bey’s and Križanović 2012). Being the only such text madrasah in Sarajevo was probably the most available, this study is the primary bibliographic renowned in ‘European’ Turkey, and highly re- source used. Kaljanac and Križanović state that spected throughout the Empire. Having one of there were two main components among the earthe richest Ottoman libraries in Europe before ly traditions that sparked archaeological interest the sacking of Sarajevo by Eugen of Savoy in in Bosnia and Herzegovina: foreign travel writ-1679,399 one would expect that some local histor- ers and local (Bosnian) Franciscans. Ami Boué ical studies were also kept there. However, de- (1794–1881), an Austrian-French geologist, is list-spite some highly influential local intellectuals ed as one of the most influential foreign travel-teaching in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or even at lers. In his book La Turquie d’Europe (Boué 1840), the major schools in Istanbul, they did not leave he presented his observations and insights from any crucial texts on ancient history or Antiquity numerous journeys across Ottoman countries in in general. As yet, there has been no good an- the Balkans. Boué visited Bosnia and Herzegovi-swer to the question as to why interest in archae- na on three occasions (1836, 1837 and 1838) and ology and antiquarianism was so low in the Ot- frequently noted old (i.e. medieval) architectural toman culture(s) before the modernisation of the remains (fortresses, bridges, etc.), which he often (erroneously) attributed to the Romans, as 398 Studying at madrasahs took between 12 and 16 years. he also did for the medieval tombstones (‘ stećci’, 399 During this sacking the Gazi Husrev Bey’s Medresha’s plural in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, ‘stećaks’ library was very probably destroyed. However, it recov- in English texts). Of the foreign travel writers, ered, and today this library hosts more than 10,000 Is- Kaljanac and Križanović (2012, 241) also mention lamic manuscripts in Arabic, Turkish, Persian and Bosnian, and an abundant collection of early prints. Copy- Aleksandr Fedorovich Hilferding (1831–1872), a ing the manuscripts was a regular task for students. Russian linguist who, during his stay in Bosnia 220 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 220 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 and Herzegovina in 1857, listed several archae- that Evans structured his topographical observa-ological sites for which he received information tions. The territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the local population, which was, obvious- was presented in chapters II ( Notes on the Roman ly, familiar with their historical significance. The road-lines – Siscia, Salonae, Epitaurum, Scodra) and most prominent place among the foreign writers III ( Notes on the Roman road-line from Salona to must belong to Arthur Evans (1851–1941), who Scupi, and on the municipal sites and mining cen-visited Bosnia and Herzegovina before starting tres in the old Dalmatian and Dardanian ranges). his archaeology career. Evans presented the coastal area of Illyricum in more detail, especially eastern Herzegovina In his younger years, Arthur Evans acted as a and the region around Trebinje. He effectively sort of a freelance agent of the British govern- combined his topographical observations with ment in areas of major political and national up- historical sources, epigraphic monuments and heavals in southeastern Europe (e.g. in the Car- information on the archaeological objects found. pathian region in 1872, where he first came into His book thus appears significantly more coher-contact with the Turkish population). It is in this ent than was generally the case with similar trav-vein that he, three years later, visited Bosnia and el-and-topography essays of the time. Herzegovina (1875), at the time when a great rebellion against the Turks had flared up; his Nonetheless, for the development of a local tra-reports seemed to influence the decision of the dition of archaeology in Bosnia and Herzego-British government to extend more political help vina, the activities of Bosnian-Herzegovinian to the native Slavic population in its battle for in- Franciscans were far more relevant.401 Indeed, dependence. In 1876 and 1878, he published two it was from the Bosnian Franciscans’ cultural texts in which he described his travels and some milieu that the first historical and geographical of the historical and archaeological monuments work on Bosnia – Epitome vetustatum Bosnensis from Bosnia and Herzegovina.400 His third text provinciae (Survey of the antiquities of the Bos-is of particular interest; it was published in 1883 nian province) originated.402 This work was pub-and was entirely dedicated to the archaeological lished in 1765 in Ancona, Italy, by Filip Lastrić and historical themes of the Balkan and Adri- (1700–1783; also Philippus de Occhevia), Head atic areas – Antiquarian Researches in Illyricum of the Franciscan province of Bosnia and teach- (Evans 1883;1885). Evans structured this work er at the monastery of Kraljeva Sutjeska. Being a in the unique combination of a travelogue and rather rare text, though somewhat brief and con-archaeological topography presenting Dalma- cise, Lastrić’s text had a long-lasting influence.403 tia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this monograph, he also published some of 401 The book on the Archaeological Collection of the Fran-the earliest topographic maps with archaeolog- ciscan Museum in Livno (Petrinec, Šeparović and Vr- ical, primarily Roman, sites in the central part of doljak 1999) offers many details about the Franciscans’ Bosnia and Herzegovina (about twenty of them). antiquarian and archaeological activities. On the other hand, Škegro (1997, 41) see the earliest Franciscans ac- On these maps, he also drew the routes of Ro- tivities in collecting and protecting historical heritage man roads. It is indeed around the Roman roads already at the end of the 18th century. 402 In 2003 also the bilingual (Croatian–Latin) translation 400 Through Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Foot During the In- was published (Lastrić 2003). surrection, August and September 1875: With an Historical 403 Lastrić, when arguing for the higher status of his ec-Review of Bosnia and a Glimpse of Croats, Slavonians, and clesiastic province, presented mostly a historical back- the Ancient Republic of Ragusa, 1876; and Illyrian letters: ground of the Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzego- a revised selection of correspondence from the Illyrian Prov- vina (see in Zirdum 2003, 29). In chapter VII, he brings inces of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Dal- some general observations on Bosnia’s ancient history matia, Croatia and Slavonia during the troubled year 1877. (Illyrians’ origins, on the name Bosnia, medieval Bos- Both books were published in London by Longman, nian rulers...). Chapter VIII is about the geography of Green and Company. the country, including the lists of fortresses and towns. 221 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 221 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 The history of the Franciscans in Bosnia and for antiquarian practices in this country. When Herzegovina, especially after the Ottoman con- speaking of the earliest archaeological activities, quest, is highly engaging. Immediately after Kaljanac and Križanović (2012, 242–246) give the conquest in 1463 they were granted free- prominence to another Franciscan priest, Lovro dom for their religious services, and they could Karaula (1800–1879), who taught young friars keep their property. In living and working in a about archaeological sites in Bosnia and Her-non-Christian country, the Bosnian Franciscans zegovina and who followed his instructions in gradually developed a certain ‘autonomy’ from their parishes (e.g. Filip Kunić, Mijo Sučić, Anto the Vatican and dioceses in the neighbouring Brešić and others) (Petrinec, Šeparović and Vr-Austrian or Venetian countries when govern- doljak 1999, 10). Among his disciples, the most ing their ecclesiastic province in which they influential was Grga Lozić (1810–1876), the au-had some 60 monasteries. Moreover, due to the thor of the work Adnotationes varie, 406 in which lack of ordinary priests the Franciscan friars fre- he recorded several archaeological and historical quently replaced them in parishes. In fact, they monuments in the regions of Livno, Kupres and achieved a certain monopoly over the Catholic Glamoč. He conducted several smaller excava-religion as the only effectively organised Catho- tions and also recorded the excavations of oth-lic ecclesiastic structure in Bosnia and Herze- ers. In Adnotationes varie Kaljanac and Križanović govina. The Bosnian Franciscans were also fre- find evidence for excavations of ancient remains, quently missionaries in other Ottoman occupied originating either from intellectual interest or territories, such as Hungary and Bulgaria (Tóth the search for treasure. 2002), where large Slavic-speaking populations lived. Their relationships with the Ottoman gov- An important role was also played by Ivan Fran-ernment, Imperial and Provincial, had frequent jo Jukić (1818–1857), who tried to persuade lo-ups and downs, especially after the wars with cal people not to sell antiquities to foreigners Austrians. However, over time the relationship but to establish the ‘Bosnian Museum’ for their developed into a certain ‘balance’ or ‘symbiosis’ curation.407 His motives for collecting the antiq-with the local Ottoman culture, which itself was uities were also political – to promote the Bos-highly syncretic anyway.404 nian Slavs’ identity (Škegro 1997,141).408 From the period before the arrival of the Austrians it Kaljanac and Križanović (2012, 245) start their is also worth noting Petar Bakula (1816–1873), paper with the chronicle of the Franciscan priest who, when he worked as a professor in Lucca, Jako Baltić (1813–1887) as the oldest explicit ev- Italy, published a short historical overview of idence for the collection of antiquities in Bosnia the history of the ecclesiastic Province of Bosnia and Herzegovina.405 This chronicle contains alle- (Bakula 1846).409 After returning to Bosnia and gations of the quest for and export of antiques Herzegovina, he served in several parishes to from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The first record- become the Vicar General in Mostar. In 1867, in ed example dates back to 1829, which Kaljanac Split, he published a topographical and historical and Križanović mark as a terminus ante quem 406 Adnotationes variae R.P. Gregorii Lozić, a Kupres 1864. 404 In his memoirs, Ćiro Truhelka (1942, 51), the first cu- 407 With respect to ‘exporting’ archaeological and other rator of the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo, states that valuable goods, one should also not forget the shipping upon his arrival in the town in 1886 he noticed the Fran- of great quantities of such objects in the first years of ciscans were wearing a fes (typical Turkish headgear) the Austrian occupation (Truhelka 1942, 59). instead of a hood,and having boots instead of sandals. 408 In his seminal text, Jukić also published a plea to the 405 Fra Jako Baltić, Godišnjak od Dogadjajah cérkvenih, svèt-Sultan (1851, 157–159) for full citizen rights for Chris- skih i promine vrimenah u Bosni (The Yearbook of the tians in Bosnia and Herzegovina and signed it as Events of the Church, Holy and Prominent Times in Slavoljub Bošnjak ( Slavophile Bosniak). Bosnia; prepared for publishing by Andrija Zirdum 409 Petar Bakula, Cenno storico sulla Provincia di Bosnia. Luc-1991. ca 1846. 222 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 222 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 overview of Herzegovina (Bakula 1867 (1970)).410 them with ideas of the general cultural con-This book also contains a short chapter on pagan sciousness, not only that of the Catholic popu-tombstones (i.e. stećaks) and barrows, for which lation. In this sense, ‘Franciscan’ archaeology he noted that in no other place are these found in should not be regarded as a local specificity in such a great number (Bakula 1970, 22). Ottoman Bosnia. Still, it undoubtedly played a significant role in disseminating archaeological We conclude this short overview of the 19th cen- practices within the prevailing Ottoman culture tury Franciscan archaeological activities with in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the second half of Anđeo (Angjeo) Nuić (1850–1916). This scholar is the 19th century.412 credited for establishing the first local archaeolog- ical museum in Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the It is evident that local archaeological activities, monastery at Humac near Ljubuški (1884), four thanks to the Franciscans, predate the official in-years before the Austrians established the Pro- itiatives coming from ‘above’, the Imperial Gov-vincial Museum in Sarajevo. In 1884, Nuić also ernment at Istanbul. The emergence of the first published regulations on collecting and keeping museums in the Ottoman Empire was clearly collections of antiquities ( Pravilnik o načinu pri- in line with the general efforts of Tanzimat, the kupljanja i vođenja zbirke, cf. Škegro 1997, 143). modernisation of Ottoman society and state, and the implementation of specific Western models Overall, the Franciscans’ archaeological activi- and concepts in this process. This was certainly ties were quite intensive with regard to the cir- the case with the idea of the study of antiquities. cumstances and situation at the time. Their ar- After the Crimean War, when the Ottoman Em-chaeological practice should also be observed in pire became more open for foreign expeditions, a broader historical perspective of the status and the influence of ‘Western’ archaeological tradi-activities of the Franciscan order in Bosnia and tions increased. In Istanbul, the first and relative-Herzegovina. For centuries they represented a ly simple museum of antiquities was founded key cultural and intellectual core, primarily as in 1846 or 1847 in the church of Hagia Irene. In regards the Catholic population, and their cul- 1869, the Imperial Museum was established fol-tural (and political) influence grew over time. In lowing the concept of the Louvre, and became the last decades of the 19th century, they became fully functional in 1872. Since the collections in the most influential group among the Christian this museum increased, thanks to the inflow of population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They items from the entire Ottoman Empire, Kaljanac were able to organise a comparably well-devel- and Križanović (2012, 247) assume that some oped network of monasteries, parishes, schools, objects could have been from Bosnia and Herze-libraries, archives and other institutions. Moreo- govina. They could have arrived in Istanbul as ver, they exercised a certain influence in the pol- gifts of the local nobles, high civil officials, army itics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, even before the officers, merchants, etc. 413 In 1874, the Ottoman arrival of the Austrians. Concerning their early archaeological activities, the Franciscans in Bos- 412 The Franciscans still continue their archaeological tradition. Today, there are more than 20 Franciscan mon- nia and Herzegovina continued the traditions asteries in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Almost all have of researchers of older history from the broad- art galleries, libraries with old prints, and collections er area of Dalmatia,411 which they successfully of various objects (textiles, vessels, liturgical objects), applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina, combining and archaeological collections. The largest collections are in monasteries at Kreševo, Humac near Livno, Tomislavgrad and Gorica near Grude. 410 Petar Bakula, Schematismus topographico-historicus Cus- 413 In 1869 and 1870, Sefvet-pasha, the Minister of Educa-todiae provincialis et Vicariatus apostolici in Hercegovina. tion, issued an order to all governors of provinces to Split 1867. See Croatian translation in Bakula (1970). collect antiquities and send them to Istanbul to furnish 411 It is worth noting that many Bosnian Franciscans stud- the collection of the Imperial Museum (Kaljanac and ied in Italy and other countries. Križanović 2012, 247). 223 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 223 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 authorities adopted the first legal acts on the railways,414 and in the ‘Westernisation’ of cul-protection of antiquities, according to which ture. The main ideologist was Benjamin Kallay all archaeological activities in the country were (1839–1903), an Austrian finance minister and a placed under the supervision of the Ministry governor in Bosnia (1882–1903). He had excellent of Education. The intention was to gain control knowledge of the Balkans, and also authored a over foreign research teams and prohibit the free study on the history of the Serbs (Kallay 1878). export of antiques from the country. The main ideological thread of Kallay’s policy was the dominant Austrian civilisational role In this context, it is important to note that the in the former Ottoman countries in the Balkans Bosnian provincial government adopted its own (Kraljačić 1987, 61). For Kallay, this meant creat-legislation on the protection of antiquities – the ing a new ‘Bosnian’ (three-confessional) country Collection, Research and Preservation of Antiquities and subjects loyal to the Austro-Hungarian Em-Act – as early as 1869, five years before the adop- pire (Kraljačić 1987, 186). By employing a policy tion of the state-level regulation (Kaljanac and that attempted to unite the populations of Bosnia Križanović 2012, 249). This reveals the already and Herzegovina on new ideological grounds, present awareness of the scientific, cultural and and thereby weakening the national centrifugal educational importance of antiquities in Bosnia movements of the Serbs and Croats, the Aus-and Herzegovina, and the need to formulate tro-Hungarian Empire also tried to prevent the legislation in this area. The early enactment of formation of a strong state of the South Slavs in this law by the provincial government implies the eastern Balkans, where, at that time, Serbia that the existing archaeological and antiquarian had the potential to initiate such an undertaking. activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina needed to be institutionalised, which, in turn, also shows In the process of modernisation of Bosnia and the existence of various forms of these activities Herzegovina, culture was given a significant role – from the search for ‘treasure’ and purchasing in promoting Western norms and values. Special of antiques from the local population, to a more attention was drawn to the study of pre-Ottoman official form of antiquarian practice such as the cultural traditions that could serve as a common organisation of local collections and systematic denominator in the narrative of Bosnia and Her-documentation of findings, inscriptions and ar- zegovina’s shared past (Kraljačić 1987, 195–201). chaeological sites. However, except for the Fran- To achieve this, Austria started to establish new ciscan ‘institutions’ (e.g. collections, museums), cultural and scientific institutions and invest no other ‘archaeological’ institution working considerable resources to transmit and popular-in the domain of archaeology or heritage was ise the messages coming from the ‘new’ Europe-founded in the Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovi- an (i.e. Austrian) civilisation. This was precisely na before the Austrians’ arrival. the case with archaeology in Bosnia and Herze- govina; it was introduced from above, with new rulers and very few or no references to previous Introduction of archaeology local traditions, that is – the initiatives dating as an Austrian colonial project from the Ottoman period. Immediately after the Austrian annexation of In 1888, the Austrian authorities officially es-Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878, a process of tablished the principal cultural and scientific radical modernisation (‘Europeanisation’ or institution – the Provincial Museum of Bosnia ‘Westernisation’) was launched. This meant in- tensive investments in industrialisation, electri- fication, urbanisation, construction of roads and 414 As a curiosity, Sarajevo got the first horse-driven tram in 1885, before Vienna or Budapest, electrified in 1895 (Čihák 2013). 224 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 224 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 and Herzegovina in Sarajevo – to implement conferences the museum’s staff would be sent, substantial reforms in the scientific, cultural and and what exhibitions and events would be organ-educational spheres. Benjamin Kallay personally ised (Majnarić-Pandžić 2013, 294). issued the instructions to the new government and monitored the museum’s establishment The museum was envisaged as a multi-discipli- (Kraljačić 1987, 266). The Museum Society in Sa- nary scientific institution, with an emphasis on: rajevo had been established three years earlier 1 . Old and New Geography, 2. History, 3. Archae- (Škegro 1997, 143). However, the initiatives for ology (prehistoric, Illyrian, Roman, Bosnian (Bogu-both the museum and society were already there mil) and Ottoman periods., 4. Monuments of Art, 5. at the local level, thanks to the Franciscans’ influ- Heraldic (coats of arms, sigils, diplomas, and coins ence (e.g. Jukić’s initiative for the Slavic-Bosniak from all times, 6. Weaponry, 7. Monuments of folk museum in 1851). The Austrian government and literary languages, 8. Ethnography, 9. Natural strongly supported them but in a form adequate relations: geology, zoology, botany, mineralogy, and for their ideological purposes. In 1889, the Pro- meteorology, 10. History of national literature, 11. vincial Museum issued the first edition of its Bibliography on books and articles about Bosnia and journal Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Her- Herzegovina, 12. Statistics. ( Glasnik Zemaljskog cegovini in the Serbo-Croatian language, in both muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine I, 1889, 8). There are Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. In the editorial of a few other things worth noting in the editori-the first issue of Glasnik (1889, 8), we can read: al, particularly the announcement of the annual selection of papers which will then be reprint- Our museum’s task is not only to work in the field ed in the German language ( ‘to give a chance to of science; its task is also cultural and educational. the educated public in the world to use authentic in-To act as a stirrer among the sons of our country, es- formation from original sources’) in the specially pecially among youth. To make them think of their created journal Mitteilungen des Landesmuseum duties to study and learn about their homeland com- für Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kallay had also some prehensively, and in doing this, learn how to love and say in what would be published here. Another appreciate it. (Translated by P.N). important announcement in the editorial was the invitation to collaboration (‘ conscious priests, Of course, the country to be loved and appreci- big and small landowners, teachers, merchants and ated can be read twofold, as Bosnia and Herze- craftsmen, all progressive and intelligent sons of the govina and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The nation...’), and a note on the alphabets used. Due local people living for more than 400 years with- to the lack of resources for printing two separate in the Ottoman culture had much to learn before versions, Latin and Cyrillic, Glasnik was printed ‘loving’ the country with which they were for as individual papers in the same issue in Latin centuries at almost constant war with. On the oth- and Cyrillic, alternately and balanced. It was er hand, the Austrians needed to get acquainted not by chance that the first paper published in with Bosnia and Herzegovina to rule it effective- Glasnik was about the Illyrian (meaning pre-Ot-ly. How important the Austrians considered the toman and pre-Slavic) origin of the name Bos-new museum can best be illustrated by the fact nia, by Ljudevit (Lajos) Thallóczy (born Ludwig that the new building, when finished in 1913, was Strommer), a Hungarian historian and protégé the most expensive public building erected in of Benjamin Kallay.415 Bosnia and Herzegovina during the four decades of Austro-Hungarian rule. During two decades of 415 Thallóczy did not accept the widely accepted hypothe-Kallay’s governorship in Bosnia and Herzegovi- sis that Bosnia’s name derives from the Roman Basante, na (1882–1903), he closely monitored the develop- Ad Basante, names used for the river Bosna. Instead, he ments in the museum, decided who to hire, how explained the name ‘Bosna’ as ‘a land of salt’ after the northern Albanian (i.e. descendent of the Illyrian) word to shape the publications, at which international for salt. 225 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 225 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 Archaeology was indeed given an important that Hoernes was frequently listed as co-author role from the very start. In many texts, Moritz of several publications on the archaeology in Hoernes is labelled as the ’mentor’ credited for Bosnia and Herzegovina (e.g. on Butmir) with-the museum’s rapid development, especially out actually having made any substantial confor archaeology. Moritz Hoernes (1852–1917), a tribution to the work (Majnarić 2013, 297). curator of the Natural History Museum in Vien- na, conservator of the Central Commission for The Austrian Provincial government and Kallay the Protection of Historical Monuments, and made crucial infrastructural provisions for the professor of prehistory at the University of Vi- museum’s development and its promotion in enna, was appointed as a counsellor for science the broader academic environment. But the mer-and supervisor of the museum by Kallay. Still, its for its outstanding scientific success must be his role is frequently over-emphasised, giving credited to the museum staff and scholars who a somewhat simplified image of Vienna’s ‘big came to Sarajevo (e.g. Ćiro Truhelka, Karl Patsch, teacher’ having his local disciples. During the Vaclav Radimsky, Filip Baliff, Konstantin Hör-Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovi- mann, Franjo (František) Fiala, Otmar Reiser, Ve-na (1878), Hoernes served as a voluntary army jsil Čurčić, and Viktor Apfelbeck) and the wide-officer and became aware of the country’s great spread network of the museum’s external collab-archaeological potential. At the Anthropolog- orators from all over the country. Actually, the ical Society of Vienna’s request he arranged only direct appointment to the museum was that research visits to Bosnia and Herzegovina in of Ćiro Truhelka, and the others worked as med-1879 and 1880, intending to record archaeolog- ical doctors, mining and factory engineers, high ical and historical monuments.416 Later on, he civil service clerks, chemists, and high-school became personally very interested in the spec- professors. The only one born in Bosnia and Her-tacular discoveries in Glasinac and Butmir, zegovina was V. Čurčić. In contrast, others came which he saw as an excellent opportunity for from Austria, Bohemia and Croatia, and except his future career.417 In fact, Hoernes did not visit for the Croats did not speak the local language Sarajevo and inspect the museum as frequently upon their transfer to Sarajevo. Before their ar-as one would expect from a supervisor. In his rival in Bosnia and Herzegovina the tradition of reports to Kallay, he frequently complained scientific research was almost completely absent. about the museum staff, that museum was not It was thus up to this first group of scholars to being kept in good shape and that some of the establish the foundations for scientific work (in curators were not performing their duties well. its ‘Western’ sense) in the country. He mostly complained about Ćiro Truhelka, who, despite his young age (born in 1861), was The archaeological activities were, by no means, already a well-known scholar in the 1890s and the most intensive and ambitious of such un-a strong rival to Hoernes in the archaeology dertakings, and the museum started with just of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Majnarić-Pandžić one archaeologist (Ćiro Truhelka). In 1891 Vejsil (2013) sees most of Hoernes’ complaints about Čurčić joined him, and in 1894 also came Carl Kallay as attempts to takeover Truhelka’s major Patch, a historian of the ancient world. Three field projects (e.g. Glasinac) and promote him- archaeologists in one museum was quite a large self as the principal researcher. It is also a fact figure compared to the museums in neighbouring countries, but still not enough for the muse- 416 Moritz Hoernes, Dinarische Wanderungen, Wien 1888. um’s ambitious plans; it was thus necessary to 417 Before the establishment of the Provincial Museum in engage other researchers who were available, Sarajevo, many finds were sent to the Natural History mostly naturalists (e.g. Fiala and Radimsky), to in Vienna. This was also the case with the famous Iron Age Glasinac wagon, discovered in 1880 during road manage the large amount of work. construction. 226 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 226 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 The museum had two outstanding archaeol- several international conferences (e.g. Sarajevo, ogists, Ćiro Truhelka and Carl Patsch, each of Vienna, Kyiv). During his directorship, in 1913, whom contributed significantly to this institu- the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo moved to a tion’s international reputation. Ćiro Truhelka new, highly prestigious building modelled after (1861–1942) graduated in archaeology at the the Natural History Museum in Vienna. University of Zagreb and got his PhD in art his- tory from the University of Vienna. Before being Truhelka, due to his academic achievements, appointed as a curator at the Provincial Museum was one of the most influential scholars in the in Sarajevo in 1886, Truhelka worked one year Balkans, and his successful lobbying for a new at the Museum of Arts and Crafts in Zagreb. His museum building was the apex of his direc-appointment is highly illustrative with regard torship. In the academic domain, however, he to Austrian planning and implementation of the faced significant challenges, nothing less than to Westernisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. establish the science of archaeology in a coun- try that, save for the Franciscans’ activities, had At the beginning of 1886 (at the age of 24), Tru- almost no tradition of classical or prehistoric helka suddenly received an invitation from Ben- archaeology. To Austrian rulers and scientists, jamin Kallay to come to Vienna. There, Kallay Bosnia and Herzegovina was a ‘virgin land’ informed him that, following the recommenda- ready to be moulded according to their ideas, tions by Isidor Kršnjavi, Truhelka’s professor at concepts and practices. the University of Zagreb, and the positive evalu- ation of Truhelka’s ‘personality’, he was appoint- In its broader sense, the tradition of histori-ing him to the post of curator of the museum cal research was different in Ottoman culture. which was about to be established in Sarajevo While classical culture (i.e. history, languages, (Truhelka 1942, 27). Truhelka almost immediate- art history, literature) in Christian Europe was ly departed for Sarajevo to establish archaeology well established and a long-standing part of in a country and cultural milieu where he had education in middle and higher schools, and a no prior experience. Truhelka worked in the mu- cultural norm of the ‘European’ middle and up-seum for 35 years, until 1921. Between 1905 and per classes, this was not the case in the Ottoman 1920 he was also Director of the Museum. He countries. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, three of was a highly energetic and productive scholar in the most populous nations distinguished them-several fields. During this work in Sarajevo, he selves in the first place in terms of their religion published more than 80 papers in Serbian/Cro- (Muslim, Orthodox and Catholic), and it is with-atian and German on the archaeology, ancient in these three confessional contexts where dif-and medieval history, epigraphy, numismatics, ferent historical traditions developed.419 Each of and ethnography of Bosnia and Herzegovina.418 the three confessional/national groups saw Bos-He also directed dozens of excavations and field nia and Herzegovina, and its past, differently, surveys. The most known are the excavations of barrows at Glasinac and the Bronze and Iron Age settlements at Donja Dolina. He also organ- 419 One should also not ignore the Jewish population, who were quite influential in the domain of culture. Se-ised various exhibitions presenting the Provin- phardic Jews, descendants of Spanish and Portuguese cial Museum in various European countries (e.g. Jews, settled in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the sec- Budapest, Brussels, Paris) and participated at ond half of the 16th century. In the 17th and 18th centu- ries, and during the Austrian period, came Ashkenazi Jews from the Austrian and Hungarian lands. During 418 His bibliography is much larger. After 1921 and his the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Sarajevo hosted the larg- transfer to the Faculty of Philosophy at Skopje and sub- est Jewish population in the whole country (more than sequent retirement in 1931, he additionally published 10,000), with some 14,000 in the whole of Bosnia and some 20 texts on Bosnia and Herzegovina. For his bib- Herzegovina. In the Holocaust, more than 70% of all liography until 1920, see Truhelka (1922). Jews in and the land were killed. 227 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 227 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 including the ancient past (Barić 2016, 73). Defi- in the museum’s journal Glasnik takes up some nitely not an easy job for Truhelka. One could 90 papers (published between 1885 and 1919) hardly imagine the conditions in which he had on ancient history, epigraphy, numismatics, and started to work and compare them with the situ- the Roman settlement of Bosnia and Herzegovi-ation in 1914 when the Provincial Museum was na, with which he laid firm foundations for an-at its peak.420 His achievements are even more re- cient archaeology.421 markable when considering that he also contrib- uted to other disciplines, e.g. medieval history Though he dealt with many different aspects of and epigraphy, and ethnography, spoke Turkish ancient archaeology, his primary focus was on and Albanian and was one of the principal au- Roman epigraphy and ancient history of the Ro-thorities for historical sources written in the late man Province of Dalmatia. The list of his princi-medieval bosančica (Bosnian Cyrillic alphabet). pal research works includes a series of pioneer-His academic work can be seen in the fact that ing studies in Bosnian-Herzegovinian archaeol-there are more than thirty papers dedicated to ogy: a study on the ancient people of Japodes Truhelka and his work. In 1922, after he retired (Patsch 1898), discoveries of the temple of Mithra from the museum, he taught archaeology at the in Konjic (Patsch 1897), the Roman forum of Del-Faculty of Arts, Skopje, N. Macedonia, a branch minium, and the large sepulchral area in Skelani. of the University of Belgrade. His major excavations were at Mogorjelo near Čapljina in Herzegovina (1899–1903), where he Not much different were the conditions when discovered a very large Roman villa, later, in the Carl Patsch (1865–1945), the Bohemian-Austrian 4th century, turned into a fortress. From Patsch’s historian and geographer, graduated in ancient abundant bibliography, we would also like to history at the German University at Prague, point to a series of research papers collected un-an assistant at the Archaeological-Epigraphic der the title ‘Archaeological-epigraphic Research Seminar at the University of Vienna, and came of History of the Roman Province of Dalmatia’ to Sarajevo in 1891 to the fill post of the high and published in German or Serbo-Croatian be-school teacher. After several years working as tween 1896 and 1912 (Patsch 1896; 1899; 1899a; an external collaborator, Patch, in 1896, gained 1904; 1906; 1907; 1909, 1912). This compilation of full employment in the Provincial Museum and some 500 pages with numerous drawings repre-soon became a curator of classical antiquities. If sents the real foundation of modern Roman ar-prehistoric archaeology had already made some chaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina. significant steps (e.g. discoveries at Butmir and Glasinac, the promotional effects of the 1894 Patsch proved not only to be highly productive International Conference), ancient archaeol- but also a very ambitious scholar, who attempt-ogy was far behind. In the following years, he ed to overcome the shortcomings of working in worked hard to change this. His bibliography a provincial museum. In 1904 he established the Institute for Balkan Studies ( Bosnisch-Herzegowinische Institut für Balkanforschung), intending to 420 His memories of his arrival to Sarajevo are highly il- lustrative of the atmosphere in the town: “Besides the create another important research institution in palace of government, Hotel Europa and two or three oth- the country. 422 ‘Balkanology’ gained in populari-er buildings, in Sarajevo there were no other houses made of proper bricks, everything was made of dried clay and wood...After long wandering [for an apartment to hire] I 421 For Patsch’s bibliography in Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja have found a room “with furniture” in Čemaluša, at the u Sarajevu, see Matolić at Academia.edu. corner of the Kulovića street, in the house of Huršid-efendi, 422 The institute existed in Sarajevo (at the Provincial Mu-born Pole, thrown to Turkey by the revolution where he was seum) until 1918, when Patsch was transferred to Vi- Turkicised and became tulumdzhibasha, i.e. commander of enna. The ‘Balkan’ institutes were later established the firefighting squad. His wife was a local Catholic woman. also in Munich (1930), Belgrade (1935), Bucharest (Truhelka 1942, 35). (1937), Thessaloniki (1954), Sofia (1964), and, again, in 228 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 228 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 ty at the end of the 19th century, especially in Aus- approached by the Albanian government for tria, where it has been conceived as an interdisci- counselling on the project of the Albanian Na-plinary set of sciences (linguistics, ethnography, tional Museum in Tirana.423 geography, history, archaeology) focused on the Balkans area. The first ‘Balkanological’ institu- The third archaeologist in the Provincial Mu-tion was Kommission für historisch-archäologische seum was Vejsil Čurčić (1868–1959), a native of und phillologisch-ethnographische Durchforschung Sarajevo who graduated in archaeology and art der Balkanhalbinsel of the Austrian Academy of history from the University of Vienna. He also Sciences, established in 1897. The establishment started his career in the Provincial Museum at a of this commission, and, subsequently, the insti- very young age (1891). Though his research pro-tute in Sarajevo, has to be seen in the light of the file could not match that of Truhelka or Patsch, he Austrian imperial politics towards southeastern was a scholar of wide horizons. His research also Europe and Turkey. Austria was attempting included history, ethnography and applied art to strengthen its role (vis-a-vis other European and decoration.424 In the archaeological domain, powers of the time) as the principal civilisational he was mostly known for his excavations of the force in the area, by boosting scientific research Iron Age cemetery at Ripač near Bihać in 1898 into the history and culture of the Balkan na- (with Radimsky) and the Bronze Age hillfort of tions. It seems that Patsch wanted to go further Varvara near Prozor (1899–1900, 1912), and for on his own, beyond the limits of the museum, archaeological surveys in western Bosnia. In ad-and this probably caused conflict with Truhelka, dition, he participated in all major archaeolog-the museum Director. It also seems that Patch ical field projects of the museum (e.g. Glasinac, initially acted without substantial support from Butmir, Donja Dolina) and assisted on many oth-the provincial or state governments, because it er excavations of his colleagues. He was also a took several years before his institute became pioneer in the conservation of historic towns and funded by the state (Barić 2012). On the other architecture in Bosnia and Herzegovina. hand, Patsch thought that strong museum and an institute would make Sarajevo the undisput- Other scholars who also worked in archaeology ed centre of Balkanology (‘… Das will zunächst were historians, geologists, and botanists. The sagen, dass wir unser Landesmuseum – welches most renowned was Vaclav (Wenzel) Radimsky heute das bedeutendste Museum der Balkanhalbinsel (1832–1895), a Czech mining engineer who grad-ist – auch weiter auf seiner führenden Rolle erhalten uated from the Polytechnic School in Prague nun dass wir das an das Museum angegliederte In- and worked as Head of the Mining Directorate stitut für Balkanforschung derart ausgestalten, dass in Sarajevo. His first job in the Provincial Mu-Sarajevo für alle Welt zum unbestrittenen Zentrum seum was the establishment of the mineralog-der ganzen Balkanforschung wird’, as stated by the ical collection. Radimsky excavated at Butmir Provincial Governor in 1913; see Barić 2012, foot- (with Fiala) and Ripač (with Čurčić). Looking note 41; cf. Kapidžić 1973). at the bibliography alone, Radimsky published During his twenty-five years in Sarajevo, Patch 423 Patsch was actually offered the position of Director, became one of the most respected scholars in the which he declined. In 1923 he visited Tirana twice and ancient history of the Balkans, and he became presented a proposal for the organisation of a muse- a professor at the University in Vienna after he um modelled after the provincial Museum in Sarajevo (Clayer 2012). retired from Sarajevo in 1919. In 1922, he was 424 In the period between 1943 and 1945, he also served as a Director of the museum under the quisling government Sarajevo (1954) (Sundhausen and Clewig 2016, 121), of the Independent State of Croatia. The new Commu- where it exists today as a Centre for Balcanological nist regime suspended him for two years. He finished Studies at the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Bosnia his professional career in the Institute for the Protection and Herzegovina. of Cultural Monuments in Sarajevo (1947–1951). 229 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 229 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 much more in archaeology than in his original extensive excavations at Butmir (Fiala and Ho-discipline. During his relatively short career ernes 1898) and undertook many surveys and in Sarajevo (ten years), he published some 60 smaller excavations across the country. Though titles, mostly short papers on epigraphy, pre- Fiala was mostly a prehistorian, his archaeolog-historic archaeology, Roman archaeology, nu- ical bibliography includes also works on Roman mismatics, demonstrating his considerable archaeology and epigraphy. intellectual potential and education. Already before he departed for Bosnia and Herzegovi- The productivity of these five archaeologists na in 1885, Radimsky was intensively engaged (Truhelka, Patsch, Čurčić, Radimsky and Fiala) in archaeological research projects at Wies in can be seen in the fact that they contributed some Austrian Styria, where he worked as Director 55% of ca. 520 archaeological papers published in of the coal-mining society (Radimsky 1883; Glasnik between 1889 and 1919. These figures are 1885; 1888, Radimsky and Szombathy 1883), also highly illustrative for the giant leaps made and collaborated with Josef Szombathy, Head by the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo – before of the Natural History Museum in Vienna. It 1889, the archaeological bibliography included was hardly a surprise that Radimsky, with such some 20 short papers or notices. Archaeology a scientific profile, knowledge, and experienc- thus definitely justified the high status given to es, became, upon his move to Sarajevo, almost it in the Austrian plans, and its worth can also be immediately the Provincial Museum’s external illustrated with another two examples, the pro-collaborator.425 Having experience in geology ject of topography and mapping of stećaks, and and mining, Radimsky was the perfect choice the organisation of the International Congress of for directing extensive excavations, such as at Archaeologists in Sarajevo in 1894. Butmir, which he published in a monograph in 1895 (Radimsky and Hoernes 1895). Stećaks were perceived as a paramount histor- ical and cultural peculiarity of the newly occu- Another young scholar, Franz (František) Fi- pied province, and the provincial government ala (1861–1898), also deserves to be mentioned organised massive inventory campaigns in 1891 here. Fiala, a native of Brno, Moravia, graduated and 1897. Almost all civil servants in Bosnia and in natural sciences from the Technical School in Herzegovina (teachers, police officers, foresters, Brno. He came to Sarajevo in 1886 to work as a road workers, local officials, priests, etc.) were chemist in a tobacco factory. In 1892 he moved to ordered to collect information on tombstones the Provincial Museum to the curator’s post for and other archaeological sites (e.g. barrows, hill-archaeology and botany, where he stayed until forts, old roads, mosques, churches, monasteries, his death. Fiala was another scholar who came bridges) and hand them over to the Provincial to Sarajevo at a very young age and proved high- Museum, with special guidelines being issued.426 ly productive in archaeology. In just ten years, These campaigns resulted in 59,500 stećaks be-between 1889 and 1898, he succeeded in pub- ing listed and presented at the 11th Archaeolog-lishing more than 40 archaeological papers in ical Congress in Kyiv in 1899 (Bešlagić 1980) by Glasnik, excavated more than 900 (sic) barrows Konstantin Hörmann and Ćiro Truhelka. On at Glasinac (Fiala 1892; 1893; 1894; 1895; 1896a; this occasion, Truhelka also presented a paper 1897), then also the Bronze and Iron Age settle- entitled Documents prehistoriques de Bosnie et Her-ment of Debelo Brdo near Sarajevo (Fiala 1896b), cegovine (Bešlagić 1980, 641). Given that Bosnia and Iron Age cemeteries at Ripač near Bihać and and Herzegovina was, in many ways, terra incog-Sanski most (Fiala 1896c). He also co-directed nita for European archaeology and history, the 425 Radimsky remained whole his career in Sarajevo a 426 Pitanja za sabiranje historičko-topografskog gradiva. mining inspector and an associate to the museum. (Bešlagić 1980). 230 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 230 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 results of these provincial actions were extraor- October, 1894 ): “The present administration of Bos-dinary. By the year 1900, after some fifteen years nia and Herzegovina is conducted on principles se-of archaeological activities, it is safe to say that lected from the best elements of modern civilisation, Bosnia and Herzegovina had the best gazetteer its great object being to develop the natural resourc-of archaeological sites in southeastern Europe. es of the country. Already this policy has produced Radimsky wanted to publish the gazetteer, but a marked and beneficial effect on the social life of the did not succeed before he died. community by cementing together a singularly mixed population into a happy, prosperous, and almost ho- The international archaeological and anthropo- mogeneous nationality. But, over and beyond these logical conference held in Sarajevo in 1894 was a practical results, which are patent to everyone who pure act of promotion of the Austrian ‘civilising’ visits the country, there lurks in the far-reaching pol-agenda in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The confer- icy of Herr von Kallay, a still grander project-viz., to ence was fully funded by the Provincial Gov- bring these provinces once more into the current of ernment of Bosnia and Herzegovina and closely European culture and learning. To dispel the preju-monitored by Benjamin Kallay, the uncrowned dices and misrepresentations which have so long kept ruler of the Province.427 Rudolph Virchow was these charming lands, so redolent of scenic beauties asked to chair the conference attended by the and striking natural phenomena, a terra incogni- ‘ creme de la crème’ of the European prehistorians: ta, and to foster scientific research which is destined Johannes Ranke and Albert Voss (Germany), Eu- to elucidate the prehistoric civilizations of Europe, gen Bormann, Otto Bendorf, Moritz Hoernes and would be laurels worthy of the ambition of any states-Lajos Thallóczy (Austria), József Hampel (Hunga- man. Yet all these are now on the verge of becoming ry), Robert Munroe (UK), Gabriel de Mortillet, accomplished facts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Let Salomon Reinach and René Verneau (France), me add, in conclusion, that it was the opinion of all Luigi Pigorini (Italy), Jakob Heierly and Edmund who took part in this congress that during the few Count de Fellenberg (Switzerland), and Oscar years since the Government had devoted its resources Montelius (Sweden) (Herman 1894). During the to archaeological research (the museum having been conference, two excursions were organised to founded only six years ago), there has been accumu-Butmir and Glasinac, where the guests could lated throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina a mass of see and actively engage in archaeological exca- scientific materials unsurpassed, in a corresponding vations. The conference was a genuine success period of time, by any other country in Europe…” in terms of the promotion of the Austrian gov- ernment’s achievements. Foreign scholars, full of Gabriel de Mortillet, professor at the School of positive impressions, almost immediately reacted Anthropology in Paris, published two reports. In and published reports on the conference in sever- Revue mensuelle de l’école d’anthropologie de Paris al journals. The overall impression can be easily he wrote: grasped from the examples reported below. “Du 15 au 21 août un brillant Congrés anthro- Robert Munroe, member of the Royal Socie- pologique a eu lie à Sarajevo, capitale de la Bosnie ty of Edinburgh, published in The Times (8th of et Hercégovine. Le gouvernement de ces deux anciennes provinces turques, mises en julliet 1878 427 In the late 1880s, Kallay attended meetings of the Ger- sous le protectorat de l’Autriche-Hongrie, avait man Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehis- addresse 26 invitations à des sauvantes de diverses tory, and also the meetings of the Anthropological Society in Vienna, to promote the archaeological discov- parties de l’Europe. 16 ont répondu à l’appel… Les eries in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and connect scholars visites aux collections, les fouilles et les discussions from ‘his’ province with scholarly societies from Vi- ont été encadrées entre un diner officiel par le gou-enna, Berlin, Petersburg, Budapest, e.g. Rudolph Vir- chow, Josef Szombathy, Johannes Ranke and others verneur général et une fête turque avec diner, chez (Truhelka 1992, 66). le burgmestre, M. Mehmed Beg Kapetanović. ...Quel 231 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 231 22. 10. 2021 11:05:54 admirable pays que la Bosnie- Hercégovine! C’est un on the nature of the congress and selection of region montagneuse extrêmement pitoresque, ayant the participants: tout à fait l’aspect du jura français et suisse…Une pareille région avec des gorges étroites, des croupes Congrès ou conférence? L’une ou l’autre désignation abruptes, des vallées entourées de montagnes, a peut être admise, mais ce qui est certain, c’est que servi de refuge à de nombreuses populations; aus- la réunion de Sarajevo a présenté un caractère tout si est-elle des plus intéressantes au pint de vue de particulier. Au lie d’un de ses picnics scientifiques, ‘anthropologie at de l’archéologie. … A Sarajevo… accessibles à tous qui veulent payer une cotisation, quatre cultes vivent en paix et caractérisent quat- nous avons eu là une consultation d’archéologues, re races différentes. Ce sont les musulmans, appelés préalablement désignes par le gouvernement local, Turcs; les orthodoxes, Slaves appartetenant au culte investis d’un mandat par leurs gouvernements re-chrétien grec; les Juifs, désignés dans le pays sous spectif... D’autre part, il n’est pas douteux que l’ex-le nom d’Espagnols, parce qu’en grande majorité ils ample donné par le gouvernement bosniaque ne soit font partie d’une colonie juive émigrée d’Espagne il difficile à suivre: non seulement, en effet, l’hospi-y un siècle ou deux. Ils parlent ancore la langue es- talité ainsi pratiquée au profit d’invités assez nom-pagnole. Enfin les catholiques, qui étaient en grande breux entraîne des dépenses trés considerable, mais minorité, mais qui s’accroissent rapidement par l’ar- la choix même des invités est choix bien délicate, rivée de plus en plus nombreuse de ce qu’on appele pouvant donner lie à des froissements at à des récla-del Européens…Sous le protectorat éclairé de l’Au- mations. J’ai essayé de connaitre les princips don’t triche-Hongrie le pays s’ouvre et marche, àpas de s’étaient inspirés, à cet égard, les organisateurs de la géants, vers une florissante civilisation… A côte du réunion de Sarajevo, et voici ce que j’appris. La ques-développement militaire, administratif, commercial tion du choix des invités a été longuement étudié à et industriel, le Gouvernement éclairé rechertche Vienne, au Musée des sciences naturelles, en pres-aussi le développement scientifique. Il a crée à Sa- ence d’une bibliothèque parfaitmenet tenue à jour. rajevo un centre intellectuel de premier ordre… M. On a volu d’abord, autant que possible, que les dif-Hörmann a su s’entourer d’une pléiade de jeunes férentes pays fussent représentés; puis, le choix s’est naturalistes, de jeunes archéologues plains d’ardeur, porté sur les personnes qui, par la nuture de leurs qui étudiant avec le plus grand succés les richesses travaux, paraissaient povouir intervenir le plus naturelles, historiques et préheistoriques du pays. utilement dans la discussion des question posées.” Leur débuts sont des plus brillants. (Herman 1894, (Reinach 1894, 554–555) 527–528). Reinach also did not forgot to praise the achieve- De Mortillet published another, similar report in ments of the Austrian government in Bosnia and which he briefly presented the Provincial Muse- Herzegovina: “Florisasantes sous l’empire romain, um in the journal L’Intermediaire (Herman 1894, retombées depuis dans une barbarie dix fois séculaire, 529–530). les provinces don’t Autriche-Hongrie a pris tutelle renaissent à la civilisation avec une rapidité qui tient Salomon Reinach (1894) published a 16-page du prodige, admirable téemoignage de ce que peuvent report, presenting a complete programme of la suite dans les idées et l’initiative d’un homme de the meeting, a short description of the sites talent auquel le gouvernement don’t il relève ne crée of Butmir and Glasinac, and the opinions and pas d’obstacles…” (Reinach 1984, 570). theories of some of his colleagues on the origin of these two sites, the circumstances of Austri- The congress was such a great success that the an military occupation in 1878, a short descrip- next year, between the 2nd and 11th of Septem-tion of road and train network in Bosnia and ber 1895, the Anthropological Society from Herzegovina, major towns, etc. In Reinach’s Vienna organised an excursion to Bosnia and report, there are some important observations 232 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 232 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 Herzegovina.428 The museum was also pro- Provincial Museum in Sarajevo the major centre moted at several international conferences (e.g. of excellence in the archaeology of Southeastern International Congress of Archaeologists and Europe prior to the First World War. Anthropologists in Vienna 1899; Congress of Russian Archaeologists, Kyiv 1899) and exposi- A particular object of pride was the new build-tions (e.g. Vienna 1889, 1891, 1898; Zagreb 1891; ing of the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo. Its Timişoara 1891; Brussels 1897, Millennium Ex- construction began in 1909 and it was officially position at Budapest 1896). No other archaeo- opened on October 4th 1913. The museum had a logical institution from the Balkan countries central park around which seven buildings were could match such promotion. In doing this they erected, among them four major two-floor exhi-demonstrated not only the archaeological rich- bition pavilions for prehistory, ancient archaeol-ness of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also high ogy, ethnography and natural history. The mu-competency of their researchers, by showing the seum complex’s total area was around 24,000 m2 spectacular sites of hundreds if not thousands (4,819 m2 of buildings, 3,821 m2 of terraces, 5,033 of Bronze and Iron Age barrows at Glasinac m2 of the botanical park, and 10,397 m2 of the (more than 1,200 excavated); Butmir, one of the outer park). Archaeology was given 1,860 m2 of largest and best investigated Neolithic sites at space, 900 m2 for the prehistoric collection and the time in Europe, with outstanding anthropo- 960 m2 for the ancient collection. The style of fa-morphic art objects made of clay and with rich- cades and internal spaces was that of the ‘Italian ly decorated ceramic vessels; nearly 5,000 m2 of Renaissance’, and the total cost was 1,574,915 Iron Age pile dwellings at Donja Dolina, with Krones (Paržik 1914).429 almost perfectly preserved wooden structures and settlement layout; and tens of thousands To conclude, the archaeological ‘colonial’ inter-of medieval stećaks. In less than three decades vention of Vienna was excellently executed, but, since its establishment, the museum’s archaeol- then again, when the Austro-Hungarian Monar-ogists carried out excavations of more than 30 chy collapsed in 1918, giving way to a new coun-prehistoric, Roman and medieval sites. Even a try, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, glance at some of the sites reveals highly im- many things changed, including the history of pressive figures: 1,220 barrow tumuli excavat- archaeology. Being so strongly supported by the ed at Glasinac, more than 1,000 explored graves provincial government, the Provincial Museum from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages at was destined to suffer a setback once it was left other sites; three large prehistoric pile dwell- without this. The new country and its rulers had ings excavated; dozens of newly discovered Ro- plans for Bosnia and Herzegovina, completely man inscriptions, a multitude of Roman shrines different from the Austrian ones. Archaeology, and basilicas; as well as hundreds of medieval in a certain sense, fell victim to the great success inscriptions, studies of medieval monasteries of the Provincial Museum. While this museum and churches, and countless necropolises with flourished, no other museum or public insti-stećaks. If Bosnia and Herzegovina had indeed tution working in archaeology, history or the been an archaeological terra incognita before the natural sciences was established in Bosnia and 1880s, it soon became one of the most systemat- Herzegovina during the Austrian period. Such ically studied countries in the Balkans, and the disparity in terms of institutional development would continue for many decades. Only after 428 In some texts, this excursion is labelled as the Second the Second World War did new archaeological Congress of the Archaeologists and Anthropologists in institutions gradually emerge at both regional Sarajevo (e.g. Truhelka 1940). A similar excursion with and local levels. 56 participants was also organised in 1904 following the Congress of German and Viennese Anthropologi- cal Societies in Salzburg (Truhelka 1905). 429 Approximately 320,000 US dollars in 1913. 233 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 233 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 Stagnation in the Yugoslav Monarchy make it a more robust political entity. In the new (1918–1941) state, both Serbian and Croatian national politics saw Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of their his- torical territories and the Muslim population as After the First World War came a period of consid- ‘Islamised’ Serbs or Croats.431 Although the Mus-erable decline in the Provincial Museum’s archae- lim religion was the third-largest in the country, it ological activities, and hence in the whole country. became considered a minority confession. There are several reasons for this, the first being the new administrative division introduced with the All these changes, combined with Yugoslavia’s Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in which general political and economic weakness in the Bosnia and Herzegovina ceased to exist as an inte- period between the two world wars, created congrated province. The new constitution of the King- ditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina in which many dom of SHS enforced a very centralised organisa- aspects of social life declined compared to the Aus-tion of the state divided into 33 smaller provinces trian period, culture and science included. In the ( oblasts) which did not correspond to any previous case of archaeology, the break-up of the relations historical or ethnic territorial entities. Bosnia and with Austrian institutions additionally contributed Herzegovina’s territory was divided into six prov- to the decline in the quality and intensity of archae-inces, named after the district capitols: Tuzla, Sa- ological research.432 The conditions for the continu-rajevo, Banja Luka, Travnik, Bihać and Mostar.430 ation of the scientific research also worsened due This division substantially weakened the political to the departure of numerous experts who worked and economic powers of the former larger prov- in the Provincial Museum and other institutions inces. Institutions that previously had close ties in Bosnia and Herzegovina before the First World with provincial governments (e.g. the Provincial War. They either returned to Austria, retired or Museum in Sarajevo) and were dependent on their were transferred to new duties in other parts of funds found themselves in a very challenging sit- Yugoslavia. Of the pre-war archaeological staff in uation. No significant improvements were made the Provincial Museum, only Ćiro Truhelka and with the administrative-territorial reform in 1929, Vejsil Čurčić remained, but they did not stay long, which introduced larger territorial units – banates with Truhelka retiring in 1921 and Čurčić in 1924. ( banovine). The traditional territory of Bosnia and In general, the staff in the 1920s and 1930s was too Herzegovina was divided among four banates: Vr- small and simply did not have enough resources bas (capital Banja Luka), Drina (capital Sarajevo), to match scientific achievements from the Austrian Zeta (capital Cetinje) and Littoral (capital Split). period (Dautbegović J. 1988, 19). Except for the Vrbas Banate, which was entirely in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territory, the other However, despite a rather unfavourable econom-three banates also included a large portion of Ser- ic situation and loss of numerous scholars due bia, Montenegro and Croatia, making the Muslim to the cancellation of posts or their departure population a minority in all four of them. from Bosnia and Herzegovina, a certain level of continuity of research work in the museum was Another considerable change that came with the preserved. Of the new scholars who came to the new Yugoslav state was in the national politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The end of the Aus- trian-Hungarian Empire also ended the policy of 431 In this respect, it is important to note that until 1964 Muslims were not officially treated as an ethnic group, the ‘three-confessional’ nation of Bosnia and Her- only as a confessional. zegovina, with which the Austrians attempted to 432 With the abolition of the former province of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Provincial Museum became subordinated to the Ministry of Education in Belgrade, which 430 Some marginal territories in western Bosnia also be- considerably reduced funding and the number of the longed to the districts of Užice and Cetinje. museum staff to nine people (Periša 2007, 253). 234 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 234 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 museum after 1918, the key person for archaeol- Another scholar who contributed significantly to ogy was Mihovil Mandić (1871–1948), a native of the continuity of archaeology and ancient history the Travnik area, geographer and archaeologist, in the museum was Dimitrije Sergejevski (1886– who had graduated from the University of Vien- 1965), a Russian from St. Petersburg. He came to na. Mandić worked in Sarajevo as a history and Bosnia and Herzegovina after 1918 and, in the geography professor at the Great Gymnasium mid-1920s, worked as a gymnasium professor since 1903 before moving to the museum in 1918 in Sarajevo. Even before 1930 and he attained a to the post of curator for prehistory, where he position at the Provincial Museum, Sergejevski stayed until 1939. In the period between 1937 and was its external associate. His primary expertise 1941, he also served as a Director of the Provin- was in ancient history, art history and epigra-cial Museum. For many years he was actually the phy. However, he was not as involved in field only professional archaeologist at the museum. research as Mandić. His most important preAs such, he had to cover a vast field of archaeolog- war publications present the studies of Roman ical tasks, from excavating prehistoric and Roman inscriptions and monuments in Bosnia and Her-sites and undertaking archaeological surveys to zegovina (Sergejevski 1938; 1940). He continued publishing scientific and popular articles on ar- his career in the Provincial Museum until 1961. chaeology and ancient history. Mandić must un- He also contributed to the archaeology of early doubtedly be credited for preserving a relatively Christianity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. advanced level of work in the period between the two world wars.433 During his career, he directed For a short period of time, three other archae-some ten archaeological excavations, such as on ologists worked in the museum. Jozo Petrović the barrows near Travnik (1924), the Neolithic (1892–1967) graduated in archaeology and an-settlement Kučište near Donja Mahala by Orašje thropology from the University in Vienna, and (1926), prehistoric settlements in Jajce, Donja Do- worked in the Provincial Museum between 1921 lina (1928) and Sanski Most (1929), and the Hrus- and 1926, when he then moved to the National tovača cave near Sanski Most (1939). However, Museum in Belgrade. In 1941, he returned to Sa-these excavations were much smaller compared rajevo and worked as Director of the Provincial to those in the Austrian period. His archaeologi- Museum in Sarajevo until 1942 (later, between cal bibliography between 1919 and 1942 consists 1954 and 1964, he continued his career in the mu-of 14 papers and some ten minor works.434 Among seum as numismatician). Another scholar, who Mandić’s publications, his guide to the Provincial will make a considerable career after the war in Museum’s prehistoric collection (Mandić 1930) is Slovenia, was Josip Korošec, who worked in the one of the most prominent and was rated highly Provincial Museum between 1939 and 1945. He by Paul Reinecke, one of the most distinguished graduated in archaeology from the University of prehistorians in Central Europe (cf. Periša 2007). Belgrade (1936) and obtained his PhD from the Charles University of Prague (1939). His wife, 433 It is only recently that the work of Mihovil Mandić Paola Korošec (1913–2006), was also employed and his contribution to archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been critically assessed and recog- in the museum and stayed there until she and nised. After the Second World War, he was discredit- her husband moved to Slovenia in 1945. She ed as a Croatian nationalist and German collaborator. graduated in art history from the University of For these reasons, he was often ignored or omitted in Belgrade (1938) with a PhD from the University articles presenting activities and history of the Provincial Museum and archaeology in Bosnia and Herzego- of Ljubljana (1968).435 However, Josip and Paola vina. Darko Periša (2007) was the first who reassessed Korošec stayed at the museum for a too short a Mandić’s work and presented the circumstances in which he conducted research, offering a more accu- rate image of this scholar. 435 In 1940, Paola Korošec was the first women archaeolo- 434 For the detailed research bibliography of M. Mandić, gist employed as a museum curator in the whole of the see Periša (2007). former Yugoslavia. 235 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 235 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 time to make any substantial contribution. Their Luka in 1930 (today the Museum of the Republic research capacities were undoubtedly very high, of Srpska). However, this museum was mostly and later they both made excellent careers in focused on ethnography in its early years, with Slovenia, but in Sarajevo they could not do very archaeology introduced only after the Second much during the war. World War. Until 1945, the Provincial Muse- um remained de facto the only public institution It is evident that in the 22 years between the two that carried out archaeological investigations world wars, archaeological work in the Provin- systematically. cial Museum declined considerably. The same can be said for archaeology in all banates in the The Provincial Museum succeeded in securing traditional territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. the continuity of its major publication Glasnik There were no spectacular discoveries as there Zemaljskog muzeja, but the general decline of the had been in the Austrian period, and no interna- institution is visible in the number of published tional projects. Likewise, no new regional or local volumes. Between 1889 and 1918, 30 annual is-institutions were created that would encompass sues of Glasnik were published in 208 volumes, archaeological research and personnel. Except while between 1920 and 1940, there were only 21 for the Franciscan collections in their monaster- annual issues in 41 volumes. This fall illustrates ies, the only museum established in this period the general decline of archaeological activities in was the Museum of the Vrbas Banate in Banja Bosnia and Herzegovina. Fig. 112 Number of archaeological papers in Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja between 1889 and 1940. 236 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 236 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 However, despite the unfavourable conditions The ruling Communist regime was well aware within the Yugoslav Kingdom, the Provincial of the fragile inter-ethnic situation in Bosnia Museum retained its reputation as an impor- and Herzegovina. Being integrated anew, Bos-tant scientific centre in archaeology and created nia and Herzegovina soon started to develop its possibilities for further progress, which again republican infrastructure and institutions, with became evident after 1945. The key factors here a strong emphasis on its multi-ethnic composi-were the long-held tradition and exception- tion and balance. The status of a republic facili-al museum venues, which together prevented tated the intensive process of transforming Bos-some potentially disastrous events, such as the nia and Herzegovina into a more robust politi-new government changing the function of the cal and socio-economic entity. The introduction museum architectural complex, or its parts, for of the Communist ideology and its transforma-other purposes. tive effects were also considerable. They were radically implemented in all domains of public, political and economic life. However, since the The revival of archaeology and return effects were quite similar in all republics, we to fame (1945–1991) will discuss these separately in the chapter on Yugoslav archaeology. During the Second World War, Bosnia and Her- zegovina was included in the quisling Independ- The new Yugoslav Communist regime saw the ent State of Croatia, which did not allow any au- country’s industrialisation as one of its prima-tonomy for Bosnia and Herzegovina and denied ry tasks. Bosnia and Herzegovina, being rich in the national identity of the Muslims, who contin- mining resources, was planned to be one of the ued to be considered as ‘Muslimised’ Croats. On major sites for developing heavy industry.436 Be-the other hand, in Bosnia and Herzegovina the ing a predominantly agricultural country with fiercest battles were fought between the Nation- very modest industrial and urban centres, it then al Liberation Movement led by the Communist started to experience rapid progress. It was esti-leader Josip Broz – Tito, and the Germans, Ital- mated that between 1945 and 1991 the average ians and their local Croatian, Muslim and Serbi- annual economic growth rate was about 5% (Mu-an allies. At the Second Meeting of the Antifas- jkić 2009, 35). The proportion of the non-agrarian cist Council for the National Liberation of Yugo- population also rose sharply in the period from slavia (November 29th 1943 in Jajce), the founda- 1953 to 1981 – from 37.8% to 82.7% – along with tions of the new federal organisation of post-war a general growth of the population in the same Yugoslavia were laid down. Four days earlier, period by about 1,276,000 (an increase of approx-the Provincial Antifascist Council of Bosnia and imately 45% compared to 1953) (Bošnjović 2007, Herzegovina held its meeting in Mrkonjić grad 48, 54, 56). The other trends over this period in- (some 50 km northwest from Jajce), where it was cluded the increased creation of numerous jobs decided that Bosnia and Herzegovina would be reintegrated within its ‘Austrian’ borders in the post-war Yugoslavia. These two meetings 436 In fact, the reasons for this also have to be looked for in the defensive strategy of Yugoslavia in the period confirmed Bosnia and Herzegovina’s reunifica- immediately after the Second World War. Bosnia and tion in the territory, which corresponded to the Herzegovina was the innermost republic that bor- Austrian Province of Bosnia and Herzegovina. dered only on other Yugoslav republics. Being the The first post-war Yugoslav constitution (1946) most distant from all neighbouring countries, which belonged either to the Western or Eastern blocs, with proclaimed Bosnia and Herzegovina as one of which Yugoslavia had very tense relationships until Yugoslavia’s six constituent republics. Howev- the 1960s, Bosnia with its buffered position and rug- er, the Muslims had to wait until late 1960 to be ged terrain protecting it from land invasions, seemed the most secure territory for building major industrial officially recognised as a nation sui generis. infrastructure. 237 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 237 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 in the secondary and tertiary sectors. The public the regional and local levels, the archaeological sector (education, science, health, etc.) also ex- practice and institutions had to be re-established perienced significant growth. In total, the very from scratch. The first wave of new museums dynamic and positive growth trend of numerous was in the period between 1949 and 1956: Tuz-indicators shows that, despite the occasional po- la (1949), Municipal Museum in Sarajevo (1949) litical and economic crises, there was a signifi- Mostar (1950), Travnik (1950), Trebinje (1952) Bi-cant increase in the urban population (by about hać (1953), Visoko (1953), Prijedor (1954), Doboj 2.5 times) and greater general economic well-be- (1956) and Foča (1956). Initially not all of them ing of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovi- had archaeologists, but very soon most of them na. Another detail serves well to illustrate this developed archaeological departments or collec-socio-economic development, which is clearly of tions. By the 1970s, there were fourteen museums relevance for the development of science in gen- altogether in the country directly or indirectly eral – from 1953 to 1981, the percentage of the dealing with archaeology. In addition to those population that obtained high or higher educa- mentioned above, and the two museums from tion increased by more than 14 times, from 0.3 to before 1941, the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo 4.3% (Bošnjović 2007, 57). and the Museum of Bosanska Krajina in Banja Luka (the former Museum of Vrbas Banate, now Sarajevo became the strongest political, econom- the Museum of the Republic of Srpska), new mu-ic and educational centre in the country, in many seums were established in Zenica (1966), Bijeljina aspects fully comparable to other traditionally (1970) and Gradiška (formerly Bosanska Gradiš- strong centres in Yugoslavia, such as Belgrade, ka; 1970). In 1985, a new museum was opened Zagreb and Ljubljana. Such progress was also in Novi Grad (formerly Bosanski Novi). Smaller reflected in archaeology’s advancement, and the institutions were called ‘collections’, usually part Provincial Museum in Sarajevo started to regain of public libraries or local cultural centres (e.g. in its former importance and role. Within less than Srebrenica, Zvornik, and Gračanica in 1976). In two decades, the number of archaeologists in the addition to this, several museums or collections Provincial Museum increased significantly, de- specialised in ethnography and national libera-spite some of the pre-war scholars’ departure.437 tion history were also formed. In the period between 1956 and 1960, nine new archaeologists were employed.438 According to Yugoslav legislation, Bosnia and Herzegovina established its own Institute for Also essential was the process of establishing mu- the Protection of Cultural Monuments in 1949 seums at both regional and local levels. For more in Sarajevo (Bauer 1974). In 1953, this institute than 60 years, until the late 1940s, the Provincial launched the journal Godišnjak Zavoda za zaštitu Museum in Sarajevo was the only public archaeo- spomenika kulture Bosne i Hercegovine. Until the logical institution in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At mid-1970s, the institute, with its branch in Mostar, covered the whole country. In 1976 a Re- 437 For example, J. and P. Korošec moved to Slovenia in gional Institute was established in Banja Luka, 1945, while M. Mandić was suspended and died soon and approximately at the same time the Mostar after; the only archaeologist who remained in the mu- branch changed its status into a regional insti-seum was D. Sergejevski. tute. The city of Sarajevo formed its Municipal 438 Irma Čremošnik (1946), Alojz Benac (1947), Nada Mi- Institute for the Protection of Cultural-historical letić (1950), Ružica Drechsler Bižić (1950–1952), Borivoj Čović (1953), Veljko Paškvalin (1954), Pavao Anđelić Heritage in 1965. In 1983 Regional Institute for 1956), Zdravko Marić (1957) and Djuro Basler (1960). In the Protection and Exploitation of Cultural-His-medieval archaeology, the historian Marko Vego (1950) torical and Natural Heritage ( Zavod za zaštitu i was also active, while Jozo Petrović, the former Director of the museum during the war, also returned to the korišćenje kulturno-historijskog i prirodnog nasli-post of a curator for numismatics (1954). jeđa) was also established in Tuzla. 238 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 238 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 The institutional infrastructure of archaeology in focused primarily on the ‘Palaeobalkan’ peoples Bosnia and Herzegovina was completed in the (i.e. prehistoric archaeology), with Roman and 1960s with the establishment of new academic medieval archaeology being secondary. The cen-institutions. Until that time, the Provincial Mu- tre also took over the publication of the journal seum also acted as the national academic (re- Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja. Its first search) archaeological centre. The first national issue appeared as early as 1954 as a publication scholarly society after the Second World War – of the Balkan Institute. This journal, and the peri-the Scientific Society of Bosnia and Herzegovi- odical of the Provincial Museum, Glasnik Zemal-na – was founded in 1951 ( Spomenica 2011) and jskog muzeja, which already had a long tradition, acted as a basis for the future national academy. represented two prominent archaeological peri-D. Sergejevski was among its first fifteen mem- odicals from Bosnia and Herzegovina and scien-bers. At the time, the Scientific Society of Bosnia tific points of reference which were recognised and Herzegovina could not gain the status of an internationally. Initially, the centre did not em-academy such as existed in the other republics ploy new associates, but its members worked in due to some specific legislative issues. In 1954, various institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina the Scientific Society founded the Balkan Insti- and other Yugoslav republics.439 tute. The mission was to carry out “research on the early Balkan ethnic and language groups, and According to Benac, the main research goal was their mutual relations and influences” ( Spomeni- “to identify all historical factors that affected the ca 2011, 17). The Balkan Institute then launched development of the early Balkan peoples and its journal Godišnjak. However, after a few years, their integration into the later ethnic and nation-the institute was disbanded because of the lack al frames in this part of the Balkans” (Forić 2013, of staff ( Spomenica 2011, 19), and was replaced in 9). The first projects of the centre were highly 1963 by the Centre for Balkanological Research. ambitious, such as the creation of a comprehensive collection of ancient sources on the Illyrians Later on, in 1966, this centre was integrated into and their contemporaries; a complete collection the newly established Academy of Sciences and of epigraphic monuments relevant for expand-Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ANU BIH). The ing the knowledge on the early Balkan peoples; key person in the foundation of this centre was an exhaustive bibliography of scientific works Alojz Benac, who also became its Director (1966– presenting studies of the early Balkan peoples; 1984), and proved to be the crucial figure in the a systematic collection of archaeological mate-post-war development of archaeology not only rials necessary for determining boundaries be-in Bosnia and Herzegovina but the entire Yugo- tween the territories occupied by these peoples; slavia. His scholarly and managerial endeavours a systematic collection of later historical sources made Sarajevo again one of the major archaeo- on these issues; and the formation of a thematic logical centres in the whole of Yugoslavia. Benac, library (Forić 2013, 9). with his associates, also devised the interdisci- plinary programme of the Centre for Balkano- The centre was not conceived as an exclusively logical Research (Forić 2013, 9) – archaeology, Bosnian-Herzegovinian institution. Experts from ethnology, history, linguistics – and intended to Croatia (Duje Rendić-Miočević, Mate Suić, Rado-attract top researchers from all over Yugoslavia, slav Katičić), Serbia (Milutin Garašanin, Franjo as well as to undertake major research projects at Barišić), and Slovenia (Stane Gabrovec) took part the national level. Even though the centre’s sci- in its establishment and they, along with their entific programme was very broad, archaeology was among the main research fields. Following some traditional concepts in balkanology, Benac 439 The first full-time archaeological position in the Centre was opened in 1973, when Blagoje Govedarica was proposed an archaeological programme that employed. 239 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 239 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 colleagues from Sarajevo (Borivoje Čović, Dim- archaeology, all professional archaeologists who itrije Sergejevski, Esad Pašalić) became its first worked in Bosnia and Herzegovina must have members. Thanks to the very intensive publish- graduated from universities in the neighbouring ing and several important scientific symposia, in republics (mostly in Belgrade and Zagreb, less a relatively short time the centre became one of frequently in Zadar or Ljubljana). the most recognised Yugoslav archaeological in- stitutions in Europe, whilst Sarajevo grew into One should also not ignore the role of the Provin-one of the leaders of research in the prehistory of cial Museum in the academic domain. If Benac’s southeastern Europe.440 The culmination of the Centre for Balkanological Research took over centre’s success and Alojz Benac’ endeavours the leading position in prehistoric archaeology, was the publication of Praistorija jugoslovenskih the museum’s experts contributed necessary re-zemalja (PJZ, Prehistory of Yugoslav Countries), search about all archaeological periods. The peak which was released in five massive volumes be- of its activity was towards the end of the 1980s tween 1979 and 1987. when it had some 15 archaeologists amongst the staff – the number corresponding to the total In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the first university number of archaeologists employed in all of the was established in Sarajevo in 1949 by joining other regional and local museums and regional several already existing faculties – the Faculty offices of the heritage protection service.443 of Agriculture and Forestry (1940), Faculty of Medicine (1944), Faculty of Law, High School In the years before the break-up of Yugoslavia, the for Teachers, Institute of Biology (all established Provincial Museum, after more than three decin 1946), and the Technical Faculty (1949).441 The ades of work, completed a large project entitled Faculty of Philosophy was established in 1950, the ‘Archaeological Lexicon of Bosnia and Herze-and the history curriculum was launched in the govina’ ( Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine),444 same year. The Chair in Archaeology was created whose editor was B. Čović. The lexicon was comin 1957 through the appointment of Alojz Benac posed of seven volumes and contained data on as the professor.442 The Chair was primarily in- more than 7,000 archaeological sites and brief tended as a supplement to history studies and syntheses of specific archaeological periods. The not for graduating in archaeology. A look at the preparation of the lexicon was extremely complex archaeology syllabus reveals that ancient history and demanded input from a large number of ar-prevailed, that is, historical-synthetic overviews chaeologists across the entire country. At the time of the development of cultures and peoples in lat- of its publication, the only similar gazetteer had er prehistory. There was no teaching of archae- been published in Slovenia, with some 3,000 sites ological analytical methods, fieldwork methods ( Arheološka najdišča Slovenije, 1975).445 and the like, or earlier prehistory. Since the Uni- versity of Sarajevo did not educate graduates in To complete the chapter on Bosnia and Herzegovina in the ‘second Yugoslav period’ (1945–1991), 440 By 1992 the Centre had published 50 publications (27 it is also necessary to present some significant issues of Godišnjak, 7 monographs, 14 proceedings from scientific meetings and one compilation of bibliogra- 443 When all of the archaeological institutions in Bosnia phy on the Illyrians (see Bibliography in the Pedeset and Herzegovina in the 1980s are considered, two- godina CBI ANU BIH 2013). thirds of all archaeologists in the country were em- 441 Prior to that period, during Austrian rule, only three ployed in Sarajevo. higher educational institutions were established, the 444 Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, Zemaljski muzej Catholic Theology School (1890), Orthodox Theology Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo 1988. School (1892) and Shariat Law School (1887). 445 In Serbia, there were two earlier publications (M. Graša- 442 Besides A. Benac, teaching positions at the Department nin, D. Garašanin 1951; 1953) but much less exhaustive of Archaeology were also held by B. Čović (from 1973) and informative than the Slovene and Bosnian-Herze- and Enver Imamović (from 1976). govinian gazetteers. 240 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 240 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 scholars. Without doubt, it is the figure of Alo- started with some important works – the publi-jz Benac (1914–1992) who stands out the most. cation of his PhD dissertation (Benac 1952) based His professional biography (1946–1992) not only on his excavation at the sites of Mujevina and corresponds perfectly to this period but can also Nebo (1947–1949) and two catalogues of Glasinac be considered as a ‘condensed’ recent history of finds co-authored with B. Čović (Benac and Čović archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in a 1956; 1957). In the following years, he launched certain sense, also Yugoslavia. In fact, he made a several excavation campaigns, including the ex-great deal of this history. He was born in Bosnia cavations of almost all major Neolithic and Ene-and Herzegovina in the area of Derventa. In the olithic sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Obre I, early 1930s, he studied at the Franciscan Gymna- Obre II, Kakanj, Lisičići, Arnautovići, Zecovi near sium in Visoko. One of his professors was Kruno- Prijedor, Zelena pećina, Hrustovača cave, Pivnice slav Misilo, a Franciscan priest from Bosnia and near Odžak, and others) and Montenegro (Crve-Herzegovina, who graduated in archaeology in na Stijena).447 In a decade or so, he achieved the the 1930s from the University of Belgrade (Periša status of one of the most influential prehistorians 2017, 237). Very probably, Benac, following the in the former Yugoslavia and became a principal advice of Misilo, decided to study archaeology driver of archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina. in Belgrade with M. Vasić, who at that time con- Benac was able to set very high standards of reducted extensive excavations at Vinča (Periša search, which only increased after his transfer to 2017, 248–249).446 During his studies in Belgrade the University of Sarajevo and Bosnian-Herzego-Benac had a small grant from the Franciscan vinian Academy of Arts and Sciences, where he Mission in the city, which he repaid with occa- took the directorship of the Centre for Balkano-sional help in Misilo’s parish in Kraljevo, central logical Research. His vast bibliography (Škegro Serbia. Benac graduated in 1937. His first jobs 1991) includes more than 190 works (22 mono-were in the Gymnasium in Vranje, southern Ser- graphs, 81 articles and 32 published papers from bia (1939–1940), and then in the Gymnasium in different symposia in Yugoslavia and abroad). Mostar (1940–1943). During the war, he was first Almost surprisingly, no excavations he directed mobilised into the Independent State of Croatia’s were left unpublished. His career in Bosnia and army, but in 1943 joined the National Liberation Herzegovina is intertwined with his work on the Movement with whom he had secretly collabo- development of archaeology on an all-Yugoslav rated since 1941. In 1947 he became a curator for level where, together with J. Korošec, M. Ga-prehistory in the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo, rašananin, M. Suić, D. Rendić-Miočević, he be-where he remained until 1967 when he moved to came one of the most influential archaeologists the University of Sarajevo and Academy (Centre from the 1950s onwards.448 He was engaged in all for Balkanological Research). Benac received his PhD at the University of Ljubljana in 1951. He 447 For a complete bibliography of A. Benac for the period was a guest professor at the University of Zadar, 1948 to 1975, see Škegro (1991). Croatia (1962–1965) and the University of Mün- 448 Gabrovec (1992, 205–206), in his obituary to A. Benac, ster, Germany. considered him “undisputedly the leading figure in the Yu- goslav archaeology” and described him “the only one who knew how to gather collaborators from culturally different Since the beginning of his professional career, backgrounds, from different scholarly traditions, schools, two topics prevailed in his work – the Balkan with different interests, desires and methods, to enthusiasti- Neolithic and Illyrians. Already in the 1950s, he cally work for common plans. If, after the collapse of Yugosla- via, we will speak about archaeology in this area in the posi- tive sense, then this is the merit of Benac.” [Benac] entered in 446 Misilo graduated in archaeology in 1934 from the Uni- [Yugoslav archaeology] already at the first conference of the versity of Belgrade. Another archaeologist who stud- Yugoslav Archaeologists in Niška Banja in 1950. Who from ied in high school with Misilo was Pavao Anđelić, who the few still living participants of this meeting would not re- later worked in the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo member his sovereign appearance, which has immediately se- (Periša 2017, 247). cured him the presidency of the society.” (translation P. N.) . 241 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 241 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 major projects coordinated at the federal level, archaeological publications in Yugoslavia.450 In such as the organisation of the VIIIth UISPP Con- this symposium, Benac presented his program-gress in Belgrade in 1971, inter-academia projects matic paper on the archaeological study of Illy-of site gazetteers, and the presentation of Yugo- rians’ ethnogenesis titled Pre-Illyrians, Proto-Il-slav archaeology in foreign countries. lyrians and Pre-Illyrians (Benac 1964), which de- spite some criticism and differing opinions, soon However, Benac’s real tour de force was to come gained the status of a ‘steering’ paper of illyriol-after his move to the Centre of Balkanological ogy. The symposium was by all measures a great Research, where he conceived his major long- success, especially in putting the Illyrians on top term project, ‘illyriology’ (Illyrian studies). Fol- of the agenda of Yugoslav archaeology. lowing the general concept of Balkanology – he considered Illyrian studies inevitable part of Two years later followed the second symposium this – he developed the concept of an interdis- in Sarajevo. This time it was dedicated to the Il-ciplinary approach combining archaeology, an- lyrians in the ancient period ( Simpozijum 1967). cient history, ethnography, anthropology, phi- It was organised similarly to the previous one, lology and historical geography. The principal with nine keynote papers and discussion panels aim was to study the Illyrians’ ethnogenesis at the end of each day.451 Again, all the papers and their culture in the broadest possible sense, were translated into foreign languages. Both dis-not without references to the modern popula- cussion panels were also very lively, and were tions living in the Balkans. Benac considered a continuation of the discussion from 1964 and the Illyrians the most critical ‘palaeobalkan’ its unresolved problems. Illyrians were simply people and their research the pivotal topic of much more than just an archaeological or aca-the newly established Centre for Balkanologi- demic question.452 Discussions from both sym-cal Research. For the promotion of his illyriolo- posia are highly valuable evidence of Yugoslav gy project, the most significant role played the archaeology’s ‘state of the art’ at this time. De-three ‘Illyrian’ symposia, which he organised spite the discussants’ contradictory views, no in 1964, 1966 and 1968. one questioned the relevance and priority of eth- nogenetic studies in the research agenda. How- The first one was the symposium on Illyrians’ ever, this being said, the participants also agreed territorial and chronological delimitation in the prehistoric period ( Simpozijum 1964 ). His ambi- 450 In the discussion participated the archaeologists and tion to engage the principal scholars from Yugo-ancient historians Duje Rendić-Miočević, Mate Suić, slavia in a broader European debate on Illyrians Nikola Tasić, Draga Garašanin, Vojislav Trbuhović, is also visible in the fact that proceedings were Esad Pašalić, France Stare, but also the linguists and specialist for classical and early Indo-European lan- published bilingually, in Serbo-Croatian, and guages, Idris Ajeti, albanologist from the Universi- translated into German and French. The papers ty of Prishtina, Ivan Pudić, (University of Sarajevo), were not many, only six, but they were extensive Milan Budimir (University of Belgrade), and Mihajlo Petruševski (University of Skopje). key-note lectures given by all leading authorities 451 The keynote speakers were Fanula Papazoglu, ancient in the Bronze and Iron Ages in Yugoslavia,449 history from the University of Belgrade, M. Suić, Ivi- aimed at spurring the final discussion, which ca Degmedžić (Archaeological Museum Zagreb), E. was also published (32 pages), a novelty in the Pašalić, D. Rendić-Miočević, and two foreign schol- ars, Giacomo Devoto, Italian philologist from Florence, and András Mócsy, an expert in ancient history from Budapest. 449 M. Garašanin from Belgrade, S. Gabrovec from Ljublja- 452 More will be said on the political aspects of Illyrians in na, B. Čović, A. Benac and Z. Marić from Sarajevo, and the chapter on ‘Yugoslav’ archaeology. For more de- R. Katičić, an expert in old Balkan languages from Za- tailed analyses of both symposia and Benac’s ideas on greb, between 1977 and 1988 professor at the Universi- the Illyrian’s ethnogenesis and the concept of Illyrian ty of Vienna. studies, see in Kaljanac 2014, 125–177). 242 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 242 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 that they disagreed about some key problems on Illyrians’ spiritual culture in 1982 in Herceg with conceptual apparatus and categories in eth- Novi, Montenegro ( Simpozijum 1984). In this pe-nogenetic studies, and what constituted the Illy- riod, he continued publishing influential texts on rians in the first place. Illyrians’ ethnogenesis (e.g. Benac 1973b; 1977), which made him the top ‘illyriologist’ who dic- The first round of the ‘Illyrian’ symposia was tated the direction of the field in the wider Bal-concluded in 1968 with the symposium in Mo- kan region.454 Concerning his influence, one star dedicated to the pre-Slavic ethnic elements could hardly escape the feeling that Benac’s Il-in the Balkans and South Slavs’ ethnogenesis lyrian symposia and his extensive publishing on ( Simpozijum 1969). The symposium’s very title Illyrians also influenced the First Colloquium explicitly reveals the importance of the Illyrians on Illyrian Studies in Tirana, Albania, in 1972. and the debate about their continuity in histor- Judging from the proceedings ( Illiria 1976), this ical periods. Indeed, continuity was the critical meeting was quite international with partici-issue around which contrasting opinions were pants from Italy, France, the UK, (West) Ger-raised in the discussion, especially concerning many, Bulgaria, Romania, and Yugoslavia. The modern Albanians’ ethnogenesis. In Albania, Yugoslavs – A. Benac (Bosnia and Herzegovina), the Illyrians were officially canonised as more M. Garašanin, D, Garašanin (Serbia), M. Suić, D. or less direct ancestors of Albanians.453 Although Rendi-Miočević (Croatia), Ali Hadri, Zef Mirdita Benac did not give a paper this time, he contrib- (Kosovo) – were not by chance the second larg-uted concluding remarks and participated in the est group, after the Albanians. In a sense, there discussion, stating that all three symposia had to was too much at stake to leave Illyriology to the be seen as one major discussion on the Illyrians, ‘troublesome neighbours.’ a topic central to Yugoslav archaeology. Benac continued the ‘illyriology’ project in the Gabrovec (1992, 205) praised Benac for his ‘or- 1980s, but another great project started to occu-ganisational genius’. He considered the Illyrian py him from the mid-1970s onwards – the syn-symposia’s most significant achievement was thesis of Yugoslavia’s prehistory. The idea for that the Yugoslav scholars took the leading role such a synthesis was born following the success-in researching the Illyrians, a research domain ful presentation of Yugoslav archaeology at the previously led by foreign researchers. The sym- 8th Congress of the UISPP in Belgrade in 1971. posia, especially the first two, had quite a con- Benac was not just its most eager advocate, being siderable echo within (central) European archae- an undisputed academic authority in Bosnia and ology and catalysed numerous studies on the Herzegovina and a high-ranked member of the Illyrians in Yugoslav archaeology. Communist Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina he was also able to secure the necessary funds Benac organised another two Illyrian symposia and logistics for a project of such magnitude. in the 1970s, in 1974 in Mostar on fortified Illyr- The synthesis was published in five volumes be-ian settlements (Benac 1985), and a symposium tween 1979 and 1987. It contains more than 3500 pages of texts, along with some 450 tables of finds 453 In Yugoslavia, the debate on the Illyrian ancestry of Al- and maps. According to many archaeologists’ banians was closely connected with Kosovo, with its large Albanian population. This debate was not con- 454 Benac was also well respected in Albania, where, due fined to the archaeological circles, but was also present to very tense political relationships with Yugoslavia in a much wider audience. It was the related political archaeologists from the latter were rarely published. and ideological questions and agendas which dictat- Benac in 1972 published three papers (1972a; 1972b; ed the pace and content of this debate. The principal 1972c) on the ethnogenesis of Illyrians. He also main- archaeologists dealing with the Illyrians attempted, in tained good contacts with Muzafer Korkuti, the lead- general, to keep the debate within the frame of scientif- ing Albanian prehistorian, who followed Benac’s eth- ic discussion. nogenetic ideas about Illyrians. 243 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 243 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 opinions in Yugoslavia, Benac was the only per- form and content of prehistoric archaeology in son capable of putting forward such an enter- Bosnia and Herzegovina. One could say they prise – an “excellent architect of fruitful community were complementary to each other. Benac, in in its differences”, as Gabrovec (1992, 206) put it.455 his earlier career, took over the Neolithic period while Čović the Bronze and Iron Ages. Čović’s It is also worth noting the contribution of some major excavations included mostly hillfort sites other scholars in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the (e.g. Velika Gradina near Varvara, Pod near first place, there was Borivoj Čović (1927–1995), Bugojno, Trostruka Gradina) and barrows in an archaeologist of a similar profile to Benac, Glasinac. Together with Benac, he developed a with whom he closely collaborated. He gradu- chronology of the Glasinac cemeteries (Benac ated in archaeology from Belgrade University in and Čović 1957; 1959), and, being a member of 1954 and received his PhD from the same uni- the Centre for Balkanological Research, he was versity in 1965. In 1957 he became a prehistory also very much engaged in Illyrian studies (e.g. curator at the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo, Čović 1976). where he remained until his retirement in 1992. From 1973 onwards, he was also a professor at Benac and Čović were, by far, the most renowned the University of Sarajevo. He succeeded Benac and internationally recognised Bosnian-Herin the position of Director of the Centre for Bal- zegovinian scholars, but the credit for the out-kanological Research in 1989. standing development of post-war archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina should also go to Čović was, primarily, an expert on the Bronze some other scholars of the first post-war gener-and Iron Ages, and in the course of his career ation, such as Zdravko Marić, Đuro Basler, D. he published key studies on these two periods Sergejevski and Ivo Bojanovski, Veljko Paškva-in the western Balkans (e.g. Čović 1964; 1976; lin, Nada Miletić, Irma Čremošnik, and Pavao 1983a, 1983b; 1986; 1987a, 1987b). Another high- Anđelić, whose achievements may not have res-light of his career was the publication of seven onated so much on the international scene, but volumes of the ‘ Archaeological Lexicon of Bosnia proved essential for the long-term development and Herzegovina ’ ( Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Her- of archaeology and the capacities of archaeolog-cegovine) in 1988. As the Director of the Provin- ical institutions. cial Museum, he coordinated the preparation of this work. Čović’s great scientific achievements An important contribution to the ‘Illyrian’ school gained him membership of multiple domestic from Sarajevo was also made by Zdravko Marić and international scientific organisations, such (1930–2006). He was a Croat who graduated in as the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia archaeology from the University of Ljubljana in and Herzegovina, and German Archaeological 1957, and obtained a PhD from the same in 1965. Society. Together, Čović and Benac shaped the He worked in the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo between 1957 and 1981 when he became the 455 For his scientific achievements, A. Benac was award- Director of the Museum of Slavonia in Osijek, ed membership of several national and international scholarly societies, e.g. the Permanent Committee of Croatia. In 1959 he made his specialisation at the the UISPP, member of all national academies in Yugo- University of Vienna, mentored by Richard Pit-slavia, member of the German Archaeological Institute, tioni. His primary research projects included the and the Italian Society for Pre- and Protohistory, to list sites at Donja Dolina and Vis near Modran. He a few. In Yugoslavia, he was decorated with some of the highest orders and awards, such as the AVNOJ also directed two American-Yugoslav preven-Award (1976) and Order for Merits for Nation with tive archaeological projects in 1967–1968 during Golden Star (1970), and in Italy the Al merito della Re- the artificial lake construction near Trebinje. His pubblica Italiana (1979). He was also a member of the Assembly (Parliament) of the Socialist Republic of Bos- numerous campaigns at Ošanići between 1963 nia and Herzegovina. and 1981 brought important information on this 244 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 244 22. 10. 2021 11:05:55 ‘capital’ of (Illyrian) Daorsi princedom in the and test excavations in the late 1950s and 1960s Late Iron Age.456 Concerning the ‘Illyrian’ de- in northern Bosnia, there were no known Palae-bate, Marić contributed some interesting alter- olithic sites in this country. In 1963 Basler pub-natives to Benac’s leading theory (Marić 1964). lished the first overview of the Palaeolithic peri- od in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which included Ivo Bojanovski (1915–1993) stands out in the do- data from 14 Mousterian and Aurignacian sites. main of Roman archaeology. He graduated from In 1979, within the frame of the Praistorija jugo-classical philology, archaeology and ancient his- slavenskih zemalja, he contributed his next syn-tory at the University of Zagreb, where he also thesis on the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Bos-received his PhD in 1971. He moved to Saraje- nia and Herzegovina (Basler 1979). Basler’s next vo in 1954 to accept the post of professor at the field of interest was late Roman/Early Cristian Gymnasium. In 1960 he moved to the Institute and medieval archaeology. He also left high-for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Bos- ly respected works on architecture (e.g. Basler nia and Herzegovina, where he stayed until his 1972; Arhitektura kasnoantičkog doba u Bosni i Her-retirement in 1980. The nature of his professional cegovini, Sarajevo 1972). work required research and restoration works of numerous sites rather than academic research. The high reputation of archaeological research However, his principal legacy is represented and practice, and the sites of international sig-by two extremely influential monographs, on nificance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which the Roman roads in Bosnia and Herzegovina many had been known from the time of Austri- (Bojanovski 1974) and a synthesis of the Roman an rule, were also progressively recognised by period of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bojanovski the international archaeological community that, 1988). Both monographs revealed Bojanovski as from the mid-1960s, increased its presence in one of the leading authorities on Roman topog- Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country’s archae-raphy, history and administrative organisation ological potential was particularly attractive to of the Roman provinces, and the western Bal- American institutions. In the period 1967–1969, kans’ epigraphy. joint investigations of the Neolithic sites in Obre were conducted with the archaeological team Đuro Basler (1917–1990) also deserves a few from the UCLA, California, led by Maria Gim-words for some of his pioneering works. He butas. A project in preventive archaeology was graduated from archaeology at the University of carried out together with the Smithsonian Insti-Zagreb in 1956, and received his PhD in 1981 at tution and Stanford University in 1967–1968.457 the Faculty of Philosophy, Zadar. Between 1950 Between 1986 and 1988, the University of Mich-and 1960, Basler worked at the Institute for the igan and the Provincial Museum had a joint Protection of Cultural Monuments of Bosnia and project at the Palaeolithic site of Badanj. French Herzegovina in Sarajevo. In 1960, he moved to the Provincial Museum, where he stayed until 457 The American team leader was Wayne S. Vucinich his retirement in 1983. His most important and (1913–2005), born in the USA in an immigrant fam- pioneering contribution to archaeology in Bosnia ily from Bosnia and Herzegovina. He graduated and did his PhD at the University of California, Berkley, in and Herzegovina was in the field of Palaeolithic 1941. During his career at the University of Stanford, studies, which he commenced after moving to where he worked until 1981, Vucinich gained a repu- the museum. Before his topographic campaigns tation as a father of Eastern European Studies in the USA. Vucinich was quite familiar with the region of Bileća, where archaeologists faced the ‘Asuan prob- 456 Less known is the fact that Marić also directed interdis- lem’ during the construction of the artificial lake. At a ciplinary research (1964–1965) on the mass execution very young age, after his parents’ death, his uncle took fields of Jasenovac, the largest Second World War con- him and his siblings to the village near Bileća, where he centration camp in Yugoslavia (Dautović and Lalević lived in a very traditional peasant family. At the age of 2008). 15, he went back to the USA. (Trei, 2005). 245 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 245 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 archaeological schools also showed interest in and ornaments for distinguishing regional Palaeolithic studies, so a joint project was real- groups (i.e. cultures); detailed chronological ised in the early 1990s on Palaeolithic art with analysis; ‘historical’ interpretation of social the Musee d’Homme in Paris and the Institute processes; intercultural comparisons, etc.). The for Quaternary Archaeology in Bordeaux. There archaeology of the Roman provinces also had were also numerous individual visits of foreign a long tradition of using the research results of scholars, especially since the late 1960s when epigraphy, numismatics, architectural analysis, Yugoslavia introduced a very liberal travelling and historical sources, which facilitated under-regime for foreigners. standing of the main processes and structures of the Roman period. All these lines of evidence With regard to its conceptual development, ar- were also crucial for studying the critical issues chaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina was well of the ethnic structure of Bosnia, and the west-integrated with other national archaeological ern Balkans in general, in Roman times. Slavic schools in former Yugoslavia. The fundamental archaeology, which developed gradually after approach in the second half of the 20th centu- the Second World War, pursued the general ry was cultural history. Within this framework, Yugoslav trends of development in this field, prehistoric archaeology in Bosnia and Herzego- similar to in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia. vina became focused on the study of the Illyri- ans and their ethnogenesis. Already at the first However, in the medieval studies in Bosnia and post-war archaeological meeting in Niška Banja Herzegovina, archaeology of the Ottoman pe-in 1950 (Korošec 1950), this topic was placed at riod was very much absent as a special subject, the top of the Yugoslav archaeological agenda. although it could have been one of the strengths The ‘Illyrian question’ has a very long history in of archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina Yugoslavia’s archaeology, particularly in Bos- compared to other areas of research. Strange-nia and Herzegovina, where it is still important ly enough, in the academic domain in general, today. This is reflected in the long existence of studies of the history, languages and culture of the term illyrology, which was also the title of the Ottoman period were common. Still, in ar-master’s studies at the University of Sarajevo. chaeology work on the Ottomans was largely As we have shown, Benac formulated its main limited to preventive archaeology and conser-conceptual framework and, to no small degree, vation of the Ottoman heritage, e.g. religious put illyriology into practice in research.458 and profane architecture, small objects, and art. Why was this so? There are probably many rea- In other domains, archaeology in Bosnia and sons. Some may have had an ideological back-Herzegovina followed the general trends that ground, others not. As we have seen, medieval developed in continental Europe. The study of archaeology was already relatively well devel-the Neolithic period was considered part of the oped in the Austrian period, but focused more regional research on the Neolithic in southeast- on the pre-Ottoman era (e.g. stećaks, medieval ern Europe and, for interpretation, it relied on a churches and monasteries, palaces and castles standard set of tools (i.e. theories of migration of the medieval Bosnian kings and princes). for explaining Neolithisation; forms of pottery Such a focus of archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina largely continued after 1918, with his- tory and art history remaining the traditional 458 A detailed presentation and discussion of A. Benac’s Illyrian project are beyond this work’s scope and are, disciplines for researching the Ottoman culture. therefore, not included here. Instead, the PhD thesis of Archaeology was left somewhat marginalised Adnan Kaljanc (2012) is suggested as a reference, more in this field and never developed its own ‘Ot-specifically chapter 1.2, in which he comments on eth- nogenetic studies in Yugoslavian and Bosnian-Herze- toman’ specialisation. However, this situation govinian archaeology. was not only found in archaeology in Bosnia 246 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 246 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 and Herzegovina, but also be seen in North legally regulated status, and other essential Macedonia and Serbia. resources. Since I do not intend to discuss the broader political consequences, implications This also contributed to the traditional under- and views with regard to today’s state of Bos-standing of the chronological delineation be- nia and Herzegovina, my attention is directed tween archaeology and history. The period of towards the aspects that had, or still have, sig-the final stabilisation of Slavic settlement was nificant influence on archaeology and its prac-considered the final period studied by archae- tice. Without going into detailed explanations, ology. Later periods were mostly considered one general observation is evident, that in the historical or mixed historical-archaeological period from 1991 to 2005 the archaeological dis-research problems, where archaeology was fre- cipline, its practice and profession experienced quently treated as an ‘auxiliary’ discipline. It an almost catastrophic plummet in virtually all is only over the last two decades that the High fields of activity. In recent years, some progress Middle Ages’ archaeology has advanced rap- has been made thanks to which the situation idly. This, undoubtedly, had some bearing on has improved somewhat. The damage inflict-Ottoman archaeology’s delayed appearance as ed upon the cultural heritage was described a specialised field of archaeology, which even in several other places to which we refer the until today has not put down roots in all the readers.459 During the war, most archaeologi-countries of the Balkans. At this point, a discus- cal institutions stopped functioning or reduced sion about the possible political aspects of this their work to a few elementary activities. Many issue could also be opened. The Muslim nation experts left their positions because their insti- (as the chief heir of the Ottoman culture in the tutions stopped working, or they themselves region) was recognised as a constituent Yugo- quit. No one expected that scientific or cultur-slav nation in the late 1960s, when it also inten- al activities could be organised during the war sified developing their own (Muslim/Bosniak) (1992–1996), but this ‘hiatus’, in the case of ar-cultural institutions. chaeology, continued for a decade or so in the post-war period. Archaeology in the conditions of post- The war formally ended when the Dayton war renewal (2000–) Peace Agreement was signed in November 1995, which largely decentralised the country Of all the states directly and indirectly involved and almost completely removed any central in the wars during the dissolution of Yugosla- government structure in Bosnia and Herzegovia, Bosnia and Herzegovina suffered the most vina, except for the institutions responsible for significant damage in all respects. Concerning foreign affairs, defence, military and general fi-cultural heritage alone, thousands of cultural nancial affairs. Culture, education, science and and historical monuments (mainly of religious nature) were deliberately destroyed. Some of the institutions pivotal for the development 459 Ratno razaranje kulturnog nasljeđa u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini presented by the Committee for Culture and of science and culture were significantly dam- Education. Informativni izvještaj, report by Mr Jacques aged, such as the National and University Li- Baumel, France, RPR, Doc 6756, 2 February 1993; Izvještaj brary in the Sarajevo City Hall, which lost more o stanju arhitektonskog i arheološkog nasljeđa. Radni doku- than two million books and archive records! For ment. Regionalni program kulturnog i prirodnog nasl- jeđa za Jugoistočnu Evropu. Plan projekta integrisane archaeology, the most significant damage was rehabilitacije/Procjena arhitektonskog i arheološkog the collapse of the discipline’s whole infrastruc- nasljeđa (IRPP/SAAH) (web page of the Commission ture and public service. Many organisations of BaH for the Protection of the National Monuments: http://kons.gov.ba/main.php?mod=vijesti&extra were left without personnel, financial support, =aktuelnost&action=view&id_vijesti=667&lang=1). 247 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 247 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 similar domains were moved under the juris- – over one million land mines that were placed diction of ethnically based entities (Federation all over Bosnia and Herzegovina.460 of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska), or even cantonal administrations. The archaeological profession’s reconstruction This kind of division and fragmentation (see is still constrained by the limited funds and ad-the historical overview at the beginning of this ministrative fragmentation of the country. It is chapter) had direct consequences for most pub- evident that it will take some time before archae-lic services in culture, science and education, ological practice reaches the level at which it was including professional archaeology. The pre- in the 1980s in terms of the number of profes-viously strong centres, such as the Provincial sional personnel, funds and quality of profes-Museum, research centres at the Academy of sional work. However, one thing is almost cer-Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, tain – even after its full recovery, archaeology in and the Republic Institute for the Protection of Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be the same as Cultural Heritage, had to limit their ‘jurisdic- archaeology before the 1990s. The state’s struction’ to administrative units around Sarajevo ture has changed radically, and this inevitably and were reduced to entity-level institutions. affects how archaeology is organised and insti-In some cases, their status (and thus the source tutionalised; it influences its research agendas of funding) has not yet been determined. This and its status in public. It is fair to say that, as in remains the subject of sharp political debates in many cultural and social domains in Bosnia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (e.g. with regard to the Herzegovina, we are also witnessing the disin-Provincial Museum). tegrating trends and formation of two ‘national’ archaeologies, or national disciplinary frame- Another circumstance which was detrimental works which correspond to the two principal for archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina entities in the country. relates to the archaeologists themselves. The generation of pioneers and leading experts that With the creation of national entities (the Feder-worked in the period between 1945 and 1990, ation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Repub-such as A. Benac, B. Čović, Z. Marić, D. Basler, lic of Srpska), Sarajevo de facto stopped being the V. Paškvalin, and N. Miletić, died or retired in country’s common political, economic, cultural the early 1990s. Further, some key scholars from and scientific centre. The Republic of Srpska in-the Centre for Balkanological Research, Provin- troduced a highly centralised type of governing cial Museum and Institute for the Protection whereas in the Federation of Bosnia and Herze-of Cultural Heritage continued their careers govina ten relatively autonomous regional units in other countries (e.g. Blagoje Govedarica, (cantons) were established. The cantonal author-Brunislav Marijanović, Boško Marijan, Zdenko ities were given relatively wide-ranging powers Žeravica). In regional and local institutions (for in culture, education, urban planning, etc. In the example, in Bihać and Tuzla), the older genera- Federation, such administrative division and ortion also departed or retired. Concerning active ganisation have been extremely unfavourable archaeological scholars, the situation between for many public establishments and services. It 1996 and 2006 was quite lamentable; archaeology in all of its domains of practice was reduced 460 By 2005, the Mine Action Centre in Bosnia and Herze-to maybe a dozen active professionals and an govina had recorded 18,000 minefields; it is estimated enfeebled service to protect cultural heritage (in that there are 1.2 million landmines and unexploded pieces of ammunition in the country (Fitzgerald 2007). both entities). Besides the thousands of cultur- The Landmine Impact Survey conducted by Handicap In- al heritage objects that were destroyed during ternational France reported in 2005 that more than 45% the civil war, another catastrophic situation still of local communities in the country had, to varying de- grees, a problem with land mines (http://www.sac-na. hinders a great deal of archaeological fieldwork org/pdf_text/bosnia/BiH_FinalReport.pdf). 248 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 248 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 was undoubtedly disadvantageous for archaeol- public bodies and institutions, the Commission ogy because it places significant barriers to the for the Preservation of National Monuments is formation of larger centres due to fewer financial responsible for the entire territory of the state resources, mostly limited to regional funding,461 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Commission’s and requires complicated inter-cantonal and in- main body consists of five members: three doter-entity cooperation. There is also a problem of mestic (two from the Federation of Bosnia and ‘jurisdiction’ – it rarely happens that an institu- Herzegovina, one from the Republic of Srpska) tion from one entity could work in another. At and two foreign commissioners. The Commis-present, the fragmentation of the archaeological sion decides which monuments will be listed on institutional landscape in Bosnia and Herzegovi- the national list and will be protected according-na is such that some large projects (e.g. the ‘ Ar- ly. For this purpose, the Commission is assist-chaeological Lexicon of Bosnia and Herzegovina’, or ed by a team of associates and external experts, extensive excavations such as the one at Glasinac) whose task is to prepare expert background and are simply unrealisable. Transformation of the proposals that the Commission decides upon by former hierarchical structure with the Provincial vote. To date, there have not been any archae-Museum and Centre for Balkanological Research ologists among the Commission members (but and central Institute for the Protection of Cultur- there have been some among the expert team al Heritage, institutions which in the past devel- members that assist the Commission). oped strategic plans, into the present fragment- ed situation has resulted in the disappearance of Nevertheless, due attention has been paid to ar-pivotal institutions that could have restored the chaeology and archaeological sites. Around 100 system upon the basis on which it rested before of the most important sites have been placed on the war. To a minor extent, this may be possible the list of national monuments. Almost half of in the Republic of Srpska in Banja Luka, but due these are medieval cemeteries, predominantly to the lack of resources and archaeologists, the those with stećaks. Although the Commission’s level of work done in this regard is still modest. primary responsibility is the administrative aspect of heritage protection, its influence is also There is, however, one significant exception – visible in the practical protection and preven-the Bosnia and Herzegovina Commission to Pre- tive measures in the field. This is not so much serve National Monuments. This commission is evident in the fieldwork itself, but in devel-an entirely new institution established on the ba- oping quality standards and good practices in sis of the Dayton Peace Agreement and officially the protection of cultural heritage. It should be founded through the Decision of the Presiden- kept in mind that virtually all regional and local cy of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 21 December heritage protection services were significantly 2001.462 The reasons for establishing such a com- weakened, and their role in spatial planning mission were obvious: the damage inflicted to was minimal. Given the large-scale construc-the cultural monuments and the need for their tion projects as part of the country’s rebuilding, adequate legal and administrative protection this situation has led to the massive destruction in the conditions of the new state. Unlike other of archaeological sites and inadequate conditions for protective research. Naturally, in con- ditions of minimal financial support, very few 461 For example, the universities in the Federation of Bos- nia and Herzegovina are cantonal institutions. Their experts, and insufficient material infrastruc-legal founders are cantons and not entities or state ture, the results of preventive archaeology are of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are all financially still modest when assessed according to inter-very weak. national standards. However, one must not ig- 462 Predsjedništvo Bosne i Hercegovine; Odluka o komisiji za očuvanje nacionalnih spomenika (http://kons.gov. nore the conditions in which the Commission ba/main.php?id_struct=2&lang=1). started its work and its results over the last 249 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 249 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 decade. International scholarly organisations care of the archaeological collection and occasion-also noticed the significant achievements of the ally conduct some small-scale research in the field. Commission. Thus, in 2010, the European Un- ion Prize for Cultural Heritage, organised by The Republic of Srpska’s academic archaeology is Europa Nostra, was presented to the Commis- still at a much lower level than in the Federation sion for its outstanding commitment.463 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is limited to a few staff members of the Museum of the Republic of The institutions in Banja Luka took up the cen- Srpska and some more ambitious archaeologists tral role in the Republic of Srpska; former region- from the local museums. It is only recently that al institutions were transformed into institutions more elaborate research programmes and pro-with the entitic/national status. This applies pri- jects were launched, along with the arrival of marily to the former Museum of Bosanska Kra- foreign research teams. At the newly established jina that became the Museum of the Republika Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Banja Srpska, the major archaeological centre in this Luka (1994), there are only a few introductory entity. At present, the museum employs some courses in archaeology in the history curriculum, four or five archaeologists. and it is not possible to graduate in archaeology. Moreover, much of the teaching of the ‘archaeo- A similar ‘promotion’ can be seen in the case logical’ subjects is done by guest professors from of the former Municipal Institute for the Pro- Serbia. However, recently archaeology was given tection of Cultural Heritage in Banja Luka some more space at the University of East Sara- (founded in 1976), which, in 1995, became the jevo, where the new combined BA curriculum in Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural, history and archaeology was introduced in 2019. Historical and Natural Heritage. Its central of- Experts from Serbia assist the local teaching staff. fice is in Banja Luka, and there are two regional branches, in Pale, near Sarajevo and Trebinje in The situation in the Federation of Bosnia and southeastern Herzegovina. However, the staff Herzegovina is much more complicated. There, is minimal at this institute, with three or four at the federal entity level, there is only one enti-archaeologists for the whole entity, which en- ty institution, the Institute for the Protection of compasses nearly half of Bosnia and Herzego- Monuments, as a part of the Ministry of Culture vina. Local museums are thus often asked to as- and Sports. All other archaeological institutions sist to mitigate the lack of experts in protecting are officially established by the individual can-archaeological heritage. tons or municipalities, universities included. Paradoxically, former national institutions (e.g. In principle, the old network of local museums Provincial Museum in Sarajevo, National Gal-in the Republic of Srpska is still there. The muse- lery, Museum of Modern History) were exclud-ums exist in Prijedor, Gradiška (former Bosans- ed from this system and still exist in a legal vacka Gradiška), Bijeljina, Doboj, Trebinje and Novi uum; they were left without their official found-Grad (former Bosanski Novi), but their archaeo- ers, and their legal status is still not resolved. The logical capacities are very modest. They usually problem is, in the first place, political. employ one archaeologist only, who has to take Until 1991, the Provincial Museum had the status 463 The Commission was also nominated for the 2010 Eu- of the national (republican) museum of Bosnia ropean Heritage Prize, offered by the EAA – European Association of Archaeologists (see the nomination and Herzegovina ( Museé de la Republique social-in Novaković 2010). However, according to the EAA iste de Bosnie-Herzegovine a Sarajevo).464 In 1992 its statutory compliance, the award cannot be presented to state bodies; hence, the prize could not be awarded to the Commission despite the unanimous decision of 464 In my first text in English (Novaković 2011), I used the EAA members. term ‘National Museum’ following the English title on 250 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 250 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 title in French changed to Musée national de Bos- Herzegovina Canton and the Posavina Canton. nie-Herzegovine a Sarajevo). It should be pointed At the local levels, new museums were estab-out that the museum is not officially the national lished in Tešanj (2009) and Kakanj (2015). New museum of the actual state of Bosnia and Her- archaeological collections as parts of local cultur-zegovina. The founder of national institutions al centres were founded in Novi Travnik (2004) would typically be the state government. How- and Gradačac (2017). Today, in the Federation of ever, according to the state’s Dayton-based divi- Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are eleven muse-sion into two entities, culture, science, and ed- ums and two collections. If we add some twenty ucation became the entitic prerogatives. In this archaeological collections kept at the Franciscan sense, the former Museum of Bosanska Krajina monasteries, the situation seems improved, and in Banja Luka became a Museum of the Republic although not all institutions have professional of Srpska, hence the national museum in this en- archaeologists yet, the potential is there. In the tity. On the other hand, this did not happen with Republic of Srpska, the situation with museums the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo. The Repub- is quite similar, with 11 museums and one ar-lic of Srpska opposes this museum’s recognition chaeological collection in total. After 1996 only as an ‘all-state’ (i.e. national) museum of Bosnia one new museum was established – the Archae-and Herzegovina, while the Federation of Bos- ological Museum Skelani-Srebrenica in 2010. nia and Herzegovina did not want to accept it as Most recently, in 2017, a museum was also es-an entity museum only. The museum still exists tablished in the District of Brčko.466 without its official founder and has no system- atic funding from the public budgets, and this The situation with the public service for heritage unresolved status and lack of funding caused protection was the least improved in the whole the museum to be closed between 2012 and 2015. country. Once a stable system with the national This issue is still unresolved, and the museum is or central Institute for the Protection of Cultural funded mainly from donations and ad hoc grants. Monuments and his regional branches was transformed into two different autonomous entitic In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, systems, each acting according to the entitic legat the cantonal level, museums operate in sev- islation. There is no formal connection between en cantons out of ten (the Municipal Museum of these two entitic systems of protecting cultural Sarajevo, Museum of the Una–Sana Canton in heritage, nor with the coordinating body at an Bihać, Museum of Herzegovina in Mostar, Mu- all-state level. In the Federation of Bosnia and seum of East Bosnia in Tuzla, Municipal Muse- Herzegovina, the central institution is the Fed-um in Zenica, and Museum in Goražde, which eral Institute within the entitic Ministry of Cul-was established in 2016), whilst there are still ture; cantonal institutes exist in Sarajevo, Tuzla no public museums in Canton 10,465 the West and Mostar cantons from before 1991, but, except in Mostar, there are no archaeologists there. the museum’s official web page and English translation It is worth noting that the institutes at Sarajevo, of the museum’s journal. However, in Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian language(s) the museum kept its tradi- Tuzla and Mostar are not branches of the Feder-tional name, ‘ Zemaljski muzej’’ (meaning Provincial al Institute or in any way directly subordinated Museum). It never used the attribute ‘National’ in any to it. They are part of the cantonal governments. of the languages spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So, technically speaking, there are only two or To avoid confusion with different names for the same institution, I have since decided to keep its traditional three archaeologists from the Federal Institute in name in foreign languages as well. 465 The name of this canton is also disputed. The canton- name of Canton 10 is used. In this canton, a museum al government uses the name Herzeg-Bosnian Canton belongs to the Franciscan monastery, and for this rea- ( Hercegbosanska Županija). In contrast, this name has not son I did not count it as public. been accepted at the state level due to its negative con- 466 Concerning the present state of the art of museums and notations during the 1992–1995 war. Instead, a neutral galleries in Bosnia and Herzegovina, see Leka (2017). 251 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 251 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 charge of protection and research of endangered Significant changes in archaeology in the Fed-archaeological sites in the whole entity (half of eration of Bosnia and Herzegovina have also the country), which is at least 60–70% fewer staff taken place in the academic sector. The two tra-compared to the pre-war period. ditionally strongest academic institutions in the country, the Centre for Balkanological Research Not much better is the situation in the Repub- and Provincial Museum in Sarajevo, faced tough lic of Srpska, where the central institution is the times in the last two decades and almost whol-entitic Institute for the Protection of Cultural, ly abandoned academic research. Due to the Historical and Natural Heritage at Banja Luka shortage of funds and changes in staffing, the (with branches in Pale and Trebinje). With re- Centre for Balkanological Research, previously gard to the number of archaeologists working one of the most respected and internationally for the institute, the situation is similar to in the renowned institutions, has come very close to Federation, maybe three or four archaeologists cancelling its archaeological work altogether. in total. Due to this entity’s very peculiar geo- With Alojz Benac’s death in 1992 and the de-graphic shape, one would expect at least one or parture of Blagoje Govedarica to Germany in two additional branches, for example, in Doboj the mid-1990s, the centre was left without ar-and Bijeljina. In fact, the only way to provide chaeologists until 2005. Eventually, a young as-more effective protection of archaeological sites sociate was hired for the position of a research is to engage local museums. The District of Brčko assistant. The centre’s presence in archaeology does not have its own institute for the protection effectively shrunk to the publication of its an-of cultural heritage, and so the Federal Institute nals ( Godišnjak), edited by B. Govedarica. The from Sarajevo performs these tasks. journal was not published between 1992 and 1997, and only after 2005 was the centre able The present state of preventive archaeology in to secure its regular annual issues. Concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina is still far from satis- publications, even greater problems occured at factory, starting with outdated and varied leg- the Provincial Museum with its journal Glasnik. islation in entities and cantons and not much In the period between 1992 and 2019, only nine political will to improve it.467 All the listed her- issues were published. itage protection institutions face similar prob- lems: considerable difficulties with financing Changes that are much more positive took place their obligatory programmes, lack of archaeo- in the area of university studies in archaeology. logical positions, poor material infrastructure, It was already mentioned that none of the uni-and, what also needs to be stressed, frequent versities in Bosnia and Herzegovina offered a disregard by the authorities on all levels. Need- degree in archaeology until the late 2000s. The less to say that this has resulted in minimising students who would attend archaeology lec-the powers of the heritage protection service tures at the Department of Archaeology of the and archaeology in general.468 Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo could follow some introductory courses in archaeology and 467 Among the most absurd things in the Federation of Bos- ancient history and graduate with a history denia and Herzegovina’s legislation is financial sanction- gree. All the professional archaeologists in Bos-ing in Yugoslav Dinars (Hadžihasanović and Kaljanac nia and Herzegovina thus graduated mostly in 2016, 296), a currency which has no existed since 1992. Zagreb or Belgrade. After the most recent war, 468 For more information on the general state of archae- ology in Bosnia and Herzegovina, see the report by the renewal of archaeology was not possible and Andrew Lawler, an associate member of the project sustainable without educating archaeologists Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe. He produced a more detailed overview of institutions and archaeolog- ical workplaces in this country in the period from 2008 state of preventive archaeology, see in Hadžihasanović to 2014 (Lawler 2010; 2014a; 2014b). For more on the and Kaljanac (2016). 252 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 252 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 within the country. Some initiatives for estab- been beset by severe problems, mostly because lishing an archaeological curriculum at the of the lack of adequate student library facilities University of Sarajevo had appeared already in and domestic experts. However, in the last five the 1970s and 1980s, and why these were not years it seems that they have made considera-successful is still to be researched, since the ble improvements, although the long-term sus-academic authority and political influence of tainability of the archaeological curricula and Alojz Benac were strong enough to establish a their prospects are still not fully secured. proper archaeological curriculum. Still, we do not want to speculate further as to why this did A comprehensive teaching programme in ar-not happen. Ultimately, the first curricula in chaeology was, for the first time, initiated at the archaeology were established in the late 2000s Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Sara-at the University of Mostar (2006) and the Uni- jevo in 2009/2010. There, a Chair in archaeolo-versity of Sarajevo (2009).469 The establishment gy had existed since 1954, when Benac was ap-of these two curricula so close together in time pointed as the first professor. But this was only was not synchronised and coordinated, but one of the chairs at the Department of History, more an outcome of the competing Bosniak and and all graduates were historians. The proper Croatian politics within the same entity. archaeological programme, introduced in 2009, was conceived as a single-subject group with In 2006, the combined BA studies of archaeol- studies organised in two stages (three-year ogy and history of art were inaugurated at the BA and two-year MA curricula). Compared to Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Mos- Mostar, Sarajevo had much better infrastruc-tar. A few years later, the first programme was tural potential but was also lacking competent replaced by the single BA and MA curricula in scholars. Important support was provided by archaeology. All the archaeological curricula in two large ‘archaeology libraries’ housed by the Mostar were designed following a model based Provincial Museum and the Academy of Arts on the archaeology curriculum at the Universi- and Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which ty of Zadar, Croatia, and almost entirely taught could meet the studies’ needs. One of the most by the University of Zadar staff. There were important scholars for establishing archaeology simply no local professors available, and only studies at the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo very recently have some five or six junior lo- is Enver Imamović, a professor of ancient histo-cal archaeologists been hired as teaching assis- ry who has worked at the Faculty of Philosophy tants.470 The archaeology studies in Mostar have since 1977. He also performed other important public services, of which the position of the Director of the Provincial Museum during the 469 I have already mentioned that in the Republic of Srpska the first combined curriculum in history and archaeol- war should be emphasised. The beginnings of ogy was established in 2019 at the University of East archaeological studies in Sarajevo were modest. Sarajevo, at Pale. At the onset, the teaching programme was only 470 In 2005, the Faculty of Education of the University of possible with visiting professors from universi-Mostar was transformed into the Faculty of Philoso- phy. A similar change happened at universities in Tuz- ties in Slovenia and Croatia (Koper, Ljubljana, la, Banja Luka and Bihać. The new faculties of philoso- Zagreb, Osijek). The situation, however, started phy had great difficulties securing a sufficient number to improve thanks to the arrival of new, young-of qualified teaching staff, so they often employed visit- er, domestic assistant docents. ing professors from Croatia, Serbia and other countries from the region. Moreover, Croatia supplied consider- able financial and material help to the Croatian com- A significant incentive to develop such studies munity in Bosnia and Herzegovina and secured sig- came from the international project BIHERIT nificant funds for teaching at the University of Mostar, where professors from Zagreb, Zadar, Split, and so on (2012–2014), aimed at assisting the curricular acted as guest teachers in many subjects. reforms in heritage sciences at the universities 253 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 253 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 in Sarajevo, Banja Luka and Tuzla. Within its and it is still not at the level of the 1980s. There scope, particular attention was paid to the is still developmental lag, especially concerning modernisation of the MA curriculum in archae- the institutional infrastructure and number of ology at the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo. professionals. The renewal process is rendered Another essential aim of the project was to cre- even more difficult because, as in the rest of ate a basis for new personnel and facilities for the world, both archaeology and its social role permanent and sustainable teaching of archae- have changed in many respects over this peri-ology, including new staff’s education, acqui- od. According to the most recent research on sition of equipment and study literature, print- the state of archaeological practice in Bosnia ing textbooks, etc.471 The two archaeological and Herzegovina (Lawler 2014), the number of curricula (in Mostar and Sarajevo) have already personnel and institutions operating in the field produced the first generation of domestic grad- of archaeology has almost reached the pre-war uates, and some of them have already been ap- level. However, the main difference is in the pointed to archaeological positions in local mu- quality and financial possibilities of profession-seums and other institutions. This, undoubt- al archaeology. One can hardly expect the pro-edly, represents a considerable step forward jects of similar scope and expertise as was the and a solid basis for the future development of Archaeological Lexicon of Bosnia and Herzego-the archaeological discipline and its services in vina. The main reason is not that some domes-Bosnia and Herzegovina. tic experts would not be capable of conducting such projects, but there is no national or local One of the BIHERIT project’s key outcomes funding for enterprises that would require the was the establishment of the research-oriented efforts of many institutions. Institute of Archaeology at the University of Sarajevo in 2013. Since then, the institute has proved essential in undertaking large preven- tive projects across the country and developing modern archaeological research standards. The prospects for the Department of Archaeology’s long-term sustainability seem to be very prom- ising.472 A very positive trend can be seen in stu- dents from the Republic of Srpska and Croatian cantons who enrol in BA and MA studies in ar- chaeology at the University of Sarajevo. Generally speaking, the post-war renewal of ar- chaeology is still underway in the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. It has not yet been completed, 471 The BIHERIT project ( Curricular Reform of Heritage Sciences in Bosnia and Herzegovina) was part of the Eu- ropean Union’s TEMPUS programme. The partners in this programme were three domestic universities (Sa- rajevo, Tuzla, Banja Luka), five foreign universities (Ljubljana, the University of Primorska from Koper, Vi- enna, Berlin and Cambridge) and two local museums, the Regional Museum of Travnik and Museum of Ko- zara in Prijedor. 472 The Chair in Archaeology is currently in the process of transformation into the Department of Archaeology. 254 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 254 22. 10. 2021 11:05:56 Fig. 113 Archaeological institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At present, we consider the most critical domain times higher than the funds available for preven-of archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina pre- tive archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is ventive archaeology. Although there is no pre- precisely here, in the upgrading of preventive ar-cise data on funding of preventive archaeology chaeology, that the most significant strategic and in Slovenia and Croatia, which today constitutes developmental potential lies, and the responsi-by far the largest portion of archaeological re- bility of the new generation of archaeologists in search (more than 95% of all such research), we Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this respect, the re-have estimated that these funds in the two coun- cent case of collaboration with the Slovene insti-tries today amount to a sum that is at least fifty tutions and enterprises in a large scale project of 255 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 255 22. 10. 2021 11:05:57 assessing the wider Butmir area’s archaeological autonomous units. However, while fragmen-potential (Kaljanac et al. 2016) could provide an tation of the country greatly affected the major efficient model for the transfer of good practices pre-war institutions, new local centres started in preventive archaeology. to slowly gain ground. This was a logical conse- quence of dividing the country into entities and cantons that required their own institutions, Concluding remarks on archaeology in but also the result of the genuine endeavours Bosnia and Herzegovina of some younger scholars who wanted to over- come the conditions that have hindered the de- If anywhere in Europe archaeology so closely velopment of the archaeological discipline and shared its country’s destiny, then this is the case practice in recent decades. in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, this disci- pline’s cultural history reveals all the major events and transformations this country and its peoples went through over the last two centu- ries. Since 1878, at almost regular intervals of 30 to 40 years, the country went through radi- cal political and social changes closely mirrored by changes in science and culture. What makes Bosnia and Herzegovina different from many European countries is its strong Ottoman and Muslim tradition and the relative majority of the Muslim or Bosniak population in its demog- raphy. The introduction of archaeology was an Austrian colonial project used for the imperial attempts at conquering, including culturally, the territories of the retreating Turkey. This ‘ar- chaeological’ colonisation was a very successful project that survived the ‘colonisers’. Despite the considerable stagnation between 1918 and 1945, during the ‘First Yugoslavia’, the Austri- an tradition and infrastructure proved instru- mental in the renewal of archaeology after the Second World War in a new social and political context. Moreover, in the period between 1945 and 1991, archaeology in Bosnia and Herzego- vina reached a second great peak and great in- ternational recognition, even more so than dur- ing the Austrian era. The developmental trajectories in archaeology between 1918 and 1991 show clear periods of growth and decline, where growth correspond- ed to the periods when Bosnia and Herzegovina was an integrated territorial and administrative entity (i.e. province or republic), and decline to the country’s disintegration into smaller 256 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 256 22. 10. 2021 11:05:57 Images Fig. 114 Ami Boué (1794–1881), French Fig. 115 Alexandr Fedorovich Hilferding naturalists, conducted several journeys to Ottoman (1831–1872), Russian linguist and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1830s during which ethnographer. In 1857 he visited Bosnia he recorded historical monuments. (Archives de and Herzegovina and compiled a list of Société Géologique de France). archaeological sites. Fig. 116 Lovro Karaula (1800– Fig. 117 Anđeo Nuić (1850–1916), 1875), Franciscan priest, teacher of Franciscan priest, founder of the archaeology in Franciscan schools. museum in Humac near Ljubuški. 257 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 257 22. 10. 2021 11:05:57 Fig. 118 Drawing of a Bosnian-Herzegovian traditional medieval tombstone (stećak) by Arthur Evans (Evans 1876, 171). Fig. 119 Provincial Museum in Sarajevo. New building inaugurated in 1914. 258 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 258 22. 10. 2021 11:05:57 Fig. 120 Excavations at Butmir in 1893. Courtesy of the Centre for Balkanological Research, Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Fig. 121 Ćiro Truhelka (1865–1942), Fig. 122 Truhelka’s excavations of log boat archaeologist and historian, the first curator at Donja Dolina in 1904. of the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo. 259 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 259 22. 10. 2021 11:05:58 Fig. 123 Franjo (František) Fig. 124 Karl Patsch (1865–1945), curator Fiala (1861–1898), chemist and of the Roman antiquites deprtment at the archaeologist, curator at the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo, after 1920 Provincial Museum in Sarajevo. professor at the University of Vienna. Fig. 125 Vejsil Ćurčić (1868–1959), Fig. 126 Václav Radimský (1832–1895), naturalist, archaeologist and ethnographer, geologist and mining engineer, curator of curator at the Provincial Museum in the mineralogical collection at the Provincial Sarajevo. Museum in Sarajevo, excavator of several archaeological sites. 260 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 260 22. 10. 2021 11:05:59 Fig. 127 Participants at the Congress of Archaeologists and Anthropologists in Sarajevo in 1894: 1. Rudolf Virchow (Berlin); 2. Gabriel de Mortillet (Paris); 3. Oscar Montelius (Stockholm); 4. Johannes Ranke (Munich); 5. Waclav Radimsky; 6. Constantin Hörmann; 7. Otto Benndorf (Vienna); 8.Ćiro Truhelka; 9. Carl Patsch; 10. Franz Fiala; 11. Victor Apfelbeck, 12 Anton Weissbach (military doctor); 13. Salomon Reinach (Paris); 14. Jozsef Hampel (Budapest); 15. Luigi Pigorini (Rome); 16. Josef Szombathy (Vienna); 17. Lajos von Thalloczy (Budapest); 18. Edmund von Fellenberg (Bern); 19. Albert Voss (Berlin); 20. Robert Munro (Edinburgh); 21. René Verneau (Paris); 22. Moritz Hoernes (Vienna); 23. Eugen Bormann (Vienna), Jakob Heierli (Zurich); Julius E. Pisko (Austrian Vice-Consul in Janina). Fig. 128 Congress' participants visiting the site of Glasinac (1894). 261 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 261 22. 10. 2021 11:05:59 Fig. 129 Mihovil Mandić (1871–1948), Fig. 130 Jozo Petrović (1892–1967) (standing on archaeologist, curator (1918–1937) and the left), curator and Director of the Provincial Director (1937–1941) of the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo. Kneeing on the left: Josip Museum in Sarajevo. Courtesy of Darko and Paola Korošec (Novaković, Lovenjak and Budja Periša (Periša 2007, 252). 2003, 51). Field inspection in Kupres area in 1942. 262 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 262 22. 10. 2021 11:06:00 Fig. 131 Museum in Banja Luka (1930s). Courtey of the Archive of the Museum of Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka. Fig. 132 Museum in Trebinje (est. 1952). 263 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 263 22. 10. 2021 11:06:00 Fig. 133 Museum in Tuzla in Tuzla Gymnasium (1962–1966) (left) and Tuzla Madrasah (1966–1973) (right). Courtesy of the Museum of East Bosnia. Fig. 134 Milica Kosorić (right) (1928–1994), archaeologist, curator and Director of the Museum of East Bosnia in Tuzla (1962–1978). Photo from 1967. Courtesy of the Museum of East Bosnia. 264 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 264 22. 10. 2021 11:06:01 Fig. 135 Alojz Benac (1914–1992), Fig. 136 Alojz Benac at Bosnia, archaeologist, curator for prehistoric Duvanjsko field (1970s). Courtesy of the archaeology and Director of the Provincial Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia Museum in Sarajevo, professor of and Herzegovina. archaeology at the University of Sarajevo, founder of the Centre for Balkan Studies. Fig. 137 Irma Čremošnik (1916–1990) (third from the right). archaeologist, curator for Roman and medieval archaeology at the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo (1947–1976). Photo taken in 1957 at the Rei cretariae Romanae fautores Congress in Baden – Brugg (CH). Photo by Hedwig Kenner (https://www. fautores.org/pages/historia-fautorum.htm. 265 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 265 22. 10. 2021 11:06:01 Fig. 138 Borivoj Čović (1927–1995), Fig. 139 Đuro Basler (1917–1990), Conservator of curator and Director of the Provincial the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Museum in Sarajevo (1953–1989). of Bosnia and Herzegovina, curator at the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo, pioneer of the palaeolithic archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovia. Photo taken at Badanj during his excavations in the late 1970s. Fig. 140 Excursion of archaeologists to Ošanići during the conference on fortified Illyrian settlements (Mostar 1974). Courtesy of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 266 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 266 22. 10. 2021 11:06:01 Fig. 141 Branka Raunig (1935– Fig. 142 Ivo Bojanovski (1915–1993) (with glasses), conservator at 2008), curator and Director of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, specialist Musem in Bihać. Photo from in Roman archaeology, acompanied by Gojko Kraljević. Enver Šačić Beća (2019 , 287). Imamovič and Veljko Paškvalin; Trebinje (late 1980s). Photo: https://bathinvs.com/zanimljivosti/. Fig. 143 From left: Blagoje Govedarica(1949), Edina Alirejsović (1942–2013) and Živko Mikić (1946–2016) at the conference on fortified Illyrian settlements in Mostar (1974). Courtesy of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 267 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 267 22. 10. 2021 11:06:02 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 268 22. 10. 2021 11:06:02 VI. NORTH MACEDONIA North Macedonia473 was the southernmost re- 80% of the territory) intersected with larger and public of the former Yugoslavia, and it gained medium-size river valleys. The country is com-independence in September 1991, three months posed of three major geomorphological units: after Slovenia and Croatia. The country occu- a) the Dinaric mountain region in the west, b) pies a territory of 25,713 km2. It has a little over the Rhodope mountain region in the east (Oso-2.1 million inhabitants, of which about 65% govo-Maleševo-Belasica), and c) the valley of are Macedonians, 25% Albanians, 3.9% Turks, the Vardar river between the eastern and west-2.7% Roma, and 1.8% Serbs, while 2.2% of the ern two zones. Each of these three units consists population are citizens of other national and of several smaller, more homogeneous regions ethnic groups. that are more suitable for habitation, such as Ohrid and Prespa Lakes in the southwest, the The Republic of North Macedonia474 is a land- Black Drin ( Crni Drim) valley in the west, the locked country located in the central Balkans re- Bregalnica valley between the Osogovo and gion. It is separated from its neighbours by large Maleševo mountains in the northeast, the area mountain chains. The northern border with of Pelagonia in the south, the Strumica valley in Kosovo and Serbia runs across the mountains of the southeast, and Ovče Pole in the central part. Šara, Skopska Crna Gora, and Kozjak; the Dinar- The Vardar River Valley represents not only the ic Mountains in the west mark the border with principal north-south communication axis in N. Albania, while the Nidže Mountains in the south Macedonia but for the central Balkans region as designate the border with Greece. On the east, well. Together with the valley of Great (Velika) the border with Bulgaria runs across the slopes Morava, this route connects the Danube with of the mountain massifs of Osogovo, Maleševo the Aegean Sea. Another communication route and Belasica. crucial in N. Macedonia’s history runs along the southern state border and connects the North Macedonia’s relief represents a combi- Adriatic with the Aegean – the famous Roman nation of hilly and mountainous terrains (some Via Egnatia route. Secondary communications connect the main Macedonian settlement areas 473 Between 1992 and 2019, in international organisations with the neighbouring regions. The connections (e.g. UN, EU etc.) the country was officially named as between Pelagonia and northern Greece should the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), while some countries have recognised its constitution- also be accentuated. To the east, the Bregalnica al name instead – the Republic of Macedonia. A dispute and Strumica rivers’ valleys represented com-with Greece regarding the name of the country was re- munication routes towards Bulgaria. solved in 2019 when the country officially changed its name to the Republic of North Macedonia. According to the recent agreement with Greece, the adjective ‘Mac- edonian’ can be used for labelling the most numerous ethnic population in the country and its language. 474 The historical region of Macedonia occupies a much larger area; it extends southward into northern Greece to the Aegean Sea (Aegean Macedonia), and includes parts of today’s western Bulgaria (the so-called Pirin Macedonia). The traditional centre of the historical re- gion of Macedonia was Thessaloniki. In the 19th centu- ry, this was one of the ethnically most heterogeneous regions in the Balkans. 269 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 269 22. 10. 2021 11:06:02 Fig. 144 Relief map of North Macedonia. Carbonate karstic lithology and karstic areas neighbouring Adriatic and Ionian Seas, and the are typical for western parts of the country. On Mediterranean climate reaches only some areas the other side, east of the Vardar river, the Ro- in the middle and southern Vardar valley. At dopi mountains are generally lower and more higher elevations, the climate is of a mountain-undulating, mainly composed of magmatic and ous type with long, cold winters and an abun-metamorphic lithology. The lowest part of the dance of snow. country represents the Vardar river valley ex- tending from the northern border with Serbia North Macedonia got its name after an ancient to Greece’s border in the south. Here prevail region of Macedonia formed in the 1st millen-tertiary and alluvial sediments, sandstones, nium BC. During its peak, ancient Macedonia clays and sands. Due to the flatter terrain, this stretched from north-central Greece across pres-area represents the primary settlement and ag- ent-day N. Macedonia to Thrace in western Bul-ricultural area of the country. The climate of garia (altogether some 67,000 km2). The ancient N. Macedonia at lower elevations is predomi- Macedonian Kingdom was conquered by the Ro-nantly of mild continental type with humid and mans in 168 BC, who established the province of cold winters and hot and dry summers. High Macedonia in 146 BC. In the late Roman period, mountains block the climatic influence of the the province became divided into several smaller 270 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 270 22. 10. 2021 11:06:02 provinces, two of them in the core area of today site was discovered in 1956 in the Makarovec N. Macedonia ( Macedonia Prima and Macedonia cave near Veles, and by the late 1970s there were Salutaris), while the northern parts belonged to still only four Palaeolithic sites recorded in the the province of Dardania. This administrative country (Malez 1979, 415–417). More systematic division ultimately disintegrated the traditional research was initiated in the late 1990s, mostly territory of historical Macedonia. Since then, up by surveying caves (Salamanov-Korobar 2006). to modern times, Macedonia remained divided The first systematic excavations took place only or was a part of larger territorial units (e.g. in the two decades ago (1999, 2003 and 2004 in the Go-Ottoman period). lema Pesht site, some 60 km southwest of Skop- je), revealing late Middle and Upper Palaeolithic finds (L. Salamanov-Korobar, 2008, 86). Archaeological and historical background of North Macedonia On the other hand, the situation with the Ne- olithic period is quite the opposite. This peri- The systematic growth of archaeology in North od, together with the Iron Age, are the best re-Macedonia is of a comparatively later date, af- searched prehistoric periods. The geographical ter the Second World War. This relatively late position of N. Macedonia, at the intersection of development is one of the primary reasons why two main routes, the north-south route connect-some archaeological epochs and regions are still ing the Danube with the Aegean, and the east-not researched well and are, consequently, less west route intersecting the Balkans and connect-known. Arheološka karta na Republika Makedonija ing the Adriatic and Ionian Seas with the east- (1994), the major gazetteer of sites in this coun- ern Aegean regions, makes N. Macedonia one try, lists some 4,000 locations containing archae- of the crucial regions for studying the processes ological sites, which is quite a respectable fig- of Neolithisation. At present, there are some 180 ure.475 But, only a very small proportion of sites to 200 known Neolithic sites in the country (Mi-have been researched in more detail. trevski 2013, 87; Sanev 1994, 27), of which only a few dozens have been researched in more detail, By far the least known periods are the Palaeo- mostly before 2000. lithic and Mesolithic. Except for a few sporadic finds, nothing else was known about these two The earliest Neolithic sites emerged in the last periods before the 1950s.476 The first Palaeolithic centuries of the 7th millennium BC. According to the C-14 dates, the first Neolithic sites appeared 475 Here I do not equate locations with sites. Since several along the River Vardar and its eastern tributar-locations contain different discrete temporal and spa- ies (i.e. Bregalnica), in the Ovče polje region, tial archaeological wholes (i.e. sites), the total number of individual sites in N. Macedonia was much greater. and the Skopje and Polog valleys in the Upper However, to understand the importance of this publi- Vardar. Another important region for Neolith-cation more accurately, it should be considered that, ic settlement was Pelagonia, a broad valley in though the gazetteer was published in the mid-1990s, it took several years to process the collected data. For southwestern N. Macedonia, lying between the this reason, the archaeological situation in the gazetteer Ohrid and Prespa lakes and the Vardar River reflects state of the art since the mid-1980s. and encircled by high mountains. According to 476 The first information on Palaeolithic finds came from C-14 dates, Pelagonia seems to have been set-Ettienne Patte (1918) who published a short article on tled by a Neolithic population a few centuries a pointed stone hand axe found near Kristiforovo and three scrapers near Bukovo (Bitola region). There are later than the Vardar valley, at the transition of no information how Patte came across these finds. the 7th to 6th millennia BC (Naumov 2019, 40). However, since he was in the French troops during In the literature published before 2000, the earthe First World War stationed in the Balkans, he had some chances to do occasionally some research (Cor- liest Neolithic settlement was described as ex-dier 1998). hibiting evidence of relatively well developed 271 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 271 22. 10. 2021 11:06:02 cultural manifestations of the so-called Bal- short-lived settlements constructed on elevated kan-Anatolian Early Neolithic complex (i.e. fine positions (Mitrevski 2013, 98). Unfortunately, at monochrome pottery, pottery with white paint- the moment, there are no C-14 dates from these ed decoration), suggesting the arrival of the al- sites to confirm this initial phase. ready formed Neolithic culture from southern and southeastern Balkans (e.g. from Karanovo The earliest (according to the C-14 dates) and I and Protosesklo cultures). However, more re- one of the most intensively researched Neolith-cent discoveries revealed evidence of an earli- ic settlement is that of Anzabegovo, which has er phase of Neolithisation in the Upper Vard- been for a long time the pivotal site for underar valley (Polog), and in Pelagonia, where the standing the process of Neolithisation and the sites of Pešterica–Prilep, Zlastrana–Sredoreče, overall cultural development of the Early and Grnčarica–Krupište contained pottery marked Middle Neolithic in the Vardar valley. In its by a reduced number of simple forms and lack earliest phase (end of the 7th millennium BC), it of white painting. All these new sites were revealed already well-formed Neolithic features Fig. 145 Archaeological sites in N. Macedonia mentioned in this chapter. 272 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 272 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 (elaborated pottery forms, white painted pottery, being occupied for several centuries. Much complex construction of houses with stone bas- rarer are settlements on river terraces, which es and wattle and daub façades, and also some are common in eastern N. Macedonia. The objects of cult and ‘artistic’ representations), all best researched are Tumba Porodin and Tum-pointing to earlier Anatolian and Thessalian ba Velušina, which gave name to the regional cultural traditions (Naumov 2015, 339). Anoth- Early and Middle Neolithic group (Culture of er well-researched site is Tumba Madžari near Veluška–Porodin). Skopje in the Upper Vardar Valley. It emerged in the later phases of the early Neolithic, at a In general, denser settlement of N. Macedonia similar time as Anzabegovo (Zdravkovski 2013, started in the later phases of the Early Neolith-269). The site revealed more than 2 m thick ar- ic (at the turn of the 7th to 6th millennia BC). It chaeological layers, which is quite a typical fea- reached its peak in the Middle Neolithic dur-ture of any Neolithic sites that emerged towards ing the 5th millennium BC. On the most long-the Early Neolithic. It lies on a “tumba”, a natu- lived sites, the Middle Neolithic layers are the ral or man-made small, elevated plateau. Tum- most frequent and thickest. In cultural terms, bas turned out to be the most frequent positions the Middle Neolithic represents the continua-of sites in N. Macedonia from the Neolithic to tion and further growth (in economy, demog-the Late Bronze Age. Such tumbas were locat- raphy, crafts) from the local Early Neolithic ed generally on the plains’ edges and were typ- traditions. In this period, two major regional ically settled for much more extended periods groups were defined: the Anzabegovo–Vršnik than other types of sites. In fact, tumbas can be group in central and eastern N. Macedonia, and considered as a local variety of tells. As in An- the Veluška – Porodin group in Pelagonia in the zabegovo, and also at Tumba Madžari, the set- southwest, both exhibiting intensive contacts tlement’s core was an ‘empty’ central ‘square’ with neighbouring groups in southern Serbia, enclosed with individual houses constructed western Bulgaria and northern Greece. The with wooden skeletons filled with wattle and Middle Neolithic is the period where the local daub. Houses were 50 to 70 m2 in size with two Neolithic cultures reached their developmen-to three rooms. Many of them contained hearths tal and cultural summit, which is best seen in or smaller furnaces and numerous remains of highly elaborated objects of crafts (e.g. luxury smaller objects.477 vessels, fine red pottery with dark brown paint- ing) and especially in numerous objects of “art” Another region rich in Neolithic sites is Pelago- and cult, such as clay and stone anthropomor-nia, an enclosed valley of some 900 km2. It has phic and zoomorphic statues, small altars and a mild continental climate and represented the models of houses (see for example the exhibi-most suitable region for intensive farming for tion catalogue Neolitskata umetnost na teritorija-many centuries. In the earlier Holocene there ta na Republika Makedonija / Neolithic art in the were vast marshland areas in Pelagonia. From Region of Republic of Macedonia (2009)). The most the Neolithic period onwards, the tumbas were outstanding piece with its remarkable realistic erected (or selected) at the best-suited positions style is a clay male torso (known as Adam from for settling the lowlands. There are more than Govrlevo), made around 5500 BC. Other fasci-70 such sites in the Neolithic alone, densely nating objects are clay models of houses with distributed across the valley of Pelagonia (2 – 3 upper parts of female statues (goddesses) at-km apart; Mitrevski 2013, 93), most of them tached to the roof (‘chimneys’). The strong local Neolithic tradition went 477 House I alone contained 48 complete vessels of differ- ent forms and rich decoration, and the terracotta statue through considerable changes in the Late Ne-of the “Great Mother” (Zdravkovski 2013, 282, 285). olithic. Major earlier sites exhibited declining 273 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 273 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 trends, and a considerable number of them Stari Grad near Veles, Kostoperska Karpa).478 ceased to exist within the Late Neolithic. Some In Pelagonia, after a certain hiatus after the late authors (e.g. Mitrevski 2013, 108–109) look for Neolithic, a new Eneolithic group was formed the reasons in changing climate, but above all during the 4th millennium BC, that of Šuplev-in cultural changes brought about by the ad- ac–Bakarno Gumno. Here, tumbas remained vancing culture of Vinča from the north, and the primary settlement type. At Tumba Kravari in cultural influences from the Adriatic area in the earliest evidence of copper metallurgy was the western parts of the country. In the territory found (copper axes and their casting moulds). of the former Anzabegovo–Vršnik group, two new regional groups emerged: Zelenikovo in In general cultural terms, the Eneolithic in N. the Skopje valley and Angelci in the valley of Macedonia is considered a regional manifesta-Strumica river, both exhibiting the strong pres- tion of the large Lower Danubian-Balkan cul-ence of elements of the Vinča culture. In the tural complex of the Early and Middle Eneo-west, which was more pervaded with the Late lithic, termed Bubanj–Sălcuţa–Krivodol. Since Neolithic Adriatic elements, pile-dwelling sites the earliest phases of this complex were formed an important novelty represented around the in the northern Balkans where it replaced the lake of Ohrid, Ustie na Drim and Crkveni Liva- Vinča culture, it seems plausible that with the di (Kuzman 2013a). end of the Neolithic period this (Eneolithic) population migrated to the south, also reach- The subsequent Eneolithic period, which initi- ing N. Macedonia (e.g. Ni. Tasić 1979, 111–113). ated towards the end of the 5th millennium BC, There is no clear evidence for any substantial represents a period of decline of earlier settle- changes in the Middle Eneolithic in N. Mace-ment systems and significant cultural changes, donia. Significant changes started to emerge probably triggered by extensive migrations in at around 3000 BC, influenced by the develop-the broader area of the Lower Danube and east- ment of the Early Bronze Age cultures from the ern Balkans. Compared to the Neolithic period, Greek mainland, eastern Balkans and eastern the number of sites in the 4th millennium BC European steppe regions. significantly decreased, although they do not appear equally in all regions with the Neolithic The Bronze Age in N. Macedonia is placed at settlement. Their density remained relatively around 2500 BC until the end of the 12th century high only in Pelagonia, where some 20 sites are BC. The Early and Middle Bronze Ages exhibit a known (Kolištrkoska Nasteva 1994, 43); almost decline in many aspects of cultural and econom-all were discovered on tumbas already occu- ic life compared to the previous, Eneolithic peri-pied in the Neolithic (Tumba Kravari, Bakarno od. The number of pottery types is much lower, Guvno, Tumba Crnobuki, Tumba Karamani). vessels are made in relatively simple manner, In the Vardar valley, the best research site is and their decoration is much simpler. Moreo-Skopsko Kale (Fortress of Skopje). The settle- ver, most of the Eneolithic techniques of deco-ment is quite large, with tens of houses dug ration disappeared. The decline is also evident into the ground (not typical construction for the in a much smaller number of anthropomorphic Neolithic period in this area), with three major sculptures (Mitrevski 2013, 172). Altogether, Eneolithic settlement phases (Mitrevski 2013, based on the Archeološka karta, there are some 60 136). Recently, several new sites in eastern N. to 70 sites dated to the Bronze Age. Again, the Macedonia were discovered, many of them on central settlement region remained Pelagonia, locations typical for hillforts (Gradište–Grad the core area of the Early and Middle Bronze near Delčevo, Pilavo–Burilčevo near Kočani, 478 Since none of them had ramparts, I am not using the term hillfort. 274 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 274 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 Age group of Armenochori (as defined in earli- More recently, two very interesting sites were er literature, M. Garašanin (1983a)).479 It is worth discovered, a sizeable pile-dwelling site at noting that in most cases (e.g. Bakarno gumno, Ploča–Mićov Grad on the Ohrid lake, dated Visok Rid, Tumba Karamani, Tumba Crnobuki, to the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages (Kuz-Tumba Kravari, Tumba Barešani), the Bronze man 2008) and the ‘archaeo-astronomical’ site Age layers (dated between 2000–1700 BC) were at Kokino, discovered in 2001 northeast from found on the previous Eneolithic sites (Kitanoski Kumanovo, close to the border with Serbia. The 1994, 51). Of particular importance is the ceme- upper part of the Kokino site is interpreted as tery at Varoš near Prilep, with stone cists con- a ‘megalithic observatory’. The pottery found taining skeletal burials. The earliest graves are on this site suggests its duration from the bedated to the Early Bronze Age (Kitanoski 1977), ginning of the 2nd millennium BC until the 7th and at the site of Radoborska Tumba a large pot- century BC. The site’s principal parts are two tery workshop was discovered. rocky platforms on its 1013 m high top, where carvings in stone were interpreted as mark- During the second half of the 3rd millennium ers for observing the sky. The pottery scatters BC, in the Upper Vardar region emerged anoth- speak for a large (c. 30 hectares) Bronze and er distinct group, called the Skopje – Kumano- Iron Ages site. Large quantities of pottery frag-vo group (Mitrevski 2013, 177), with hillforts ments were also deposited into the rock cracks (e.g. Gradište–Pelince, Kokino, Skopsko Kale) in the northern platform (very probably as vo-as an almost exclusive type of settlements. With tive gifts), suggesting an important shrine at the Late Bronze Age (14th to 12th centuries BC), Kokino. However, the use of the platforms and cultural changes were caused by the spread of markers for astronomical observations is still the Mycenaean cultural and political influenc- open to discussion and clarification.480 es from the south (Mitrevski 2007, 444). More intensive contacts with the Mycenaean world The transition to the Iron Age (12th/11th century accelerated the development of N. Macedo- BC) is again marked with radical changes. The nian local groups (Ulanci group in the Vardar local Bronze Age groups ceased to exist. The best valley and Ohrid group in the southwest). The evidence of cultural change is the new burial Late Bronze Age is also the first period in which rite – cremation in urns (cemeteries at Skopje– large corporate cemeteries appear next to the Hipodrom, Stobi–Zapadna nekropola, Mali Dol– major settlements. The cemeteries’ primary Tremnik). This custom was definitely brought distinguishing feature is graves with crouched from the north, from the Danubian Urnfield skeletons in cists made of stone slabs (e.g. Di- culture. Another distinctive element that came mov Grob–Ulanci, Vardarski Rid, Vodovratski from the north is terracotta sculptures of the pat, Prilep–Bolnica, Saraj; e.g. Garašanin, 1983b, Danubian style (Mitrevski 2013, 194). In addition 790–793, also Mitrevski 2013, 191). Graves at the to this, on many Late Bronze Age sites, evidence Ulanci cemetery contained numerous local cop- of fire layers have been discovered, suggesting ies of Mycenaean pottery and bronze objects, knives, razors and miniature double axes (Mi- 480 The N. Macedonian Cultural Heritage Protection Of-trevski 2007, 445). fice in 2009 applied for enlisting the site on the UNES- CO World Heritage tentative list (https://whc.unesco. org/en/tentativelists/5413/) as an archaeo-astronom- ical site, quoting the NASA project ‘Timeless Knowl- 479 In recent Macedonian literature, this group is also edge’ from 2005, which recognised Kokino as an astro- called Karamani (Kitanoski 1994, 51). Gori (2017, 274) nomic observatory. Several geodetic surveys suggested expressed doubts about defining a distinguishable Ar- that the Sun and Moon movement were observed from menochori group based mostly on the distribution of this site. This interpretation’s full confirmation is still the ‘Armenochori kantharoi’, the leading type of ves- pending (the site has already been on UNESCO’s tenta- sels used by Garašananin for defining this group. tive list for ten years). 275 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 275 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 periods of unrest. These changes are especially of N. Macedonia – the formation of larger pol-evident along the Vardar valley, while the Pel- ities. The best evidence for this process is large agonian settlements seem to have retained some cemeteries with hundreds of graves (e.g. Isar– Late Bronze Age traditions for some time. In the Marvinci, Orlovi Čuki, Dabinci–Sopot, Visoi– literature, these rather abrupt changes at the end Beranci, Kumanovska Banja–Vojnik) and the of the 12th and beginning of 11th centuries BC establishment of large settlements as centres are interpreted as the effects of the migrations of enlarged communities. Many of these cen-from the Balkans to Greece, which consequently tres became towns in the following periods caused the collapse of the Mycenaean culture in (e.g. Isar–Marvinci ( Idomene), Gevgelija–Var-the Aegean. darski Rid ( Gortinia), Ohrid ( Lychnidos). The developed Iron Age is well visible in the area After the 11th century BC onwards life started of Ohrid with extremely rich cemeteries at to stabilize, with many new cultural elements Trebenište and Ohrid. In Trebenište 54 graves (coming from the Danubian and western Bal- were found in several campaigns, 13 of them kans areas) combined with the earlier local labelled as “princely graves”. They contained traditions, such as burials under barrows and golden face masks, large Greek bronze vessels burials in cists, types of jewellery which origi- (craters and rhytons), glass and amber objects, nated in the western Balkans and Adriatic, and golden pins and many other highly prestigious the formation of large cemeteries. In cultural objects (Kuzman 2013b). The other highly determs, N. Macedonia, in the period between veloped region in the Iron Age was Gevgeli-12th and 10th centuries BC, became a contact ja–Valandovo region in the south, having very zone between two larger regional cultural com- close contacts with the Greek world. plexes: the Urnfield culture, spreading south- wards from the Danube along the Morava val- For the periods from the 5th century BC onwards ley, and the North Aegean Iron Age cultures in N. Macedonia, local archaeologists use stand- (Pešić 1994, 62). The Iron Age period (c. 1200– ard Greek periodisation with the division into 500 BC) is the best researched prehistoric pe- the classical (5th and 4th centuries BC) and Hel-riod in N. Macedonia. It reveals the spread of lenistic periods (3rd to 1st centuries BC). In these settlement across the whole country, and only two periods, until the arrival of the Romans the most mountainous areas remained poor- (168 BC), the development, in cultural, econom-ly settled. Roughly estimated, the number of ic and political terms, is closely connected with sites, compared to the Bronze Age, at least tri- the development of the two frequently conflict-pled. What also makes a significant difference ing kingdoms, that of the Macedonians to which compared to the previous period is a large in- parts of southern N. Macedonia belonged since crease in the number of cemeteries and burial the mid-5th century BC, and that of Paeonians barrows. These sites account for more than 50% which controlled most of the central and eastern of all Iron Age sites, while their ratio was much N. Macedonia, both of which were heavily influ-lower in the Bronze Age.481 The increase of sites enced by the classical Greek culture. In terms of is especially evident east of Vardar and along the settlement, this continued from the Iron Age the western border with Kosovo and Albania, sites in most areas, and its highest concentrations where the dominant type of settlement became were in the Vardar valley, Pelagonia and Ohrid hillforts. Intensified contacts with large and de- region. The mountainous regions seem to be less veloped neighbouring cultural complexes trig- settled than in the previous period, suggesting gered another critical process on the territory the population’s concentration in central areas where larger settlements were created. Many 481 Figures are based on maps published in the Arheološka of them in the classical and Hellenistic periods karta na Republika Makedonija, Tom 1, 1994). evolved into towns, which became one of the 276 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 276 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 principal features of cultural and social develop- black-figure painted vases, bronze vessels, jew-ment in N. Macedonia in the second half of the ellery, etc.), the construction of monumental 1st millennium BC. tombs of the aristocracy (e.g. Pavla Čuka, Braz- da near Skopje), erection of the so-called ‘cyclops These towns were not of the type of classi- walls’ (i.e. settlement ramparts made of very cal Greek polis but developed out of the Iron large stone blocks), and last but not least, local Age centres of the aristocracy of local polities minting – all demonstrating a very high level or were initially built as military forts and later of social development in N. Macedonia due to evolved into towns. However, one cannot deny close contacts with the Greek and broader Aege-the influence of classical Greek culture. The an civilisations. Macedonian towns share more features with the Greek archaic ‘towns’ ruled by the local ar- The crucial evidence of such development of istocracy. Such towns typically emerged in the local communities was the minting of coinage. Balkans at the Greek world’s outer rim, mostly In its earliest form, it appeared at the turn of in Macedonia and Thrace, like a hybridisation the 5th to 4th centuries BC, which makes ancient of the Greek and local traditions. The towns Macedonia one of the first European regions to may contain some elements of classical Greek introduce it. Pavlovska (2013, 732) associates towns (e.g. in architecture, building styles, the earliest minting in the Balkans with the Per-some public objects) but, since they were not sian occupation of this region, when the sub-colonies built anew, they have also preserved jected polities were forced to pay tribute to the many elements of the earlier prehistoric aristoc- Persians in the form of high-value coins. More racy. They have emerged in all major regions diversified minting developed somewhat later, in N. Macedonia, where stronger polities were during the rise of the Macedonian Kingdom formed in the developed Iron Age. into a regional and global power in the period between the 4th and 2nd centuries BC. The Paeo- The existence of the towns is primarily known nians were also minting their coins in this peri-from written sources (for a more detailed analy- od. In fact, some of their kings are known only sis of sources and positioning of towns see Papa- from coins. zoglu (1957), and some of them have also been archaeologically researched (e.g. Gevgelija–Var- Before the arrival of the Romans, the territory of darski Rid). Blaževska (2013, 643–644) lists the N. Macedonia was not politically united under following towns or town-like settlements in N. one state nor ethnically homogenous. For sev-Macedonia: Idomene (Isar–Marvinci), Gort(d)inia eral centuries it was divided between the Mac- (Gevgelija–Vardarski Rid), Heraclea Lyncestis (Bi- edonian and Paeonian kingdoms. There also tola), Lychnidos (Ohrid), Astibo(s) (Štip), Dober existed some smaller autonomous or semi-au- (Strumica region), Argos (Vodovrati), Stobi, Ste- tonomous polities outside the core areas of the nae (Markove Kuli near Demira Kapija), Persei- two kingdoms. The discussion on the origin of da (Crnobuki), Pelagonia, Brianion (Gradište near the Macedonians, Paeonians and other com-Debrešte), Stibera (Čepigovo), Eudarist (Gradište munities living in southwestern and southern near Drenovo). The exact location of some of Balkans in the second half of the 1st millennium them is still not fully confirmed. With the for- BC is beyond this chapter’s scope. Nevertheless, mation of towns were also associated other con- in broader cultural terms, when observed from siderable social and cultural changes which can the outside, the region, despite its local idiosyn-be observed archaeologically: the emergence of crasies, seemed more united, acting as a sort of large cemeteries built next to such settlements, ‘strong cultural periphery” of the classical an-significant quantities of objects of the Greek style cient Greek civilisation. or origin (imports and local copies: red- and 277 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 277 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 Contrary to many other areas the Romans con- high concentrations of Roman settlements also quered and colonised in continental Europe, emerged in the areas which were previously Macedonia (with Greece) was already an urban- much less settled (e.g. Kočani and Vinica areas ised country with a developed infrastructure and between Osogovo and Plačkovica mountains, economy. For this reason, the first proper Roman and the area east of mountain Gradištanska be-colonies started to appear a century later, in the tween Štip and Kumanovo, north in the eastern context of Augustus’s settlement of the veterans part of N. Macedonia). Other major settlement in wider Macedonia (Jovanova 2013, 795). In N. areas were those traditionally well developed Macedonia, most of the previous towns contin- in the Bronze and Iron Ages, the Skopje valley, ued to exist, mostly having a status of civitates Pelagonia and Ohrid regions. Compared to the – urban settlements but without the legal status earlier periods, the Roman epoch also stands up of autonomous towns, which to a certain degree regarding the number of cemeteries, literally in kept their internal organisation. The only early the hundreds and dispersed across the coun-town raised to a level of a municipium was Stobi try. Especially noteworthy are the cemeteries of ( Municipium Stobensum) by Emperor Vespasian. urban centres, not least for numerous art piec-On the other hand, the only new colony with set- es (monumental stone sculptures, small bronze tled military veterans was Scupi ( Colonia Flavia sculptures, reliefs, etc.). Municipium Stobi was Scupinorum), near Skopje, but in Moesia. Other also minting coins between 73 and 217 AD (Josi-major urban centres were at Heraclea Lynkestis fovski 2013, 941). (Bitola), Lychnidos (Ohrid), Stibera (near Prilep), and Idomene (Isar–Marvinci), all being objects Significant changes occurred in the second half of relatively large excavations, which revealed of the 3rd century AD when the Empire went into several typical features, such as theatres, large a series of crises and areas south of Danube were public houses, numerous temples and richly frequently the target of the barbarian raids from decorated houses with mosaics. Crucial for the the north (e.g. Sarmatians, Goths). To strength-Roman administration and well-being of this re- en the Empire, Diocletian launched radical region were three major roads: Via Axia (along the forms, including the new administrative-territo-Vardar river), Via Egnatia ( Dyrrachion – Lycnidos rial structure of provinces. The N. Macedonian – Heraclea Lyncestis – Salonica) and the ‘Diagonal territory thus became divided into five smaller Road’ running from Heraclea Lyncestis to Asti- provinces: Dardania in the north, Dacia Medi-bo (Štip) and Serdica (Sofia, Bulgaria), all exist- terranea in the east, southern parts belonged to ing already from prehistoric times and renewed Macedonia Prima, southeast to Epirus Novus, by the Romans.482 and central and western N. Macedonia to Mac- edonia Secunda (or Salutaris). Only the latter, Centuries of favourable economic and social with its capital in Stobi, was entirely in N. Mac-conditions under the Romans significantly accel- edonia. To protect the Balkan and Aegean areas erated the development of communities living from Barbarian raids, the Romans constructed in N. Macedonia. Out of some 4,000 locations of numerous forts ( castella) and fortified the towns. archaeological sites listed in the Arheološka karta These activities reached their peak during the na Republika Makedonije more than 50% belong reign of Valentinian (364–375) and Valens (364– to the period between the 1st century BC and 5th 378), when the local populations also increasing-century AD. The highest concentration of sites ly moved to fortified towns and refugia (settle-is in the southern part of the country, in the area ments, frequently fortified, in more remote and between Prilep, Veles and Gevgelija. Relatively well-protected places) (Lilčić 2013, 966). These trends continued into the 5th century, leading 482 On the Roman roads in N. Macedonia, see more in to a substantial decrease or destruction of the Lilčić (1994). towns and urban life. In the 5th and 6th centuries, 278 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 278 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 the fortified refugia became the most frequent the Ohrid area (Sv. Erasmo and Struga–Ciganski type of settlement of the local population. Lilčič grobišta). In both cases, a three-nave basilica was (2013, 1025), based on previous research and his discovered (Maneva 2013, 1283–1284). With the own field evaluations, estimated that their num- Byzantine Empire’s increased power, its cultural ber in the Late Roman period reached a figure influence became strongly felt in archaeological of around 700, covering the area of the whole remains, particularly in architecture, jewellery, of N. Macedonia. However, not many of them and weaponry. Under the Byzantine influence, have been researched in more detail, and they the massive Christianisation of Macedonia start-are mainly known from topographic surveys in ed in the second half of the 9th century through which mostly walled structures were recorded. Byzantine missionaries (e.g. Constantine and Some of the most representative sites of this type Methodius and their disciples), who contributed are Gradište near Negotino (probably the earlier to the creation of a distinctive Slavic linguistic ancient settlement of Antigonea), Kale near Dol- and cultural identity. Strong regional centres of no Oreovo (Bitola region), Golemo Gradište near culture emerged, especially in Ohrid, e.g. a bish-Lopatica, and Kitino Kale near Kičevo. op’s palace, the Church of St. Sophia (early 11th century) with frescoes, the church raised by St. Following the fall of the Western Roman Em- Clement (disciple of Constantine and Methodius) pire, the Macedonian provinces remained for from the late 9th century and the monastery of St. some centuries under Byzantine rule. This great- Naum (also Constantine and Methodius’ disci-ly influenced the political, cultural and religious ple) from the late 9th century), to name just a few. development in the coming periods. One of the major changes with long-term consequences was At the end of the 10th century, after the collapse the Slavs and Bulgars’ arrival in the late 6th cen- of the Bulgarian empire, in the territory of N. tury. Evidence of these migrations is still very Macedonia there emerged another polity ruled scarce and they are mostly recorded in historical by the local Prince Samuil (969–1014), who in the sources, with the archaeological evidence much following decades extended his rule over territo-less clear. Since the south-central Balkans area ry between the Adriatic and the Black Sea. Bul-was under the Byzantium’s strong political and garian and (North) Macedonian historiography cultural influence, it is difficult to detect short largely disagree about Samuil’s state. While the episodes of incursions and the newcomers’ ear- former saw it as a continuation of Bulgarian im-ly settlement. It is only from the 9th century on- perial rule, the latter advocated that Samuil was wards when the Slavs’ material culture can be a local (North) Macedonian ruler and his state a more clearly distinguished (Panov 2013, 1142). ‘Macedonian’ one. Moreover, it is supposed that Frequently, early Slavic sites are found on or in Samuil legitimated his conquests by claiming the very close vicinity of the Late Roman towns, e.g. appellation of the Bulgarian throne. However, it Gradište near Debrešte (Prilep area), Skupi–Ul- remains undisputed that Samuil emerged as one ica and Star Karaorman–Sv. Đorđi (Štip area) of the governors in Constantinople’s service in (Maneva 2013, 1266). These sites are modest in (North) Macedonian territory. During his reign, terms of built structures and portable finds. he established a capital of his own and a patri- archate in the Ohrid area. Some authorities in Another distinct group of early medieval sites Byzantine history, such as George Ostrogorsky belongs to the so-called Komani-Kruja group, (1993, 263), see Samuil’s empire as essentially with its core area in northwestern Albania and different from the former Bulgarian state. southern Montenegro, generally attributed to the local late Roman population, which still lived However, Samuil’s empire was short-lived. The there in the 7th and 8th centuries. In N. Macedo- Byzantines defeated him in 1014 and then held nia, this group’s major sites are two cemeteries in his territories for the next two centuries. Towards 279 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 279 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 the end of the 13th century, a new local power in towns like Skopje and Bitola (former Monas-emerged which challenged Byzantine rule, the tiri), where there were large military garrisons, Serbian Kingdom. The Serbs continued their ex- numerous administrators and craftsmen. The pansion to the south. In the 1330s, under King countryside remained much less settled by the Dušan, they conquered the whole of (North) Mac- arriving peoples. Amongst the new settlers, edonia, making Skopje the Serbian Kingdom’s an interesting phenomenon is represented by capital, the largest kingdom in the Balkans in the the Yuruks (also Yöröks), a Turkish sub-ethnic 14th century.483 However, the Serbian ‘empire’ did group, nomads and herdsmen from the Anato-not outlive its founder. On the one hand, after his lian mountains, which started to settle in Mac-death the local princes challenged Dušan’s succes- edonia in the 15th century, mostly in hilly and sor, and partitioned the state. While on the other mountainous regions. Besides living on animal hand the Ottomans were rapidly advancing from husbandry, they were frequently servicing army the south, and between 1371 and 1400 succeeded garrisons. It is estimated that their number in in seizing (North) Macedonia. The country would the whole of geographic Macedonia was about remain under their rule for the next five hundred 140,000 ( Istorija na makedonskiot narod 2008, 140). years, until 1912. Another quite strong ethnic group that settled in the Macedonian towns were Sephardic Jews, Similar to in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovi- who came mostly from Spain and Portugal. In na, the five centuries of Ottoman rule brought Istorija na makedonskiot narod (2008, 140) there is a new dominant political and cultural matrix, a figure given of some 3,000 Jewish households changed the administrative status of the country, in 16th century Thessaloniki. The Jews had their introduced a different feudal system, catalysed communities in almost every town in Macedo-massive migrations to and from the country, ac- nia, and notably contributed to the development celerated religious conversions and several other of trade and crafts. substantial social and cultural changes. However, there are some differences compared to Serbia or On the other hand, there were also strong waves Bosnia and Herzegovina. The geographic (histor- of migration from the country. The most intenic) Macedonia became part of a large province sive emigration of the local Slavic population ( beylerbeyluk) of Rumelia encompassing almost all was during and after the Austrian – Ottoman the Ottoman territories in Europe. Its capital was war (1683–1699), when most of the local Chris-first in Edirne, later in Sofia. The province was di- tian population, as in Serbia, sided with the Aus-vided into several second-level units, sanjaks. The trians whose army pushed the Ottomans from first Macedonian sanjaks were Kustendil, Ohrid, Hungary south to N. Macedonia. After the peace Thessaloniki, Skopje, Janina and Lerina. Though agreement in 1699, when Turkey’s border was their borders were frequently changed, they re- established at the Danube, a substantial popu-mained the backbone of the Ottoman administra- lation from (North) Macedonia retreated with tive division for almost the whole period of their the Austrians. One of the consequences of the rule ( Istorija na makedonskiot narod, 2008, 134). restoration of the Ottoman rule at the beginning of the 18th century was the settlement of Muslim Compared to other countries under Ottoman Albanians in the emptied areas ( Istorija na make-rule, North Macedonia was probably the most donskiot narod 2008, 142). This process continued intensively colonised by Islamic peoples coming in the following centuries. mostly from Asia. This was especially the case The process of Islamisation was two-fold in 483 By 1355 he also conquered Albania and large parts of Macedonia, via colonisation of the Muslim pop-western and central Greece down to Coynthus. In 1345, King Dušan proclaimed himself the Tsar of the Serbs ulation from Anatolia and religious conversion and Greeks. of the local people. Both processes were most 280 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 280 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 intensive in towns. Conversion to the Muslim names ‘Macedonians’ and ‘Macedonia’ for the faith was an opportunity to gain full civil rights, first time appeared as a modern name used by e.g. serving in the army, public services and trade the ethnic Slavic (Orthodox) majority that lived rights. The countryside remained, to a large ex- in the territory of historic Macedonia to desig-tent, less affected by the conversion. In the 16th nate its homeland and nation. Similarly to other century the Muslims accounted for some 25–35% Balkan peoples, the (Slavic) Macedonians started of the towns’ population, while the countryside to form their national identity in the 19th century. remained more than 90% Orthodox. However, But compared to the neighbouring non-Ottoman later on, and especially with the Albanians’ ar- nations, the Macedonians had much more signif-rival, the percentage of Christians also declined icant challenges to meet – they did not just have in the countryside. to fight for political and territorial independence from the Ottomans, but for their autonomous ec- With the declining Ottoman Empire at the be- clesiastic institutions as well as their language. ginning of the 19th century, insurrections among They also had to confront Serbia, Greece and the Balkan peoples (Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Bulgaria, which had their own claims over Mac-Montenegrins) broke out. Over several decades, edonian territory. In 1870, a series of local Mac-most non-Turkish nations expanded their au- edonian resurrections (e.g. at Razlovo 1876 and tonomy and gained independence at the Con- Kresen 1878) demanded national independence gress of Berlin in 1878.484 However, the case of from the Ottomans. However, at the Berlin Con-the Macedonians and North Macedonia was gress of 1878, neither of the then great forces somewhat different.485 In the 19th century, the nor the neighbouring countries (Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria) supported Macedonian independence, 484 Greece (with a then much smaller territory) was the and left Ottoman sovereignty over the territory only country that gained independence half a century in place. In 1893, the Internal Macedonian Revo-earlier, in 1821. lutionary Organisation formed a national resist- 485 The so-called ‘Macedonian question’ is one of the most persistent open political issues in the Balkans. Much has ance movement with its headquarters in Thessa-been written about it, but a significant portion of histo- loniki. This organisation led the St. Elijah’s Day riographical works was highly politically motivated, in ( Ilinden) Uprising in 1903, which the Ottomans N. Macedonia itself as well as in the neighbouring countries. The 27-year dispute (1992–2019) between Greece ruthlessly crushed. However, after this uprising and North Macedonia over the latter’s official name and the Ottoman Court, pressed by European pow-the reluctance of Bulgaria to recognise the Macedonians ers, made some modest steps towards Macedo-as a nation clearly illustrates the century-long outlook nia’s semi-autonomy and allowed the Europe-of these countries and their national ideologies. The ob- vious manipulation of the Macedonian government in ans to exercise some control over this region. It the period 2008–2018 with the theory of the ancient or- is also worth noting that large parts of northern igin of (present-day) Macedonians further complicated and western Macedonia were also claimed by the prospect of coming up with a solution to this issue in the foreseeable future. It is not easy to find a reliable the Albanians, who organised their own upris-and impartial bibliography on N. Macedonia’s history ings against the Ottoman rule. and the formation of the Macedonian nation, even if au- thored by non-Balkan authors, as these often sided with one of the parties involved in the dispute. The fact is, The final blow to the idea of an independent however, that the today’s Republic of North Macedo- and united Macedonia came with the Balkan nia finds grounds for its historical legitimacy in the na- Wars (1912–1913). The Ottomans ultimately lost tional movement from the end of the 19th century, in the most of their territory on European soil, includ-decisions of the Antifascist Council of the National Lib- eration of Macedonia ( ASNOM – A ntifašističko sobranje ing Macedonia. The Macedonian territory was narodnog oslobođenja Makedonije, the anti-fascist Assem- partitioned between Greece, which took over bly of the National Liberation of Macedonia, August 2, Aegean Macedonia (51% of the whole region), 1944), the status of the republic in the SFR Yugoslavia (1945–1991) and the referendum of the citizens of the Serbia got Vardar Macedonia (39%), while Bul-Socialist Republic of Macedonia in 1991. garia took over Pirin Macedonia (10%). In this 281 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 281 22. 10. 2021 11:06:03 way, towards the end of the Ottoman rule the the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Slavic) Macedonians succeeded in achieving (1967). The oldest archaeological institution a certain degree of autonomy in education and was the National Museum, which took over culture, became ultimately partitioned, and their the collections of the former Museum of South nationality negated in all three countries. The Serbia and began building new archaeologi-next major change emerged during the Second cal collections in 1947. However, the relations World War in the Serbian part of Macedonia, with Bulgaria and Greece remained somewhat then occupied by Bulgaria and Albania. There strained, because neither of these countries rec-the Macedonian Liberation Movement (led by ognised Macedonia’s nationality and statehood the Communist Party) proclaimed the People’s within Yugoslavia. Republic of Macedonia in 1944 in the territory within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia’s borders. In During the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991, 1945, Macedonia became a constituent Yugoslav (North) Macedonia was the only republic that republic, while Macedonians obtained the status peacefully left the federation and, following a equal to other constituent peoples of Yugoslavia. decision reached through a referendum, declared its independence in September 1991. The period between 1945 and 1991 was char- However, without the backing from Yugosla-acterised by significant and dynamic develop- via, previously a strong regional power, the ment (economic, industrial, urban and cultur- new state (and nation) was again challenged by al). In this context, the modern Macedonian all surrounding countries (Greece, Serbia, Bul-nation ultimately developed its identity in cul- garia and, to a lesser extent, Albania). Although ture, religion, and language and autonomous it was never at war with the other Yugoslav governing institutions.486 Given that the Mac- republics the Republic of Macedonia was only edonians had not been recognised as a nation admitted to the United Nations in 1993, much before the creation of the SFR Yugoslavia, it later than was the case with Slovenia, Croatia, was only from the end of the 1940s onwards and Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992). One of the that they could gradually establish their key na- reasons was the dispute, primarily with Greece, tional institutions: the National and University over the state’s official name. For 27 years the Library (1944), the National Museum487 (1945), Republic of Macedonia was officially listed in the Institute for National History (1948), the the UN under its temporary name – the For-Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje488 (1946), and mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – until 2019, when it changed its name to the Republic 486 This process was, to a significant extent, arranged by of North Macedonia, which ended the dispute the Yugoslav Communist Party. After the break with Stalin and other communist parties in the region in with Greece. Today, almost thirty years after 1948, the Party strongly supported Macedonian na- declaring its independence, North Macedonia tion-building to establish a clear distinction between still strongly feels the consequences of the var-the Bulgarians and Macedonians, whose languages ious crises and wars in its neighbourhood. It have many similarities. In promoting the Macedonian nation, the Communist Party also supported the foun- is still among the poorest European countries, dation of the Autocephalous Macedonian Orthodox with a GDP similar to Serbia or Bosnia and Church in 1959, which declared independence from the Herzegovina and slightly higher than Albania. Serbian Orthodox Church. There are also still ethnic tensions between the 487 The museum was actually established already in 1924, but in the context of Serbian cultural policy, as the Mu- Macedonians and Albanians, which in 2001 al-seum of South Serbia. most escalated to full-scale war.489 488 The Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje was established as early as 1920 as a part of the University of Belgrade, 489 In August 2001, after several months of armed conflicts which the Macedonians did not treat as their national between Albanians and Macedonian security forces, institution. As such, they consider 1946 as the year of the Ohrid Framework Agreement was reached, which the foundation of the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje. increased the rights of the Albanian population. 282 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 282 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 Archaeological investigations before those of the Evlya Çelebi, a famous 17th-century the foundation of the Yugoslav Ottoman traveller who also visited Macedonia Republic of Macedonia (1800–1945) (then part of Rumelia). In his Travelogue ( Seya- hatname) he described several towns, including Skopje, Kumanovo, Bitola, Resen, Štip, and Prilep. Though his notes are primarily about The ‘Ottoman’ Macedonia was a very nationally contemporary life, architecture, culture and so-or ethnically mixed region, with the major ethnic ciety, he occasionally provided some historical groups being Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians information on the Ottoman government, old and Albanians. Each of these nations claimed towers, ruins etc. It is quite probable that in his Macedonia, in one or another form and size, for notes on the journey undertaken in 1670 to Al-itself. Except for Albanians, all other nations saw bania, which Çelebi recorded in his 8th volume, their ‘Macedonian’ capital and cultural centre in some parts of Via Egnatia were described (Fa-Thessaloniki and also the place of their nation- solo 2003, 40, footnote 109). al revivals. It is for this reason very difficult to talk about early archaeological and antiquarian The Orthodox Slavs’ most potent cultural force activities from a perspective limited to today’s was the Church, with its centre in Constantinople North Macedonia, which roughly correspond to and dioceses spread all over the ‘Ottoman’ Bal-three Ottoman vilayets: Kosovo, Monastiri (Bi- kans. On the local level, it was mostly the monas-tola) and the northern part of the Thessaloniki teries, which were able to act as centres of educa-vilayet. The development of these activities in tion, culture and art. Some of them possessed rich the 19th century or earlier must be primarily un- libraries, archives and collections of historical and derstood in the context of ‘Ottoman’ Macedonia, art objects, such as the Archebishopry in Ohrid, but with three ‘national’, frequently contrasting, which had its ‘museum’.490 There must have been perspectives in mind. The earliest ‘archaeolog- more collections kept at ecclesiastic (orthodox or ical’ activities in the historical region of Mace- Islamic) centres or courts or palaces of local elites donia are of an earlier date compared to other and rulers. There is a brief mention of the collec-Ottoman provinces in the Balkans. For the Otto- tion of Haji Mahmud, a mufti (expert on religious man geographers and historians and their west- matters) from Bitola from the beginning of the 17th ern counterparts, Macedonia was part of the an- century (Milj ković 1982, 25). cient Greek world, and, as such, it received more attention than other Balkan regions. However, The interest in antiquities increased with the having said this, to keep the structure coherent, arrival of more foreign travellers in the 19th we will have to limit ourselves to today’s North century. The earliest systematic work that Macedonia, but having in mind the broader Macedonian context for the period before the 490 From Ohrid comes one very interesting document – a Balkan Wars (1912–1913) as well. seal of the museum of the Ohrid Archepiscopy dated to 1516. The text of the seal was in Greek, saying ‘ The There is very little information on any local ac- seal of the common museum of the sacred Apostle throne of the Iustiniana Ahridon and whole Bulgaria’. In the cen- tivities from the Ottoman period, which can be tre of the round seal is the year 1516 (Miljković 1982, directly associated with archaeological and an- 16). Of course, we cannot speak of a museum proper, tiquarian practices. In general, the Ottoman and but still, the Ohrid Archbishopric treasury and the seal Islamic cultural contexts were not very favour- were probably used to label the archbishopric’s histori- cal and art objects transferred to or housed in other ec- able for their development until the 19th cen- clesiastic centres. Miljković (1989, 59–60) assumes that tury, though, on the other hand, historical and the word museum was intentionally used to a make dif- geographical research was fairly developed. ference with other collections and archives kept in the Ottoman institutions (e.g. vakufs, mosques, tekiyas) and The earliest Ottoman accounts are probably was ‘imported’ from Russia or Italy. 283 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 283 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 included the N. Macedonian regions was The- Macédoine, par Léon Heuzey. Heuzey described ophilus Lucas Fridericus Tafel from 1837 and his travels through this country in 1855 and 1841–1842 on Via Egnatia, an old prehistoric and 1861, when he visited the central and south-ancient road connecting the Adriatic with the ern Aegean Macedonia and Albania. British Aegean, passing across the southernmost parts scholars were also frequently assisted by their of N. Macedonia. Among the Western authors consuls in Bitola and Thessaloniki in obtaining who researched and described historic Mace- permission from the Ottoman government to donia and its antiquities were quite frequent- conduct research and export objects (Miljković ly consuls and other civil servants in foreign 1982, 31). The most famous British scholar who missions. François Charles Hugues Laurent researched in N. Macedonia was Arthur Evans. Pouqueville, before becoming a French con- He published his observations on the antiqui-sul in Patras, extensively travelled across (still ties from this country and his essays on antiq-Ottoman) Greece and the Balkans. In 1805 he uities from Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovi-published Voyage en Moreé at à Constantinople et na and Montenegro in the already mentioned en Albanie, and in 1820 Voyage dans la Grece. In publication Antiquarian Researches in Illyricum 1811 he also visited the area of Lake Ohrid and I-IV (Evans 1833; 1885). Macedonia was also a attributed the ancient town of Lychnidos to the travel destination for 19th-century antiquarians monastery of St. Naum. He also recorded Via and historians from Russia (e.g. V. Gligorovich, Egnatia’s remains in the area of Struga (north N.P. Kondyukov, P.H. Milyukov).491 In 1898, the of Lake Ohrid lake) (Fasolo 2003, 41, footnote Russian Archaeological Institute from Constan-110). The French consul (in Thessaloniki) was tinople organised a study trip to N. Macedonia Esprit Marie Cousinéry, who in 1831 in Paris, (Miljković 1982, 29, footnote 94). Towards the published Voyage dans la Macédoine. Contenant end of the 19th century, the art and historical des recherches sur l’histoire, la geographie et les heritage of Macedonia also became increasingly antiquités de ce pays, where he paid more atten- studied by the Serbian scholars (L. Stojanović, tion to southern and central historic Macedo- M. Veselinović, R. Ćurković).492 Interestingly, nia and Thrace. An itinerary Travels to Northern also during the First World War, the Austri-Greece with numerous information on antiq- ans and Germans organised several excavation uities was also published in 1835 by William campaigns at Stobi and Palikura.493 Martin Leake, Vice-President of the Royal So- ciety of Literature and the Royal Geographical Among the works of scholars from Macedonia Society. Alfred Delacoulonche was one of the before the First World War, the most influential first scholars who did systematic topographic was Margaritis Dimitsas (1829–1903), a philolo-research which he published in Mémoire sur le gist and archaeologist of Greek origin who was berceau de la puissance Macédonienne, des bords de born in Ohrid. He obtained a degree from the l’Haliacmon à ceux de l’Axius Aus: Missions sci- University of Athens. He specialised in classical entifiques et littéraires, Paris 1858, where he also philology and archaeology at the universities in included some notes on Paonians, and areas Berlin and Leipzig, where he also completed around rivers of Strymon (Strumica) and Ax- his doctorate on the Ohrid region’s history. As ios (Vardar) (e.g. 1858, 109). Interesting also is a teacher at (Greek) high schools in Bitola and a historical-geographical dissertation of Théo- Thessaloniki, he published two key works on phile Desdevises-du-Désert from 1863 ( Géogra- the early archaeological research in Macedo-phie ancienne de la Macedoine, Paris 1863). nia – Arhaia geografia the Makedoniae (Dimitsas However, the most systematic scientific account 491 See more Bitrakova-Grozdanova (2009). from that time was produced by L. Heuzey and 492 See more in Miljković (1982, 31). H. Daumet (1876) in Mission archéologique de 493 Karl Hald, Auf den Trümmern Stobis. Stuttgart 1917. 284 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 284 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 1874) and two volumes describing reliefs and His engagement was mostly in teaching, and he epigraphic monuments in Makedonia en lithois did not undertake any archaeological research, fthengomenois kai mnemeiois sozomenois (Dimitsas and he also noted the very modest level of ar-1896).494 chaeology at the Faculty. However, this facul- ty was an important hub for establishing other institutions, such as the Museum of Southern Archaeology in ‘Southern Serbia’ Serbia, the first museum in the Vardar Mace- (1912–1941) and ‘Bulgarian donia (1924), and the Skopje Scholarly Society Macedonia’ (1941–1944) ( Skopsko naučno društvo), which was established in 1922 as a central research and cultural insti- With Vardar Macedonia’s annexation in 1912, tutions in the newly annexed ‘Southern Serbia’. Serbia initiated an intensive programme of Ser- In 1931, the Church Museum was established in bisation of newly acquired territories labelled as Skopje, but it effectively started its work after South Serbia. The Macedonian nation was not 1935, when the museum’s venues became re-recognised, and Macedonian Slavs were forced furbished (Miljković 1982, 69–70). Two smaller to declare as Serbs, while the local church was museums, or better to say collections, were also put under the Serbian Orthodox church’s juris- established outside Skopje, in 1928 in Struga, diction.495 The Serbian language became domi- where Nikola Nezlobinski, a Russian doctor nant in all spheres of public life, and the only one who came to N. Macedonia to assist in stopping allowed in education and administration. malaria, put his natural history collection on display, and in Bitola in 1934, which later gave With the Serbian programme of assimilation of rise to the Municipal Museum (Miljković 1982, Macedonians also came the first archaeological 75). Skopje institutions were in effect, ‘Serbian’, institutions to this country. In 1920 the Facul- and were established with the precise aim to ty of Philosophy was established in Skopje as a establish Serbian dominance over N. Macedo-branch of the University of Belgrade. The ma- nia and ‘Serbisize’ the country. Practically no jority of the teaching staff came from Serbia. local Macedonians were occupying any of the However, the first professor of archaeology leading positions, and only a few scholars were came from Croatia, Čiro Truhelka, who taught from other parts of Yugoslavia, such as France archaeology in Skopje between 1926 and 1931. Messesnel, Grga Novak and Ćiro Truhelka, who taught archaeology and ancient history. 494 Margaritis Dimitsas (Μαργαρίτης Δήμητσας) is also known as one of the pioneers of the geographical dis- The central ‘archaeological’ institution was the cipline in Greece. He advocated the formation of the Museum of Southern Serbia. The museum was, Greek Geographical Society and the Department of Geography at the University of Athens. His research in the beginning, focused on history and archae-mainly focused on the geography and history of the ology, but soon it also established several new Greek countries. His book Political Geography published departments (Ethnology and Anthropogeogra-in Athens in 1882, follows anthropogeographical ideas. It should be read chiefly in the context of justifying the phy, Zoology, and Geology and Petrography). Greek liberation of Macedonia from the Turks, and the In 1926 the museum got its lapidarium (Miljk-same is true for his essays in history (Peckham 2000, ović 1982, 41). The museum itself did not have 81–82). Among other works, Dimitsas was also the au- any archaeologists employed, but its staff fre-thor of textbooks for primary schools on the history of Macedonia from Antiquity to the arrival of the Turks quently assisted archaeologists from Belgrade ( Επίτιμος ιστορία της Μακεδονίας (από τον αρχαιοτήτων institutions (e.g. Nikola Vulić, Balduin Saria, χρόνων μέχρι της Τουρκοκρατίας) published in 1872. Đorđe Mano Zisi). The museum had its own 495 Before 1919, the Orthodox Church in (North) Mace- archaeological collection, though finds were donia belonged to the Patriarchate in Constantinople, which sold its ‘Macedonian’ parishes to the Serbian Or- frequently shipped to the National Museum in thodox Church for 800,000 francs (Poulton 2000, 90). Belgrade. In 1928 France Mesesnel became the 285 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 285 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 museum Director, a Slovene art historian from 1918, Truhelka, in 1926, quite reluctantly accept-Ljubljana who conducted some smaller exca- ed the professorship in Skopje.497 He had to start vations at Suvodol near Marinovo.496 Another from scratch since there was almost no archaeo-scholar from Slovenia, Balduin Saria, came to logical literature in the faculty’s library, no funds N. Macedonia as a curator of the National Mu- for research, and archaeology was considered a seum from Belgrade and intensively researched supplementary subject. Despite his endeavours Stobi in the early 1920s. Later he moved to the to secure the necessary infrastructure for teach-University of Ljubljana. ing archaeology, after his retirement in 1931 the Chair in Archaeology was left vacant until after As Truhelka noted in his memoirs, archaeolo- the Second World War. France Mesesnel took on gy at the newly established Faculty of Philoso- the teaching of art history (another subject Tru-phy in Skopje did not develop very much. The helka taught). reasons could be found in very modest funds that were available, a small number of students The greatest efforts of Serbian archaeology in and lack of supporting infrastructure, especial- N. Macedonia were dedicated to Stobi. It is not ly the library with its few archaeological books by chance that this site’s excavations were by and journals. However, the principal reason far the most extensive archaeological project in why archaeology at the Faculty of Philosophy the whole of Yugoslavia in the period between in Skopje did not develop to a higher level, as the two world wars. The project of the National was, for example, the case with the University Museum in Belgrade in Stobi took place between of Ljubljana, which was established at a similar 1924 and 1940. The site was very carefully se-time (1919), was the significant lack of local tra- lected.498 As a relatively well-preserved Roman dition. In addition to this, the Serbian ‘colonial’ town, it could enable research on monumental investment in changing the culture (and boost- architecture (e.g. theatre, basilicas, mosaics), ing the education and science) in N. Macedonia and had plenty of attractive art objects, such as was of a much smaller magnitude and success statues, small objects, such as jewellery etc., and compared to the Austrian one in Bosnia Herze- abundant epigraphic data499; a perfect archaeo-govina a few decades before. logical showcase of the new ‘Royal’ Yugoslavia which attempted to emulate the great ‘imperial’ The first archaeologist at the Faculty of Philoso- archaeological projects. 500 And, indeed, the Sto-phy in Skopje was Grga Novak, a Croat, but he worked as a professor of ancient history (1920– 497 Before he accepted the professorship in archaeology, he 1924). It was only in 1926 that the Chair in Arwas offered a Chair in Albanology, later also Balcan- ology (Truhelka, Majnarić-Pandžić and Bukovac 1992, chaeology was established with the appointment 119–120). of Ćiro Truhelka. After an extraordinary career 498 This site had already been recorded by L. Heuzey in the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo before (Découverte des Ruines de Stobi, Revue Archéologique 2, Paris 1873). In 1917 and 1918, the German army also excavated at this site (D. Hald, Auf den Trümmern Stobis, 496 Franc Mesesnel was not mentioned in the chapter on Stuttgart 1917; for more on early investigations in Stobi archaeology in Slovenia. He was born in 1894 in Cer- see Kitzinger 1946). vignano in Italy and studied art history in Vienna and 499 B. Saria, Iskopavanja u Stobiju (Excavations at Stobi), Prague. Before 1928, when he started his career in Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društva, vol. 1, issue 1, Skopje Skopje, his scientific work was generally in the field 1925, 287–300; B. Saria and R. Egger, Istraživanja u Sto- of art history and art criticism. Towards the end of the bima (Research in Stobi. Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društ- Second World War, Slovene Home Guard members va, knj. 5, 1929; R. Egger, Die städtische Kirche von Sto- arrested him because of his work with the Liberation bi, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Insti- Front and shot him. In his career in N. Macedonia, he tut in Wien, Band 24, 1929. was active in the field of study of medieval art as well 500 In the Yugoslav press in the 1920s, Stobi was termed a as archaeology. He contributed significantly to the de- ‘Second Pompei’, and motifs from Stobi were printed velopment of conservation practice in N. Macedonia. on postcards etc. 286 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 286 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 bi project strongly echoed outside the country area one of the most exciting places for archae-and attracted many foreign scholars.501 ological research in Macedonia, which also at- tracted foreign teams (e.g. from Germany), since Of the Serbian scholars, the most prominent role the only previously known golden masks were in the archaeological investigations in N. Mace- those unearthed during Schliemann’s excava-donia was played by Nikola Vulić, a professor tion in Mycenae, which were almost a thousand of ancient history at the University of Belgrade. years older.503 He extensively studied the pre-Roman and Ro- man period of the Central Balkans: epigraphy, Vulić’s other notable research in Macedonia in-the ethnic structure of the population, and Ro- cluded excavation of the theatre in the Roman manisation. He made a significant contribution town of Scupi in 1925 and research in Heraclea to several crucial scientific works in the domestic Lyncestis in Bitola. Heraclea Lycestis was very and international literature (for example, in the probably founded in the early Hellenistic peri-Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissen- od, in the mid-4th century BC, when the urban shaft and Dizzionario epigrafico di antichitá romana). settlement was erected near the route, later Of particular importance are his early papers on known as Via Egnatia. The site yielded a great the finds from classical Antiquity in Serbia that wealth of the remains of architecture, art and he published together with A. Premerstein and epigraphy. The first excavation at Heraclea F. Ladek, for instance – Vulić and Premerstein Lyncestis has been carried out already in the (1900); Ladek, Premerstein and Vulić (1901); early 1930s, whilst systematic investigations Premerstein and Vulić (1903). followed in the period between 1935 and 1938 (Grbić 1938). Among the most important finds The most famous site in N. Macedonia that Vulić was the Roman copy of the Phidias’ sculpture investigated was Trebenište in the Ohrid Lake Athena Parthenos (Sokolovska 1994, 7) Vulić’s area. Between 1930 and 1934, Vulić excavated a major archaeological project in this area was late prehistoric necropolis and discovered two at Suvodol, east of Bitola, where between 1931 golden masks dated mid-1st millennium BC. and 1933 he discovered Hellenistic tombs and Together with the two similar masks found at Early Christian basilica. Last but not least, N. Trebenište by Bogdan Filov502 in 1918, during Vulić needs to be credited for two volumes of the Bulgarian military occupation of this area, the Archaeological Map of Yugoslavia, for the the mask found by Vulić was among the most regions of Kavadarci and Bitola-Prilep (Vulić attractive discoveries in Yugoslavia at the time. 1937; 1938). The discovery of the golden mask made Ohrid Between the two world wars, foreign archaeolog-501 Rudolph Egger from the University of Vienna worked ical teams were relatively rare in N. Macedonia, with the Yugoslav team. The Fogg and Peabody Mu- aside from research in the Stobi and Ohrid areas. seum of Harvard University and the American School In general, foreign scholars were traditionally of Prehistoric Research, led by J.V. Hewkes and R.W. Ehrich, organized an archaeological tour of Macedonia more interested in the Aegean Macedonia, and in 1932, which made a great impression on them (Gold- only a few publications dealt with its northern man 1933). 502 Bogdan Filov from the National Museum in Sofia (lat- er, in the period 1940–1944, prime minister of Bulgaria, sentenced to death for being the head of the pro-Na- 503 The fifth golden mask was found in 2002, but at a dif-zi government) and Karel Schkorpil, a Czech-Bulgar- ferent site in the Ohrid Lake area; it also drew great ian archaeologist and Director of the Archaeological attention of the international community, especially in Museum in Varna, excavated the necropolis in Trebe- the context of a heated discussion of Macedonia’s state nište and discovered numerous princely graves and name. The wider audience showed great interest in this two golden masks. Bibliography: Filow and Schkorpil discovery (see more details on the masks and discus- (1927); Vulić (1925b, 1932). sion of their origins in Proeva 2006/2007). 287 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 287 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 areas.504 Even more rare were foreign excations. after 1944 that the process of creating actual na-Among the most known are the excavations of tional (Macedonian) institutions started. Johann Reiswitz and Wilhelm Unverzagt from the German Archaeological Institute, who, in However, before presenting the establishment of 1931 and 1932, collaborated with M. Grbić from the national archaeological disciplinary frame-Belgrade at the excavations of Gradište above work in N. Macedonia, a brief overview of the Sv. Erazmo near Ohrid. In this period the Brit- period of the Bulgarian occupation (1941–1944) ish School at Athens also extended its interests is needed for a more accurate contextualisation to the broader Macedonian region. Among the of its beginnings. Between 1941 and 1944, the British scholars W.A. Heurtley, the Director of country was occupied by Bulgaria (central and the School, was particularly active, and although eastern parts) and Italy (western parts), which he did not undertake field research in N. Mace- annexed the occupied territories to Albania. Bul-donia he did publish a monograph on Macedo- garia, unsatisfied with the outcome of the Bal-nia’s prehistory in 1939, which gave a synthetic kans Wars, retained its territorial claims over overview and new interpretations, and argued N. Macedonia. In 1941, Bulgaria effectively re-against the theories of Miloje Vasić on prehistor- turned to the territories which it had already ic developments in the southern and central Bal- occupied during the First World War. Advocat-kans (Heurtley 1939). ing that Macedonians are Bulgarians, and their language a Bulgarian dialect, Bulgaria started This brief overview of major archaeological ac- forced ‘Bulgarisation’ on the occupied territory, tivities between 1918 and 1945 clearly shows the which since 1918 had already for more than two absence of local (Macedonian) scholars. Before decades suffered from strong ‘Serbisation’ (and the annexation of (Vardar) Macedonia to Serbia de-Bulgarisation and de-Macedonisation). In in 1912, and its incorporation (as part of Serbia) the school year 1941/1942, Bulgarian authorities into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, opened 800 primary schools, 180 middle schools there were practically no significant Macedonian and 17 gymnasia, and planned a ‘Bulgarian’ uni-cultural institutions in the country, apart from versity in Skopje – Tsar Boris University (Rossos some rare high schools.505 The ‘Macedonian’ 2008, 184). All Macedonians were declared Bul-institutions such as museums, universities and garians and Bulgarian the only official language. scientific societies which could serve as nuclei Not much different happened in the parts which for the development of archaeological discipline belonged to the quisling Albania, with Bulgarisa-simply did not exist or were Serbian. The insti- tion strong in the domains studied in this book. tutional framework for the development of the archaeological discipline in the period 1918–1941 Instead of the Museum of Southern Serbia in Skop-in N. Macedonia was certainly not national (i.e. je, Bulgarians established a national museum to Macedonian), but conceived as an extension of ‘explain and present the national Bulgarian char-Serbian archaeology. It is only following the rec- acter’ and refute the ‘Serbian propaganda’ (Miljk-ognition of the Macedonian nation in Yugoslavia ović 1982, 89–90). The Bulgarian government – its prime minister was Bogdan Filov, archaeologist 504 E.g. Leon Rey. Observations sur les premiers habitans and historian, excavator of the famous Trebenište de la Macédoine. Paris 1921–1922; Stanley Casson, Ma- cemetery during the First World War – put for-cedonia, Thrace and Illyria. Oxford 1928; Gavril Katsa- rov, Paeonia: Contribution to the Ancient Ethnography ward a plan of establishing museums in all major and History of Macedonia (Гаврил Кацаров, Принос towns in N. Macedonia (Skopje, Bitola, Štip, Ve- към старата етнография и история на Македония). les, Prilep, Strumica, Ohrid...). The ‘new’ national Sofia (1921). museum in Skopje was opened in May 1942, with 505 The first full-status gymnasium in the wider region of Macedonia was founded in 1888 in Thessaloniki ( Mace- archaeology and ancient history departments. donian Encyclopedia, Skopje 2006, 1394). Altogether the museum had some 25 employees, 288 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 288 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 led by Hristo Vakarelski, a renowned Bulgarian in N. Macedonia before 1941, continued their ethnologist (Miljković 1982, 98). The curator for work after the Second World War in the Mace-archaeology was Ivan Venedikov. Bulgarian au- donian national institutions or closely cooperat-thorities also attempted to organize a network of ed with them (for example, M. Grbić). Howev-the “antiquities offices” (as branches of their na- er, it should be kept in mind that, with regard tional museum) in all major macedonian towns. to the advance of the archaeological discipline, Their task was to collect and buy antiquities, and the 1920s and 1930s can be regarded as the initial occasionally excavate some sites.506 In 1943, the phase of professionalisation and consolidation project of the Archaeological Map (of the territo- of archaeology in the future Socialist Republic of ry of today’s N. Macedonia) was launched, and Macedonia, but not yet as a national school. some surveys in the valley of Bregalnica were ac- tually undertaken (Miljković 1982, 99). Bulgarisa- After the Second World War and obtaining the tion was, indeed, attempted very ambitiously and status of the republic and a constituent nation with plentiful resources. Still, it did not succeed of Yugoslavia, there started the very intensive for several reasons, mainly because the national development of national political, cultural and liberation movement (led by Communists), the scientific institutions in N. Macedonia. For ar-strongest anti-fascist organisation in N. Macedo- chaeology, this was principally enacted in the nia, first adopted an independentist agenda and establishment of the National Museum in Skop-later decided to become a part of the Yugoslav Na- je in 1944.507 The act of establishment of the National Liberation Movement. The process of ‘Mac- tional Museum gave an unambiguous message edonisation’ of today’s N. Macedonia was made – the museum was made anew, and with no ref-possible only after the resolution of the Antifascist erence to the two previous ‘national’ museums Council of the National Liberation of Yugoslavia in Skopje – the Museum of South Serbia (est. in in 1943, which granted autonomy to the Macedo- 1924) and ‘Bulgarian’ National Museum which nian nation and the status of the constitutive re- existed during the Bulgarian occupation of public in newly reformed federal Yugoslavia. N. Macedonia. In 1949, the museum was divid- ed into two independent museums, the Archae- ological Museum of Macedonia and Ethnologi- Formation of a national archaeological cal Museum of Macedonia. system in North Macedonia (1945–) Another new institution was the University of In the immediate post-war period, the infrastruc- Skopje, which was established in 1949. The Fac-ture left from the ‘Serbian period’, and probably ulty of Philosophy in Skopje was already found-some of it also from the Bulgarian occupation, ed in 1920 as a branch of the University of Bel-provided a good basis for establishing the Mac- grade. It stopped working during the Bulgarian edonian national infrastructure of archaeology. occupation of N. Macedonia (1941–1944) and Some of the existing organisations and institu- was not revived after the war.508 Instead, the new tions were transformed into national bodies, ‘Macedonian’ Faculty of Philosophy was estab-and a certain number of Serbian scholars (and lished in 1946 and three years later incorporated other scholars from Yugoslavia), who worked into the University of Skopje. On the republican (national) level, the third major institution was 506 In Ohrid, the director of such office was Kiril Prličev established in the first post-war years (1949) – the who excavated the church of St. Pantalaimon where he discovered the grave of St. Clement (Sv. Kliment) jud- ging by the publication of Dimče Koco (1948), the first 507 In the same year the Natural History Museum in Skop- Macedonian Director of the Heritage Protection Insti- je was also founded. tute. St. Clement was a disciple of Cyril and Metho- 508 Bulgarians established the ‘Bulgarian’ National Muse- dius and highly worshiped saint among Macedonians um in Skopje and also attempted to establish the ‘Bul- and Bulgarians, considered protector of Ohrid. garian’ university. 289 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 289 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 Republican Institute for the Protection of Cultur- afterwards.510 The archaeologists who worked in al Monuments, the first such institute in N. Mac- N. Macedonia before the Second World War all edonia. The establishment of several national came from outside the country and left it before institutions ‘anew’ was a quite explicit statement or during the conflict. Although the Faculty of of abolishing the continuity of institutions from Philosophy in Skopje was founded in 1946, the the ‘Serbian’ or ‘Bulgarian’ periods. full archaeological curriculum was not intro- duced until three decades later, in the academic Outside Skopje there were only two very small year 1974/1975. The first Macedonian archaeolo-museums that existed before the Second World gists had degrees in art history (e.g. Dimče Koco, War, in Struga (1928) and Bitola (1934), and no Vasil Lahtov, Blaga Aleksova) or graduated from professional archaeologists were working there archaeology in Belgrade and Zagreb (e.g. Vlado at that time. After the war, museums started to be Malenko, Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Vojislav established in all major towns all over the coun- Sanev, Borka Josifovska). In such circumstances, try, first in Veles (1946), then in Skopje (1949, the it was understandable that archaeologists from Municipal Museum), Štip (1950), Tetovo (1950), other republics of the former Yugoslavia (e.g. Jo-Ohrid (1951), Strumica (1954) and Prilep (1955). sip Korošec, Jože Kastelic, Milorad Grbić, Milutin Later, in the 1960s and 1970s, followed another and Draga Garašanin), played an important role wave of new museums, in Kumanovo (1964), in the post-war development of the archaeologi-Kavadarci (1973), Negotino (1978), and Kičevo cal discipline in N. Macedonia. One of the priori- (1980). Small collections also existed in Stobi ties (in political terms) in historical disciplines in (1972) and Gevgelija (since the late 1970s). After the first two decades after the war was the assis-1991, museums were installed in Sveti Nikole tance in building national archaeological schools, (1994), Gevgelija (2003) and Vinica (2006). and N. Macedonia was no exception to this. The development of archaeology in the Repub- The situation in N. Macedonia after 1945 re-lic of Macedonia after 1945 can be divided into quired quick solutions in terms of the infra-roughly two phases: the formative phase (1945– structure and concept. An especially important ca. 1965), when the elementary infrastructure task was to establish an efficient service for and conceptual framework were successfully the protection of cultural heritage. Some plac-established, and the developed phase from the es, like Stobi, Ohrid, and Heraclea Lynkestis mid-1960s onwards. The latter phase is marked near Bitola, were extremely rich in archaeolog-by a more autonomous and ‘organic’ growth ical remains. Without an adequate protection in all disciplinary domains. After gaining in- system, they could face significant threats in dependence (from 1991 onwards), the changes the country’s post-war renewal. In addition to were very gradual and not of the magnitude this, hundreds of churches and monastic struc-known from the previous periods. However, the tures also needed attention and protection. The political context left a strong imprint on archae- Ohrid Lake area was especially ‘packed’ with ology’s image and status in N. Macedonia.509 monuments, sites and architecture from the Hellenistic to Early Medieval period. It is not Without a doubt, the main problem in the forma- by chance that the museum there was among tive phase was the lack of educated archaeologists in the country. There were simply no local archae- ologists whose careers would have started before 510 Fanula Papazoglu was born in Bitola (1917–2001), where she completed high school. Later on, she gradu-the war and could thus secure some continuity ated in classical philology, ancient history and archae- ology at the University of Belgrade (1936). At the same university she succeeded Nikola Vulić after the Sec- 509 This is further discussed at the end of the chapter on ond World War, and continued with a very successful N. Macedonia. career. 290 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 290 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 the first established. In addition to this, in 1952 D. Koco closely collaborated with Vasil Lahtov a special unit of the Republican Institute for the (1914–1964), an art historian who graduated from Protection of Cultural Monuments was placed the University of Skopje (1954) and obtained his in Ohrid, transformed in 1962 into the Munici- doctorate in archaeology at the University of pal Institute. Other regional units of this insti- Ljubljana (1963). Lahtov was the founder of the tute were established later, between 1960 and Museum in Ohrid (1951) and the journal ( Lihnid) 1980. That the tasks in the domain of heritage which the museum published. Despite his rela-protection were very demanding can be seen in tively short professional career, Lahtov laid solid the fact that regional institutes were joined with grounds for systematic research in southwestern museums, which was the only way to secure N. Macedonia. He directed several important the needed staff and infrastructure. field investigations, including the ancient the- atre’s excavations in Ohrid, the late-prehistory Among the first generation local scholars, Dimče cemetery at Trebenište and the Early Christian Koco, Vasil Lahtov, Borka Josifovska and Blaga basilica near Imaret. His topographic works pro-Aleksova played a crucial role in establishing duced the documentation of over 400 archaeo-the national Macedonian archaeological school. logical sites from southwestern N. Macedonia. Dimče Koco (1910–1993) was the oldest in this group, and the only one with a degree obtained Besides these two figures, B. Aleksova (1922–2007) before the war (at the University of Belgrade). also deserves attention, as she was among the first He laid the foundations for the study of the Ear- graduates of art history at the Faculty of Philoso-ly Christian history of art and archaeology in the phy in Skopje, with a PhD from the University of newly-created Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Lublin, Poland (1958). She pursued her career at the In 1944, the provisional Macedonian Liberation Archaeological Museum in Skopje and the Univer-Government authorised him to re-establish the sity of Skopje. In the early years of Macedonian arNational Museum in Skopje. Macedonians rec- chaeology, Aleksova represented, together with D. ognised neither the ‘Serbian’ nor the ‘Bulgarian’ Koco and V. Lahtov, an equally influential figure museums as the predecessors of their National in establishing modern archaeology in her country. Museum. Dimče Koco was also among the found- Her research was also focused on the Early Chris-ers of the new Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje, tian, Byzantine and medieval archaeology.511 and one of its first professors. In 1952, he took up the position of Director of the Archaeologi- The bibliography of D. Koco, V. Lahtov and B. cal Museum. Further, he initiated the two main Aleksova indicates the research priorities of archaeological journals in N. Macedonia at the post-war Macedonian archaeology – the early time: Glasnik na Muzejsko-konzervatorsko društvo and Godišniot zbornik na Arheološkiot muzej. Con- cerning research, his main activities were in me- 511 For example, B. Aleksova, Arheološki naogališta na dolniot tek na rekata Topolka, Glasnik na Muzejsko-konzer- dieval, Byzantine, and early Christian art history vatorsko društvo 9, Skopje 1954; B. Aleksova, Naodi od and archaeology. He conducted investigations srednovekovnite grobovi vo Kratovo, Glasnik na Insti- of some of the most important monuments from tutot za nacionalna istorija 1, Skopje 1957. Of particular significance is her work conducted towards the end of these periods in the area of Ohrid (for example, the 1960s in eastern N. Macedonia, in the region of Štip, the monastery complex of St. Clement, and the where she directed a number of excavation seasons in- Churches of St. Naum and St. Sophia). Based on vestigating the Late Antiquity town in Bargala that be- his scientific and professional achievements, he came an episcopal seat in the 5th and 6th century (B. Al- eksova, Bargala–Bregalnica vo svetlinata na novite ar- was elected a corresponding member of the Ger- heološki istražuvanja, Glasnik na Institutot za nacionalna man Archaeological Institute in 1955. In 1969, he istorija 3, Skopje 1967, 5–50; B. Aleksova, Pridones od was awarded the degree of doctor honoris causa of istražuvanjata od Bargala–Bregalnica za osvetluvanjeto na istorijata na Južnite Sloveni, Posebna Izdanja XII, Cen- the University of Besançon in France. tar za balkanološka ispitivanja 4, Sarajevo 1969, 105–114). 291 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 291 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 Christian and Byzantine periods and the Middle succeeded in creating the third major centre of Ages. One of the main reasons for this lies in the, Macedonian archaeology in Prilep, besides those undoubtedly, a very high number of architectur- in Skopje and Ohrid. His most famous works on al and art monuments from these periods and Early Slavic archaeology were published in the their exceptional character. On the other hand, 1970s and 1980s.513 one cannot ignore the political climate in the first two decades following the war and intensified An essential part in the formation of Macedo-institutionalisation of the Macedonian nation as nian archaeology, especially in terms of its con-sui generis in Yugoslavia, with its own language, ceptual development, was also played by some culture and political autonomy. In such circum- archaeologists from other Yugoslav republics. stances, Macedonian archaeology could, for the Their contribution was primarily in prehistoric first time, contribute significantly to this process archaeology, which was very poorly developed by focusing on the critical period from the Late in N. Macedonia, although it had great po-Antiquity to the Middle Ages, during which the tential. Of the Serbian archaeologists, Milutin political and cultural structures were formed Garašanin and Miodrag Grbić were the most that the new Republic of Macedonia attempt- active. Just after the Second World War, Grbić ed to use as the basis for affirming its historical carried out several field investigations in N. identity and legitimacy. Macedonia and, in 1954, published the system- atic list of archaeological sites and monuments In addition to the local pioneers of archaeolo- in the country (Grbić 1954), which served as an gy, some experts came to N. Macedonia from essential basis for the development of archae-other places in Yugoslavia, and some remained ology in N. Macedonia over next two decades. there permanently. Amongst them, Boško Babić In 1950 and 1952, Grbić conducted excavations (1924–1998), the founder of the Museum and In- of the sites Zelenikovo and Porodin, together stitute for Early Slavic Studies (1980) in Prilep, with Wilhelm Unverzagt and Johann Reiswitz and the Archaeological Society of Macedonia from the then German Democratic Republic, (1970), occupies a special place.512 Today he is which is probably the earliest example of in-considered a doyen of the Slavic archaeology in ternational cooperation in field investigations N. Macedonia. He was born in Bosanska Gradiš- in post-war Yugoslavia.514 Milutin Garašanin ka and was of Croatian-Romanian descent. He graduated from the art history department at the 513 For example, B. Babić, Crepulja, crepna, podnica – pose-University of Belgrade and completed a doctor- bno značajan oslonac za atribuciju srednjovjekovnih ar- heoloških nalazišta Balkanskog poluostrva Slovenima ate in archaeology (the topic of which was the porijeklom sa Istoka. Materijali IX (Symposium of the Me- Macedonian Slavs) at the University of Lublin dieval Section of the Archaeological Association of Yugosla- in Poland. From the very beginning of his ca- via, Prilep 1970), Beograd 1972, 101–124; B. Babić, Die Erforschung der altslavischen Kultur in der SR Maze- reer in Prilep, Babić worked intensively on the donien, Zeitschrift für Archäologie 10–76/1, Zentralin- archaeology of the Early Slavs, which, until then, stitut für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akade- had been a non-existent area of research in this mie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Berlin 1976, 59–73; B. Babić, Materijalnata kultura na makedonskite Sloveni country. During his investigations, he discov- vo svetlinata na arheološkite istražuvanja vo Prilep . ered some of the earliest Slavic sites in the cen- Prilozi na istorijata na kulturata na Makedonskiot narod, tral Balkans in general. Over two decades, he 1986. For further information on the work of B. Babić see G. Babić-Janeska, 1986 and K. Petrov, 1986. 514 Grbić collaborated with Johann Reiswitz and Wil- 512 He was among the founders of two important scien- helm Unverzagt already in the 1930s at Gradište tific journals in N. Macedonia, Macedoniae Acta archae- above Sv. Erasmo Church in Ohrid, and during the ologica and Balcanoslavica, as well as the first president Second World War, when both were stationed in of the Association of Yugoslav Archaeological Societies Belgrade as German military offi cials ( Ahnenerbe) in (1972–1976) and the head of the International Union of charge of historical and heritage research. Later, they Slavic Archaeology (1975). both continued their academic careers, Reiswitz at 292 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 292 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 also undertook several surveys and excava- developmental gap between the various parts tions in N. Macedonia and published a number of Yugoslavia. It also certainly desired a ‘strong’ of papers that contributed significantly to the Macedonia in the south of the country bordered conceptualisation and building of interpreta- by Bulgaria, Greece and Albania, with which it tive models for the country’s prehistory.515 The there were tense political relations. Slovene archaeologists Jože Kastelic and Josip Korošec also produced some significant results The most significant changes since the 1960s in the first decades of Macedonian archaeology. onwards (i.e. developed phase) were in the Jointly with V. Lahtov, J. Kastelic investigated domain of heritage protection. In 1949 the Re-the area of Trebenište in the early 1950s, while publican Institute for the Protection of Cultur-J. Korošec was involved in the research of im- al Monuments (with its branch in Ohrid since portant sites from the Neolithic period in Grgur 1952) was established and acted as the only Tumba and Anzabegovo. such institution in the whole country. Soon the amount of work increased to a level that de- By the beginning of the 1960s, Macedonian ar- manded reorganisation of the public service chaeology made remarkable progress. Only for heritage protection. New regional institutes fifteen years earlier, the discipline was almost started to be established in Skopje (1963), Bito-non-existent at the local level. There were nei- la (1975, Štip (1979), Prilep and Strumica. These ther adequate domestic institutions nor domes- new regional institutes increased the number of tic experts, and the degree of research was ex- professional archaeologists in the country and tremely low. Such significant advancement (the the general extent of the archaeological work formation of nine new museums and the Na- in protection and research. Compared to other tional Museum, the Faculty of Philosophy with republics in the former Yugoslavia, the Mace-the Department of Art History, and the service donian particularity was the integration of refor the protection of the monuments of culture) gional museums with regional institutes, which was possible thanks to several factors. In the first was actually a continuation of the earlier prac-place, there was a substantial investment in the tices. In the first two decades after the war, in development of Macedonian culture as an essen- the formative phase, the Republican Institute tial component of the institutionalisation of the for the Protection of Cultural Heritage could Macedonian nation in Yugoslavia. This process efficiently perform its tasks only if assisted by ran parallel to, and in synergy with, the Mace- local museum staff and infrastructure. In this donian society’s general social and economic sense, the museums were, from their beginning, modernisation. Moreover, one must not ignore involved in heritage protection and developed the fact that both processes were strongly sup- abundant experience in this field. The regional-ported by the then ruling Communist govern- isation of public service for heritage protection ment (Macedonian and Yugoslav), which im- took this fact into account and created a ‘hy-posed the ideology of the fraternity and unity brid’ institutional network. of Yugoslav people, also aimed at bridging the By 1970s, Macedonian archaeology reached the the University of Munich, while Unverzagt became levels of other national archaeologies in Yugo-one of the most important archaeologists of the GDR, slavia in infrastructural and conceptual devel-as a professor at the Humboldt’s University in Berlin. In 1942 and 1943, he investigated Kalemegdan For- opment, and it was well integrated into Yugo-tress in Belgrade (W. Unverzagt, Neue Ausgrabun- slav archaeology. In 1971, when the Archaeo-gen in der Festung Belgrad, Berlin 1945. Forschungen logical Society of Yugoslavia (the principal arund Fortschritte 21, 41–45). On Reiswitz’ and Unver- zagt’s activities in Serbia during the Second World chaeological scholarly society) was transformed War, see more in Bandović (2014). into the Association of Archaeological Societies 515 E.g. Garašanin M. (1956). of Yugoslavia, the Macedonian society took 293 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 293 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 the presidency of the association. Unfortunate- To illustrate the consequences in archaeology, ly developments, not only in archaeology but I have looked at the number of archaeological also in general, were abruptly interrupted by a publications produced in N. Macedonia before catastrophic event that had immense econom- and after the earthquake.516 The diagram below ic consequences, the catastrophic earthquake shows the works by their date of publication, at in Skopje in 1963 when more than 1,000 peo- five-year intervals. ple were killed, and 70% of the city was utterly destroyed. About 200,000 people had to leave The diagram shows that three lows are evident their homes because Skopje was left without in the curve, corresponding to the three phases functioning infrastructure. Despite sizeable Yu- with a negative impact on archaeology, (a) the goslav and international aid, the whole country earthquake in Skopje in 1963, (b) the start of the suffered a significant blow to its economy and major economic crisis in Yugoslavia in the ear-infrastructure. It took more than a decade and ly 1980s, and (c) the onset of the wars with the enormous financial and material support to re- break-up of the former Yugoslavia. store the city of Skopje, and many institutions in the heavily damaged capital could not fully Nevertheless, the rebuilding of Skopje and function for a significant period of time. N. Macedonia’s economic reconstruction stimu- Fig. 146 The frequency of publishing in Macedonian archaeology (i.e. the number of papers per 5-year interval, between 1945 and 1998). 294 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 294 22. 10. 2021 11:06:04 lated a new cycle of development in the coun- published today and has the highest interna-try, within which archaeology was also offered tional reputation among all journals in human-some fresh perspectives. The new, state-of-the- ities and social sciences published in N. Mac-art buildings were erected for the Archaeological edonia. Another early journal with important Museum and the Faculty of Philosophy. Simul- archaeological content was Lihnid, published taneously, a complete archaeology curriculum as the journal of the Museum and Regional In-was introduced at the Faculty of Philosophy in stitute for Protection of Cultural monuments in Skopje (1974/1975),516517 thus finally completing Ohrid. The first issue appeared in 1957 (1959), the establishment of all main fields of archaeo- but then only irregularly. logical research and practice. The period of the creation of modern Macedoni- The following two decades (1970–1990) were an archaeology was also characterised by anoth-the time when Macedonian archaeology was at er advance – intensive international cooperation its peak. During this period, the number of pro- in research. Besides Grbić’s collaboration in the fessional archaeologists rose significantly, both early 1950s, who worked with archaeologists in the central and regional or local institutions, from the German Democratic Republic in Zele-enabling the expansion of archaeological work nikovo and Porodin, there were no other signifi-into areas that were previously less intensively cant international projects in N. Macedonia until studied. In 1971, following the Archaeological the 1960s, although the great archaeological po-Society of Yugoslavia’s transformation into an tential of the country did not escape the attention association of national archaeological societies, of many foreign scholars. Macedonians established their own national scholarly society, which in 1975 started to pub- The situation began to change as early as 1969 lish the Macedoniae acta archaeologica, the lead- when Maria Gimbutas (UCLA) expanded her ing archaeological journal today. In 1972, the large project focused on the Neolithic period of Centre for Early Slavic Research at the Museum the southern Balkans to include N. Macedonia, in Prilep,518 in cooperation with the Association that is – the early Neolithic site of Ansa near of the Archaeological Societies of Yugoslavia, Štip, which she investigated until 1971.519 A launched a journal Balcanoslavica, still pub- markedly larger and more important project for lished today. Prior to the 1970s, there were not the development of domestic archaeology was many archaeological publications. Among the the one in Stobi (1970–1980), within which Mac-journals, the principal role was played by Živa edonian institutions (the Archaeological Muse-antika ( Antiquitė Vivante), established in 1951 in um in Skopje, the Museum in Veles, the Univer-Skopje on the initiative of the classical philolo- sity of Skopje) collaborated with an American gists from the universities of Skopje, Belgrade, team composed of specialists from a range of Zagreb and Ljubljana, which also published universities and other institutions.520 Another some archaeological papers. The journal is still international project was carried out in 1976 and 516 The bibliography listed in Archaeological Map of the Re-519 See Gimbutas (1976). public of Macedonia can be considered a reasonably rep- resentative sample of archaeological publications. The 520 The Stobi project was jointly funded by the Macedoni- Archaeological Map lists 632 works published between an Government and the Smithsonian Institution. The 1945 and 1995. American team included scholars from the University of Texas, Austin (the main US partner); University of Il- 517 The archaeology curriculum was combined with the linois, Chicago; University of Oregon; American School curriculum of art history studies. Only after 2000 was in Athens; Tufts University, Massachusetts; State Uni- the programme in archaeology introduced as a sepa- versity of New York, Buffalo. The bibliography of this rate degree course. project is considerable. For major publications, see J. 518 In 1980 the centre was transformed into the autono- Wiseman and Đ. Mano-Zisi (1971); J. Wiseman and Đ. mous Institute for Early Slavic Culture. Mano-Zisi (1973; 1975; 1976; 1981). 295 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 295 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 1977, when a Macedonian-Polish team excavat- the importance of this Institute for further devel-ed the Early Slavic site in Debrešte near Prilep. opment of Slavic studies in former Yugoslavia.522 Together with an increasing number of projects initiated by local institutions in the 1970s and Along with the traditionally prioritised research 1980s, all these were possible due to improve- areas (Late Antiquity and the Early Christian ments in infrastructure. This is also evident in and Byzantine periods), a new field of research the fact that in the 1980s, besides Skopje, there in Macedonian archaeology has seen profound were two other important centres of the disci- development over the last few decades – the pline, Ohrid and Prilep. study of the Neolithic. N. Macedonia occupies one of the most pivotal places in the Central The exceptional natural and cultural wealth of Balkans. The Vardar – Morava route served as the area of Ohrid received full international rec- one of the main pathways of Neolithisation of ognition in 1979 when the town was placed on Southeast Europe. Intensive investigations of the UNESCO World Heritage List.521 It is thus the Neolithic sites revealed an extraordinary not surprising that a very active archaeological wealth of Neolithic cultures (the group Anzabe-centre developed there. From the archaeological govo–Vršnik, the Porodin group) and revealed perspective, this area is known for unique mate- numerous spectacular discoveries (such as rial remains and discoveries dating from the pe- the ‘Adam from Govrlevo’, a 15 cm-high male riod starting in the Early Neolithic, through the clay statue showing an unusually realistic rep-time of the ancient Paeonian and Macedonian resentation of the human body). The remarkable princely tombs of the first millennium BC (e.g. potential for Neolithic research in N. Macedonia the golden funeral mask from Ohrid), the Hel- had been known to the broader international lenistic period (e.g. the theatre), the Roman set- community for a long time, so it is not surprising tlement, up to the period of the Byzantine rule. that archaeologists from other centres in Yugo-There are also finds of early Macedonian remains slavia often worked in the area and were joined (e.g. the oldest Slavic monastery of St. Pantelei- by world-renowned scientists. Soon after the in-mon, with more than 2,500 m2 of frescoes and the itial exploration of the sites from this period was second largest collection of icons in the world). carried out, usually by researchers from outside N. Macedonia, local archaeologists would take In contrast to Ohrid, Prilep developed into a na- up the initiative and continue to develop Neo-tional centre with a narrower focus on the Early lithic archaeology successfully. Among them, Slavs’ archaeology. In 1980, the Institute for the Vojislav Sanev (1938–2007) from the museum in Study of Early Slavic Culture was founded, and Štip (later moved to the Archaeological Muse-archaeological research was its essential part. um in Skopje) contributed notably to the devel-Boško Babić held a leading position at the In- opment of Neolithic archaeology. stitute and succeeded in developing it into the second-largest institution in former Yugoslavia Over three decades, Macedonian archaeology dealing with Slavic archaeology, after the Mu- accomplished the development of all main re-seum of Croatian National Monuments in Split. search fields – prehistoric, ancient and medieval Indeed, the political climate was highly favourable for establishing such a large institution pri- 522 The Institute regularly published the journal Balcano-marily oriented towards research on national slavica, a medium-quality publication on Slavic archae- history and culture, but this does not diminish ology in former Yugoslavia. Balcanoslavica was first es- tablished as one of the journals of the Association of Yugoslav Archaeological Societies in 1972. However, very soon, the Prilep institutions took over the publish- 521 In 1979, Ohrid was placed on this list based on its nat- ing of the journal. Eventually, following the breakup of ural heritage. In 1980, the nomination was extended to Yugoslavia in 1991, the journal was formally handed include cultural heritage. over to the Institute in Prilep. 296 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 296 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 archaeology – up to the level of archaeological Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja, none of the research in other republics of Yugoslavia at the publication’s five volumes contains a contribu-time. Perhaps the only area where the progress tion of N. Macedonian archaeologists. All of the was somewhat delayed was Palaeolithic and authors who presented regions of N. Macedonia Mesolithic archaeology. Mirko Malez (1979), in through different prehistoric periods were from his brief review of the Palaeolithic in N. Macedo- archaeological centres from outside N. Macedonia in Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja, mentioned nia – Mirko Malez reported on the Palaeolithic, as the only relevant Macedonian researcher was Milutin Garašanin on the Neolithic and Bronze Risto Garevski (1922–2012), a palaeontologist Age, and Rastko Vasić prepared the overview and a professor at the Faculty of Mining and Ge- on the Iron Age in N. Macedonia. It is difficult ology in Štip. In 1956 and 1969, Garevski exca- to identify the reason behind this. One possi-vated the cave of Makarovec near Veles. ble explanation may stem from the fact that the key conceptual and interpretative models in the At the end of this chapter, a curious fact must chronology, typology, and cultural determina-be highlighted that casts light on Yugoslavia’s tion of material culture in the Central Balkans archaeological academic relationships and pol- (N. Macedonia included) were developed in the itics. Among the 28 authors and co-authors 1950s and 1960s by prehistorians from Belgrade of texts included in the voluminous synthesis (e.g. M. Garašanin). Fig. 147 Archaeological institutions in N. Macedonia. 297 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 297 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 However, this cannot be claimed for the 1970s of the Republic of Macedonia and Albanian and 1980s, because these were the times when guerrilla units. The conflict was ended through domestic archaeologists indeed carried out most an official agreement in Ohrid, which secured of the prehistoric investigations in N. Macedonia. greater autonomy and political rights for the One of the reasons may also be the difficulties Albanian community in Macedonia. faced by the editors of Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja with regard to introducing coherent crite- Such political and economic situations un-ria for the presentation of different regions, which doubtedly had a negative effect on all aspects created significant problems for the coherence of of society, including archaeology. The majority the entire corpus of the publication.523 However, of public institutions in the country, especially regardless of the reasons, the absence of Macedo- in education, culture and science, could survive nian scholars was not unnoticed in Macedonian only by applying drastic reductions to costs and archaeology, and revived some memories on the activities. The data presented in Fig. 146 shows ‘Serbian’ archaeological ‘colonialism’. that the number of archaeological publications in the first half of the 1990s plunged to the lev- el recorded some thirty years before. The com- Archaeology after 1991 and the munication with archaeologists and institutions ‘Macedonian issue’ in the neighbouring countries, especially in the former Yugoslav republics, either ceased or was During the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Macedo- hampered because of the war in Bosnia and nia declared its independence amid challenging Herzegovina and Croatia, the lack of funding, economic and political circumstances. Since it and also the rigorous visa regime imposed on was economically the least-developed republic, the citizens of Macedonia by the countries of post-1991 Macedonia found itself in a harsh sit- the European Union and many other European uation which further worsened in the first half states. After a decade, however, the economic of the decade due to the UN’s economic sanc- situation started to gradually improve, and a tions imposed on Milošević’s Serbia, which was new stabilisation process has taken place over one of Macedonia’s principal economic part- the last fifteen years or so, although still under ners, and the Greek economic embargo as a re- very modest economic conditions. action to the official state-name of Macedonia. The gross national income per capita in 1992 All archaeological institutions from the period dropped by about 15% compared to 1991, and before the break-up of Yugoslavia have contin-the reconstruction was very slow and fraught ued to be active. Some of them changed their sta-with difficulties (down by 27% compared to tus, but, in general, they remained fully active 1991 in 1995, 22% in 2000, 35% in 2005, and in archaeology. Three new local museums were 57% in 2008).524 After the secession of Kosovo established after 1991, in Sveti Nikole (1994), and the military intervention of NATO forces Gevgelija (2003) and Vinica (2006). against Serbia, the relations with the Albanian minority in N. Macedonia (approximately one- The changes were most substantial in public third of the population) deteriorated. In 2001, service for the protection of cultural heritage. this led to an armed conflict between the Army Instead of the former Republican Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, the Act 523 This issue was very clearly presented by Staša Babić on Protection of Cultural Heritage (2004) defines (2011). two types of institutions. New central institu- 524 Source: http://www.economywatch.com/econom- tions are the Directorate for the Protection of ic-statistics/country/Macedonia/ (based on the data from the World Bank and the CIA World Factbook Cultural Heritage ( Uprava za zaštita na kulturno data). nasledstvo) (2005) and National Conservation 298 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 298 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 Centre ( Nacionalen konzervatorski centar). The Di- for 2009 and 2010).525 Besides the traditionally rectorate is an administrative unit of the Minis- important investigations at Stobi, in recent years try of Culture, and its tasks are primarily admin- large field projects were conducted at Plaošnik istrative (e.g. administrative implementation of in Ohrid, Skopsko Kale and Scupi. Concerning legislation, development of the national strategy these large projects, all of them were conducted of protection of heritage, maintenance of the Na- in places which have already been researched, tional Gazetteer of heritage objects, sites, archi- and represent ‘particular’ locations (citadel of old tectures and areas, monitoring the implementa- towns, Roman towns, etc. ) and important histor-tion of legislation, etc.). ical markers. However, one could not escape the feeling that many of the large projects on places, The National Conservation Centre replaced the perceived as particularly important for the his-former Republican Institute for Protection of torical image and identity of N. Macedonia, were the Monuments of Culture, but has somewhat synchronised with political goals. For most of the different prerogatives. All former regional in- last two decades, the nationalist government institutes for the protection of cultural heritage in tensively supported the so-called ‘antiquisation’, Skopje, Ohrid, Bitola, Prilep, Štip, and Strumica i.e. creating the Macedonian historical identity were transformed into regional Conservation based on the ancient Macedonians. I will say a Centres and more integrated into the National few words later in the text on this phenomenon. Conservation Centre. However, while ‘representative’ archaeology Another new institution was established in 2008 was at its peak, the situation in other domains – the National Institution for the Management was quite different, especially in preventive ar-of the Archaeological Site Stobi. Thus, the like- chaeology, which could not meet the challenges ly most important ancient site in N. Macedonia of large infrastructural development (e.g. motorwas finally incorporated into a more appropri- ways, large industrial plants, etc.). This was not ate institutional framework. New also was the the problem in legislation but in implementation Faculty of Education Sciences at the University and relatively weak capacities of public service of Goce Delčev, Štip, established in 1995, which for the protection of cultural heritage to prompt-recently an introduced archaeological curricu- ly meet the challenges of large development pro-lum, and the Faculty also launched a new jour- jects. Compared to Slovenia and Croatia, where nal – the Annual Review of the Institute of History motorways’ construction catalysed a strong and Archaeology. boost to preventive archaeology and a substan- tial increase in research, employment and infra- The rebuilding of the international collabora- structure, this was not the case in N. Macedonia. tion intensified after 2000 in terms of student There, preventive archaeological research was exchanges, guest exhibitions abroad, coopera- not – and still is not – included in the planning tion with foreign research teams in fieldwork in phases of development. Only those already list-N. Macedonia, and so on. Publishing activity also ed sites (i.e. being previously discovered) have increased significantly by initiating new series to be either avoided or researched before the and publications (e.g. Macedonian Archaeological construction works. Still, there are no funds (and Journal / Makedonski arheološki vesnik – a joint elec- obligations) secured for the actual preventive tronic publication of the Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Heritage and the Euro-Balkan 525 http://www.mand.org.mk/mk/aktivnosti.php?id=1. Institute for Postgraduate Studies). The number The website of the Macedonian Scientific Archaeolog- of archaeological excavations has been on the rise ical Society lists the projects approved by the Ministry as well (40 to 50 per year according to the data of Culture. The number of excavations may be even greater if short-term, preventive interventions are tak- en into account. 299 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 299 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 research as part of the necessary impact stud- number of archaeologists in individual towns ies for each development project. Though more or regions. Of about 110 active archaeologists, than a hundred kilometres of new motorways based on the information from the Macedoni-were recently constructed, only a small number an Archaeological Society, nearly half of them of sites were rescued. The situation is not much are employed in the institutions in Skopje. The better with regard to preventive archaeology in second centre is Prilep, with ten archaeologists urban areas. working at the Regional Conservation Centre, Institute for the Early Slavic Culture and Muse- At present, there are 21 institutions in the Re- um, followed by Bitola with five and Ohrid with public of North Macedonia which employ ar- four archaeologists. Such an unbalanced distri-chaeologists. Four of them are academic insti- bution of archaeological posts indicates certain tutions, the Cyril and Methodius University in centralisation of human and material resources, Skopje, The University of Goce Delčev at Štip, but the situation is still not at the level of centrali-the Institute for Early Slavic Culture in Prilep. sation seen in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia. To this group, I have also added the Archaeo- In my opinion, the major challenge in the future logical Museum in Skopje. Though academic re- will come in the field of preventive archaeology, search is not its primary task, the museum was where the lack of archaeological posts, especially the country’s principal research institution for at regional and local levels, is evident. According many decades. Together with the University of to the Ministry of Culture data, there are some Skopje, the museum employs the largest team 4,200 archaeological sites listed. Experience in of archaeologists in the country. The other two Slovenia and Croatia, where in the last two dec-academic institutions are much smaller with re- ades alone, after the introduction of intensive gard to archaeological personnel, with two or preventive research, the number of newly dis-three archaeologists at maximum. There are two covered sites increased significantly, point to a national institutions for heritage protection, the much higher number of sites also in N. Macedo-Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Herit- nia. Their protection and research inevitably call age and National Conservation Centre, with its for more archaeologists. regional branches in Skopje, Bitola, Štip. Ohrid, Prilep and Strumica. In general, each regional In the period after 1991, indisputably the most branch has one or two archaeologists. With the significant achievement in Macedonian archae-formation of the National Conservation Centre ology has been the publication of the Archaeo-and its branches in 2005, the traditional ‘hybrid’ logical Map of the Republic of Macedonia ( Ar-model of integrated regional museums and insti- heološka karta na Republika Makedonija) prepared tutes for the protection of cultural heritage was jointly by the Macedonian Academy of Scienc-abolished. The ‘archaeological’ museum net- es and Arts and the Archaeological Museum in work is, presently, composed of 17 museums to Skopje. The preparation of the materials for pub-which the Archaeological Park Stobi should also lication started much earlier, in the framework be added. of the Yugoslav initiative for publication of ar- chaeological topographies and archaeological All in all, the archaeological ‘institutional’ land- maps of the individual republics. North Mace-scape is reasonably developed and has stable po- donia was the third which published an exten-tential for the future. 526 On the other hand, the sive gazetteer of sites, after Slovenia ( Areheološka picture is somewhat different if one looks at the najdišča Slovenije 1975) and Bosnia and Herzegovina ( Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine 1988). 526 Virtually all these institutions conduct archaeological The Archaeological Map of the Republic of Mac-research (according to the data on projects approved for 2009 and 2010), meaning that they have resident ar- edonia was published in three large volumes. chaeologists and the necessary material infrastructure. The first volume (1994) contained synthetic texts 300 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 300 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 on ar5chaeological periods, the second volume the Greek and Macedonian parliaments ratified (1996) was a catalogue of sites, while the third the so-called Prespa Agreement, which resolved volume (2002) contained detailed maps. Alto- this dispute. Since then, the country has been of-gether, in this publication, some 4,500 archaeo- ficially named North Macedonia. However, this logical sites on 1,300 locations were catalogued. process left deep marks on Macedonian archae- ology, especially its public image. After the Republic of Macedonia was proclaimed a state in 1991, the archaeology and ancient his- As in all other former Yugoslav republics, a tory of the region came into the centre of atten- surge in ethnocentric perspectives in historiog-tion of the domestic and foreign public because raphy (Brunnbauer 2003) can also be observed of the dispute with Greece over the country’s of- in N. Macedonia, especially after Yugoslavia’s ficial name. The Macedonian constitution spoke dissolution and during the dispute with Greece. of the Republic of Macedonia. Greece contested Simultaneously, pseudo-archaeology and pseu-the name ‘Macedonia’ and argued that it denotes do-history flourished widely, most often cona region which, through history, was Greek and, cerning the national groups’ origin and ethnicas such, belongs to Greek cultural heritage, with ity. The theory of Venetian and even Etruscan the use of this name an expression of territori- origin of the Slovenes was popular for a while al pretensions towards other parts of the former in Slovenia. In Croatia, ‘proof’ of the Iranian or-historical province of Macedonia. Greece re- igin of Croats was sought. A theory of Illyrian peatedly vetoed Macedonia’s accession to inter- ancestors was favoured among the Albanians national organisations, so it was not until 1993 and Bosniaks. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the that the Republic of Macedonia was finally ad- Illyrians were also seen as the forefathers of the mitted to the United Nations under the provi- Bogumils, the supposed Christian heresy from sional name – the Former Yugoslav Republic of the medieval period. In Serbia, the origin of the Macedonia. After a year of very tense relations, Serbs was pursued in the Neolithic Vinča, and so Greece and the Republic of Macedonia signed on.529 Common to all these theories was the quest a temporary agreement in 1995. Both sides ac- for the non-Slavic origin of these nations. knowledged the other’s sovereignty and territo- rial integrity, and they agreed to the rapid start N. Macedonia, naturally, was not immune to of negotiations on the official name of Macedo- such ‘theories’ and ‘hidden histories’, especial-nia.527 Greece also vetoed Macedonia’s access to ly not in the heated political atmosphere of the NATO in 2008, which further worsened the two last three decades. Here, along with some rare countries’ relations.528 Finally, in January 2019, and exotic pseudo-archaeological ideas (for example, the Macedonian alphabet dating from 527 That year also, the Republic of Macedonia changed its the Neolithic, etc.), the thesis about the ancient flag. The official flag (1992–1995) showed the star from origin of the present-day Macedonians was Vergina in gold against a red background. Greece considered this symbol its property and submitted a re- quest that year to the World Intellectual Property Or- ganization for the exclusive right to use it. Alexander the Great (i.e. Aleksandar Makedonski), and 528 A formal statement from Athens was published on erecting large statues of Alexander and Philip II, the the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs kings of Macedonia. The Greek position was that “A of the Republic of Greece (http://www.mfa.gr/en/fy- compound name with a geographical qualifier for use rom-name-issue/), according to which the former Yu- in relations to everyone ( erga omnes) is the best possible goslav Republic of Macedonia was violating the interim basis for finding an honest, mutually beneficial com- agreement between the two countries by, among other promise that will not create winners and losers...”. things, using the name the Republic of Macedonia in 529 For further information on pseudo-archaeology and international contacts, using ancient Macedonian sym-historical myths in the regions of former Yugoslavia, bols (the so-called star from Vergina) on its flag, nam- see Novaković (2007a; 2007b); Džino (2014); Slapšak ing the airport in Skopje after Alexander of Macedon/ (1993). 301 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 301 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 seriously promoted by the government.530 The In addition to this, foreign historiographies initial authors of such theories were mostly ama- were accused of appropriating the Macedonian teur historians and archaeologists. Still, with the past.532 Concerning such antiquitisation, it is nec-deterioration of the relations with Greece, espe- essary to point out another one of its ‘inherent’ cially after the failed attempt at the admission of aspects, along with the ‘appropriation’ of ancient N. Macedonia into NATO in 2008 (Proeva 2010, Macedonia and its exclusive connection with the 219), the official Macedonian authorities began Macedonian nation, such picture of the past ex-to very openly promote the ancient Macedoni- cluded the Albanian component.533 ans as ancestors of the modern Macedonians, and the continuity of present-day N. Macedonia In both ideological and material terms the in-from ancient Macedonia.531 Whether this referred vestment into antiquitisation was enormous. T he to symbolic continuity or even implied direct symbols from ancient Macedonia (important fig-continuity is actually of not much importance ures, graphic symbols, architectural models, ar-here. The fact is that the official state ideology chaeological finds) became more and more pres-and archaeology found themselves on opposite ent in public. According to Nada Proeva (2012), sides. In the entire Macedonian archaeological this process was, to a high degree, encouraged bibliography between 1945 and 1991 there is by the Macedonian diaspora, which had a signif-virtually no single text that would provide a ba- icant influence on the authorities in the Repub-sis, i.e. scientific legitimacy, to the theses of the lic of North Macedonia and also financed some ancient origin of modern Macedonians. Despite antiquitisation projects. Among the most evident this, the Macedonian government launched a cases was the naming of the airports in Skopje project of ‘ antiquitisation’ of the country, which and Ohrid after Alexander the Great and St. Paul had a far greater public prominence thanks to the Apostle, the principal motorway became the the high financing it received. In such a political Alexander of Macedonia Motorway, the football context, numerous publications about the ‘true’ stadium in Skopje was named after Filip II Mace-history of Macedonia and the Macedonian na- donian, etc. However, by far the most expensive tion began to emerge, arguing that previous na- was the project Skopje 2014 which included the tional history and historiography were created by the (Communist) regime denying or restrict- 532 Proeva (2010) argues that the inspiration for the (new) ing the Macedonian nationality in Yugoslavia. Macedonian myth of the Macedonians’ ancient ori- gin was, to a great extent, a reaction to the myths of the neighbouring nations that denied the Macedonian 530 Brunnbauer (2003, 303) speaks of a U-turn in creating nation. of the historical myth of the Macedonians’ origin. Be- 533 An interesting question arises in connection with ar-fore gaining independence in 1991, the idea of Mace- chaeology, not only in N. Macedonia but also in Mon- donians as a nation sui generis sought its basis in the tenegro and Serbia. Namely, archaeologists of Albani- independent political formations of the Slavs (such as an origin were, in Yugoslavia, present only in Kosovo. the Samuil’s Kingdom) and the cultural and linguistic In contrast, in N. Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, achievements of Cyril and Methodius and their stu- where large local Albanian communities also exist, dents. After 1991, the idea draws upon the thesis of the there were none. This quite clearly shows that archaeol- ancient Macedonians. Brunnbauer explains this shift ogy was perceived as a discipline dealing with the past mostly due to the reaction of Macedonians to the Greek of a nation, that is, the past of the territory of a (domi- refusal to accept the name of the new state, and part- nant) nation. One should certainly further explore the ly to the Bulgarians pushing the origin of their nation broader aspects of this phenomenon. Although the ex- back to the Thracian past. act figures are not available, it could be argued that ar- 531 It is true that, in the 1990s, governments of all the states chaeology studies at Yugoslav universities had a dis- of former Yugoslavia, some more some less, were mak- proportionately low number of students of Albanian ing use of certain pseudo-archaeological or pseudo-his- origin. The question is whether the Albanians find the toriographical narrations. Later on, this practice largely study programmes in Serbia or N. Macedonia relevant ceased. However, in N. Macedonia the authorities most for their views on the past. There is one person of Alba- openly supported and financially aided the historical nian origin among the current members of the Macedo- myths about the continuity of state from ancient times. nian Scientific Archaeological Society. 302 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 302 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 massive construction of a series of public build- In such an atmosphere, the general public per-ings in ‘ancient’ style and erection of a series of ceived archaeology as a discipline whose task is large monuments to historical figures from the to provide tangible evidence that connects the period of ancient Macedonia onwards.534 Among ancient Macedonians with the modern Macedo-new constructions, there was also a new build- nian nation. The Macedonian government went ing for the Archaeological Museum (2014) and in this direction immeasurably farther than the the two gigantic, over 20 m high, statues of Alex- governments of all other successor countries of ander, the Great of Macedonia (2011) and Phil- former Yugoslavia. The scientific community of lip II of Macedonia (2012),535 as well as the Tri- archaeologists, historians, philologists, art histo-umphal Arch, the new buildings of the National rians and other scholars in N. Macedonia who Theatre and Museum of Resistance, all in distinct study ancient history have been in a much more Neo-Classical style.536 There were opponents in difficult situation than their colleagues in the the political, scientific and other circles to this neighbouring countries. Their scientific work tendency that, above all, required immense re- largely depended upon the relatively modest sources from a developing country. However, state funding, and thus the voices of criticism in they received nowhere near the same level of N. Macedonia were few, very much ignored by attention in the media as the promoters of antiq- the media and pushed to the margins of public uitisation. Another area in which the Macedoni- discourse. Although at first glance, it appears an government imposed the narrative about the that archaeology has undergone a revival with ancient origins of the modern Macedonians was the construction of the new national archaeolog-education. In the history textbooks, a dispropor- ical museum and large-scale investment into ex-tionate amount of space has been dedicated to tensive and long-term research projects in Ohrid very persuasive claims about the Macedonians and Skopje. However, the question arises as to as a nation sui generis from the 1st millennium whether such projects are sustainable, being so BC, and that this nation survived the process of heavily dependent upon the ideological and po-Romanisation, preserved its customs, language litical agendas of the pre-2018 government. and culture, only to be assimilated with the Slavic newcomers in the Early Medieval period Despite significant changes that emerged with (Stoyanov 2014).537 the new government in 2018, which openly criticised and abandoned the antiquisation pro- 534 The estimates on the number of new buildings and ject, the Macedonian scientific community still monuments reached a figure of 136, with more than faces a very difficult task of maintaining the 700 million US dollars spent on their construction (The New York Times International Edition, October 14, standards of critical reflection under the cir-2016, 19). cumstances – both in and outside the country 535 The official names of the statues are ‘Warrior’ on ‘A – which not long ago required the discipline to Horse and Warrior’. legitimise the ‘national’ interests that promot- 536 A severe critique of this architectural ‘antiquisation’ of ed by the authorities. This may be the greatest Skopje was published by Nikos Čausidis 2013), professor of archaeology at the Cyril Methodius University at challenge for the competence and integrity of a Skopje. See also Filak (2018). scientific discipline such as archaeology, which 537 It should, however, be noted that in numerous text- often found itself in a similar situation in all books in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia other European countries, but managed to en-in the 1990s, there could be found profoundly revision- dure and preserve its integrity precisely thanks ist theses about national histories. The trend was not only directed at rejecting the ‘Communist’ narration to the criticism coming from its own scholarly and perception of national history, but at promoting communities. The truth is that there have been nationalist attitudes as well. There is a large body of no papers in the Macedonian archaeological literature on the problematic content of the textbooks. Here, the essay by Dubravka Stojanović (1996) is sug- publications that openly promote the ancient gested as a starting point. origin of the Macedonians. This is a significant 303 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 303 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 indicator of the scholarly community’s views, but, on the other hand, there was some flirting with such ideas. The range of scholarly archae- ological publications is very limited, howev- er, and it is in the broader public discourse, where the standards of scholarly discourse are not respected, and where there is a much more significant challenge for archaeologists in N. Macedonia. Indeed, despite a highly disadvan- tageous position in mass media, one could find ample examples of the local criticism of antiq- uitisation and pseudo-archaeology (e.g. Proeva 2010, 2012; Stoyanov 2014; Sarakinski 2009). Nevertheless, significant damage has already been done because the pseudo-archaeological rhetoric has become the dominant factor for a decade or so in the public discourse, and re- search priorities were openly dictated by the nationalist government. However, since it was primarily external factors, the conflict with Greece in the first place, that represented the main generators of this situation, it seems that after the Prespa Agreement there has been a very positive change in the atmosphere and better conditions established for the protection of scholarly standards. 304 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 304 22. 10. 2021 11:06:05 Images Fig. 148 Evlya Çelebi (1611–c. 1684), Fig. 149 François Charles Hugues famous Ottoman traveller. In his travelogues Laurent Pouqueville (1770–1838), (Seyahatname), Çelebi reported several accounts French scholar, consul in Greece. of historical remains from N. Macedonia. Image: In 1811 he visited the area of Ohrid Evliya Çelebi by North Macedonian sculptor and recorded the remains of the T. Serafimovski (CC-BY-SA-3.0-RS). ancient town. Fig. 150 Léon Heuzey (1831–1922), Fig. 151 Margaritis Dimitsas (1829–1903), French scholar, author of Mission Greek historian and philologist, born in archéologique de Macédoine Ohrid. In his PhD thesis Dimitsas researched (with H. Daumet) (1876). the ancient history of his hometown. 305 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 305 22. 10. 2021 11:06:06 Fig. 152 Bulgarian Army excavating the Trebenište cemetery (1918). Unknown author – http://collections.cl.bas.bg/APlus/PhotoBojanaNHM/S084.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46045873. Fig. 153 Museum of South Serbia in Skopje in Kurshumli an building (early 1920s). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Republic of North Macedonia. 306 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 306 22. 10. 2021 11:06:06 Fig. 154 Lapidarium at Kurshumli an building (early 1920s). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Republic of North Macedonia. Fig. 155 Museum of Macedonia in Skopsko kale (Skopje fortress) 1945–1963 Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Republic of North Macedonia. 307 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 307 22. 10. 2021 11:06:06 Fig. 156 Balduin Saria at Stobi (1924). Fig. 157 Ancient theatre in Stobi on postcard from 1933. 308 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 308 22. 10. 2021 11:06:07 Fig. 158 Museum in Ohrid (1956). Fig. 159 Vasil Lahtov (1914–1964), curator at the http://muzejohrid.mk/en/ Museum of Ohrid; excavating in Ohrid (1950s). history-of-museum-ohrid. Courtesy of the National Museum Ohrid. Fig. 160 Dimče Koco (1910–1993). Founder of the National Museum of Macedonia and professor at the University of Skopje. Courtesy of the National Museum Ohrid. 309 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 309 22. 10. 2021 11:06:07 Fig. 161 Excavations of National Museum of Macedonia at Demir Kapija (1950s). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of North Macedonia. Fig. 162 Josip Kastelic (Ljubljana) and Vasil Lahtov at Trebenište (1953 or 1954). Courtesy of the National Museum Ohrid. 310 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 310 22. 10. 2021 11:06:07 Fig. 163 Blaga Aleksova (centre) (1922–2007), curator and Director of the Archaeological Museum of Macedonia. Opening of the museum in Stobi (1970s). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of North Macedonia. Fig. 164 First venue of the Museum in Prilep (late 1950s). Photo: https:// www.muzejprilep.org.mk/pocetoci/pocetoci-i-razvoj-na-muzejskata-dejnost. 311 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 311 22. 10. 2021 11:06:08 Fig. 165 Borka Josifovska (1910–2003), the Fig. 166 Boško Babić (1924–1998), founder first archaeological curator at the National of the museum in Prilep, Macedonian Museum in Skopje (1948). Archaeological Society and Institute of Old Slavic Culture in Prilep. President of the International Union of Slavonic Archaeology. Fig. 167 Blagoja Kitanoski (1931–2007), one Fig. 168 Ivan Milkulčić (1936–2020), of the pioneers in prehistoric archaeology in N. curator at the museums in Štip, Bitola Macedonia, curator at the Museum in Prilep; the and Skopje, since 1969 professor at the first Secretary of the Association of the Yugoslav University of Skopje. Archaeological Societies (1972–1976). 312 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 312 22. 10. 2021 11:06:08 Fig. 169 The first building of the Museum in Strumica (1952–1961). Fig. 170 Main building of the Archaeological Museum of Macedonia (1976–2014), constructed after the eartquake in 1963. 313 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 313 22. 10. 2021 11:06:08 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 314 22. 10. 2021 11:06:08 VII. MONTENEGRO With 620,000 inhabitants (based on the census There are three major and quite distinctive ge-data from 2011) and a territory of somewhat omorphological units in terms of physical geless than 14,000 km2, Montenegro is one of the ography, which are all parts of larger regional smallest states in southeastern Europe in terms units of the southeastern Adriatic and its hin-of both territory and population. It is located on terland. The first region could be considered the southern part of the Adriatic sea, between as a part (or an extension) of Dalmatia. It ex-Croatia and Albania. Due to the large Boka tends along the whole coast of Montenegro and Kotorska Bay and numerous other small bays, is comprised of two major zones. The first is its coast is 290 km long while its straight-line air a very narrow (1 to 10 km wide) coastal belt, distance is only 95 km. In its continental part, named Crnogorsko Primorje (Montenegrin Lit-Montenegro borders on three other countries toral). This zone occupies some 3 to 4% of the – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Koso- country’s territory and is marked with typical vo. It is worth noting that most of its borders Adriatic coastal relief, climate and vegetation. are in highly mountainous and densely forest- In this area, a series of small historical towns ed terrains dominate in most of the country. emerged from the Roman period on. The sec-The country probably got its name because of ond zone in the wider Littoral region is high these characteristics, Crna Gora meaning Black mountains which quite abruptly rise for several Mountain or Montenegro. hundred meters. Such mountainous hinterland (Dinaric Alps), rising almost immediately after Montenegro is an ethnically very diverse the coast, is very common throughout eastern country. About 45% of the population declare Adriatic, from Velebit mountains in the north-themselves as ethnic Montenegrins, 28% as the ern Adriatic almost to Albania and Ionian sea, Serbs, the Bosniaks are represented by slightly and is called the Maritime Dinaric Alps. In less than 9% (and occupy mostly northeastern Montenegro, it is also known as the Old Mon-part of the country), 5% are Albanians (pre- tenegro. The landscape is typical barren karst dominantly in the southeast of the country) with numerous mountains (e.g. Orjen, Lovćen, and, in the 2011 census, 3% of the population Crne Planine) and hills, with no surface waters, declared themselves as Muslims. Today, Mon- and with hundreds of small karstic depressions. tenegro is one of the economically less-devel- In the southeastern part of the country, there is oped countries in Europe, with an annual per the only larger flat area that extends from the capita income of around 17,000 US dollars, sim- confluence of the Zeta and Morača rivers in the ilar to Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The north to the Skadar lake (the largest lake in the population is concentrated in the coastal zone Balkans) in the south. This area, comprising and the lowland area north and west of Ska- some 3 to 4% of Montenegro, is most suitable dar Lake, while the northern half of the coun- for agriculture, and the largest town (Podgo-try is much more sparsely populated. The most rica, the country’s capital) is also situated here. intensive industrial and urban development of Montenegro is relatively recent, after the Second World War. From the 1970s onwards, tourism has become one of the most important economic activities. 315 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 315 22. 10. 2021 11:06:08 Fig. 171 Relief map of Montenegro. The mountainous hinterland of the Littoral in more levelled terrains suitable for farming. In the north smoothly passes into the central re- the central region, two major zones can be disgion of Montenegro. This region still retains tinguished, western and eastern. The western numerous features of karstic geomorphology zone, extending roughly between Grahovo in and geology, but its landscape is not so barren the south and Piva river valley in the north, and rugged, and it is frequently covered with exhibits more karstic features with streams in forests. The major areas of settlement here are some larger karstic fields (e.g. Nikšić and Gra-extensive plateaus, karstic fields and areas of hovo fields) but almost no surface streams. In 316 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 316 22. 10. 2021 11:06:08 general, the altitude is up to 1,000 meters above flowing to the north – Piva, Tara and Lim. In the sea level. The eastern continental zone is some- extreme north of the country, Tara runs through what different. It is here that the rivers Zeta, one of the most spectacular landscapes, through Morača and Lim formed larger valleys intersect- the deepest canyon in Europe (over 1,300 m ing mountainous areas that offer more suitable deep on average) and joins with the Piva river. conditions for settlement and farming. From their confluence, the river is called Drina and flows northwards to the River Sava in the North of the Rivers Piva and upper Morača, Tara Pannonian Plain. Through similar mountainous and Lim, begins the most mountainous and for- landscapes also flows the River Lim. It springs ested Montenegrin highland, extending into Ser- in the Plav lake in the extreme east of Montene-bia and Kosovo. The area is dominated by large gro and runs northwest into Serbia, where it also mountain complexes, such as Sinjajevina, Durmi- joins with the Drina river. In southeast Montene-tor, Bjelasica, and Prokletije (Accursed Mountains) gro, the northern and western areas around the in the east, on the border with Kosovo and Albania. lake are flat and very suitable for farming. Summits here frequently reach heights of more than 2,000 meters. The settlement here is sparse The climate in Montenegro varies from the Medi-and limited mostly to some smaller areas of flatter terranean type on the coast to the mountain-type terrains along the rivers. All these mountains and continental climate in the central and northern all continental highland of Montenegro belong to parts. Due to predominantly mountainous ter-the broader Dinaric Alps, to the so-called Dinaric rain, the country, in general, is not particular-central belt or High Dinaric Alps. Both continental ly suitable for agriculture; less than 14% of the regions are densely forested; forests in Montene- country can be used as arable land. Major agri-gro cover nearly 60% of the country ( Mapiranje i cultural areas are concentrated in the lowlands tipologija predjela Crne Gore 2015, 10–11). to the north and west of Skadar Lake. The most significant part of the landscape in Highly mountainous terrain largely determined Montenegro is karst terrain, rugged and barren traditional routes of communication, which in the south, densely forested in the north. The followed the valleys and saddles between the rivers belong to two drainage basins, each taking mountains. Along the coast, the primary route up half of the country: the Adriatic basin in the connected coastal towns from Boka Kotorska to east and southeast (the Zeta, Morača and Boja- Ulcinj. A series of naturally well-protected ports na rivers), and the Black Sea Basin in the north were also well connected with inland routes and northeast of the country (the Tara, Piva and which crossed the Lovćen mountain range to Lim rivers). Because of the highly porous karst the north (to Nikšić and further on to Drina geology, the western and southwestern parts of river), east (Podgorica) and west (Trebinje and Montenegro have almost no larger surface water Dubrovnik). In the continental part, the area of flows. In the southeastern part, along the border Nikšić presented a crossing of all major routes with Albania, sits the largest lake in the Balkans leading towards Bosnia and Herzegovina and – the Skadar Lake, about 60% of which is in Mon- Serbia, frequently passing a series of mountain tenegro. The lake is approximately 40 km long saddles. In the medieval period, the route from and some 10 km wide. Major rivers flow in the Nikšić to Pljevlja, at the border with Serbia, pre-continental part. The Adriatic catchment’s major sented probably the most important communi-river is Morača which springs in the mountains in cation link, even though it crossed altitudes of north-central Montenegro and flows southwards more than 1,300 meters several times. Except for to Skadar lake. Its major tributary is Zeta which the lowland area around Lake Skadar in south-flows into Morača near Podgorica. Three larger east Montenegro, the eastern routes, which lead rivers are situated in northern Montenegro, all to Kosovo, also had to cross very high altitudes. 317 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 317 22. 10. 2021 11:06:08 Archaeological and historical we know today about the archaeology of Monte- background of Montenegro negro the a relatively low degree of research. As will be shown in the following text, system- Due to its smaller size, Montenegro did not devel- atic archaeological research only started in Monop any particular or isolated regional phenomena tenegro in the 1950s, with almost no prior local during the archaeological periods. The Monte- tradition and very few known archaeological negrin territory was part of some larger regional sites. In addition to this, the uneven settlement of systems, Adriatic or continental, especially in pre- Montenegro should also be pointed out as one of history. The other factor which influenced what the reasons for the lack of research in large parts Fig. 172 Archaeological sites in Montenegro mentioned in this chapter. 318 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 318 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 of the country. Large continental mountainous researched for almost ten years. The site contains areas covered with dense forests were (and to a 31 stratigraphic horizons spanning from the Mid-great degree, still are) rarely settled compared to dle Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age. It repre-the densely settled coastal belt along with some sents the best single location for seeing the early of the lower-lying larger karstic fields and low- prehistory of Montenegro to date, and the fifteen land plain north of Lake Skadar. Moreover, in the Palaeolithic layers span more than 100,000 years. zones with intensive development of infrastruc- ture for tourism, where the pressure on land is Since the major excavations took place some 60 enormous, many sites were not recorded due to years ago with that time’s methods and tech-their destruction. The third factor, associated with niques, particular caution is needed when inter-the latter, stems from the fact that especially in the preting today’s results. Crvena stijena provided Littoral, which has a much greater proportion of the evidence for the earliest Palaeolithic settle-sites than any other region in the country, modern ment in Montenegro in the late Riss glaciation and settlements were built on the places which them- the proto-Mousterian periods (six layers altogeth-selves were traditional settlement zones in the er) (Marković 2006, 40). Some later authors see the past, thus having very long historical continuity, beginnings of this shelter’s use in the early Mous-and contributing in its way to the destruction of terian because of the Levallois technique type of earlier pieces of evidence. tool making (Mihailović 2014, 59). The typical Mousterian period is found in layers with a com- The pronounced differences between major geo- bined depth of more than eight meters. Howev-graphical regions largely correspond to the con- er, due to the various excavation, recording and trasts in cultural development in archaeological sampling methods, data quality exhibits substan-periods and, as I have already said, also to the tial variability, and does not allow very precise differences in the degree of archaeological re- pinpointing of the developmental sequences of search. Taking this into account, it should not be this period. It seems that throughout the whole a surprise that, so far, only some 40 to 50 sites are Mousterian, the most typical feature of the Crve-known from the periods older than the Bronze na stijena were well-elaborated tools made in the age. The reason for this is almost purely the lim- Levallois technique. Experts point to similarities ited research that has been done, and more so at sites in the Near East, such as Karain in Turkey if we consider that earlier prehistoric sites were and Zagros in Iran (Mihailović 2014, 66). Mous-mostly discovered in rock shelters. It was only terian layers were also discovered at two other with the Bronze Age when their number in- sites, at Mališina pećina in northern Montenegro creased considerably, and the sites became more and Bioča near Podgorica in central Montenegro. ‘visible’ because they appeared in the form of hillforts and large barrows that are much more At present, there is also very little evidence for the distinguishable in the landscape. Aurignacian period in Montenegro. In Crvena sti- jena, the transition from the Middle Palaeolithic Natural rock shelters are, indeed, very abundant to Upper Palaeolithic is marked by a distinctive in Dinaric karst. All Palaeolithic and Mesolithic layer of volcanic ash (Marković 2006, 54), and it sites come from such places. However, they are seems that this shelter began to be more inten-still very few and too sparse in spatial and chron- sively used only much later. Some earlier publi-ological distributions to provide a more accurate cations identified some finds as Aurignacian, but synthesis. The most extensively researched site later research put them more convincingly in the is Crvena stijena in eastern Montenegro, situat- Gravetian period (Mihailović 2014, 106). Moreo-ed on the bank of the (artificial) Lake Bileća, near ver, at other Upper Palaeolithic sites in Montene-the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina. The site gro (Medena stijena, Trebački krš, Mališina peći-was discovered in the mid-1950s and intensively na), clear evidence of the Aurignacian is missing. 319 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 319 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 These sites contain mostly Gravettian and Epi- found in rock shelters. Altogether there are some gravettian materials, which, in general, are not ten Neolithic sites, very few of them researched very abundant in terms of artefacts and demon- in any great depth. The earliest Neolithic sites strate relatively modest development. Generally were discovered both in the Montenegrin Littoral speaking, both the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic and its hinterland (Crvena stijena, Spila, Vranjaj, in Montenegro exhibit rather local features. Koronina) and in the inner continental part (e.g. Odmut, Pećina above Sastavci and Kremeštica) Excavations in Crvena stijena in 1954 also pro- (Marković 2006, 85). Despite the low number of vided the first Mesolithic evidence in the coun- sites and limited research, it is quite clear that the try. Mesolithic layers were also discovered at Early Neolithic period exhibits strong evidence some other Palaeolithic sites, such as Medena of continuity from the preceding Mesolithic. The stijena. Among the more important sites are Od- major novelty was pottery, but there was almost mut in the canyon of the River Piva, Seocka peći- no evidence of other standard Neolithic features, na and Vrbićka pećina – altogether, there are six such as animal breeding or farming (Forenbaher sites, all in rock shelters. The Mesolithic remains and Miracle, 2015). of tools do not exhibit any particular features, and they remain within the broader standard Compared to the Littoral, the situation in con-Mesolithic repertoire of stone and bone tools of tinental Montenegro appears to be somewhat the Adriatic area. The heterogeneity between the different, where at the Odmut shelter, for exam-individual site assemblages points to local adap- ple, bones of domesticated goats, sheep, cattle tations. The recent radiocarbon dates from Crve- and swine were found. However, the remains na stijena put the earliest Mesolithic at around of hunted animals were still dominant. The lack 9320–9190 cal. BC. Even earlier dates came from of the standard Neolithic repertoire may, to a the site of Odmut (10,020–9310 cal. BC). The end certain extent, result from the fact that most Ear-of the Mesolithic, based on data from Odmut, is ly Neolithic sites were found in rock shelters, around 6000 cal. BC (see Borić et al., 2019, 473– which generally could not mirror all the cultural 474). Some authors (e.g. Miracle 2007) argue that or economic variabilities and components. How-the Balkans “acted as refugia for the plant, animal, ever, the only open-air site at Kremeštica did not and human populations” during the last glacial provide more ‘Neolithic’ evidence, except for period, due to its favourable environment, and some polished axes that may be associated with hence the transition from the Epipalaeolithic some farming practices (Marković and Srejović to Mesolithic was relatively smooth, without 1985). The different development on the Littoral distinctive breaks and changes in the lithic in- against the continental parts is also visible in the dustry, which are more visible in other areas of pottery. While the impresso-cardium style was Europe. In the debate about the low numbers of typical for the Littoral, in the continental north, Mesolithic sites, Borić et al. (2019, 491) point to the pottery assemblages also included the pot-the very dynamic erosional processes in the Di- tery of the (continental) Starčevo style, such as at naric landscapes and, secondly, to the relatively Kremeštica (Marković 1985, 77; 2006, 103; Grašaless trained researchers capable of recognising nin 1979, 116). the Mesolithic materials, and on lower research focus on the Mesolithic period in general. The distinction between these two geographi- cal zones became even more pronounced in the The Neolithic period in Montenegro started at Middle and Late Neolithic. According to the around 6000–5800 cal. BC with the impresso pot- pieces of evidence from those few Middle Neo-tery, which corresponds in dates and site mate- lithic sites, farming in this period still seems not rials to the data in the broader eastern Adriatic to be practised or was practised at a very modest region. Again, all the early Neolithic sites are scale. In terms of cultural-stylistic attribution of 320 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 320 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 the pottery, the Littoral region Middle Neolith- interesting to note that, regarding the pottery, ic belonged to the Danilo (also Danilo–Kakanj) the regional differences between the Littoral and style (or culture), which is typical for the Middle continental parts are less enhanced in the Eneo-Neolithic in the eastern Adriatic (Marković 2006, lithic period. 109, Benac 1975, 141). Also, the late Neolithic pe- riod is still modest in terms of the number and The Bronze and Iron Ages in Montenegro are types of sites. From the Littoral, we know only of much better represented. They were discovered sites from rock shelters (Spila, Vranjaj); however, in larger quantities, and most of them were ei-in the continental part there are also two new, ther hillfort or barrows. The earliest barrows open-air sites, Beran krš and Trnje near Bijelo (e.g. Mala gruda) could be dated to the final Polje. Among them, especially significant is the phase of the Eneolithic or the transitional phase open-air site at Beran krš near Berane in north- to the Bronze Age, depending on various chro-eastern Montenegro, with some four-metre thick nologies. However, in the Bronze Age monu-Late Neolithic deposits (Marković 206, 113). The mental structures in the landscape started to excavations revealed rectangular houses (app. 6 emerge in more significant numbers. On the oth-x 3.5 m) made in the wattle-and-daub technique. er hand, not many hillforts have been sufficient-It was estimated that the settlement was com- ly researched to allow their more precise dating; posed of seven or eight houses (Marković 2006, most of them having been just briefly surveyed 113). It seems that the Late Neolithic was the pe- and mapped (Marković 2006, 171). Based on the riod of ultimate adoption of animal breeding (i.e. present data, it seems that hillforts were inten-goat, sheep, cattle) and farming, as evidenced at sively built during the Bronze and Iron Ages Beran krš by querns. Pottery styles continued to across the whole of Montenegro, from the coast exhibit differences between the Littoral and con- to the mountainous north of the country, and tinental regions; the Littoral followed the general that they appear in all sizes and shapes. Sever-developmental trends of Adriatic Neolithic with al already known rock shelters remained in use the late Neolithic Hvar (or Hvar–Lisičići) style (e.g. Crvena stijena, Odmut, Grad). The dating while the continental parts, especially at Beran is somewhat better with regard to barrows since krš, pottery of Vinča style became typical (Mark- many of them were excavated in the last 50 ović 2006, 121–123). years and provided some more diagnostic finds. Consequently, it appears that both hillforts and Again, the Eneolithic is known almost exclusive- barrows emerged simultaneously and should be ly from the rock shelters. Some of them were considered as associated phenomena. used in the preceding periods (e.g. Odmut, Spi- la), and some only during the Eneolithic (e.g. The emergence of hillforts and barrows in Mon-Grad and Minina pećina, both near Berane). The tenegro is, in general, synchronous with the only open-air site was at Berani krš, but with broader region of central and southeastern Adri-very little evidence of built structures. All in all, atic. Based on the radiocarbon dates, the earli-the evidence from the Eneolithic period is very est barrows were raised at around 3000 cal. BC scarce. At rock shelter sites the evidence still or slightly later (e.g. Mala gruda, Velika gruda speaks of the greater importance of hunting. The and Milovića gumno near Tivat, and Boljevića most distinguishable feature is pottery which ex- gruda near Podgorica).538 Mala gruda and Velika hibits more variability in terms of its production gruda were also re-used for funerary purposes technology and decoration. The earlier Eneolith- in later periods. Their earliest phase represents ic pottery was attributed to the Nakovan culture, while the Late Eneolithic pottery assemblages 538 Radiocarbon dating of the human bones from the cen-include the vessels of the Adriatic type of the tral grave at Boljevića gruda indicates that the burial took place at around 3050 BC, while at Velika gruda a Vučedol style (Marković 2006, 165–167). It is also century or so later (Guštin and Preložnik 2015, 31–32). 321 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 321 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 central graves. In Mala gruda, the central grave exhibiting different burial rites (i.e. stone cists, was built with stone slabs and contained a set inhumation and cremation burials, individual of vessels and several metal objects: a golden and collective burials), among which the most dagger, silver axe with inlaid golden decoration, frequent were burials of children in large vessels and five golden pendants, possibly part of a ti- ( pithoi) (Della Casa 1996, 21–82). ara (Parović-Pešikan and Trbuhović 1971). The vessels, decorated in a Vučedol- or post-Vučed- Unfortunately, not much is known about the ear-ol-like style (incised and encrusted decoration) liest hillforts and other types of settlements. Not puts this grave at least into the transitional peri- many of them have been researched or precisely od between the Eneolithic and Bronze Age. The dated. In most cases, only some sporadic objects golden pendants have almost exact analogies in were found during topographic mapping, which the Creto-Mycenaean Aegean area. could not tell us the settlements’ lifespan.539 Nev- ertheless, based on analogies from neighbour- In terms of grave goods, the central grave in Ve- ing Dalmatia, the hillforts must have started to lika Gruda was similarly structured. It contained emerge in the same period as the barrows, and a copper axe, two copper daggers, and pottery soon became the dominant type of settlement for similarly decorated as vessels from Mala gruda almost three millennia. (Primas 1996; Della Casa 1996). A bronze dagger was also found in Boljevića gruda, together with In the Iron Age, the number of sites, hillforts a greenstone hammer axe and golden ring-pen- in particular, significantly increased, and the dants (Baković 2012, 376). The deceased were landscape became much more densely settled placed either in a crouched position (Mala and than previously. However, the major pieces of Velika gruda) or laid in an extended position on evidence that enable more detailed insight into their back (Boljević gruda) (see Fig. 10 in Guštin society and culture come from the burials un-and Preložnik 2015). Similar barrows were also der the barrows (e.g. Gotovuša, Žugića gumno, found near Danilovgrad in central Montenegro Lušac, Kličevo, Lisijevo polje, Budva). The Iron and Nikšić in the north of the country, demon- Age burials are, in general, wealthier than those strating the wider geographical distribution from the Bronze Age. One standard feature is of the burials under barrows which contained the deposition of metal weapons (i.e. iron spears, central graves with metal and stone weapons, swords, and axes) in graves. High ranked indi-golden pendants and finely decorated vessel viduals were frequently buried with helmets sets, which lasted until around 2500 BC. Barrows (Kličevo, Budva, shields (Lušac) and shin guards were a clear indicator of increased social rank- (Kličevo) (Marković 2006, 247–259). The most fre-ing and long-distance exchange, which became quent type of grave goods is jewellery, found in visible from the beginning of the 3rd millennium male and female graves (fibulae, bracelets, pins, BC. Most probably, the number of barrows must belt plates, buttons, pearls, pendants, etc.). In have been much higher. terms of traditional cultural attribution, the con- tinental Montenegro Iron Age is ascribed to the Burial in or under barrows continued in much Glasinac (also Glasinac–Mati) culture (Marković greater numbers in the Middle and Late Bronze 2006, 262; Čović 1987, 576), which extends from Age. Some earlier barrows were also re-used eastern-central Bosnia and Herzegovina, through later. In Velika gruda the earliest central grave Montenegro to northern Albania. Traditionally, (Eneolithic/Bronze Age transition) was cov- this culture was associated with the Illyrians. ered with a series of later layers, better to say new ‘barrows’ made of earth or stone. The lat- 539 Such as the Middle Bronze Age axes of the so-called est of these superimposed ‘barrows’ is dated to Dalmatian-Albanian type found at Grdova gradina near Petrovići, and axes from hillfort of Kulina near the Late Bronze Age and contained 35 graves Nikšić; Marković (2006, 202). 322 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 322 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 During the Late Iron Age period (4th century deriving from Greek workshops (Marković BC–1st century AD), the first polities (‘prince- 2006, 304–305). Both cemeteries also provided doms’ or ‘kingdoms’) in the Montenegro area other essential evidence of high cultural and soare reported in the ancient sources. The most cial development of the local polities – coins of notorious was the Kingdom of Ardiei, which local princes. fought wars with the Romans over the con- trol of the southern Adriatic maritime routes The establishment of Roman rule in Dalmatia, (so-called Illyrian wars). With increased social Montenegrin territory included, was only possi-complexity, larger settlement centres also de- ble after a series of wars against various prince-veloped, marked by the ‘cyclops’ walls made of doms on the eastern Adriatic. It was only since large cut square stone blocks (e.g. Đuteza near the mid-1st century BC when the Romans estab-Podgorica; Velimirović–Žižić 1986). The emer- lished their permanent rule in what they called gence of such central sites in Montenegro is Illyricum. Emperor Augustus established the part of a broader process observable along the new province of Dalmatia, which extended from eastern Adriatic coast. Furthermore, under the Istria in the northern Adriatic to northern Alba-Greeks’ (and later Roman) cultural influence, nia, including the territory of Montenegro. In the after the 4th century BC settlements with some south, the province bordered on the province urban characteristics gradually started to de- of Macedonia, while to the north, it extended velop, for example, Risan, Kotor, Budva, and almost to the River Sava where it bordered on Ulcinj.540 The best evidence comes from Budva, the province of Pannonia. In this large province, which was probably a Greek emporium, and which included almost all the western Balkans, where, in the late 1930s large Hellenistic ceme- the Montenegrin territory’s position was rela-tery was discovered. All these ‘towns’ followed tively marginal in the economic and strategic a Greek ‘archaic’ model of non-rectangular set- senses. The process of Romanisation was much tlement centred on an acropolis. stronger in coastal Montenegro, where the Ro- man newcomers settled anew and took over the Intensive contacts with the Greeks from the Ae- municipal government in existing ‘towns’ and gean and southern Italy are also visible in a sig- centres of local elites (e.g. Risan, Budva, Ulcinj). nificant increase of imported objects from the The Romans did not make these towns proper Greek area. Such objects were most frequent in colonies or municipia. They considered them as coastal Montenegro, where also local produc- oppida civium Romanorum (the lowest municipal tion centres of the Greek-like objects developed. status) while the principal provincial colonies Similar ‘urban’ settlements also emerged in the were further north along the coast, in Narona coastal hinterland, at Medun (ancient Meteon) (Vid), Salona (Solin), Iader (Zadar), all today in near Podgorica and Samobor on Lake Skadar’s the Croatian region of Dalmatia. The territory of shores. At Budva and Velje ledine near Gostilj Montenegro belonged to the judicial administra- (at Skadar Lake), two large cemeteries are espe- tive district ( conventus) of Narona, the colony at cially important for understanding the contacts the mouth of the river Neretva ( Istorija Crne Gore with the Greek world. Both were flat-grave ne- I, 1967, 145). It is not by chance that Roman colo-cropoles with inhumation as the dominant rite. nisation focused primarily on the coastal towns, The graves contained a rich repertoire of the which were all ports that had a long tradition of Greek and Greek-type ceramic vessels (Garaša- trade with Greeks and other neighbouring com-nin 1973) and metal weapons, very probably munities, and with already developed urban infrastructure. Much less is known about the Ro- man settlement in the continental parts, especial- 540 In historical sources known as Rison/Rhizinuim, Acru- vium, Buthua, Olkinion/Olcinium (Suić 1976 (2009), ly in the more mountainous areas. It appears that 63–65). for a century or so the local communities and 323 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 323 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 their traditional territories were incorporated as coastal Montenegro, close to the towns (e.g. near peregrini into the Roman administrative system. Tivat, Mirište near Petrovac, Kruče near Ulcinj) (Marković 2006, 334). However, one area stands out, that at the con- fluence of the rivers Zeta and Morača, in very The most extensively researched Roman site is close vicinity of the modern capital Podgorica. the town of Doclea, where research began in the Here, during the Flavian emperors (AD 69–96), last decades of the 19th century and then, starting the Romans established a municipium Doclea), a with the 1950s, continued in several campaigns century or more later after the colonisation of the until the present. Doclea was erected on a pla-coastal towns. The Roman Doclea was erected in teau surrounded by three rivers Access from the the former centre of the local community Docle- land was possible only from the east. Archae-ates and developed into the most important and ological research revealed a town of some 25 affluent urban centre in the southeastern part hectares with typical features of the Roman ur-of the province of Dalmatia. Much later, in the banism in Dalmatia, city walls, basilica, forum, mid-2nd century AD, another autonomous town temples, baths (see map 1 in Radunović (2010, was established in the very north of Montenegro 78), private housing quarters, and overall rich ( Municipium S in Komini near Pljevlja), on the architectural decoration.Two aspects are espe-road which led from the Adriatic towards Mora- cially important for a better understanding of va and Danube. Doclea and, to a great extent, also the Roman period in Montenegro – epigraphic sources and Other Roman settlements are mainly known towns cemeteries (Cermanović-Kuzmanović, from historical sources, mostly from the Roman Velimirović-Žižić and Srejović 1975), which, at itineraries Tabula Peuntingeriana and Itinerarium the moment, provide the best “window” into the Antonini. The Romans constructed two major Roman objects which circulated in Montenegro. roads from Narona towards the south and cross- Of the other Roman towns, only Municipium S ing Montenegro in a northwest-southeast direc- was excavated to a relatively considerable extent tion. The first was the road that led from Narona between 1965 and 1975 and in the last two dec-to Epidaurum (Cavtat), where it branched out in ades. This site is particularly important because two directions. The northern route led towards where the Roman settlement was much less Trebinje and then Nikšić, from where it went dense than in the Littoral. With some 685 graves, along the Zeta valley and northern shores of the the town cemetery revealed substantial material Skadar Lake towards Scodra (Skadar/Shkodra) evidence of the population living in this region. in northern Albania ( Istorija Crne Gore I, 1967, Fig- The third significant cemetery comes from the ure 7). The southern route went from Epidaurus Littoral, from Budva, where the Roman ceme-along the coast to Boka Kotorska, Budva and Ul- tery continued from its earlier, Hellenistic phase. cinj, where it probably turned north to Scodra. It revealed a wide variety of burial customs and Along the northern road Leusinum, Sallunto, monuments up to the 5th century AD. Of particu-Anderva, Varis, Halata, Bersumno, and Cinna lar interest are glass objects, mostly small vessels are listed as stations, but have not been yet fully and containers, found in graves, which reveal a confirmed by archaeological evidence (Marković very well developed glass industry in the Mon-2006, 327). In continental Montenegro, there was tenegrin Roman towns, such as at Doclea. another road leading from Nikšić towards the mountainous north and Municipuim S. At the end of the 3rd century, between AD 297 and 306, Emperor Diocletian reformed the provin- In addition to the town settlements or individ- cial organisation of the Empire. In this process, ual villages ( vici), there is also some evidence of southwestern Dalmatia’s territory was separat-the villae rusticae, which were found mostly in ed and made the new province of Praevalitana 324 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 324 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 with its of its location in the very north of Mon- the 4th century AD (Martinović 2016, 36). Chris-tenegro, in a mountainous area capital in Scodra. tian basilicas from the 6th century AD were also Except for extreme western coastal parts (from discovered in Budva (Kovačević M. 1996), Bar Boka Kotorska to Budva), almost all Montene- (Mijović 1987), and Privlaka near Tivat (Mijović grin territory was included in Praevalitana. Do- 1987), clearly showing full Christianisation of clea was the second most important town in this the Montenegrin coastal towns which, despite new province. In a century or so, the administra- sporadic unrest in the region, continued to live tive reforms shifted the province of Praevaliana in the Roman/Byzantine way. In the architec-from eastern to the western half of the Empire ture of the early Byzantine rule, one can also find and back, until it, after the collapse of the west- numerous fortifications (e.g. Gradac–Budimlja, ern Empire, came under the Byzantine adminis- Gradac–Kaludra, Berane, Gradina–Andrijevica, tration, which extended over the whole eastern Onogošt (Nikšić), Samograd near Berane, Gradi-Adriatic coast. From the 5th to the beginning of na Đuteza in Dinoše, Vladimir near Svač, Gradi-the 7th centuries BC, Byzantine rule in the east- na near Martinići (Bulić D. 2013, 173–178). ern Adriatic was frequently challenged by vari- ous migrating peoples, Eastern Goths, Odoacer’s Very significant demographic and historical troops, and finally, Avars and Slavs. Unfortu- change started in the 7th century. After the fall of nately, there are very few archaeological finds Salona and when large parts of Dalmatia came from this period. One site which might shed under the rule of Avars from Pannonia, the mi-some light on this period is castrum Anagastum gration of the Slavic peoples to the eastern Adriat Nikšić, also known as Onogošt, which bears atic also started. The Avaric finds are, in fact, the Gothic name, probably of the local com- very scarce, and the closest sites with such finds mander ( Istorija Crne Gore I, 1967, 254–255). are on the island of Šipan near Dubrovnik (belt buckle) and at the cemetery of Kalaja Dalmaces Like in Dalmatia, also in Praevalitana (i.e. Mon- near Komani in northern Albania, east of Lake tenegro), the Late Antiquity and Early Medie- Skadar ( Istorija Crne Gore I 1967, 288–289). The val archaeology are strongly marked by the re- Slavs started to move to Praevalitana along the search of architectural objects associated with major Roman roads where they settled in existing early Christianity. As Christians in this early or already abandoned Late Roman settlements stage were much more present in towns, it is no on places suitable for farming. In these areas, the surprise that the best evidence is from Doclea, Slavs organised in ‘ župas’, their local political and which was the bishop’s seat from the mid-5th cen- ecclesiastic communities. However, the archaeo-tury onwards, and where the remains of two ear- logical finds from the period between the 7th and ly Christian basilicas were found (Istorija Crne 9th centuries AD are still scarce. The process of the Gore I 1967, 260, 262–263). Another site with ear- settlement of Slavs and their cohabitation with the ly ecclesiastic architecture from the late 5th to ear- local population is still not very clear. The most ly 6th centuries is Doljani in the vicinity of Doclea, important pieces of evidence came from the cem-where the bishop’s seat was transferred after etery of Mijele near Virpazar (Zagarčanin 2018). the destruction of Doclea by Goths ( Istorija Crne Despite its destruction in the 20th century, this Gore I 1967, 263; Korać 1958–1959; 2009). There, a cemetery is the largest excavated early medieval large three-nave basilica was raised during the cemetery in Montenegro. It contains very pre-reign of Justinian I. Early Christians’ presence cious evidence of archaeological and cultural de-was also recorded on some stelae and inscrip- velopment in the Montenegrin coastal hinterland tions across Montenegro (e.g. Risan, Podgorica, before the 10th century. The finds mostly consist of Kolovrat near Prijepolje). The remains of ear- jewellery and parts of clothing (i.e. earrings, neck-ly Christian objects were also found in Kotor, laces, bracelets, fibulae, buckles), accompanied by where also seem to be a bishop’s seat already in pieces of weapons and tools such as knives, axes, 325 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 325 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 and arrowheads (Zagorčanin 2018). Most of the In Montenegro, Islamisation and religious con-grave goods were attributed to the Komani–Kro- version were not so intensive as neighbouring ja culture, which is generally interpreted as typi- Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia. New. Otto-cal for the local post-Roman population, not yet man settlers were not numerous and were limit-Slavicised, which lived between the Skadar and ed mostly to military garrisons and civil servants Ohrid lakes. It is also important to note that, so in towns or large villages, while in mountainous far, no early Slavic cemetery has been found yet, areas, this process was even weaker. There, the neither in the Littoral nor in continental Monte- powers largely remained in the hands of local negro, which could be dated prior to the period tribal princes and the Orthodox church. of the formation of the sclaviniae (regional Slavic medieval polities) in the 9th or 10th centuries. The process of liberation from Ottoman rule be- gan in the 18th century. By the mid-19th centu- The first medieval political entity of the Slavs, ry, the Montenegro princedom had gained in-which can be associated with the development dependence, which was officially confirmed at of today’s Montenegro, was the Principality of the Congress of Berlin in 1878, but without the Duklja (named after Doclea) which in various Littoral, which remained Austrian.542 In 1910 territorial and feudal forms existed between Montenegro proclaimed itself a kingdom. Dur-the 9th and 15th centuries. In its later history, ing the Balkan Wars (1912–1913), Montenegro it was also known as Zeta. In the 14th century, allied with Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria and an-Zeta was incorporated into the medieval Serbi- nexed parts of the (former Ottoman) Sanjak re-an state while Venice occupied parts of its coast gion. After 1918 and the dissolution of the Aus-and ruled them until the end of the 18th centu- tro-Hungarian Empire, Montenegro took over ry. The ultimate end of Zeta came with the Ot- the formerly Austrian coastal areas and formed tomans in the late 15th century, who established the union with Serbia, thus becoming part of the their regional administrative unit (Sanjak) with new Yugoslav state (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats its capital in Skadar/Shkodra. However, due to and Slovenes/Kingdom of Yugoslavia), in which challenging karstic terrain, mountains and ex- it retained a certain level of administrative au-tensive woodlands, the Ottomans failed to es- tonomy (as the Zeta Banate). During the Second tablish full control over continental Montenegro. World War, Montenegro was first occupied by They limited themselves to controlling the major the Italians and then, after 1943, by the Germans. communication route and strategic places, while After the liberation, Montenegro gained the con-local mountainous Montenegrin ‘tribes’ main- stitutional status of the federal republic in Yu-tained certain autonomy and frequently rebelled goslavia, and it remained one until 1991. After against the Ottomans.541 the break-up of the Yugoslav federation, Mon- tenegro preserved for some time its union with 541 In the history of Montenegro, ‘tribe’ is considered as a Serbia, but in 2006 declared independence. group or community made of closely related lineages, extended families, and phratries that trace their origin from an actual (or supposed) common ancestor or an- Intermittent early archaeological cestral family, and which occupy compact territory. The size of the Montenegrin tribes, which could have activities varied from a few thousand to more than 10,000 peo- ple, is considered an endogamous group. Though the Different historical development of the Mon- ‘tribal’ organisation stems already from the early Slavic period, its development was further catalysed during tenegrin coastal and inland mountainous also the Ottoman period when a certain level of local autonomy was left to the local tribes and their leaders. This ‘tribal’ structure gradually ceased to exist with the for- 542 After Venice’s fall and victory over Napoleon, Austria mation of the modern integrated Montenegrin state in annexed all former Venetian territories in the eastern the 19th century. Adriatic, including the Montenegrin coast. 326 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 326 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 areas affected, similarly as in Croatia, the devel- communication with Dalmatia, Venice and Italy, opment of archaeology. On the one hand, the there definitely must have been some more local coastal area was the place of continual urban scholars who practised some kinds of antiquar-culture and development from the early Roman ian research and collection. It is not by chance period onwards and rich in historical and archi- that in Boka Kotorska, in Kotor in 1906, the first tectural monuments.543 An archaeological tradi- local antiquarian society, the Antiquarian Socie-tion emerged there that followed a pattern sim- ty of Boka Kotorska ( Bokeško starinarsko društvo), ilar to neighbouring Croatian Dalmatia, empha- was established and opened a lapidarium. Two sising the urban archaeology of the Roman and decades earlier, in Boka Kotorska, the first mu-medieval periods, and research mainly focused seum-like institution was established – the Boka on architecture. Navy Cabinet ( Kabinet Bokeljske mornarice). A fa- vourable circumstance for the development of Full institutionalisation of archaeological prac- antiquarian and museum institutions and practice in Montenegro came very late, not until 1945. tices in Boka Kotorska was also that this region Before this period, only sporadic archaeological was part of the Austrian province of Dalmatia activities took place in particular archaeological- since 1815, which had its own institutions deal-ly and historically significant places, such as the ing with research and heritage protection. Roman city of Doclea or in the coastal towns, or they resulted from accidental archaeological dis- So it should not be a surprise that the Roman in-coveries during construction works. scriptions from Montenegro (Doclea) were already included in Mommsen’s Corpus inscriptionum lati- However, since parts of coastal Montenegro, es- norum in 1873. Mommsen had consulted some ear-pecially Boka Kotorska, were ruled by Venice lier texts and records to publish these inscriptions, for almost 400 years (the beginning of the 15th particularly the studies of Valtazar (Baltazar) Bo-century until the end of the 18th century), the de- gišić, jurist, sociologist, lawyer, native from Cavtat, velopment of culture was heavily influenced by professor at the University of Odessa, Russia, later Venetian/Italian culture. For this reason, it is not also Minister of Justice in Montenegro. During his a surprise that some noted Italian antiquarians elaboration of the civil code for Montenegro, Bo- (e.g. Cyriacus of Ancona), while studying an- gišić also studied the history of the earlier legal sys-tiquities in Dalmatia, also expressed interest in tems and consulted some Roman inscriptions from the ancient ruins in Montenegro, and also influ- Doclea, which Mommsen later included in his CIL enced the development of local antiquarianism (Koprivica and Pelcer-Vujačić 2019). Doclea, with in coastal Montenegro. The earliest known local its relative abundance of inscriptions, attracted scholar is Andrija Zmajević, born in 1628 in Per- interest among foreign scholars in the 19th centu-ast in Boka Kotorska, archbishop of Bar diocese, ry even before it was excavated.544 Arthur Evans poet and historian, who is also known for his was another famous scholar who also visited Boka collection and studies of the Roman inscriptions Kotorka, and who published his observations in and ruins from Boka Kotorska, which he kept in Antiquarian Research in Illyricum (Evans 1883, 1885). his palace in Perast (Čoralić 2018). Though at the moment we do not know much about other anti- quarians who may have followed Zmajević’s ex- 544 The history of early research on epigraphic evidence ample, judging from vivid developments in oth-from Doclea is presented in more detail in Koprivica er spheres of cultural and scientific life and close and Pelcer-Vujačić (2019). Besides Mommsen, they list the following authors who published their studies on Doclean inscriptions in the period between 1850 and 1900: Neugebauer (1851), Denton (1877), Knight (1880), 543 Around 45% of all currently listed historical and cultur- Mowat (1882a), Saski (1882), Ljubić (1884); Petričević al monuments in Montenegro are located in the Bay of (1890a; 1890b), Cagnat (1893), Munro, Anderson, Kotor ( Boka Kotorska). Milne, and Haverfield (1896). 327 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 327 22. 10. 2021 11:06:09 When speaking of continental Montenegro, 19th-century historians stands out Jakov Ćudina this area, compared to other eastern Adriatic (Giacomo Chiudina, 1826–1900), a lawyer and regions, was not much visited by foreign trav- administrator in Trieste and Split, who pub-ellers and scholars interested in ancient history lished works on the local history, ethnography, and antiquities. The primary observations of literature and heritage of Dalmatia (including travellers were mostly focused on political cir- Montenegro), and who also published Storia del cumstances in the area, general geography, and Montenero (Crnagora) da’ tempi antichi a’ giorni very frequently on the ethnography of the ‘tra- nostri in Split in 1882 (Chiudina 1882). ditional’ Montenegrins, frequently stereotypi- cally painted as ‘barbaric’ and wild but noble.545 The year 1890 can be taken as the symbolic start As Marija Krivokapić and Neil Diamond (2017, of archaeological research in Montenegro. In 16) put it: Montenegro was almost until the end that year Prince Nikola, due to relatively abun-of 19th century an ‘empty place’, nowhere on the dant archaeological evidence, ordered an ar-Grand Tour maps, contained no important clas- chaeological excavation of Doclea; this was the sical monuments, had few roads, was avoided only Roman town in his princedom and also the by pilgrims to Jerusalem, or diplomats travel- place which gave name to the medieval Princeling to Greece and Turkey, not interesting for dom of Duklja. The earliest sporadic finds, in-Philhellenist travellers or those interested in the scriptions apart, appeared already in the 1870s Oriental Balkans. Nevertheless, one of the earli- and drew foreign scholars’ attention547. All this est accounts of travels in Montenegro was pub- prompted Prince Nicola to hire a Russian am-lished by Jacques-Louis Vialla de Sommières ateur archaeologist, Pavel Antolovich Rovin-as Voyage historique et politique au Monténégro sky, to conduct excavations in Doclea, which he (Paris 1820) and was based on his observations did in 1890 and 1892, and discovered basilica, during his secret military mission in 1811 to the baths and two temples.548 The following year, Montenegrin vladika (Head Bishop of the Mon- British archaeologist R. Munro, one of the par-tenegrin Orthodox Church). His account most- ticipants in the archaeological congress in Sa-ly depicts the highlands of Montenegro and its rajevo in 1894, excavated at the same location people in a highly romanticised view, almost as (Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Velimirović-Žižić a utopia of ‘noble savages’ (Corbet 1961). Such style was typical for much of the accounts of foreign travellers to Montenegro of that time. 547 For example, A. Dumont, Bulletin de la Société nation-Of other interesting accounts, it is worth not- ale de antiquaries de France, 1873, 71–73. The so-called Podgorica cup from Doclea caught particular attention. ing the texts of Bartolomeo Biasoletto, a bota- It was purchased by the then Italian consul in Monte- nist from Trieste who accompanied Frederich negro (Burzanović and Koprovica 2011, 220) and pub- August, King of Saxony, during his visit to Is- lished by G.B. De Rossi in Bullletino di archeologia cris- tiana, 1877, 77–85. R. Mowat (1882b) also wrote about tria, Dalmatia and Montenegro in 1838, aimed Doclea in Examples of gravure antique sur verre, for pro- at collecting specimens of local plants (Barto- posing quelques fragments provenant of Dukle (Montene- lomeo Biasoletto, Viaggio in Montenegro di Fed- gro), Revue archéologique 44, 1882, 296–297. In 1879, Pricot de Sainte-Marie, the French consul in Dubrovnik erico Augusto di Sassonia, 1841).546 Of the local and Thessaloniki, archaeologist, author of the study on early history and settlement of South Slaves in Illyri- cum (Pricot de Sainte-Marie 1974) initiated small-scale 545 In this respect, it is worth mentioning the poem Mon- excavations of grave mounds near the ruins of the Ro- tenegro (1877) by the ‘Montenegro Byron’ Alfred Lord man town. Tennyson, and accounts of Montenegro by William 548 P.A. Rovinsky, Raskopki drevnei Dioklei proizveden-Gladstone (Youngs 2006, 28). naya po ukazaniyo i na schet ego vissochestva czer- 546 Here I have consulted the edition published in 2000 (Bi- nogorskog knyaza Nikolaya (Excavations of the an- asoletto 2000). For a bibliography on travellers in Mon- cient Docleae according to the decree of His Majesty, tenegro in the first half of the 19th century, see Kilibarda the Montenegrin Prince Nikola), Zhurnaly of the Minis- 2000, 18). try of National Prosperity, St. Petersburg 1890. 328 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 328 22. 10. 2021 11:06:10 and Srejović 1975, 7–8, Marković 2006, 21).549 the history of their dioceses. Monasteries were Based on these excavations, an Austrian expert also important centres of these activities in the Piero Sticotti wrote the first monograph on Do- country. In this context, already at the end of clea in 1913 ( Die Römische Stadt Doclea in Monte- the 18th century an impressive collection of mili-negro), published by the Department of Antiq- taria was formed from military objects from dif-uities of the Balkan Commission of the Imperial ferent wars fought against the Ottomans (mili-Academy of Sciences in Vienna. For more than tary flags, weapons, decorations) and displayed half a century, this represented the reference as war trophies at the Prince’s court (as war tro-work about the site and the ancient history of phies). The first initiative for the museum came southern Dalmatia (Sticotti 1913). In 1919, this in 1893 on the occasion of the 400th anniversary commission published a report on the archaeo- of the printing house of Charnoyevich ( Čarno-logical research trip undertaken by C. Praschni- jević). Three years later, an Act on the Library ker and A. Schober. They made field excursions and Museum of the Princedom of Montenegro during the Austrian occupation of Montenegro in Cetinje was adopted ( Vodić kroz muzeje Crne and Albania during the First World War. In this Gore 2007, 6). Although at that time archaeology text the authors reported on the Roman remains was not among the themes of the first national and provided one of the first overviews of the Montenegrin Museum – the priority was given prehistoric settlements and discoveries in Mon- to themes closely associated with the Montene-tenegro (Praschniker and Schober 1919). At the grin national liberation and ecclesiastic history beginning of the 20th century, there was also an – it was the very establishment of the national interest of the Italian authorities in archaeolog- museum which had significant effects on the ical research in Montenegro. Roberto Paribeni further development of infrastructure in cul-visited Montenegro in 1901 and, on that occa- ture and science in general. sion, assisted by local authorities, conducted minor investigations in Podgorica, Gradina, After the formation of the new state of Yugo-Spuž and Nikšić. Antonio Baldacci, a botanist, slavia, the Montenegrin Littoral was integrated organised the first larger Italian expedition in with continental Montenegro into the Province 1902, including archaeological excavations.550 ( oblast) of Cetinje, which was, in 1929, enlarged into Banate of Zeta, which also included large However, as among most of the Balkan nations parts of today’s Serbian and Bosnian Sanjak and ruled by Ottomans, also in Montenegro, the idea Kosovo with large Muslim and Albanian pop-of historical heritage developed in the context ulations. The banate of Zeta was the smallest of national liberation – as national heritage. In- among the Yugoslav banates (925,000 inhabit-strumental for raising the awareness about this ants) and the least developed and urbanised in heritage were the high Orthodox clergy, who the whole country.551 The Banate of Zeta also had kept written records and objects, mostly about very modest road and railway infrastructure and a low level of industrialisation.552 549 Munro, R. (1896). On the Roman Town of Doclea in Montenegro. Archeologia 55, 33–92; Munro, J.A.R., An- 551 The whole Zeta Banate had, in the mid-1930s, less than derson, W.C.F, Milne, J.G., Haverfield, F. (1896), On 4% of the urban population. Of all towns, none of them the Roman town Doclea in Montenegro. Archeologia 55, exceeded a population of 15,000 ( Statistički godišnjak 1896, 1–60. 1934–1935, 51), with some 66% of the population being 550 More information on the Italian archaeological initia- illiterate (more than 20% higher than the Yugoslav av- tives of the time, and their political context, are given erage at that time; Statistički godišnjak 1934–1935, 30). by S. Burzanović and T. Koprivica (2011; 2019). Here 552 In the 1930s, between 5% and 6% of the population of I will note that the Italian King Vittorio Emanuele III Montenegro worked in various branches of industry, half was married to the Montenegrin King’s daughter what the ratio for the whole country of Yugoslavia. For com- could have eased the ‘archaeological’ diplomacy. parison, in Slovenia, there was more than 20% of the in- dustrial population in the same period (Vrišer 1980, 210). 329 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 329 22. 10. 2021 11:06:10 In the light of this data it seems quite logical that These first museums primarily displayed the the conditions and circumstances for intensive collections that showed the Montenegrin state’s development of cultural and scientific infrastruc- historical heritage and its ruling dynasty, or val-ture in Montenegro were unfavourable. The de- uables and objects related to maritime affairs and velopment of archaeology was always connected trade activity of the towns on the coast. Moreover, with the developed urban population and mid- before 1945 there were no professional archae-dle classes, a situation lacking in Montenegro ologists in museums or any other institution in between the two world wars. Moreover, the few Montenegro. In the absence of local experts, who coastal towns had quite different historical and could systematically document and promote ar-cultural traditions than the continental parts. In chaeological heritage, the archaeological poten-addition to this, Montenegro, once it proclaimed tial of Montenegro only occasionally aroused the an independent princedom in 1878, had mini- interest of other Yugoslav archaeological cen-mal capacities and time to develop a complete tres. Two such cases were recorded in the 1930s: national infrastructure in many domains before the discovery of the Roman villa in Risan by D. being united with Serbia and Yugoslavia in 1918. Vuksan, Director of the State Museum in Cetinje The coastal towns which might have served as (1930), and excavations of a rich Hellenistic and critical intellectual hubs for doing this were not Roman cemetery in Budva between 1937 and part of Montenegro until 1918. In such circum- 1938, after its accidental discovery during the stances, one can only admire the efforts of indi- construction of a hotel. The fortunes of this cem-viduals or groups of intellectuals to engage more etery are very illustrative for the state and organ-actively in archaeology and catch up with more isation of archaeological service in Montenegro developed regions in the country. at the time. The cemetery in Budva, spanning almost 1,000 years, could have been one of the After the Second World War, the first museum richest and most significant places in the Eastern was (re)opened in Cetinje in 1926 as the State Adriatic for studying the Hellenistic and Roman Museum in King Nikola II’s former royal pal- periods, but was unfortunately devastated and ace. Ten years later, two small local museums robbed during its exposure. Many of the finds – in Perast (1937) and Kotor (1938) – were also were taken to the Museum of Prince Paul in Bel-established. The establishment of the museum in grade and illegally sold to numerous collectors Kotor resulted from the initiative of the Popular in Yugoslavia and abroad (on misappropriations University of Boka Kotorska ( Narodni univerzitet of archaeological objects in Montenegro). See Boke Kotorske; a sort of community college for ad- more in Roganović (2008)). ditional education of adults), which promoted a collection of historical and art objects. These ob- jects were kept in churches and private homes Establishment of modern Montenegrin and prepared for the historical exhibition held in archaeology (1945–) Kotor in 1934. Similarly, the museum collection in Perast was made up of objects that in the 19th The proper establishment of the national (i.e. century had been kept in the town hall ( Hrvat- republican) infrastructure of the archaeologi-ski glasnik 2018, 154, 81–85). The Boka Kotorska cal discipline in Montenegro commenced in the Navy collection, first displayed in 1880, was also first decades after the Second World War. First, raised to a museum’s status in 1938. Compared it was necessary to create a network of region-to the neighbouring countries, the effective es- al and local museums and an institute for her-tablishment of the first museums in Montenegro itage protection. The process started with the came relatively late. In continental Montenegro, latter. The Institute for the Protection and Scien-most collections were kept in monasteries or tific Study of Cultural Monuments and Natural houses of the local rulers. 330 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 330 22. 10. 2021 11:06:10 Rarities was founded in Cetinje in 1948.553 The University of Belgrade, a situation that contin-establishment of local museums soon followed, ues to the present day. in Herceg Novi (1950), Podgorica (1950), Nikšić (1951), Pljevlja and Berane (1953), Bijelo Polje We could reasonably estimate that in the period (1957), Bar (1959), Danilovgrad (1960), Ulcinj between 1945 and 1965 some ten professional (1961) and Budva (1962), thus covering all the archaeologists were active in the country. The regions in the country.554 In 1961, the principal figure seems small, but there were archaeolo-national research institution was founded in gists in almost all local museums. In these first Podgorica (Titograd at the time) – the Archaeo- decades, Montenegrin archaeology was signif-logical Collection of Montenegro ( Arheološka zbir- icantly supported by institutions and scholars ka Crne Gore555). Thus, in less than two decades from other Yugoslav republics working mostly Montenegro was furnished with a more stable on research and restoration projects. The most infrastructure that employed domestic experts developed collaboration was with Serbian insti-and gradually caught up with other national ar- tutions. Montenegrin archaeology entered the chaeological systems in Yugoslavia in the 1970s Yugoslav (and international) scene in the 1950s and 1980s. The last established local museum in with two large projects, Doclea and Crvena Montenegro was in Kolašin in 1981, but it cur- stijena. Due to the insufficient number of local rently has no archaeological collection. scholars, these projects were jointly organised with institutions from other Yugoslav centres. The establishment of museums in Montenegro In Doclea (1954–1962), the Montenegrin team was part of the grand developmental economic worked with colleagues from Belgrade (from and social process that the country underwent the Archaeological Institute and University of in the first two decades after 1945. This includ- Belgrade), while the leading investigators at ed large-scale industrialisation and urbanisa- Crvena Stijena (1954–1964) came from Sarajevo tion, as well as developments in education, sci- (Alojz Benac and Djuro Basler) and Ljubljana ence and culture. During the 1970s, increasing (Mitja Brodar). There was also a third large ‘Yu-importance was given to the development of goslav project in Montenegro – the excavations tourism, mostly on the coast. By the late 1960s, of the Hellenistic/Roman cemetery in Budva the country achieved a level of infrastructur- between 1952 and 1955. However, the fact that al development in archaeology comparable to the results of these excavations have not been that in the neighbouring republics. However, published yet is another indicator of the rela-due to its smaller size and population, Monte- tively modest personnel capacity of Montene-negro could not afford large cultural and scien- grin archaeology at the time. tific institutions with numerous experts, as was the case elsewhere in Yugoslavia. In 1974, the Due to their small number, and the fact that University of Montenegro was established, but almost all archaeologists in the country had to with a somewhat limited programme and with- dedicate much of their efforts to preserve the lo-out a curriculum in archaeology. Most Monte- cal heritage, they could not conduct large-scale negrin archaeologists thus graduated from the research projects. For this reason, the number and size of excavations, though much higher 553 Between 1946 and 1948, some of the new institute’s tasks than in any prior period, remained relatively were carried out by the National Museum in Cetinje. low compared to other Yugoslav republics at 554 For the presentation of Montenegrin museums, see the time. Instead, more efforts were dedicated Museums of Montenegro (2007). to surveying and mapping the archaeological 555 Under this title, this institution effectively started in sites for the Archaeological Map of Montene-1968; before that year, it was called Council for Archae- ological Collection of Montenegro ( Savjet Arheološke gro, although this project remained uncomplet-zbirke Crne Gore) (Čukić 2011). ed and unpublished. Besides research in Duklja 331 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 331 22. 10. 2021 11:06:10 and Crvena stijena, significant results were also while Montenegro failed to establish its own obtained from the excavation of individual scholarly archaeological journal. The closest to Bronze and Iron Age barrows, necropoles, new- one would be the journal Starine Crne Gore ( An-ly discovered Roman settlements and early me- tiquities of Montenegro), established in 1960 by the dieval sites (e.g. Municipium S., Mijele). Republican Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. It also published papers from other After modest beginnings in the mid-1950s, a cultural heritage domains, but was more focused genuine expansion of archaeological work was on heritage protection. Other local journals in first accomplished in the 1960s, when local ar- which the Montenegrin archaeologists published chaeological institutions grew stronger in hu- their works were mostly annual reports of the mu-man resources and better prepared to conduct seums or other cultural or scientific institutions. independently larger-scale projects. This trend continued in the 1970s, especially in the 1980s, Why was this so? The small number of archaeol-which presented another peak in archaeological ogists was not the main reason for the absence of activities.556 The number of excavations between a specialised archaeological journal; according to the 1970 and 1990 approximately tripled com- the number of monographs and papers published pared to the 1050s and 1960s, while the number in other Yugoslav archaeological journals, Mon-of archaeologists almost doubled (Arheo 1989, tenegrin archaeologists were, indeed, quite pro-46, 47). Among the most famous sites investi- ductive. My opinion is that the main reason lies in gated in more recent period were Odmut cave the absence of an ‘archaeological centre’ in Mon- (Mesolithic-Eneolithic site), the Neolithic and tenegro, an institution like the institutes of archae-Eneolithic sites of Beran krš and Kremeštice, ology in other Yugoslav republics responsible for both near Berane, Perast (Spila), a dozen grave publishing the principal republican scholarly mounds from the Bronze and Iron Ages scattered journals. The role of such a ‘research centre’ was across the country, as well as the Roman sites at aimed at the Archaeological Collection of Mon-Samograd, Risan and Budva. Although much of tenegro. Still, this institution remained largely this effort can be attributed to local institutions understaffed and underfunded during its whole and experts, the contributions of Serbian archae- period of existence. Montenegro still lacks such ologists’ should not be ignored. In 1967, Milutin a central institution, be it a museum or research and Draga Garašanin wrote the first synthesis institute, nor there is a university with an archae-on the prehistory of Montenegro and thus estab- ological programme. lished the initial conceptual framework for the study of this period in the country.557 In 1979, an earthquake of catastrophic magni- tude hit Montenegro, southern Dalmatia and Serbian archaeological publications also regularly northern Albania. In this the Montenegrin coast-published articles on Montenegrin archaeology, al historical towns (Budva, Ulcinj, Herceg Novi, Tivat, Kotor) and their historic architecture suf-556 The data on the number of archaeological projects in Montenegro is very hard to get because such surveys fered considerable damage. For some time, most are not published. My estimates are based on a survey of the efforts and funds in the discipline were of Montenegrin archaeology published by Marković thus dedicated to the renewal of the destroyed (2006). There, he mentions approximately 100 archaeo- heritage, which, for a while, stalled further de-logical sites from the Palaeolithic to the Late Roman pe- riod. In terms of the frequency of archaeological works velopments in other domains in archaeology.558 (per decade), the 1960s and 1980s present clear peaks. Unfortunately, we do not have data for medieval ar- chaeology and urban works since they were most often 558 The restoration works on historical monuments in the done for conservation and restoration purposes. Boka Kotorska Bay demanded the establishment of a 557 D. Garašanin, M. Garašanin (1967); M. Garašanin new Municipal Institute for the Protection of Cultural (1967). Monuments in Kotor, which was established in 1980. 332 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 332 22. 10. 2021 11:06:10 In the chapters dealing with other national archae- Olivera Žižić and Čedomir Marković are par-ologies, some of their most prominent scholars ticularly worth presenting here due to their quite were briefly presented. In the case of Montenegro, outstanding contributions and influence in the it is not so easy to find such figures not only be- development of both Montenegrin and, not to be cause of the relative delay in the onset of institu- forgotten, also Yugoslav archaeology. tionalisation of archaeology, but also due to the absence of strong archaeological research centres Olivera Žižić, born in Nikšić in 1932, graduat-and universities in Montenegro, where such schol- ed in the 1950s from the University of Belgrade ars and their 'schools' are usually formed. The late as the first Montenegrin archaeologist. During formation of Montenegrin archaeological institu- her career, until the early 1990s, she participated tions, and their delayed arrival of fully-fledged in almost all major field projects in the country expertise (from about the 1970s onwards), result- (e.g. Crvena stijena, Budva, Duklja, Doljani, Mi-ed in the situation in which some of the necessary jele, Odmut, Onogošt, etc.) and several others conceptual tools, such as regional chronologies in Serbia (e.g. Sirmium), Bosnia and Herzegovi-and typologies, came to be developed by schol- na (e.g. Pod near Bugojno) and N. Macedonia ars working outside Montenegro. To this end, it (e.g. Porodin).559 In the period between 1968 and is necessary to bring back to mind the works of 1991, she was the Director of the Archaeologi-Milutin and Draga Garašanin, and of the team cal Collection of Montenegro. Her bibliographic that initiated investigations at Crvena Stijena (A. and research corpus is extensive; it covers most Benac, Dj. Basler, M. Brodar, later in the 1970s and archaeological periods and addresses many 1908s also D. Srejović), who put in place the ba- topics, including material culture, architecture, sic concepts and classifications for prehistoric re- topography, heritage protection studies, and search in the territory of Montenegro. Sometime ancient history. In this way, she made a fun-later, local archaeologists continued the work damental contribution to the progress of Mon-upon these foundations. However, in the 1970s tenegrin archaeology and its ascent to the level and 1980s several local scholars were able to gain of other, more advanced schools in the broad-a high reputation in the Yugoslav archaeological er region. For her outstanding role in Yugoslav community for their research achievements (e.g. archaeology, especially for her achievements in Olivera (Velimirović) Žižić, Čedomir Marković, the organisation of Montenegrin archaeology, Ilija Pušić, Pavle Mijović). Except Mijović, they all she was elected President of the Association of started their professional careers in the mid-1960s Yugoslav Archaeological Societies ( Savez arhe-collaborating with other Yugoslav archaeologists, oloških društva Jugoslavije) in 1988.560 Member of and soon proved to be key scholars for the archae- the Council for Archaeology at the Academy of ology of Montenegro. Pavle Mijović (1915–1996) Arts and Sciences of Montenegro. was the key scholar who should be credited for the proper establishment of the Montenegrin archae- Another figure that left a permanent mark is Čeology and art history in the infrastructural sense. domir Marković, born in 1937 in Peć (today in After a short but brilliant diplomatic career in the Kosovo). He graduated in archaeology from the late 1940s (press attaché and counsellor to the Yu- University of Belgrade in 1963. Though he was goslav Ambassadors in Moscow and Stockholm, primarily a prehistorian, his work also includ-assistant to the President of the UN Committee ed a wide variety of topics in almost all archae-of Human Rights in Paris (1948) Mijović opted ological periods. Like Olivera Žižić, Marković for the career in archaeology, art history and literature, where he contributed significantly to the 559 For an extensive list of Olivera Žižić’s field projects, see establishment of several national and regional cul- Čukić (2011). tural and scientific institutions. 560 Olivera Žižić was, in fact, the last president of this as- sociation, which ceased to exist in 1991 with the end of Yugoslavia. 333 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 333 22. 10. 2021 11:06:10 actively participated in many projects conduct- displaying historical objects and antiquities. The ed by Montenegrin archaeologists. He was also a situation in Littoral Montenegro, which belonged co-author (together with D. Srejović) of the first to the Austrian province of Dalmatia, was much synthesis of the Neolithic in Montenegro, which different. The Central Commission for Protection for a long time was the principal reference work and Research on Historical and Art Monuments’ for this period in the region (Marković, Srejo- Provincial Office had its seat in Split and pow-vić 1985). Marković built his career in the Re- ers to act in coastal Montenegro. The situation publican Institute for the Protection of Cultural did not improve much during the Yugoslav pe-Monuments in Cetinje. Later, he also acted as a riod between the two world wars, since it took fellow of the Archaeological Collection of Mon- many years to prepare a draft version of an act tenegro, Podgorica. His monograph on the his- on heritage protection, which ultimately was not tory of archaeology in Montenegro (Marković officially adopted. Moreover, in this period the 2006) deserves particular attention, as it was the protection of antiquities was a matter that was first synthesis in which the results of a century of occasionally resolved with governmental de-archaeological research in this country are pre- crees. The situation changed radically after the sented. Marković was also the first elected pres- Second World War, when the Yugoslav govern-ident of the Archaeological Society of Montene- ment adopted the federal act on cultural mon-gro (1971). After his retirement, he continued to uments and natural rarities in 1945. Four years chair the Council for Archaeology at the Acade- later, Montenegro adopted its own republican my of Arts and Sciences of Montenegro. act on this matter. In the decades that followed, Montenegro was constantly renewing its legis- The 1980s were a period of widening interna- lation for the protection of the cultural heritage tional cooperation, which extended across sites (acts from 1960, 1970, 1991). In 1948 Montenegro and archaeological topics other than Doclea. established the Republican Institute for the Pro-Inspired by very promising research results at tection and Research of Cultural Monuments and Mala gruda barrow by the local archaeologists Natural Rarities in Cetinje as the principal nation-in 1970 and 1971, a team from the University of al institution responsible for cultural heritage. In Zürich excavated a massive barrow at Velika 1961 a decree on the central register of protected gruda (1988, 1990). The excavations revealed a cultural monuments was adopted. In 1980, due to very early central grave (dated around the 28th urgent requirements for renovation after the 1979 century BC) with objects indicating contacts with earthquake, a Municipal Institute for the Protec-the Early Bronze Age Greece and more than 150 tion of Cultural Monuments was established in other graves from the 14th century BC (Primas Kotor, which in 1992 extended its responsibilities 1996; Della Casa 1996). over all municipalities in Boka Kotorska, and was transformed into a regional institute. A few words are also necessary regarding the de- velopment of a system for the protection of cul- Though legislation and institutional organisation tural heritage (archaeological heritage included) of the heritage protection seem fully comparable in Montenegro in the period between 1945 and with other republics in Yugoslavia, it should be 1991.561 Before 1918, the Kingdom of Montenegro noted that the development of this public service did not have any elaborate legislation regard- was not an easy task. It was frequently not very ing the safeguarding of cultural heritage, ex- effective in the circumstances of massive urban, cept for occasional decrees about collecting and tourist and industrial development. Simply put, the republican and local authorities constructed numerous building projects without proper 561 For data on the development and state of heritage pro- tection of Montenegro, I have consulted a document protection of heritage, including archaeological Stanje kulturne baštine (2006). heritage, especially in urban areas or during the 334 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 334 22. 10. 2021 11:06:10 Fig. 173 Archaeological institutions in Montenegro. construction of major roads and similar projects. much present almost all over the eastern Adri-Another significant problem was the develop- atic coast. However, compared to Croatia, Mon-ment of tourism, which made giant leaps since tenegro had less effective public services in her-the 1970s when Montenegro became an increas- itage protection and is significantly understaffed ingly popular destination for many domestic and underfunded. and foreign tourists.562 This threat is still very The 1990s were far less suitable for further de-562 Here are just a few figures to illustrate the magnitude velopment in the domain of culture and science. of this development. In the 1960s, Montenegro had around 13,000 beds in the tourist industry. In 1987, The first half of this decade was marked by the the number of beds was more than ten times higher civil war in Yugoslavia, which ended in 1995. At (around 137,000). In 1989, Montenegro was visited by that time, Montenegro was a part of the newly nearly 10 million tourists, hosted in more than 30,000 different tourist facilities (Vitić-Ćetković et al. 2018, formed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia, 298–299). Montenegro, Kosovo), and Montenegrin soldiers 335 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 335 22. 10. 2021 11:06:11 actively engaged in southeastern Bosnia and Concerning the protection of archaeological her-Herzegovina and southern Croatia. The inten- itage, the situation since 2000 had not improved sity of research activities plunged, the resources substantially. A study on the state of heritage for cultural and research institutions were lack- protection commissioned by the Ministry of ing, and most of the connections with archaeol- Culture and Media ( Stanje kulturne baštine Crne ogy colleagues from outside the country (except Gore 2006) is quite open-minded and very criti-for Serbia) were broken. The Federal Repub- cal in this regard. It explicitly points to the prin-lic of Yugoslavia, Montenegro was an integral cipal problems which were neglected for a long part, was placed under EU economic sanctions time: the non-existent archaeological map of for half a decade due to the Milošević regime’s Montenegro, sub-standard register of sites, lost politics. The country’s economic and political records, the unclear legislative situation, a lack crisis only deepened and led to another war in of monitoring, understaffed and underfunded 1999 during which NATO troops bombed Fed- institutions, and, last but not least, a significant eral Yugoslavia, Montenegro included. It is only number of archaeological sites not listed correct-with independence, proclaimed in 2006, that the ly in the central register (in 2006, only 17 sites in situation stabilised, allowing further economic the whole country were considered monuments, progress. The ‘lost decade” definitely had long- 14 of them of the 3rd (the lowest) category). An-term effects, especially in economic growth, and other surprisingly low figure is the number of consequently in the slowed growth in all major registered archaeological objects in museums in domains of social life. 2006, 22,077 in total ( Stanje kulturne baštine Crne Gore (2006)).564 Only very recently, when Montenegro started to design its statehood, can a gradual revival be ob- The truth is that Montenegro is still relatively served. The process entailed the reorganisation poor (its GDP per capita amounts to 72% of Cro-of numerous institutions. In 1998 the Archae- atia’s and 52% of Slovenia’s). Another principal ological Collection of Montenegro ( Arheološka constraint is the high imbalance in the distribu-zbirka Crne Gore) was reformed into the Centre tion of wealth between the regions: the coastal for Archaeological Research of Montenegro, an area is much richer and more developed than the institution similar to the institutes of archaeology hinterland, which is reflected in the distribution in other Yugoslav republics. And more recently, of public resources. Lately, heritage has been un-in 2011, the Centre for Archaeological Research der tremendous pressure because of the growth of Montenegro was joined with part of the In- of tourism and the increase in construction pro-stitute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments jects in the coastal zone. The archaeological in-into the Centre for Conservation and Archaeol- stitutions’ current capacities are still relatively ogy of Montenegro ( Centar za konzervaciju i arhe- modest, and they cannot cope with such a chal-ologiju Crne Gore),563 becoming the largest archae- lenge. This is, by all means, highly paradoxical; ological institution in the country. Still, in terms not only because 45% of all Montenegrin cultur-of this new institution’s personnel and tasks, one al monuments are from the Boka Kotorska area, could hardly speak of an archaeological research but also the town of Kotor itself was listed as a institute comparable to those in Slovenia, Croa- UNESCO World Heritage site in 1979. tia and N. Macedonia. 564 Personal comment: for much of these problems, it is the Ministry of Culture and Media which should be con- 563 On this occasion, another part of the Institute for the sidered responsible. It should be noted that between Protection of Cultural Monuments was transformed 1994 and 2011, a series of reforms were imposed by into a Directorate for Heritage Protection of Monte- this ministry, which substantially affected and ‘con- negro: its major tasks were administrative procedures fused’ the public service for heritage protection and that involved heritage objects. long-standing good practices. 336 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 336 22. 10. 2021 11:06:11 Concerning the discipline’s infrastructure, a full national framework. It stayed in this regional range of archaeological institutions has not yet position for many decades, as a region of the been fully developed in Montenegro. This is par- ‘Dalmatian’ or ‘Dalmatian-Adriatic’ style of articularly clear in the field of education and re- chaeology, with much of its history in common search. However, despite Montenegrin archae- with Venetian and Croatian Dalmatia. To a cer-ology’s remarkable progress since the Second tain level, this ‘Dalmatian’ facet also continued World War, the professional archaeological com- in the rest of Yugoslavia. On the other hand, the munity always remained relatively small. At the continental Montenegro, where the first Monte-end of the 1980s, just 19 archaeologists worked negrin national institutions were formed, was ar-in 13 institutions, mostly in local museums. A chaeologically largely underdeveloped until the single archaeologist is usually employed in one 1950s and could hardly develop its own archae-museum, and this significantly limits the capaci- ological-scholarly identity. In many respects, but ties and potential of some of the institutions. To- mostly due to the lack of local experts, the ar-day, the number of professional archaeologists chaeology in inland Montenegro remained for a in the country is slightly higher, between 25 and long time a ‘region’ or domain of Serbian archae-30. However, it is worth noting that not all of the ology. It is not by chance that the first archaeo-regional museums have hired any archaeologi- logical synthesis on the prehistory of Montene-cal staff. gro was published in 1967 by Milutin and Draga Garašanin, both coming from the archaeological However, despite the low numbers of archae- institutions in Belgrade. The lack of local Monte-ological professionals and, consequently, their negrin experts is also visible in the voluminous lower social influence and power, the archae- synthesis on the prehistory of Yugoslavia ( Prais-ological community in Montenegro is recently torija jugoslavenskih zemalja), published between attempting to overcome this situation. One of 1979 and 1987, where the territory of Montene-the ways, especially for the younger genera- gro was presented as part of other larger region-tion, is international projects, which may to a al units, and by authors coming from outside of certain extent improve the situation with re- Montenegro (Đuro Basler, Šime Batović, Stojan gard to academic archaeology, and where local Dimitrijević, Borivoj Čović, Milutin Garašanin). scholars have an opportunity to exchange ideas Regarding the development of the institutional and experience with archaeologists from other infrastructure, Montenegrin archaeology looked counties more easily. In the last decade or so, more like a regional entity than a fully national the country’s traditional partners – the Serbian framework in much of its history. And even to-archaeological institutions – almost completely day, the process of completing the national dis-terminated their activities in Montenegro due ciplinary framework of archaeology in Montene-to several ups and downs in the bilateral rela- gro is not yet finished; indeed, it could be said tionships between these two nations. Still, the that Montenegrin archaeology is still in between cooperation with research teams from Slovenia, the regional and national, but increasingly mov-Croatia, Italy, Albania, the Czech Republic, Po- ing towards the latter. land and some other countries is increasing, as is the mobility of Montenegrin students and ex- There are at least two reasons for this long-stand-perts. A significant step forward in protecting ing ‘regional’ status. The first should be looked archaeological heritage was the ratification of for in this country’s history with the separate the European Convention on the Protection of historical and cultural development of the coast-Archaeological Heritage in 2011. al and continental parts. It was only in 1918 when these two parts became united (within To summarise, archaeology in Montenegro start- Yugoslavia). However, creating a united na-ed to develop more as a regional rather than a tional identity out of these two quite different 337 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 337 22. 10. 2021 11:06:11 ‘Montenegros’ remained a highly complex and challenging endeavour, especially regarding the country’s relationship with Serbia. Here lies the second reason. At present, some 30% of the pop- ulation of Montenegro declare as Serbs. These people did not migrate to Montenegro but are local native inhabitants. Among them, the tradi- tion of dual identity is very much alive – the Ser- bian as a broader national identity and Monte- negrin as a regional one. This view also strongly supports the majority of Serbian historiography and especially the Serbian Orthodox Church, the dominant church in Montenegro565, which both see Montenegrins as part of the Serbian national body, and would like to bring Montenegro clos- er to Serbia, its history and culture. In parallel, the opposite process was and still is underway, that of an accelerated creation of Montenegrin national identity, which is, to no small degree, based on historical and cultural narratives which accentuate the distance from Serbia. 565 The Montenegrin Orthodox Church, which had an ex- tremely important role in 18th and 19th-century move- ments for the liberation of Montenegro from the Otto- mans and played a key role in the political and cultural processes in obtaining independence in 1878, had to, after the decree of the Yugoslav King in 1920, join the Serbian Orthodox Church. 338 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 338 22. 10. 2021 11:06:11 Images Fig. 174 Andrija Zmajević Fig. 175 V(B)altazar Bogišić (1834–1908), (1624–1694), Bishop of Bar, one of the jurist, sociologist, professor at the University earliest antiquarians in Montenegro. of Odessa, Minister of Justice of Montenegro. Bogišić consulted the Roman inscriptions from Doclea when making the civil code. Fig. 176 Jacques-Louis Vialla de Fig. 177 Robert Munro (1835–1920), Sommières (1764–1849), French Scottish archaeologists, excavated Doclea military officer, author of Voyage in mid-1890s. historique et politique au Monténégro. 339 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 339 22. 10. 2021 11:06:11 Fig. 178 Piero Sticotti (1870– Fig. 179 Gregorino Palace in Kotor. The seat of the collection 1953), Italian archaeologist, of the Fraternity of Boka Navy (since 1938). After 1949 the Director of the Municipal Maritime Museum of Montenegro. Photo ca. 1900. Museum of Art History in Trieste (1920–1940); author of the first monograph on Doclea – Die Römische Stadt Doclea in Montenegro (1913). Photo from 1953. Courtesy of the Fototeca dei Civici di Storia ed Arte, Trieste. Fig. 180 Construction of the Government House in Cetinje (1909). The place of one of the earliest archaeological and historical collections in Montenegro. Today the Historical Museum of Montenegro. 340 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 340 22. 10. 2021 11:06:12 Fig. 181 House of Milan Komnenić, 1870–1941, Mayor of Herzeg Novi, bequeathad for use as a future municipal museum in Herzeg Novi (est. 1949). Fig. 182 Palace of King Nikola in Nikšić, built in 1900. Since 1951 seat of the Museums and Galleries Nikšić. 341 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 341 22. 10. 2021 11:06:12 Fig. 183 Doclea forum and basilica (photo by Josef Wünch, 1890). Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum Split. Fig. 184 Doclea forum and basilica (1970s), photo from Marković (2006, Fig. 73). 342 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 342 22. 10. 2021 11:06:12 Fig. 185 Hellenistic tombstone from Budva (late 1930s). Photo published in Marin (1995, 75). Fig. 186 Pavle Mijović (1914–1996), art Fig. 187 Ilija Pušić (1922–2015), historian, historian and archaeologist, researcher archaeologist, Director of the Museum at the Archaeological Institute in Belgrade, after of Herceg Novi. 1980 worked in Cetinje at the Faculty of Cultural Studies, founder of the Museum in Ulcinj. 343 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 343 22. 10. 2021 11:06:12 Fig. 188 Olivera Žižić (1932), Director of the Archaeological Collection of Montenegro (1970–1990, the last President of the Association of Archaeological Societies of Yugoslavia (1988–1891). Photo taken at Doclea (1960s). Fig. 189 Čedomir Marković (1934), archaeologists, conservator at the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Montenegro in Cetinje, the first president of the Archaeological Society of Montenegro (1971). 344 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 344 22. 10. 2021 11:06:13 Fig. 190 Museum in Perast (1950s). Fig. 191 Crvena stijena, the most important early prehistoric site in Montenegro, continuously researched from 1950s. 345 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 345 22. 10. 2021 11:06:13 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 346 22. 10. 2021 11:06:13 VIII. KOSOVO Kosovo is still a relatively unknown coun- is the highest in Europe.567 Among the former try. It was always a part of larger geopolitical Yugoslav republics and provinces, Kosovo was units (e.g. Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia or Ser- the last to declare independence in 2008. How-bia) and, until recently, rarely considered as a ever, Kosovo has not yet become a member of well-defined political and geographical enti- the United Nations. It has held the status of a ty. Under the term Kosovo vilayet (Province of temporary UN protectorate since 1999 because Kosovo), it first appeared during the Ottoman of opposition from Serbia which still official-administrative reforms in the last two decades ly treats Kosovo as its autonomous province. of the 19th century, which included a much larg- However, Kosovo has been recognised as an er territory than today’s Kosovo (with northern independent state by around a hundred UN and central N. Macedonia, the Sanjak region in member states. Serbia, and northeastern Montenegro). Koso- vo emerged with its modern borders after the Kosovo is a landlocked country with a very dy-Second World War as an autonomous province namic landscape, and nearly 80% of its area is of Serbia, first under the name of Kosovo and between 500 and 1,500 meters above sea level Metochia, and in 1968 it was renamed Kosovo. ( Kosovo. Biodiversity Assessment 2003, 5). The It is important to note that Kosovo was the only country consists of two major regions, both flat former Yugoslav province with a non-Slavic tectonic basins encircled by high mountains (i.e. Albanian) majority. reaching altitudes of between 1,000 and 2,400 meters. Kosovo is an enclosed region, mostly Kosovo extends over a territory of 10,908 km2 open to the outside world through some river and has slightly less than 1.9 million inhabitants valleys and mountain passes. It sits at the con- (Rothenbacher 2013, 928). It is estimated that, at tact of three large tectonic units (the Dinaric, present, some 90% of the population are Alba- Hellenic and Rodopian) and major drainage banians, 6% Serbs and 4% members of other na- sins in SE Europe (Adriatic, Black Sea, Ionian tional or ethnic groups.566 It is worth noting that Sea drainage basins). It borders, looking clock-Kosovo’s demography and ethnic composition wise from the south, on North Macedonia, Al-changed considerably in the last hundred years. bania, Montenegro and Serbia. In the 1953 census, the province had a popula- tion of 733,000, of which 68% were Albanians, 24% Serbs and 8% of other ethnic origins. Three decades later, in the 1981 census, the number of inhabitants had increased to nearly two mil- lion, with 81% Albanians, 11% Serbs, and 8% others. With around 7% of the annual popula- tion growth in the last hundred years, its popu- lation growth (mostly of the Kosovo Albanians) 566 Due to the very extensive and dynamic emigration, and boycotts of recent censuses, it is not possible to pro- vide the exact population figures for the period since the 1991 census, which registered the population of 567 For more on the demography of Kosovo, see Rothen-1,954,747. bacher (2012, 925–1063). 347 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 347 22. 10. 2021 11:06:13 Fig. 192 Relief map of Kosovo. The Šara/ Sharr and Skopska Crna Gora moun- ( Alpet Shqiptare) or Prokletije massif (Accursed tain massifs are Kosovo’s border with North Mountains, Bjeshkët e Nemuna in Albanian),568 Macedonia. These two massifs are divided by the Lepenac river valley, which presents the 568 After Kosovo’s independence, geographical names be-major communication route from Kosovo to came much more frequently reported in the Albanian language compared to the previous period when the Skopje and further south to the Vardar valley Serbian variant dominated. To avoid problems in rec- and the Aegean. The western and southwest- ognising places on maps published in one language ern borders with Montenegro and Albania run only, I have used bilingual form (Serbian/ Albanian) ex- cept for places where English form exists (e.g. Prishti- along the mountain ridges of the Albanian Alps na, Kosovo, etc.). 348 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 348 22. 10. 2021 11:06:13 a part of wider Dinaric Alps, frequently reaching felt in the Metochia basin. With rising altitudes, heights over 2,000 meters. This massif extends the climate rapidly changes into mountainous southwards to the White Drin ( Beli Drim/Drini climatic types. Kosovo is a well-forested coun-i Bardhë) river valley, which divides Prokletije try, and some 47% of its territory is covered with mountains from the Šara massif. This river val- mixed deciduous and coniferous forests (Milen-ley is the primary communication route connect- ković, Jakovljević and Ćurković 2016, 1). Anoth-ing western Kosovo with northern Albania. In er vital characteristic of Kosovo is a considerable the north, the Kopaonik mountains, also reach- abundance of various ores (lead, zinc, silver and ing over 2,000 meters, present Kosovo’s border others) which have been continuously extracted with Serbia. From Kopaonik, the border turns to since at least Roman times. the east and then south and runs over the lower mountainous terrain reaching heights up to 1400 Despite being almost entirely encircled by high meters ( Goljak/Gallap, Pljačkovica, Krstilovica and mountains, Kosovo provides very suitable con-Rujen mountains), with several passes connecting ditions for agriculture. Its geographical position Kosovo with the Morava Valley in Serbia. in the contact zone between the Adriatic and western and central Balkans, and Kosovo’s close The major lowland areas are two tectonic basins connections to some principal Balkan communi-which lie at approximately 400 m to 700 m above cation routes between the Danube and Aegean sea level – Metochia (Metohija /Rrafshi e Dukag- (on the Morava – Vardar axis), puts this region in jinit) in the west and the Kosovo Plain (Kosovo a different light when observing its past. Polje /Rrafshi i Kosovës) in the east. These two ba- sins are divided by the Drenica/ Drenicë moun- tains and hills chain, cutting the country into its Kosovo in archaeology and history: eastern and western halves. Both basins were a brief survey filled with tertiary lake sediments on which vast alluvial plains with numerous low river terrac- Due to Kosovo being enclosed by high moun-es were formed. Both basins contain large areas tains, the country has retained its regional cul-of fertile and well-drained soils highly suitable tural characteristics for much of its past. How-for agriculture. ever, because of the relatively late beginning of systematic archaeological research, it is still a The rivers in Kosovo belong to three different mostly unresearched area for having detailed in-drainage basins. The White Drin flows across sight into its archaeological past. The earliest sys-Metochia from north to south belongs to the tematic excavation projects started in the 1950s. Adriatic drainage basin. In central Kosovo, the These were relatively numerous but very limited principal river is Ibar/ Ibri, which with its major in size, especially when speaking about prehis-tributaries (Sitnica/ Sitnicë, Lab/ Llap, Drenica/ toric sites. This brings us to another issue when Drenicë), cover the whole Kosovo plain, and attempting a brief synthesis of Kosovo in earlier flows to the north, to Western Morava, and ulti- periods – the fragmented nature of information in mately to the Danube. The third river catchment both geographical and temporal senses. For large is in southern Kosovo, where the principal river is portions of archaeological periods, the evidence Lepenac/ Lepenci, which flows southwards to the is still missing or poorly known. Precise chronol-Vardar in North Macedonia, and consequently, ogies are lacking (very few radiocarbon dates), to the Aegean Sea. Due to its very heterogeneous and due to the low number of well-researched terrain, the climatic conditions of Kosovo can sites, it is still difficult to recognise more detailed vary considerably. However, the climate is of the settlement patterning. It thus remains challeng-mild and humid continental type in the lower ing to anyone attempting to present an image of regions. The influence of the Adriatic climate is archaeology in this region in greater detail. 349 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 349 22. 10. 2021 11:06:13 To get a realistic image of state of the art, one north to N. Macedonia in the south. According should consult, in the first place, two recently to Kosovo’s radiocarbon dates, the earliest Neo-published volumes of an Archaeological Map of lithic evidence is dated approximately between Kosovo ( Harta Arkeologjike e Kosovës I (2006) and 6000 and 5500 BC (e.g. site of Gladnice/ Gllad-II (2012). The map covers the eastern and parts nicë, Tasić Ne. 1998, 46). Today, some 25 Neo-of central Kosovo, around 55% of the country. lithic sites have been recorded, but only a few Both volumes map 419 sites combined, broad- have been researched to a degree that allows ly classified as prehistoric, ancient (i.e. Roman) more detailed conclusions. Approximately half and medieval.569 The density of sites is about 7.2 of them contained evidence of the Starčevo cul-sites/100 km2. If we compare these figures with ture, while most of them contain evidence of those in a similar database in Slovenia (Regis- the Late Neolithic Vinča culture. All sites are ter of the Immovable Cultural Heritage), where found in lowland areas in both major basins, 3,295 sites were listed until 2014 (Pirkovič 2014, the Metochia and Kosovo plain, well-drained 82), and where the density of sites is more than and very suitable for agriculture. Some 70% of double (16.2 sites/100 km2), the disparity be- all Neolithic sites are in the Kosovo Plain. As far comes quite evident. Nevertheless, one should as it is possible to specify, these Neolithic sites respect the efforts of the much smaller number are concentrated along the river axis Nerodim-of scholars in Kosovo, who in the last 70 years ka/ Nerodime – Sitnica – Ibar/ Ibri, which crosses have transformed the archaeology of this region the country in a south-north direction. Anoth-from being virtually tabula rasa to the present er smaller concentration of sites is in the river state of the art. catchment of Binačka Morava/ Morava e Binçës in the southeastern corner of the country. The To date, there are no confirmed Palaeolithic or distribution of sites in Metochia did not exhibit Mesolithic sites known in Kosovo. There are a any particular clustering. Still, it appears that few possible pieces of evidence of hunters and they are more frequent in its southern parts, gatherers from rock shelters and caves (e.g. in the area of Prizren/ Prizren and Suva Reka/ Radavca pećina/ Shpella e Radavcit, Grnčara/ Suharekë. It might be interesting to note that Gërnçar near Vitina/ Viti, Karmakaz and Demo- the Neolithic sites are distributed in all three vo/ Demёs (both near Peć/ Pejë); Shpella e Zezё, drainage basins, making such a small region a Kallaba, Shkëmbi i Kuq, see Arheološki vodič Kosova unique case, and this clearly shows the major (2012, 7) and Bunguri (2006, 27, 44)). Still, these routes of communication and developmental are not yet fully confirmed sites or individual influence from the very ancient past (Tasić Ne. finds. However, as many Palaeolithic sites have 1998, 39). been found in neighbouring areas in Montene- gro and Upper Morava Valley in Serbia, it is only The Starčevo culture in Kosovo appeared in its a matter of time before they are discovered, most developed form with a wide variety of pottery probably in the numerous rock shelters present forms and decorative styles (barbotine, polin the Dinaric mountains. ished, painted pottery) in the sites of Vlašnje/ Vlashnje near Prizren, Žitkovac/ Zhitkoc, Glad- The earliest proper archaeological evidence is nice/ Glladnicë, and Rudnik/ Runnik. Southern dated to the Early Neolithic, to the Starčevo Metochia presents a somewhat different Neo-culture of the first farmers in the central Bal- lithic picture than the rest of the country. Here kans, which extended from the Danube in the two sites are of particular interest: Vlašnje/ Vlashnje and Reštani/ Reshtan. An open-air site 569 The number of sites may vary slightly due to the some- of Vlašnje, located on a raised terrace, was re-times unclear distinction between sites and locations, especially in locations containing evidence from differ- searched in the last two decades and revealed ent periods. occupation spanning from the Early Neolithic 350 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 350 22. 10. 2021 11:06:13 to the Early Medieval period. Among the inter- Southern Metochia is, via the river valley of esting finds of the Starčevo culture (6th millen- the White Drin, connected with northern Alba-nium BC) there are small clay anthropomorphic nia and the Adriatic region. These connections and zoomorphic figurines and painted pottery are especially visible in the Middle Neolithic with geometric motifs (Berisha 2012, 15). Cave period at sites such as Reštani/ Reshtan, Hisar paintings were found in the nearby rock shel- and Nišor/ Nishor, which contain evidence of ter, Guva e Mrrizit, with twelve circular or oval Adriatic (Danilo culture) pottery objects (Benac ochre(red)-painted spirals, each having more 1979c, 456–460); Beautiful and Green 2015¸ 8). than half a meter in diameter and a deer rep- Reštani/ Reshtan also revealed evidence of two-resentation. However, at present, the exact roomed rectangular houses paved with stones age of these cave paintings is not very clear. or mud with wooden rods’ walls. Fig. 193 Archaeological sites in Kosovo mentioned in this chapter. 351 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 351 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 More evidence is known from the Late Neolith- The best researched Eneolithic sites are Hisar at ic, which presents a clear developmental step Suva Reka /Suharekë in southern Metochia and forward and displays the quite flourishing life Gornje Gadimlje/ Gadime e Epërme near Lipljani/ of the inhabitants in Kosovo. During this peri- Lipjan. The Hisar site is positioned on an elevat-od, the general settlement image from the pre- ed plateau and extends over the area of around vious period has not changed much, except for 1.1 hectares (Arheološki vodič Kosova 2012, 36). the emergence of new settlements. Many of the It has been excavated in several campaigns, car-Starčevo-period sites became more intensively ried out between the early 1960s and 2004. Hisar re-occupied during the Late Neolithic, charac- is a multi-period site with nine dwelling hori-terised by the Vinča culture, which in broader zons spanning from the Late Neolithic to the Late regional terms represents the peak of the Neo- Roman period (Bunguri 2006, 47), with relative-lithic development in the central Balkans. The ly abundant Eneolithic layers. These contained best examples from Kosovo are Valač/ Vallaç, Middle Eneolithic evidence (pottery style) of Žitkovac/ Zhitkoc, Karagač/ Karagaç, Bariljevo/ the so-called Bubanj–Salcuţa–Krivodol complex, Barileva, Predionica/ Tjerrtore near Prishtina, which extends from eastern Serbia to Kosovo and Fafos near Kosovska Mitrovica/ Mitrovicë. and North Macedonia, followed by layers that Due to certain specificities, the Late Neolithic in contained elements of Baden and Kostolac pot-Kosovo is considered ‘the Kosovo regional var- tery styles. Finds of the Bubanj–Salcuţa–Krivodol iant of the Vinča culture’ (M. Garašanin 1973). type were also found at Gornje Gadimlje/ Gadime At the site of Fafos, evidence of azurite and mal- e Epërme (Ni. Tasić 1998, 107). There is not much achite suggest very early metallurgical activ- information about the types and constructions of ities, probably based on local ores. In the Late houses or plans of settlements. One can reasona-Neolithic southern Metochia (Hisar, Reštani/ bly speculate that there were no proper tell-type Reshtan) also retains elements from the Adriatic Neolithic and Eneolithic settlements in Kosovo cultural sphere. even though tells existed in neighbouring south- ern Serbia and North Macedonia. Due to a small number of sites, around fifteen (not all fully confirmed), and their very dispersed In the Early and Middle Bronze Ages (2500–1300 dates, it is still impossible to give more than a BC), the settlement pattern preserved did not very generalised image of Kosovo’s Eneolithic. change much compared to earlier periods. Sites The Eneolithic settlement, which is in this re- are mostly distributed in the traditional settle-gion traditionally dated between 3500 and 2500 ment zones in central and southern Metochia BC, followed similar zoning as in the previous and along the rivers of Nerodimka-Sitnica-Ibar period. Some 50% of the Eneolithic sites con- on the Kosovo plain, where the Bronze Age sites tain Neolithic layers. New sites are also found frequently occupied places settled already in in the previous Neolithic settlement areas along the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods. There is the rivers Sitnica/ Sitnicë and Ibar/ Ibri in central very little evidence of occupation in more mar-Kosovo and central and southern Metochia. The ginal areas or hilly regions. The major novelty early Eneolithic in broader chronological terms are burial barrows, but, surprisingly, there are (pre-3500 BC) is probably still strongly marked no hillforts recorded. The earliest barrow comes by the Late Vinča culture. It is noticeable that from Banjica/ Banjë near Istok/ Istog where a sin-some Eneolithic settlements were built on hill- gle pit burial was discovered. The skeleton was top positions (e.g. Gornje Gadimlje/ Gadime e deposited in a crouched position with no burial Epërme, Hisar, Belačevac/ Bellaçec), and were objects added. The barrow is dated to the Early probably fortified with ditches and palisades (for Bronze Age based on analogies from the neigh-Hisar see Ni. Tasić 1998b, 103; for Gadimlje see bouring regions (Harta Arkeologjike e Kosovës Ni. Tasić 1979, 90, footnote 15; Ni. Tasić 1995, 29). II 2012, 22). Burying under barrows continued 352 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 352 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 to be practised in the Middle and Late Bronze urn graves were also discovered in one of the bar-Ages (e.g. Valjak/ Volljakë, Rogovo/ Rogovë, rows in Rogovo/ Rogovë (Luci 1998, 125). Anoth-Ponoševac/ Ponoshec, Pećka Banja/ Banjicë e Pejës er larger necropolis with 60 graves (56 cremated (Bunguri 2006, 33). with urns) was found at Graštica/ Grashticë near Prishtina, spanning the same period from the The earliest Bronze Age settlements were at His- Middle to the Late Bronze Age (Luci 1998, 123). ar and Koriša/ Korishë, both in southern Metochia Still, the traditional type of burials under the and fortified. Their initial Bronze Age phases are barrows continued in parallel with cremation dated to the end of the 3rd millennium BC, but burials (e.g. barrow necropoles at Ponoševac/ they were both occupied at various intervals Ponoshec), but to a lesser extent. With the begin-also in the following periods. The archaeological ning of the Iron Age, the burials under barrows material from their early phases associates them appeared in much larger numbers. Much less is with the late Bubanj–Salcuţa–Krivodol complex known about the Late Bronze Age settlements and Armenochori culture in Pelagonia (North since the data on their internal structure con-Macedonia) and Maliq III phase (northern Alba- structions is very scarce and fragmented. The nia) (Bungari 2006, 47). The Middle Bronze Age best recorded case is the hillfort Kulina at Teneš (c. 1800–1300 BC) is also known mostly from the Dol/ Teneshdol near Prishtina, measuring nearly barrows, of which some contained metal and am- 2 hectares (Mehmetaj 1990). ber objects (e.g. in Rogovo/ Rogovë, Berisha 2012, 42–43). Significant changes emerged with the flat The Iron Age period (1000–c. 350 BC) is the best cemeteries and cremation burials, which started researched prehistoric period, especially its ear-to appear after 1500 BC. The best evidence of the lier phase. The traditional chronological system new burial rite came from the bi-ritual cemetery applied for Kosovo was that of M. Garašanin, at Iglarevo/ Gllarevë researched in the 1980s. The which attempted to unite all Serbian regions into cemetery contained 48 graves, three of them cre- one system. According to Garašanin, before the mated and buried later than the graves with skel- proper Iron Age in Serbia, there was a transi-etons in stone cists (Bunguri 2006, 49). Some very tional period (10th–9th centuries BC), followed by indicative finds came from this site: the Myce- three Iron Age phases: I (8th–7th centuries), II (7th– naean types of rapiers, swords and daggers from 6th centuries) and III (5th century). In terms of the 14th century BC (Bunguri 2012, 49), providing settlement, the Iron Age is a period of expansion indisputable proof of contacts with the southern in the number of settlements and their emer-Balkans and Aegean cultures. gence in the newly occupied areas. The spread of settlement is additionally illustrated by the Another important Late Bronze Age ceme- distribution of burial barrows, which reach their tery was discovered at Donja Brnjica/ Bërnicë e peak in terms of their density during the Iron Poshtme near Prishtina; the cemetery contained Age. They appear especially numerous in central exclusively cremated burials in urns. The emer- and southern Metochia, in what was traditional-gence of flat cremated cemeteries should proba- ly ascribed to the spread of the Glasinac Culture bly be associated with the general spread of this (R. Vasić 1987, 673) with its centre in east-central type of burials in the Middle Bronze Age from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and which is especially the Danube southwards (e.g. Vatin culture and well known for thousands of burial barrows. related groups), and with the later spread of the Urnfield culture, possibly also indicating some During the Iron Age, the dominant type of set-demographic changes and migrations.570 Two tlements were hillforts (e.g. Hisar, Belačevac/ Bellaçec, Gornje Gadimlje/ Gadime e Epërme, 570 On the spread of cremation burials along the Morava Široko/ Shiroka, Samodreža/ Samadrezha). The valley, see R. Vasić (2013). best researched is a small hillfort at Belačevac, 353 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 353 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 excavated in several campaigns, which revealed the buried persons (Đurić, Glišić and Todorović ramparts, dry-wall masonry, and several ditch- 1975), and the cemetery at Pećka Banja/ Banjicë e es around the hillfort. The evidence also shows Pejës where some graves contained objects made that houses in this hillfort were made of stone of silver (e.g. fibulae, bracelets, pins). However, (R. Vasić 1987, 681, Berisha 2012, 49). The dom- the most frequent type of valuable goods in the inant type of burials throughout the country later phases of the Iron Age are Greek ceramics was in the barrow cemeteries (e.g. Široko/ Shi- and metal objects, which started to be import-roka, Vlaštica/ Llasticë, Pećka Banja/ Banjicë e ed to Kosovo by the end of the 6th century BC Pejës, Boka Prčevo/ Boka e Përçëves, Rogovo/ (Parović-Pešikan 1998, 229). Rogovë, Fšej/ Fshej), many of them continuing from the Late Bronze Age. These cemeteries Two cemeteries stand out regarding Greek im-had up to twenty barrows. The dominant bur- ports – Romaja and Pećka Banja/ Banjicë e Pejës. ial rite is cremation, but on some bi-ritual bur- Among Greek weapons, double-bladed swords ials were practised (e.g. Romaja, Boka Prčevo/ from Romaja are the best examples (Djurić, Glišić Boka e Përçëves).571 Some isolated single barrows and Todorović 1977, Pl. IV, VIII). More frequent can be of monumental dimensions. The one in are various Greek vessels, the most illustrious Džinovce/ Gjinoc, with a diameter of 84 meters, pieces coming from Pećka Banja/ Banjicë e Pejës is the largest in Kosovo. Moreover, at the bar- (black-figure Attic vases, skyphoi, cups). After row necropolis at Romaja, the largest (so-called the 5th century BC, Greek imports became rare, ‘Warrior barrow’) has a diameter of 40 meters but this is mostly due to the lack of researched (Green and Beautiful 2015, 12). sites from the second half of the 1st millennium BC. At the end of the section on the Iron Age, one The grave goods provide good evidence of cul- should note one extraordinary find – a carved tural and social development, and especially for octagonal stone stela from Kamenica/ Kamen-contacts with other areas and groups in the Bal- icë depicting a funerary scene found in eastern kans. However, in general, the Iron Age cemeter- Kosovo. This unique piece was dated to the peri-ies in Kosovo did not show any particular rich- od between the 5th and 4th centuries BC (Berisha ness, as was the case in neighbouring regions. 2012, 56). Still, there are some exceptional pieces, such as the ‘Illyrian helmet’ from Pećka Banja/ Banjicë After the 4th century BC, the period is considered e Pejës. Nonetheless, the cemeteries’ inventory already ‘historical’ due to frequent references to is relatively modest in terms of the number of Illyrians and Dardanians’ historical polities in grave goods and their exceptionality. A good in- written sources (Harta Arkeologjike e Kosovës dicator of relative wealth and contacts is objects 2012, 23).573 The most visible change in the ar-made of amber found on several cemeteries in chaeological record was the increased presence Kosovo.572 A certain exception to this can be seen of Hellenistic pottery and metal objects; typical in two cemeteries, the ‘Great Barrow’ at Romaja La Tène (Celtic) finds are lacking.574 which contained 38 graves which demonstrat- ed more significant differences in the wealth of 573 Polities of Illyrians and Dardanians were neighbours. During the 3rd century BC, the Illyrians controlled 571 Traditionally, the cremation was attributed to Dardani- Southern Dalmatia, Montenegro, northern Albania, ans, while inhumation to Illyrians (Ni. Tasić 1998, 176). and western Kosovo, while the Dardanian Kingdom 572 Amber beads appeared in Kosovo in two different pe- included central and eastern Kosovo, southern Serbia riods, during the transition from the Middle to Late and northern and central N. Macedonia. Bronze Age (14th–13th centuries BC) and during the Iron 574 The presence of Celts is documented in Kale–Krševica, Age (6th–5th centuries BC). Earlier amber objects came near Bujanovac in southern Serbia, close to the border very probably from the Aegean, while later objects between Serbia, N. Macedonia, and Kosovo. There a were probably imported from the Adriatic area (Pala- fortified urban settlement of the Greek-type was erect- vestra 1997). ed in the 4th century BC and served as an important 354 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 354 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 In the mid-2nd century BC, the Romans ap- The fact is that the first founded city ( colonia) in proached Kosovo from two directions, from the Moesia was Scupi (today Skopje in N. Macedo-southern Adriatic after the Third Illyrian War nia) during the Flavian Emperors (AD 69–96). and from Macedonia after the Third Macedo- But it was at the very south of the province, on nian War (both in 168 BC) and established their the border with Macedonia. The foundation of province. However, the effective establishment all other autonomous cities in Moesia Superior of the Roman rule started with M. Licinius Cras- was of later date: Ratiaria (in today western Bul-sus’s victory over Dacians in 29 BC, when he also garia) was established in AD 106, Viminacium conquered the peoples between the Danube and and Singidunum were granted a status of muni-Macedonia, Dardanians included (Mocsy 1974, cipium in the Hadrian period (AD 117–138), and 24). It is not clear whether this territory (Moesia) Naissus during the reign of Marcus Aurelius became a Roman province immediately after the (AD 161–180). In all these places, strong military military conquest, or if it was first attached to garrisons existed for decades before establishing the province of Macedonia or received the pro- the towns’ autonomous civil administration. The vincial status after the reforms of Augustus (AD rather late establishment of the Roman towns in 6–9). However, present-day Kosovo’s territory Upper Moesia suggests that there was not much was seen as a part of larger Moesia and became Roman population or more Romanised local included in this new province due to the Roman communities to be aggregated into autonomous operations in the central Balkans.575 During the towns (Mocsy 1974, 115). However, what inter-reign of Domitian (AD 81–96), the province of ested the Romans in Kosovo were ores (most-Moesia was divided into Upper (Superior) and ly lead and silver) and mines ( metalla Ulpiana, Lower (Inferior) Moesia, and Kosovo, with Ser- metalla Dardanica; Mocsy 1974, 131). It is not by bia (up to the Danube) and northern N. Macedo- chance that later, around the mid-2nd century nia belonged to the former. AD, two autonomous towns were established in the vicinity of ore deposits (Municipium Ul- Kosovo had a rather marginal position with- pianum established during Hadrian’s rule, and in the province. The significant strategic assets Municipium D.D. or Dard. (the full name of the which interested the Romans in Kosovo were latter is not recorded)576 during the Severan dy-ores (mostly lead and silver) and its transition- nasty. Another suitable circumstance for found-al position between the Adriatic, Morava Valley ing towns in Kosovo was a large quantity of land and Macedonia. The whole province of (Upper) suitable for agriculture, providing the necessary Moesia was initially seen as the territory of high basis for the town’s economic autonomy. Moreo-military importance for conducting wars against ver, their location was relatively close to the key the Dacians. It is only after Trajan’s successful communication routes from the Adriatic to Da-campaign in the Dacian wars, and consequently, cia (Mocsy 1974, 138). the establishment of the new province of Dacia (AD 106) north of Danube, that in Moesia start- The process of Romanisation in Kosovo, which ed the more intensive establishment of autono- hosted no larger military units, was further mous municipia and coloniae, and with this, also accelerated with the construction of roads more intensive Romanisation (Mocsy 1974, 138). that connected Kosovo with the river valleys of Vardar (in N. Macedonia), Morava (Serbia) trade centre and fortress on the Morava – Vardar route. and Adriatic (northern Albania), where major After its abandonment and fall of the Macedonian Roman roads in the Balkans were constructed Kingdom under Roman rule in the mid-1st century BC, the Celtic Scordisci for some time occupied this area (Popović P. 2006). 576 Also, its date of foundation is not known. Mocsy 575 Theoretically, its extreme western parts could have (1974, 223) stipulated the Severan dynasty period (AD been in the province of Dalmatia. 193–235). 355 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 355 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 (e.g. Via militaris along Morava, Via Egnatia). campaigns has continued until today.578 Recent-The principal road which crossed Kosovo in the ly, the area of a town was made an archaeolog-northeast-southwest direction led from Naissus ical park. (Niš) in Morava valley to Lissus on the Adriatic coast in northern Albania. Tabula peuntingeriana Ulpiana was the largest and wealthiest Roman reports several stations along this road in Koso- urban centre in Kosovo. Much of its prosperity vo (Vindenis – XIX – Viclano – XXV – Theran- was probably based on the extraction of ores in da). Of these stations, the best researched is sta- the area and relatively abundant arable land and tio Vindenis located in Glavnik/ Gllamnik near other natural resources in its ager. It was posi-Podujevo/ Podujevë in eastern Kosovo. The site tioned near Gračanica/ Gracanicë, in the centre extends over 15–20 hectares, where mosaics of the Kosovo plain, only a few kilometres away and burials in stone sarcophagi were discov- from the junction of two major Roman roads ered, indicating relatively wealthier inhabitants which cross Kosovo. The excavations revealed (Berisha 2012, 62). From Vindenis, the road con- numerous features typical for Roman towns: tinued towards today’s Prishtina where the re- the orthogonal plan of insulae and streets, aq-mains of statio Vicianum were located (Čerškov ueduct, town centre with forum and forum tem-1969, 43–46; Premerstein and Vulić 1903, nr. 40). ples, town gates, artisans quarters, etc., and also From there, the road went towards Suva Reka/ town necropoles. The town walls enclosed an Suharekë in Metochia and along the White Drin area of 35.5 hectares, with a castrum of 16 hec-to Albania. The second important Roman road tares in size some 100 meters east of the town crossed Kosovo in the north-south direction, (Parović-Pešikan 1981, 61), which was probably entering Kosovo along with the River Ibar, fol- constructed in the late Roman period. The town lowing rivers Sitnica and Nerodimka, and pass- reached its peak in the 3rd and 4th centuries when ing between Šara/ Sharr mountains and Skops- it belonged to the province of Dardania, formed ka Crna Gora ending in Scupi. There were two after the Diocletian divide of the Balkan provinc-Roman towns – Municipium D.D. (near Sočani- es. The cemeteries revealed a variety of burials ca/ Soqanicë in the north of Kosovo, and Ulpiana and burial monuments (from stone sarcophagi, (near Prishtina) along this road, the latter was built tombs, mortuary stelae to simple graves). some 10 km south of the major junction of these Together with numerous inscriptions, they im-two Roman roads. portantly complete the image of the life of Ulpi- ana’s inhabitants. The Romans established two autonomous towns in Kosovo – Municipium Ulpianum (later also Municipium D.D (or Municipium Dardanorum, Ulpiana), probably during the reign of Hadrian Municipium Dardanicum, near Sočanica in north- (AD 117–138) and Municipium D.D. (or Dard.) ern Kosovo) was established some 50–70 years during the Severan dynasty.577 Both towns were later. More extensive archaeological excavations close to the mines, and earlier settlements exist- of this town were conducted in the early 1960s by ed before their official foundation; indeed, the the Museum of Kosovo and Metochia, and the resettlement at Ulpiana already existed in the Iron sults were published in 1970 (Čerškov 1970). The Age. Systematic archaeological research in Ulpi- research revealed an earlier prehistoric (Dardani-ana was initiated in the 1950s, and since then, at an) settlement that probably exploited ores (sil-various time intervals, research and restoration ver, gold) abundant in this region. Romans settled this area for a century or so before granting this 577 The exact time of the foundation of Municipium Ulpi- anum is not fully confirmed; it varies from Hadrian’s 578 For the bibliography of research campaigns until 1980, period (e.g. Mocsy 1974, 138) to the year 169 (Berisha see Parović-Pešikan (1981, 61). For more recent re- 2012, 70). search, see also Hajdari, Kabashi and Lamboley (2011). 356 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 356 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 growing mining settlement status of municipium. (2012), showing that nearly 40% of all registered The town extended over the area of some 30 hec- archaeological sites in Metochia and central tares. Excavations revealed a general orthogonal Kosovo are from the Roman period. Their high-plan of the town and several public forms of ar- est concentrations are in northern Metochia and chitecture – forum, horrea, urban basilica, temples, central Kosovo (area of Ulpiana). The best source baths, metallurgical buildings, together with three for Roman and local material culture (i.e. small necropoles (Čerškov 1970). The epigraphic evi- objects) is, of course, the necropoles. However, dence clearly shows that the town was a principal so far, only the necropoles of urban settlements mining officer’s seat ( procurator metallorum). The have been discovered and studied, such as Ulpi-majority of buildings and funerary monuments ana and Municipium D.D., but not many cases belong to the town’s earlier phase (2nd century), of necropoles of local people in the countryside. demonstrating its relative prosperity. However, towards the end of the 3rd century, when the Em- A change occurred at the beginning of the 4th pire entered a severe economic crisis, the mining century with the administrative reforms of Em-activities in Municipium D.D. decreased. By the peror Diocletian, who divided Moesia Superior end of the 4th century, the town ceased to exist as into Moesia Prima (northern part) and Darda-an urban and administrative centre. nia (southern part), to which Kosovo belonged. This new province bordered in the west on the The image of the classical Roman Imperial peri- province of Praevalitana. Judging from the pros-od in Kosovo (1st-3rd centuries AD) is that of gen- perity of Ulpiana in the 4th century, it seems that eral great prosperity and development provided new provincial re-ordering had positive effects by the extraction of ores, abundant fertile land for Ulpiana, which together with Naiussus (the and constructed communications. The growth provincial capital) and Scupi, remained the only of rural settlements of different types and sizes autonomous towns in the province. Ulpiana conis especially visible in Metochia, including villas tinued to develop throughout the Late Roman (Donje Nerodimlje/ Nerodime e Poshtme, Čiflik/ period; it was rebuilt by the Byzantine Emperor Çiflak, Nikodim/ Nikadin), local road stations and Justinian (Ulpiana was also known as Iustinia-villages. Their number must have been much na Secunda). An important monument from this higher than is known today, and the present de- period is the Christian basilica in Ulpiana, the gree of research has not revealed the entire situ- largest Early Christian church in Kosovo, proba-ation. Also, the data about Roman inscriptions bly associated with the bishop’s seat in Ulpiana (Epigraphic Database Heidelberg)579 is very in- in the 4th and 5th centuries (Hoxha 2006, 205). formative about the dimensions and extent of the Roman settlement of Kosovo. A total of 95% A significant type of sites from the Late Roman/ of 168 registered inscriptions on more than 40 Early Byzantine period (4th to the beginning of sites are dated between AD 100 and 300, and the 7th centuries) are fortresses of different forms they were found in all major settlement zones scattered around the whole of Kosovo. They in Kosovo, especially along the routes of Roman are located either at some strategic points along roads.580 They clearly indicate several smaller set- the main communication routes or in areas of a tlements in rural areas and their necropoles. This denser Roman settlement. Fortresses most fre-image also supports the Archaeological Map of quently appear as small fortified constructions Kosovo (Harta Arkeologjike e Kosovës I, 2006; II with single towers (Hoxha 2006, 203), but in some cases also relatively large fortified settlements which frequently including small church- 579 Online map (https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg. de/edh/geographie/900057). es (e.g. Gradina Arilača/ Kalaja e Harilaqit, Grad- 580 Approximately half of all inscriptions came from the ina Koriše/ Kalaja e Korishës, Teneš Dol/ Tenesh-territories of two towns, Ulpiana and Municipium D.D. dol). The number of discovered early churches 357 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 357 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 is still relatively low in Kosovo compared to the mostly cemeteries)581 were in locations occupied neighbouring regions due to a low degree of re- in previous periods (prehistoric and Roman).582 search. This also reflects on a smaller number of However, it should be noted that a great deal of cemeteries since many could be expected within jewellery, the most frequent type of finds, was or around churches. At present, there are only a strongly influenced by Byzantine production few of them known (e.g. Mališevska Banja/ Banja and products. e Malishevës, and Grabovac/ Graboc). One medieval site, in particular, should be men- The beginning of the Early Medieval period is tioned here – the mining town with a castle at traditionally linked with the Byzantines’ retreat Novo Brdo/ Novobërdë in eastern Kosovo.583 The from their border on the Danube at the very be- site consists of a 14th-century castle on an 1,124 ginning of the 7th century. This opened up the meter high summit with a town constructed central Balkans to peoples from north of the Dan- under the castle. The settlement hosted several ube, including different Slavic peoples. Though thousand people, including the colony of miners based on written sources, it is generally consid- from Saxony (Čerškov 1958). The first research ered that by the end of the 7th century the Slavs at this site was in the 1950s and has continued at had already extensively settled in the central Bal- various intervals until today. kans, but the archaeological evidence of Slavs in Kosovo is still very scarce and sporadic in the pe- With the case of Novo Brdo/ Novobërdë, I am riod before the 8th century (Bačkalov 1989, 382). It concluding my brief overview of Kosovo’s ar-is only from the 9th century onwards when Slavic chaeological image. I have intentionally omit-settlement was already stabilised and when ar- ted presenting high and late medieval sites and chaeological evidence could provide a clearer monuments, among them the Serbian Ortho-picture. At that time, the Slavic population was dox ecclesiastical architecture and their artis-already Christianised, and intensive building of tic masterpieces from the 13th to 17th centuries, small churches emerged (Bačkalov 1998, 380). which have been on the UNESCO World Her-Only a few of these have been researched. itage list since 2004. In the 14th century, Koso- vo was a core area of the Serbian kingdom, a A more precise settlement image for the period seat of the patriarch, and the place where kings between the 7th and 10th centuries (colonisation of and other nobles bestowed a number of their Slavs) cannot be reconstructed as the only avail- foundations in the forms of monasteries and able data is a few rare cemeteries and remains churches. There is plenty of bibliography on of small churches. Bačkalov (1989, 380) finds the this subject, and as an introduction the classic reason for this in the very late start of system- work of Svetozar Radojčić Geschichte der serbis-atic research of Slavic archaeology, which only chen Kunst von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des began in Kosovo in 1975 with the project Kosovo mittelalters, 1969) is suggested. in the Early Middle Age, which aimed to conduct primary surveying of approximately one-third From the 7th century on, the Slavic population of the territory of Kosovo. Before 1975, the Slavic gradually settled in the central Balkan region, sites were only occasionally discovered during rescue projects. Bačkalov (1998, 382) concludes 581 Such as Matičane/ Matiçan, Vrbnica/ Vërmicë, Vlaštica/ that the principal feature of the Slavic settlement Llashticë. was its distribution along major traditional (Ro- 582 Interestingly, some relatively large necropoles (10th–12th man and prehistoric) roads in Kosovo, and that century) were found during the excavations of the pre- a considerable number of Slavic sites (known are historic burial barrows (45 graves in Prčevo Boka/ Boka e Përcevës, 48 graves in Vlaštica/ Llashticë). 583 This area was exploited for lead, silver and zinc, at least from the Roman period onwards. (Dušanić, 1977, 72). 358 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 358 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 Kosovo included. However, except for the peri- In the second half of the 19th century, during the od of Bulgarian rule (9th–11th centuries), Kosovo rapid decline of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey remained under Byzantine rule up until the 12th carried out several territorial and administrative century. It is then that the Serbian principality reforms. For a while, the broader area of Kosovo of Raška (Rascia, the historical region north of was part of the Prizren Vilayet. In 1877, the Koso-Kosovo) gradually extended over Kosovo and, vo Vilayet was established (with Skopje as the in the 14th century, reached its highest point in capital, often referred to as the Skopje Vilayet), the medieval Serbian kingdom under the Ne- which included the territory beyond the bound-manjić dynasty. In this period, Kosovo became aries of present-day Kosovo. That year, the Priz-the core Serbian land in which the principal re- ren League was formed – the first notable politi-ligious centre (Patriarchy) was established. An- cal organisation claiming the Albanians’ autono-other factor that made Kosovo famous was min- my in the Ottoman state and a unified Albanian ing. Amid invasions of the Turks, Kosovo, in the territory due to threats from the neighbouring mid-15th century, became officially incorporated countries. After unsuccessful participation at the into the Ottoman Empire as a part of the large Congress of Berlin in 1878, the League organised province of Rumelia. As a smaller administra- an uprising that the Turkish government sup-tive unit, the Prizren Sanjak (Sandžak) was then pressed in 1880. Kosovo de jure remained in the formed, and it included parts of present-day Ottoman Empire, but de facto came under Aus-Kosovo, northwestern N. Macedonia and north- tria’s control, which was granted the permission eastern Montenegro. With the establishment of to occupy this region. In 1912, another Albanian Ottoman rule, Islamisation of the region began. rebellion took place, with the centre of insurgen-Still, Kosovo, being a Serbian religious centre, cy in Kosovo. This time, the Turkish authorities was not Islamised to the degree visible in some were forced to grant Albanians greater auton-neighbouring countries, e.g. Bosnia and Herze- omy. Such a concession triggered a reaction in govina or N. Macedonia.584 A century or so later, the neighbouring countries (Serbia, Montenegro, with more intensive Islamisation of the Albani- Greece, Bulgaria), which started the war against an population and development of the Ottoman Turkey (the Balkan Wars). After the Turks re-towns, this process became much more substan- treated in 1912, the Kosovo Vilayet was divided tial. The next major demographic shift occurred between Serbia and Montenegro, while in the in the context of the Austro-Turkish war (1683– south, in Vlora, the Albanian state was declared. 1699). After the Turks won back the territories In the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats previously conquered by the Austrians in Serbia, and Slovenes (1918), Kosovo was considered a Kosovo and N. Macedonia, there was a massive part of the territory of Serbia and, as such, incor-migration of the Serbs (and also Albanians) from porated in the new, predominantly Slavic state, Kosovo to Hungarian lands. The area they left which put a significant part of the Albanian pop-was subsequently occupied by a predominantly ulation in the position of an ethnic and religious Albanian population that arrived from the west- minority. ern hills and mountains. By the end of the 19th century, Albanian inhabitants outnumbered the In the period between 1918 and 1941, Kosovo remaining Serbs. did not have particular administrative status. In the administrative structure of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes composed of 33 prov- 584 Ottoman census from 1535 in Prizren and Vučitrn Sanjaks recorded 39,355 households where only 1059 inces (until 1929), the area of present-day Kosovo (2.7%) were Muslim. Towards the end of this century, was split between four provinces: Kosovo (with the situation changed considerably, especially in towns the centre in Prishtina), Zeta ( Cetinje), Vranje (Vučitrn/Vushtrri, Peć/Pejë, Prizren, Prishtina) where the Muslim population varied from 56% to 90% (Slu- ( Vranje) and Raška ( Čačak). After the reforms in kan Altić 2006, 34). 1929, the western part of Kosovo was attached to 359 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 359 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 the Banate of Zeta, whereas the eastern part was Serbia. From the mid-1990s, conflicts between in the Banate of Vardar. The Albanians in the Kosovo Albanians and the Serbian adminis-Kingdom of Yugoslavia did not have autonomy tration increased and soon evolved into open or any exclusive political and cultural rights. The armed conflict. After many failed attempts of governing body was almost completely made up the international community to overcome the of the Serbs, which led to continuous tensions situation, NATO used military intervention in between the Serb and Albanian communities in 1999 to force Serbia to withdraw its troops and Kosovo. Consequently, a considerable number administration from Kosovo. Subsequently, the of Albanians left the country and moved primar- UN took administrative control of Kosovo and ily to Turkey. gave it the status of a protectorate. Following a series of negotiations about the future political During the Second World War, the Italian fas- status, the Parliament of Kosovo declared inde-cist regime attempted to create a client country pendence in 2008.585 in the Balkans in the form of a Great Albanian state and, thus, integrated most of eastern Mon- Few of the Balkans’ current countries had such tenegro’s occupied territories, western N. Mace- a turbulent and violent history of the 20th cen-donia and Kosovo into the marionette state of tury as Kosovo did, one in which conflicts often Albania. The dissatisfaction of Albanians with resulted in large demographic shifts, especially their political and cultural status in the King- in the immigration and emigration of Albanian dom of Yugoslavia also reflected in their deci- and Serbian populations. This has had a tremen-sion to unite with Albania, a position adopted dous influence on the cultural development of by their National Liberation Committee in early the country and its cultural physiognomy. 1944. However, the union was blocked by the then leadership of the Communist Party of Yu- goslavia, which granted Kosovo the status of Kosovo’s social conditions and an autonomous province within the Republic of archaeology prior to the Second Serbia and secured more political rights to the World War Albanian community. Kosovo’s autonomy grad- ually increased from the early 1970s to the level Until the end of the Second World War, Koso-in many ways similar to that of the other Yugo- vo’s political and economic circumstances were slav republics. extremely unfavourable for advancing scientific activity, including archaeology, which began to In the general atmosphere of growing national- develop systematically only at the beginning of ism and disintegrating tendencies in the former the 1950s. Before this time, there were practically Yugoslavia in the 1980s, the Albanian popula- no proper material and social pre-conditions for tion’s discontent was again on the rise due to the development of archaeology in Kosovo.586 their status as a national minority. The idea of unification with Albania began to appear again 585 After each of the episodes of major political turmoil and was met by the strong opposition of the Yu-over the last several centuries in Kosovo, a signifi- goslav and Serbian authorities of the time. The cant demographic change took place, beginning with deterioration of the political climate was, to no the migration of the Serbs following the Ottoman con- small extent, fuelled by the more rigid and na- quest and the arrival of the Albanian population, and the colonisation of the Serbs after both of world wars tionalistic Serbian politics during the rule of Slo- and emigration of the Albanians to Albania and Tur- bodan Milošević. In 1989, the National Assem- key, and mass emigration of the Serbs in the 1990s at bly of the Socialist Republic of Serbia abolished the time when Kosovo was nearing the proclamation of independence. much of Kosovo’s autonomy. After the break-up 586 For more details on the history of archaeological re-of Yugoslavia in 1991, Kosovo remained within search in Kosovo, see Ni. Tasić (1998). 360 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 360 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 With the decline of the Turkish state and the Before the Balkan Wars (1912–1913) there were increasing number of conflicts between the very few educational institutions in Kosovo. In Turkish authorities and the national and eth- general, Kosovo’s Islamic population could be nic communities, the political situation in this schooled in towns – in religious schools, mek-part of the Balkans became extremely unstable. tebs and medreses. The first secular schools were Moreover, Kosovo was a markedly underde- opened as late as the late 19th century (Kostovi-veloped region economically, characterised cova 2004, 34–35). There was also a possibility of mostly by a conservative rural population receiving education in Skopje, the vilayet (pro-still strongly adhering to traditional forms of vincial) capital, where there were a lyceum and life and culture. Hence, the potential for ear- a school of education, founded after the secular lier modernisation and industrialisation of the educational reform in the Ottoman state. During country was very modest. Besides the railway the Austrian occupation of northern Albania, lines built in 1873 and 1874, connecting Kral- some small Jesuit and Franciscan schools were jevo and Skopje via Kosovska Mitrovica, there founded, while the Ottoman authorities also al-were virtually no larger modern industrial fa- lowed Serbian schools to establish (Kostovicova cilities in Kosovo before the 20th century. The 2004, 34). After incorporating Kosovo into Ser-short period of Austrian military control be- bia in 1912 and later, in the Yugoslav Kingdom, tween 1878 and 1912 left behind very few trac- most Albanian and Turkish schools were closed, es, mostly in architecture. and the first Serbian gymnasiums in Peć and Prishtina (1913) were founded. For a long time, The railway route Kraljevo-Mitrovica-Skop- they remained the major educational institutions je had a positive impact on economic devel- in the country. opment; in this context emerged mills, soap- making workshops and first woodworking There is very little, if any, reliable information workshops powered by water, steam or oil. about local archaeological or antiquarian activi-The first banks in Kosovo were founded only ties in Kosovo before the 20th century. As was the when the country became part of the King- case in all other countries studied in this book, dom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and these the earliest collections were treasuries kept in financed the construction of roads and rail net- Christian churches and monasteries (also in the work and the mineral exploration industry. dervish monasteries) and some nobles’ courts. In The first more substantial electrification began this context the first ‘museum’ in Prishtina was in the late 1920s (Puško 1979, 237–238). In 1927 mentioned, that of Jashar Pasha Gjinolli (also and 1930, the British company ‘British Selection Djinolli or Đinić), a ruler in Prishtina and Skopje Trust’ opened Trepča and Stari Trg’s mines. In between 1820 and 1840, known for his cruel rule the following years, the railroad tracks were but also for building mosques, supporting artists laid from Prishtina and Kosovo Polje to Kral- and keeping a large collection of precious objects jevo (Serbia) in the north and Peć/ Peje to the in his court in Prishtina (Filipović M. 1953). west. Urban development was still modest over this period (between the two world wars),587 so As for the whole Balkans, most of the informa-there did not yet exist any significant cultural tion pertinent to understanding the conditions of institutions, museums, galleries, theatres, etc., emergence of archaeological activities came from in Kosovo at this time. military sources, diplomats and foreign travellers before the 20th century in Kosovo. Military maps, 587 According to the Statistical Yearbook for 1934 and 1935, produced since the Požarevac Peace Treaty (1718) there were three major urban settlements in Kosovo. between Austrians, Ottomans and Venetians, The largest was Prizren/ Prizreni, with about 19,000 inhabitants, followed by Prishtina, with 16,000 and Peć/ began to represent the Balkan area (Kosovo in-Pejë, with 13,000 citizens. cluded) in more detail (see maps in Slukan Altić 361 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 361 22. 10. 2021 11:06:14 2006, 55–75), and they provided a solid base for During their ‘occupation’ of Sanjak and Koso-travellers and researchers. The foreign scholar vo (1878–1912), the Austrians also became in-best-acquainted with the Balkans’ conditions in terested in the antiquities of these two regions, the first half of the 19th century was Ami Boué. The especially those from the Roman period. Some numerous journeys that he published in 1840 in a epigraphic monuments from Ulpiana, reported four-volume synthesis La Turquie d’Europe (Boue on by earlier travellers and scholars, were al-1840) were, by far, the most complete descrip- ready known to the broader scholarly commu-tion of the Balkans (natural history, economy, nity. Interest in Roman archaeology in Kosovo ethnography, history, archaeology), the Kosovo can also be seen in historical studies on Roman region included. Among archaeological places Balkan provinces (Macedonia, Dalmatia, Moe-that he mentioned from Kosovo were mostly me- sia, Dardania, Praevalitana) boosted mainly by dieval ruins, old forts and old ecclesiastic objects the CIL project ( Corpus inscriptionum latinorum) (Zvečan/ Zveçan, Novo Brdo/ Novoberdë, Kosovs- of Theodor Mommsen and Berlin-Brandenburg ka Mitrovica/ Mitrovicë and Vučitrn/ Vushtrri). Academy of Sciences and Humanities.589 In the archaeological literature, the first archaeological The earliest record of archaeological finds (ep- excavation of a prehistoric site in Kosovo seems igraphic monument) seems to be that of Alexan- to be the Austrian campaign from 1918 at a barder Fedorovich Hilferding, the Russian consul row at Neprebište/ Nepërbisht in the commune in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who in 1859 in Saint of Suva Reka/ Suharekë (Bunguri 2006, 44). There Peterburg published his observations gathered are also the very few records of local historians on his travels in Kosovo (Hilferding 1859). He or even amateur archaeologists undertaking ar-recorded two Roman inscriptions from Lipljan/ chaeological activities in the field or being other-Lipjan and Gračanica/ Gracanicë (Hilferding 1869, wise associated with archaeology. 234, 237).588 Some archaeological notes on Kosovo were left by Felix Kanitz (1868; 1882; 1904–1914) In my bibliographical research, I have encountered based on his travel campaigns. Arthur Evans also Avram Popović, a local teacher, who researched made archaeological excursions to Kosovo. His mostly medieval remains (e.g. Popović A. 1906), observations were supported by a study of his- and the Franciscan priest Shtjefën Gjecovi car-torical and epigraphic sources from this region ried some small excavations in 1929 (Elsie 2011, (Evans 1999). It is interesting to note that Evans 30). It is interesting to note that Gjecovi obtained (1885), based on epigraphic evidence, was the his religious education at the Franciscan schools first to assume a yet unknown Roman municipium in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Fojnica, Banja Luka in this area, which was indeed discovered in the and Kreševo), where the teaching of archaeology 1950s as Municipium D.D. Another influential was frequently part of the schooling of priests (see foreign scholar who extensively studied southern Serbia and Kosovo was Ivan Stepanovich Yastre- 589 In this sense, most frequently were reported epigraphic bov, the Russian consul in Prizren and Skadar, remains from Ulpiana: e.g. Konstantin Jireček, Inschrift a correspondent member of the Serbian Royal aus Lipljan. Archaeologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen Academy (since 1875) who published a study aus Oesterreich, Wien 1877, 66–67; Patsch (1898c); Karl Patsch, Der Landtag von Moesia Superior. Festschrift Old Serbia and Albania in 1904 (Yastrebov 1904) in für Otto Bendorf.Wien 1898, 287–288; A. Domasze- which he wrote extensively about history, geog- wski, Die Grenze von Moesia Superior und der illyr- raphy, ethnography and ecclesiastic architecture ische Grenzzol. Archaeologisch-epigraphische Mitthei- in areas where he served as a diplomat. lunged aus Oesterreich-Ungarn 13, 1890, 126–154; An- ton Premerstein and Nikola Vulić, Antike Denkmäler aus Serbien, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 3, Beiblatt, 1900, 103–178; Anton Premer- stein, Nikola Vulić, Antike Denkmäler in Serbien und 588 Alexandr Fedorovich Hilferding, Bosna, Herzegovina Mazedonien, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen and Staraja Serbija. St. Petersburg 1859. Institutes in Wien 6., Heft 1, 1903, Wien. 362 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 362 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 the chapter on Bosnia and Herzegovina). Gjecovi resulting from intensive industrialisation in became a renowned researcher of local ethnogra- Kosovo. Again, the crucial role in this process phy, history, and the traditional customary law. was played by the mines that, in the 1960s and He published the study Kanun of Lekë Dukadjini, 1970s, developed into some of the largest infor which he received an honorary doctorate from dustrial establishments in Yugoslavia, employ-the University of Leipzig (Elsie 2011, 319). ing more than 20,000 workers. Such industrial growth was accompanied by accelerated mod- With the formation of the new Yugoslav King- ernisation of towns and a rapid increase in ur-dom, Kosovo remained a ‘Serbian’ territory from ban population. Through massive investments 1912 on. In the following decades, all archaeolog- in industry and modernisation, the Yugoslav ical activities were mainly conducted by Serbian authorities in Kosovo aimed to promote the ben-scholars and institutions from Belgrade. Howev- efits of the new, socialist order and the success er, these activities were still very sporadic. The of the ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ policy; through major problem remained the lack of any local the steady increase in the autonomy of the prov-or regional institutions that could research and ince, they attempted to reduce the decades-long protect the archaeological heritage. Much higher tension between the Albanian and Serbian pop-on the Serbian institutions’ agenda was the ar- ulations, and developmental lag of this region.590 chitectural and art history heritage of medieval Of particular importance was the establishment ecclesiastic objects and sites. Among archaeolog- of a series of cultural and scientific institutions: ical sites from Kosovo, the most studied between in 1946, the National Theatre of Kosovo was the two world wars was Ulpiana, especially its founded in Prizren; 1949, the Museum of Koso-epigraphy. In this field, the most active was vo; in 1953, the Albanological Institute; in 1958, Nikola Vulić, a professor of ancient history at the the Higher Pedagogical School; and in 1960, two University of Belgrade, who (together with An- faculties (the Faculty of Law and Economics and ton Premerstein) researched the epigraphy and the Faculty of Philosophy) as schools of the Uni-history of Ulpiana and Kosovo since the late 19th versity of Belgrade. In 1969, the University of century BC (e.g. Vulić 1931, 1933, 1934). Prehis- Prishtina was established, and in 1975, the Asso-toric archaeology in Kosovo was still largely not ciation for Science and Art of Kosovo, which was practised at this time (Galović 1956, 207). Occa- three years later transformed into the Academy sionally, some incidental finds were collected by of Sciences and Arts of Kosovo. In less than three the National Museum in Belgrade (e.g. the Iron decades, most of the institutional infrastructure Age hoard from Janjevo/ Janjevë found in 1934). was founded and provided more solid ground Moreover, foreign scholars interested in Koso- for the development of archaeology. vo’s prehistory were very rare. One such case was evidenced by a visit by Wladimir Fewkes, a The key institution that facilitated the system-fellow of the American School of Prehistoric Re- atic development of archaeology locally was search, the excavator of Starčevo, who in early 1930 inspected some places in Kosovo with pre- historic barrows (Fewkes 1933). 590 The number of students can serve as a highly illus- trative example of the remarkable changes in Koso- vo’s socio-economic development. In the academ- ic year 1958/59, 149 students studied at colleges and Introduction and development of high schools in Kosovo. Within less than 20 years, the modern archaeology in Kosovo number of students in Kosovo soared to almost 36,000, which was, up to then, the highest percentage of stu- (1945–2000) dents with regard to the population above the age of 15 (Kostovicova 2004, 42). One of the main reasons behind It was only after 1945 that a period of large- such an increase is in the establishment of the Universi- ty of Prishtina, which, in 1969 introduced programmes scale economic and general social growth began, in the Albanian language. 363 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 363 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 the Museum of Kosovo ( Muzeu i Kosovës) in the Neolithic sites excavated at the time were Prishtina, founded in 1949.591 With more than Rudnik/ Runnik (1966–1968), Žitkovac/ Zhitkoc a 70-year tradition, the museum is still today (1958), the nearby Valač/ Vallac (1955, 1957) and the most important archaeological institution Karagač/ Karagaç (1955, 1960), and in Reštane/ in the country. The museum is located in one of Reshtan (1966–1967). Indeed, the research at two the few buildings constructed in 1889 in the so- Neolithic sites (Predionica/ Tjerrtore and Fafos) called Austrian style, which hosted the former in the 1950s significantly impacted Kosovo’s Austrian military administration. The turning archaeology in a broader Yugoslav context. In point was when two professional archaeologists 1954, on behalf of the Museum of Kosovo, Emil joined the museum – first Emil Čerškov (1929– Čerškov initiated the largest ever field research 1969), who founded the archaeological depart- and museum project in Kosovo’s archaeology at ment of the museum in the early 1950s, and, lat- the site of Ulpiana. With minor gaps, Ulpiana er, Jovan Glišić, both of whom graduated from has been continuously investigated ever since. the University of Belgrade. Immediately upon In a notable boost for Roman archaeology in the starting at the museum, Čerškov organised the 1960s, he also presented a series of his projects, first systematic archaeological investigations in particularly his excavations of the newly discov-Kosovo. In the 1950s, he explored some of the ered town of Municipium D.D. The cemeteries important sites in the country: Novo Brdo/ of this town and Ulpiana still today represent Novobërda (1951), Ulpiana (1953), Predionica/ the best resources for studying small Roman ob-Tjerrtore (1955) and Gladnica/ Glladnicë (1956). jects in Kosovo. In 1956, Čerškov established the principal mu- seum publication, the Bulletin of the Museum The other museum that started with archaeolog-of Kosovo and Metochia ( Glasnik Muzeja Kosova ical research was the Museum in Kosovska Mi-i Metohije/Buletini i Muzeumit te Kosovë-Metohis), trovica/Mitrovicë, founded in 1952. Soon after which regularly published reports on archaeo- it became operational, the museum initiated ar-logical research in Kosovo. In its first decades, chaeological excavations at the Neolithic sites of the Museum of Kosovo collaborated intensively Valač and Žitkovac in cooperation with the Bel-with the then leading archaeological institutions grade archaeological institutions. According to from Belgrade, principally the Institute of Ar- the Yugoslav standards and legislation, Kosovo chaeology and the University of Belgrade, where also needed its own (provincial) public service many specialists came to Kosovo and conduct- for heritage protection, established in Prishtina ed several field investigations, thus furthering in 1954 as the Provincial Institute for the Protec-the progress of the discipline.592 The museum’s tion of Cultural Monuments. For many years, research activities were initially focused on the this was the only such institution in the prov-Neolithic and Roman sites that proved to be ince. However, due to the increased pressure of highly significant for the wider region.593 Among development in the 1980s, this institute opened local branches in Prizren and Prishtina. 591 Its first name was Museum of Kosovo and Metochia (Muzej Kosova i Metohije/Muzeumi i Kosovë- In the decades that followed the ‘pioneering dec-Metohis), since 1963 Museum of Kosovo (Muzej Koso- ade’ (1955–1965), there was steady progress in va/Muzeumi i Kosovë). This has the status of a national museum in today’s state of Kosovo. developing archaeology in Kosovo. However, 592 For example, Ni. Tasić, B. Jovanović, J. Todorović, J. Glišić, D. Srejović. Milutin and Draga Garašanin were based on regional archaeological topics and priorities. the first who published a gazetteer of sites from Koso- Enhanced interest in the Neolithic and Roman periods vo’s territory (Garašanin M. and Garašanin D. (1951)). was typical for whole Serbian archaeology in the first 593 It should be stressed that Kosovo’s research agen- decades after the Second World War. Kosovo was con- da was to a great degree determined by the agenda sidered part of Serbia, and its archaeological past one of leading Serbian institutions and scholars, not only of the regional expressions of this. 364 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 364 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 the truth is that those relatively impressive archaeology and ancient history were employed. achievements in several domains of archaeol- It should be emphasised here that, until very ogy in Kosovo until 1965 were made possible recently, archaeology studies have been only with greater engagement of the institutions and very partially included in the curriculum of the scholars from Serbia, mostly from Belgrade, but University of Prishtina. Thus, all professional ar-this also had somehow neglected the needs for chaeologists who worked in Kosovo graduated more intensive local development. For instance, from the University of Belgrade, seldom from in 1971 there were only four domestic archae- other universities (e.g. Zagreb). ologists based in two institutions (two in the Museum of Kosovo and two in the Institute for The period from the mid-1970s onwards, when the Protection of Cultural Monuments), making the constitutional changes in Yugoslavia grant-local (provincial) archaeology rather limited. ed the republics and provinces greater autono-Archaeology in Kosovo needed deeper roots in my, was particularly advantageous for forming order not to be so dependent on Serbian institu- several national institutions in Kosovo. Such fa-tions. In this sense, it is worth noting that it was vourable circumstances and a growing scientific only after the mid-1960s that the first archaeol- infrastructure were also reflected in the notable ogy students of Albanian nationality graduat- increase in the scale and quality of archaeological ed and started taking up professional positions research and protection of heritage. Besides the created in the 1970s at the Museum of Kosovo, traditionally popular research on the Neolithic the Albanian Institute, the Faculty of Philosophy and Roman periods, which was of great benefit and the Institute for the Protection of Cultural for the broader archaeological discipline in the Monuments.594 By 1988 the number of archae- Balkans, more and more sites from previously ological institutions had doubled (to six), and less studied periods were excavated. For exam-the number of archaeologists employed in them ple, it was in 1975 when systematic research of the increased to 14 – figures that may sound insig- early Medieval period and Slavs was launched nificant, but indicate a remarkable improvement with a special project (Bačkalov 1989, 380). That compared to the 1960s. In the 1980s, more than the extent to which some of the periods were ar-half of the jobs in professional archaeology were chaeologically uncharted was considerable, as occupied by Kosovo Albanians, which is a good is evident from the reminiscence of M. Korkuti, indication that archaeology was becoming a rel- one of the most prominent prehistorians of the evant, ‘domestic’ discipline, also within the Al- Institute of Archaeology in Tirana. At the time banian community in Kosovo.595 when he was a visiting professor at the Univer- sity of Prishtina (1973–1976), he recalls that, in In the 1970s, museum and archaeological conser- the entire Kosovo Plain, a single site from the vation services strengthened. Further, academic Bronze and Iron Ages was explored – the site of archaeology started to develop at the Faculty of Gornje Gadimlje/ Gadimja (Korkuti 2006, 10). Ko-Philosophy and the Albanian Institute in Prishti- rkuti exaggerated, however. Yes, there were not na, where the first local (Albanian) experts for many prehistoric sites thoroughly researched in the Kosovo Plain. Still, enough of them were still 594 For example, Zef Mirdita, Kemal Luci, Exhlale Dobru- studied to have a relatively representative image na-Salihu, Edi Shukriu, Naser Ferri, Fatmir Peja belong of the Bronze and Iron Ages (e.g. syntheses of to the first generation of the local scholars, who in the 1970s and 1980s took over the leading positions in ar- M. Garašanin and R. Vasić in the fourth and fifth chaeological institutions in Kosovo. volumes of Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja).596 595 Here is important to note the contrast with neigh- bouring N. Macedonia. Despite a large number of ethnic Albanians (around 20% of the total popula- 596 For example, Dragoslav Srejović (1950–1960) published tion in the 1980s), there were practically no Albanian an important Bronze and Iron Ages cemetery from archaeologists. Donja Brnjica/ Bërnicë e Poshtme. 365 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 365 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 Intensification of the research on the periods of a visiting professor between 1973 and 1976 (Kor-later prehistory was set as a priority.597 Indeed, kuti 2006, 9). On this occasion, the first joint pro-one of the reasons for this was the mounting im- ject was agreed, focused on the excavations of portance of the ‘Illyrian’ (i.e. ‘Dardanian’ period) the burial mounds, more precisely on the mound for studying the ethnogenesis of the Albanians. in Lištica/ Llashtica. It was expected to provide Hence the research received great support both answers to the question of the boundaries of the in Albania and Yugoslavia, primarily in Bosnia prehistoric Dardanian territory. The principal and Herzegovina, with Kosovo seen as the key research question was whether the Dardanians area between the two central ‘Illyrian’ regions. or some other non-Illyrian population lived in During this period, extensive excavations contin- Metochia and Kosovo Plain (Korkuti 2006, 12). ued at Ulpiana and Municipium D.D., alongside Within the project, co-directed by J. Glišić of the which some other Roman sites were discovered. Museum of Kosovo and M. Korkuti of the Insti-Up to the end of the 1980s, investigations of the tute of Archaeology in Tirana, fieldwork began Late Antiquity and Middle Ages were rare but in 1980, but only one field campaign took place. became more frequent after 2000. Overall, in the The following year, the project terminated be-period between 1970 and 2000, Kosovo archae- cause the political situation worsened after the ology’s bibliography has more than doubled.598 Albanian demonstrations in Prishtina. It was logical to expect that international cooper- The invitation of Korkuti and plans for joint pro-ation also developed through time. The site with jects were probably not fully along the line of the greatest’ attraction’ was Ulpiana, with more what Serbian politics and archaeology on Koso-than a century-long research tradition. Howev- vo envisaged, but, then again, it was probably er, foreign scholars’ visits to Kosovo between along the line of ‘Yugoslav archaeology’ and in-1945 and 1990 were somewhat limited and not creased federalization and autonomy of the Yu-long-lasting. However, in the 1970s, with dec- goslav republics and provinces.599 In this context, ades-long tensions between Yugoslavia and Al- the Institute of Albanology and the University bania decreased, a more ambitious collaboration of Prishtina were increasingly developing the with Albanian institutions and scholars emerged. ‘Albanian’ perspective in historical sciences, ar-In mid-1970, Muzafer Korkuti, prehistorian and chaeology included, especially for the archaeolo-Director of the Institute of Archaeology in Tira- gy of Illyrians and Dardanians. na, was invited to the University of Prishtina as Nevertheless, during the ‘Yugoslav’ period, 597 Among other prehistoric sites that attracted close at- there were no major international projects in tention of the wider archaeological community was the Kosovo. For most of this period, Kosovo ar-hillfort of Hisar near Suva Reka/ Suhareka dating from the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age; the necropolis in chaeology was considered a regional branch of Iglarevo/ Gllarevë with rich finds of Mycenaean origin; Serbian archaeology, which helped establish the Donja Brnjica/ Bërnicë e Poshtme – eponymous site of first archaeological institutions in Kosovo. From the archaeological culture from the Middle and Late Bronze Age; the Iron Age mound necropolis in Vlašti- the beginning of the 1970s, when the province ca/ Llashticë; the princely graves from Pećka Banja/ gained more political and cultural autonomy Banja e Pejës. During this period, extensive excavations and Kosovo Albanians’ participation in archaeo-continued at Ulpiana and Municipium D.D., alongside logical institutions increased, the general agenda which some other Roman sites were discovered. Until the end of the 1980s, investigations of the sites from the Late Roman period and Middle Ages were rare, but be- 599 Great respect and influence in Albanian archaeology came more common after 2000. were held by Alojz Benac from Sarajevo, Bosnia and 598 My brief estimates are based on the bibliography in Herzegovina, a leading scholar of ‘Illyriology’, and both volumes of Harta Arkeologjike e Kosovës I, II (2006, among the most politically influential archaeologists 2012). More informative is the actual trend than exact in Yugoslavia, who was the first to invite Korkuti to a figures. study trip to Yugoslavia in 1972 (Korkuti 2006, 9). 366 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 366 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 started to be transformed. It gradually received more nationalistic views and ideologies. In this the shape of a national archaeological school or context, the views of Serbian and Kosovo schol-infrastructural disciplinary framework that was, ars (now predominantly of the Albanian ethnic in the organisational and conceptual view, sim- background) started to diverge. ilar to other national (republican) archaeologies in Yugoslavia. This process was characterized The so-called Illyrian question, i.e. the thesis by the step-by-step introduction of the central of Illyrian or Dardanian origin of the Albani-national institutions, the emergence of national ans, was brought to the centre of the political priorities in archaeological research, the increas- discourse. This theory for quite some time was ing autonomy in implementing the programme very energetically promoted by the official ar-of action and cooperation with other institu- chaeology in Albania, basically after the Second tions. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, al- World war. The thesis was widely used as an though genuinely remarkable steps were made argument in the context of Serbian-Albanian in the development of archaeology in Kosovo, relations and grew from the academic discus-archaeological practice in the 1980s was still be- sion to a political issue par excellance,601 which hind the other Yugoslav republics (except for has not yet been ‘resolved’. In the meantime, Montenegro) in terms of its material and infra- the thesis reached the status of historical myth structural basis.600 among the Albanians (and in Kosovo). The Illy- rian question and its instrumentalization were The political situation in the 1980s, above all nothing new in this region. Over the last two the growing gap between Serbia and ‘Albani- centuries, they have appeared in various forms an’ Kosovo, was also greatly felt in archaeolo- and narrations among almost all of the nations gy. Similar to the tendencies in other Yugoslav of former Yugoslavia: from the Illyrian move-republics, more and more attempts were made ment in Croatia (and partly in Slovenia of the to question and review historical knowledge. time) and the national revival in the mid-19th Together with the older generation of leading century to the Illyrians taken as a ‘historical’ communists, who for decades invested signif- model for the union of the South Slavic nations; icant efforts into the ideological platform of Illyrian wars and rebellions against the Romans ‘brotherhood-and-unity of the nations and na- seen as a metaphor of resistance to great foreign tionalities of Yugoslavia’, the Yugoslav (federal) powers; the pan-Illyrian concept of a broad al-government found it increasingly challenging to liance of culturally similar peoples of south-oppose the demands for greater democratiza- eastern Europe from the Bronze Age onwards tion of the society on the one hand, and on the representing fundamental substrate for the eth-other, the national and nationalistic demands. nogenesis of future communities that inhabited At the beginning of creating the new Yugosla- this region (i.e. the Slavs); the Illyrians acting as via after the Second World War, archaeology a model for the South Slavic (Yugoslav) version was expected to supply historical models for the of pan-Slavism; the Illyrians claimed ancestors brotherhood-and-unity ideology. But, contrary to such expectations, archaeology in the 1980s, 601 Many newspaper articles, commentaries, and simi-not only in Kosovo but also in other republics, lar texts on this topic were published in the Yugoslav started to produce new narratives in line with press. A large number of monographs, often non-sci- entific, were also released. In 1982, a discussion took place at the 9th Congress of the League of Communists 600 Compared to Slovenia, Kosovo had five times fewer ar- of Serbia. The Serbian academic community fully par- chaeologists relative to the number of inhabitants. The ticipated in the discussion as well. Thus, among other comparison with Serbia shows a slightly better picture, things, a special scientific meeting was held in 1986 un- but the difference is still considerable (three times few- der the title ‘Illyrians and Albanians’ and organised by er professional archaeologists in Kosovo relative to the the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts ( Illyrians and number of inhabitants). Albanians 1988). 367 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 367 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 of the Bosnian Bogomils and present-day Bos- often served as an arena, literally and metaphor-niaks; and, ultimately, the Illyrians declared as ically, of nationalist conflicts. In the conditions of ancestors of the Albanians.602 shifting weights in the balance of power and po- litical dominance during the last century and a This discussion was mostly generated by and half, every major political event (the Congress of took place in an increasingly tense political cli- Berlin, the Balkan Wars, First and Second World mate. In such a discussion in archaeology, the Wars, and the recent wars in Yugoslavia) tended Illyrian-Albanian thesis’s principal advocates to cause radical changes in political rule, lead-were archaeologists and historians from Alba- ing to a marked demographic disturbance that nia. Among the Kosovo scholars, perhaps the would leave deep scars. Contemporary archae-keenest advocates were historians and linguists ology in Kosovo, Serbia and Yugoslavia and Al- (i.e. Ali Hadri, Idriz Ajeti). In the referential ar- bania could not escape such issues. Still, it could chaeological scientific bibliography of the 1980s, not provide satisfactory answers, according to no texts decisively supported the idea, while the modern standards, that all sides would accept. mass media situation was completely different. The issue is highly politically charged, and res-In numerous debates, archaeology was often re- olution or better to say, the conditions for con-ferred to as a discipline that should answer this structive archaeological and historical dialogue, question. Still, the problem was that the archaeo- must be sought, in the first place, in the political logical observations were most often interpreted context. highly uncritically by laypeople on both the Ser- bian and Albanian sides. On the other hand, archaeology, as it was prac- tised in a broader southeastern European con- An additional and even more aggravating factor text, needed critical and conceptual reflection for historical sciences was the ‘collision’ of two and reassessment. This process has begun in the historical myths. One stated the Illyrian origin last two decades in all ‘post-Yugoslav’ archae-of the Albanians, and the other was the Serbian ologies and Albanian archaeology, which exer-myth about Kosovo being the heart of the me- cised a strong influence on archaeology in Koso-dieval Serbian kingdom in the 14th century and vo since the 1990s. At the same time, this was a direct precursor of modern Serbia. In a highly when critical voices started to appear against politically charged atmosphere, the two myths ‘official’ theories about Albanians’ origins (e.g. were also used to legitimize the ‘ius primi possi- Veseli 2006, Agoli 2019). denti’ attitude: who was the first in Kosovo, and hence ‘who owns the past?’. It became evident that it was very difficult to reconcile Kosovo’s Towards a national disciplinary two main ethnic groups’ cultural differences and framework: Kosovo archaeology after life experiences. The cultural heritage studies split with Serbia and independence After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Kosovo re-602 A more detailed analysis of this problem extends be- yond the scope of the present study, but there exists mained part of Serbia (within the newly formed considerable relevant literature. Readers are first rec- Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), but, already ommended to examine the work of Danijel Džino from 1988 onwards, its autonomy was signifi- (2014) that presents the genesis of the Illyrian question cantly curbed. The 1990s in Kosovo were marked and the constructions of the Illyrians in different historical and academic contexts very concisely. The cre- by escalating conflicts with Serbia and an increas-ation of this myth and its institutionalisation among ingly aggravating economic situation. During the Albanians are well-described in the study by Enver this period, a large number of ‘Albanian’ institu-Hoxhaj (2005), while a critical review of the place of the myth in Albanian archaeology is given by Sabina Vese- tions were suspended (e.g. local administration, li (Veseli 2006). schools and many other public services), causing 368 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 368 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 further deterioration of the political situation and autonomy in self-government.605 This agree-reducing the chances of securing cohabitation in ment, signed between Serbia and Kosovo on the Kosovo of the Albanian majority, the Serbs and 19th of April, also adopted the plan to establish other ethnic minorities. This period ended with Serb Municipalities’ Community with its centre the NATO military intervention in 1999, after in Northern Mitrovica. This Community, which which Kosovo was placed under a temporary includes some Serbian enclaves in other parts protectorate of the United Nations. From this of Kosovo, is still not officially ratified by the moment on, Kosovo gradually acquired an inde- Kosovo authorities. Strongly supported by Ser-pendent state’s status, officially declared in 2008. bia, the Community is developing its autono- mous institutions, heritage protection and edu- It goes without saying that, in such circum- cation domains. stances, there was no noteworthy scientific or professional development in any of the disci- Despite the generally still unfavourable econom-plines. Of importance is that all the institutions ic and political environment in Kosovo, the pe-existing in the 1980s survived through this pe- riod after 2000 was the time to restore many of riod and, after 1999, continued with their activ- Kosovo society’s activities in its pursuit of full ities. One major shift, however, is worth men- independence and statehood. All the institutions tioning. Already before, but especially after that operated before the 1990s continued their 1999, a large number of Serbs abandoned large work (Museum of Kosovo, Institute for the Pro-parts of Kosovo and moved, mostly to Serbia,603 tection of Cultural Monuments, Municipal Insti-mainly due to political reasons and disagree- tute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments ment with the independence of Kosovo, but, in Prishtina, Regional Museum in Prizren (now also needs to be said, because of the pressure under the name of Archaeological Museum),606 coming from more radical Albanian structures. Municipal (Ethnographic) Museum in Đakovi-One of the results was that many job positions, ca/ Gjakovë, University of Prishtina), and also particularly in public services, were left vacant some new ones were established, such as local and were then filled by local Albanians. Kosovo museum Uroševac/ Ferizaj in 2011. grew to become nationally much more homog- enous than ever before. This also happened in The most important is the Archaeological In-archaeological institutions.604 stitute of Kosovo (2003), which, together with the Museum of Kosovo, represents the coun- The exception is the territory of the communes try’s leading national archaeological institu-of Northern Mitrovica, Zubin Potok/ Zubin Po- tions. The Institute for the Protection of Cultur-toku, Zvečan/ Zveçan and Leposavić/ Leposav- al Monuments also underwent changes – new iq in the north of Kosovo, where local Serbs regional branches were installed in Đakovica/ present majority. According to the Brussels Gjakovë, Peć/ Pejë and Gnjilane/ Gjilan as well as Agreement from 2013, they were given certain in the southern (‘Albanian controlled’) part of Kosovska Mitrovica/ Mitrovicë. Several other in-603 In the north part of Kosovska Mitrovica/ Mitrovicë and stitutions were founded that potentially offered Leposavić/ Leposaviq, now with the majority Serbian jobs to archaeologists, such as the Pedagogical population, the Serbs re-established or relocated many of their national institutions, including the university, archives and library. 605 The Brussels Agreement, signed between Serbia and 604 Based on data collected in the journal Arheo (1989) it is Kosovo n 2013, confirmed the establishment of the safe to say that at the beginning of the 1990s in Kosovo, Community of Serb Municipalities with its centre in 13 archaeologists worked in seven archaeological insti- Northern Mitrovica. tutions, six of them of non-Albanian background (Ser- 606 The museum in Prizren was already established in bian, Macedonian). Ten years later, only Kosovo Alba-1975, but only included archaeology after its renova- nians remained in these jobs. tion in 2015. 369 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 369 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 Faculty in Prishtina, while some expanded their introduction of the archaeological curriculum at scope to include archaeology (e.g. the Institute the University of Prishtina in 2012. The archae-of Albanology). The most recent novelty was the ology curriculum is taught at the Department of Fig. 194 Archaeological institutions in Kosovo. 370 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 370 22. 10. 2021 11:06:15 Anthropology, while some archaeological sub- seems to be quite active in the ‘Serbian’ mu-jects are also included in the history curricula.607 nicipalities in restoring historic and ecclesias-Nowadays, Kosovo has about twenty profes- tic architecture (e.g., Novo Brdo fortress).609 At sional archaeologists, a good indicator of a rela- present, it is not known if local archaeologists tively fast reconstruction and stable conditions. are working in this institution, but the institute is supported by experts coming from Serbia, ar-In northern Kosovo, in the communes making chaeologists included. Much of the restoration the Community of Serb Municipalities, there is work on ‘Serbian’ monuments has recently been also some information on the archaeological in- coordinated through the Office for Kosovo and stitutions and activities in the last two decades. In Metochia of Serbia’s Government. 1999, Serbia attempted to ‘relocate’ the seat of the Museum of Kosovo from Prishtina to Belgrade Going back to the general development of ar-by establishing a parallel institution named the chaeology in Kosovo, in the research domain, Museum of Kosovo and Metochia in Prishtina which the most important archaeological project after included some Serbian personnel who had left 2000 was the making of a modern archaeological the Museum of Kosovo. map, the principal task of the newly established Archaeological Institute of Kosovo. So far, two There is very little information in the Serbian volumes of the map have been published ( Harta media noting the relocated museum’s activities arkeologjike e Kosovës I in 2006 and II in 2012). The (e.g. its publications). first volume was a joint project of the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Kosovo and the Acad- But this was more a symbolic move with no emy of Sciences of Albania, with a significant real material consequences.608 Similarly, Serbia, contribution from the Museum of Kosovo; the in the same year, also relocated the seats of the Archaeological Institute of Kosovo published Provincial Institute for the Protection of Cultur- the second volume. Together, the maps cover al Monuments from Prishtina to Leposavić, and approximately half of the country’s territory; the renamed it the Regional Institute for the Protection first volume includes ten municipalities in the of Cultural Monuments of Prishtina with seat in Lep- western part, with 209 archaeological sites reg-osavić, and moved the Prishtina Municipal Insti- istered. The second encompasses eight munici-tute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments palities in the central part of Kosovo, with 200 to Gračanica/ Gračani Of the latter, I could not sites. In both volumes, short syntheses of the in-get any information about its activities, but just dividual archaeological periods in the surveyed some official data such as an address, names of areas are published and valuable information on responsible officers and some circumstantial evidence, but nothing about its activities. On the other hand, the (relocated) Provincial Institute 609 After 2000, a substantial number of cases of destruction of the Serbian ecclesiastic objects and heritage in Kosovo was reported to the UNESCO (https://whc.unesco. org/en/soc/?action=list&id_site=724). More detailed 607 After 2000, the (Albanian) students from Kosovo, those information can be obtained from the Preliminary tech- who would study archaeology, did not enrol anymore nical assessment report on the religious buildings/ensembles to the University of Belgrade. Before establishing the and cultural sites damaged in March 2004 in Kosovo issued curriculum in archaeology in Prishtina, they graduated by The technical assessment mission carried out from mostly at the University of Tirana, Albania; some MAs 10 to 16 May 2004, which was jointly organised by the and PhDs were also obtained in other countries. Council of Europe’s Directorate of Culture and Cultur- 608 In this context, it should be noted that the objects from al and Natural Heritage and the European Commis- the exhibition Archaeological Treasures of Kosovo and sion’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture Metohija from Neolithic to Early Iron Age which were dis- at the request of the UN Interim Administration Mis- played in Belgrade in 1998, were not returned to Koso- sion in Kosovo (UNMIK) and Provisional Institutions vo and are still kept in the National Museum in Bel- of Kosovo following the violent events in Kosovo in grade. More on this issue see in Kelmendi (2015), March 2004. (https://rm.coe.int/090000168092ade2). 371 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 371 22. 10. 2021 11:06:16 the history of archaeological research. The ar- were carried out in cooperation with German chaeological map was designed according to the archaeologists at Vindenis and Glamik. traditional model and method of work already instated in Yugoslavia in the 1960s.610 More recently, investigations of the Late Roman period and the Middle Ages were also carried The opening of the borders between Kosovo and out at a greater scale. These initiatives impor-Albania intensified the collaboration between tantly complete the picture of archaeological re-archaeological institutions. Here, the Institute search in Kosovo. Some important sites, such as of Archaeology in Tirana played a crucial role. the locations of Byzantine military architecture Its role was already mentioned in making the and early medieval necropolises (Vrela/ Vrellë, first volume of the Kosovo archaeological map, Mališevska Banja/ Banja e Malishevës, Gradi-and it only extended in the following years. na Arilača/ Kalaja e Harilaqit, Gradina Koriše/ Today, it maintains close collaboration with ar- Kalaja e Korishës, Grabovac/ Graboc, Matičane/ chaeologists in Kosovo; moreover, in many re- Matiqan, etc.) significantly complement the spects, its role is similar to the one played by the knowledge about the period that was previous-Institute of Archaeology in Belgrade until the ly termed terra incognita in Kosovo archaeology 1990s. Both institutes significantly contributed (Berisha 2012, 77). to the development of research perspectives in Kosovo archaeology, which did not and still does not have a sufficiently developed academ- Concluding thoughts on Kosovo ic sector in archaeology. The cooperation with archaeology Albanian archaeology was also intensifying in the domain of education. Until the establish- Once the basis for modern Archaeology in ment of the university curriculum at Prishtina, Kosovo was established, archaeology acted as a it was the University of Tirana that was usually provincial branch of Serbian archaeology, oper-the first port of call for future students of ar- ated on the ground by a small number of local chaeology from Kosovo and future students of professionals, for the next two or three decades, other disciplines for which there are no study highly dependent on assistance from Serbian programmes at the University of Prishtina. institutions. One could also say that many of Some students from Kosovo completed their the activities were part of Serbian archaeolo-advanced studies in archaeology in Austria gy’s broader research agenda and the personal and Germany. Germany (more specifically, the research agendas of some scholars (e.g. the par-German Archaeological Institute) is a country ticular focus on the Neolithic). The involvement that, along with Albania, was among the first of local Albanian scholars increased since the to get involved more extensively in the collab- 1970s in all domains of the Kosovo province’s orative projects in Kosovo in the period after scientific and cultural life, archaeology includ-2000. Of those, the project at Ulpiana, which ed. Coupled with growing tendencies among started in 2007, was among the largest. Several the Kosovo Albanians for more political auton-field schools were organised within this project omy in Yugoslavia, this process in archaeology for archaeology students from several Europe- gradually led to a reshaping of the once regional an countries (Germany, Slovenia, Serbia, Croa- framework of archaeology into a national one, tia, Albania, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic). which was completed after gaining independ-Smaller investigations, mainly geophysical, ence. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991 and the subsequent political developments in Kosovo, the Serbs almost completely withdrew 610 Arheološka najdišča Slovenije (1975), Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine (1988), Arheološka karta na Republika from the region, and what remained were few Makedonija (1993, 1996, 2002). institutions (e.g. the ‘displaced’ institutes for 372 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 372 22. 10. 2021 11:06:16 the protection of cultural heritage in ‘Serbian’ countries and nations. At present, the antago-enclaves) funded from Serbia and mostly active nisms between the Kosovo Albanians’ official in restoration works. politics and Serbs and Serbia are so high that any settlement is not foreseeable in the near Despite its relatively short history, turbulent future. There are also several open issues in periods, and recent structural changes, archae- the domain of the cultural and historical her-ology in Kosovo today is becoming a national itage of various nations and ethnic groups that framework or discipline. The process is very nowadays live or that once lived in Kosovo’s similar to the development of other national territory. There are still mutually challenging archaeologies in the former Yugoslavia, which interpretations of the past, archaeological informed their infrastructure and identity at times terpretations included. when their nations were gaining autonomy or independence: Serbia in the last decades of But then again, any settlement would be a mul-the 19th century, Slovenia and Croatia after the ti-layered and multi-dimensional process that First World War, North Macedonia and Bosnia is not acting only at the level of governments and Herzegovina after the Second World War, and high politics, which are frequently locked and Kosovo and Montenegro in the last two in their ‘worlds’. Indeed, in both Kosovo and decades. Once again, it was demonstrated how Serbia, and in the neighbouring countries, sev-the status of specific disciplines, especially the eral successful smaller-scale initiatives and ac-humanities, at least in this part of Europe, is tivities in the last two decades have attempted tightly associated with establishing the national to find ways for dialogue and promotion of co- (and state) institutional infrastructure. In Koso- habitation through common heritage. It is not vo, up until the Second World War, there was surprising that such initiatives mostly come no proper domestic tradition of archaeological from non-governmental organisations. The inactivities except for the sporadic activities of itiatives vary from activities such as summer individual scholars and institutions from Ser- schools in archaeology in Ulpiana, attended by bia, which annexed Kosovo some three decades students from Kosovo, Serbia, and other coun-before. It took substantial economic and social tries, to international initiatives organised by modernisation to make the firm conceptual and the Sweden-based foundation Cultural Herit-infrastructural basis for the archaeological dis- age Without the Borders,611 and Balkan Muse-cipline to become part of a provincial and then um Network. This network was established in a national framework. At present, archaeolo- Stockholm in 2006 and counts at present more gy in Kosovo, although still a small system in than 60 institutional members (museums) from terms of the number of professionals and their all Balkan countries, among them a considera-capacities, is entering the international scene ble number of museums from Serbia, Kosovo, with a rather stable and complete infrastructur- Albania and N. Macedonia. Looking at this net-al basis, a tradition that effectively respects the work’s results, the future of cooperation is much period of being a ‘Serbian’ regional archaeolo- less bleak than judging from political negotia-gy, and with increased competencies obtained tions only. To this end, participation in finding by a younger generation of scholars. solutions to these problems represents the next major challenge for archaeology in Kosovo. However, the future progress of archaeology in Kosovo still depends not just on resolving the political status of this state but also on creat- ing a mutually accepted mode of cohabitation with Serbs (both the Kosovo Serbs and with 611 This foundation is active not only in Kosovo, but also has offices in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Ti-Serbia in general) and with other neighbouring rana, Albania (see more at http://chwb.org/kosovo/). 373 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 373 22. 10. 2021 11:06:16 Images Fig. 195 Ivan Stepanovich Yastrebov Fig. 196 Shtjefën Gjecovi (1873–1929), (1829–1893), Russian consul in Prizren Franciscan priest, pioneer of folklore and Skadar, correspondent member of studies in Kosovo; in 1929 he carried out the Serbian Royal Academy (from 1875), the first local archaeological excavations. author of Old Serbia and Albania (1904). Fig. 197 Avram Popović (1867–1934), Director of Gymnasium in Kosovska Mitrovica, local historian and collector of antiquities from Kosovo. 374 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 374 22. 10. 2021 11:06:16 Fig. 198 Building of Ottoman Military Headquarter constructed in 1880s by Austrians, after the Second World war transformed into Museum of Kosovo. Photo from postacard from Prishtina (ca. 1900). Fig. 199 National Museum of Kosovo today. 375 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 375 22. 10. 2021 11:06:16 Fig. 200 From left: Emil Čerškov (1929–1969) and Jovan Glišić, first professional archaeoogists in Museum of Kosovo. Photo at Novobrdo/ Novobërdë (1955). Courtesy of Toni Čerškov. Fig. 201 Staff of the Museum of Kosovo (1956). Jovan Glišić (center), Emil Čerškov (second from the right). Courtesy of Toni Čerškov. Kosovo. Courtesy of Toni Čerškov. 376 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 376 22. 10. 2021 11:06:16 Fig. 202 Exavations at Sočanica (Municipum DD) 1960–1963. From left: Enil Cerškov, Ryta Kozlowska (Poland), Gordana Marjanović, Stanko Jeraj. Photo: Čerškov (1970, T XII 2). Fig. 203 Exavations of large barrow at Romaja (early 1970s), photo from Đurić, Glišić and Todorović (1974, Fig. 4). 377 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 377 22. 10. 2021 11:06:16 Fig. 204 Yugoslav-Albanian exavations of a barrow at Vlaštica/Llasticë in 1980. From left: Selim Islami (Tirana), Kemal Luci (Prishtina), Aristotel Koka (Tirana), Zef Mirdita (Prishtina), Muzafer Korkuti (Tirana). Photo from Korkuti (2006, 6). Fig. 205 Novo Brdo/Novobërdë, Saxonian church after restoration in 1955. Photo from Zdravković (1956-1957, 341). 378 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 378 22. 10. 2021 11:06:17 Fig. 206 Kemal Luci (with moustaches), curator at the Museum of Kosovo at the conference on the Illyrian fortified settlements in Mostar (1973). On the left are Borivoj Čović (Provincial Museum in Sarajevo), Nikola Tasić (Balkanological Institute, Belgrade) and Ismet Hasanbegović (driver), right: Edina Alirejsović (Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Vukosava Atanacković Salčić (1931–2014) (Regional Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, Mostar). Courtesy of Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Fig. 207 Archaeologists from Kosovo in Nezakcij near Pula (1983): Sitting from the left: Naser Ferri, Fatmir Peja, Engjel Sedaj, Edi Shukriu, Exhlale Dobruna Salihu. Courtesy of Naser Ferri. 379 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 379 22. 10. 2021 11:06:17 Fig. 208 Zef Mirdita (1936–2016), ancient historian, researcher at the Institute of History, Zagreb, professor at the University of Prishtina; Naser Ferri, researcher at the Albanological Institute, later professor of arhaeology, ethnology and ancient history at the University of Prishtina. Courtesy of Naser Ferri. Fig. 209 Organization for Security and Co-operatuin in Europe (OSCE), Mission in Kosovo archaeological youth camp in Ulpiana in 2013. OSCE and Archaeological Institute from Prishtina organized several archaeological inter-ethnic camps since 2004 to help raise the awareness about the existence, diversity and the value of cultural and religious heritage sites in Kosovo (https://www.osce.org/kosovo/82109). 380 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 380 22. 10. 2021 11:06:17 IX. IN PURSUIT OF A SYNTHESIS: YUGOSLAV ARCHAEOLOGY (1918–1991) Background A united state usually acts ‘centripetally’ and in This chapter aims to reflect the ‘Yugoslav com- a unifying manner (e.g. equal or very similar leg-ponent’, examining its contents and added val- islation, organisation, major research priorities, ue. Was Yugoslav archaeology an entity per se, allocation of funds to support less developed and, if so, what kind of? In simple terms, what areas, the development of ‘common’ identity was ‘Yugoslav’ archaeology and how should we against the outer world, etc.).613 The centripetal think of it? There is also another straightforward and unifying forces may differ depending on and logical reason to consider this issue. As time the level of internal autonomy of its constitu-passes, the likelihood increases that many things ent parts. Still, they are always present at var-related to ‘Yugoslav’ archaeology will simply be ious levels and act at various magnitudes, not replaced by national disciplinary histories, for- equally acting inside or outside the country. Fi-gotten or misunderstood. nally, there is always a long-term tendency, that of pragmatism; the more stable the system, the Common to all the national archaeologies pre- more features of pragmatism it exhibits. sented in this book was their substantial trans- formation with the onset of the ‘Second’ Yugo- Concerning the former Yugoslavia, we can find slavia,612 with some of them actually only estab- the apparent effects of ‘common’ archaeology at lished after 1945. This transformative process, both levels, in the infrastructural and conceptual especially in terms of institutional and con- synchronisation between national archaeological ceptual developments, was fully synchronised schools. Common legislation acts as a potent tool with the processes of a general modernisation in unifying a certain domain. All the individual of a common state, itself renewed after 1945 on republican laws on heritage protection originat-a radically different (i.e. socialist) basis. How- ed from the federal law or had to be readjusted. ever, detailed presentation and analysis of so- Similar trends are visible in education in archae-cial, political and cultural changes introduced ology, publication, organisation of the institu-with the ‘new’ Yugoslavia are beyond this tional networks and infrastructure in archaeolo-book’s scope. Moreover, the very complexity gy in general. What needs to be added here is the of the processes and socio-political and cul- relocation of various resources by some central tural structures created during the ‘Socialist’ authority or joint coordinating bodies to balance Yugoslavia are so intertwined that they cannot the developmental differences between various be easily explained within a single theoretical parts of the ‘common’ system. framework. In the domain of conceptual development, com- 612 The terms ‘First’ and ‘Second’ Yugoslavia are local mon features can be seen in the synchronisation colloquial terms denoting the Kingdom of Serbs, of regional chronologies, research priorities, Croats and Slovenes/Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918– approaches and models of interpretations, sim-1941) and Federal People’s/Socialist Federal Repub- ilar background theories, and the emergence of lic of Yugoslavia (1945–1991). One can see a similar division of state history in France’s five repub- lics. Though the major reason for these two terms is 613 For most of Yugoslavia’s existence, its archaeology in making popular chronology simpler, one might (discipline and heritage) was most frequently per- find some ideological reasons to enhance distinction ceived by foreign observers as the ‘Yugoslav’ one; not rather than continuity, which was a rather common many were aware of the individual national archaeolo- stance during the ‘Second’ Yugoslavia. gies and their traditions. 381 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 381 22. 10. 2021 11:06:17 ‘thought collectives’ that transcends national ar- find its way to reconnect with the ‘Central Eu-chaeological frameworks. The effects of actions ropean’ archaeology, which was still strongly of common features in the infrastructural and dominated by conceptual tools of the ‘German conceptual domains can certainly be seen as an School’ and find its own physiognomy, follow- ‘added value’ or, better to say, as the ‘Yugoslav’ ing the socialist way as much as possible. And fi-component in national archaeologies and as an nally, it had to bridge considerable developmen-entity in its own way. Similarly, one could also tal differences within the country and deal with speak of the ‘Austrian’ component in the Slovene the varied inheritances from the pre-Yugoslav archaeology tradition or the ‘Venetian/Italian’ experiences. In other words, Yugoslav archaeol-component in Croatian Dalmatia’s archaeology. ogy needed to have multiple faces at the same time – unified and multi-national, stemming Another aspect that needs to be considered from earlier traditions and socialist, European concerning the ‘Yugoslav’ archaeology, or any and regional (‘Balkan’, ‘Mediterranean’, ‘Panno-archaeology in the federal states for that mat- nian’ and ‘Alpine’), both traditional and modern ter, are shared experiences which in their own as well as strong at home and competitive on the way connect the infrastructural and conceptual international scale. ‘commonalities’. Such experiences, especially if positive, may strengthen a particular group’s be- All these, and many other perspectives from longing or adherence to the group’s values and which one can approach the understanding of increased solidarity and loyalty. The acting of archaeology in Yugoslavia, require observations ‘belonging’ and ‘solidarity’ can be seen, for ex- of historical processes and structures that oper-ample, in the increasing perception that other re- ated on different wavelengths at different times. publics’ or nations’ archaeological heritage was And it is here where adequately contextualised also ‘our’ heritage as Yugoslavs. This perception empirical data could guide us better in under-grew even stronger if archaeologists had more standing the historical development of archaeol-personal involvement or experience with ar- ogy rather than ‘top-to-bottom’ assumptions.614 chaeology outside their home region or republic. Moreover, this could also help us avoiding instant histories sensu Lampe (1999, xvii). In the In addition to this, archaeology in Yugoslavia previous chapters, I have presented short histor-after 1945 attempted to become unified and ‘so- ical backgrounds for each ‘post-Yugoslav’ coun-cialist’ as with all other domains in a radically re- try in a somewhat ‘isolated’ perspective, from a formed country. As I will present in the text be- ‘national’ point of view. However, to provide an low, the leading Yugoslav archaeologists’ plans adequate historical context, a simple summing in the first post-war decade were very ambitious. Still, they had to deal with a rather paradoxical situation. There were strong initiatives for boost- 614 By ‘top-to-bottom’ assumptions, I refer to approaches where processes and structure on larger scales di- ing republican (national or regional) archaeolog- rectly influence the processes in lower scales of his- ical frameworks. However, by steering them in tory. Such an approach is reductionist and could parallel towards unified archaeology, their au- easily clash with empirical evidence. One such typi- cal ‘top-to-bottom’ assumption, which dominated in tonomy tended to be kept under control. On top the ‘Western’ archaeology, was that the archaeology of this, the new regime had strong expectations in Socialist Yugoslavia was Marxist, just because the that archaeology would become ‘socialist’, and state regime propagated Marxist theory and ideology thus re-write the past. Yugoslav archaeology (e.g. Kaiser 1995, 109–113). Empirical data indicates entirely the opposite, however, as there were practi- also needed urgent re-positioning in the interna- cally no traces of Marxism in archaeology in Yugo- tional arena. It had to synchronise and exchange slavia (on this see more in Babić and Tomović 1994: disciplinary concepts and knowledge developed 117–118; Slapšak and Novaković 1996, 287; Novaković 2002, 340–343; 2002, 314; for the former German Dem- on the European or even global scales. It had to ocratic Republic see Coblenz (2002, 334–336). 382 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 382 22. 10. 2021 11:06:17 up of these national backgrounds is not enough; the mid-19th century (see more in Blažević 2008) they also need to be reconsidered within Yugo- and diversely presented it in the geographical, slavia’s shared history. To put it simply, all of to- historical, linguistic and also political texts of day’s national archaeologies, even though some their times. of them were formed prior to establishing the Yugoslav state in 1918, bear strong imprints of The emergence of the Yugoslav idea(s) of cultur-their joint existence. al and/or political unity in a more elaborate po- litical and cultural sense emerged with the estab- Yugoslavia was an outcome of the First World lishment of the Illyrian Provinces (1806–1813), a War, following a decision of the Entente powers marionette state (protectorate) created by Na-that did not want further fragmentation of the poleon to block Austria’s access to the Adriatic. Balkans and wanted to prevent German, Austri- With a large majority Slavic population (mostly an, and Ottoman influence in this area. On the Slovenes and Croats), the Illyrian Provinces ex-other hand, it was also the result of South Slavs’ tended from the Alps all along the eastern Adri-genuine endeavours for their autonomy, and atic coast down to today’s Albania. Though the central to this was the concept of the South Slavs Illyrian Provinces presented a very short his- (or “Yugoslavs”). torical episode and were ruled by the French military administration, the very fact of having This includes a broad set of cultural, social and a ‘Slavic’ state echoed for decades, as the Illyri-political ideas, attitudes and concepts, views an Provinces demonstrated that a united South on the past and future perspectives in different Slavic ‘state’ was possible. In Croatia in the 1830s historical periods and circumstances. Structural- emerged the Illyrian movement with the agenda ly, it could be considered similar to the idea of of uniting South Slavs, first those who lived Germaneness ( Deutschtum) as proposed by the in the Austrian Empire (Slovenes, Croats and German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder.615 Serbs in Vojvodina and Croatia) and later also Central to his Deutschtum was the concept of a the Slavs in the neighbouring countries (Serbia, national spirit (or soul; Geist) as a socio-cultur- Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina).616 One al entity that every nation possesses and makes of the movement’s initial tasks was establishing up the spiritual basis of that nation. For Herder, the standard (‘Illyrian’) language of South Slavs the best way to approach the Volksgeist was to who used different, poorly standardised, local look at the nation’s culture. The idea of the con- languages and dialects. Increased cultural close-nectedness of the South Slavic peoples could be, ness and linguistic unity were also coupled with at various levels and in various forms, already the idea of the common (ancient) past of the ‘Il-traced from the Renaissance period when some lyrians’, as depicted in the works of Renaissance scholars used the term Illyrians (i.e. peoples of and Enlightenment scholars. The aim was simple Illyricum) as a synonym for South Slavs in the Balkans (e.g. Piccolomini, Pribojević, Orbini). 616 The final goal was to establish the Kingdom of Great They frequently did not distinguish between Illyria with its capital in Zagreb, which would unite the South Slavs or considered them in regional Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (Ivetic 2012, 99). It is also important to note that the idea of South Slav unity to terms, as inhabitants of a particular province or a much lesser extent included Bulgarians. Bulgarians region, given provincial names. Numerous local were envisaged in general pan-Slavic projects as part scholars shared the idea of common ‘Illyrian’ of the South Slavic cultural milieu but rarely included ancestry (and historical continuity) almost up to in political programmes. There were very weak cultur- al contacts between the Slavs in the Austrian Empire and Bulgarians, and Bulgaria increasingly developed 615 Herder was also among the first who also proposed the independentist politics, resulting in recognition of the idea of Slawenthum and the unity of Slavs, half a cen- Bulgarian Kingdom in 1878. To increased distancing of tury before Jan Kollar came out with his Pan-Slavism Bulgarians from the South Slavic idea also contributed (Roksandić 2017, 29–30). to tense relationships with Serbia. 383 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 383 22. 10. 2021 11:06:17 and typical for the nation-building processes of In the Ottoman-ruled territories, at around 1850, the time – to demonstrate the shared past and the situation was much different because Serbia historical experiences, and prove historical con- and Montenegro had already obtained a consid-tinuity to claim territorial rights. These attempts erable degree of autonomy. They pursued more also aimed to overcome another great barrier independent rather than unionist politics. Serbia – the religious divides between Orthodox and also considered some territories (e.g. Bosnia and Catholic South Slavs. It was not only that the Herzegovina, parts of southern Dalmatia) as their governments in Vienna and Budapest opposed historical national territories. The recognition of the Illyrian idea, but also the individual nation- the independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Bul-al movements amongst South Slavs, which pur- garia at the Berlin Congress in 1878 additionally sued national autonomy without political union boosted the idea of the autonomy of other Slavic with other Slavs. However, in 1848, in the year nations in the Balkans. Cultural and political con-of national uprisings in Austria and elsewhere, tacts between Serbia and the Austrian-Hungarian a time known as the Springtime of Nations, the Slavs substantially increased in the following dec-Croatian provincial parliament proposed the ades, and also the idea of Serbia as the potential territorial and political union of Slovenes, Croats ‘Piedmont’ of South Slavs emerged. and Vojvodina Serbs within the Austrian Em- pire.617 Though Vienna and Budapest completely After 1900, the ‘Yugoslav’ idea took on a social(ist) ignored this proposal, it marks one of the first component. Social democrat parties from Slove- ‘Yugoslav’ political moves on this scale. nia,618 Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and some influential intellectuals from Serbia, much The Yugoslav idea was more successful in the less burdened by nationalism, started to envis-domain of culture. In 1850, in Vienna, the lead- age Yugoslavia as a more ‘righteous’ country ing Croatian, Serbian and Slovene linguists and than the existing empires, with better living con-writers agreed on the common Serbo-Croatian ditions for workers and peasants, and larger so-language’s foundations. In the same year, Ivan cial and national solidarity. However, contrary Kukuljević Sakcinski founded the Yugoslav So- to the strong federalist stance among many pro-ciety for History and Antiquities ( Društvo za ju- ponents of the Yugoslav idea, the social demo-goslovensku povjestnicu i starine) in Zagreb, a pre- crats saw the solution in a much more integrated decessor of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences state. To this end, they organised the congress and Arts ( Academia scientiarum et artium Slavorum in Ljubljana in 1908. The ‘Yugoslav’ independent meridionalium), which was founded in 1866 by stance grew stronger, also due to Serbia’s success Josip Juraj Strossmayer, the Bishop in Đakovo, in the Balkan Wars (1912–1913), while the idea of Croatia, the most potent ideologist of the ‘Yugo- ‘Yugoslav’ autonomy within the Dual Monarchy slavism’ of the second half of the 19th century. was increasingly losing ground. This was also In 1870, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, the ‘Yugoslav because other Slavic nations in the northern rim Congress’ was held with some 100 participants of the Austro-Hungarian state (Czechs, Slovaks, (mostly from Slovenia and Croatia) discussing Poles) had already developed strong independ-various political plans and projections, but no ence movements. viable programme was adopted. The First World War presented a radical rupture. 617 On a larger scale, another political idea started to gain South Slavic nations found themselves on op-momentum after 1848 in the Austrian Empire – the Austroslavism which advocated the Empire’s federal- posing sides – South Slavs in the Dual Monarchy isation with stronger and united Slavic provinces. This idea was developed in Bohemia and attracted interest 618 The official name of the social democrat party in Slove-among Slovaks, Poles, and the Slavs in the Balkans. In nia, established in 1896, was the Yugoslav Social Dem- different variants, it remained in circulation until the ocrat Party (in Slovene: Jugoslovanska socialnodemokratič- end of the First World War. na stranka). 384 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 384 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 (Croats, Slovenes and Serbs from Croatia, Vo- It seemed that the Yugoslav idea finally tri-jvodina, and Bosnia and Herzegovina) against umphed after almost a century of claims con-Serbia and Montenegro, which were the only En- cerning the united state of South Slavs. Slavic tente allies in the Balkans.619 In the aftermath of nations in Yugoslavia thus found themselves the Central Axis defeat, the South Slavs’ political in a common Slavic state for the first time, with status in the Austrian Empire became increas- very high expectations for their national existingly threatened. Moreover, in London’s secret ence (Roksandić 2017, 36). However, the reality treaty (1915), the leading Entente powers prom- soon demonstrated the gap between ‘Yugoslav ised Italy extensive ‘Austro-Hungarian’ territo- expectations’ and the newly established Yuries (Southern Tyrol, Gorizia and Trieste regions, goslavia. Not all nations were officially recog-southwestern Carniola, Istria, Kvarner and most nised. For example, Macedonians were consid-of Dalmatia) for joining the Entente. The Croa- ered Southern Serbs, the Muslim population tian and Slovene politicians, who emigrated from was considered ‘Muslimised’ Serbs and Croats, Austria-Hungary, formed the Yugoslav Com- and Montenegrins were increasingly considered mittee in 1915 to preserve the Austro-Hungarian a regional variant of Serbs. Albanians were con-Slavs’ national autonomy by forming a united sidered as a national minority but with almost South-Slavic state. The Yugoslav Committee ne- no national rights. gotiated a joint state with Serbia, and in 1917 both parties signed the Corfu Declaration, according Furthermore, the nations which entered the Yu-to which the new integrated state of Yugoslavia goslav Kingdom were on very different levels would become a parliamentary monarchy with of their nation-building. Moreover, the relation-the Serbian king as the common monarch. It took ships between the ‘big three’ were tense. The quite a lot of political negotiations before the ma- Slovenes and Croats argued for much greater jor forces of Entente accepted the plan for the new federalisation of the state within their respective state. Borders with Italy and Austria were finally ‘national’ territories, while the Serbs still did not settled only in 1920, with a substantial population abandon their expansionist agenda. Many of the of Slovenes and Croats left outside Yugoslavia.620 ‘Yugoslav expectations’ were based on a future The final proclamation of the new state (the King- federal organisation. In reality, the state became dom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) was made on highly centralised with a strong tendency toward the 1st December 1918,621 and in 1929 was renamed Yugoslav integralism, which grew significantly the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. after 1929 when King Alexander abolished the parliament and proclaimed a dictatorship. There 619 Bulgaria also joined the Central Axis, intending to an- was also a significant gap in economic condi-nex N. Macedonia, lost to Serbia in the Second Balkan War (1913). tions. Slovenia and Croatia had already achieved 620 After the Treaty of Rapallo (1920), approximately a certain level of industrialisation and modern-one-quarter of today’s Slovenia (its western parts) be- isation, while the ‘Serbian’ parts (including longed to Italy, as did Istria, half of the Kvarner islands, N. Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo) and Bosnia the city of Zadar and island of Lastovo (all in today’s Croatia). In that same year, following the referendum and Herzegovina remained profoundly agrarian in southern Carinthia, the border with Austria was also and rural. The differences between the more de-settled, leaving a substantial number of Slovenes out- veloped ‘west’ and much poorer agrarian ‘east’ side Yugoslavia. were felt in basically all domains in the Yugo- 621 Two short episodes happened before the official estab- slav Kingdom.622 Indeed, the state remained very lishment of the kingdom. On the 29th of October 1918, The Slovenes, Croats and Serbs separated from Aus- unstable right up to the beginning of the Second tro-Hungary. They formed an interim ‘State of Slovenes, World War, when it collapsed for the first time. Croats and Serbs’ which a month later joined Serbia, while in Montenegro, the National Assembly in Mon- tenegro (24th–29th of November) abolished the Montene- 622 Per capita income in Yugoslavia at the end of 1930s, grin Kingdom and voted for the union with Serbia. was 30% below the world average (Curtis 1992, 124). 385 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 385 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 However, we should not overestimate the di- Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, now reduced to mensions of crisis and instability of the Yugoslav its central parts, became a German military pro-Kingdom, or limit it to this country only. Simi- tectorate. N. Macedonia was divided between lar economic and political crises and unresolved Bulgaria and Italian controlled Albania, and the ethnic questions existed at that time in much of latter also took Kosovo. Slovenia was divided be-Europe. Except for Austria, all other neighbour- tween Italy and Germany. After a couple of weeks ing countries were similarly underdeveloped of resistance, the Yugoslav army capitulated, and and faced great problems securing their political the royal government fled to the UK. stability. Moreover, on a larger, European scale, the situation was far from stable – Fascism and The critical factor in Yugoslavia’s liberation was Nazism were right around the corner and struck played by the National Liberation Movement a chord in many countries. Despite its underde- (NLM) ( NOP – Narodnooslobodilački pokret) led by velopment and internal instability, Yugoslavia the Communist Party and its leader Josip Broz provided a somewhat stronger basis for national Tito. This movement was de facto the only all-Yu-emancipation, especially for Slovenes and Cro- goslav non-nationalist movement. Simultaneous-ats, and was definitely more robust than that in ly, the nationalist and anti-Communist local gov-Austria-Hungary, and in particular gave better ernments in Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia sided protection against the very expansionist Fascist with Germans and Italians, and openly fought Italy. One of the results of the ongoing political against the NLM. NLM grew very rapidly and in-crisis in Yugoslavia was that it strengthened Slo- creasingly won most people’s sympathies in Yu-venes, Croats and Serbs’ national politics, who goslavia because it proved remarkably successful continued to build their national infrastructure against the Germans and their allies and because in culture, education, and to some degree in the most of the nationalist ‘Quisling’ formations ex-economy. With regard to the original Yugoslav ercised brutal terror over people from other eth-idea, after achieving one of its primary goals – nic groups. In addition to this, the political pro-the independent state of the South Slavs – it soon gramme of NLM also included substantial social lost its power and appeal. Competing national reforms and promises for a more righteous socie-programmes and rising nationalism created new ty, which was especially appealing to the poorer barriers for its previous ‘federalist’ concepts, and classes. In November 1943, NLM held its Second a new type of ‘Yugoslav idea’ – integralist Yugo- Meeting of the Antifascist Council for National slavism (with an integrated ‘Yugoslav’ nation) – Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ – Antifašističko was promoted as the state ideology. vijeće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije) in Jajce, Bos- nia and Herzegovina, where representatives from The casus belli for the Germans’ (and their allies) of all national NLM groups agreed on the basic aggression on Yugoslavia was its ‘betrayal’ of the structure of the ‘new’ federal Yugoslavia. In the Tripartite Pact. Germany, Italy, Hungary, Bulgar- final years of the war, NLM grew into the most ia and Albania invaded Yugoslavia and divided potent military and political power in Yugoslavia, its territory at the beginning of April 1941.623 In successfully establishing its rule from top to bot-Croatia, Germans and Italians created a mario- tom, from central ‘government’ to small local gov-nette fascist state – the Independent State of Cro- erning units all across Yugoslavia. It also became atia – which included most of today’s Croatia and recognised by the Western Allies, with its Antifascist Council as the official governing organ of 623 Two days after Yugoslavia signed the agreement Yugoslavia and an ally against the Axis powers. with the Tripartite Pact (25th of March 1941), a group However, the toll of the war was extreme. There of high-ranking army officers made a coup d’etat and were around 1 million victims in a country of 15 abolished the alliance with the Germans and Italians. On the 6th of April 1941, Germans and their allies start- million people, and the country’s economic infra-ed the military invasion of Yugoslavia. structure was heavily damaged. 386 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 386 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 After the war followed the radical re-construc- with a great private property ratio.626 The state tion of the state regime, now ruled by the Com- authorities (and the Communist Party) did not munist Party. This involved the abolition of the abandon society’s control. Instead, they con-monarchy and classical political parties in fa- tinued controlling it in more indirect ways by vour of the ‘people’s democracy and the feder- producing general recommendations and guide-alisation of the Yugoslav state into six ‘national’ lines and appointing directors of enterprises and republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and major ‘strategic’ social services. Though Yugo-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia; later two slavia experienced several ups and downs in the autonomous provinces were established within economic sense, it grew substantially after the Serbia: Vojvodina and Kosovo). In addition to 1950s, and in the following decade its economic this, most of the territories annexed to Italy after growth rate was among the highest in Europe. 1918 (Slovene Littoral, Istria, Kvarner Gulf, the town of Zadar) were regained. Regardless of many problems it faced and nu- merous goals that the self-management system In the first post-war years, Yugoslavia relied did not fully achieve, it had very positive ef-heavily on the Soviet Union. It attempted to fects on ordinary people’s well-being and so-transform the country according to the Soviet cial emancipation when coupled with economic model: with the nationalisation of all principal in- growth. Such growth drastically changed the dustrial infrastructure, larger estates,624 housing social environment, particularly the process of etc., the introduction of ‘planned’ economy, state urbanisation that ran in parallel with industri-farms, undisputed rule of the Communist party, alisation, accompanied by mass migrations of and the étatist mode of ruling society. However, the rural population into new urban centres.627 in 1948 a rupture occurred with the Communist The expansion was also conducive to improving Bloc when the Yugoslav Communist Party dis- public and health services, education, culture agreed with the Soviet Union’s political domi- and science. Poverty was significantly reduced, nance, which then triggered substantial social and all essential social services, like education, and political changes in Yugoslavia. In the next health services and social security, were freely couple of decades the country gradually opened accessible. However, it is also true that much up to the West, introducing a more liberal pri- of the progress of post-war Yugoslavia was vate property system, accepting elements of the market economy, and further increasing the re- explanations, I illustrate this concept with one very publics’ and provinces’ autonomy. The reforms simplified example. In the capitalist system, an enter- in 1965 ultimately transformed Yugoslavia into prise has its private owner(s); in the Soviet system, the a ‘market socialist’ country (Curtis 1992, 129)625 owner was, technically, the state. In contrast, in the Yu- goslav system, the same enterprise was considered ‘so- cial property’ (literally the whole of society’s property). 624 Over 1 million hectares of land were confiscated from However, the people who worked in these enterprises private owners and institutions and redistributed or managed them were given the right to manage these to the peasants (max. 25 ha per household) and state establishments relatively autonomously, and the man- farms (Curtius 1992, 125). agement was legally responsible for it. In this way, the 625 An important innovation was the ‘system of self-man- enterprises had much more freedom over their produc- agement’, initially introduced in the early 1950s as a tion and surpluses, and local communities were given ‘Yugoslav’ response to the Soviet Union’s rigid etat- much greater autonomy, state farms were abandoned, ism and centralised planned economy. The basic idea and the land left to small farmers. of self-management was decentralised decision-mak- 626 In 1984 private farmers owned 83% of all tilled land, ing in all major domains, particularly in the economy. 84% of livestock, and 72% of net national agricultural Decision-making was transferred to groups of people output (Curtis 1992, 132). working in or running industrial and other enterpris- 627 In 1957, the urban and rural populations’ net incomes es. The self-management system was closely connect-were almost identical (index 100), whilst in 1970, the ra- ed with another important systemic introduction – the tio was 304 vs 93 in favour of those who lived in urban concept of ‘social’ property. To avoid complex legal settlements (Estrin 1982, 80). 387 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 387 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 possible due to large investments from the West, nationalist government of Franjo Tuđman, who which strategically supported a state that had threatened to abolish the local Serbs’ autonomy, escaped the Soviet umbrella and seemed to be the latter, orchestrated by Milošević, formed the capable of maintaining considerable stability in ‘Serbian Autonomous Regions’, rebelled against the Balkans. Croatia, and claimed union with Serbia. In Bos- nia and Herzegovina, the local Serbs also formed In 1974, Yugoslavia adopted a new constitution their autonomous regions and attempted to oc-that significantly federalised the country. Still, cupy other parts of this country. Montenegro at the same time, the country was sliding into remained an ally of Serbia in the newly estab-an economic crisis, and later, after Tito’s death lished state of the ‘Federal Republic of Yugosla-in 1980, a political one too. Tito had effectively via’. Kosovo was still under the strong control of ruled Yugoslavia (and the Communist Party) Serbia, and the war there was yet to come. The since 1945 as the undisputed leader, with signif- situation was further complicated in Bosnia and icant symbolic capital from the national libera- Herzegovina, where Croatia pursued expan-tion period. Much of this power he retained by sionist goals, aiming to annex parts of this coun-careful balancing between the national politics try settled by Croats, and went to war against of the individual republics, as he was the de fac- Bosniaks.629 to guarantor of the inter-national stability and ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ of the Yugoslav peo- The 1991–1995 civil war(s) had profound conse-ples. After his death, there was no one strong quences. Some 120,000 to 140,000 people were enough to maintain this balance, and tensions killed, with around 100,000 in Bosnia and Herze-among the republics increased. In the late 1980s, govina alone, and over 4 million were displaced in conditions of severe economic crisis, claims for (around 2 million in Bosnia and Herzegovina), Yugoslavia’s substantial transformation started if I only mention the human casualties.630 Due to emerge, ranging from full liberalisation and to ethnic cleansing and forced emigration, the democratisation of the economy and politics, to ethnic structure of Croatia, Bosnia and Herze-confederate restructuration of the state and na- govina, Serbia and Kosovo was substantially tionalist and separatist claims. changed, once very mixed territories became predominantly mono-ethnic. The actual map The final blow was made by the Serbian leader of the post-Yugoslav countries was ultimately Slobodan Milošević, who took control of Monte- formed after the NATO’s war against Serbia in negro, Kosovo and Vojvodina and abolished the 1999, when Kosovo achieved de facto independ-political balance in the country.628 This only re- ence, and in 2006 when Montenegro stepped inforced the independentist politics of the other out of the union with Serbia and proclaimed its nations. The Slovenes and Croats, in national ref- independence. erenda in June 1991, voted for the independence of their republics in September 1991, N. Macedo- The new states recovered very differently. Slo-nia followed the same steps, as did Bosnia and venia, the most ‘Western’ and developed of the Herzegovina in March 1992. What followed was Yugoslav republics, and the least affected by a civil war (or wars) with different outcomes. the war, recovered very quickly, and in 2004 be-After only a couple of weeks of sporadic clashes came a full member of the EU. Today, Slovenia is in Slovenia, the then still Federal Army agreed economically the most developed country of all to retreat. In Croatia, which had also elected the 629 To this end, he had several secret meetings with Mi-628 By depositing leading politicians in Vojvodina, Koso- lošević about how to partition Bosnia and Herzegovina. vo and Montenegro and installing their pro-Serbian 630 Even when looking at the destroyed objects of cultur-politicians, Milošević got half of the Yugoslav Presid- al heritage, the figures are astonishing – some 3,500 to ium votes. 4,000 objects (mostly different religious objects). 388 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 388 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 the former socialist countries in Europe, and it Yugoslavia’s history. It is not by chance that in ranked higher than Portugal and Greece. Croatia this milieu were nurtured numerous pseudo-his-followed similar steps and became an EU mem- torical and pseudo-archaeological ‘theories’ of ber in 2013. However, its recovery was slower the ancient autochthonous origins of the Slo-and it is currently the third least developed EU venes, Croats or Serbs, Albanians and Macedo-country economically. Other new countries ex- nians. Common to all of them is an attempt to perienced a much greater slowdown in their eco- ‘prove’ the non-Slavic origin of their respective nomic development. Their GDPs per capita are nations, bury the memory of a common history from three to four times lower than that of Slove- and state, and its positive achievements. Howev-nia, and put them in the lowest quartile amongst er, the fact remains that the South Slavic nations all European countries.631 still share numerous commonalities: similar or equal languages, literary and artistic horizons, After seven decades of the common state, the Yu- experiences in the history of joint political and goslav idea’s original concept seems to have come cultural projects. And it is with this in mind that to an end. The fact is that Yugoslavia was an ex- the new ‘Yugoslav’ idea is taking roots, not as tremely heterogeneous country in the ethnic, reli- ‘yugostalgia’ but as a new regional framework gious and cultural senses. As long as all national for cooperation, first in the domains which tran-groups could find a political balance and enjoyed scend the national borders, such as culture, sci-the ‘protection’ provided by the larger state, they ence, environmental issues, etc., with economic were all ready to delegate some of their nation- cooperation among the post-Yugoslav states al sovereignty to a common state. In the First having transcended these boundaries years Yugoslavia, this balance was never achieved. In ago.633 contrast, it seemed possible in the Second Yugo- slavia with the mechanisms of the more balanced ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ of the Yugoslav nations How to consider Yugoslav for a while.632 However, Tito’s death increased the archaeology? economic crisis and movements for a more dem- ocratic and liberal society. But soon the calls for Elsewhere I remarked that ‘Yugoslav’ archaeol-democratisation were increasingly replaced by ogy could not be considered a ‘distinct’ national mutually exclusive nationalist claims. archaeological school but rather a well-organised network of national archaeologies that retained The war in Yugoslavia was a war between na- many of their own specificities (Novaković 2008). tionalist regimes and not nations, as became This view was also shared by Yugoslav archaeol-even more evident with the growing dissatis- ogists, at least from the 1970s on.634 In fact, in Eu-faction with the new nationalist governments in the post-Yugoslav states. To stay in pow- 633 For example, in Serbia the value of trade with other er and strengthen their national institutions post-Yugoslav states combined amounts for 22.56%, around them, these governments supported in Croatia 25.74%, Bosnia and Herzegovina 35%, Mon- tenegro 37.14%, Slovenia 13.94%, and N. Macedonia very revisionist views of the past, especially on 11.35%. The total value of trade between these coun- tries amounts to 19,841 billion US dollars. (source: 631 Source: Google Public Data based on World Bank. GDP The observatory of economic complexity https://oec. per capita is calculated in current US dollars. world/en/profile/country/hrv). 632 For example, in 1971, the Slavic-Speaking Muslims 634 At the 12th Congress of the Association of Yugoslav Ar-were recognised as ‘constitutional nation’ under the chaeological Societies held in Novi Sad in 1984, a spe- name ‘Muslims’. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Mus- cial panel was organised to discuss two main ques- lims (as a national group) were the majority; today, tions: ‘Is there Yugoslav archaeology?’ and ‘What is they are officially termed Bosniaks. The Muslim na- Yugoslav archaeology?’. The panel concluded that tion did not include ethnic Albanian and Macedonian Yugoslav archaeology did not exist. Regardless of nu- Muslims. merous commonalities, long-standing cooperation and 389 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 389 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 rope it is not uncommon that many domains re- world wars, including their national traditions main national in multi-national states, including of historical disciplines, relatively easily revived archaeology. A very similar case can be seen, for their national frameworks after departing from example, in the former Czechoslovakia, where the Soviet Union. In other former Soviet repub-Czechs and Slovaks preserved their national lics, this process may have taken some more time, archaeological schools and their chief national but ultimately, all post-Soviet states established infrastructure (national museums, universities their own national archaeologies. and institutes) in the joint country. In Spain, the attempts to construct a common ‘Spanish’ In this respect, Yugoslav archaeology could be history was a complicated and painful process, considered similar to the British, Spanish or challenged by national stances of the Catalans, Czechoslovakian examples, where national ar-Basques and Galicians and where archaeolo- chaeological schools and frameworks were pre-gy(-ies) developed in parallel with their national served and strengthened over time in a united movements (see more in Díaz-Andreu 1995). The country. Simultaneously, parallel processes were ‘integralist’ attempts of Franco’s fascist regime attempting to unify national/regional archaeol-just froze the development of ‘national’ pasts, ar- ogies into a single state framework. However, chaeology included, for a certain period of time. unifying and/or separating national archaeol-Similarly, national archaeologies are present in ogies in multinational states varied in different the United Kingdom, where Scotland, Wales and countries. These processes also affected national Northern Ireland each have their own national archaeologies differently in Yugoslavia. cultural heritage protection services and nation- al museums. Belgium is another case of two ‘na- Slovenes, Croats and Serbs were the majority tional’ archaeological frameworks in the joint populations in their republics, which during the state, Walloon and Flemish. process of federalisation of a common state be- came their national proxy states. Moreover, all Indeed, The opposite situation – unified archaeol- three nations had a relatively long tradition of ogy in a multinational state – seems non-existent archaeology. Later, Macedonians joined them in Europe. The closest case would be that of ar- once they had developed their own national archaeology in the Soviet Union. But this is a special chaeology after being granted a republic in Yu-case. The archaeology in Tsarist Russia had a very goslavia. The same trends have been visible in short tradition, limited to two or three universi- Montenegro and Kosovo since their separation ties and museum centres and high elite circles. In- from Serbia. On the other hand, Bosnia and Herdeed, the spread of archaeology in the Soviet peri- zegovina did not develop a proper national ar-od happened under Soviet conditions of a highly chaeology because it was always multi-national. centralised state and planned economy. The So- The archaeology in this country was introduced viet regime, making the state anew, also created at the end of the 19th century from the outside as archaeology anew, unified and adapted to the rul- a ‘colonial’ and ‘Westernising’ project of the Ausing ideology. However, archaeology’s continual trian Monarchy. A single institution established growth in other (non-Russian) Soviet republics during the Austrian era (i.e. Provincial Museum and provinces gradually took its ‘toll’. The Baltic in Sarajevo) almost completely monopolised ar-republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which chaeology for some 70 years, giving a great deal had a history of independence between the two of identity to archaeology in this country. With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, one could talk shared history, the panel considered ‘Yugoslav’ archae- of the ‘republican’ rather than ‘national’ archaeology was a unique compilation of national archaeolo- ology. The multi-national structure, great demogies at best. Archaeology was perceived as a ‘national’ discipline, the same as, for example, history. For com- graphic changes associated with the intensive ments on this discussion, see Rapanić (1986). post-war industrialisation and urbanisation, the 390 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 390 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 high degree of mixed marriages and, undoubt- especially in culture, archaeology did not be-edly, the politics that did not permit dominance come ‘Yugoslav’ once the common state was of a single nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, did founded in 1918, neither in institutional nor in not work in favour of one ‘national’ archaeology, conceptual terms. It took more than just the oc-but looked for more common ground, those of casional collaboration of scholars before 1914 a ‘Yugoslav’ discipline. In a certain respect, the to create common grounds in archaeology. Ex-history of archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovi- ceeding the former state, provincial or regional na thus mirrors all the major dilemmas and par- frameworks also required the acquaintance with adoxes of Yugoslav archaeology. archaeology from other parts of what would be- come Yugoslavia. In conditions of almost com- So how to approach the subject of Yugoslav ar- plete lack of common institutional background chaeology? One simple answer would be to look and experience, the pathway to ‘Yugoslav’ ar-for activities that transcended the national or re- chaeology was paved by some rare scholars who publican borders and look for joint programmes, had personal experience of or were directly in-strategies and projects envisaged in a common volved in other regions’ archaeology. Yugoslav framework. Though I will follow this path, this could still not provide a complete an- One such case was Simon Rutar, the pioneering swer. There are also some other aspects which scholar in Slovene historiography and archaeol-need careful consideration and reflection, from ogy. For some time (between 1879 and 1889), he genuine attempts to create the archaeology of worked as a gymnasium professor in Austrian the ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ of the Yugoslav na- Dalmatia (Kotor and Split) and became the as-tions to opportunist and pragmatic attitudes of sistant curator and assistant conservator in the major proponents of Yugoslav archaeology, and, Archaeological Museum in Split. He then moved last but not least, the dynamics and heterogenei- to Ljubljana to become the Conservator of the ty of the Yugoslav stance itself. All these created Province of Carniola (1889–1903). A similar case in their own way the Yugoslav archaeology as is that of Mihovil Abramič, a Croat from Istria, a ‘historical entity’ which variously interacted who in 1910 was employed in the Austrian Ar-with its components, i.e. national archaeologies. chaeological Institute, Director of the Archaeological Museum in Aquileia (1913–1919) and subsequently as a curator at the Archaeological Putting pieces together: Yugoslav Museum in Split (after 1920). In his early ca- archaeology between 1918 and 1941 reer, Abramić, despite his engagement in Split, worked very much in Slovenia, especially in There is no doubt that political changes after Ptuj, where he collaborated with the local mu-1918 significantly transformed the structure, in- seum and intensively researched the remains of stitutional landscape and practice of archaeology the Roman town of Poetovio and its cemeteries. compared to the period before the First World He proved instrumental in establishing the Ro-War. Since another substantial break occurred man antiquities’ municipal collection and wrote after 1945, I have retained a simple periodisation a guide to it (1925). There was also the case of of two phases or periods: the first period corre- Ćiro Truhelka, who, after the retirement from sponds to the Yugoslav Kingdom (1918–1941) an outstanding career in the Provincial Muse-and the second to the Socialist Federal Republic um in Sarajevo, continued as a professor of ar-of Yugoslavia, which I will sometimes refer to as chaeology at the newly established Faculty of Socialist Yugoslavia for short (1945–1991). Philosophy in Skopje in the 1920s. And last but not least, there was Balduin Saria, an ethnic Ger- Despite increased collaboration between the man from Slovenia, who transferred in the early ‘Yugoslav’ nations before the First World War, 1920s from Vienna to the National Museum in 391 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 391 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 Belgrade, where he worked intensively on Sto- easy to re-arrange priorities and organisational bi in N. Macedonia (then part of Serbia) to then practices. For instance, Slovene, Croatian or Bos-continue his career as a professor of archaeology nian-Herzegovinian archaeologies that had, for at the University of Ljubljana (1926–1942). decades, acted as regional sub-systems of a more extensive (Austrian) system failed to be more In all these examples, and some others not men- closely integrated into a new system (Yugoslav) tioned here, there was potential for creating together with Serbian archaeology. stronger networks. Still, the lack of institutional- ised cooperation was common in all these cases, For quite obvious reasons, the discontinuity was especially after 1918. What was evidently miss- much greater in the former Austro-Hungarian ing was more intensive cooperation with archae- lands of Slovenia and Croatia, their institutions ologists from Serbia and their engagement in the having been well incorporated into the Austri- ‘Austro-Hungarian’ areas of Yugoslavia (except an system.635 Though of lesser magnitude, dislo-for Vojvodina, which Serbs intensively colonised cations were also felt in the personal networks after 1918). However, the truth is that archaeolo- cut by the new national borders. Various activ-gy in Serbia was very much a new field, with less ities, once internal, had to become trans-border developed infrastructure in archaeology com- ones. Consequently, there was an inevitable pared to Slovenia or Croatia. The potential hub atrophy of professional ties. Scholars from the for establishing new (i.e. Yugoslav) perspectives former Austro-Hungarian lands who used to be in archaeology could have been the Provincial members of much larger professional networks Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, found themselves in a much smaller profession-with its three-decades-long excellent reputation al community. on the regional and broader international scene. But the new administrative division of Yugosla- The best illustration of the state’s weakness was via made it impossible, as Bosnia and Herzego- that no effective law on heritage protection was vina ceased to exist as a united province. The adopted in the Yugoslav Kingdom, despite sev-museum went into crisis, forced to very signifi- eral attempts. The whole domain of heritage cantly reduce its capacities. protection was based on the laws either adopt- ed in Austro-Hungary, or laws that did not di- Although Yugoslavia was a highly centralised rectly deal with cultural heritage,636 or some country, the opportunity for top-to-bottom initi- provisional legislative basis.637 There was also atives was missed. In Belgrade the governments were very unstable, short-lived, and science and culture were not high on their agendas. The uni- 635 In the report from the Assembly of the Museum Society of Slovenia in 1919 ( Glasnik Muzejskega društva za fied state could have been conducive to creating Slovenijo 1, 1919, 37 is recorded: “Now, the most decisive some fundamentals, such as common legislation issue is a new orientation. Concerning the circumstances and regulation related to culture, science and of our time, we should not lag but, as serious men, but we should not rush as well and succumb our society to highly education, and cultural heritage protection, but convincing yet ephemeral slogans. As ‘Carniolans’ we can- was too weak for such tasks to be carried out. The not exist anymore because there is no Carniola. We have to state ultimately lacked adequate organisations work hard to raise ourselves and our homeland to such a level capable of implementing an efficient institutional of culture to match other nations”. structure, similar to those – for example – which 636 Such as the Act on Forests (1929) and Act on Building Construction (1931). proved efficient in the Austrian-Hungarian state. 637 For example, the proposals of the following acts: In addition to this, in economic, financial, indus-Predlog zakona o muzejima i čuvanju starina i spomenika trial and many other developmental aspects, the from 1930; Predlog zakona o muzejima i čuvanju starina new Yugoslav Kingdom was very much behind i spomenika from 1932; Predlog zakona o muzejima from 1934. For more on the heritage protection legislation the former Austro-Hungary. It was thus not between 1918 and 1941, see Krstić (2006). 392 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 392 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 no common institutional organisation, nor in- Sarajevo).639 At Dobrna, they also agreed to ordeed a central institute. Each province or banate ganise an archaeologists’ meeting in Belgrade in needed to establish its own institutions, but not the same year and another one two years later in all of them did. Slovenia and Croatia continued Split, and proposed the establishment of a Yugo-the model of the ‘Austrian’ Conservator Offic- slav association of all museum, antiquarian and es (in Ljubljana, Zagreb and Split), but similar archaeological societies. institutions did not exist in the ‘Serbian’ parts of Yugoslavia (i.e. today Serbia, Montenegro, Following the agreement from Dobrna, Nikola N. Macedonia, Kosovo) and Bosnia and Herze- Vulič and Vladimir Petković organised the First govina. In 1923 an important step was made by Yugoslav Archaeological Congress in Belgrade establishing the Commission for Protection and between the 8th and 11th of October 1922. Unfor-Maintenance of Architectural Monuments at the tunately, there is very little information about Ministry for Religions and Education, but again, this event. The major sources are brief notes by with no significant effects (Ljubinković 1951, 9). Ćiril Metod Iveković, a Croatian architect and It is also fair to say that the blame for failing to professor at the University of Zagreb (Iveković establish effective legislation should not only 1922),640 Frane Bulić (1922) and Izidor Cankar be directed at the ‘disinterested’ and unstable (1922), and a few references in the memoirs of governments, as there was also intense lobby- some of the participants (Molè 1970), and a brief ing against the proposals for such laws by the mention in the press. Serbian Orthodox Church, which did not want to cede its full autonomy concerning its proper- Among the participants, Iveković lists the pres-ty and estates (Ljubinković 1951, 9). Moreover, idents of the Congress – Ćiro Truhelka from Sa-Moreover, powerful lobbies in the construction rajevo, Josip Mantuani from Ljubljana and Lujo industry were openly opposed to the adoption Marun from Knin – as well as the record-keepers of the acts concerning heritage protection. were Ljubo Karaman from Split and Vojeslav Molè openly opposed to the adoption of the acts con- from Ljubljana. Iveković’s text also mentions cerning heritage protection. 639 Frane Bulić and Mihovil Abramić (both from Archae- Yugoslav archaeologists, fully aware of the new ological Museum of Split), Nikola Vulić (University of conditions, attempted to strengthen their pro- Belgrade), Vladimir Petković and Balduin Saria (both fessional and scholarly organisation and estab- National Museum, Belgrade), Viktor Hoffiler (Univer- lish a ‘Yugoslav’ archaeological society already sity of Zagreb), Vejsil Čurčić (Provincial Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo), Josip Mantuani in the early 1920s. The first formal initiative (National Museum, Ljubljana), Niko Zupanič (Ethno- was put forward at the meeting at Dobrna near graphic Museum, Belgrade), Franc Stelè (Conservation Celje, Slovenia, in 1921. A wealthy industrialist Office of Slovenia, Ljubljana), Leopold Leon Ružička, Viktor Skrabar, Herbert Martin, Franc Ferk (all Muse- and passionate numismatist, Leon Ružička, in- um Society, Ptuj), Anton Jeršinovic (Museum Society, vited a group of archaeologists from the then Celje). Among foreign participants were Matija Murko Yugoslavia and Austria to his villa to discuss fu- (Charles University, Prague), Countess Praskovya Uvarova (former President of the Moscow Archaeolog- ture collaboration.638 We do not know the exact ical Society; after 1918 migrated to Yugoslavia), Emil number of participants, but among them were Reisch (Archaeological Institute, Vienna), Rudolf Egger some of the most prominent archaeologists and (University of Vienna) (Lorber 2020). scholars from all the major institutions in Yu- 640 In a key part of his report on the Yugoslav Archaeo-goslavia (Ljubljana, Split, Zagreb, Belgrade and logical Congress, Iveković strongly criticised one of the proposals in the drafted legislation, which referred to the role of an architect who would be affiliated to the main conservation office and would have great au- thority in deciding on the restoration works and con- 638 All information about this meeting is quoted from Lor- struction activity in the immediate surrounding of the ber (2019, 918; 2020). monuments. 393 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 393 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 Viktor Hoffiller from Zagreb, Frano Bulić from that gathered archaeologists from Yugoslavia Split, and Nikola Vulić and Vladimir Petković and some neighbouring countries was the 30th from Belgrade. From the memoirs of Vojeslav anniversary of the Museum Society in Ptuj (1st– Molè, one learns about a few other scholars who 4th of September 1923). Here, a proposal for the came to the Congress: Mihovil Abramić from joint archaeological map of Yugoslavia was put Split; philologists and linguists Petar Skok from forward (Žižek 1992, 149). Zagreb, Milan Budimir and Henrik Barić from Belgrade; historians Viktor Novak and Vladimir Concerning the next few years, we have no infor- Ćorović from Belgrade; and Vladimir Travner, a mation on any proper ‘Yugoslav’ initiatives, and lawyer and historian, and a member of the Mu- it seems that the momentum had been lost. There seum Society of Ptuj (Molè 1970, 306–309). Lorb- is one very brief mention of another meeting of er (2020) added to this list Niko Županič, Sima archaeologists in Belgrade in 1930 by Ljubinković Trojanović, Radoslav Grujić (all from Belgrade), (1951, 9), but, unfortunately, I could not find any France Stelè and Josip Mantuani (both from more information on this. We can however say Ljubljana), Franc Kovačič (Maribor) and Viktor that this meeting was not a congressional one, Skrabar (Ptuj). In a paragraph on the Yugoslav and archaeologists probably gathered for some archaeologists’ meeting, Molè also mentions Mi- other formal reason, such as the Ptuj meeting in loje Vasić, but it is not clear from the text wheth- 1923. In 1927, Miloje Vasić presented a proposal er Vasić actually attended the Congress.641 for the Archaeological Institute of the Serbs, Cro- ats and Slovenes (Vasić 1927), but this was more Congress’s main topic was drafting the law on a personal suggestion, a sort of wishful thinking, museums and protecting and preserving educa- and lacked any operable and viable ideas. It also tional and artificial monuments (Iveković 1922, seems that it was not discussed very seriously 197). The Congress lasted four days, and along among the Yugoslav archaeologists. with the discussion on the draft of the new leg- islation there were also lectures on some of the Nevertheless, Vasić’s proposal is interesting be-country’s important archaeological monuments cause it documents how one of the leading ar- (e.g. the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, Dio- chaeologists in Serbia saw the current situation cletian’s Palace, Bribir). On the second and third in archaeology in Yugoslavia – fragmented and days the participants visited the early 15th-cen- uncoordinated, under-funded, and as a group tury fortified monastery of Manasija near Des- of ‘national’ archaeologies more than anything potovac, where they held a memorial mass for else. Vasić argued for a strong central archaeo-Josip Juraj Strossmayer. logical institute that would unite the best schol- ars from the whole country and have the power As we have already seen, the legislative propos- to coordinate all archaeological activities and act al on heritage protection did not succeed, and as a consulting body for the Ministry of Educa-other tasks proposed at Dobrna and Belgrade tion. Vasić was fully aware that his ‘centralist’ seem not to have been fully accomplished either. proposal would not have many chances in the We have no information indicating that the Sec- circumstances of ‘tribal patriotism’ in Yugosla-ond Congress, planned for 1924 in Split,642 was via.643 Still, he argued that the scholars united in organised at all (it seems not). Another occasion the central archaeological institute would understand the archaeological needs much better than 641 Neither of the two texts provides a complete list of the participants. Molè (1970, 306) writes that Congress was 643 ‘Tribes’ was a frequent synonym for three principal na-attended by “many people, known and unknown, spe- tions in Yugoslavia. The integralist notion of the ‘Yugo- cialists and amateurs”. slav nation’ spoke of trojedin (‘united – or one-threefold 642 Izidor Cankar (1922) speaks of Skopje (?) as the place of nation’) or one nation made of three tribes (i.e. Serbs, the Second Congress. Croats and Slovenes). 394 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 394 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 the civil servants in the Ministry of Education, studied at the University of Belgrade,646 under and that such an institute would raise the quality M. Vasić, while in Zagreb and Ljubljana, the stu-of archaeology throughout Yugoslavia. dents in the 1930s mostly came from their home ‘countries’. However, I assume that the Universi- The situation gradually improved in the 1930s. ty of Belgrade’s attraction was also because Vasić The transition from the 1920s to 1930s was was the only professor of prehistoric archaeol-marked by the departure and retirement of ogy in the whole country. And indeed, almost many scholars who had already achieved high all major prehistorians in the 1950s and 1960s in status in the ‘Austrian’ period’ (e.g. Frane Bulić, Yugoslavia came from among his students. Josip Brunšmid, Dragutin Gorjanović Kramberg- er, Josip Mantuani, Ćiro Truhelka). They were Concerning the institutional landscape of ar-replaced by scholars who had graduated or re- chaeology in Yugoslavia between 1918 and 1948, ceived their PhDs in the years around the First one thing should be stressed – no all-Yugoslav World War, and whose careers fully developed archaeological institution had been established in Yugoslavia (e.g. Balduin Saria, Ljubo Kara- in this period, very few joint publications pub-man, Viktor Hoffiler, Mihovil Abramić, Vladimir lished, no joint inter-institutional exhibition pre-Petković, M. Vasić, N. Vulić), and who, being di- pared, and nor did any archaeological centre rectors of museums, professors at the universi- of importance develop that would attract scities etc., were also able to gradually intensify in- entists from different parts of the country. The stitutional cooperation. One of the mechanisms only notable exception was two projects of the which contributed to this was the appointment academies of sciences and arts – The Archaeolog-of university professors in different parts of the ical Map of Yugoslavia and Tabula Imperii Romani, country. Thus, for example, archaeologists and both parts of wider long-standing international historians Grga Novak from Croatia, Ćiro Tru- initiatives.647 helka from Bosnia and Herzegovina and France Mesesnel from Slovenia worked for some time In absolute figures, there were some 20 new in-at the then Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje (a stitutions established in Yugoslavia in the period branch of the University of Belgrade).644 I have between 1918 and 1941. The number is not that already noted that Balduin Saria and Mihovil low, but the effects of the newly established in-Abramić worked in museums in different parts stitutions, mostly smaller municipal museums, of Yugoslavia. Josip Korošec, a Slovene and pre- were very modest. These museums, mainly war student of Miloje Vasić, began his first pro- established in the 1930s, were in Slovenia (Lju-fessional engagement at the Provincial Museum bljana, Škofja Loka), Croatia (Šibenik, Požega, in Sarajevo in the late 1930s.645 In the same years, Varaždin, Slavonski Brod, Dubrovnik), and Ser-another Slovene, Josip Klemenc, worked in the bia (Pančevo, Niš, Novi Sad, Šabac). Still, except Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. France Stelè for the museum in Niš, none of them were ac-was also intensively engaged in developing the tive in archaeology, and nor did they employ Yugoslav legislation and heritage protection ser- archaeologists. The same goes for Bosnia and vice around this time. It is also worth noting that studied students from Serbia, Slovenia, Croa- 646 The most renowned were Josip Korošec, Mirjana Čor-tia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and N. Macedonia ović (Ljubinković), Pavle Velenrajter, Krunoslav Misilo, Mihajlo Petrović (Petruševski), Dinko Foretić, Dušan- ka Vučković (Todorović), Alojz Benac, Franjo Barišić, 644 During the First Yugoslavia, there were only three uni- Branko Gavela, Esad Pašalić, Duje Rendić-Miočević, Jo- versities in the whole country, in Belgrade, Zagreb and sip Depolo, Fanula Papazoglu, Vladimir Milojčić, Milu- Ljubljana. tin Garašanin and Draga Aranđelović (Garašanin) (Mi- 645 His wife, Paola Korošec, a graduate in art history from losavljević 2020). the University of Belgrade, was also appointed as a cu- 647 Both projects were part of the wider European initia-rator of the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo in 1940. tive of the Union Académieque Internationale. 395 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 395 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 Herzegovina, where the only museum institu- Committee for the Archaeological Map of Yu-tion was the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo un- goslavia for which he designed the conceptual til 1930, when the Museum of the Vrbas Banate outline based on the German Archäoloigische was established in Banja Luka with ethnography Landesaufahme concept (particularly on the so-as its major topic. In the 1920s and 1930s, Mon- called Trier Map),649 and published its first two tenegro got its first museums, a State Museum volumes, on Ptuj and Rogatec in Slovenia (Sar-in Cetinje, and two smaller museums in Perast ia 1936; Saria and Klemenc 1939). Nikola Vulić and Kotor. North Macedonia also got its first from the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts museum in these years, but the context of its es- contributed another two volumes – for Kavadar-tablishment is quite different from all the muse- ci and Bitola, in today’s N. Macedonia (Vulić ums mentioned above. After the annexation of 1937, 1938), while Josip Klemenc published the the Macedonian territories in 1912 and the First volume on the Zagreb area in Croatia (Klemec World War, Serbia started an intensive ‘Serbi- 1938). These publications were published in anisation’ of the annexed ‘Southern Serbia’. In German, which shows the intention to reach a 1919 it established the Faculty of Philosophy in broader scientific audience and achieve a wider Skopje as a branch of the University of Belgrade promotion of Yugoslav archaeology. Saria was and the Museum of Southern Serbia in 1924. also intensively engaged on another cartograph-Both institutions had their own archaeological ic project – Tabula Imperii Romani.650 In 1937 in programmes.648 In Kosovo, no museum or mu- Ptuj, he organised a meeting of experts in Roman seum-like institutions were established before archaeology from Yugoslavia and neighbouring the Second World War. However, despite still countries to discuss the production of maps for modest effects on archaeology, the very estab- the provinces in this part of the Roman Empire. lishment of new museums and other institutions pointed to a gradual improvement of the infra- It was likely that Saria was the most active in the structure in culture and science in Yugoslavia. period between the two world wars in terms of efforts in developing ‘Yugoslav’ archaeology. The The biggest ‘infrastructural’ asset for archaeol- fact that Saria, being an ethnic German born in ogy in Yugoslavia was the establishment of the Slovenia, educated at Vienna University, with a University of Ljubljana (1919) and the introduc- career in Austria, Serbia and Slovenia, and with a tion of the archaeological curriculum (1923). high international reputation, was probably ‘dis-Here Balduin Saria got a chance to develop into tanced’ enough from the individual ‘national’ ar-a scholar, which in many respects dictated the chaeological circles in the then Yugoslavia, made pace of Yugoslav archaeology in the 1930s. He him almost a perfect candidate for this. Indeed, revived what could be considered the only sig- there are numerous cases of Saria’s collaboration nificant all-Yugoslav project before the Second with other archaeologists. His most influential World War – the Archaeological Map of Yugo- work was on the Roman epigraphy in Yugoslavia, slavia. He successfully lobbied for this long-term co-authored by V. Hoffiller from Zagreb (Hoffill-project at the academies of sciences and arts in er and Saria 1939). He regularly published in sci-Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, and other rele- entific journals from other Yugoslav institutions, vant scholarly societies. He proved instrumental in the establishment of the Inter-Academic 649 Archäologische Karte der Rheinprovinz 1, Blat Trier – Met-tendorf. Publikationen der Gesellschaft für Rheinische Geschichtskunde, Bonn 1932. 648 Between 1926 and 1930, Ćiro Truhelka taught archaeol- 650 Tabula Imperii Romani was an international project of ogy at the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje and had no the Union Académique Internationale (established in field projects. In contrast, the Museum of South Serbia Brussels in 1919) which started in 1921. The project’s was intensively engaged in research of Stobi and other principal aim was to publish maps of the Roman Em- archaeological research projects directed by the schol- pire at around AD 200 (at 1: 1,000,000 scale), for more ars from Belgrade. on this project see Adams (1954). 396 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 396 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 for example, in Starinar (Belgrade), Glasnik Skop- were members of important scholarly societies skog naučnog društva (Skopje), Jugoslovenski istori- in Austria and attempted to maintain this collab-jski časopis (Belgrade), and in Croatian periodicals, oration after 1918. In this context, it should also and also in prominent international publications be noted that most of the professional archaeol- (e.g. Enciclopedia dell’arte Antica and Pauly-Wisso- ogists in Yugoslavia graduated from the Univer-wa Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissen- sity of Vienna (Novaković 2012). Another vital schaft). But highly paradoxically, Saria, despite his ‘channel’ for collaboration were the scholars endeavours in raising the level of cooperation in who, before 1918, for various periods of time had Yugoslavia, was not politically pro-Yugoslav ori- worked in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herze-ented. There is a great irony that with the begin- govina, but continued their careers outside Yu-ning of the Second World War in Yugoslavia Saria goslavia (e.g. Anton Premerstein, Carl Patsch, openly sided with Germans and was engaged in Rudolf Egger). Last but not least, there were also the Ahnenerbe’s activities in Slovenia, for which some extraordinary sites which attracted foreign he was given a curatorship in the Provincial Mu- scholars (e.g. Einar Dyggve (Denmark) in Salo-seum in Graz, Austria, in 1943. Looking back at na, Croatia, Vladimir Fewkes (USA) in Starčevo, his ‘Yugoslav’ career and achievements and his Serbia, Rudolf Egger (Austria) in Ptuj, Slovenia, genuine attempts towards ‘Yugoslav’ archae- Rudolf Schmidt (Germany) in Sarvaš and Vučed-ology, two words come to mind – pragmatism ol, Croatia, Johann von Reiswitz and Wilhelm and opportunism. When the political situation Unverzagt (Germany) in Ohrid, N. Macedonia, changed in 1918 he became ‘Yugoslav’, then in and Bogdan Filov (Bulgaria) in Trebenište, N. 1941 he chose Deutschtum. Macedonia). The Yugoslav sites were also regu- larly on the programme of several ‘Excursions of Though I have marked the 1930s as a decade of the Danubian Archaeologists’, organised by the gradual improvements in several archaeologi- German Archaeological Institute in the 1930s. cal domains, the improvements remained rather modest. Not much that archaeologists put for- However, despite efforts in the 1930s, Yugoslav ward in the early 1920s was implemented. The archaeology remained very fragmented. This number of scientific meetings was very low, as fragmentation was also visible in conceptual was the exchange of scholars. The examination terms. We are not far from the truth if we say of archival materials documenting archaeology that almost every archaeologist had his own studies at the University of Ljubljana (Novaković vision of archaeology, especially in prehistoric 2004) did not find a single record of a guest-lec- archaeology. On the other hand, the archaeolo-turer from other Yugoslav universities nor of the gy of Roman and Greek Antiquity had a much lecturers from Ljubljana undertaking such visits longer tradition and strong ties with ancient histo the universities outside Slovenia. tory, classical philology and art history, which in Europe towards the end of the 19th century The situation seems to be better when speaking did develop more robust and widely accepted of international cooperation. Then again, much conceptual tools, methods of research and inter-of the cooperation was not so much the outcome pretations. This was not the case with prehistoric of the institutionalised activities on the Yugoslav archaeology, which included different national, side, but due to personal networks and engage- regional, institutional and even personal ap-ments. International cooperation was most de- proaches. If looking at the map of archaeologists veloped with the Austrian and German partners in Europe before the 1930s we could see numer-and colleagues with whom Yugoslav archae- ous influential scholars, but very rarely proper ologists collaborated before 1918. Many of the institutional schools or intellectual collectives Yugoslav archaeologists of the older generation sharing the same ideas or approaches. either worked in the ‘Austrian institutions’ or 397 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 397 22. 10. 2021 11:06:18 Elsewhere (Novaković 2012), I have considered Needless to say that these ‘experiences’ had a the development of earlier archaeology in Yu- significant effect in the first years of the post-war goslavia using the centre-periphery model. The renewal of Yugoslav archaeology. centres which directly influenced Yugoslavia’s ar- chaeology were major Austrian and German uni- Germans were archaeologically active, mostly in versities and large museums. Still, even amongst Slovenia and Serbia. They planned to ‘German-those centres, there were large differences in ap- ise’ the past, prove the cultural superiority of Ger-proach to archaeology. In the same paper, I have manic peoples or their presumed ancestors, claim shown how most archaeologists or, better to say, historical continuity and ultimately contribute to professionals in archaeology (since not all of them German rule of the occupied territories. The Ger-graduated in archaeology), were educated outside man-occupied part of Slovenia (Upper Carniola Yugoslavia, in Vienna, Graz, Munich and Prague, and Lower Styria) was planned to be annexed to to list the most common places. But, this does the Third Reich as these areas were considered a not necessarily imply that they shared the same part of German Lebensraum, Styria in particular. idea of archaeology. In reality, they attained their The Germans soon started the programme of PhDs with different Austrian, German and Czech ‘making this country German again’ by forced de-professors whose ideas differed greatly, even portation of a large number of Slovenes to Ger-among professors from the same university. And many and Serbia and settling Germans from the what the ‘Yugoslav’ scholars brought home were Italian-occupied parts of Slovenia.651 This process not so much the ‘German’, Austrian’ or ‘Czech’ of ‘Germanisation’ ( Entgermanisierung) was the approaches to archaeology, but the personal ap- first step to the annexation of these territories to proaches of their professors. The result was a the Third Reich in the next few years. conceptual ‘mosaic’ of approaches in prehistoric (and early historic) archaeology, but with no clear Archaeology was there to assist the grand plan, standard image when putting the pieces together. to ‘prove’ that northern and eastern Slovenia was Such a ‘blurred’ mosaic was also the consequence ‘German’ in the past. The most zealous proved of not having or lacking better conceptual tools at to be Karl Dinklage, German historian and arthe time, and primarily the lack of decent chrono- chaeologists from Dresden, member of the Nazi logical and typological systems. Party and its SA units, who, in 1942, moved from Klagenfurt to the Institute for Carinthian Provin- cial Research. Dinklage, already in 1941, started Towards a ‘new’ Yugoslav archaeology publishing works on the ‘Early Germans’ south (1945–1972) of the Alps. His concept was very much shaped in the Kossinean style – wherever there are ‘Ger- Apart from general considerations of the Sec- man’ finds, there must be a German land. He did not ond World War’s effects on archaeology in Yu- just re-interpret the archaeological data, but in goslavia, two more specific issues also need to 1943 also conducted two excavation campaigns be briefly addressed here – German and Italian at Bled, where he found remains of the post-Ro-archaeological activities in occupied Yugoslavia. man/Early medieval cemeteries – ‘German’ of In fact, the experiences with German and Italian course (Dinklage 1943; more details about Din-archaeological activities were so dramatic that klage’s activities see in Wedekind (2019). The the resolution adopted at the First Congress of area of Bled, with its picturesque Alpine lake the Yugoslav Archaeologists from 1950 required a ‘ sharp critique of all assumptions and theories of 651 Franz Steindl, the leader of the Styrian Homeland As-origin and development of our (i.e. Yugoslav) na- sociation ( Steierischer Heimatbund), the chief Nazi or- tions’ (Korošec 1950, 214) as a reaction to German ganisation in Lower Styria, reported that Hitler him- self ordered him to “Machen Sie mir dieses Land wieder and Italian racist and expansionist archaeology. Deutsch! (‘Make me this country German again!’). 398 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 398 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 with an islet, was of exceptional interest to Nazi in Slovenia (Dow 2018, 145), to make a complete leaders. Not only that Bled was a small safe ha- relocation of the Gotchee Germans from the Ital-ven and holiday resort for top Nazi leaders, but ian-occupied territory to ‘German’ Styria. The also because the Office for Religious and Ideo- complete relocation meant people, their move-logical Matters (of the Nazi Party) wanted to put able property, all kinds of archives, the property forward some of the Nazi’s wildest and occult of local German societies and libraries. Before the phantasies – to remove the Church of Assump- actual relocation, a group of scholars was sent to tion on the Bled lake islet and build a temple to study and record the German dialects, ethnog-the Old Germanic god of Wotan, architectural- raphy, folklore, traditional architecture, art, and ly similar to the castle of Wewelsburg in West- other historically valuable goods to ‘re-establish’ phalia, the site of the SS Academy and SS pseu- or re-create the Gotchee German community at doreligious centre (Gaspari 2008).652 the Styrian border of the expanded Third Re- ich.655 The Director of the Cultural Commission Another scholar working for the German cause for Gotchee was Hans Schwalm, Secretary of the was Balduin Saria, an ethnic German from Ptuj. Foundation for Folk and Cultural Landscape Re-During his career at the University of Ljublja- search from Leipzig (Dow 2018, 147). na (1926–1942), he was closely connected with the local German national community and its Knowing Slovenia and its museums and archives cultural and political societies in Slovenia.653 In very well, Saria provided substantial assistance to 1942, he moved from the Italian occupied Lju- the Commission in tracking important documents bljana to Graz, Austria (then part of the Third and artworks, cataloguing, copying and shipping Reich) to the Graz Provincial Museum and Graz them to the Reich. Saria also continued his work University. Saria’s engagement was somewhat with Ahnenerbe after his transfer to Graz. He was different than that of Dinklage. As one of the collecting long lists of cultural, historical and ar-German community leaders in Ljubljana, he col- tistic objects from Lower Styria, to be eventual-laborated with the Cultural Commission ( Kul- ly transferred to Graz or elsewhere in the Reich. turkomission), a special sub-department of the He also claimed the ‘German’ cultural properties Ahnenerbe, the SS organisation for promoting from Italy, more precisely, the objects kept in the ‘German’ research, heritage and racial theories. National Museum in Ljubljana (the former Pro-The task of the Cultural Commissions was to in- vincial Museum of Carniola) collected from Sty-vestigate, analyse and archive the “entire material ria before the Second World War.656 In addition and intellectual, cultural goods of ethnic Germans in to this, he published texts in more popular South Tyrol, Italy, and Kočevje area 654 (Gottschee) compact settlement (177 settlements, Slovene settlers 652 The story of the Wotan’s temple in Bled was discovered included), relative isolation and independence, the and partly reconstructed from the reports of the Secu- Kočevje Germans preserved their cultural identity into rity and Intelligence Service of the Slovene Partisans, the 20th century. At the Paris Peace Conference in 1918, Department for the People’s Protection (the Yugoslav a proposal for an independent Gottschee Republic un- state intelligence service) and some local pieces of oral der American protection was discussed (Dow 2018, information which report sketches for the statue of 145). Wotan and architectural design (Gaspari 2008, 50–52). 655 A New Homeland Museum ( Heimatsmuseum) of Gots- 653 For some time, he was also a leader of Nazi-oriented chee was planned after the Gotscheers would settle in Ljubljana branch of the Svebian-German Cultural As- the new region, and documentary films about the reset- sociation ( Ortsgruppe Laibach des Schwäbisch-Deutschen tlement of Gotscheers were also made (Dow 2018, 155, Kulturbundes) (Wedekind 2019, footnote 23). 161). 654 Kočevje area (German Gotchee), some 80 km south of 656 Among these ‘German’ properties were some of the Ljubljana, is a densely forested region colonised in the most extraordinary pieces in the Museum’s collec- high medieval period by a population from different tion, like the Iron Age situla from Vače, Celtic coins parts of German-speaking lands (Swabians, Bavari- from Dobrna, remains of the horse statue from Trojane ans, Carinthians, and Tyroleans). Due to their rather (Wedekind 2019, 74, footnote 3). 399 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 399 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 publications about Germanic Styria from prehis- The consequences of the Second World War toric times onwards (e.g. his texts on the earliest for Slovene archaeology were, by all measures, Germanic inscription from Negova).657 vey negative. The most significant damage con- cerned the archaeologists who were active be- Ultimately, the German plans failed, but records fore the war, as none continued their careers af-of Slovene cultural heritage and archives were ter 1945 in Slovenia. The institutions remained, looted, and Saria was definitely lost for Slovene but with no people. On the other hand, as a clear (and Yugoslav) archaeology. Moreover, due to reaction to German expansionist archaeology, his activities during the war, Saria was tempo- the new archaeological agenda’s priority was to rarily removed from his positions at the Univer- push the ‘Early Germans’ back to the ‘north’, out sity of Graz and Provincial Museum, and later of today’s Slovenia. It is thus not by chance that continued his career in the Institute for South- major archaeological projects in Slovenia in the eastern Europe in Graz. late 1940s involved the excavation and publica- tion of the Slavic cemeteries. J. Kastelic excavat- Rajko Ložar, one of the few professional archae- ed at Bled in 1948–1950 (Kastelic 1960), while J. ologists in Slovenia (together with Saria) in the Korošec worked in Ptuj between 1946 and 1947 1930s, also left the country in 1945. Ložar did (J. Korošec 1950). Moreover, the first archaeo-not collaborate with the Germans or Italians, logical monograph published in Slovenia after but openly opposed the incoming Communist 1945 was Korošec’s study on Slavic cemeteries in regime of the National Liberation Movement. northern Slovenia (1947).658 There was also a short episode involving Voje- slav Molè, the first archaeology professor at the In Serbia, the German ‘archaeological’ agenda University of Ljubljana (1923–1925). He contin- was somewhat different from that in Slovenia, ued his career at the University of Krakow, Po- as Serbia was not considered as German Lebens-land. In 1941, after avoiding the Krakow profes- raum to be annexed but rather as a part of a fu-sors’ imprisonment by the Gestapo, he moved ture ‘basin’ of strategic resources in the Danube back to Slovenia. There, he replaced Saria at the and Balkan controlled by the Reich (Kreso 1979, University of Ljubljana before the Germans ul- 16). Germans intended to implement in Serbia timately closed it. Molè also moved from Slove- their control over all ‘resources’, cultural, scien-nia to Poland in 1945 to renew his career in the tific and heritage ones included, to adequately latter. Another Slovene scholar who would be ‘Germanise’ the future political entity and cli-instrumental in the renewal of archaeology after ent of Germany. To this end, the Germans sent a the war was France Mesesnel, an art historian by Special Unit ( Sonderkommando) to requisition cul-vocation, Director of the Museum of Southern tural property (Kreso 1979, 54). In June 1941, the Serbia in Skopje and professor at the Faculty of Office for Protection of Monuments and Art Ob-Philosophy at Skopje. During the war, he lived jects ( Kunst und Denkmalschutz) was established in Ljubljana. For his support of the National Lib- in Belgrade.659 Head of the Office was Johann eration Movement he was imprisoned and exe- von Reiswitz,660 a specialist in Balkan history cuted by the Slovene quislings just a few days before the end of the war. 658 On the beginning of Slavic archaeology in Slovenia af- ter the Second World War, see in Guštin (2019). 657 Such as Balduin Saria, Die ›Negauer Helme‹: Das äl- 659 The Germans established similar offices in most occu-teste germanische Sprachdenkmal – Ein Fundstück un- pied territories in Europe (France, Belgium, Denmark, seres Heimatbodens. In: Marburger Zeitung, 81, 124 (Di- and Greece, as well as in the Soviet Union). enstag, 3. Juni 1941), 5–6; Der Harigast-Helm und seine 660 J. Reiswitz made his first research visit to Yugoslavia, Inschrift. In: Marburger Zeitung, 82/83, 365/1 (Donner-and specifically to N. Macedonia, in 1931, when he par- stag, 31. Dezember 1942/Freitag, 1. Januar 1943), 4; Der ticipated in excavations by the German Archaeological Harigasthelm: das älteste germanische Sprachdenkmal, in: Institute at Gradište Sv. Erasmo, a supposed site of elite Untersteirischer Kalender, 3, 1944, 75–77). burials, in the Trebenište cemetery (Bandović 2014, 629). 400 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 400 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 and author of historical studies on Serbia (e.g. and quite an influential agent in Serbian archae-Reiswitz 1936). The principal task of this office ology during the German occupation. In his pro-was the comprehensive cataloguing of prehistor- posal for prehistoric research, he claimed that ic sites and historical monuments and engaging the occupation provided conditions that were loyal local experts (Bandović 2014, 630). Why did more favourable than had been seen for decades the Germans do this? ‘State-organised’ looting of (Janković 2018, 84). The crucial archaeological the artistic and other cultural treasures was the issue was determining the interactions between obvious one, and many episodes speak of this the Danube and Aegean cultures (Janković 2018, (e.g. Janković 2018, 60). However, in line with 75). Both Holste and Oršić aimed to demonstrate the German New World Order, Serbia (or what- the validity of German racial theories about Inever would remain of it after Hungary, Bulgaria dogermanen in prehistory, their movements from and Albania also occupied the land) was intend- northern Europe to the Aegean, and, above all, ed to become a loyal client state, administered, their cultural dominance. as much as possible, by local Germans ( Volks- deutschers), Germanised Serbs and other loyal The notorious Ahnenerbe organisation was soon Serbs.661 For this reason, it was also essential to attracted by these Kernfragen and other opportu-increase the capacities and infrastructure of such nities for demonstrating German civilisational a future client state. and racial superiority in the past. In 1942, Wolf- ram Sievers, the Managing Director of Ahnen- The occupation provided favourable circum- erbe, succeeded in obtaining the exclusive con-stances for research that would support the cession for archaeological excavations in Serbia German cause. One of the first German archae- (Bandović 2019, 132). Ahnenerbe was particu-ologists who collaborated with the Reiswitz’s larly interested in excavating Kalemegdan (a Office was Friedrich Holste, who travelled ex- massive fortress in Belgrade at the confluence of tensively in Yugoslavia and Serbia in 1941. He Sava and Danube), ‘securing’ an extensive col-argued that ‘occupation enabled the unique lection from Vinča, registering archaeological opportunity to research some of the most cru- finds from the National Museum, cataloguing cial questions ( Kernfragen) of the European pre- all prehistoric collections in Serbia, as well as the history,’ e.g., ‘Indogerman’ ( Indogermanenische) collection of the Museum in Vršac, and, last but migrations, Aegean and Dorian migrations, the not least, the establishment of the Central Insti-study of the ‘road of peoples’ ( Völkerstrasse) – the tute for the Protection of Monuments (Janković Morava-Vardar route. To this end, he also made 2018, 69). Another very active Ahnenerbe ar-a general plan of research (Bandović 2019, 129). chaeologist in Serbia was Kurt Willvonseder, an A similar proposal also came from Adam Oršić, Austrian professor and conservator in the hera civil servant in the occupation administration, itage protection service. He succeeded Friedrich Holste after his death at the Soviet front in 1942. 661 There was a plan to resettle the local Germans in Ser- Willvonseder was particularly interested in ob-bia, Vojvodina and neighbouring regions along the jects from the Museum in Vršac, a town with a Danube and to make a sort of a ‘German’ client state with its capital in Belgrade, which would be renamed large local German community. to Prinz Eugen Stadt (City of Prinz Eugen), after the commander of the European alliance which liberated The German officials in Belgrade found a partner Hungary and the Danube area from Ottomans in the in Miodrag Grbić from the Municipal Museum. war from 1683 to 1699. After stabilising the border be- tween the Habsburg Empire and the Ottomans at the Grbić was a very talented scholar who received beginning of the 18th century, the Austrians organised his PhD in prehistoric archaeology from the Uni-several campaigns of colonisation of Vojvodina, which versity of Prague, worked in National Museum continued well into the 19th century. Germans were the third largest population in this region (after Serbs and in Belgrade, and was a strong opponent of M. Hungarians). Vasić’s interpretation of the chronology of the 401 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 401 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 Vinča site, proposing a more plausible chronol- The Germans had very ambitious plans for the ogy of the Neolithic period in Serbia. In 1931 archaeological, historical and artistic heritage and 1932, he worked with Johann von Reiswitz from Serbia, which also speaks to the fact that in and Vilhelm Unverzagt at the excavations and May 1942 they established the Central Institute soon, on their initiative, became a member of for the Protection of Antiquities ( Zentralinstitut the German Archaeological Institute (Bandović zum Schutz der Altertümer) as an office within the 2019, 118). He also met some other German or Serbian Ministry of Education, with Miodrag Austrian archaeologists in the 1930s (e.g. Kurt Grbić as its acting Director (Bandović 2019, 138). Willvonseder, Friedrich Holste) who were lat- Moreover, Reiswitz also monitored the new er engaged in Serbia during the Second World law’s preparation for the protection of cultural War (Bandović 2019, 138). Overall, Grbić collab- monuments, modelled after similar laws in the orated deeply with his German colleagues and Third Reich (Bandović 2014, 630). That Reiswitz expressed great sympathies for German archae- was satisfied with Grbić’s cooperation can also ology, including turning a blind eye to some ex- be seen in the fact Grbić and some other ‘loyal’ treme pro-German theories. The Germans thus scholars were permitted to organise the so-called found in Grbić a perfect assistant for their ar- ‘museum course’ (1942–1944) for students of archaeological plans in Serbia, especially after his chaeology, history, ethnology, architecture, art move from the Museum of Duke Paul ( Muzej kn- history, as a sort of substitute for the suspended eza Pavla)662 to a high position in the Ministry of teaching at the University of Belgrade (see more Education of the Serbian Government. in Bandović 2014). However, contrary to many scholars who collaborated with the Germans The largest German archaeological project was and Italians in Yugoslavia during the war, Grbić the excavation at Kalemegdan fort in Belgrade stayed. He was initially banned from working in conducted in 1942 and 1943 and directed by Wil- archaeology, but he was allowed to continue his helm Unverzagt663 with staff assistance from the career in the Archaeological Institute in Belgrade German Archaeological Institute and Miodrag after a year or two. As in Slovenia, also in Serbia, Grbić. They engaged some students of archaeol- where the German ‘archaeological’ and ‘cultural’ ogy from the University of Belgrade (e.g. Milutin activities did not accomplish their goals. Howev-Garašananin, Draga Garašanin, Vladimir Milo- er, a great deal of looting and robbery took place jčić). The excavations were quite extensive, with in Serbia, starting from the sequestration of the some 250 to 300 workers (Bandović 2019, 136). Jewish population’s property, and move on to Quotes from Unverzagt’s reports are very illus- raiding the archives, collections from museums trative of the ideas and intent of the German – and other cultural goods. the earliest Neolithic settlers were Pre-Indogermanic farmers with probable negroid racial characteristics, No less expansionist was Italian archaeology in with their main settlement on Vinča; the Vinča pop- the service of nationalism and Fascism. Howev-ulation was later, at the end of the Neolithic period, er, a certain distinction should be made between ‘expelled’ by Indogerman Nordic Group... (Bandović the territories annexed to Italy in 1918 and those 2019, 140).664 occupied between 1941 and 1943. Decades before the First World War, when Austrians ruled the Trieste and Gorica regions, Slovene Littoral and 662 The Museum of Duke Paul was formed by joining the Istria, a strong Italian irredentist movement de-former National Museum with the Museum of Con- veloped in these areas. Italian irredenta fought for temporary Art in 1935. independence from Austria and union with Italy. 663 He also worked with Reiswitz in 1931 on Gradište Sv. Erasmo. However, in this ethnically diverse region, irre- 664 The second report from 1944, which Unverzagt pub- dentism also nurtured very hostile and even racist lished after the Second World War, in 1958. attitudes towards the Slavic population (Slovenes 402 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 402 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 and Croats); Italians were seen as ‘bearers’ of civi- Most of the efforts were dedicated to Roman ar-lisation, Slavs were ‘savages’.665 Soon after the an- chaeology to demonstrate the Romanness ( roman-nexation in 1918, Italians launched a forced Ital- ità) of the newly annexed territories. The most il-ianisation programme that included not only the lustrative case was the research of Colonel Italo prohibition of schools and cultural organisations Gariboldi aimed at the detailed mapping of the of Slovenes or Croats, but also forced the Slavic Late Roman limes – Claustra Alpium Iuliarum, population to change their personal names into which served to legitimise Italy’s new eastern an Italian form.666 The Fascist regime wanted to border (Bitelli 1999, 34–38). The exhibition on this rewrite the annexed areas’ history and increasing- was part of celebrating the 2000th anniversary of ly stressed their historical belonging to Italy since Augustus’s birth ( Bimillenario) in Rome in 1938. Roman times. The same arguments were repeated when in 1941 Italy occupied western Slovenia and At the beginning of the occupation (which last-parts of Dalmatia, Croatia – the Adriatic was to ed from 1941 to 1943), the Italians established become an ‘inner’ Italian sea in Mussolini’s grand a Commissariat for occupied Slovene territory, project of Mare nostrum. which controlled all public institutions. The Na- tional Museum in Ljubljana was able to continue In the archaeology and heritage domains, Ital- some of its work, but for most of its activities, ians, between the two world wars, retained it had to obtain permission from the Italian au-some institutions from the previous period, thorities. It is interesting to note that Italians did mostly museums, and established some new not replace the local staff with Italian personnel, ones. Italians invested relatively large efforts in but sometimes added Italian officials, as was the organising a heritage service. In 1918, they estab- case with the University of Ljubljana. Overall, lished the Office for Fine Arts ( Ufficio belle arti) cultural and research activities decreased, either with the seat in Trieste. In 1923, the office was for logistical reasons, lack of funding, or events transformed into the Superintendency for An- otherwise associated with the war. Interestingly tiquities and Artworks ( Sopraintendenza alle opere enough, the National Museum in Ljubljana was d’antichità ed arte). The Superindendancy was the still able to conduct some smaller rescue excava-main administrative body for protecting herit- tions in 1941 (e.g. in Novo mesto). age and the only body allowed to conduct exca- vations (Bitelli 1999, 61). Italians also re-organ- There was also another type of war experience, ised the legal framework for local historical and the destruction of towns (and monuments) due archaeological societies and established several to Allied bombing. Pula and Zadar, both Roman new institutions (e.g. Royal Museum of Istria, in towns, rich in antiquities and monuments, suf-1930 in Pula, Croatia; Institute of Speleology in fered significant damage in this regard. Con-1928 in Postojna, Slovenia). However, common cerning this, one rather curious case needs to to all these projects was that they were Italian, be noted here, the activities of the Museum in whereas Slovenes and Croats were completely Pula667 and its Director Mario Mirabella Roberti excluded or extremely marginalised – they were (1935–947), later a professor at the University of even prohibited from having their societies and Trieste. Mirabella Roberti invested great efforts organisations. in repairing the damage inflicted on ancient monuments in Pula. He conducted these works 665 For example, Giuseppe Caprin, one of the most noted writers from Trieste, in 1895 wrote: Slavs are impossible 667 Through the unification of the State Antiquities Collecto civilise, and they represent one of the rare examples of in- tion, the Municipal Museum in Pula (founded in 1902) tellectual sterility and sad and disgusting moral poverty ( af- and the Provincial Museum in Poreč, the Royal Muse- ter Kacin Wohinz 1997, 260). um of Istria ( Regio museo dell’Istria) was officially estab- 666 See Parovel (1985) and Tasso (2011) for more on ‘Ital- lished in 1925. Later, in 1947, it changed its name to the ianising’ Slovenes and Croats’ personal names. Archaeological Museum of Istria. 403 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 403 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 all through 1947 (for details on the restoration Highly negative events were also experienced in works, see Mirabella Roberti 1946, 1947a, 1947b), North Macedonia. Bulgarians occupied and an-after which he left Pula when Yugoslavia took nexed its central and eastern part, while Italy ex-full control of the region. tended the Albanian protectorate over its western part. We have no information on the Italian and At present, we are not aware of any Italian ar- Albanian activities concerning the cultural herit-chaeological activities in Dalmatia or other oc- age and archaeology in the occupied territories; cupied territories. There must have been some, much more is known about the forced ‘Bulgari-probably associated with some famous sites, sation’, which also included the establishment of e.g. Salona, Zadar, etc., but not on the scale of the ‘Bulgarian’ National Museum in Skopje670 and the German archaeological activities. However, intensive propaganda about Bulgarian historical looting, especially of art, was a frequent practice rights over the occupied territories.671 in Italian-occupied territories (e.g. Babelić 2019). In other parts of Yugoslavia, especially in Croatia In the Slovene Littoral and Istria it was not so and Bosnia and Herzegovina (both were united much the war but the two decades of the brutal in the fascist marionette state of the Independent Italian Fascist regime and forced ‘Italianisation’ State of Croatia), there were no particular planned which triggered immediate reactions after the activities of Germans and Italians concerning cul-war. New narratives soon challenged the ag- tural heritage and archaeology. All major insti-gressive Italian rewriting of history. The incor- tutions continued their work (at the University poration of the Slovene Littoral and Istria into in Zagreb and most museums). However, most Yugoslavia also meant incorporating the Italian of them were cleansed of non-Croatians or staff institutions that before 1945 had carried out ar- otherwise not loyal to the fascist government.672 chaeological research in Poreč, Rovinj, Koper Concerning archaeology, there is one interest-and Postojna.668 Croatian and Slovene scholars ing episode. In 1942, as a diplomatic move, Italy replaced the Italian staff. However, some of the donated to the Independent State of Croatia one local Italian historical and archaeological insti- very famous piece of architecture – “the Baptis-tutions or societies established before the Fas- tery of Prince Višeslav”, a hexagonal stone basin cist era are still active today. They represent an with Latin inscription mentioning Prince Više-important element of the cultural activity of the slav, from the late 9th or early 10th century.673 Italian minority in Slovenia and Croatia.669 to date, making it one of the journals with the longest 668 In Postojna, the Italian Speleological Institute ( Istitu- tradition in the region. Another institution worth men- to italiano di Speleologia) was established in 1927 as the tioning is Centro di Ricerche storiche – Rovigno (Centre main institution for speleological research in Italy’s en- for Historical Research in Rovinj) established by the tire territory. For a while, Raffaelle Battaglia, a well- Italian minority Union in 1968. Their main publication known Italian prehistorian and speleologist, and later a is the periodical Atti Centro di Ricerche Storiche di Rovi- professor at the University of Padua, played an impor- gno, which contains numerous archaeological papers tant part in the Institute and in the explorations in Pri- about the area of Istria. morska and Istria. After the war, the Institute contin- ued its work as the Institute for Karst Research ( Inštitut 670 Bulgarians changed the name of the former Museum of za raziskovanje Krasa) as a research unit of the Slovene Southern Serbia and installed their own staff. Academy of Sciences and Arts. 671 See more in the chapter on N. Macedonia. 669 Of the earlier societies, by far the most important was 672 For example, Josip Klemenc and Viktor Hoffiller were Società Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria (founded in forced to retire from the Archaeological Museum in 1884 in Poreč; in 1927 it transferred to Pula, was given Zagreb. temporary residence in Venice after the war, and even- 673 This piece, which in the meantime became one of the tually established itself in Trieste in 1967). The society symbols of the early Croatian statehood (and archaeol- has been publishing its journal – Atti e Memorie della So- ogy) is still subject to disputes in Croatian archaeology. cietà Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patri – since its foun- For different interpretations, see Kajdiž (2018), Jakšić dation. More than 100 volumes have been published (2006; 2016), and Matijević Sokol (2007). 404 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 404 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 To sum up, archaeology (and archaeologists) in was greatly assisted by scholars and institutions Yugoslavia were affected differently during the from Serbia. These two regions belonged togeth-war. Some local archaeologists openly sided with er before the Second World War, and were home Germans and Italians or local fascist regimes, but to large Serbian populations. there were also those who were against and vari- ously opposed to the occupation, and there were In N. Macedonia, which became the national re-also those in between. In any case, the Second public of the Macedonian nation, officially rec-World War meant a radical break. Only a few ognised in 1945, national institutions’ formation, scholars from that generation of leading archae- including the archaeological ones, was made ologists in the 1930s continued their careers after more autonomously. Between 1912 and 1941, 1945. Some were retired or departed, others left N. Macedonia belonged to Serbia, and Serbian the country, and some were removed from their archaeological institutions were quite active on pre-war positions. The experiences were bitter in the newly annexed territories. For example, at many respects. It was now up to the new gener- Stobi, which was the largest multi-year research ation of archaeologists (graduates from the late project in the First Yugoslavia, the ‘new’ Mac-1930s) to take the post-war renewal of archaeol- edonian archaeology did not want to consider ogy into their hands in a radically transformed the traditions from the period between the two country. world wars as their national ones. Instead, the Yugoslav political context and status of the con- stitutional republic in post-1945 Yugoslavia pro- New Yugoslav and national vided the conditions for ‘proper’ Macedonian archaeologies, new people, institutions and tradition.674 new institutions, new legislation The Second World War and the transformation of Yugoslavia into a socialist state significantly 674 The Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje was established in 1946 anew, as was the University of Skopje (today the determined further the pathways of archaeology. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje). We have The period between 1945 and 1952 was crucial in already seen that in Skopje such a faculty existed since many respects, and in these seven years the basis 1920/21, but as part of the University of Belgrade. Un- til very recently, this difference was clear in different for a ‘new’ Yugoslav archaeology was laid. texts about the history of the university and faculties in N. Macedonia (e.g. on the official website of the Fac- The first and most important fact is that archaeol- ulty of Philosophy, Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, but upon checking the same website in the last ogy was for the first time established as a ‘home’ few months this ‘history’ has been changed to a ‘(dis) discipline, meaning with their own republican continuity’. The Faculty of Philosophy now argues or provincial institutions and local scholars, in that its history started in 1920, including so the phase North Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo. of the ‘Belgrade’ faculty, but a certain ‘disclaimer’ is also included, that the period between 1918 and 1941 New ‘national’ museums were the pivotal in- “was dark and hard times” and that the faculty in 1920 stitutions that, once established, also acted as was established with the aim of “denationalisation of research institutions and informal education in- the Macedonian people in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.” With the upcoming 100th anniversary of the stitutions, and strongly accelerated the develop- first Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje, the present fac- ment of local institutions. Almost in parallel, the ulty needed some historical patina and a longer tradi- new offices for protecting cultural heritage were tion (see http://www.fzf.ukim.edu.mk/page/posts/ formed in all Yugoslav republics. In these initial view/istorijat_27). One can see similar discontinuity in the case of the National Museum of Macedonia. The years, the absolute figure of new archaeologists first proposal came already in the early 1920s from the might not have been very high, but they nev- Skopje Scholarly Society. The difference between Mac- ertheless made a difference. The establishment edonian and ‘Bulgarian’ institutions formed during the Bulgarian occupation in the Second World War was of new institutions in Montenegro and Kosovo also made clear. 405 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 405 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 With the establishment of archaeological institu- All in all, among active archaeologists in Yugo-tions where they did not exist before (e.g. in N. slavia in the 1950s, there were probably less than Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo, or at local 30% who had archaeological careers before the levels elsewhere in the country) came new peo- war. The new generation took over the role of ple from the local milieus or from outside. How- revitalising and reforming archaeology in their ever, what was common to them was that they respective republics and creating a ‘new’ Yugo-had all studied in Yugoslavia and not outside slav archaeology. This was the generation edu-it, as was the case with most pre-war archaeolo- cated just before or during the war or immedi-gists in pre-war Yugoslavia. ately after it. They took the role of ‘new’ pioneers in archaeology’s infrastructural and conceptual But more revealing are the changes that oc- modernisation in Yugoslavia.676 curred in archaeological ‘demography’ in major archaeological centres between 1945 and 1950. All archaeological institutions established be-Very few scholars active in the 1920s and 1930s fore 1945 not only continued their work after the continued their careers after the Second World war, but greatly expanded. Some of them did so War. The most problematic was Slovenia’s situ- almost immediately after 1945, as was the case ation, where Balduin Saria, Vojeslav Molè and with the universities in Ljubljana, Zagreb, and Rajko Ložar left the country, and local quislings Belgrade, and the national museums in almost killed France Messesnel.675 The only profession- all republics. Moreover, at the local level, no pre-al archaeologist who stayed was Jože Kastel- viously existing institution was closed down. ic, who was just starting his career. In Serbia, Nikola Vulić and Miloje Vasić, the most influen- The best indicator of modernisation pertinent to tial scholars between the two world wars, died, archaeology is the genuine ‘boom’ in new muse-while Miodrag Grbić was temporarily suspend- ums in the first two decades after 1945, when a ed. Of the ‘strong’ names which remained active, total of 96 new museums (and museum-like in-there was only Vladimir Petković. In Bosnia and stitutions) were established in Yugoslavia. With Herzegovina, the Provincial Museum in Sara- a few exceptions, all of them were regional or lo-jevo (the only institution employing archaeol- cal museums. ogists before 1945) was left almost without any of the archaeological staff from before, Mihovil However, this process was not of equal magni-Mandić and Jozo Petrović were suspended, Jo- tude in all Yugoslav republics. Fig. 187 shows sip and Paola Korošec moved to Slovenia, and clear differences, especially when compared with the only one who remained was Dimitrije Serge- the population size. Of course, not all republics jevski. Only in Croatia were the changes not so (later countries) started on an equal basis. Some abrupt. Mihovil Abramić stayed in a position at of them had larger museums from before 1945, the Archaeological Museum in Split, as well as accompanied by several local museums (e.g. Slo-Grga Novak and Viktor Hoffiler, both profes- venia, Croatia), so the ‘museum landscape’ was sors at the University of Zagreb (Hoffiler was already ‘packed’. Bosnia and Herzegovina had also the curator at the Archaeological Museum a tradition of one major museum, the Provincial in Zagreb). Museum of Sarajevo. In Serbia, the museums 676 The most prominent among these ‘pioneers’ were Jo- sip Korošec, Jože Kastelic, Stane Gabrovec, Srečko Bro- 675 Incidentally, Saria took up a curatorship at the Styri- dar (Slovenia); Duje Rendić-Miočević, Mate Suić, Zden- an Provincial Museum in Graz and a professorship at ko Vinski (Croatia); Alojz Benac, Đuro Basler, Ivo Bo- the University of Graz, thus replacing Walter Schmid, a janovski (Bosnia and Herzegovina); Milutin and Dra- Slovene who had worked there for many decades. But ga Garašanin, Jovan Todorović, Branko Gavela (Ser- already in 1945, Schmidt was reinstated because Saria bia); Dimče Koco, Vasil Lahtov and Blaga Aleksova was removed due to his pro-German attitude. (N. Macedonia), Jovan Glišić and Emil Cerškov (Kosovo). 406 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 406 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 Fig. 210 Trends in establishing museums in the ‘Yugoslav’ area. were much more present in Vojvodina, and the With the new, radically transformed country real post-war boom was in Serbia proper. The also came new legislation. It would be too much same development was visible in N. Macedo- to comment on all legislative changes which di-nia and Montenegro, while Kosovo definitely rectly and indirectly affected archaeology, so lagged behind. I will mostly limit my observations to the do- main of cultural heritage protection. The first In contrast, despite (or perhaps because of) a legislative moves in this respect were made be-relatively developed museum network, the de- fore the formal end of the Second World War, velopments in Croatia were more consistent.The when some new republican governments, e.g. differences here also depended on how the indi- in Slovenia, established the first commissions to vidual republics were organised and governed. protect cultural heritage, archives, libraries and In general, the republics with more decentralised other cultural goods, and the restitution of the governments, where regions and municipalities looted objects of heritage.677 Similar decrees were had more powers and resources, had more re- also issued for the whole country in the same gional and local museums. However, the truth year. The most important legislative move was is that not all of these new institutions initially hired archaeologists, although the infrastructure was in place, and soon archaeological positions 677 See, for example, the Decree of the Slovene National Liberation Council from the 27th January 1945, which were opened. It is hard to estimate all the effects appointed France Stelè as temporary Director of Slove- of this infrastructural boom, but one thing is cer- nia’s heritage protection commission. A similar decree tain, the foundation was laid for archaeology to for the whole of Yugoslavia was passed by the Antifas- cist Council of the National Liberation of Yugoslavia on make a giant leap. the 20th February 1945. 407 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 407 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 Fig. 211 Trends in establishing museum in individial countries. 408 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 408 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 a series of acts adopted by the Yugoslav gov- Legislative changes also affected other archaeo-ernment in 1945 and 1946.678 Yugoslavia’s new logical institutions, mainly museums, which be-constitutional order required that the republi- came fully authorised on behalf of the state to can acts followed the federal level acts, and this keep, present and research the so-called ‘move-process lasted until 1949. In short, the new leg- able heritage’. One of their tasks was also the islation almost completely nationalised cultural registration of private collections.679 However, heritage objects and established new institutions since the heritage protection institutes only had responsible for their protection. recently started to work, the museums frequent- ly assisted them with staff and logistics. Essential new institutions were the Institutes for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Na- Putting the ideological issues aside, the legal ture established in each Yugoslav republic. The status of universities and academies did not first such institute was established in Slovenia change substantially. As a matter of fact, their (1945), followed by Croatia (1946), Serbia and wider social tasks and responsibilities were re-Bosnia and Herzegovina (1947), N. Macedonia inforced in the new socialist society and state. (1948) and Montenegro (1950) (Komelj 1975, 6–7). Compared to the pre-socialist period, these in-A few years later, in 1951 and 1954, Vojvodina stitutions became much more systematically and Kosovo’s autonomous provinces also estab- integrated into the state’s tasks and governing. lished their institutes. In addition to this, and It would require too much time and space to ex-based on the federal Act on the Protection of plain the concepts and practices of the socialist Cultural Monuments, the Federal Institute for state and society in Yugoslavia to fully com-the Protection of Monuments was established in prehend how governing this country was car-1945. This was not intended to be engaged in the ried out in this era. To put it briefly, Commu- ‘field’, but rather to develop and implement the nist rule was based on extensive control of all general strategy of heritage protection, prepare major societal domains and sectors, which was federal legislative and other regulatory acts, and much more effective by redistributing tasks and coordinate the work of the republican institutes. responsibilities among a greater number of institutions and bodies. In this way, by integrat- The monuments protected by the state were all ing them into the governmental and ideological the objects, architecture and sites registered by system, their autonomy was effectively dimin-the institutes, and the establishment of the state ished and controlled. In short, with greater so-register was a priority. Institutes were also au- cial responsibilities came greater control. For thorised to issue construction permits for the instance, many scholars took part in different protected areas and places, export cultural ob- state or para-state commissions and bodies ei-jects, and perform research and conservation ther ex officio or by appointment. Institutions works on protected monuments. Last but not were given additional broader social tasks, least, for all archaeological excavations an insti- such as museums were required to engage in tute’s permit was required. In general, the insti- youth and workers’ education, central research tutes’ legal status and their statutory role did not change much in the following decades. The insti- 679 One of the reasons for this registration was the protec-tutes developed in quite a robust public service tion of ownership. Namely, there was a massive expro- way that played an essential role in developing priation of private houses or flats considered ‘too large’ several disciplines, archaeology included. for one family all around Yugoslavia in the first post- war years, but especially in towns. Such ‘large’ hous- es and flats were then divided into smaller units and 678 The Act on Protection of Cultural Monuments and Nat- given (frequently with all the furniture and accessories) ural Rarities (23rd of July, 1945) and General Act on the to new inhabitants. Another reason for registering the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Values private collections was their forced sale or requisition (1946). (Pasini Tržec and Dulibić 2019, 202–205) 409 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 409 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 institutes were responsible for developing na- joint coordinating body with greater executive tional research strategies and plans, etc. powers and financed directly from the federal budget. This organisation became the Archae- In this extending of state responsibilities, one ological Society of Yugoslavia which officially especially significant change was introduced – represented archaeology in relations with the the establishment of different bodies or organ- federal government. In this way, the ‘Yugoslav’ isations responsible for developing scientific programme for archaeology could be efficiently disciplines. In most cases, this role was given developed and implemented. to scholarly societies. These were no longer just voluntary civil organisations of experts, but be- As early as 1947, the museum curators’ meet-came organisations with much more executive ing was held in Belgrade, also attended by some powers delegated to them by the state. The soci- archaeologists. The need was expressed to oreties became the only official representatives of ganise a meeting of Yugoslav archaeologists to their sciences in the dialogue with the govern- discuss the extremely poor state of the discipline ment, which also monitored and financed their and the unfavourable situation in protecting programmes. Individual scientists or groups and restoration of cultural heritage (Ljubinković could not act outside their societies, and the in- 1977, 61). The Institute of Archaeology in Bel-stitutions were also required to follow the gener- grade undertook the responsibility of organising al development plans put forward by such state this meeting. By the end of 1949, the Preparatory societies. To put it simply, such societies acted Committee held two meetings and, the following as common scholarly societies and, at the same year, on 4th and 5th May,680 the meeting in Niška time, as sort of para-state bodies. Archaeology Banja took place (see the report in Korošec 1950). was no exception, and soon, in the late 1940s, the The number of participants was very high for formation of the Archaeological Society of Yugo- the time – about 110 of them. Besides archaeol-slavia took place. ogists, there were also art historians, historians, museum workers, conservation specialists and representatives of various ministries and other The major mechanism of making government agencies. archaeology Yugoslav – the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia The titles of the main papers presented already highlighted the key aim of the meeting – to set The very bad state of archaeology in Yugosla- up a new, strategic programme of archaeologi-via concerning the material conditions and low cal work in all of its main aspects: an overview number of professional jobs triggered a rapid re- of the state of archaeology at the time (J. Kastel-action among the new generation of archaeolo- ic, J. Korošec, S. Brodar, F. Stelè),681 the aims of gists. Lacking any previous all-Yugoslav institution which could be potentially revitalised after 680 J. Korošec and J. Kastelic for Slovenia, V. Hoffiller and the war, a new institution was needed. To estab-C. Fisković for Croatia, M. Grbić, Đ. Bošković and M. Garašanin for Serbia, A. Benac for Bosnia and Her- lish a kind of a permanent institute of archaeolo- zegovina, D. Vučković Todorović for N. Macedonia, gy was virtually impossible in the first post-war M. Vukomanović for Montenegro. years. There were no people or resources and 681 The list of main speakers in J. Korošec (1950) is dif-no clear programme for such an institute at the ferent from the one given in the meeting programme, federal level. Institutes were actually much easi- published by Mirjana Ljubinković (1977). In the latter, Srećko Brodar was listed as one of the presenters of the er to establish in the individual republics. It was report on the state of archaeological work in Yugosla- much more efficient to create a different organi- via, but Korošec (1950) does not mention him. It is very sation or institution that would join the individ- likely that the programme listed the names of all the authors and co-authors of the papers, whilst Korošec ual republics’ existing capacities and establish a (1950) refers only to the presenting authors. 410 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 410 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 archaeological work (Đ. Bošković) and the con- earliest history and the slave-owning society servation service (C. Fisković), the reorganisa- of Antiquity; tion of museums (V. Han), the analysis of situa- c) Research on the mutual relationships between tion and needs in terms of the plan (S. Radojčić), the South Slavs and their relations with the the plan of archaeological activities (Grbić), and neighbouring nations; the strategies for archaeological publishing (M. d) Analysis of the social relations between Yugo- Garašanin). slav peoples; e) Organisation of the intensive systematic field A resolution of a very general character was research in some of the national republics to adopted. It was more a reflection of the patterns prepare archaeological maps; and protocols of the time’s political and ideolog- f) Building connections with history, ethnogra- ical discourse. The resolution stated that “archae- phy, sociology, anthropology, palaeozoology, ological research has advanced significantly in the so- palaeobotany, geography, technical disci- cialist Tito’s Yugoslavia” and that “new perspectives plines and art history. for its development have been widely open by the new 4. Due to the lack of a common work plan, it was organisation of the state, but that certain problems oc-agreed that: cur (ideological, organisational, planning) that need a) Archaeological consultations will take place to be resolved” (Korošec 1950, 213–214). every three years, and consultations of archae- ologists in some of the republics once a year; Much more important and operative were the b) That a coordinating board of archaeologists of conclusions adopted (Korošec 1959, 214–215), FLRY will be established, which will strate- which were: gically combine archaeological activities and implement the conclusions and proposals 1. Archaeology, as a social-historical discipline, reached at the consultations, as well as dis- should be entirely focused on investigations of cuss major issues and problems arising in be- material and spiritual culture based on the scien- tween the consultations; tific knowledge of historical materialism. c) The republics will be suggested to design their 2. The focus of archaeological work should be shifted archaeology work plans through coordination to the research on the material culture of constitu- of the main republic institutions (institute, tional nations, starting from the period of the ear- departments, museums); to use modern tech- liest tribe communities until the emergence of a niques in the excavations; and to, within the hierarchical civil society (the internal social struc- existing legal regulations, transfer the re- ture and the changes in it; the relations between sponsibility for conservation and protection the nations; the relationships with the surround- of the excavated structures to the institu- ing and the distant nations; the critical analysis tions in charge of the protection of cultural of the current assumptions and theories about the monuments. genesis and development of Yugoslav nationalities – all further to strengthen brotherhood-and-unity Concerning publishing, it was agreed that, and the socialist patriotic awareness. from 1951 onwards, an archaeological journal 3. Creation of the general plan with the following presenting short reports on activities would be main points: published, that the pre-war publications would a) Research on the formation of Yugoslav na- be renewed as new series (e.g. Corpus vasorum tions in the territory of Yugoslavia; antiquorum, the archive of Greek and Roman b) Study of the ethnic groups encountered by the inscriptions, Tabula Imperii Romani, the Ancient Slavs upon their arrival in the Balkans; inves- Limes in Yugoslavia, the Archaeological Map of Yu-tigations of social relations and the evidence goslavia), and possibilities for new publications of material and spiritual culture from the assessed. All papers should include extensive 411 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 411 22. 10. 2021 11:06:19 summaries in one of the widely used foreign archaeology in the individual republics, nomi-languages. There was also a strong incentive to nated the ‘central’ republican archaeological in-purchase more foreign literature, publish guides stitutions to which further tasks were delegated, and university textbooks, and exchange publica- and distributed funds for some projects. In some tions with institutions abroad. cases, the committee also intervened in hiring new archaeologists in local institutions. The com- The museums were instructed to re-organise mittee also launched an ambitious publishing their collections following the principle of the- programme (the journal Archaeologia Iugoslavica, matic exhibitions, install adequate material infra- the Archaeological Bibliography of Yugoslavia, structure for museum stores and conservation of catalogues on finds from the Yugoslav museums the objects, and produce systematic inventories and syntheses of major archaeological periods). and object records. In terms of human resources, The committee was especially important in de-special attention had to be paid to experts’ edu- veloping international cooperation by distrib-cation in the republics with a small number of uting grants for attending conferences abroad, archaeologists and hiring more technical staff in study trips and inviting foreign scholars (Lorber general. A more intensive collaboration between and Novaković 2020). On the international level, universities, museums and institutes was also the committee (and bodies that later replaced it) urged, especially in field techniques training. It was the Yugoslav archaeologists’ representative is particularly worth mentioning that there was body. The individual institutions had very limit-also a request made to arrange study trips abroad ed powers; they most frequently acted through and demand for the archaeological discipline’s the committee. In 1952, the Coordination Com-greater popularisation, including establishing a mittee of Archaeologists was transformed into patrons’ society of the cultural monuments. the Archaeological Council. The new body’s tasks were more or less the same as that of the Ignoring the ideological matrix in the meeting’s Coordination Committee, but with some in-conclusions, what will be discussed in the second creased executive powers. One of the council’s part of this chapter is the adoption of a coherent most important moves was strengthening the in-strategy for the development of Yugoslav archae- stitutional structure (and hierarchy) by author-ology at this meeting. The majority of the actions ising the republican central institutions (mostly envisaged by the strategy were quite effectively the archaeological research institutes at the acad-implemented over the following decades. emies or national museums) to implement the council’s programme. At the Niška Banja meeting, the Yugoslav ar- chaeologists, for the first time, also elected their The establishment of the Archaeological Society governing body, the Coordination Committee of Yugoslavia ( Arheološko društvo Jugoslavije) was of Archaeologists of the Federal People’s Re- formally approved at the second congress of the public of Yugoslavia. The committee’s primary Yugoslav archaeologists in Pula in 1953. With the task was to develop a long-term plan for im- establishment of the society, the Archaeological plementing the actions adopted at Niška Banja. Council was abolished, and its tasks transferred The Committee had strong support (including to various society bodies. The major difference financial) of the Federal Council for Science and was that both the Coordination Committee and Culture, the main state body for governing and its successor, the Archaeological Council, were administering these two domains. The commit- rather closed bodies with some ten to fifteen tee was given relatively strong powers in plan- members. The truth is that both the Coordinat-ning and monitoring archaeological practice and ing Committee and Archaeological Council were infrastructural development. It appointed com- seen as interim bodies prior to forming the commissioners who monitored the development of plete society. With the accelerated development 412 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 412 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 of archaeology and the increasing complexity in idea for this journal was already proposed in coordinating the discipline’s growth and prac- 1951, but it took a decade to be implemented. tice, a larger and all-inclusive archaeological or- The journal was aimed at publishing short re-ganisation was needed to engage more archae- ports on the fieldwork across the entire country, ologists in coordinating different disciplinary and the first issue came out in 1960. At the same domains. The establishment of the society with congress, it was also agreed that the conference its seat in Belgrade was finalised in 1954. The papers would be printed within the new series society’s principal body was an assembly that Materijali. In 1963, at the congress in Ljubljana, adopted the society’s statute and elected the so- another joint publication was founded, the mon-ciety’s officials and organs.682 The new concept ograph series Dissertationes, with its first issue of the society was also seen in the establishment out in 1965. of three major sections, Prehistoric, Classical and Medieval, which soon became more independ- Towards the end of the 1960s, at the time of ent in their programmes. some major changes in the political structure of the state leading to a greater federalisation, The founding of the journal Archaeologia Iugo- the republics’ archaeological societies began to slavica was also agreed upon, and papers were emerge, stemming from the republican sections to be published in foreign languages to inform of the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia; a wider professional audience about archaeolog- such sections were formed in Slovenia in 1958, ical research results in Yugoslavia. The regular and in 1964 in Croatia and Serbia. The Archae-society’s congresses, which soon evolved into ological Society of Yugoslavia and its predeces-scientific conferences and congresses, were held sors, the Coordinating Committee and Archae-in Split (1956), Sarajevo (1958), Ohrid (1960), Lju- ological Council, did great work in the renewal bljana (1963), Herceg Novi (1966) and Bor (1969). of Yugoslav archaeology in the first two decades The congress in Zadar (1972) presented an im- after the war. They established strong links with portant break. At this meeting, the Archaeologi- the federal government bodies and successfully cal Society of Yugoslavia was dissolved, and an lobbied for many projects that proved instru-Association of the Yugoslav Archaeological Soci- mental for the further development of archae-eties ( Savez arheoloških društava Jugoslavije – SADJ) ology. The biggest successes were achieved in established instead. SADJ continued organising the publication programme and international the Yugoslav congresses in Prilep (1976), Mostar cooperation. The society regularly published (1980), Novi Sad (1984) and Bled (1988). two journals ( Archaeologia Iugoslavica, Arheološki pregled), three monograph series ( Inventaria Ar- The first congresses were primarily focused on chaeologica, Dissertationes et monographiae, Pose-the matters of organisation and planning of ar- bna izdanja (Special publications)), proceedings chaeological activities. With the gradual stabili- from the congresses and sections’ meetings ( Masation of the country’s archaeological profession, terijali) and translations of manuals. Altogether, they began to transform into typical scientific in the period between 1950 and 1972, the society meetings where current research results were published some 60 volumes of different publi-discussed. cations. If we also add to this figure the publi- cations from other archaeological institutions in In Ohrid’s congress in 1960, another society’s the country, archaeological publishing accounts journal ( Arheološki pregled) was launched. The for more than 150 different volumes in this period. The figure might not be very high in absolute 682 Other major bodies were the Executive Committee, Su- numbers, but presents an increase of an order of pervising Committee and Court of Honour. If necessary, the society could also establish some ad hoc com- magnitude compared to the period between the missions to deal with some special issues or tasks. two world wars. 413 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 413 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 The society was also very successful in inter- archaeologists working in local institutions. That nationalising Yugoslav archaeology. Here, it said, grant programme proved essential for the should be noted that until the mid-1960s Yugo- conceptual renewal of Yugoslav archaeology, as slavia was a relatively closed country with sev- literally all of the leading archaeologists in Yu-eral impediments to free travel. Also, not many goslavia in the 1950s and 1960s spent some time institutions could afford the costs of travelling abroad, developed a very strong collaborations abroad or hosting foreign scholars. Neverthe- with their foreign colleagues and brought home less, international cooperation was one of the new ideas and experiences.683 primary tasks of the society from the very be- ginning. In regulations for obtaining permits to In the 1960s, the society’s priority in interna-travel abroad, the Archaeological Society of Yu- tional activities was given to the cooperation goslavia’s applications and recommendations with two international organisations – Union were instrumental; indeed, the society was the Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Pro-most frequent channel for archaeologists to at- tohistoriques (UISPP) and Union internationale tend international conferences. d’archéologie slave (UIAS), and Yugoslav archae- ologists regularly attended the conferences of During the radical political shift in 1948, when these two organisations. The big step forward Yugoslavia was not subject to the supremacy of presented the 1st UIAS Congress in Warsaw in the Soviet Union in the Eastern Bloc and became 1965. Yugoslavia sent a quite large delegation, isolated from all other socialist countries, Yugo- and prepared a special exhibition on Early Slav slavia was forced to turn to the West for economic archaeology in Yugoslavia.684 Yugoslav archae-and political support. This also opened the doors ologists were not just attending the UISPP confor cooperation in science, archaeology included. gresses but were also members of the UISPP The Yugoslav Council for Science and Culture bodies (since the late 1950s). Encouraged by the signed several bilateral agreements in the 1950s Warsaw congress’s great success, the Archaeo-with Western countries (e.g. Austria, Western logical Society of Yugoslavia asked the UISPP Germany, Italy, the UK, USA, etc.), enabling pro- if it could organise one of its future congresses, grammes of grants, exchange visits and partic- and, indeed, the 8th UISPP Congress was organ-ipation in international events. For implement- ised in Belgrade in 1971. ing these agreements, the council authorised the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia to sign The organisation of the 8th Congress of UISPP additional agreements with foreign archaeolog- could also be understood as a symbolic end of ical institutions and coordinate the international the formative phase of the post-war Yugoslav ar-activities of archaeologists from Yugoslavia. The chaeology. Although international meetings had Archaeological Society was indeed very active been organised before, and Yugoslav archaeolo-in this field. In the 1950s alone it provided sev- gists relatively often attended scientific confer-eral dozens of grants to Germany, Italy, France ences abroad, these were mostly regional meet-and the UK, greater links with eastern countries ings. The UISPP Congress, together with the pre-came somewhat later, after improving relation- viously mentioned UIAS Congress in Warsaw, ships with the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, almost all scholars working in central republican 683 For more details on the ‘programmed’ internationali-institutions (universities, national museums or sation of Yugoslav archaeology and the role of the Ar- chaeological Society of Yugoslavia, see Lorber and No- institutes of archaeology) had a chance to obtain vaković (2020). grants for specialisation or participation at inter- 684 The importance of this congress for Yugoslavia could national conferences, and most of them seized also be seen in the fact that copies of finds from Yugo- the opportunity. However, it also needs to be slav museums were made especially for the exhibition. The Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia (its Medieval said that the grants were much less accessible for Section) coordinated the works and shipping of objects. 414 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 414 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 was the first global appearance of the entire replaced by funding from the individual repub-Yugoslav archaeology. Its organisation was so lics, which increased the power of the republican important that essentially all the leading archae- organisations. ologists in the Yugoslav republics took part in the work of the National Organising Committee Nevertheless, the Archaeological Society was (chaired by Grga Novak, President of the Croa- quite successful in developing the scholarly detian (then Yugoslav) Academy of Sciences and bate across the country. Its congresses and meet-Arts). The congress was also an excellent op- ings of the three major sections (Prehistoric, An-portunity to present Yugoslav archaeologists’ cient and Medieval) were the principal forums achievements, with twenty-one papers being for presenting members’ results and achieve-given (thirteen from Serbia, two from Slovenia, ments to a wider Yugoslav scholarly audience, four from Croatia and two from N. Macedonia). and proved instrumental for communication Of particular importance was publishing a spe- and cooperation among Yugoslav archaeolo-cial volume dedicated to the archaeology of the gists. From the 1960s on, the sections became the host country, i.e. Yugoslavia.685 Taken together, most dynamic units of the society, which took this was at the time the most comprehensive over the discussions on all major topics in Yu-ever overview of the scientific results of Yugo- goslav archaeology. The sections organised their slav archaeologists in general, and this certainly business and scholarly meetings to develop their had far-reaching consequences for the further general research agenda and discuss all major development of international cooperation. research topics in Yugoslav archaeology.686 For a long time, one of their priorities was developing In other tasks, especially in coordinating the and harmonising archaeological terminology, work of archaeological institutions across the especially in prehistoric archaeology. Still, de-country, the Archaeological Society was not so spite many efforts of working groups, this pro-successful as in publication and international co- ject was eventually abandoned. operation. Simply, the discipline of archaeology grew so much until the late 1960s that it became virtually impossible to harmonise the individ- Leaders in the renewal of the Yugoslav ual republican sections and institutions’ priori- archaeology ties. This was to a certain extent still possible in the 1950s, when the country was governed in a To agree on the Archaeological Society’s stat-relatively centralised and bureaucratised way, utes and programmes, the Society’s Executive where the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia Committee invested great efforts to achieve con-had an almost undisputed monopoly on the pro- sensual agreement of archaeologists from all re-gramme of the discipline, and where the number publics. This hard task was only possible due to of archaeologists and archaeological institutions the great academic and expert authority of the was still relatively low. However, over time the society’s leaders in the 1950s and 1960s. The ‘in-Archaeological Society’s power diminished or, ner’ circle of this core group of the ‘new leaders’ better to say, dispersed among republican sec- was already formed in the late 1940s and includ-tions and large institutions that increasingly ed Josip Korošec and Jože Kastelic (Slovenia), pursued their own priorities. The society also Alojz Benac (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Duje suffered a heavy blow in the early 1960s when Rendić-Miočević (Croatia), and Milutin Ga-federal funding of most Yugoslav scholarly so- rašanin from Serbia, all occupying the leading cieties decreased substantially and had to be 686 Until the mid-1970s, the Prehistoric section held eleven 685 Actes du VIIIe Congres International des Sciences préistori- meetings, the Classical Antiquity section nine, and the ques et protoistoriques, Belgrade 1973, vol. 1–3. Medieval section ten. 415 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 415 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 positions at the universities or national muse- Yugoslavia and its status as the official repre-ums. This group extended to include some other sentative body for archaeology. They played an renowned experts, mostly their colleagues from essential role in both conceptual and infrastruc-central republican institutions (e.g. Stjepan Gun- tural developments. They monitored the state of jača, Grga Novak, Đorđe Mano Zisi, Dušanka archaeology in the individual republics, distrib-Vučković Todorović, Draga Garašanin, Miodrag uted grants and resources, represented Yugo-Grbić, Srečko Brodar and some others). One slav archaeology abroad, and defined its prior-could hardly say that they all equally shared the ities and joint projects, such as the Yugoslav ar- ‘Yugoslav Socialist’ political ideas or fully com- chaeological maps, archaeological terminology plied with them. Also, in archaeological terms, and bibliography. Looking retrospectively, they one could hardly label them as a typical ‘thought succeeded in most of their efforts, especially in collective’. They simply understood that the im- creating a more robust system of archaeology in provement of the state of archaeology in Yugo- the country, and unifying the discipline around slavia was an urgent task. some of its crucial conceptual issues. Judging from the minutes and reports of the A typical initiative for making Yugoslav archae-first meeting of Yugoslav archaeologists in Niš- ology stronger was the proposal of the Archaeo-ka Banja (1950) and records of the Coordination logical Society of Yugoslavia’s for the Yugoslav Committee and Archaeological Council (1950– Archaeological Institute. This idea had already 1952), the most active and energetic were Josip been put forward in 1956 at the Society’s con-Korošec, Duje Rendić-Miočević, Milutin Ga- gress in Split (Lorber 2021). The aim was to es-rašanin and Alojz Benac. That they all studied tablish an institution funded from the federal archaeology in the 1930s with Miloje Vasić at the budget, with a stronger and more permanent University of Belgrade must have some weight status than society. It was assumed that by here, although they were not all contemporaries. transferring the Society’s coordinative and in-There were two other ‘events’ which strength- tegrating tasks to an institute it would become ened ties among the ‘core group.’ First was J. Ko- easier to implement the Yugoslav programme of rošec’s excavations at the Ptuj Castle in the late archaeology. However, already from the begin-1940s, which was where a younger generation ning there was an open question of the authori-of archaeologists participated from all Yugo- ty of such an institute over republican and local slavia, including Milutin and Draga Garašanin, institutions. The proposal for the institute seems Stjepan Gunjača, Duje Rendić Miočević, Zdenko to have been successful, at least initially. In 1958, and Ksenija Vinski-Gasparini, Jovan Kovačević the Federal Government issued a decree about (Babić and Tomović 1996, 91-93). The second the Yugoslav Archaeological Institute, defining was the harsh critique of M. Vasić’s chronology it as the highest archaeological institution in the of the Vinča published by J. Korošec, A. Benac, country composed of five departments (DepartM. and D. Garašanin in 1951. ment of Prehistory, Department of Ancient Ar- chaeology, Department of Byzantine and Slavic In the 1950s, this wider core group effectively archaeology, Department of Medieval Archaeol-governed the Archaeological Society of Yugo- ogy and Department of Auxiliary Archaeological slavia and promoted their vision of the devel- Sciences), and each department was additionally opment of the archaeological discipline and its divided into more specialised sections (Lorber organisation not only at the all-state level, but in 2021). However, the official establishment of the their home republics as well. In the circumstanc- institute was abruptly stopped. The reasons for es of highly a centralised and bureaucratised this are not clear, but it seems that the federal state, as was Yugoslavia until the 1960s, the best government removed its support. In the early tool they had was the Archaeological Society of 1960s the Archaeological Society then renewed 416 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 416 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 its application for the institute several times, but archaeologies grew in almost all respects. The without success. Archaeological Society simply could not contain these trends. However, over time, and especially when feder- al funding radically diminished, the core group’s powers decreased. The disappearing (financial) Association of the Yugoslav mechanisms for effectively managing the Soci- Archaeological Societies (1972–1991) ety and implementing its programme were replaced by their academic influence. Although In parallel with the three ‘period’ sections, an-the core group definitely did not share the same other type of section emerged within the Ar-idea of Yugoslav archaeology, they were able to chaeological Society of Yugoslavia. These repub-find a series of common denominators that they lican (national) sections developed as a result all saw as instrumental for stabilising and mod- of a general growth in archaeology on the one ernising the archaeological discipline in the new hand, and with the developing national identi-country. Once this process of stabilisation and ty and autonomy of the nations in Yugoslavia. modernisation was completed, the differences The first such section had already formed in Slo-between them became larger. The principal issue venia in the late 1950s and soon, statutory still was the autonomy of the republican (national) fully defined, became recognised as one of the archaeologies. Yugoslav Society’s sections. The Slovene section was diligent in organising symposia, publishing Numerous economic and social factors facilitat- books and coordinating some research projects, ed such intensive development of archaeology especially the Archaeological Map of Slovenia. and an unpreceded growth of its institutional In most of its projects, the section collaborated landscape. The increase in industrial produc- with the Yugoslav Society. A similar story goes tion in Yugoslavia between 1952 and 1973 was for the Serbian section. This was established in spectacular – an average of 10% per annum, 1964 and was considered as a renewal of the Ser-with a 9% annual increase in the accumulated bian Archaeological Society, which had ceased capital and a 5% annual increase in employment to exist during the Second World War. In its inand productivity (Estrin 1982, based on official itial years, this section was less active than the statistical data). The number of universities in- Slovene one. Since the Serbian section’s elected creased sharply, and the proportion of the popu- leadership also occupied important positions in lation with a higher education also grew, as did the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia, it took the number of cultural and scientific institutions. some time to develop a distinctive programme The 1960s were also the years of a large open- and shape. ing up of Yugoslavia to foreign investments, re- strictions for travelling abroad were lifted, and The situation was much different concerning foreigners could easily enter the country for the Croatian section, which was also formed in tourism purposes. The abandonment of the cen- 1964. In contrast with the Slovene and Serbian tralised planned economy and its replacement sections, the relationships between the Croa-with a ‘self-management’ system substantially tian section and Yugoslav Society were much increased the autonomy of enterprises and pub- tenser and caused a considerable crisis. In 1967, lic institutions. In parallel, the republics’ autono- the Croatian section decided to transform itself my increased, leading to an even stronger feder- into the Croatian Archaeological Society687 and alisation of the country. The organisation of archaeology in Yugoslavia followed these trends. With the united (federal) archaeological organ- 687 The first Croatian Archaeological Society was prohibited with the Yugoslav King dictatorship’s proclamation isation’s diminishing power, the republican in 1929, which explicitly banned national organisations. 417 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 417 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 immediately proposed that the Yugoslav Socie- tasks remained organising congresses every four ty should be substantially reformed into a loos- years, supporting the archaeological sections er association of national (republican) societies. (prehistoric, ancient and medieval) and a joint Otherwise, the Croats would not accept any publication programme. The Association’s main obligations towards the united Society and also body was an assembly to which delegates from no common programme. Duje Rendić-Miočević, each republican society were appointed. The Asthe president of the newly established Croatian sociation could not charge individual member-Archaeological Society, stepped down from his ship fees anymore, but was financed by annual office in the Yugoslav Society. The Croatians ‘fees’ paid by individual republican societies also welcomed the formation of other national based on their number of members, and another archaeological societies in Yugoslavia. other source of income was from the sale of pub- lications. Republican societies were also granted The Croatian move did not cause but rather ac- a right to exit from the Association. celerated the crisis of the Yugoslav Archaeolog- ical Society. Since Yugoslavia in the late 1960s This reform required the formal establishment was moving towards considerable federalisation of all republican societies. Slovenia, Croatia and of many central (federal) organisations in science Serbia already had their national sections in the and culture, the Yugoslav Archaeological Soci- 1960s, but Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro ety had no way out, and its leadership had re- and N. Macedonia had to make their societies alised that continuing the all-state organisation anew. This process was not without problems, of archaeologists required the transformation of because the number of archaeologists in these re-the central scholarly society into the association publics was rather low. It took a lot of effort to of autonomous republican societies. The trans- comply with the legislation that regulated volun-formation process took some three to four years tary societies. At literally the last moment all the and officially ended at the congress in Zadar in required societies were established to complete 1972 when the Association of Yugoslav Archaeo- the Association at the Congress in Zadar.688 The logical Societies was formally established. President of the Association became Boško Babić from N. Macedonia, who was probably the most The change was indeed considerable. In the first neutral candidate, and thus a compromise choice. statute of the Association, it was defined that its members were republican archaeological socie- In the 1970s, the situation with the Association ties and not individuals (as before). The individ- was gradually consolidated. The rotation of its uals could become members of the Association seat went well, and regular congresses were only by being members of one of the republican organised in Prilep (1976), Mostar (1980), Novi societies. The Association had much less author- Sad (1984) and Bled (1988). They were all most-ity than the previous Archaeological Society of ly scientific meetings. The management of the Yugoslavia. It was limited to being a represent- Association also went rather smoothly, with a ative body vis-a-vis the federal government, had few statutory changes needed to round out its no right to intervene in the republican affairs structure and functioning. Business issues were and could only issue recommendations. The As- mostly limited to regular management of the sociation’s presidency was elected for four years, Association in the circumstances of increasing-and its seat rotated – every four years in a differ- ly weaker finances. The Association’s most iment republic. The presidency was composed of portant activity was publishing, and most efforts the President and Secretary of the Association, were dedicated to securing regular issues of one member from each republican society, presidents of the archaeological sections, and the Pub- 688 The Archaeological Society of Montenegro was, in fact, lishing Board President. The Association’s major founded a year later. 418 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 418 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 journals and monographs. An important novelty much less intensive after 1980. The most impor-was proposed in the Prilep congress – launch- tant move was the transfer of the Association’s ing a new journal, Balcanoslavica – to publish re- publishing office to Ljubljana. Before that, the search papers on early medieval archaeology in publishing office had been in Belgrade for dec-Yugoslavia. ades where Jovan Todorović very competently directed it, although it faced many problems The congress in Novi Sad is remembered for its after his death in the early 1980s.689 In Ljublja-round table about the nature of Yugoslav archae- na, the new publishing board’s first move was ology. As I have already noted, the roundtable a substantial modernisation of the journals Ar-arrived at the conclusion that Yugoslav archae- heološki pregled and Archaeologia Iugoslavica. As ology did not exist, and that it was, at best, a mo- it happened, the Association’s congress in Bled saic of national archaeologies and traditions (see (1988) turned out to be the last congress of the Rapanić 1986 and accompanying discussion). Yugoslav archaeologists. The congress could not While not all archaeologists completely shared escape the politically very charged atmosphere this opinion, it was clear that the ‘old’ type of in the country. In his inaugural address, Matjaž Yugoslav archaeology, as coordinated by the Ar- Kmecl, writer and high-level Slovene politician, chaeological Society of Yugoslavia, had ended. surprised the archaeological audience by openly Still, not all were ready to accept that there were attacking other Yugoslav republics’ politics.690 no integrating issues around which a ‘new’ sys- tem of cooperation could be established. Another problem that threatened the Associa- tion was the hesitation of the Montenegrin ar- To understand the reasons for such a conclusion, chaeologists to host the Association presidency one should look more precisely at the 1980s in for the next four years. Due to their small num-Yugoslavia. In these years, many common issues ber and limited capacities, they finally agreed to were at stake. The country suffered a grave eco- take over the presidency but not the publishing nomic crisis and another one of leadership after activity, which stayed in Ljubljana. After the for-Tito’s death in 1980. The politics of the republi- mal transfer of the Association’s presidency to can governments were less and less harmonised Montenegro in 1988, no particular activities were with the federal government, and a growing recorded for the Association. Two major tasks number of people called for full democratisa- were approaching, the 6th International Con-tion of the country. Moreover, national prob- gress on Slavic Archaeology in Prilep planned lems started to rise again. In such a situation, it for 1990 and the 13th International Congress of was increasingly hard to find compromises and Early Christian Archaeology in Split in 1994. The more widely accepted alternatives. The political Prilep Congress was cancelled since neither the atmosphere became increasingly charged in the local organiser nor the Association were at that late 1980s when the first explicit claims for in- time capable of organising such a large event. dependent national states emerged. From this On the other hand, the Split Congress was or-point of view, the claim that Yugoslav archaeol- ganised in a new country under the patronage of ogy did not exist anymore seems logical. As long the Croatian President Franjo Tuđman. as archaeology is considered a ‘national’ science, there can hardly be any different opinion. But is The Association of Yugoslav Archaeological So-such a stance inevitable and sustainable? I will cieties de facto ceased to exist in 1991, with the deal with this question at the end of this chapter. 689 The a stock of more than 20,000 unsold volumes of pub-The Slovene presidency of the Archaeological lications was also transferred to Ljubljana. Association (1984–1988) attempted to revive and 690 According to some oral reports from the participants, some republican delegations threatened to leave the consolidate the group, whose activities became congress because of the Kmecl’s address. 419 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 419 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 end of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugo- country, but mostly without direct coordination slavia, although the only society which officially or steering by the federal Archaeological Society. left from the Yugoslav Association was the Cro- Individual republics and numerous archaeolog-atian Archaeological Society, which informed all ical institutions became very much autonomous the other societies about its decision. The archive in their programmes and projects, but this does of the Yugoslav Association and its predeces- not mean that Yugoslav archaeological cooper-sor, the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia, ation faded away, instead it simply found other remained in Ljubljana along with thousands of ways and forms, not necessarily contrary to the volumes of its publications.691 central society’s initiatives. Such cooperation, indeed, frequently used the society’s networks But congresses only partially reveal the real situ- and infrastructure but acted somewhat more ation. Yugoslav archaeologists were more direct- independently and spontaneously. In this way, ly involved in the work of three sections (prehis- it changed the federal society without directly toric, ancient and medieval) which became the referring to its programme. One could say that most important instrument of the Association. this made federal society more inclusive and less All these sections organised their own scholarly ‘prescriptive’ in its nature. and business meetings and publications. They also experienced ups and downs in their work, One such way was a grouping of scholars around but, nevertheless, the sections organised more common research topics or institutions whose than fifteen various symposia and meetings be- programmes included such topics or some re-tween 1972 and 1988. It is also worth noting that nowned scholars who directed such initiatives. the sections had their own programmes, direct- The best such case is Alojz Benac and his Centre ly cooperating with international organisations, for Balkanological Research at the Academy of and organised various international events in Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yugoslavia. Since the 1960s, this institution evolved under his leadership into the major centre of prehistoric research in Yugoslavia, especially for the Bronze Yugoslav archaeology ‘beyond’ the and Iron Ages (Illyrians!). Benac was the undis- Yugoslav Archaeological Society puted authority in archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he also occupied very high Observing the Yugoslav perspectives by focus- political positions in this republic. He carried ing only on the Archaeological Society of Yugo- great charisma as one of the founders of post-slavia and its successor, the Association of Yu- war archaeology in Yugoslavia, as a leader in the goslav Archaeological Societies does not give a Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia and a rep-full picture of the situation. These two organisa- resentative of Yugoslav archaeology abroad. In tions’ history shows their great achievements in many respects, he epitomised the new Yugoslav renewing Yugoslav archaeology in the first two archaeology.692 post-war decades, followed by a gradual decline of their significance since the late 1960s. But, this 692 Benac was a Croat from Bosnia, who graduated from cannot be generalised for the whole of archae-the University of Belgrade and worked in Serbia and ology in Yugoslavia, and nor for the ‘Yugoslav’ Bosnia and Herzegovina before the war. Though he was perspective. Quite the opposite, the scale and mobilised into the army of the marionette Independent intensity of the archaeological work increased State of Croatia during the war, he secretly collaborat- ed with Tito’s National Liberation Movement and, af- substantially in the 1970s and 1980s all over the ter two years, deserted from the Croatian army to join the Partisans. After the war, he first worked in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s government but soon moved to the 691 In autumn 1991, the Slovene Archaeological Society di- Provincial Museum, where he became its Director. He vided the stock and shipped it to other societies. received several high decorations for his achievements 420 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 420 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 Benac was powerful and competent enough to main reference publication and was also highly develop further some projects or ideas which the rated in international professional circles. Af-Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia planned ter the edition in the Serbo-Croatian language, but turned out to be too demanding for it to real- preparations started for a sixth volume, synthe-ise. For example, such projects were the Illyrian sising all five volumes in the English language. colloquia organised by his Centre for Balkano- The preparation of this volume continued until logical Research, which joined a very respectful the end of 1991, when the war broke out in Bos-group of archaeologists, historians, and linguists nia and Herzegovina, and the sixth volume has from Yugoslavia. These colloquia were not or- remained unpublished. ganised outside of the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia’s general programme, but the initia- The main authors in Praistorija belonged to the tive and implementation were that of A. Benac generation of scholars who modernised Yugo-and his Centre. slav archaeology in the 1950s and 1960s and had a long history of mutual cooperation. Benac’s At the UISPP Congress in Belgrade in 1971, the authority was instrumental in creating the Pra-initiative for a very comprehensive synthesis istorija circle of authors, solving their scholarly of Yugoslavia’s prehistory was put forward. disputes, and providing the funds and technical Benac (1970, 10) was the principal advocate of support for the most expensive publication in this project and succeeded in putting it in the Yugoslav archaeology. This publication’s great plan of the Prehistoric Section of the Yugoslav success gave an incentive to prepare a similar Archaeological Society. Since the project ex- works presenting classical archaeology in Yu-ceeded the Society’s organisational capacities goslavia, but this remained only an informal and funds, Benac’s Centre for Balkanological initiative. Research took it over. Benac was also elected editor-in-chief of what would become the most In the 1970s and 1980s, with much greater auton-monumental publication in Yugoslav archaeol- omy of the individual institutions, the ‘horizon-ogy – Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja (‘Prehis- tal’ (i.e. direct) cooperation between institutions tory of the Yugoslav Lands’).693 from different republics grew without referring to the Yugoslav Society’s general plans or any The five volumes of Praistorija presented the other coordinating scholarly body. The number state-of-the-art of prehistoric archaeology in of such projects is too high to list here. They var-Yugoslavia. They were published in 1979 (I – ied from small-scale one-time field projects to Palaeolithic and Mesolithic; II – Neolithic; III multi-annual projects of large teams. Of the lat- – Eneolithic), 1983 (IV – Bronze Age) and 1987 ter, I should mention here the project on Hvar Is- (V – Iron Age). All five volumes combined had land from the late 1980s, led by the University of about 3,400 pages of texts with a literature over- Ljubljana, Archaeological Museum in Split and view and site index (in total with more than 120 the University of Bradford, on which participat-papers by 28 authors), and about 400 plates with ed archaeologists and other experts from dozens drawings of artefacts, archaeological maps and of other institutions from all Yugoslavia. plans of sites. Praistorija instantly became the Since 1970, with the general liberalisation of the in science and culture (for a biography of Benac, see country and years of successful presentation of Periša 2021b). Yugoslav archaeology on an international scale, 693 Other members of the editorial board were: Djuro the presence of foreign researchers increased in Basler for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, Milutin Ga- virtually all domains of archaeology. Universi-rašanin for the Neolithic, Nikola Tasić for the Eneolith- ic, Ksenija Vinski-Gasparini for the Bronze Age, and ties and Research Institutes from the USA, UK, Stane Gabrovec for the Iron Age (Benac 1979, 10). Germany, France, Sweden, Austria, and Poland 421 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 421 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 cooperated with different institutions in virtual- monographiae, 27 volumes of Inventariae archaeo-ly all Yugoslav republics.694 If such cooperation logica, 22 volumes of Materijali with proceedings was, in the 1950s and 1960s, still coordinated by from archaeological meetings in Yugoslavia, and the federal Archaeological Society, this was no about a dozen special editions or issues – a total longer the case. of some 140 to 150 volumes in 30 years. These figures clearly reveal the significance of the joint The other infrastructural networks or domains Archaeological Society, but the overall amount of archaeological practice – museums and herit- of publishing was much greater if we include the age protection institutes – were among the first publications of other institutions in all the Yugo-to be ‘freed’ from the Yugoslav Archaeological slav republics. Society. In the 1950s, the Archaeological Society paid great attention to developing these two ser- Table 2 presents the number of published archae-vices in all republics. Still, after their consolida- ological periodicals (monographs are not count-tion, the republic’ agendas frequently diverged ed) produced between 1945 and 1990. It includes from the Society’s plans. In most cases, archaeol- major archaeological journals published by the ogy was just one of their working domains, and republics and journals of the main archaeological their priority was not always academic archaeol- institutions. The sum of all journals is quite im-ogy to which the Society strongly leaned in the pressive – 653 volumes of 31 journals in 45 years. 1970s and 1980s. In contrast, only 13% of volumes were published by the Yugoslav Archaeological Society. The image of Yugoslav archaeology ‘beyond’ the Yugoslav Archaeological Society’s activities Naturally, not all of the journals exclusively pub-is full of examples but more fragmented and lished archaeological papers, nor were all au-less coherent at first sight. Dozens of initiatives thors domestic experts. Even so, if such an extent and projects existed all across the country, but of published journals is set against a community they differed very much in their nature and im- composed of fewer than 550 professional archae-plementation. The motives were different, the ologists and other experts active in archaeology intensity varied from ad hoc to long term, and in the late 1980s, one can get quite a good picture the cooperation was inter-institutional but also of the size of the progress of the discipline in Yu-between individual scholars. Of course, not all goslavia after the Second World War. projects were intended as ‘Yugoslav, but simply somehow became such, and in their own way, more spontaneously and less programmed, also contributed to Yugoslav archaeology. One of the best examples of such a contribution and a good indicator of the development of ar- chaeology in Yugoslavia is publishing. Between 1960 and 1990 the Archaeological Society of Yu- goslavia and Association of Archaeological So- cieties of Yugoslavia published 29 volumes of Arheološki pregled, with about 2,250 short excava- tion reports, 24 volumes of Archaeologia Iugoslav- ica, 26 monographs in the series Dissertationes et 694 For more on such projects, see the chapters on individ- ual states. 422 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 422 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 Published volumes of the archaeological journals (specialised and non-specialised) between 1945 and 1990 Arheološki vestnik 40 Situla 28 Slovenia Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 18 Arheo 11 Varstvo spomenikov 32 Argo 30 Opuscula archaeologica 14 Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 23 Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 31 Diadora 12 Croatia Histria archaeologica 19 Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 7 Vijesti muzealaca i konzervatora Hrvatske 39 Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 15 Muzejski vjesnik 13 Starinar 41 Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 6 Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 13 Serbia Rad vojvođanskih muzeja 32 Saopštenja. (Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture) 22 23 Građa za proučavanje spomenika kulture Vojvodine 15 Bosnia and Herzegovina Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 45 Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 28 Macedoniae acta archaeologica 11 North Macedonia Zbornik. The Archaeological Museum of Macedonia 11 Lihnid 7 Kosovo Glasnik Muzeja Kosova/Buletin i Muzeut të Kosovë 14 Arheološki pregled 29 Yugoslavia Archaeologia Iugoslavica 24 Materijali 22 TOTAL 652 Fig. 212. Archaeological journals between 1945 and 1991. Museums Heritage pro- tection Universities Research institutes Total - - - - - Institu tions Staff Institu tions Staff Institu tions Staff Institu tions Staff Institu tions Staff Bosnia and Herzegovina 13 27 4 7 1 2 1 1 19 37 Montenegro 11 16 2 3 0 0 0 0 13 19 Croatia 54 103 10 22 2 19 2 15 68 159 Kosovo 2 6 2 5 1 1 1 2 6 14 N. Macedonia 9M + 5MH 21 2H 3 1 6 1 13 18 68 Slovenia 17 32 8 14 1 12 1 12 27 70 Serbia (proper) 30 76 6 11 1 24 2 25 40 137 Vojvodina 11 32 4 8 1 2 0 0 16 42 Yugoslavia 152 305 43 77 8 66 8 68 207 546 Fig. 213 The number of professional archaeologists in Yugoslavia (data for 1981). *M – museum; MH – museum and heritage protection service; H – heritage protection service) 423 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 423 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 Employed Population / archaeologists Total Population 1991 Area (km2) Area (km2)/ archaeologist archaeologist Slovenia 70 1,962,606 20,246 289 28,037 N. Macedonia 68 2,033,964 25,720 378 29,911 Croatia 159 4,760,344 56,524 355 29,939 Montenegro 19 615,267 13,810 727 32,382 Serbia (proper) 137 5,824,211 56,169 410 42,512 Yugoslavia 546 23,527,957 255,790 468 43,091 Vojvodina 42 2,012,517 21,506 512 47.917 Bosnia and Herzegovina 37 4,364.574 51.129 1.382 117.961 Kosovo 14 1,954.474 10.686 763 139.605 Fig. 214 The number of employed archaeologists in Yugoslavia (data for 1988), ranked per opulation/archaeologists ratio. ‘Socialist’ archaeology in Yugoslavia The doctrine of ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ was the ideological cornerstone of the Communist re- A more comprehensive presentation of the ide- gime in Yugoslavia to maintain a political and ology and ideological practices of the commu- economic balance between the nations in the nist regime in Yugoslavia is beyond this study’s country. But this doctrine had a dual, almost scope and is thus not attempted here. Instead, paradoxical, nature. It stemmed from the Marx-my attention will focus on some aspects of ideol- ist premise of prioritising class affiliation over ogy that had a greater impact on the archaeolog- nationality, but it also decidedly promoted inical discipline – the doctrines of modernisation of dividual nations’ development. One should not Yugoslavian society, ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ of ignore the fact that various Yugoslav nations Yugoslav nations, and Marxist doctrine, which fought in world wars on opposite sides. Hence, a operated in mutual harmony. careful approach to this problem was required to establish stable conditions for cohabitation.695 In Before the Second World War, Yugoslavia was reality, the principle of brotherhood-and-unity among the least-developed countries in Europe. could be considered as a kind of Marxist-Hege-On top of it, it suffered enormous damage in the lian dialectical construct, which implied the de-war, heavily destroying the already fragile eco- velopment of national republics and a common nomic infrastructure and claimed a high death state at the same time. That this was not an easy toll (the number of victims is estimated to be task was also clear to the ruling Communists in one million). The economy was primarily agri- Yugoslavia. They predicted that with the strong cultural, whilst the industrial sector was poorly development of the economy and well-being of developed and limited to some regions. After the the citizens ( ‘working people’), they would grad-war, the Yugoslav communist authorities initi- ually realize the benefits of the new society and ated a country-wide industrialisation campaign, followed by the nationalisation of land, pro- 695 It should be noted here that the official doctrine of the duction infrastructure and services. In the early Yugoslav Communist Party in the Kingdom of Yugo- phase, the Soviet-type centralised planning soon slavia (1918–1941) perceived the country as a ‘creation of the bourgeois’. It stated that the upcoming revolu- proved unsuccessful, and from the mid-1950s, tion should abolish Yugoslavia and allow the autono- elements of the free market economy were grad- mous development of the nations. In the late 1930s and ually introduced. especially during the Second World War, this attitude changed to conform to the concept of a common federal state with greater autonomy for its constituent nations. 424 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 424 22. 10. 2021 11:06:20 overcome national divides. In the meantime, it attempts to reflect ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ con-was important to maintain a balance between cept in archaeological interpretation. The ‘proto-nations. The major warranty of this balance was colar’ instance is not of much interest here, since seen in the figure of the country and Communist these statements characterised the public procla-Party leader Tito with his enormous symbolic mations such as “developing fraternity and unity”, capital from the Second World War. The Com- “defending the achievements of the national liberation munist ruling structures allowed such trends and revolution” and “building the society upon so-as long as they did not compromise the leading cialist and Marxist foundations” that regularly oc-position of the Communist Party. However, the curred in most of the official texts, especially in trends went in opposite directions. Together the early post-war years, when the Communist with the federalisation of the state also ran the regime was still making its ground. Announce-process of ‘federalisation’ of the Communist Par- ments of this kind soon became void and stayed ty. Power was gradually moving from the Yu- in use only as formal adherence to the leading goslav Central Committee into the hands of the ideology. republican Communist parties. Of more interest here is the extent to which the In the context of modernisation and ‘brother- ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ doctrine influenced hood-and-unity’, the republican (national) ar- the archaeological interpretations. There are chaeologies were given an increasingly strong no simple answers to this since the brother-motivation for their individual advancement. hood-and-unity doctrine’s impact should not Archaeology was, together with other histori- be observed from a single perspective. This doc-cal disciplines, perceived as a powerful tool in trine had several perspectives which may op-the South Slavic nations’ emancipation. It was pose each other. The ‘unity’ obviously pointed also envisaged as one of the means by which to the Yugoslav state’s unity and strongness as the ‘historical depth’ of the Yugoslav nations re-established by the Communist Party and its could be presented in the European and global ideology. But it was the ‘brotherhood’ that con-context. It was seen as an indicator of the new tained thesis and antithesis (in Hegelian-Marxist authorities’ achievements in leading the state terms); the brotherhood as inter-national soli-and society. The most obvious illustration of the darity and emancipatory aspect for each nation. ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ concept could be found The expected synthesis was future Yugoslav in the resolutions and conclusions of Yugoslav ‘multi-national nation’. archaeologists’ first meeting in Niška Banja in 1950 (see Korošec 1950), where priority was giv- The truth is that most nations were very dissatis-en to research of the material culture of Yugoslav fied with the inter-national cohabitation during nations and ‘processes of their formation from the the ‘First Yugoslavia’ (1918–1941), when not even time of the earliest communities up to the period of all nations were constitutionally recognised. formation of hierarchical societies and the study of the Even those that were recognised (i.e. Slovenes, relations with the neighbouring nations’, ... ’ for the Croats and Serbs) were ultimately considered purpose of establishing brotherhood-and-unity and ‘ tribes of one nation’. Learning hard lessons from socialist patriotic awareness” . the past (integralist dictatorship and war), the brotherhood-and-unity doctrine meant a much However, these and similar statements should softer concept of the Yugoslav melting pot. The be read carefully and contextualised to distin- emancipatory effects were clear, Montenegrins, guish phrases that pertained to the standard Macedonians and Muslims (after 1991 Bosniaks) protocol: formal expressions of the official ideol- were for the first time recognised as constitutive ogy, standard, if not compulsory, practice in the nations and were given grounds for develop-early years of Socialist Yugoslavia, and genuine ing their national infrastructures and identities. 425 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 425 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 Many national minorities were also recognised numerous texts labelled Slavic inhabitants as Ilfor the first time (e.g. Albanians, Hungarians, lyrians (or descendants of the ancient Illyrians), Italians, Romanians) along with being grant- after the ancient Roman province of Illyricum, ed a certain level of autonomy. But, above all, which extended over most of Yugoslavia’s terri-it was the modernisation in which all nations tory.696 Moreover, the pan-Slavic political move-experienced considerable economic and social ment in Croatia and parts of Slovenia in the growth in a very short time, which made broth- 1830s, which campaigned for greater autonomy erhood-and-unity a highly positive alternative of the Slavic population in the Austrian Mon-to past experiences. In archaeology, this growth archy, was named after the Illyrians and flirted was evident in the unprecedented increase in the with autochthonic ideas of the origin of the Slavs. number of archaeological institutions, research Nevertheless, in the second half of the 19th centu-projects, museums and archaeological posts in a ry international and local historiography finally very short time. divided Illyrians and Slavs. Still, some effects of the earlier theories remained alive and occasion- In harmony with the brotherhood-and-unity ally also surfaced in modern archaeology. In the doctrine, some fields of archaeology were seen context of the brotherhood-and-unity doctrine, as a priority, especially the archaeology of South the Illyrians were not used as predecessors of Slavs, which, except in Croatia, almost did not Slavs but as an example or model of a common exist in Yugoslavia before the Second World prehistoric past and heritage. In the archaeolog-War. From the ideological point of view, the in- ical texts of the 1950s and 1960s, the Illyrians vestment in Slavic archaeology had two major were present in all republics. As an all-Yugoslav goals – further national emancipation of the Yu- archaeological phenomenon, they provided an goslav nations and the search for the historical excellent example of the common topic for inte-basis of brotherhood-and-unity. With every ide- grating Yugoslav archaeology.697 The Illyrians, ology, it is essential to present and legitimise its indeed, became one of the central archaeological worldview as natural and historically grounded. topics in prehistoric and early ancient archaeol-Searching for past brotherhood-and-unity in the ogy in Yugoslavia, and some of the most impor-early Slavic period tended to present the South tant scientific meetings were dedicated to this Slavs as a much more homogeneous group (see, topic. Alojz Benac from Sarajevo was the major for example, Garašanin M. and Kovačević 1950) spiritus movens of Illyriology. There are analogous compared to the heavily fragmented image of examples in the neighbouring countries with the the Slavs in the pre-war period. The teleological Thracians in Bulgaria, Dacians in Romania, and character of these new, brotherhood-and-unity Illyrians in Albania. influenced views was most evident in the syn- thetic works on the South Slavs in Yugoslavia’s Brotherhood-and-unity worked relatively well as territory. These texts usually dealt with Slavs in individual republics, which then jointly created 696 See the text of Vinko Pribojević on the origin and histo-a mosaic of the Balkans’ early Slavic tribes giving ry of the Slavs from 1532.. a self-evident impression of their connectedness. 697 A good illustration connecting Illyrians and Yugoslavia could be found in the study about double-loop bow type fibulae (Gabrovec 1970). The author draws the While Slavs served as a textbook case of direct westernmost boundary of the distribution of this fibu- transfer of brotherhood-and unity into the past la type (labelled as Illyrian) exactly along the western and archaeological interpretations, other cas- border of Yugoslavia and Italy. Whether this was in- tentional or not is not of much importance here. What es were more ‘elliptical’ – somewhere between is significant is how the understanding of archaeolog- analogy and metaphor, but sometimes also taken ical evidence was accommodated to the ‘Yugoslav’ Il- more seriously. This was the case with Illyrians. lyrian framework. Later on, Gabrovec abandoned the theory of the Illyrians being the Iron Age inhabitants of In the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, Slovenia. 426 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 426 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 long as its major symbol – Tito – had undisputed 1983), and even the quoted bibliographic refer-control over the republics and the federal army, ence is more a critique of some simplified and considered a foundry of the doctrine. However, naive considerations about the social role of ar-constant pressures for the country’s federalisation chaeology. On the other hand, foreign authors also diminished its cohesive power. Federalisa- labelled archaeology in Socialist Yugoslavia tion also opened the doors to gradual democrati- Marxist (e.g. Kaiser 1995). sation. Culture and science were no longer the do- mains of federal authorities but ultimately became But, just like in the case of the brother-a matter of the individual republics, which were hood-and-unity doctrine, a distinction must be much more focused on their ‘internal’ affairs. made between the ‘protocolar’ and ‘epistemo- logical’ Marxism. Concerning the former, the This tendency can also be traced in the archaeo- situation is quite clear. In the first programmatic logical texts. Comparing the themes and papers texts on new Yugoslav archaeology, there are ex-from the 1950s and 1960s with those from the plicit statements about the Marxist orientation. 1980s, one can see several revealing differences. The conclusions from the first meeting of the The picture of a common past, created in the first Yugoslav archaeologists in Niška Banja (Korošec post-war decades, gradually gave way to a sort 1950) explicitly state that “archaeology, as a so-of mosaic of several different and loosely con- cial-historical discipline, should entirely be directed nected pasts, differently interpreted by national towards the investigations of material and spiritual archaeology schools, and the ‘Yugoslav’ frame of culture based on the scientific knowledge of historical reference was much less as relevant than before. materialism. ” The terms dialectical or historical Different forms of ‘geography’ came to the fore, materialism were taken from Marx’s philosophy more regional (Adriatic, Dinaric, Pannonian, of history.699 Similar statements often appeared Central Balkan) and, ultimately, ‘republican’.698 in pamphlets or documents distributed on occa-This trend became particularly evident after Yu- sions of some celebrations such as, for example, goslavia’s break-up when archaeologies re-es- important anniversaries of professional associa-tablished geographical and cultural reference tions and institutions. In that sense, archaeology frameworks in the new states. This process was did not differ from other disciplines in former a clear indicator of the weakening influence of Yugoslavia, which often marked their achieve-the ‘brotherhood-and-unity’ doctrine in archae- ments as proof of positive development within ology from the 1970s onwards. the new social order. Having said that, it would be wrong to claim that protocolar Marxism ex- erted no influence on archaeological activities, Waiting for Marx the status of archaeology as a socially engaged discipline, on certain aspects of the organisation It may be surprising that there are almost no of archaeological work, and even on some ele-texts or studies promoting Marxism in Yugoslav ments of archaeological interpretation. But one archaeology. Some very rare attempts by local should be cautious here; in practice protocolar authors appeared only in the 1980s (e.g. Slapšak Marxism was primarily used for the formal expression of adherence to Communism. 698 This phenomenon was evident in the region-based ap- proach used for archaeological interpretations of cer- The distinction between ‘protocolar and ‘episte-tain periods of the past, which became problematic. Staša Babić (2011) warned of this problem using as an mological’ Marxisms might not always be clear example the publication Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja where, practically, in each of the five volumes (I. 699 In the same vein, this document presents the claims that, Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, II. Neolithic, III. Eneolith-in archaeology, the research on social relationships be- ic, IV. Bronze Age, V. Iron Age), different principles in tween ancient communities should have priority, which defining the regions were used. is a typical (but not exclusively) Marxist topic. 427 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 427 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 to foreign scholars, although scholars working in more appropriate study of the development other socialist countries were fully aware of this of social relations.701 Thus, already in 1919 the (Babić and Tomović 1994: 117–118, Slapšak and Imperial Archaeological Commission was re-Novaković 1996, 287, Novaković 2002, 340–343; named the State Academy for the History of 2002, 314; for the former German Democratic Material Culture. But it was not until the end Republic see Coblenz 2002, 334–336). This could of the 1920s that historical materialism became also be seen in Albania, which had one of the the dominant theory in Soviet archaeology. The most rigid ‘Marxist’ dictatorships in Europe dur- main difference compared to the culture-histor-ing Enver Hoxha’s rule. M. Gallatay and C. Wat- ical approach in Central European archaeology kinson (2006), in their paper on archaeological of the time was the shift from studying the ‘his-practice in conditions of dictatorships, included tory of culture’ (and archaeological cultures) to part of an interview with Muzafer Korkuti, one the study of the history of socio-economic de-of the leading archaeologists under the E. Hox- velopmental stages as they were defined in the ha’s regime, who was able to retain his status Marxist philosophy of history (for more details, also after the democratisation of the country. Ko- see Bulkin et al. 1982; Novaković 2012). This led rkuti often mentioned the requests of the politi- to a very simplified or vulgarised application cal authorities to prove the Illyrian origin of the of Marxist theory. Prehistory was, for example, Albanians. Still, he never mentioned requests for understood more as a developmental sequence Marxist ideology or historical materialism. of the socio-economic formations and relation- ships and less a period characterised by the The truth is that Marxism (or its derivatives – development of particular cultures and ethnic dialectical and historical materialism) was the entities. Such a concept of historical-materialist official ideology of the communist regimes and doctrine in Soviet archaeology culminated with that largely pervaded all societal domains the Marrism, an archaeological doctrine named after society in former socialist countries, which led Nikolay Marr, a linguist and the Director of the some scholars to conclude the existence of Marx- State Academy for the History of Material Cul-ism in archaeology as well (e.g. Kaiser 1995, ture. Marr was the main advocate of the theory 109–113). On the other hand, the foreign schol- of developmental stages. In this, all socio-cultur-ars who spent a considerable part of their careers al changes, even the ethnic and linguistic ones, in the socialist countries were aware of the dis- result from revolutionary shifts in the economic tinction between protocolar and epistemological sphere, especially in the domain of production. Marxisms.700 Marrism was the main doctrine in Soviet archae- ology from the 1930s, but it was made defunct in To assess Marxism’s influence in Yugoslavian archaeology, one should look first at the forms 701 Bulkin, Klejn, and Lebedev (1982, 274): “First of all, they of Marxist archaeology in circulation in Europe. condemned the ‘creeping empiricism’ of the majority of pre- vious archaeological studies and the preoccupation of the old Before the Second World War, Marxist archaeol- generation with formal studies of artefacts, which came to be ogy emerged in the Soviet Union and was con- labelled ‘goloye veshchevedeniye’ (‘naked artefactology’ or, sidered ‘history of material culture’; the Soviet literally, ‘naked things- knowledge’). The Montelian typo- logical method was abandoned as a product of bourgeois evo- ideologists saw the term ‘archaeology’ as too lutionism, which made fetishes of artefacts and improperly bourgeois, which exaggerated aesthetics, an- interpreted history in biological terms. Doubts were cast on tiquarianism and fetishism, and obscured the the traditional subject matter of archaeology and even on the name of the discipline. It was suggested that they restrict- ed the possibilities for the scientific use of archaeological evi- 700 See, for example, Anthony Harding (1983, 12), who dence, separated antiquities from the present time, and con- spent a considerable part of his career doing research in cealed information about economics and the production of Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Balkans. Similar con- goods as the factors determining historical development. To clusions were also arrived at by Douglass Bailey (2002), circumvent these limitations, archaeology was transformed who carried out research in Bulgaria. and renamed ‘the history of material culture’.” 428 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 428 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 1950 by Stalin’s political action. However, some move away from pre-war archaeology’s strictly of this approach’s elements were preserved in cultural-historical direction. the restored Soviet archaeology after the 1950s. In the West, the most renowned scholar who ac- The leading Yugoslav archaeologists in the 1950s cepted some ideas from Soviet archaeology and were all educated before 1941 in the ‘bourgeois’ the Marxist philosophy of history was Gordon systems and simply could not develop a more Childe. His shift from the diffusionist archaeolo- operative epistemology of archaeology based gy of cultures to research into past societies’ so- on historical materialism. The elements of such cial structures has to be associated with his visit epistemology could tentatively be detected in to the Soviet Union. the programmatic texts from Niška Banja. Per- haps the best example was the much more fre- On the other hand, Soviet archaeology after quent use of the term ‘material culture’ and ref-the 1950s increasingly developed non-Marrist erences to the history of material culture (e.g. in concepts and programmes, including a much the second conclusion from Niška Banja). This stronger emphasis on ethno-genetic studies, but could be understood as a reflection of the new did not abandon some Marxist concepts. How- terminology introduced by Soviet archaeology ever, the initial problem with Marxism remained but without noteworthy theoretical or practical – the simplified and direct transfer of Marx’s implications. theory into archaeological conceptual apparatus. Klejn (1981, 13) wrote that Marxist philosophy Yugoslavia experimented with Marxism in (and its Soviet interpretations) took over the role many fields whilst trying to avoid the rigid Sovi-of the dominant theory in archaeology instead et Leninism. However, it was not easy to intro-of stimulating the general theoretical develop- duce Marxism in such a short period of time (or ment of archaeology. Only later, in the 1960s and simply by decree) into conceptually and struc-1970s in the Soviet Union, Poland and East Ger- turally unsuitable domains for it. Often what many, were attempts made towards integrating was adopted was a mere Marxist façade, but not Marxist views in archaeological theory instead epistemology. The truth is that some disciplines of Marxist ideology in archaeology. The new, (e.g. history, sociology, philosophy, economics) better contextualised approach in studying pro- certainly found it more difficult to avoid the ide-duction and technology brought Soviet archae- ological and practical interventions of the Com-ology closer to some early processual archaeol- munist Party, especially in the first decades after ogy ideas in the West, much before the Central the Second World War. Still, in archaeology none European cultural-historical archaeology. of the operational elements of the Marxist para- digm were introduced. Marrism was unsuitable In Yugoslavia, there were no signs of real Mar- from the start, and although Soviet archaeology rism. The Yugoslav archaeologists knew Marr later developed a more refined form of a Marxist but were very cautious about his approach (Mi- approach, by then it was too late, as the Yugoslav losavljević 2015, 259–267; 2020, 141, 145). The archaeologists were already deeply immersed principal reason was that classical Marrism op- in the Central European cultural-historical idea posed the ethnogenetic studies that were seen of archaeology. In fact, the same can be said for as a priority in post-war Yugoslav archaeology. most of the archaeology in former socialist coun-As such, it could not provide a viable alternative tries in Europe, and apart from in the Soviet Unfor the new Yugoslav archaeology. The focus on ion, different Marxist concepts in archaeology social development and relations was not an ex- were more often discussed in the West.702 clusive characteristic of Marxist archaeology. It was shared by numerous archaeological schools 702 For a review of Marxist trends in American and Euro-and archaeologies in the West, which strived to pean archaeology, see McGuire (1993). 429 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 429 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 But the Soviet (though not Marxist) influence was founded in some other cities. At the bottom of visible in archaeology’s institutional organisation, the structural pyramid were regional and local not only in Yugoslavia but also in most Eastern institutions (mostly museums) that could act in-European countries. At the top of the discipline’s dependently only at the regional and local lev-pyramid were research institutes at the national els. In case of some large discoveries or threats to academies of arts and sciences. These were given important sites, the central institutions frequent-power and responsibility for the strategic devel- ly took over the research since the local institu-opment of their respective national archaeolo- tions were not well equipped (in terms of staff gies. It was their responsibility to design and im- and infrastructure). They served as ‘assisting’ plement long-term plans for the whole discipline, institutions. conduct the largest and most costly research pro- jects, publish national archaeological journals, In such a division of labour, the heritage protec-and so on. These institutes were equipped with tion service was generally perceived as second-the best archaeological libraries and laboratories ary to academic (research-oriented) archaeology. in the country, and could hire the best experts. It combined the mandatory administrative pro-In the early post-war years, the archaeologists tection of the heritage and protective projects. from these institutes most frequently got grants For Yugoslavia, and all its republics, the herit-to pursue specialisations abroad or participate age protection service constantly remained un-in international conferences. The institutes were derstaffed and underequipped and had to seek considered centres of excellence with a strong in- the help of larger national institutions in case of ternal hierarchy, junior researchers (‘assistants’) large protection projects (e.g. construction of hy-at the bottom, semi-independent researchers in dro-electric plants in the Iron Gorge of Serbia) or, the middle, and senior scientists and executive even more frequently, regional and local muse-directors at the top. Concerning the number of ums. In the 1960s, the Service for the Protection staff, the institutes were usually significantly of Cultural Heritage had to be reformed. An ad-larger than any other archaeological institutions equate legal and organisational framework was in their countries.703 needed for coping with the increasing amount of protection projects. From the 1970s onwards, Universities and national museums were gen- however, the service grew stronger. The repub-erally a level below in such a hierarchy. Due to lics’ institutes for protecting cultural heritage the small size of the countries and the relatively established relatively independent regional net-short-term archaeological tradition, the only uni- works of their units, increasing the number of versities with curricula in archaeology were nor- archaeology personnel. mally those located in the national capitals (e.g. in the capitals of Slovenia, Serbia, Albania, Ro- In the context of the low number of employed mania, Bulgaria, and N. Macedonia). Only rela- archaeologists, this organisation of institutional tively recently, after 1991, have new universities network and tasks allocation proved to be quite with programmes of studies in archaeology been efficient. It greatly contributed to the stabilisation of the institutional infrastructure. In all the 703 The most extreme was the situation in Slovakia, where Yugoslav republics, archaeological work was orthe Academy of Sciences employed about 30% of the ganised similarly, making cooperation between entire archaeological staff; in Slovenia, this figure was institutions and individuals significantly easier. 10% (Pintarič and Novaković 2008) and in Hungary much lower – only 5% (Discovering the Archaeolo- In the first two decades after the war, the Yugo-gists of Hungary (2008)). These figures were different slav Archaeological Society played an important in the years before the 1990s, when there were no pri- role in coordinating major archaeological works, vate archaeological companies or services and when the number of research-oriented excavations exceeded supervising the various republics’ archaeologies, the number of preventive excavations. and establishing modern infrastructure in the 430 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 430 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 less-developed parts of the country. However, Belgrade and in 1949 Director of the Archaeolog-the increase in the number of archaeologists and ical Museum in Skopje; Draga Garašanin (1921– new institutions, above all local museums, made 1997), who was employed as Director of the Mu-the situation increasingly complex, leading to the nicipal Museum in Belgrade in the late 1940s. greater autonomy of among the archaeologies. Also, the positions of museum curators were highly esteemed: Blaga Aleksova became a cura- tor at the Municipal Museum in Skopje in 1948, Short note on women in archaeology Nada Miletić and Ružica Drechsler Bižić in the in Yugoslavia Provincial Museum in Sarajevo in 1950 and 1952, respectively, and Milica Kosorić in the Museum The history of women in Yugoslav archaeology of Požarevac, Serbia in 1955. In the mid-1950s, is still to be studied and written. I have included there were also the first women employed at the this topic because women’s emancipation was universities, such as Tatjana Bregant (1932–2002) also closely connected with the socialist/com- in Ljubljana and Aleksandrina Cermanović Kuz-munist ideology in Yugoslavia. A brief survey manović (1928–2001) in Belgrade. Although it is of archaeological institutions and activities in difficult to obtain figures for active archaeolo-Yugoslav lands demonstrate that women as pro- gists in Yugoslavia in the 1950s, I estimate that at fessionals (e.g. museum curators, researchers, least 20% or some 60 to 80 archaeologists in the university professors) appeared only after the country were women. Second World War. The only exception I found was Paola Korošec, who became a curator in the But there are much more exact figures for the Provincial Museum of Sarajevo in 1939 or 1940. year 1980 (published in the journal Arheo 1, 1981) Prior to that period a smaller number of women when among 404 listed archaeologists in Yugo-worked in much less visible posts as technicians, slavia, 165 were women (40%). In the next ten research assistants and record keepers. In 1944 years, the ratio between male and female artwo women archaeologists started their careers: chaeologists became even more balanced (54% Irma Čremošnik (1916–1990) at the Municipal to 46%, and the total number of archaeologists Institute for the Protection of Antiquities in Bel- was 535, see Arheo 8, 1989). To obtain a more grade and as curator of the classical antiquities correct image, these figures should be compared at the Prince Paul Museum in Belgrade (in 1947, with other countries and the differences between she was appointed curator for medieval archae- the jobs should be taken into account. Neverthe-ology at the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo), less, in 1940, only one female archaeologist was and Ksenija Vinski-Gasparini (1919–1995) at the employed in the country, while fifty years later, Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, where she there were nearly 250. Of course, many factors stayed all of her career. contributed to the gender-balanced structure in Yugoslav archaeology. Still, one cannot ignore The situation changed radically soon after 1945 the effects of the emancipatory social environ-when there was a great demand for archaeolo- ment. However, if the gender structure was gists in enlarged or newly established institu- relatively balanced when looking at local and tions. The earliest employment records of wom- regional institutions, this was not so much the en archaeologists reveal that they were mostly case when speaking about the leading positions very young (between 25 and 35 years old). Some in national institutions or high officials of the na-of them were appointed to positions of directors tional/republican archaeological societies. In the of institutions or heads of departments. Such 40 years of history of the Yugoslav Archaeolog-cases included Dušanka Vučković Todorović ical Society, the only female president was Oli- (1912–1998), who was in 1946 Director of the vera Žižić at the very end of this organisation’s Ancient Department at the National Museum in existence (1988–1991). 431 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 431 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 It should be stressed that gender issues were experiences and personal contacts from pre-war not present in the discourse in Yugoslav ar- times, but it was still not easy to re-establish chaeology before 1991. The gender perspective communication. New grounds needed to be de-in archaeology was only at its beginnings in the veloped in new political circumstances. To put 1980s in the USA and Europe, and it was simply it somewhat ironically, if the new archaeologists too early for it to appear in Yugoslavia. That not after the Second World War had to develop co-everything was fine can be seen in the critical operation in archaeology to fit the common state, studies which started to appear after 2000 in the in the 2000s the issue was (and still is) to create post-Yugoslav countries. new concepts of cooperation beyond the state(s). One might say that the former inter-republican cooperation would simply become an inter- Post-’Yugoslav’ developments national one, but it is not that straightforward. What actually emerged has been more features The developments in individual national archae- of regional cooperation, halfway to wider inter-ologies after the end of Yugoslavia are presented national cooperation. A history of joint achieve-in their respective chapters. Here I would like to ments in working in the one-country system, share some thoughts on the recent collaborations sharing a common archaeological heritage and among them. research topics, and linguistic and cultural close- ness could not be easily ignored and forgotten. During the wars between 1991 and 1995, almost That this was the case can be seen in the numer-all institutional cooperation in culture and sci- ous bilateral and multilateral projects and initi-ence between the former republics was broken, atives among the states that have emerged after and largely also the personal collaborations. the dissolution of Yugoslavia. This cooperation Since contrasting interpretations of the past were has also developed as part of larger international in the focus of nationalist discourse in all of the aid projects, projects related to joining the Euro-newly established countries, a significant por- pean Union and other initiatives to establish a tion of their heritage was deliberately destroyed more cooperative and stable social and economic to reject others’ identity and presence. The role climate in the Balkans. The first attempts were of archaeology and archaeological heritage in the very modest and mostly stemming from person-wars in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and al contacts, and the collaborations among insti-1995 is yet to be explored in more detail. Several tutions commenced somewhat later. domestic and foreign papers have tried to reflect on this issue (e.g. Chapman 1994; Novaković The initiatives for renewing cooperation first 2007b; Babić 2002; Carlton 1994), but these were emerged in Slovenia, which maintained relatively mainly brief observations and nothing like com- good relations with all the newly formed coun-prehensive analyses.704 tries. Thanks to its favourable economic circum- stances and its status as an EU-country over the Only from 2000 onwards, when the distinctly na- last fifteen years, the Slovene institutions have tionalist regimes, especially in Croatia and Ser- launched a series of initiatives and smaller-scale bia, were no longer in power, was the restoration projects with Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herze-of ties and cooperation made possible. These govina and N. Macedonia. In the last ten years, early initiatives largely derived from the positive there have been more than twenty such projects. The most active in this field were the universities 704 Not listed here are the papers by specialists, i.e. conser- in Ljubljana and Koper, which worked with part-vators describing the war damage and listing the de- ners in all the new states. Two large multilateral stroyed or damaged monuments. There were many such reports, and they provided a more comprehensive im- projects in university education need to be accen-age of the impact of war on the archaeological heritage. tuated here – the ARHEOPED student exchange 432 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 432 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 network and the BIHERIT. The ARHEOPED net- the project, more than 300 classes of archaeology work was established in 2006 and coordinated and heritage science were held, three field schools by the Department of Archaeology, University of were organised for the students from Bosnia and Ljubljana.705 Through this network, which until Herzegovina, equipment necessary for teaching today has received more than 700 months of ex- and archaeological fieldwork was purchased, and change grants, thirteen archaeology departments the archaeological libraries at the universities of from Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herze- Sarajevo, Banja Luka and Tuzla were significant-govina, N. Macedonia, Slovakia, Poland, Roma- ly enriched. Moreover, some of the key textbooks nia and Albania have been exchanging students and teaching materials were published. Finally, and teachers. The effects have been highly pos- some younger local scholars gained their PhDs itive, above all for students from non-EU coun- at partner universities. Assistance in developing tries and outside the ERASMUS programme. For the archaeological curricula at the University of many years ARHEOPED was virtually their only Sarajevo also continued after 2014, with teachers possibility of acquiring or upgrading their knowl- from the Universities of Zagreb and Ljubljana. In edge and gaining experience outside their own 2019, another project united partners from Slove-countries. The network also proved to be a real nia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and hub for many other initiatives and joint projects. Cambridge was launched, namely HERISTEM And last but not least, the ARHEOPED network (STEM in Heritage Sciences), in a strategic part-also contributed to improving the relationships nership programme of ERASMUS +. between archaeological institutions and universi- ties in general in times still burdened by the war. An important aspect of all the projects men-The situation in 2006, when the network was es- tioned above and also many other initiatives was tablished, was still very much ‘post-war’. the consideration that in the current distribution of wealth and power in the European world of The BIHERIT project (2012–2014) was of a differ- academia, the possibilities for development are ent kind. The project resulted from the initiative much better and more sustainable if archaeologi-of archaeologists from the Universities of Saraje- cal institutions from the more marginalised parts vo and Ljubljana to modernise and infrastructur- (SE Europe in general) jointly organise their ally equip the archaeological and heritage-relat- initiatives. In this way, they also have great-ed curricula in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where er chances to overcome their still marginalised there were no university curricula in archaeolo- status within their countries and increase their gy, ethnology or art history until the late 2000s. competitiveness in the European and global con-The initial teaching level was very modest due to texts. Despite the great crisis that the world is the great lack of local experts and material infra- presently facing, one can look at this challenge structure. An international consortium was cre- with optimism which is rooted in the historical ated for implementing an extensive programme experience of the development of archaeology of aid archaeology and heritage sciences in Bos- in the post-Yugoslav countries over the last cen-nian and Herzegovinian universities.706 Within tury. Nearly all the national archaeologies were in a marginal position in relation to top centres 705 The network was established in 2006 within CEEPUS of knowledge in Europe; they survived radical (the Central European Exchange Programme for Uni- political and social changes, which numerous versity Studies). European archaeological schools were spared 706 Project BIHERIT (‘Curricular reform of heritage scienc- es in Bosnia and Herzegovina’) was funded by the EU TEMPUS program. The ‘providing’ partners were the Banja Luka and the University of Tuzla, the Museum universities from Ljubljana, Primorska, Koper, Vienna, of Kozara in Prijedor, the Regional Museum of Travnik Cambridge and Berlin (the Free University). The ‘re- and the Commission to Preserve the National Monu- ceiving’ partners were the Bosnian-Herzegovinian in- ments of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The budget of this stitutions, the University of Sarajevo, the University of project was quite considerable (ca. 600,000 euros). 433 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 433 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 from, and were forced many times to build the but by contributing its authentic knowledge and scientific system almost from the ground up. experiences to the international community, and And yet they managed to reach a level compa- vice versa, accepting and respecting similar con-rable to other archaeologies in the international tributions of others. context in relatively short periods. This vitality of archaeology and the rich pool of experience gained through the evolution of this discipline in the countries in question provide the new gener- ation of archaeologists with a firm basis to face this challenge. The challenge is now even greater because archaeology today is no longer the same as a generation ago, along with the new knowl- edge acquired in the last decades; the conditions that determine archaeology’s social status, role and priorities of archaeological thinking and practice are different. By rule of thumb, archaeologists and archae- ological institutions’ regional cooperation is presently at a level similar to that in the 1980s, if not higher, in terms of the number of projects and initiatives and people involved. However, we should consider that digital technology has enormously increased communication per se and enabled new contents and practices. There are more local, regional and international conferenc- es, and there are also more resources for various kinds of mobility. The number of publications has also increased considerably. In short, the conditions for cooperation have never been so favourable in science. In this process new issues emerge, challenging some traditional views and concepts of science, such as a ‘national’ concept of archaeology or ar- chaeological heritage. If, in the 1980s when the Yugoslav-programmed coordination was at its end and replaced by the ‘mosaic of autonomous national archaeologies’, the challenge now is not how to secure or maintain ‘national’ identities of archaeology but how to make archaeology na- tional, regional, European and global at the same time. These are not different domains but simply different scales or wavelengths at which archae- ology operates simultaneously. In other words, archaeology should not be international by vir- tue of researching outside its domicile country, 434 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 434 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 Images Fig. 215 Participants at the first meeting of Yugoslav archaeologists in Dobrna near Celje (1921). Ilustrovani list. 1922a. “Iz života našega društva“. Ilustrovani list 38, 5–12. 11. 1922, 13. Fig. 216 Leon Ružička (1866–1931), Fig. 217 Countess Praskovya Sergeevna Austrian-Hungarian (Jewish-Romanian) Uvarova (1840–1924). Russian industrialist and numismatician, initiator archaeologist, President of the Moscow and host of the first meeting of Yugoslav Archaeological Society; after 1918 she archaeologists in Dobrna in 1921. emigrated to Yugoslavia and lived in Dobrna; participated in the meeting of archaeologists in 1921. 435 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 435 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 Fig. 218 Excursion of the participants at the second meeting of Yugoslav archaeologists in Belgrade (1922) to the monastery of Manasija. Ilustrovani list. 1922b. “Iz života našega društva“. Ilustrovani list 45, 23–30. 11. 1922, 2. Fig. 219 Participants at the first meeting of Yugoslav archaeologists in Dobrna near Celje (1921). Ilustrovani list. 1922a. “Iz života našega društva“. Ilustrovani list 38, 5–12. 11. 1922, 13. 436 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 436 22. 10. 2021 11:06:21 Fig. 220 First Meeting of the new organization of Yugoslav archaeologists (Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia) in Niška Banja, Serbia, 3rd–13th of May, 1950. (Photo Narodne novine 3. 5. 1950). Fig. 221 Group of archaeologists in Niška Banja congress (1950): Draga and Milutin Garašanin (top row), Josip Klemenc, Ruža Drechsler Bižić and Paola Korošec (middle row), Josip Korošec (bottom row). Legacy of Ruža Drechsler Bižić, courtesy of Darko Periša. 437 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 437 22. 10. 2021 11:06:22 Fig. 222 Hotel Riviera in Pula which hosted the participants of the 2nd Congress of Yugoslav Archaeologists in 1953. Fig. 223 Decision of the Pula Municipality to finance the exursion to Poreč during the 2nd Congress in Pula. Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Istria. 438 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 438 22. 10. 2021 11:06:22 Fig. 224 Press clip from Slobodna Dalmacija (Split, 26. 3. 1956) about the 3rd Congress of the Yugoslav Archaeological Society. Fig. 225 Press clip from Politika (12. 6.1558) reporting about the participation of Yugoslav archaeologists at the 5th UISPP Congress in Hamburg (1958). 439 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 439 22. 10. 2021 11:06:22 Fig. 226 Two press clips from Oslobodjenje (Sarajevo 13. 5. 1958 (left) and 16. 5. 1958 (right)) about the 4th Congress of the Yugoslav Archaeological Society. 440 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 440 22. 10. 2021 11:06:23 Fig. 227 8th Congress of Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia in Bor (28. 9.–2. 10. 1969). Newspaper Kolektiv, 3. 10. 1969. Fig. 228 Invitations to the organizers of the 8th UISPP Congress in Belgrade (1971) to the receptions hosted by the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia (top), French Ambassador (middle) and Mayor of Belgrade (bottom). Courtey of the Archaeological Institute Belgrade. 441 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 441 22. 10. 2021 11:06:23 Fig. 229 Visit to Gomolava tell-site during the 8th UISPP Congress in Belgrade (1971). Fig. 230 Press clip from Slobodna Dalmacija (Split, 25. 10. 1972) about the 9th Congress of the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia. 442 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 442 22. 10. 2021 11:06:23 Fig. 231 10th Congress of Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia in Prilep (19.–23. 10.1976). Newspaper Naroden glas (22. 10. 1976). Fig. 232 Bronze Age charriot from Dupljaja, Serbia, Fig. 233 Informator, newsletter of the Archaeological inspiration for the official logo of the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia and (later) Association of Society ofYugoslavia. Courtesy of the National Archaeological Societies of Yugoslavia. Photo: Museum Belgrade. Informator in a joint issue with Arheo (Journal of the Slovene Archaeologiocal Society). 443 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 443 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 Fig. 234 Group of archaeologists at 11th Congress of the Association of Archaeological Societies of Yugoslavia in Mostar (1980). Courtesy of Darko Periša. Fig. 235 Archaeologists at the 13th Congress of the Association of Archaeological Societies of Yugoslavia at Bled 1988. Archive of the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. 444 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 444 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 Fig. 236 ANARHEOLOGIA – Logo of the meeting of students of archaeology from the universities of Ljubljana, Belgrade, Zagreb, Zadar and Skopje in Petnica, Serbia; the last 'Yugoslav' event, July 1990. Courtesy of the Petnica Science Center. 445 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 445 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 446 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramić, M. (1925a). Poetovio: Führer durch die Denk- Arheološka karta na Republika Makedonija. Vol. 1, (1994). mäler der römischen Stadt. Wien. Vol. 2, (1996). Vol. 3, (2002). Skopje: Makedons- Abramić, M. (1925b). Poetovio: vodnik po muzeju in ka akademija na naukote i umetosti, Muzej na stavbnih ostankih rimskega mesta, Ptuj, 1925. Makedonija. Accoltisi, F. (1507). Libellus de mirabilibus civitatis Pute- Arheološka najdišča Slovenije (1975). Ljubljana: Držav-olorum et locorum vicinorum ac de nominibus virtuti- na založba Slovenije. busque balneorum ibidem existentium. Napoli. Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine (1988). Sarajevo: Actes du VIIIeme Congres de UISPP I-III (1971–1973). Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine. Belgrade 1971–1973. Arhiđakon, T. (2003). Povijest salonitanskih i splitskih Adams, F.W. (1954). Tabula Imperii Romani. Ameri- posvijećenika. Književni krug Split. can Journal of Archaeology 58 (1), 45 -51. Babić, B. (1972). Crepulja, crepna, podnica – posebno Agoli, E. (2019). The Late Prehistory in Albania: a Re- značajan oslonac za atribuciju srednjevekovnih view of Theory, Strategies of Research, and Valor- arheoloških nalazišta Balkanskog poluostrva ization of Archaeological Heritage. In: I. Miloglav Slovenima poreklom sa Istoka. In: Materijali IX. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Scientific Con- Simpozijum Srednjevekovne sekcije Arheološkog ference, Methodology and Archaeometry 5. Zagreb: društva Jugoslavije, Prilep 1970, Beograd: Savez ar- Croatian Archaeological Society: Faculty of Hu- heoloških društava Jugoslavije, 101–124. manities and Social Sciences of the University of Babić, B. (1976). Die Erforschung der altslavischen Zagreb, 2019. 25–41. Kultur in der SR Mazedonien. Zeitschrift für Aitchson, K. (2009). After the ‘gold rush’: Global ar- Archäologie 10–76/1, Berlin: Zentralinstitut für chaeology in 2009. World Archaeology, vol. 41, Is- Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie sue 4, 659–671. der Wissemschaften der DDR, 59–73. Aleksova, B. (1954). Arheološki naogališta na dolniot Babić, B. (1986). Materijalnata kultura na makedonskite tek na rekata Topolka. Glasnik na Muzejsko-konzer-Sloveni vo svetlinata na arheološkite istražuvanja vo vatorsko društvo na N.R. Makedonija, Vol. 1. Nr. 4 , Prilep. Prilozi na istorijata na kulturata na Makedon- 51–68. skiot narod. Prilep: Institut za istražuvanje na sta- Aleksova, B. (1957). Naodi od srednevekovniite roslovenskata kultura. grobovi vo Kratovo. Glasnik na Institutot za nacion- Babić, S. (2002). Still innocent after all these years. In: alna historija 1.1., 7–43. P. Biehl, A. Gramsch and A. Marcziniak (eds.) Aleksova, B. (1967). Bargala–Bregalnica vo svetlinata 2002. Archäologien Europas/Archaeologies of Europe. na novite arheološki istražuvanja. Glasnik na Insti- Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, New tutot za nacionalna historija 3, 5–50. York/Munich/Berlin: Waxmann, 309–321. Aleksova, B. (1969). Pridones od istražuvanjata od Babić, S. (2011). Close-Reading of the Prehistory of Yugo-Bargala–Bregalnica za osvetluvanjeto na istorijata slav Lands. Paper presented at the Meeting of the na Južnite Sloveni. Posebna Izdanja XII, Centar za European Association of Archaeologists in Oslo, balkanološka ispitivanja 4, 105–114. 14–18.9.2011. Allcock, J.B. (2000). Explaining Yugoslavia. London: Babić, S. and Tomović M. (1994). Milutin Garašanin – Hurst & Company. Razgovori o arheologiji. Beograd: 3T d.o.o. Apih, E. (1973). Rinnovamento e illuminismo nel ’700 Babić-Janeska, G. (1986). Za životot i deloto na Boško italiano. La formazione culturale di Gian Rinaldo Car-Babić. Zbornik posveten na Boško Babić, Prilep: In- li. Trieste: Deputazione di storia patria per la Ven- stitut za istražuvanje na staroslovenskata kultura, ezia Giulia. 9–12. Aranđelović-Garašanin, D. (1954). Starčevačka kultura. Bačkalov, A. (1998). Rani srednji vek. In: Arheološko Univerzy v Ljubljani. blago Kosova i Metohije od neolita do ranog srednjeg Archäologische Karte der Rheinprovinz 1, Blat Trier-Met- veka, Galerija Srpske akademije nauka i umetnos- tendorf (1932). Publikationen der Gesellschaft für ti, Beograd, 372–391. Rheinische Geschichtskunde, Bonn 1932. 447 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 447 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 Bailey, D. (2002). Bulgarian archaeology: ideology, Bandović, A. (2019). Miodrag Grbić i nastanak kul-sociopolitics and the exotic. In: L. Meskell (ed.) turno-istorijske arheologije u Srbiji. PhD dissertation. 2002. Archaeology under Fire. 2. Taylor and Francis, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade 87–110. Bankoff, A. and Winter, F. (1981). Brooklyn Col- Bakić – Hayden, M. (1995). Nesting Orientalisms: The lege-Beograd Narodni Muzej Excavations at No- Case of Former Yugoslavia. Slavic Review. Vol. 54, vacka Cuprija 1980. Archaeological News 10 (1/2), No. 4 (Winter, 1995), 917–931. 9–12. Bakić-Hayden, M. and Hayden R.M. (1992). Oriental- Bankoff, A. and Winter, F.A. (1982). The Morava Valist Variations on the Theme “Balkans”: Symbolic ley Project in Yugoslavia: Preliminary Report, Geography in Recent Yugoslav Cultural Politics. 1977–1980. Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 9, No. Slavic Review, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), 1–15. 2, 149–164. Baković, M. (2012). The Princely Tumulus Gruda Bol- Bankoff, A. and Winter, F. (1983). The Lower Morava jevića Podgorica, Montenegro. In: Ancestral Land-Project in Yugoslavia. In: D. R. Keller and D. W. scape. Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages Rupp (eds.), Archaeological Survey in the Mediterra- (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – nean Area, BAR International Series 155, London, Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.), Proceedings of the 203–205. International Conference held in Udine, May 15th- Barić, D. (2012). Archéologie classique et politique 18th 2008. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient et de la Médi-scientifique en Bosnie-Herzégovine habsbourgo- terranée Jean Pouilloux, 2012. 375–381. (Travaux ise : Carl Patsch à Sarajevo (1891–1918), Revue ger- de la Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée. manique internationale [Online], 16 | 2012. (http:// Série recherches archéologiques 58). journals.openedition.org/rgi/1340). Bakula, P. (1846). Cenno storico sella provincia di Bosnia. Barker, P. (1977). Techniques of archaeological excava-Lucca. tion. Batsford. Bakula, P. (1970). Hercegovina prije sto godina ili Topo- Barker, P. (1998). Tehnike arheološkega izkopavanja. grafsko-historijski šematizam Franjevačke kustodije i Slovensko arheološko društvo. Apostolskog vikarijata u Hercegovini, Mostar. Baš, F. (1953). Organizacija spomeniškega varstva v Balen, J. (2008). Apsolutni datumi sa zaštitnih is- slovenski preteklosti. Varstvo spomenikov 5, 1953, traživanja na prostoru Slavonije kao prilog pozna- 13–37. vanju kronologije srednjeg eneolitik. Vjesnik Arhe- Basler, Đ. (1963). Paleolitska nalazišta u sjevernoj Bos-ološkoog muzeja u Zagrebu 41, 17–35. ni. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine Balen, J. (2011). Đakovo – Franjevac – kasnobakrenodobno XVIII, Sarajevo, 1963., 5–24. naselje. Musei Archaeologici Zagrebiensis Catalo- Basler, Đ. (1972). Arhitektura kasnoantičkog doba u Bosni gi et Monographiae 7, Zagreb. i Hercegovini. Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo. Balen, J. and Čataj, L. (2014). Sopotska kultura. In In: Basler, Đ. (1976). Paleolitsko prebivalište Badanj kod J. Balken, T. Hršak and R. Šošić Klindžić (eds.), Stoca. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja XXIX, (1974), 5–13. Darovi zemlje. Neolitik između Save, Drave i Dunava Basler, Đ. (1979). Rad na istraživanju paleolitskog i / Gifts of the earth. The Neolithic between the Sava, mezolitskog doba u Bosni i Herzegovini; Nal- Drava and Danube. Arheološki muzej Zagreb, azišta paleolitskog i mezolitskog doba u Bosni i 59–73. Hercegovini; Paleolitske i mezolitske regije i kul- Balen, J. (2018). Badenska kultura / The Baden Cul- ture u Bosni i Hercegovini. In: Praistorija jugoslov- ture. In: Povratak u prošlost: Bakreno doba u sjevernoj enskih zemalja, vol. 1., Paleolitsko i mezolitsko doba, Hrvatskoj / Back to the Past: Copper Age in Northern Akademija nauka i umetnosti Bosne i Hercego- Croatia. Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, 65–85. vine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo. Baltić, J. (1991). Godišnjak od Dogadjajah cérkvenih, svèt- Basler, Đ. (1988). Paleolitsko i mezolitsko doba. Arhe-skih i promine vrimenah u Bosni. ološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, Tom 1. Sarajevo. Bandović, A. (2014). Muzejski kurs. Unpublished pa- Basler, Đ. (1975). Crvena Stijena: zbornik radova. Ed-per presented at the conference Srpska arheologija ited by Basler Đ., Nikšić: Zajednica kulturnih između teorije i činjenica. Odeljenje za arheologiju, ustanova. Filozofski fakultet Beograd, 29.03.2014. Batović, Š. (1979). Jadranska zona. In: Praistorija Jugo- Bandović, A. (2016). Naučne mreže Miodraga Grbića slavenskih zemalja, tom. 2, Neolit, Akademija nauka i njihov uticaj na srpsku arheologiju, Etnoantro- i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za bal- pološki problemi 11, 3, 831–852. kanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, 473–634. 448 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 448 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 Bauer, A. (1974). Dvadesetpeta godišnjica Zavoda za Benac, A. (1977). Prediliri, Protoiliri, Prailiri. Neki zaštitu spomenika kulture BIH. Informatica museo-novi aspekti, Balcanica III, Srpska akademija nau- logica, vol. 5, no. 24, 1974, 9–13. ka i umetnosti, 1977, 1–16. Bayer, J. and Brodar, S. (1928). Die Potočka Höhle, Benac, A. (1979). Predgovor. In: Praistorija jugosloven-eine Hochstation der Aurignacschwankung in die skih zemalja, Volume I, Paleolit i mezolit. Sarajevo: Ostalpen. Prähistorica 1, Wien, 1–13. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercego- Beautiful and Green (2015) . Beautiful and Green, Cata- vine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 9–12. logue of Prizren Region. EC Ma Ndryshe and six Benac, A. (1979b). Prelazna zona. In: Praistorija Jugo-municipalities of Prizren region, Prizren. slavenskih zemalja, tom. 2, Neolit, Akademija nauka Begna, g. (1434). De virtis illustribus. Zadar. i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za bal- Begović, V. and Schrunk, I. (2002). Rimske vile Istre i kanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, 363–472. Dalmacije, I. dio: pregled lokaliteta. Prilozi Institu- Benac, A. (1979c). Južna Metohija. In: Praistorija Jugo-ta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 19, 113–130. slavenskih zemalja, tom. 2, Neolit, Sarajevo 1979. Begović, V. and Schrunk, I. (2003). Rimske vile Istre i Benac, A. (1986). Praistorijski tumuli na Kupreškom pol-Dalmacije, II. dio: tipologija vila. Prilozi Instituta ju. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, knjiga 5, za arheologiju u Zagrebu 20, 95–112. Sarajevo. Bekić, L. and Miholjek I. (eds.) (2009). Exploring Un- Benac, A. (ed.) (1985). Utvrđena Ilirska naselja. Akadem-derwater Heritage in Croatia. A Handbook. Inter- ija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Djela, national Centre for Underwater Archaeology in knjiga 60, Sarajevo. Zadar. Benac, A. and Čović, B. (1956). Glasinac I, Bronzano Belošević, J. (1980). Materijalna kultura Hrvata od VII do doba. Sarajevo: Zemaljski muzej u Sarajevu. IX stoljeća. SNL Zagreb. Benac, A. and Čović, B. (1957). Glasinac II. Željezno Belošević, J. (2007). Starohrvatsko groblje na Ždrijacu u doba. Sarajevo Zemaljski muzej u Sarajevu. Ninu. Arheološki muzej Zadar. Benecke et al. (Benecke N., Müller-Scheessel N., Dö- Benac, A. (1952). Prehistorijsko naselje Nebo i problem but- fler W., Kučan D., Bittmann F., Opiola D., Wolters mirske kulture. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani 1952. S., Kujundžić-Vejzagić Z., Rassmann K., Schulz Benac, A. (1962). Studien zur Stein- und Kupferzeit im W., Hofmann R., Müller J., Schüler T.) Rekon- nordwestlichen Balkan. Bericht der Römisch-Ger- strukcija procesa naseljavanja u kasnom neolitu manischen Kommission 42. Walter de Gruyter. na prostoru centralne Bosne. Glasnik Zemaljskog Benac, A. (1964). Prediliri, Protoiliri i Prailiri. Simpozij o muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu, Arheologija, teritorijalnom i hronološkom razgraničenju Ilira u pra- 50–51, 2008, 11–178. istorijsko doba. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Berisha, M. (2012). Arheološki vodič Kosova. Priština: Posebna izdanja, vol. I, Sarajevo 1964, 59–94. Ministarstvo kulture, omladine i sporta; Arhe- Benac, A. (1972a). Apport à l étude des processus eth- ološki institut Kosova. nogénétiques et à la délimitation territoriale des Bešlagić, Š. (1980). “An Austro-Hungarian list tribus illyriennes. Studia albanica, IXo année, 2, Ti-of the mediaeval standing tomb-stones ranë 1972, 172–185. (»stećak«).” Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji, Benac, A. (1972b). Mbi proceset etnogjenetike dhe vol. 21 (1), 1980, 638–647. përcaktimin e kufijve tokëskore të ilire. Studime Biasoletto, B. (2000). Viaggio in Montenegro di Fed-historike 26 (9), Tirane 1972, 4, 125–134. erico Augusto di Sassonia. Edizioni Pensa Multi- Benac, A. 1972c). Mbi proceset etnogjenetike dhe për- media, Lecce. caktimin e kufijve tokëskore të ilire. Përparimi 18, Bickle, P. (2014). Lenđelska kultura / The Lengyel Prishtinë 1972, 10–11, 1018–1029. Culoture. In: J. Balken, T. Hršak and R. Šošić Benac, A. (1973a). Obre I-A Neolithic settlement of the Klindžić (eds.), Darovi zemlje. Neolitik između Save, Starčevo-Impresso and Kakanj cultures at Raskršće. Drave i Dunava / Gifts of the earth. The Neolithic Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch- between the Sava, Drava and Danube. Arheološki Herzegowinischen Landesmusum, Band II, Heft muzej Zagreb, 74–87. A, Sarajevo: Zemaljski muzej u Sarajevu, 327–430 Bitelli, R. (1999). Claustra Alpium Iuliarum, il confine di Benac, A. (1973b). O identifikaciji ilirskog etnosa. Rapallo e il fascismo: Archeologia come esempio di con- Godišnjak XI, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, tinuità / Claustra Alpium Iuliarum, rapalska meja in 1973, 93–108. fašizem: arheologija kot primer kontinuitete. Annales Benac, A. (1975). Mlađi preistorijski periodi u Crvenoj Majora 3, Koper: Zgodovinsko društvo za južno stijeni. Crvena stijena, zbornik radova, Nikšić. Primorsko. 449 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 449 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 Bitrakova-Grozdanova, V. (2009). Istražuvači na arhe- Bošnjović, I. (2007). Demografska trijada Bosne i Her-ologijata na Makedonija od XIX i prvata polovina cegovine 1948–1991. Naučni skup Bosna i Hercego- na XX vek. In: C. Grozdanov, K. Timoski and Z. vina prije i nakon ZAVNOBIH-a. Posebna izdanja Topolinska (eds.) 2009. Otkrivanjeto i proučevanjeto ANU BIH, Knj. 37, Sarajevo. na Makedonija vo evropskata nauka do formiranje na Boué, A. (1840). La Turquie d’Europe. Paris. makedonskite državni institucuiji. Skopje: Makedon- Brišnik, D., Kajzer Cafnik, M. and Novaković, P. ska Akademija na naukite i umetnosti, 123–138. (2016). Commission for archaeological research Blažević, Z. (2008). Ilirizam prije Ilirizma. Golden mar- and its role in the Slovene system of heritage pro- keting / Tehnička knjiga. tection. In: P. Novaković, M. Horňák,, M.P. Guer- Blaževska, S. (2013). Ranata antika, helenistički peri- mandi, H. Stäuble, P. Depaepe and J.P. Demoule od vo Makedonija (Arheologija). In: P. Kuzman (eds.), Recent developments in preventive archaeology (ed.), Makedonija, Mileniumski kulturno-istoriski in Europe: proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in fakti, vol. 1, Media Print Makedonija and Univer- Vilnius, 2016. Ljubljana University Press, Faculty zitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje 2013, 637–730. of Arts, 137–152. Bojanovski, I. (1974). Dolabelin sistem cesta u rimskoj Brodar, M. (1991). Paleolitik Ciganske jame pri Žel-provinciji Dalmaciji. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti jnah. Arheološki vestnik 42, 23–64. Bosne i Hercegovine, Djela XLVII, Centar za bal- Brodar, M. (2009). Stara kamena doba v Sloveniji / Alt-kanološka ispitivanja, Kniga 2, Sarajevo. steinzeit in Slowenien. Inštitut za arheologijo. Bojanovski, I. (1977). Prilozi za topografiju rimskih Ljubljana. i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj Brodar, S. (1938). Das Paläolithikum in Jugoslawien. provinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim osvrtom na po- Quartar 1, 140–172. dručje Bosne i Hercegovine). I – Prethistorijska Brodar, S. and Brodar, M. (1983). Potočka zijalka, vi-i antička komunikacija Salona-Naronaa i njena sokoalpska postojanka aurignacienskih lovcev. Dela topografija u svjetlu arheoloških i historijskih iz- SAZU 24, volumes I and IV. Ljubljana: Slovenska vora. Godišnjak XV, Centar za balkanološka ispita- akademija znanosti in umetnosti. vanja 13, ANUBIH, Sarajevo, 83–152. Brown, E. (1673). A Brief Account of some Travels in Hun- Bojanovski, I. (1978). Prilozi za topografiju rimskih garia, Servia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Thessaly, Austria, i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Friuli: As also some ob- provinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim osvrtom na po- servations on the gold, silver, copper, quick-silver mines, dručje Bosne i Hercegovine) II – Prethistorijska i baths, and mineral waters in those parts. London. antička komunikacija Narona – Sarajevsko polje s Brukner, B., Jovanović, B. and Tasić. Ni. (1974). Prais-limitrofnim naseljima. Godišnjak XVII, Centar za torija Vojvodine. Novi Sad: Institut za izučavanje balkanološka ispitavanja 15, Sarajevo, 51–125. istorije Vojvodine, Savez arheoloških društava Bojanovski, I. (1981). Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i Jugoslavije. predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj pro- Brukner, O. (1981). Rimska keramika u jugoslovenskom vinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim osvrtom na područ- delu provincije Donje Panonije. Beograd: Savez ar- je Bosne i Hercegovine) III – Prilog proučevanju heoloških društava Jugoslavije. antičkih naselja i komunikacija u istočnoj Bosni. Brunnbauer, U. (2003). Drevna nacionalnost i vjekov-Godišnjak XIX, Centar za balkanološka ispitavanja na borba za državnost: Historiografski mitovi u 17, ANUBIH, Sarajevo, 127–197. Republici Makedoniji (BJRM). Historijski mitovi na Bojanovski, I. (1988). Bosna i Hercegovina u antičko Balkanu. Sarajevo: Institut za istoriju, 291–329. doba. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Knjiga 6, Brunšmid, J. (1913–1914). Antikni figuralni bronsani Sarajevo. predmeti u Hrvatskom narodnom muzeju u Zagrebu. Borić et al. (2019). Borić, D., Borovinić, N., Đuričić, L., Brunšmid. J. (1895). Die Inschriften und Münzen der Bulatović, J., Gerometta, K., Filipović, D., Allué, E., griechischen Städte Dalmatiens. Vušović-Lučić, Z., and Cristiani, E., Spearheading Brunšmid. J. (1902). Colonia Aurelia Cibalae. into the Neolithic: Last Foragers and First Farm- Budja, M. (1993). Neolithiuc Studies in Slovenia: An ers in the Dinaric Alps of Montenegro. European Overview., Atti della Societá per la Preistoria e Journal of Archaeology vol. 22.4, 2019, 470–498. Protostoria della Regione Friuli–Venezia Giulia 8, Bošković, A. (1997). Vinko Paletin’s Discovery of the Trieste, 7–28. New World. Anthropos 92, 200–205. Bulić, D. (2013). The Fortifications of the Late Antiq- Bošković, Dj. (1968). Dvadeset godina života i rada uity and the Early Byzantine Period on the Later Arheološkog instituta. Starinar XIX, 1–8. Territory of the South-Slavic Principalities, and 450 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 450 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 Their Re-occupation. In: T. Živković, Crnčević, Carlton, R. (1994). An Englishman in Bosnia. Arheo 16, D., Bulić, D., Petrović, V. Cvijanović, I. and Ra-79–81. dovanović B. (eds.), The World of the Slavs. Studies Casson, S. (1928). Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria. Oxford. on the East, West and South Slavs: Civitas, Oppidas, Čausidis, N. (2013). Proektot Skopje 2014: Skici za Villas and Archeological Evidence (7th to 11th centuries edno naredno istraùvanje. Skopje: AD), The Institute of History, Monographs vol. Čataj, L. (2018). Lasinjska kultura / The Lasinja Cul-64, Belgrade. ture. In: Povratak u prošlost: Bakreno doba u sjev- Bulić, F. (1917–1937). Forschungen in Salona 3 volumes ernoj Hrvatskoj / Back to the Past: Copper Age in (Austrian Archaeological Institute, Wien) and Re- Northern Croatia, Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, cherches a Salone, 2 volumes (in collaboration with 25–47. Danish Fundation Rask-Oersted). Čataj, L. (2018b). Kultura Retz-Gajary / The Retz-Ga- Bulić, F. (1922). Izvješće o djelatnosti Pokrajinskog jary Culture. In: Povratak u prošlost: Bakreno doba u Koservatorskog ureda za Dalmaciju za god. 1922. sjevernoj Hrvatskoj / Back to the Past: Copper Age in Općenite akcije. Sastanci arheologa i konservato- Northern Croatia, 49–63. ra. II. Prilog, Vjesniku za arheologiju i historiju dal- Cermanović Kuzmanović, A., Velimirović-Žižić, O. matinsku, XLV, 1–3. and Srejović, D. (1975). Antička Duklja. Nekropole. Bulkin, V.A., Klejn, L. and Lebedev, G.S. (1982). At- Cetinje: Obod. tainments and Problems of Soviet Archaeology. Čerškov, E. (1958). “Saška crkva” kod Novog Brda. World Archaeology 13, no. 3, 272–295. Starinar VII-VIII, 1956–57, Beograd 1958, 338–340. Bunguri, A. (2006). Drini I Bardhё area in Prehistory. Čerškov, E. (1968). Rimljani na Kosovu i Metohiji. Arhe-In: Harta arkeologjike e Kosovës I 2006, Museum of ološko društvo Jugoslavije, Beograd. Kosova, Prishtina and Institute of Archaeology, Čerškov, E. (1970). Municipum DD kod Sočanice. Disser-Tirana. tationes et Monographiae, Priština: Muzej Koso- Burić, M. (2014). Vinčanska kultura / The Vinča Cul- va, Beograd: Arheološko društvo Jugoslavije. ture. In: J. Balken, T. Hršak and R. Šošić Klindžić Chapman, J. (1994). Destruction of a common her- (eds.), Darovi zemlje. Neolitik između Save, Drave itage: the archaeology of war in Croatia, Bosnia i Dunava / Gifts of the earth. The Neolithic between and Hercegovina. Antiquity. Vol. 68.1, 120–126. the Sava, Drava and Danube. Arheološki muzej Za- Childe, G. (1929). The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: greb, 40–58. Clarendon Press. Burić, M. (2015). Problems of the Late Neolithic Abso- Chiudina, G. (1882). Storia del Montenero (Crnagora) lute Chronology in Eastern Croatia, Archäologie in da’ tempi antichi a’ giorni nostri. Spalato 1882. Eurasien, Vol. 31,143–156. Čihák, J. (2013). Sarajevo: Strassenbafhn und Troleybus. Burzanović, S. and Koprivica, T. (2011). Antičko rim- Bahnmedien Wien. sko nasljeđe u Crnoj Gori i italijanska spoljna poli- Cippico, C. (1594). De bello Asiatico Coriolani Cippici tika. Matica crnogorska 48 (Zima 2011), 219–230. Cepionis... libri tres. Opera Joannis Cippici nunc it- Burzanović, S. and Koprivica, T. (2019). The Roman erum impressi. Venetiis: Apud J. A. Rampazettum, city of Doclea as a focus for Italian scientists and 1594 Italian State authorities. In: L. Alberti (ed.), The Cippico, C. (1556). De origine et rebus gestis Turcorum Archeolab project in the Doclea Valley, Montenegro libri decem... Adiecimus... de rebus Turcorum adver- (Campaign 2017), Archeologia e Calcolatori, Sup- sus Christianos et Christianorum contra illos... gestis pl. 11, 2019, 19–34. diversa opuscula. Basileae: Per I. Oporinum, 1556 Buzov, M., (1996). Segestika i Siscija-topografija i Ćirković, S. (2004). Srbi među evropskim narodima. povijesni razvoj. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Equilibrium. Zagrebu 10, 1993, Zagreb, 46–68. Clayer, N. (2012). Carl Patsch et le Musée national de Cankar, I. (1922). Arheološki kongres v Beogradu. Tirana (1922–1925). Revue Germaniuque Interna- Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino 2/3–4, 164. tional 16, 2012, 91–104. Carli, G.R. (1743). Delle antichità di Capodistria. Coblenz, W. (2002). Archaeology under Communist Venezia. control: the German Democratic Republic, 1945– Carli, G.R. (1750). Relazione delle scoperte fatte nell’an- 1990. In. H. Härke, (ed.) 2002. Archaeology, Ideology fiteatro di Pola nel mese di giugno 1750 dal conte Gian and Society. The German Experience. Gesellschaften Rinaldo Carli-Rubbi, Venezia. und Staaten im Epochenwandel, Band 7. Frank- Carli, G.R. (1760). Delle antichità romane dell’Istria. furt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH Europäischer Venezia. Carli, G.R. (1778–1791). Antichità Italiche. Verlag der Wissenschaften, 308–341. 451 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 451 22. 10. 2021 11:06:24 Collis, J (2009). Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe. na_tragu_sredista_ilirske_drzave_u_skadar- Qualifications and requirements to practice. Reading: skom_basenu_o_velimirovic_zizic.html). The Institute of Archaeologists. Cunja, R. (1992). Zgodovinski oris arheoloških ra- Čoralić, L. (2018). Iz prošlosti Boke – peraški rod ziskav na Koprskem. Annales, Anali Koprskega Pri- Zmajevića. Hrvatska riječ 2, 2018, 19–24. morja in bližnjih pokrajin 2, 67–86. Corbet, C. (1961). Vialla de Sommières et son idyl- Cunja, R. (1997). Prispevek Gian Rinalda Carlija k le monténégrine. Revue des Études Slaves, Année arheološko-zgodovinskim raziskavam Istre. Acta 1961 39-1-4 125–137. Histriae 5, 51–58. Cordier, G. (1998). Le doyen Étienne Patte (1891- Curtis, G. (ed.) (1992). Yugoslavia: a country study. Fed-1987). Revue archéologique du Centre de la France, eral Research Division. Library of Congress. 27-2, 248-249. Daniel, G. (1967). The Origins and Growth of Archaeol- Cousinéry, E. (1831). Voyage dans le Macédoine. Conte- ogy. Galahad. nant des recgherches sur l’histoire, la geographie et les Daniel, G. (1975). A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archae-antiquités de ce pays. Paris. ology. Duckworth. Čović, B. (1964). Osnovne karakteristike materi- Darovec, D. (ed.) (1999). Stari krajepisi Istre. Zgodovin-jalne kulture Ilira na njihovom centralnom po- sko društvo za južno Primorsko. Koper. dručju. Simpozijum o teritorijalnom i hronološkom Dautbegović, A. (1988). Uz stogodišnjicu Zemaljskog razgraničenju Ilira u praistorijsko doba. Akademija muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu. Spomen- nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Posebna ica stogodišnjice rada Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i izdanja IX. Sarajevo, 95–134. Hercegovine 1888-1988. Sarajevo: Zemaljski muzej Čović, B. (1976). Od Butmira do Ilira. Sarajevo: Veselin Bosne i Hercegovine, 7–34. Masleša. Dautbegović, J. (2009). Iz personalnog arhiva MDC-A: Čović, B. (1983a). Regionalne grupe ranog bronzanog Ružica Drechsler Bižić. Muzejski dokumentacioni doba. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV, Bron- centar Zagreb. zano doba. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjet- Dautova Ruševljanin. V. (2005). Sistematsko zaštitna nosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za balkanološ- iskopavanja vile rustike u Hrtkovcima 2004. go- ka ispitivanja, 114–190. dine. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 21. Čović, B. (1983b). Srednjobosanska kulturna grupa; Dautović, A. and Lalević, O. (2008). Bibliografija rado-Glasinačka kulturna grupa. Praistorija jugoslaven- va dr. Zdravka Marića. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja skih zemalja IV, Bronzano doba. Sarajevo: Akadem- Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu: Areheologija, 50–51, ija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar 2008, 267–279. za balkanološka ispitivanja, 433–457; 413 –432. De Rossi, G.B. (1877). L‘ insigne piatto viteo di Podgo- Čović, B. (1986). Die Ethnogenese der Illyrier aus der ritza oggi nel museo Basilewsky in Parigi. Bulleti- Sicht der Vor- und Frühgeschichte. In: B. Wolf- no di archeologia cristiana. Seria terza. 77–85. ram and A. Kandler-Pálsson (eds.) (1986). Ethno- Delacoulonche, M. (1867). Mémoirs sur le berceu de la genese Europäischer Völker, Stuttgart – New York: puissance macédonienne des bords de l’Haliacmon a Fischer, 55–74. ceux de l’Axius. Paris. Čović, B. (1987a). Srednjodalmatinska grupa . Pra- Della Casa, P. (1996). Velika Gruda II. Die bronzezeitli-istorija jugoslavenskih zemalja V, Željezno doba. che Nekropole Velika Gruda (Opš. Kotor, Montenegro): Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Fundgruppen der mittleren und späten Bronzezeit Hercegovine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, zwischen Adria und Donau. Bonn: W. Rudolf Habelt. 442–480. Deschmann, K. (1880b). Prähistorische Ansiedlun- Čović, B. (1987b). Glasinačka kultura. Praistorija ju- gen und Begrabnisstätten in Krain I. Bericht. goslavenskih zemalja V, Željezno doba. Sarajevo: Denkschriften der k.k. Akademie der Wissenschaf- Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercego- ten, Matematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Classe. 42, vine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 575–643. Wien, 1–54. Čović, B. (1988). Naučna djelatnost u oblasti prahistori- Deschmann, K. (1888). Führer durch das Krainische jske arheologije. Spomenica stogodišnjice rada Zemal-Landes-Museum Rudolfinum in Laibach. Ljubljana. jskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 1888– 1988, Saraje- Deschmann, K. (1891). Zur Vorgeschichte Krains. Die vo: Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, 74–95. österreichisch-ungarisch Monarchie in Wort und Bild, Čukić, S. (2011). Na tragu središta ilirske države u skar- Kärnten und Krain, Wien, 305–324. adskom basenu – Olivera Žižić. (http://www. Deschmann, K. et al. (1880a). Versammlu-montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/arheologija/ ng österreichischer Anthropologen und 452 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 452 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Urgeschichtsforschers in Laibach am 28. und 29. Dimitrijević, S., Težak-Gregl, T. and Majnarić-Pan-Juli 1879. Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Ge- džić, N. (1998). Prapovijest. Naprijed, Zagreb. sellschaft in Wien X, 163–164. Dimitsas, M. (1874). Arhaia geografia the Makedoniae. Deschmann, K. (1875a). Die Pfahlbaufunde aus dem Thessaloniki 1874. Laibacher Moore, Verhandlungen der k.k. geologis- Dimitsas, M. (1896). Makedonia en lithois fthengomenois chen Reichsanhalt 15, 275-284, 1875. kai mnemeiois sozomenois. Athina. Deschmann, K. (1875b). Die Pfahlbautenfunde auf Dinklage, K. (1943). Fünf Grabungen ergaben wich-dem Laibacher Moore. Tageblatt der 48. Ver- tiges Fundgut aus Kärntens Vergangenheit. In: sammlung deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte in Kärntner Zeitung, 6, 30.Dezember, 1943, 360. Graz vom 18. bis 24 September 1875, 227-278, 1875. Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe (2008). Trans- Deschmann, K. (1876). Bericht über die Pfahlbauten- national Report. (https://www.discovering-ar- aufdeckungen im Laibacher Moore im Jahre 1876. chaeologists.eu/final-reports.html) Dezemberheft des Jahrg. 1876, Sitzungsberichte der Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe (2014). Trans-phil.–hist. Classe d. k. Akad. D. Wiss. 84, 471-484. national report (https://www.discovering-ar- Deschmann, K. (1878). Über die vorjahrigen Funde chaeologists.eu/national_reports/2014/transna- im Laibacher Moore. Mitteilungen der Antropolo- tional_report.pdf). gischen Gesellschaft in Wien 8, 65-82. Discovering the Archaeologists of Hungary (2008). Desdevises-du-Désert, T. (1862). Géographie ancienne http://www.discovering- archaeologists.eu/na- de la Macédoine. Paris. tional_reports/DISCO_HUNGARY_English_fi- Díaz-Andreu, M. (1995). Archaeology and national- nal.pdf [accessed 20.2.2014]. ism in Spain. In: P.L. Kohl and C. Fawcett (eds.) Dizdar, M., Ložnjak Dizdar, D. and Mihelić, S. (2011). Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Starija faza kulture polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hr- Cambridge University Press 1995, 39-56. vatskoj – novi izazovi, Katalog izložbe, Arheološki Díaz-Andreu, M. (2007). A World History of Nine- muzej Osijek i Arheološki muzej Zagreb, Osijek. teenth-Century Archaeology. Oxford University Press. Dizdar, M., Rapan Papeša, A. and Rimpf, A. (2017). Dimitrijević, S. (1979d). Vučedolska kultura i vučed- Rezultati zaštitnih istraživanja kasnoavarskog olski kulturni kompleks. Praistorija jugoslavenskih groblja Šarengrad – Klopare. Annales Instituti Ar- zemalja. III, Eneolitsko doba. Sarajevo: Akademija chaeologici / Godišnjak Instituta za arheologiju nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar 13, 9-18. za balkanološka ispitivanja, pp.267–341. Djurić, B. et al. (2003). Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Za- Dimitrijević, S. (1979a). Sjeverna zona. Praistorija ju- vod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Ljubljana. goslavenskih zemalja III, Eneolitsko doba. Sarajevo: Dolničar, J. G. (1688-1691). Cypressus seu Epitaphia La-Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercego- bacensis. Ljubljana. vine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 229–360. Dolničar, J. G. (1693). Antiquitates Urbis Labacensis. Dimitrijević, S. (1979b). Lasinjska kultura. Praistorija Ljubljana. jugoslavenskih zemalja III, Eneolitsko doba. Sarajevo: Dolničar, J. G. (1709). Nucleus selectarum Inscriptionum Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercego-Vetrum et Novarum. Ljubljana. vine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 137–181. Domaszewski, A. (1890). Die Grenze von Moesia Dimitrijević, S. (1979c). Badenska kultura. Praistorija superior und der illyrische Grenzzoll. Archäol- jugoslavenskih zemalja III, Eneolitsko doba. Saraje- ogisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Österre- vo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Her- ich-Ungarn XIII , 13, 129–154. cegovine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Don Frane Bulić – kalatog izložbe (1984). Arheološki pp.183–234. muzej u Splitu. Dimitrijević, S. (1979e). Retz-Gajary kultura. Prais- Dow, J. (2018). Heinrich Himmler’s Cultural Commis-torija jugoslavenskih zemalja III, Eneolitsko doba. sions. Programmed plunder in Italy and Yugoslavia. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i University of Wisconsin Press. Hercegovine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Đukić, A. (2018). Kostolačka kultura u kontinentalnoj 343–365. Hrvatskoj. In: Povratak u prošlost: Bakreno doba u Dimitrijević, S. (1979f). Problem eneolita na istočnoj sjevernoj Hrvatskoj / Back to the Past: CFopper Age jadranskoj obali. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja in Northern Croatia, Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, III, Eneolitsko doba. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i 87-111. umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za bal- Dumont, A. (1873). Bulletin de la Société nationale des kanološka ispitivanja, 367–379. antiquaries de France. 1873, 71–73. 453 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 453 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Đurić, N., Glišić, J. and Todorović, J. (1975). Praistori-Croatia and Slavonia during the troubled year 1877. jska Romaja. Prizren, Beograd. Longmans, Green and Co. Dušanić, S. (1977). Aspects of Roman mining in No- Evans, A. (1883; 1885). Antiquarian researches in Illyri-ricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia Superior’. cum I-IV, Westminster 1883 (Vols. I-II), 1885 (vols. In: H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg III-IV). und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Geschichte Evans, A. (1999). Some Observations and the present state und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung of Dardania, or Turkish Serbia (including the Vilayet II. Principat, Sechster Band. Politische Geschichte of Kosova und part of the Vilayet of Monastir) by Mr. (Provinzen und Randvölker: Lateinischer Donau-Bal- A. Evans. In: Bejtullah D. Destani (ed.), Albania & kanraum), Berlin & New York, 52–94. Kosovo: Political and Ethnic Boundaries, 1867-1946. Duval, N. and Popović, V. (eds.) (1894). Caričin Grad Documents and Maps. Slough: Archive Editions, I. Belgrade : Institut archéologique, Rome: École 1999, 257-265. Française. Fabec, T. (2003). Neolitizacija Krasa. Arheološki vestnik Dyggve, E. and Egger, R. (1939). Der altchristliche Fried- 54, 73.-122. hof Marusinac. Forschungen in Salona, III, 1939. Fabec, T. (2018). Arheologija vrtač na Krasu. Monografi- Dyggve, E. (1928). La ville de Salone. Disposition et to- je CPA 5, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine pographie. Recherches à Salone I. Copenhagen. Slovenije, Ljubljana. Dyggve, E. (1929). Neue Untersuchungen bezüglich Farbstein, R. et al. (2012). Farbstein, R., Radić, D., des Überganges über den Jaderfluss bei Salona. Brajković, D. and Miracle, P., First Epigravettian Mélanges Sisic, 561 ff. Ceramic Figurines from Europe (Vela Spila, Cro- Dyggve, E. (1934). Salona christiana. Aperçu his- atia). PLoS ONE 7 (7), 1-15. torique du développement de la ville et de ses Fasolo, M. (2003). La Via Egnatia I, Da Apollonia e constructions sous l’époque paléochrétienne. Dyrrachium ad Herakleia Lynkestidos. Istituto graf- Ravenna 1934. (Int. Congr. Arch. Christ. 1932. ico editoriale romano, Rome. 237ff.). Ferrari et al. (2018). Ferrari, A., Forenbaher, S., Miche- Dyggve, E. and Weilbach, F. (1933). Recherches à Sa- li, R., Montagnari Kokelj, M., Pessina, A., Ve- lone II. Copenhagen. lušček, A. and Visentini, P., Neolithic and Eneo- Džaja, S.M. and Lovrenović, D. (2007). Srednjevjek- lithic of Caput Adriae. In: E. Borgna, P. Cassola ovna Crkva bosanska. Poseban prilog Svjetla riječi, Guida and Corazza S (eds.), Preistoria e Protostoria Siječanj 2007. del Caput Adriae. Studi di preistoria e Protostoria Džino, D. (2014). Bosanske piramide: Pseudoarhe- 5, Firenze, 61-74. ologija i konstrukcija društvene zbilje u dayton- Fewkes, V. (1936). Neolithic Sites in the Morava-Dan-skoj Bosni i Hercegovini. Status 17, 245–252. ube area. Bulletin of American School of Prehistoric Džino, D. (2014a). Constructing Illyrians: Prehistoric Research 12, 5–81. Inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula in Early Mod- Fiala, F. and Hoernes, M. (1898). Die neolithische Sta-ern and Modern Perceptions. Balkanistica 27, 2–39. tion von Butmir bei Sarajevo in Bosnien. Ausgrabun- Egger, R. (1929). Diestädtische Kirchevon Stobi. gen in den Jahren 1894–1896. II. Teil (Schlussband). Jahresheftedes Österreichischen Archäologischen In- Viennna 1898. stituts in Wien, Band 24, 42–87. Fiala, F. (1892). Rezultati prehistoričkog ispitivanja na Elsie, R. (2011). Historical Dictionary of Kosovo. The Scare- Glasincu u ljetu 1892. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja crow Press Inc., Lanham-Toronto-Plymouth UL. IV, 1892, 389-444. Estrin, S. (1982). The effects of self-management on Fiala, F. (1893). Uspjeh istraživanja prehidtoričkih Yugoslav industrial growth. Soviet Studies, Vol. gromila na Glasincu godine 1893. Glasnik Zemal- XXXIV, No. 1, January 1982, 69–85. jskog muzeja V, 1893, 717-764. Evans, A. (1876). Through Bosnia and the Herzegóvina Fiala, F. (1894). Uspjesi prekopavanja prehistoričkih on Foot During the Insurrection, August and Sep-grobova na Glasincu godine 1984. Glasnik Zemal- tember 1875: With an Historical Review of Bosnia jskog muzeja VI, 1894, 721-760. and a Glimpse at the Croats, Slavonians, and the Fiala, F. (1895). Rezultati pretraživanja prehistoričkih Ancient Republic of Ragusa. Longmans, Green gromila na Glasincu godine 1895. Glasnik Zemal- and Co. jskog muzeja VII, 1895, 535-565. Evans, A. (1878). Illyrian letters: a revised selection of Fiala, F. (1896a). Rezultati prekopavanja prehis-correspondence from the Illyrian provinces of Bos- toričkih gromila na Glasincu godine 1896. Glasnik nia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Dalmatia, Zemaljskog muzeja VII, 1896, 421-461. 454 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 454 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Fiala, F. (1896c). Nekropola ravnih grobova kod San- Gabrovec, S. (1987). Jugoistočnoalpska regija sa za-skog mosta. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja VIII, 219-272). padnom Panonijom. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih Fiala, F. (1897). Uspjesi prekopavanja prehistoričkih zemalja, vol. 5, Željezno doba, Akademija nauka i gromila u jugoistočnoj Bosni (do Glasinca) godine umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za bal- 1897. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja IX, 585-619, kanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, 25–181. Fiala, F. (1986b). Izvještaj o prekopavanju na Debelom Gabrovec, S. (1992). Alojz Benac (1912-1992). Arhe-brdu kod Sarajeva. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja VIII, ološki vestnik 43, 1992, 205-206. 1896, 97-107. Gačić, D. (2005). Miodrag Grbić (1901-1969), život i delo. Filak, M. (2018). Makedonska kulturna dediščina kot Sremski Karlovci: Zavičajna zbirka. predmet politične manipulacije skozi prizmo ar- Gaffney, V. and Stančič, Z. (1991). GIS approaches to re-hitekturno-političnega Projekta Skopje 2014. Et- gional analysis: a case study of the island of Hvar. Lju- nolog 28, 141-159. bljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete. Filipović, D., Marić, M., Challinor, D., Bulatović, J. and Gaj-Popović, D. (1968). Bibliographie de Miodrag Tasić Ne. (2018). Natural environment and resourc-Grbić. Archaeologia Iugoslavica X, Beograd: Arhe- es, and the long life of the Neolithic settlement at ološko društvo jugoslavije, 1–6. Vinča, southeast Europe, Springer Nature 2018. Gallatay, M. and Watkinson, C. (2006). The practice of Filipović, M. (1953). Prilog istoriji naših muzeja. archaeology under dictatorship. In: M. Gallatay Muzeji 8, Zagreb-Beograd 1953, 126-127. and C. Watkinson (eds.) 2006. The practice of ar- Filow, B. and Schkorpil, K. (1927). Die archaische Ne- chaeology under dictatorship. Springer, 1–18. cropole von Trebenischte am Ochrida See, Berlin: W. Galović, R. (1956). Uvod u praistoriju Kosova i Metohi-de Gruyter & Co. je. Glasnik Muzeja Kosova i Metohije 1, 1956, 207–218. Fitzgerald, K. (2007). Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal Garašanin, D. and Garašanin, M. (1967). Crna Gora u of Mine action 11.1.2007. [accessed 20.3.2009]. praistorijsko doba; Crna gora u osvit pisane historije. Forenbaher, S. (1999). »Nakovana Culture«: State of Istorija Crne gore I. Titograd. Research. Opuscula Archaeologica 22-23, 373-382. Garašanin, D. (1954). Katalog metala. Beograd Narodni Forenbaher, S. (2018). Ljubljana i Cetina: lomčarski muzej. stilovi 3. tisućljeća prije Krista na prostoru is- Garašanin, M. (1949). Naselje i stan prvobitnog čove-točnog Jadrana / Ljubljana and Cetina: Pottery ka u Srbiji. Neolitsko doba u Srbiji. Istorijski glasnik Styles of the Third Millennium BC in the Eastern 2, 38–67. Adriatic. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu Garašanin, M. (1951). Hronologija Vinčanske grupe. 35, 113-157. Doktorska disertacija, Ljubljana: Filozofska Forenbaher, S., Kaiser, T. and Miracle, P. (2013). Dat- fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. ing the East Adriatic Neolithic. European Journal Garašanin, M. (1956). Razmatranja o makedonskom of Archaeology 16 (4), 589-609. halštatu. Starinar V–VI (1954-1955), 29–41. Forenbaher, S. and Miracle, P. (2015). The spread Garašanin, M. (1958). Neolithikum und Bronzezeit im of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Antiquity 79, Serbien und Makedonien. Bericht der Römisch-Ger- 514-528. manischen Kommission 39, 1–130. Forić, M. (2013). 50 godina Centra za balkanološka Garašanin, M. (1961). The Neolithic in Anatolia and ispitivanja ANU BIH. Pedeset godina Centra za bal-the Balkan. Antiquity 35, 246–280. kanološka ispitivanja Akademije nauka i umjetnosti Garašanin, M. (1962). Chronologische und ethnische Bosne i Hercegovine 1963-2013. Sarajevo: ANU BIH Probleme der Eisenzeit auf dem Balkan. Atti del CBI, 5 –49. VI Congresso Internazionale delle scienze preistoriche Forlati Tamaro, B. (1984). La Societa Istriana nei suoi e protostoriche I, Firenze: Sansoni ed., 179–195. cent’ anni di storia 1884- 1984 . Atti e memorie della Garašanin, M. (1967). Praistorija Crne Gore. Materija-Societa istriana di archeologia e storia patria, n.s. vol. li IV, Herceg Novi, Beograd: Arheološko društvo 32, 1–7. Jugoslavije. Fortis, A. (1774). Viaggio in Dalmazia. Venezia. Garašanin, M. (1973). Praistorija na tlu SR Srbije I, II. Gabrovec, S. (1970). Dvozankaste ločne fibule. Godišn- Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga. jak 8, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 6. Saraje- Garašanin, M. (1973b). Die späteisenzeitliche vo: Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 5–65. Nekropolen Gruppe vom Tip Gostilj im Labaten- Gabrovec, S. (1984). Merhartova šola in njen pomen lande. Godišnjak Akademije nauka i umjetnosti za slovensko arheologijo. Skica za študijo. Arheo Bosne i Hercegovine, XI, Centar za balkanološka 4, 5–9. ispitivanja, knj. 9. Sarajevo.). 455 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 455 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Garašanin, M. (1979). Vinčanska kultura. Praistorija Gimbutas, M. (eds.) (1976). Neolithic Macedonia 6500– jugoslovenskih zemalja II, Neolit. Sarajevo: Akadem- 5000 B.C. UCLA, Monumenta Archaeologica I. ija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Cen- Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology. tar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 144–212. Gimbutas, M (1974a). Introduction – Obre and its Garašanin, M. (1979b). Centralnobalkanska zona. In: place in Old Europe. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilun- Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II, Neolitsko doba, gen des Bosnich-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseum Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. IV, 1974, 5-13. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, 79-211. Gimbutas, M. (1974b). Chronology of Obre I and Garašanin, M. (1983a). Armenochori (pelagonska) Obre II. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bos- grupa. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. nich-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseum IV, 1974, IV, Bronzano doba, Akademija nauka i umjetnos- 15-35. ti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za balkanološka Globočnik, A. (1869). Die archäologische Karte von ispitivanja, Sarajevo 1983, 723-726. Krain, Mittheilungen des Musealvereines für Krain Garašanin, M. (1983b). Razvijeno bronzano doba i 2, 263–264. prelazni period (Gvozdeno doba I) Makedonije, Goldmann, H. (1933). Excavations at Stobi in Yugo-Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. IV, Bronzano slavia. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 37, doba, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Her- No. 2 (Apr–Jun, 1933), 297–301. cegovine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sa- Goldstein, I. (1995). Hrvatski rani srednji vijek. Novi rajevo 1983, 786-798. Liber, Zagreb. Garašanin, M. (1983c). Uvod. Praistorija jugoslaven- Goldsworthy, V. (1988). Inventing Ruritania. The Imskih zemalja, vol. IV, Bronzano doba, Akademija perialism of the Imagination. Yale University Press. nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Cen- Gori, M. (2017). The Aegean Seen from the north-West. tar za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo 1983, Overcoming Old Interpretative Frameworks in 703-704. the Field of Aegean – Balkan relations. In: M. Foti- Garašanin, M. and Garašanin, D. (1951). Arheološka adiss, R. Laffineur, Y. Lolos and A. Vlachopoulos nalazišta u Srbiji, Beograd: Prosveta. (eds.), The Aegean Seen from the West. Proceedings of Garašanin, M. and Garašanin, D. (1953). Arheološki the 16th International Aegean Conference, University spomenici i nalazišta u Srbiji, Knjiga 1, Zapadna Srbi- of Ioannina, Peeters Leuven – Liège, 2017) ja. Beograd: Arheološki institut, Srpska akademija Gorjanović-Kramberger, D. (1899, 1901-1902; 1904-nauka. 1905). Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina in Kroatien, Garašanin, M. and Garašanin, D. (1953b). Priručnik za Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in arheološka iskopavanja.Savezni institut za zaštitu Wien, 1899, 1901–02, 1904–05. spomenika kulture, Beograd. Govedarica, B. (2011). Gdje i kada je postojalo bakar- Garašanin, M. and Garašanin, D. (1956). Arheološki no doba. Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispiti- spomenici i nalazišta u Srbiji, Knjiga 2, Istočna Srbija. vanja 40, 2011, 45-61. Beograd: Arheološki institut, Srpska akademija Govedarica, B. (2014). Glasinac i glasinačka kultu-nauka, Beograd. ra. Lecture at Sarajevo BIHERRIT Conference, Garašanin, M. and Kovačević, J. (1950). Pregled materi- 31.3.2014. (http://tempusbiherit.ba/documents/ jalne kulture Južnih Slovena u ranom srednjem veku. lectures/Glasinac-1.pdf). Beograd: Prosveta. Govedarica, B. (2016). Das Phänomen der balkanis- Garašanin, M. (ed.) (1988). Iliri i Albanci. Beograd: cher Kupferzeit. In: V. Nikolov and W. Schier Srpska akedemija nauka i umetnosti. (eds.), Der Schwarzmeeraum vom Neolithikum bis in Gardner, J. and Smith, F. (2006). The paleopathology die Früheisenzeit (6000-600 v. Chr., Prähistorische of the Krapina Neandertals. Periodicum Biologorum Archäologie in Südosteuropa ; Bd. 30, Verlag Ma- 108, 471–484. rie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf. Gaspari, A. (2008). Temple to Wotan as a Replace- Gračanin, H. (2007). Gepidi, Heruli, Langobardi i juž- ment for the Church of the Assumption on the na Panonija. Scrinia Slavonica 7, 7-64. Bled Island. Vojaška zgodovina/Military History I Grafenauer, B. (1951). O arheologiji in zgodovini. (14), Vol. 9, 2008, 37-57. Zgodovinski časopis V, 163–174. Gaspari, A. (2014). Emona: prazgodovinska in rimska. Granić, A. (2015). Antički brodolomi dalmatin-Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljane. skog arhipelaga. (http://www.podvodni.hr/ Gavela, B. (1952). Keltski oppidum Židovar. Beograd: more/prilozi/1691-anticki-brodolomi-dalmatin- Naučna knjiga. skog-arhipelaga) 456 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 456 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Grbić, M. (1933-1934). Miloje M. Vasić: Preistorijska Hald, D. (1917). Auf den Trümmern Stobis. Stuttgart. Vinča I. Industrija cinabarita i kosmetika u Vinči. Hamernik, G. (1986). Anton Ritter vom Laurin, Dip-Beograd 1932. Starinar VIII/IX, 322–326. lomat, Sammler und Ausgräber. PhD dissertation, Grbić, M. (1938). Otkopavanja u Herakleji. Umetnički University of Vienna. Pregled 10, 310–312. Hammond, A. ed. (2004). The Balkans and the West. Grbić, M. (1954). Arheološki naogališta vo Makedonija. Constructing the European Other, 1945-2003. Ash- Glasnik muzejsko- konzervatorskog društva I, 9 –142. gate, Aldershot and Burlington. Grbić, M. and Vulić, N. (1937). Les styles de la céram- Hänsel, B. and Medović, P. (eds.) (1998). Feudvar I, ique préhistoriques des régions danubiennes Das Plateau von Titel und die Šajkaška – Titelski plato yougoslaves. Corpus Vasorum antiquorum. Fasc. 3. i Šajkaška. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südos- Belgrade. teuropa, Band 13, Kiel: Verlag Oetker/Voges. Grosman, D., Novaković, P. (1994). Arheologija na Hänsel, B., Mihovilić, K. and Teržan, B. (2015). Mon-avtocestah Slovenije I, Struktura in postopki, kodonja. Istraživanja protourbanog naselja brončanog SAAS (unpublished manuscript). Department of doba istre, Knjiga I. Iskopavanje i nalazi građevina / Archaeology, University of Ljubljana. Monkodonja. Forschungen zu einer protourbanen Guštin, M. (2005). Savska skupina lengyelske kulture Siedling aus Bronzezeit Istriens, Teil I. Die Grabung / The Sava Group of the Lengyel Culture. In: M. und der Baubefund. Monografije i katalozi 25, Ar- Guštin (ed.), Prvi poljedelci / First Farmers, Založba heološki muzej Istre, Pula. Annales. Koper. Harding, A. (1983). The Bronze age in Central and Guštin, M. (2010). Odtisi prvih slovanskih rodov na Eastern Europe: Advances and Prospects. In: Wen- območju med vzhodnimi Alpami in zgornjim dorf, F. Close, A. eds. 1993. Advances in World Ar- Jadrano,. In: P. Štih and B. Balkovec (eds.), Mi- chaeology, Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, 1–50. gracije in slovenski prostor od antzike do danes, Zbir- Harris, E. (1989). Principles of Archaeological Stratigra-ka Zgodovinskega časopisa 39, Ljubljana, 45-58. phy. (Second edition). Academic Press. Guštin, M. (2019). The formative period of Slovenian Harris, E. (1989). Načela arheološke stratigrafije. Sloven-Early Medieval Archaeology. Archeologia Mediev- sko arheološko društvo. ale XLVI, 2019, 17-26. Harta arkeologjike e Kosovës I (2006). Perzhita, L., Luci, K., Guštin et al. (2005). Guštin, M., Tomaž, A., Kavur, Hoxha, G., Bunguri, A., Peja, F., Kastrati, T. (eds.) B., Jakimovski, A., Mileusnić, Z. Tiefengraber, G. Prishtina: Akademia e shkencave dhe e arteve e and Hincak, Z., Neolitska naselbina Čatež-Sred- Kosovës, Akademia e shkencave e shqipërisë. no polje. In: M. Guštin (ed.), Prvi poljedelci / First Harta arkeologjike e Kosovës II (2012). Prishtina: Institut Farmers, Založba Annales. Koper. 101-112. arkeologjik i Kosovës. Guštin, M. and Preložnik, A. (2011). Gruda Boljevića Hawkes, C. (1934). Treasures from Carniola. Nature – kneževska humka kasnog bakarnog doba. In: 133, February 1934, 164-165. L. Saveljić-Bulatović, M. Guštin and Z. Hincak Helmut Kramberger A. (2017). Monkodonja. Is- (eds.), Podgorica, praistorijske humke i srednjovjek- traživanja protourbanog naselja brončanog doba Istre. ovne nekropole, Gruda Boljevića. JU Muzeji i galerije Knjiga 2/1 Keramika s brončanodobne gradine Mon- Podgorica, 2015, 15–47). kodonja – Tekst / Monkodonja, Forschungen zu einer Hadžihasanović, J. and Kaljanac, A. (2016). Bosnia protourbanen Siedlungv der Bronzezeit Istriens, Teil and Herzegovina: Preventive archaeology is Still 2/1 Die Kramik aus der bronzezeitlichen Gradina mon- Recovering. In: P. Novaković, M. Horňák, M. kodonja – Text. Monografije i katalozi 28/1, Arhe- P. Guermandi, H. Stäuble, P. Depaepe and J.-P. ološki muzej Istre, Pula. Demoule (eds.), Recent developments in Preven- Hencken, H. (1981). How the Peabody Museum active Archaeology in Europe: Proceedings of the 22nd quired the Mecklenburg Collection, Symbols, Fall EAA Meeting in Vilnius 2016, Ljubljana University 1981 Issue, 1-3. Press, Faculty of Arts, Ljubljana, 293-300. Herman, K. (1894). Sastanak arheologa i antropologa Hajdari. A., Kabashi. P.; Lamboley. J.-L. (2011). u Sarajevu od 15. Do 21. Avgusta 1894. Glasnik Premiers résultats des campagnes de fouilles à Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 6, 1894, Knjiga 2, Ulpiana (2006–2008). Actes du Ve colloque inter- 521-532. national de Grenoble (8–11 octobre 2008) sur l’Illy- Herman, K. (1894). Sastanak arheologa i antropologa rie méridionale et l’Epire dans l’antiquité, réunis par u Sarajevu. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja VI , 530–531. Jean-Luc Lamboley et Maria Paola Castiglioni, I. Par- Heurtley, W.A. (1939). Prehistoric Macedonia. An ar-is, De Boccard Publ., 2011, 449–458. chaeological reconnaissance of Greek Macedonia (west 457 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 457 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 of the Struma) in the Neolithic, Bronze, and Early Iron Ilić, O. (2012). Poljoprivredna proizvodnja u rimskoim Ages. Cambridge: University Press. provincijama na tlu Srbije od I do polovine V veka. Heuzey, L. (1873). Découverte des Ruines de Stobi. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Bel- Revue Archéologique 2, Paris, 25–42. grade, Faculty of Philosophy. Heuzey, L. and Daumet, H. (1876). Mission Iliria, (1976). Premier colloque des Etudes Illyriennes archéologique de Macédoine, par Léon Heuzey. Paris . (Tirana 15-20 septembre 1972). Iliria vol. 4, 1976. Hilferding, A.F. (1859). Bosna, Herzegovi- Ilustrovani list (1922a). Iz života našega društva. Ilus-na and Staraja Serbija. Sankt Peterburg 1859 trovani list 38, 5–12. 11. 1922: 13. / Александр Федорович Гильефердинг, Ilustrovani list. 1922b. Iz života našega društva. Ilus- Босния, Герцеговина и Старая Сербия, Санкт- trovani list 45, 23–30. 11. 1922: 2. Петербург 1859. Imamović, E. (1995). Korijeni Bosne i bosanstva. Međun- Hoernes, M. (1888). Dinarische Wanderungen. Vienna. arodni centar za mir, Sarajevo. Hoffiller, V. and Saria, B. (1938). Antike Inschriften aus Istorija Crne Gore, Knjiga prva. Titograd 1967. Jugoslawien (I. Noricum und Pannonia Superior). Be- Istorija na makedonskiot narod (2008). Institut za nacion-ograd: Pelikan. alna istorija, Skopje. Horvat, A. (1976/77). O djelovanju zemaljskog Pov- Iveković, M.Ć. (1922). 1. jugoslovenski arheološki jerenstva za očuvanje umjetnih i historičkih kongres. Narodna starina 2, 197–199. spomenika u kraljevinama Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji Ivetic, E. (2012). Jugoslavia sognata. Jugoslavismo delle u Zagrebu 1910-1914. Godišnjak zaštite spomenika origini. Franco Angeli s.r.l. Milano. kulture Hrvatske 2-3, 7–29. Jakšić, N. (2006). Manipulacija povijesnim spomenici- Horvat, A. (1978/79). O djelovanju Povjerenstva ma – primjer Višeslavove krstionice. In: M. Mari- za čuvanje spomenika u Zagrebu (1914-1923). nović (ed.), Povijesno nasljeđe i nacionalni identiteti, Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske, 4-5, Zagreb, 40-45. 11–35. Jakšić, N. (2016). Una vasca battesimale altomediev- Horvat, A. (1980/81). O djelovanju konzervatorske ale fra le due sponde dell’ Adriatico. In: A. Cha- službe u Zagrebu III (1923- 1941)III). Godišnjak varria Arnau and M. Jurković (eds.), Alla ricerca zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske 6-7, 15–36. di un passato complesso (Contributi in onore di Gian Horvat, J. (1990). Nauportus (Vrhnika), Dela 33, Znan- Pietro Brogiolo per il suo settantesimo compleanno), stvenoraziskovalni centre SAZU, Inštitut za arhe- Zagreb-Motovun, 243-256. ologijo 16. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znano- Jamnik, P. (2015). Višinska/gorska (mezolitska) nasti in umetnosti, 1990. jdišča kamenih indrustrij v Posočju. Goriški letnik. Horvat, J. (2020). Nauportus – Vrhnika. In: J. Horvat, Zbornik Goriškega muzeja 37-38, 177-201. I. Lazar and A. Gaspari (eds.), Manjša rimska Jamnik, P. and Bizjak, J. (2003). Kamenodobno na-naselja na slovenskem prostoru/Minor Roman jdišče na Planini Kašina pod Krnom. Triglavski Settlements in Slovenia, Opera Instituti Archaeo- razgledi 7 (10). logici Sloveniae 40, Založba ZRC Ljubljana, 2020, Jamnik, P. and Bizjak, J. (2015). Sledi srednjekameno-93-112. dobnih (mezolitskih) lovcev-nabiralvec na Rati- Horvat, J. and Vičič A. (2010). Arheološka najdišča tovcu. In: R. Rejc (ed.), Zbornik Selške doline, Železne Ptuja. Rabelčja vas. Opera instituti Archaeologici niti 12, Muzejsko društvo Železniki, 271-280. Sloveniae 20. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana. ni v tekstu Janeković-Römer, Z. (2006). O utjecaju bizantinske Horvat, M. (1990). Ajdovska jama. Znanstveni inštitut kulture u renesansnom Dubrovniku i Dalmaciji. Filozofske fakultete, Ljubljana. Anali Dubrovnika 44, 2006, 7-24. Hoxha, G. (2006). Overview of IV-VI century forti- Janković, M. (2018). Arheološke putanje i stranputice Ad-fications in the territory of Western Dardania. ama Oršića. Narodni muzej Niš 2018. In: Harta Arkeologjike e Kosovës I, Museum of Janžekovič, I. (2017). Mnogo hrupa za nič (1. del). Kosova, Prishtina and Institute of Archaeology, Zgodovinski časopis 71, 1-2, 208-245; Mnogo hru- Tirana. pa za nič (2. del). Zgodovinski časopis 71, 2017, 3-4, Hoxhaj, E. (2005). Mythen und Erinnerungen der al- 310-348. banischen Nation. Illyrer, Nationsbildung und Jireček, K. (1877). Inschrift aus Lipljan. Archaeolo-nationale Identität. Tyche 20, 47–74. gisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich, Hrvatski glasnik (2018). Pokretno kulturno naslijeđe. Wien, 66–67; Muzeji, zbirke, riznice na području Kotora. Hrvat- Josifovski, P. (2013). Moneti i monetokovanjeto vo ski glasnik, 2018, broj 154, Kotor 81-85. Makedonija vo rimsko vreme. In: P. Kuzman 458 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 458 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 (ed.), Makedonija, Mileniumski kulturno-istoriski Kanitz, F. (1892). Reise in Südserbien und Nordbulgar-fakti, vol. 1, Media Print Makedonija and Univer- ien. Vienna. Kanitz, F. (1892). Römische Studien in zitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje 2013, 931-958. Serbien. Vienna. Jovanova, L. (2013). Makedonija vo Rimskot period. Kanitz, F. (1904). Das Königreich Serbien und das Ser-In: P. Kuzman (ed.), Makedonija, Mileniumski kul- benvolk von der Römerzeit bis zur Gegenwart, Vol. 1, turno-istoriski fakti, vol. 2, Media Print Makedoni- Leipzig. ja and Univerzitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje 2013, 789 Kapidžić, H. (1973). Naučne ustanove u Bosni I Hercego- -930 vini za vrijeme austrougarske uprave. Arhiv Bosne i Jovanović, B. (1971). Metalurgija eneolitskog perioda Ju- Hercegovine, Sarajevo. goslavije. Beograd: Arheološki institut. Karavanić, I. and Janković, I. (2006). Srednji i gornjoi Jovanović, V. (2003a). Jovan Kovačević (1920-1988). paleolitik u Hrvatskoj. Opuscula Archaeologica 30, Spomenica Jovana Kovačevića. Beograd: Srpsko 21-54. arheološko društvo, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Karavanić, I. and Bilich-Kamenjarin, I. (1997). Mus-Filozofski fakultet, 9–17. terijensko nalazište Mujina Pećina kod Trogira, Jovanović, V. (2003b). Jovan Kovačević. Bibliografi- rezultati trogodišnjih iskopavanja, Opuscula ar- ja. Spomenica Jovana Kovačevića. Beograd: Srpsko chaeologica 21, Zagreb, 1997, 195–204. arheološko društvo, Univerzitet u Beogrtadu, Kastelic, J. (1960). Slovanska nekropola na Bledu. Poročilo Filozofski fakultet, 29–32. o izkopavanjih leta 1949 in 1951. Ljubljana: Sloven- Jukić, I.F. [aka. Slavoljub Bošnjak] (1851; 1878). Zeml- ska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. jopis i poviestnica Bosne. Zagreb. Kastelic, J. (1975). Arheologija Slovenije in njene Kaiser, T. (1995). Archaeology and ideology in south- dileme v XIX. stoletju. II. Seminar slovenskega east Europe. In: P.L. Kohl and C. Fawcet (eds.) jezika, literature in kulture, Ljubljana: Filozofska 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Ar- fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, 121 A panorama chaeology, Cambridge University Press, 99–119. of theoretical archaeology 125. Kajdiž, I. (2018). »Višeslavova krstionica« – problem Kastelic, J. (1998). Simbolika mitov na rimskih na-podrijetla i datacije. Rostra 9, 71-88. grobnih spomenikih. Šempeter v Savinjski dolini. Kaljanac et al. (2016). A. Kaljanac, J. Hadžihasanović, Slovenska matica, Ljubljana. M. Novšak, T. Verbić, R. Erjavec, P. Novaković, Kastelic, J. (ed.) (1962). Umetnost alpskih Ilirov in Izvještaj o arheološkim prethodnim radovima is-Venetov: situle od Pada do Donave: razstava v Narod- tražnog karaktera – plan preventivne prospekcije nem muzeju v Ljubljani, odprta 14. aprila 1962. Lju- arheološkog potencijala na lokalitetu nacionalnog bljana: Narodni muzej. spomenika Arheološko područje – prahistorijsko Kastelic, J. Škerlj, B. (1950). Slovanska nekropola na Bledu: naselje u Butmiru. Unpublished project report, arheološko in antropološko poročilo za leto 1948. Lju- Faculty of Philosophy, Sarajevo. bljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Kaljanac, A. (2012). Problem of archaeological research Katančić, M.P. (Mathius Petrus Katancsich) (1790). In of ethnogenesis: the case of the Bronze Age in Bosnia veterem Croatorum patriam indagatio philologica. and Herzegovina. Doctoral dissertation, Ljubljana: Katančić, M.P. (Mathius Petrus Katancsich) (1795). Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Specimen philologiae et geographiae Pannoniorum. Kaljanac, A. (2014). Historija arheologije. U potrazi za Katančić, M.P. (Mathius Petrus Katancsich) (1799). El-prošlošću. Univerzitet u Sarajevo 2014. ementa numismatice. Kaljanac, A. and Križanović, T. (2012). Bosansko- Katančić, M.P. (Mathius Petrus Katancsich) (1824-hercegovački antikvarizam osmanskog doba. 1825). Orbis antiquus ex tabula itineraria. Antikvari na razmeđi istoka i zapada. Godišnjak Katančić, M.P. (Mathius Petrus Katancsich) (1826-Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja ANU BIH, vol. 1827). Istri adcolarum geographia vetus. 41, 229 A panorama of theoretical archaeology Katel, M. (2006). Das ‘Ahnenerbe’ der SS 1935- 1945. 253. München: Oldenbourg Wisseschaftsverlag. Kallay, B. (1878). Geschichte der Serben. Budapest – Vi- Katsarov, G. (1921), Paeonia: Contribution to the Ancient enna – Leipzig. Ethnography and History of Macedonia (Гаврил Kanitz, F. (1861). Die römische Funde in Serbien. Vienna. Кацаров, Принос към старата етнография и Kanitz, F. (1862). Serbiens byzantinische Monumente. история на Македония) Sofia. Vienna. Kavur, B. (2008). Implementing, writing and thinking Kanitz, F. (1868). Serbien – historisch-ethnographische Palaeolithic archaeology in Slovenia, Annales, Ser. Reisestudien. Leipzig. hist. sociol. 18, 2008, 1-14. 459 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 459 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Kavur, B. and Petru S. (2003). Poznopaleolitski tabor Kolumbić, J. (1983). Benja, Juraj, In: Hrvatski bio-lovcev in nabiralcev. In: D. Prešeren, (ed.) (2003), grafski leksikon, http://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak. Zemlja pod vašimi nogami. Zavod za varstvo kul- aspx?id=1762 turne dediščine Slovenije, Ljubljana. Komelj, I. (1975). Odlok SNOS o zaščiti knjižnic, Kečkemet, D. (1966-1969). Antički spomenici Pule arhivov in kulturnih spomenikov v slovenski na slikama i u opisima stranih autora od XVI. do in jugoslovanski spomeniški službi. Varstvo XIX. stoljeća. Jadranski zbornik VII, Pula, 549– 590. spomenikov 25, 1975, 5-10. Kelmendi, T. (2015). Kulturno nasleđe kao ratni talac. Komšo, D. (2006). Mezolitik u Hrvatskoj. Opuscula In: KosovaLive360, NUNS, 24.11.2015. (http:// Archaeologica 30, 55-92. www.nuns.rs/info/activities/25841/kul- Koprivica, T., Pelcer-Vujačić, O. (2019). Historical and turno-nasledje-kao-ratni-talac.html). epigraphical survey of inscriptions from Doclea. Kilibarda, V. (2000). Il botanico italiano Bartolomeo In: Lucia Alberti (ed.), The Archeolab project in the Biasoletto e una visita del Re di Sassonia in Mon- Doclea Valley, Montenegro (Campaign 2017), Arche- tenegro. In: Bartolomeo Biasoletto, Viaggio in ologia e Calcolatori, Suppl. 11, 2019, 43-58. Montenegro di Federico Augusto di Sassonia. Edizio- Korać, V. (1958-1959). Doljani kod Titograda. ni Pensa Multimedia, Lecce 2000, 7-28. Ranohriščanska crkva. Starinar IX-X (1958-1959), Kitanoski, B. (1977). Varoš-Prilep, ranobronzenodop- 383-386. ska nekropola. Arheološki pregled 19. Korać, V. (2009). Doljani-Zlatica, Podgorica. Ostaci Kitanoski, B. (1994). Bronzeno vreme. In: Arheološka ranohriščanskih građevina. Zograf 33, 2009, 1–8 karta na Republika Makedonija, Tom 1, Makedonska Korkuti, M. (2006). Preface. In: Harta arkeologijike e akademija na naukite i umetnostite and Muzej na Kosovë s I. Perzhita L., Luci, K., Hoxha, G., Bun- Makedonija, Skopje 1994, 51-61. guri, A., Peja, F., Kastrati, T. Prishtina: Akademia Kitzinger, E. (1946). A Survey of the Early Christian e shkencave dhe e arteve e Kosovës and Akadem- Town of Stobi. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 3, ia e shkencave e shqipërisë. 81–162. Korošec, J. (1947). Staroslovenska grobišča v severni Klejn, L. (1977). A panorama of theoretical archaeolo- Sloveniji. Celje: Tiskarna Družbe sv. Mohorja. gy. Current Anthropology 18 (1), 1–42. Korošec, J. (1950). Prvo posvetovanje jugoslovanskih Klemenc, J. (1938). Archaölogische Karte von Jugo- arheologov. Zgodovinski časopis IV, 212–215. slawien. Blatt Zagreb. F. Pelikan Beograd. Korošec, J. (1950b). Staroslovansko grobišče na Ptu- Klemenc, J. (1972). Antične grobnice v Šempetru. Kata- jskem gradu. Slovensk akademija znanosti in logi in Monografije 9, Ljubljana: Narodni muzej. umetnosti, Ljubljana. Knjiga o Balkanu (1936-1937). Beograd: Balkanski Korošec, J. (1958-1959). Neolitska naseobina u Danilu institut. Bitinju: rezultati istraživanja u 1953. godini. Zagreb: Koco, D. (1948). Klimentoviot manastir “Sv. Pantele- Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. jmon” i raskopkata pri “Imaret” vo Ohrid. Godišen Korošec, J., Benac, A., Garašanin, M. and Garašanin, Zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet na Univerzitetot vo D. (1951). Oko »problematike« Vinče. Glasnik Skopje, knjiga 1, Skopje, 129-182 Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 6, 5–32. Kokole, S. (1990). Ciriaco d'Ancona v Dubrovniku: Kosovo. Biodiversity Assessment (2003). Final Report renesančna epigrafika, arheologija in obujanje an-submitted to the United States Agency for Inter- tike v humanističnem okolju mestne državice sre- national Development, May 2003. di petnajstega stoletja. Arheološki vestnik 41, 1990, Kostić, Đ. (2011). Balkanbilder von Felix Kanitz. Be-663-698. ograd: Narodni muzej. Kostovicova, D. (2005). Kolar-Dimitrijević, M. and Wagner, E. (2008). Kosovo: The Politics of Identity and Space. Rou- Brunšmid i Hoffiller, osnivači moderne sjever- tledge. Kovačević, J. (1950). Prilozi rešavanju nohrvatske arheologije. VDG Jahrbuch, Vol. 15. postanka i razvoja južnoslavenskog zlatarstva i Osijek/Esseg: Njemačka narodnosna zajednica. zlatarskih proizvoda u ranom srednjem veku. Is- Zemaljska udruga Podunavskih Švaba u Hrvat- toriski glasnik 3-4, 3–84. skoj/Volksdeutsche gemeinschaft. Landsmann- Kovačević, J. (1949). Minđuše i naušnice sa jagodama. schaft der Donauschwaben in Kroatien, 79–98. Muzeji 2, 114–125. Kolištrkoska Nasteva, I. (1994). Eneolit. In: Arheološka Kovačević, J. (1960). Arheologija i istorija varvarske kol-karta na Republika Makedonija, Tom 1, Makedonska onizacije južnoslovenskih oblasti od IV do početka VII akademija na naukite i umetnostite and Muzej na veka. Posebna izdanja Vojvođanskog muzeja II, Makedonija, Skopje 1994, 43-50. Novi Sad. 460 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 460 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Kovačević, M. (1996). Budva stari grad, o graditeljskoj Landmine Impact Survey. Handicap International baštini. Beograd. France. Http://www.sac-na.org/pdf_text/bos- Kraljačić, T. (1987). Kalajev režim u Bosni i Hercegovini nia/ BiH_FinalReport. pdf [accessed 203.2009].. (1882-1903). Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša. Lapaine et. al. (2003). Lapaine M., Perić, O., Novak, D. Kreso, M. (1979). Njemačka okupaciona uprava u Be- and Kljajić I., Vinko Paletin of Korčula, Kartografi- ogradu 1841-1944. Istorijski arhiv Beograda. ja i geoinfomacije 2 (2), 86-98. Krivokapić, M., Diamond, N. (2017). Images of Mon- Lastrić, F. (2003). Pregled starina Bosanske provincije. tenegro in Anglo-America Creative Writing and Synopsis-Sarajevo. Film, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lawler, A. (2010). Discovering the Archaeologists of Eu- Kršnjavi, I. (1883). Oblici graditeljstva u starom vieku i rope: Bosnia- Herzegovina. Leuven 2010. (http:// glavna načela građevne ljepote. Zagreb. www.discovering-archaeologists.eu/national_ Krstić, B. (2006). Zakonodavstvo arhitektonske baštine. reports/Discovering%20The%20Archaeolo- Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture, gists%20Of%20Europe%20 Bosnia%20%26%20 Beograd. Herzegovina.pdf [accessed 20.02.2014]). Kukuljević Sakcinski, I. (1875). Naputak kako se imadu Lawler, A. (2014a). Preliminary Results of the Discov-istraživati, sakupljati i čuvati starine u Hrvatskoj, ering the Archaeologists of Europe Project. Radovi Dalmaciji i Slavoniji. Zagreb sa konferencije i radionica projekta BIHERIT, Banja Kulanić, A. (2015). Bosnia and Herzegovina Islam- Luka (27.2.2014), Tuzla (8.5.2014), Sarajevo (2- ic Schools. Oxford Islamic Studies Online. Jan. 26, 3.7.2014). Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozof- 2015. (https://www.researchgate.net/publi- ske fakultete, 67–72. cation/271366500_Islamic_Schools_in_Bosnia_ Lawler, A. (2014b). Discovering the Archaeologists of and_Herzegovina). Bosnia & Herzegovina 2012-14. The Cultural Herit- Kurelac, I. (2005). Illyrica Historia Fausta Vrančića. age without Borders Foundation / Fondacija kul- Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za pov- turno naslijeđe bez granica. ijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znano- Lazić, M. (1997b). Hronologija arheoloških is-sti i umjetnosti, Vol. 22, 2015, 173-187. traživanja prof. Dragoslava Srejovića. In: M. Kuzman, P. (2008). Ploča Mićov Grad, praistoriska na- Lazić (eds.) 1997. Uzdarje Dragoslavu Srejoviću. dvodna naselba – Bay of the Bones, Plocha Michov Beograd: Centar za arheološka istraživanja Grad, Prehistoric Palafitte Settlement, Skopje-Ohrid. Filozofskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu, Kuzman, P. (2013a). Praistoriski palafitni naselbi vo 37-71. Makedonija. In: P. Kuzman (ed.), Makedonija, Mi- Lazić, M. (1998a). Arheološka zbirka Filozofskog leniumski kulturno-istoriski fakti, vol. 1, Media Print fakulteta. Filozofski fakultet 1838–1998. Peri- Makedonija and Univerzitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje od 1963–1998. Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u 2013, 297-430. Beogradu. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu, Kuzman, P. (2013b). Arhajskiot period vo Makedonija. 440–445. In: P. Kuzman (ed.), Makedonija, Mileniumski kul- Lazić, M. (1998b). Centar za arheološka istraživanja turno-istoriski fakti, vol. 1, Media Print Makedonija filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu. Filozofski fakultet and Univerzitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje 2013, 431–482 1838–1998. Period 1963–1998. Zbornik Filozofskog Kuzmanović, Z. (2012). Refleksivna priroda arheološkog fakulteta u Beogradu. Beograd: Univerzitet u Be- zaključivanja: Studija slučaja korpusa helenističnih ogradu, 445–456. nalaza u Srbiji. PhD thesis, Filozofski fakultet, Uni- Lazić, M. (ed.) (1997). Uzdarje Dragoslavu Srejoviću. Be-verzitet u Beogradu. ograd: Centar za arheološka istraživanja Filozof- Ladek, F., Premerstein, A. and Vulić, N. (1901). An- skog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu. tike Denkmäler in Serbien II. Jahreshefte des Öster- Lazius, W. (1561). Ducatus Carnioale et Histriae vna cvm reichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, Band Marchia Windorum. 1561 IV, 73–162. Leake, W.M. (1835). Travels in Northern Greece. London. Laird A. and Šoštarić, P. (2019). A Croatian Conquis- Leka, A. (2017). Muzeji, zbirke i galerije u Bosni i Herce-tador in Mayan Yucatan: Vinko Paletin’s De iure govini. ICOM – Nacionalni komitet Bosne i Herce- et justitia belli contra Indos. Colloquia Maruliana govine, Sarajevo. 28, 191-200. Lilčić, V. (1994). Antička patna mreža. In: Arheološka Lampe, J. (2000). Yugoslavia as history. Twice there was karta na Republika Makedonija, Tom 1, Makedonska a country. Cambridge University Press, Second akademija na naukite i umetnostite and Muzej na edition. Makedonija, Skopje, 112-118. 461 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 461 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Lilčić, V. (2013). Makedonija vo docnata antika (Ar- Mahr, A. (ed.) (1934). Prehistoric Grave Material from heologija). In: P. Kuzman (ed.), Makedonija, Mile-Carniola Excavated in 1905-14 by H.H. the Late niumski kulturno-istoriski fakti, vol. 2, Media Print Duchess Paul Friedrich of Mecklenburg Neé Princess Makedonija and Univerzitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje Marie of Windischgrätz. American Art Association 2013, 963-1032 and Anderson Galleries, New York. Linhart, A.T. (1788-1791). Versuch einer Geschichte von Majnarić-Pandžić, N. (2013). On the reception of Ćiro Krain und der übrigen südlich Slaven Österreichs. Truhelka's prehistoric archaeology work in Bos- Ljubljana. nia and Herzegovina after the Second World War. Ljubić, Š. (1860). Studi archeologici sulla Dalmazia. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3.s., XVVI, Ljubinković, M. (1977). Dvadeset i pet godina Saveza 2013, 289-316. arheoloških društava Jugoslavije. Arcaeologia Makedonska enciklopedija (2006). Vol. I, II. Skopje: Iugoslavica XVIII, 61–67. Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Ljubinković, R. (1951). Stanje i problemi zaštitne Malez, M. (1979). Prirodni okviri, rad na istraživanju i službe u FNRJ. Zbornik zaštite spomenika kulture 1, nalazišta paleolitskog doba u Makedoniji. In: Prais- 7-14. torija jugoslavenskih zemalja I, Paleolit i mezolit. Sara- L'Orange, H.P. (1962/63). Ejnar Dyggve, 17 ottobre jevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Herce- 1887 – 6 agosto 1961. In: Atti della Pontificia acca- govine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 407–417. demia romana di archeologia. Rendiconti 35, 1962/63, Malez, M. (1979b). Paleolitske i mezolitske regije i S. 15–26; also in Overs. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 1961- 62, kulture u Hrvatskoj. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih 103-133. zemalja I, Paleolit i mezolit. Sarajevo: Akademija Lorber, Č. (2000). Predhodniki Slovenskega arheološ- nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar kega društva (1. del). Arheo 37, 7-24. za balkanološka ispitivanja, 277-295. Lorber, Č. (2019). Uvod u proučavanje Arheološkog Mandić, M. (1930). Bosna i Hercegovina u prethistorijsko društva Jugoslavije (1949-1991). Etnoantropološki doba. Ilustrovani vodič kroz Prethistorijsko odelenje problemi 14 (3), 909-936. Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu. Sarajevo. Lorber, Č. (2021). Arheološko društvo Jugoslavije in Mandić, M. (1931). Führer durch die Vorgeschichtliche njegov pomen pri razvoju arheološke vede (1949-Abteilung des Landesmuseums. Sarajevo: Zemaljski 1991). PhD manuscript in preparation, Filozofska muzej. fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Maneva, E. (2013). Ranosrednevekovna material- Lorber, Č. and Novaković, P. (2020). Internationali- na kultura vo Makedonija In: P. Kuzman (ed.), sation as a long-term strategic project of the post- Makedonija, Mileniumski kulturno-istoriski fakti, vol. war renewal of the Yugoslav archaeology (1950- 2, Media Print Makedonija and Univerzitet Eu- 1971). Etnoantropološki problemi 15 (3), 689-715. ro-Balkan, Skopje 2013, 1263-1328. Ložar, R. (1938). Staroslovansko in srednjeveško Mano-Zisi, Đ. (1979). Caričin grad – Justiniana Prima. lončarstvo v Sloveniji. Glasnik Muzejskega društva Leskovac, Beograd: Narodni muzej Leskovac i za Slovenijo 20, 180–225. Narodni muzej Beograd. Ložar, R. (1941). Razvoj in problemi slovenske arhe- Mapiranje i tipologija predjela Crne Gore. Republički ološke vede. Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino 17, zavod za urbanizam i projektovanje, Podgorica 107–147. 2015. http://www.mrt.gov.me/ResourceManag- Ložar, R. (1974). Vojeslav Molè, Iz knjige spominov. er/FileDownload.aspx?rId=216179&rType=2) Meddobje 14, 132-144. Ljubinković, M. (1977). Marchand, S.L. (1997). Down from Olympus: Archaeolo- Lozić, G. (1864). Adnotationes variae R.P. Gregorii Lozić. gy and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Prince- Kupres. ton University Press. Ložnjak Dizdar, D. and Potrebica, H. (2017). Brončano Marchesetti, C. (1903). I castellieri preistorici di Trieste e doba Hrvatske u okviru srednje i jugoistočne Evrope. della regione Giulia. Trieste: Museo Civico di Storia Meridijani Zagreb. naturale. Luci, K. (1998) Marić, R. (1958/59). Bibliografija radova dr. Nikole Lucić, I. (Licius I.) (1666). De Regno Dalmatiae et Croa- Vulića. Starinar IX-X, xv–xxiv. tiae libri sex. Marić, Z. (1964). Problem sjevernog graničnog po- Lučin, B. (2011). 'Jedan model humanističke recepcije dručja Ilira. In: Simpozijum o teritorijalnom i klasične antike: »In epigrammata priscorum com- hronološkom razgraničenju Ilira u praistorijsko mentarius« Marka Marulića' . PhD Dissertation, doba, održan 15. i 16. maja 1964., Sarajevo. Poseb- Filozofski fakultet, Zagreb. na izdanja IV CBI l, 177-213. 462 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 462 22. 10. 2021 11:06:25 Marijanović, B. (2003). Eneolitik i eneolitičke kulture u Merc, V. (2005). Spol in arheologija. Bibliometrična Bosni i Hercegovini. Sveučilište u Mostaru. analiza Praistorije jugoslavenskih zemalja. Arheo Marijanović, B. (2007). Neka pitanja ranog neolitika is- 23, 27–34. točnog Jadrana. Archaeologia Adriatica 1, 2007, 7-54. Mihailović, D. (2014). Paleolit na Centralnom Balkanu. Marijanović, B. (2013). Activities of the Chair in Prehis- Kulturne promene i populaciona kretanja. Srpsko ar- toric Archaeology of the Department of Archaeology. heološko društvo, Beograd 2014. University of Zadar, 2013, 1 Mihailović, M. (2016). Izmeštanje Trajanove table. Marin, E. (1995). Arheološki muzej u Splitu i Boka Politika 24.2.2016, (https://www.politika.rs/sr/ Kotorska. Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji clanak/349845/Srbija/Izmestanje-Trajanove-table). 35.1, 67-80. Mihajlović, V.V. (2018). Na granicama Balkana. L.F. Marković, Č. (2006). Arheologija Crne Gore. Podgorica: Marsilji i rimska baština (1683-1701). Balkanološki CID. institut Srpske akademije zauka I umentosti, Marković, Č. i Srejović, D. (1985). Neolit Crne Gore. Be- Beograd. ograd: Centar za arheološka istraživanja Filozof- Mihajlović, V.V. (2020). Frontier Gentlemen's Club: skog fakulteta univerziteta u Beogradu. Felix Kanitz and Balkan Archaeology. In: J. Rob- Marković, Č., Srejović D. (1985). Neolit Crne Gore. erts, K. Sheppard, U. Hansson and J. Trigg (eds.), Beograd. Communities and knowledge production in archaeolo- Martinović, J. (2016). Ranohriščanske i preromaničke gy. Manchester University Press, 188-200. sakralne građevine u kotorskoj Biskupiji. Istorijski Mijović, P. (1987). Ranohriščanski spomenici Praeval-zapisi LXXXIX, br. 3-4, 2016, 35-44. isa. In: Pradavne i davne kulture Crne Gore, Titograd Marulić, Marko. Hrvatska enciklopedija, mrežno izdan- 1987, 59-83. je. Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, 2020. Milenković, M., Jakovljević, J. and Ćurković, V. http://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica. (2016). Šume na Kosovu – bogatstvo koje nestaje. aspx?ID=39221. Policy Brief. Institut za teritorijalni razvoj, Sever- Marušič, B. (1955). Staroslovanske in neke zgodnjesred- na Mitrovica, 2016; (http://www.lokalnirazvoj. njeveške najdbe v Istri. Arheološki vestnik 6, 97-133. org/upload/Publication/Documents/2016_12/ Matijaško, M. (2012). Gipsani odljevi antičkih umjet- Sume_na_Kosovu_bogatstvo_koje_nestaje.pdf). ničkih djela smješteni u prostorijama Filozofskog Miletić, N. (1956). Nekropola u selu Mihaljevićima kod fakulteta u Zagrebu, Muzeologija 46, 37–135. Rajlovca. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja 9, 1956, 9-39. Matijević Sokol, M., (2007). Krsni zdenac Hrvata. Miletić, N. (1967). Slovenska nekropola u Gomjenici Paleografsko-epiografska rasčlemba natpisa krs-kod Prijedora. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Saraje- tionice kneza Višeslava. Croatica Christiana Period- vu 21/22, 1967, 81-154. ica 59, 1-31. Miletić, N. (1988). Naučna djelatnost u oblasti sred- Matolić, M. Bibliografija radova Glasnika Zemaljskog muze- njevijekovne arheologije. Spomenica stogodišnjice ja. Priručnik za studente historije i arheologije. (https:// rada Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 1888- www.academia.edu/9658451/Bibliografija_rado- 1988. Sarajevo: Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercego- va_Glasnika_Zemaljskog_muzeja_priru%C4%8D- vine, 119–137. nik_za_studente_historije_i_arheologije) Miletić, N. (1988). Rani srednji vijek. In: Arheološki lek- McGuire, R. (1993). Archaeology and Marxism. In: sikon Bosne i Hercegovine, Tom 1, Zemaljski muzej M.B. Schiffer (ed.) 1993. Archaeological Method and Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. Theory, Vol. 5, 101–157. Tucson: University of Ar- Miletin, V. (1989-1990). Bibliografija Milutina Ga-izona Press. rašanina. Starinar XL-XLI, 9–24. Milinković, M. McPherron, A. and Ralph, E. (1970). Magnetometer (1998). Odeljenje za arheologiju. Filozofski fakultet Location of Neolithic Houses in Yugoslavia. Ex- 1838-1998. Period 1963-1998. Zbornik Filozofskog pedition Magazine 12 (2), Penn Museum Publica- fakulteta u Beogradu. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet tions, 10-17. Univerziteta u Beogradu, 425–440. Medaković, A. (2008). Feliks Mileker (1858-1942), is- Milinković, M. (1995). Die Gradina auf dem Jeli-traživač, publicista i kustos Gradskog muzeja u Vršcu. ca-Gebirge und die frühbyzantinischen Befesti- Vršac: Gradski muzej. gungen in der Umgebung von Čačak, Westser- Mehmetaj, H. (1990). Kulina a Vogël/Teneshdoll bien. Antiquite Tardive III, Revue internationale (Kulina Tenešdol), Vendobanim shumështresor d'historire et d'archéologie (IVe-VIIIe s.), 227-250. (Multistrata Settlement), Arheološki pregled 29 Milinković, M. (2015). Ranovizantijska naselja u Srbiji i (1988), Ljubljana 1990, 96–99. njenom okruženju. Dosije Studio Beograd. 463 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 463 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Milinković, M. and Tasić, Ne. (1990). Odeljenje za ar- Mitrevski, D. (2007). The beginning of the Iron Age heologiju. Naučni skup povodom stopedesetogodišn-in Macedonia. The Struma/Strymon river valley in jice Filozofskog fakulteta. Zbornik Filozofskog Prehistory, Gerda Henkel Stiftung, Sofia 2007. fakulteta. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet Univerzite- Mitrevski, D. (2013). Praistorija na Republika Make-ta u Beogradu, 375–384. donija. In: P. Kuzman (ed.), Makedonija, Mileni- Miljković, Đ. (1982). Prilog kon istorijata na muzejsko- umski kulturno-istoriski fakti, vol. 1, Media Print to delo na teritorijata na SR Makedonija. Istoriski Makedonija and Univerzitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje muzej na Makedonija, Skopje. 2013, 83-266. Miljković, Đ. (1989). Pečat muzeja Ohridske arhie- Mlakar, Š. (1958). Antička Pula. Arheološki muzej Is-piskopije iz 1516. godine. Iz muzejske prakse 3 tre, Pula. /4, 1989, 58-60. Mlakar, Š. (1962). Istra u antici. Arheološki muzej Is- Milleker, F. (1887-1909). Archaölogische Funde in tre, Pula. Süd-Ungarn aus der Zeit vor der Landname (der Mad- Mlakar, Š. (1957). Amfiteatar u Puli. Arheološki muzej jaren). Unpublished list of archaeological sites. Istre, Pula. Gradski muzej u Vršcu. Mlinar, J. (2019). Balduin Saria (1893–1974): „Ein Miloglav, I. (2018). Vučedolska kultura / The Vučed- deutschsprachiger Sohn der Untersteiermark“. ol Culture. In: Povratak u prošlost: Bakreno doba u In: K. Hruza (ed.) Österreichische Historiker : Leb- sjevernoj Hrvatskoj / Back to the Past: Copper Age in ensläufe und Karrieren 1900-1945. Bd. 3. Wien; Wei- Northern Croatia. Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, mar; Köln: Böhlau, 2019. Str. 379-403. 113-145. Mocsy, A. (1974). Pannonia and Upper Moesia. Rout- Milosavljević, M. (2015). Koncept drugosti varvarstva ledge & Kegan Paul. i varvarizacije u srpskoj arheologiji. Unpublished Molè, V. (1970). Iz knjige spominov. Ljubljana: Sloven-PhD manuscript, Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet ska matica. u Beogradu. Mommsen, T. (1873). Corpus inscriptionum latinorum Milosavljević, M. (2020). Osvit arheologije. Uvođenje III, Berlin: Königlich Preussische Akademie der kulturno-istorijskog pristupa u srednjevekovnu Wissenschaften zu Berlin. arheologiju, Dosije, Beograd. Mowat, R. (1882). Examples de gravure antique sur Ministarstvo kulture i prosvjete RH, Zavod za zaštitu verre, à propos de quelques fragments provenant spomenika kulture-Odsjek za prostorno-planske de Dukle (Montenegro). Revue archéologique 44, mjere zaštite. 296– 297. Mirabella Roberti, M. (1946). Pola: tratto della cinta Muchar, A. (1825-1826). Das Römische Noricum, murale urbana. Fasti archaeologici I, 241. oder Oesterreich, Steyermark, Salzburg. Kärnthen Mirabella Roberti, M. (1947a). Pola. Restauro del und Krain unter der Römern I, Theil I-II (1825; Tempio d‘Augusto. Fasti archaeologici II, 45–46. 1826[1827]). Graz. Mirabella Roberti, M. (1947b). Pola. Edificio fra i templi Mujkić, S. (2009). Možnosti uravnoteženega prostors-del Foro (capitolium?), Fasti archaeologici II, 303-304. kega razvoja Bosne in Hercegovine. Master thesis. Miracle, P. (2007). The Late Glacial' Great Adriatic Fakultet za gradbeništvo in geodezijo Univerze Plain': 'Garden of Eden' or 'No Man's Land' dur- v Ljubljani. http://drugg.fgg.uni-lj.si/745/1/ ing the Epipaleolithic? A View from Istria (Croa- PUM_0059_Mujkic.pdf . Ljubljana [accessed tia). In: R. Whallon (ed.), Late Palaeolithic Environ-27.011.2014]. ments and Cultural Relations Around the Adriatic, Müller, J., Rassmann, K., and Hofman, R. (eds.), (2013). BAR International Series 1716, Oxford: Archaeo- Okolište 1 – Untersuchungen einer spätneolithischen press, 41–51. Siedlungskammer in Zentralbosnien. Universitäts- Miracle, P. and Forenbaher, S. (2006). Prehistoric Herd- forschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, ers in Istria (Croatia): The Archaeology of Pupićina Band 228, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichteder Cave, Vol. 1, Monograph Series 14, Archaeological Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. Museum of Istria, Pula. Müllner, A. (1900). Typische Formen aus dem archäol- Mirnik, I. (1977a). Uz jednu stogodišnjicu: Viktor ogischen Sammlung des Krainisches Landesmuseum Hoffiller 1877-1977 . Vijesti muzealaca i konzervato- Rudolphinum in Laibach in photographischen Repro- ra Hrvatske XXVI/1977, No. 2., 5–11. ductionen, Ljubljana. Mirnik, I. (1977b). Viktor Hoffiller – Bibliografija. Vi- Munro, J.A.R., Anderson, W.C.F, Milne, J.G., Haver-jesti muzealaca i konzervatora Hrvatske XXVI/1977, field, F. (1896). On the Roman town Doclea in No. 2., 12. Montenegro. Archeologia 55, 1- 60. 464 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 464 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Munro, R. (1896). On the Roman Town of Doclea in Novaković, P. (2007b). The present makes the past: the Montenegro. Archeologia 55, 33–92. use of archaeology and changing national identities Murray, T. ed. (1999). Encyclopedia of Archaeology: The in former Yugoslavia. In: S. Rieckoff and U. Sommer Great Archaeologists, Vols. 1, 2. ABC-Clio. (eds.) 2007. Auf der Suche nach Identitaten: Volk– Stam– Murray, T., Evans, C. (2008). Histories of Archaeology. Kultur– Ethnos. British Archaeological Reports, int. Oxford University Press. series, 1705. Oxford: Archaeopress, 181–192. Muzeji Crne gore (2007) . Podgorica: Ministarstvo kul- Novaković, P. (2008). Experiences from the margins. ture, sporta i medija Republike Crne Gore. Archaeological dialogues, 2008, Vol. 15, No. 1, 36–45. Naslovi arheoloških institucij v Jugoslaviji (1981). Ar- Novaković, P. (2010). Nominacija Komisije za zaščito heo 1, Ljubljana, 52-60. nacionalnih spomenikov Bosne in Hercegovine Naumov, G. (2015). The Early Neolithic communities za European Heritage Prize, ki jo podeljuje Ev- in Macedonia. Archeologické rozhledy LXVII–2015, ropska zveza arheologov. Arheo 27, 151–156. 331-355. Novaković, P. (2012a). The “German School” and Naumov, G. (2019). Formiranjeto na prvite neolitski its influence on the national archaeologies of the zaednici vo Makedonija. Macedonia acta archaeo- Western Balkans. In: Migotti, B., Mason, P. Nad- logica 21, (2008-2011), 2019, 37-53. bath, B. and T. Mulh (eds.) 2012. Scripta in Hon- Neolitskata umetnost na teritorijata na Republika Make- orem Bojan Djurić. Monografije Centra za preven- donija / Neolithic art in the Region of Republic of Mac- tivno arheologijo 1. Ljubljana: Zavod za varstvo edonia. (2009). Narodni muzej Slovenije, Ljubljana. kulturne dediščine, 51–71. Neralić, J. (2014). Povijesni izvori za antičku epigrafiju Novaković, P. (2012b). Eastern Europe. The Oxford u Dalmaciji. Građa i prilozi za povijest Dalmacije, Companion to Archaeology (Second Edition), Vol. I. Vol. 24, 2014, 295-332. Oxford University Press, 445–451. Novak, G. (1955). Prethistorijski Hvar, Grapčeva spilja. Novaković, P. (2015). Binford in the Balkans: Intro-Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i duction of theoretical archaeology in Slovenia umjetnosti. and countries of former Yugoslavia. Published in: Novaković, P. (1999). O fašizmu in arheologiji na Paradigm found. Archaeological Theory Present, Past Primorskem in v Istri. Annales, Ser. hist. sociol. 9, And Future Essays in Honour of Evžen Neustupný, 491-502. edited by K. Kristiansen, L. Šmejda and J. Turek, Novaković, P. (199b). An Attempt at the Demograph- Oxbow Books 2015. ic Interpretation of Long-term Settlement Process Novaković, P. (2016). Impact of the large-scale ex-in the Prehistory of Slovenia. The case of the ‘Ar- cavations in the Slovene preventive archaeol- chaeological Map of Slovenia’. In: J. Bintliff and ogy. Fundberichte aus Österreich, Fachgespräch K. Sbonias (eds.), Reconstructing the Past Popu- »Archäologie in der Umweverträglichkeitsprü- lation Trends in Mediterranean Europe. Oxbow fung«, 24. August 2017, Mauerbach (Niederöster- Books, 77-91. reich). 2016, bd. 55, str. d30-d39. Novaković, P. (2001). Dežman, Dragotin (1821–1889). Novaković, P. et al. (2016). Recent developments in pre-In: T. Murray (ed.) 2001. Encyclopedia of archaeolo- ventive archaeology in Europe: proceedings of the 22nd gy: History and discoveries. Vol. I, II, III. Santa Bar- EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016. Edited by P. Novak- bara: ABC-Clio, Vol. 1, 425. ović, M. Horňák, M.P. Guermandi, H. Stäuble, P. Novaković, P. (2002). Archaeology in Five States – A Depaepe and J.P. Demoule, Ljubljana University Peculiarity or Just Another Story at the Cross- Press, Faculty of Arts. roads of ‘Mitteleuropa’and the Balkans: A Case Novaković, P., Lovenjak, M. and Budja, M. (2004). Study of Slovene Archaeology. . In: P. Biehl, A. Osemdeset let študija arheologije na Univerzi v Lju- Gramsch and A. Marcziniak (eds.) 2002. Archäol- bljani. Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulte- ogien Europas/Archaeologies of Europe. Tübinger ta, Univerza v Ljubljani. Archäologische Taschenbücher, New York/Mu- Novaković, P. and Horňák, M. (2016). From rescue to nich/Berlin: Waxmann, 323–352. preventive archaeology: a highly challenging 25 Novaković, P. (2007a). Use of past, ancestors and his- years in the former socialist countries of Eastern torical myths in the Yugoslav wars in 1990s. In. S. Europe. In: P. Novaković, M. Horňák, M.P. Guer- Magnani and C. Marcaccini (eds.) 2007. Le identità mandi, H. Stäuble, P. Depaepe and J.P. Demoule difficili: archeologia, potere, propaganda nei Balcani. (eds.), Recent developments in preventive archaeology in Portolano Adriatico, anno 3, n. 3). Firenze: Volo, Europe: proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 47–64. 2016. Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts. 465 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 465 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Odar, B., Erič, M. and Gaspari, A. (2009). Poster pre- Paškvalin, V. (1988). Naučna djelatnost u oblasti antičke sented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Hugo arheologije. Spomenica stogodišnjice rada Zemaljskog Obermeier Association in Ljubljana, 14-18 April Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine 1888–1988. Sarajevo: 2009. Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, 96–119. Orbini, M. (1601). Il regno de gli Slavi. Pesaro. Trasnlat- Patsch, C. (1896). Archäologisch-epigraphische Un-ed as Mavro Orbin, Kraljevstvo Slovena. F. Barišić, tersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen R. Samardžić and S. Ćirković (eds.), Beograd 1968. Provinz Dalmatien, Wiessenschaftliche Mitthelun- Ostrogorski, G. (1993). Storia dell'impero bizantino. Gi- gen aus Bosnien und Herzegowina IV, 1896, 243-295. ulio Einaudi editore, Torino 1968, 1993. Patsch, C. (1897). Mithraeum u Konjicu. Glasnik Palavestra, A. (2013). Čitanje Miloja M. Vasića u srp- Zemaljskog muzeja 9, 629-656 skoj arheologiji. Etnoantropološki problemi, n.s. Patsch, C. (1898). Iapodi. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u god. 8, 681–715. Sarajevu 10, 1898, 335-364. Palavestra, A. (1997). Prehistoric amber and glass Patsch, C. (1898c). Der Landtag von Moesia Superior. beads from Kosovo. Balcanica XXVII, Belgrade Festschrift für Otto Bendorf. Wien, 287–288. 1997, 15–43. Patsch, C. (1899a). Archäologisch-epigraphische Palavestra, A. (1999–2000). Arheologija u Balkanskom Untersuchungen ur Geschichte der römischen institutu. Godišnjak Balkanološkog instituta Srpske Provinz Dalmatien, Wissenschaftliche Mitthelungen akademija nauka i umetnosti 30–31, 15–24. aus Bosnien und Herzegowina VI, 1899, 154-273. Pančić, J. (1885). Čovek u predistorijsko doba. Starinar Patsch, C. (1899b). Arheološko-epigrafska istraživanja. 2/1, 1–18. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja XI, 1899, 69-123. Pandžić, I. (2014). Arheološki dnevnik paleolitskih Patsch, C. (1904). Arheološko-epigrafska istraživanja istraživanja/ Archaeological Journal of Palaeolithic o povijesti rimske pokrajine Dalmacije, Glasnik Research. Muzej Republike srpske, Banja Luka. Zemaljskog muzeja XVI, 33-59. Panov, M. (2013). Vizantiska Makedonija. In: P. Kuz- Patsch, C. (1906). Arheološko-epigrafska istraživanja man (ed.), Makedonija, Mileniumski kulturno-istor-o povijesti rimske pokrajine Dalmacije. VII dio, iski fakti, vol. 2, Media Print Makedonija and Uni- Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja XVIII, 1906, 151-181. verzitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje, 1083-1254. Patsch, C. (1907). Arheološko-epigrafska istraživanja Papazoglu, F. (1957). Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba. o povijesti rimske pokrajine Dalmacije. VII dio, Živa antika, Posebna izdanja, Knjiga I, Skopje. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja XIX, 1907, 431-470. Parović-Pešikan, M. (1981). Antička Ulpijana prema Patsch, C. (1909). Archäologisch-epigraphische Un-dosadašnjim istraživanjima. Starinar XXXII, 1981, tersuchungen ur Geschichte der römischen 57–74. Provinz Dalmatien. Wissenschaftliche Mitthelungen Parović-Pešikan, M. (1998). Grčka keramika . In: Araus Bosnien und Herzegowina XI, 1909, 104-183; heološko blago Kosova i Metohije od neolita do ranog Patsch, C. (1912). Archäologisch-epigraphische Un-srednjeg veka, Galerija srpske akademije nauka i tersuchungen ur Geschichte der römischen umetnosti, Beograd 1998, 225–226. Provinz Dalmatien. Wissenschaftliche Mitthelungen Parović-Pešikan, M., Trbuhović, V. (1971). Iskopa- aus Bosnien und Herzegowina XII, 1912, 68-167. vanja tumula ranog bronzanog doba u Tivatskom Patte, E. (1918). Coup-de-poing en Quartzite, des en-polju. Starinar XXII, Beograd, 129-144). virons de Monatsrir (Serbie). Bulletin de la Société Pasini Tržec, I. and Dulibić, L. (2019). Transferi um- préhistorique française XV, 4, 232-234. jetnina i vlastništva unjetničkih zbirki u Zagrebu Pavlovska, E. (2013). Monetite na staromakedonskite prije, tijekom in nakon drugog svjetskog rata. In: i pajonskite kralevi. In: P. Kuzman (ed.), Make- D. Roksandić (ed.), Zagreb 1924.-1930. I 1945.- donija, Mileniumski kulturno-istoriski fakti, vol. 1967. Društvo, kultura, svakodnevica. Zbornik ra- 21, Media Print Makedonija and Univerzitet Eu- dova Desničinih susreta 2018. FF Press, Filozofski ro-Balkan, Skopje, 731-788. fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Centar za kompar- Peckham, R.S. (2000). Map mania: nationalism and ativnohistorijske i interkulturne studije. Zagreb the politics of place in Greece, 1870–1922. Political Paržik (Pařik), K. (1914). Zemaljski muzej u Sarajevu. Geography 19, 77–95. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja XXVI, 1914, 35-42. Pečnik, J. (1904). Prazgodovinska najdišča na Kran- Pašić, R. (1994). Železno vreme. In: Arheološka kar- jskem. Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kranjsko 14, ta na Republika Makedonija, Tom 1, Makedonska 27pp, 125pp, 185pp. akademija na naukite i umetnostite and Muzej na Pečnik, J. (1912). Vojvodina Kranjska v prazgodovinski Makedonija, Skopje 1994, 62-79. dobi. 466 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 466 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Perić, S. (2012). Stratigrafija neolitskih kultura u Bos- Popović, A. (1907). Gornji Ibar srednjeg veka. Godišn-ni i Hercegovini. Posebna izdanja, Naučni skupovi, jica N.Č. XXV/1906, 218-222; Godišnjica N.Č. Knjiga 6, Tom 2, Nauka i univerzitet, Pale, 21-30. XXV/1907, 144-145. Periša, D. (2007). Mihovil Mandić kao arheolog. Arhe- Popović, P. (2006). Central Balkans between the Greek ološki radovi i rasprave 15, 2007, 249–283. and Celtic World: Case study Kale–Krševica. In: Periša, D. (2017). Franjevac Krunoslav Misilo i ar- Ni. Tasić (ed.). Hommage to Milutin Garašanin, heologija. Arheološki radovi i rasprave 18, 2017, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade 237-255. 2006, 523–536. Periša, D. (2021 in press). Studij arheologije na Filozof- Porčić, M., Blagojević, T. and Stefanović, S. (2016). skom fakultetu Sveučilišta u Zagrebu od 1877 do 1983. Demography of the early Neolithic Population in Periša, D. (2021b in press). Alojz Benac – vodeći jugo- the Central Balkans: Population Dynamics Recon- slavenski arheolog. struction Using Summed Radiocarbon Probabili- Petdeset godina Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja ty Distributions. PLos ONE 11(8): e0160832. Akademije nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine Potrebica, H. (2019). Kaptolska skupina i Požeška kot-1963-2013 (2013). Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i lina. Arheološki vestnik 70, 487-515. umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Poulton, H. (2000). Who are Macedonians? Hurs & Petrinec, M., Šeparović, T. and Vrdoljak, B.M. (1999). Company, London. Arheološka zbirka Franjevačkog muzeja u Livnu. Split: Pouqueville, F.C.H.L. (1805). Voyage en Moreé at à Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika. Constantinople et en Albanie, et dans plusieurs autres Petrov, K. (1975). Po povod 60-godišninata na pro- parties de l’Empire Othoman. Paris fesorot Dimče Koco. Zbornik posveten na Dimče Pouqueville, F.C.H.L. (1820). Voyage dans la Grece. Paris. Koco. Skopje: Arheološki muzej na Makedonija, Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja (1979–1987). Vol. 1 11–16. ( Paleolit i mezolit – 1979), Vol. 2 ( Neolitik – 1979); Petrović, P. (1989). Evropski naučnici i počeci antičke Vol. 3 ( Eneolitsko doba. – 1979); Vol. 4 ( Bronzano doba. arheologije kod Srba. In: Antičke studije kod Srba. – 1983), Vol. 5 (Željezno doba. – 1987). Centar za Balkanološki institut SANU, Beograd. balkanološka ispitivanja, Akademija nauka i um- Pichler, F. (1865). Repertorium der Steirischen Münz- jetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Sarajevo: Svjetlost. kunde. Graz. Pichler, F. (1879). Text zur archaeolo- Praschniker, C. and Schober, A. (1919). Archaölogische gische Karte von Steiermark. Graz. Forschungen in Albanien und Montenegro, Schrif- Pintarič, V. and Novaković, P. (2008). Project Discover- ten der Balkankommission. Antiquarische Abteilung, ing the Archaeologists of Europe: Slovenia. Ljubljana: Heft VIII. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta. Pravilnik o arheoloških raziskavah (2013). Uradni list Pirkovič, J. (2014). Public Service for the Protection of Republike Slovenije, 2013, no. 3. Cultural Heritage in Slovenia and its Mission. In: Predsjedništvo Bosne i Hercegovine (2001). Odluka o P. Novaković, I. Pandžić and Z. Mileusnić (eds.). komisiji za očuvanje nacionalnih spomenika. Http:// Radovi sa konferencije i radionica projekta BIHERIT, kons.gov.ba/main.php?id_struct=2&lang=1 Banja Luka (27 Feb 2014), Tuzla (8 May 2014), Sara- [pristupljeno 14.8.2009]. jevo (2–3 July 2014). Ljubljana: Znanstvena založ- Premerstein, A. and Rutar, S. (1899). Römische Strassen ba Filozofske fakultete, 2014, 81–86. und Befestigungen in Krain, Vienna. Pizzamiglio, G. (2010). Introduzione. In: Alber- Premerstein, A. and Vulić, N. (1903). Antike Denk-to Fortis, Viaggio in Dalmazia. A cura di Eva Vi- mäler in Serbien und Macedonien . Jahreshefte des ani, Introduzione di Gilberto Pizzamiglio, Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, edizione digitale a cura di Patrizia Pascazio, Band VI, Heft 1, Vienna. Edizioni Digitali del CISVA 2010 per gentile Pribojević, V. (1525). ‘ De origine successibusque concessione di Marsilio Editori. (http://www. Slavorum’. Venezia. Prevod: Pribojević, V. (1992), viaggioadriatico.it/biblioteca_digitale/titoli/ O porijeklu i zgodama Slavena. Split: Novi krug. scheda_bibliografica.2010-09-08.0871920231) Pricot de Sainte-Marie, J.-B.E.C. (1874). Les Slaves mé- Pizzicolli, C. [Cyriacus Anconitanus] (1436). Epigram- ridionaux, leur origine et leur établissement dans l'Il- mata reperta per Illyricum (published around 1700). lyrie. Paris. Polizzotti Greis, G. (2006). A Noble Pursuit. The Duch- Primas, M. (1996). Velika Gruda I. Hügelgräber des ess of Mecklenburg Collection from Iron Age Slove-frühen 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Im Adriagebiet – Ve- nia. Peabody Museum Collection Series. Harward lika Gruda, Mala Gruda und ihr Kontext. Bonn: W. University Press. Rudolf Habelt. 467 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 467 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Proeva, N. (2006/2007). Who were the authors of the H. Stäuble, P. Depaepe and J.-P. Demoule (eds.), Trebenište culture and the gold funeral masks? Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts 2016, Macedonian Affairs, Vol. VI, No. 1, 73–80. 281-292. Proeva, N. (2010). Savremeni makedonski mit kao Rajkovača, T. (2019). Frameworks and Development modgovor na nacionalne mitove suseda: alban-Perspectives of Preventive Archaeology in Bosnia ski panilirizam, bugarski pantrakizam i grčki and Herzegovina and Serbia. Belgrade: Institute of panhelenizam. Zgodovinski časopis 64, zv. 1-2, Archaeology. 176–219. Rapan Papeša, A. and Šmalcelj Novaković, P. (2016). Proeva, N. (2012). Nacionalnite mitovi vo sovremena Kasnoavarsko groblje na Gradini u Otoku. Gradski Evropa i negiranjeto na makedonski identite. Sla- muzej Vinkovci. via meridionalis 12, 107–158. Rapanić, Ž. (1986). O stanju i nekim problemima ar- Puško, A. (1979). Industrializacija Kosova kao inova- heologije u Jugoslaviji. Arheo 5, 6–11. cioni proces. Geografica Slovenica 10, 237–250. Reinach, S. (1894). Le Congrès de Sarajevo par M. Sa- Rad Dragoslava Srejovića na istraživanju antičke ar- lomon Reinach. Extrait de l’Anthropologie, No. 5, heologije (2003). Beograd: Centar za naučna is- 1894, 554-570. traživanja Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti, Reiswitz, J. (1936), Belgrad–Berlin. Berlin Belgrad 1866– Univerzitet u Kragujevcu. 1871, De Gruyter 1936. Rad Dragoslava Srejovića na istraživanju praistorije cen- Rey, L. (1921-1922). Observations sur les premiers habit-tralnog Balkana (1997). Beograd: Centar za naučna ans de la Macédoine. Paris. istraživanja Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti, Rink, W. et al. (1995). J. W. Rink, H. Schwarcz, F. H. Univerzitet u Kragujevcu. Smith & J. Radovčić, ESR ages for Krapina Homi- Radics, P. (1862). Geschichte Krains. Suppl. Archäologis- nids”, Nature 378, London, 1995, 24. che Karte von Krain. Ljubljana. Ritter Vitezović, P. (1712). Bosna captiva. Radimský, V. and Szombathy, J. (1885). Urgeschicht- Roganović, S. (2008). Otuđivanje dragocjenosti iz Crne liche Forschungen in der Umgegend von Wies in Gore. Nacionalna zajednica Crnogoraca Hrvatske, Mittel-Steiermark III. Mittheilungen der Anthropol- Zagreb. ogischen Gesellschaft in Wien 18, Wien 1888, 77–108. Rogoznica, D. (ed.) (2011). Začetki spomeniške službe v Radimský, V. (1883). Urgeschichtliche Forschungen Istri. Histria Editione, Koper-Capodistria. in der Umgegend von Wies in Mittel-Steiermark I. Roksandić, D. (2017). Yugoslavism before the creation Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in of Yugoslavia. In: Yugoslavia from a Historical per- Wien 13, Wien 1883, 41–66. spective. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Radimský, V. (1885). Urgeschichtliche Forschungen in Serbia. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in der Umgegend von Wies in Mittel-Steiermark II. Serbia, Belgrade, 29-64. Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Rossos, A. (2008). Macedonia and Macedonians: a Histo-Wien 15, Wien 1885, 117–168. ry. Leland Stanford Junior University. Radimsky, V. (1890). Rimski grobovi kod Han-Potoka Rothenbacher, F. (2013). The Central and East Euro-blizu Mostara. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja 2, 1890, pean Population since 1850. Palgrave MacMillan. 337-342. Rovinsky, P.A. (1890). Raskopki drevnei Dioklei Radimský, V. and Hoernes, M. (1895). Die neolithis- proizvedennaya po ukazaniyo i na schet ego che Station von Butmir bei Sarajevo in Bosnien. Aus- vissochestva czernogorskog knyaza Nikolaya, grabungen im Jahre 1893. Bosnisch-Hercegovinis- Zhurnaly Ministrstva narodnega prosvestsheniya, St. ches Landesmuseum. Vienna. Petersburg. Radojčić, S. (1969). Geschichte der serbischen Kunst Rutar, S. (1893). Slovensko-nemška starinoslovska von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des mittelalters. De terminologija. Izvestja Muzejskega društva za Kran- Gruyter. jsko III, 46pp. Radunović, M. (2010). Konzevatorski radovi na arhe- Šačić Beća, A. (2019). Dr. sc. Branka Raunig – naučni-ološkom lokalitetu Duklja 2009 godine. Nova an- ca koja je dala nemjerljiv doprinos istraživanju tička Duklja, Podgorica, 78-86 ilirskih Japoda na tlu današnje BIH. In: Zbornik Rajkovača, T. (2016). Development-led Archaeology radova Naučna/znanstvena konferencija Bosans- in Serbia: the case of Corridor X. In: Recent Devel- kohercegovačke naučnice/znanstvenice i njihov is- opments in Preventive Archaeology in Europe.’ traživački rad (Mostar 2018), Mostar: Federalno Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius ministarstvo obrazovanja i nauke/znanosti, 2016, P. Novaković, M. Horňák, M.P. Guermandi, 285-296. 468 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 468 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Šafarik, P.J. (1837). Slovanské starožitnosti. Prag. Šavel, I. (2009). Pod Kotom–jug pri Krogu. Zavod za Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. Vintage Books New York. varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Ljubljana. Salamanov-Korobar, L. (2006). Rekognosciranje na pale- Scalamonti, F. (1996). Vita viri clarissimi et famosisi-olitsko-mezolitski lokacii vo Makedonija – 2001. mi Kyriaci Anconitani. In: C. Mitchell and E. W. Macedonia acta Archaeologica 17, 2006, Skopje, 9-20. Bodnar (eds.), Transactions of the American Philo- Salamanov-Korobar, L. (2008). First Palaeolithic Re- sophical Society, 86 (4), Philadelphia 1996. searches in the R. Macedonia (FYROM): The Cave Schier, W. (2014). The Copper Age in Southeast Eu-Golema Pesht near the Village Zdunje – Prelimi- rope – historical epoch or typo-chronological con- nary Results. In: A. Darlas and D. Mihailović (eds.), struct? In: W. Schier and F. Draşovean (eds.), The The Palaeolithic of the Balkans: Papers from the session Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe. New »The Palaeolithic of the Balkans« held at the XV World Approaches to dating and cultural dynamics in the Congress (Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006), Vol. 17, Ses- 6 th to 4 th millennium BC, Prähistorische Archäolo-sion C33, BAR S1819, Oxford: Archaeopress, 85-92. gie in Südosteuropa, Band 28, 2014, Verlag Marie Sanev, V. (1994). Mlado kameno vreme. In: Arheološka Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf, 419-435. karta na Republika Makedonija, Tom 1, Makedonska Schlanger, N. and Aitchison, K. (eds.) (2010). Archaeolo-akademija na naukite i umetnostite and Muzej na gy and the global economic crisis, Culture Lab Editions. Makedonija, Skopje 1994, 26-42. Schönleben, J.L. (1681). Carniola antiqua et nova sive an- Šanjek, F. (2007). Korčulanin Vinko Paletin, Konščak- nales sacroprophani. Ljubljana. ov meksički prethodnik. Kolo 2. Sergejevski, D. (1940). Rimski natpisi iz Bosne, Šanjek, F. (2015). Dubrovčanin Ivan Stojković i počet- Užičkog kraja i Sandžaka. Spomenik, XCIII, 13–160. ci europskog humanizma. Hrvatska revija 1, 2015. Sergejevski, D. (1938). Rimski spomenici iz Bosne, (http://www.matica.hr/hr/446/dubrovca-Rimski natpisi iz Bosne. Spomenik, LXXXVIII, nin-ivan-stojkovic-i-pocetci-europskoga-human- 95–131. izma-24398/) Serventi, Z. and Jurjević, M. (2012). Odnos nekropola Santonin, P. (1991). Popotni dnevnik. Ljubljana. i naselja u rimskodobnoj Liburniji / The relation Sarakinski, V. (2009). Kvazinaučnici ja antiviziraat na- between necropolises and settlements in Roman cija. Globus 115, 30.6.2009. Skopje. Liburnia. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu Saria, B. (1925). Iskopavanja u Stobi. Glasnik Skopskog 29, 195-214. naučnog društva, knj. 1, sv. 1, 287–300. Seton-Watson, R.W (1946). Arthur Evans. The Slavonic Saria, B. (1932). Arheološki zemljevidi. Glasnik Muze- and East European Review, Vol. 24, No. 63, 47-55. jskega društva za Slovenijo 13, 5–16. Siauve, E.-M. (1811). De Antiquis Norici viis, urbibus et Saria, B. (1941) Die ›Negauer Helme‹: Das älteste ger- finibus epistola. Verona. manische Sprachdenkmal – Ein Fundstück un- Šimić, J. (2013). Neolithic Economy of the East Slavo-seres Heimatbodens. Marburger Zeitung, 81, 124 nija and Baranja – the first Steps. Zbornik radova, (Dienstag, 3. Juni 1941), 5–6; A. Mašek Tonković (ed.), Sveučilište Josipa Juja Saria, B. (1943). Der Harigast-Helm und seine Inschrift. Strossmayera, Osijek 2013, 14-21 Marburger Zeitung, 82/83, 365/1 (Donnerstag, 31. Simpozijum (1964). Simpozijum o teritorijalnom i Dezember 1942/Freitag, 1. Januar 1943), 4; hronološkom razgraničenju Ilira u praistorijsko Saria, B. (1944). Der Harigasthelm: das älteste germa- doba. Naučno društvo SR Bosne i Hercegovine, nische Sprachdenkmal. Untersteirischer Kalender, Sarajevo. 3, 1944, 75–77. Simpozijum (1967). Simpozijum o Ilirima u antičko doba. Saria, B. and Egger R. (1929). Istraživanja u Stobima. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercego- Skopje. Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društva, vol. vine, Posebna izdanja, Knjiga 5, Centar za bal- 5. kanološka ispitivanja, Knjiga 2, Sarajevo. Saria, B. and Klemenc, J. (1936). Archaologische Karte Simpozijum (1969). Simpozijum Predslavenski etnički von Jugoslawien: Blatt Ptuj, Beograd – Zagreb. elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi južnih Slovena. Saria, B. and Klemenc, J. (1939). Archäologische Karte Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercego- von Jugoslawien: Blatt Rogatec. Zagreb. vine, Posebna izdanja, Knjiga XII, Centar za bal- Šašel, J. (1992). Opera selecta. Situla 30. Ljubljana: Nar- kanološka ispitivanja, Knjiga 4, Sarajevo. odni muzej. Simpozijum (1984). Simpozijum Duhovna kultura Ilira. Šašel, J. and Petru, P. (eds.) (1971). Claustra Alpium Akademija nauka i mjetnosti bosne i Hercego- Iuliarum, I. del. Katalogi in monografije 5, Narodni vine, Posebna izdanja, Knjiga 67, Centar za bal- muzej, Ljubljana. kanološpka ispitivanja, Knjiga 11, Sarajevo. 469 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 469 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Sirmium (1971–1982). Beograd: Institut za arheologiju. Šošić Klindžić, R. et al. (2018). R. Šošić Klindžić, M. Slapšak, B. (1983). Arheologija in diamat. Arheo 3, Kaczanowska, J.K. Kozlowski and Karavanić, I. 36. The Neolithization of Eastern Croatia and South- Škegro, A. (1991). Bibliografija radova akademika Alo- ern Transdanubia – Lithic perspective. In: Folia jza Benca (1948-1991). Zbornik radova posvećenih Quarternaria 86, Krakow, 159-189. akademiku Alojzu Bencu, Akademija nauka i umjet- Špikić, M. (2007). Od arheologije do kulturne politike: nosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Odjelenje društvenih Pietro Nobile i dalmaptinski spomenici. Peristil: nauka, Knjiga 27, 1991, Sarajevo, 16-34. zbornik radova za povijest umjetnost i, vol. 50, no. 1, Škegro, A. (1997). Bosanski franjevci i arheološki 195-208. spomenici, Bosna franciscana, Godina V, Broj 7, Sa- Špoljarić, L. (2019). Korespondecija prvih dalmatisn-rajevo 1997, 140-154. skih humanista: Juraj Benja Zadranin. Colloquia Skrabar, V. and Gailhofer, R. (1911). Fundkarte von Pettau. Maruliana 28, 73-110. Slabe, M. (1975). Dravlje. Grobišče iz časov preseljevan- Spomenica 60 godina ANU BIH 1951-2011 (2011). Sa-ja ljudstev. Situla 16, Narodniu muzej Ljubljana. rajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Slapšak, B. (1993). Archaeology and the contempo- Hercegovine. rary myths of the past. Journal of European Archae- Spon, J. (1678). Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatia, de Grece, ology 1.2, 191–195. et du Levant. Fait aux annes 1675 et 1676 par Jacob Slapšak, B. and Novaković, P. (1996). Is there national Spon, Docteur Medecin aggrege a Lyon et George archaeology without nationalism? Archaeologi- Wheler, Gentil-homme Anglais. Lyon. cal tradition in Slovenia. In: M. Díaz-Andreu and Srejović, D. (1969). Lepenski vir: nova praistorijska kulT. Champion (eds.), Nationalism and archaeology tura u Podunavlju. Beograd: Srpska književna in Europe. London: University College of London zadruga. Press, 256–293. Srejović, D. (1950-1960). Praistorijska nekropola u Slovenci ob Jadranu (1952). Exhibition catalogue. Slov- Donjoj Brnjici. Glasnik Muzeja kosova i Metohije IV- ensko-hrvatska prosvetna zveza, Koper. V, Priština 1950-1960. Slovenija: pokrajine in ljudje (1998). Mladinska knjiga Srejović, D. (1983). Gamzigrad: kasnoantički carski dvo-Ljubljana. rac. Beograd: Galerija Srpske akademije nauka i Slukan Altić, M. (2006). Povijesna geografija Kosova. Za- umetnosti. greb: Golden marketing – Tehnička knjiga. Srejović, D. and Babović, L. (1983). Umetnost Lepen- Šmitek, Z. (1997). Antropološka misel koprskega poli- skog vira. Đerdapske sveske, Posebna izdanja 3. historja Gian Rinalda Carlija. Acta Histriae 5, 25–40. Beograd: Jugoslavija. Šmitek, Z. (1987). Arheološka in zbirateljska de- Srejović, D. and Lalović, A. (1991). Felix Romuliana: javnost Antona Lavrina v Egiptu (1834-1849). Ar-Galerijeva palata u Gamzigradu. Beograd: Jugoslov- heo 6, 23–26. enska revija. Sokolovska, V. (1994). Istorija na arheološkite istražu- Srejović, D. ed. (1997). Arheološki leksikon: preistorija vanja bo Makedonija. Arheološka karta na Republika Evrope, Afrike i Bliskog istoka, grčka, etrurska i rims- Makedonija, Vol. 1, Skopje: Makedonska akademi- ka civilizacija. Beograd: Savremena administracija. ja na naukite i umetnostite, 7–13. Stanje kulturne baštine Crne Gore (2006). Ministarstvo Solarić, M. and Solarić, N. (2009). Lumbardska pse- kulture i medija, Podgorica. fizma najstariji dokument o podjeli zemlje u Hr- Stare, V. (1980). Kranj. Nekropola iz časa preseljevan-vatskoj iz početka 4. ili 3. stoljeća pr. Kr. / Lum- ja ljudstev. Katalogi in monografije 18, Narodni barda Psephisma, the Oldest Document about the muzej Ljubljana. Division of Land Parcels in Croatia from the Be- Statistički godišnjak 1934-1935 (1936). Knjiga VI, Beginning of the 4th or 3rd Century BC. Kartografija i ograd: Štamparija Radenković. geoinformacije 8 (12), 79-88. Stelè, F. (1932-33). Dr. Anton Gnirs. Zbornik za umet- Solter, A. (2013). Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu – život od nostno zgodovino XII, 1932–33, 98–99. 19. do 21. stoljeća. Arheološki muzej Zagreb. Sticotti, P. (1913). Die Römische Stadt Doclea in Mon- Šošić Klindžić, R. and Hršak, T.M. (2014). Starčevač- tenegro, Schriften der Balkankommission. Antiquar- ka kultura. In: J. Balken, T. Hršak and R. Šošić ische Abteilung VI, Kaiserliche Akademie der Klindžić (eds.), Darovi zemlje. Neolitik između Save, Wissenschaftes. Vienna. Drave i Dunava / Gifts of the earth. The Neolithic Stojanović, D. (1996). The Balkans, Wars and Text-between the Sava, Drava and Danube. Arheološki books: The case of Serbia. In: W. Höpken (ed.) muzej Zagreb, 14-28. 1996. Oil on Fire. Textbooks, Ethnic Stereotypes and 470 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 470 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Violence in South-Eastern Europe. Hannover: Hahn- Teržan, B. and Črešnar, M. (eds) (2014). Absolutno sche Buchhandlung, 143–159. datiranje bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem / Stoye, J. (1994). Marsigli’s Europe, 1680-1730: The Life Absolute Dating of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Slo- and Times of Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, Soldier and venia. Katalogi in monografije 40, Narodni muzej Virtuoso (New Haven: Yale University Press. Slovenije, Ljubljana. Sugar, P. (1996). Southeastern Europe Under Ottoman Teržan, B., Borgna, E. and Turk, P. (2016). Depo iz Mušje Rule, 1534-1804. A History of east Central Europe, jame na Krasu / Il ripostiglio della Grotta delle Mosche Vol. 5, University of Washington Press 1977, 1996 presso San Canziano del Carso. Katalogi in mono- (1st edition). grafije 41, Narodni muzej Slovenije, Ljubljana. Suić, M. (1955). Limitacija agera rimskih kolonija na Težak-Gregl, T. (2005b). Ozalj-Stari grad, neolitič- istočnoj obali Jadrana. Zbornik Instituta ua histori- ka naseobina, In: M. Guštin (ed.), Prvi poljedel- jske nauke u Zadru I, Zadar, 1-36. ci, Savska skupina lengyelske kulture, Annales Suić, M. (1955b). Istočna jadranska obala u Pseudo Mediterranea, Koper, 155-162. Skilakovu Periplu, Rad JAZU 1955, 121-185. Težak-Gregl, T. (2014). In: J. Balken, T. Hršak and R. Suić, M. (1958). O municipalitetu antičke Salone, Šošić Klindžić (eds.), Darovi zemlje. Neolitik između V jesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 60, Save, Drave i Dunava / Gifts of the earth. The Neolith- 11-38. ic between the Sava, Drava and Danube. Arheološki Suić, M. (1976; 2009). Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu. muzej Zagreb, 29-39. Zagreb: Liber. (second, extended edition 2003). Težak-Gregl, T. (2014b). Lenđelska kultura na po- Suić. M. (1952). Liburnski nagrobni spomenik. Vjesnik driučju Hrvatske. In: J. Balken, T. Hršak and R. za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 53, 1950-1951. Šošić Klindžić (eds.), Darovi zemlje. Neolitik između Suić. M. (1981). Zadar u starom vijeku. Filozoski fakultet Save, Drave i Dunava / Gifts of the earth. The Neolith- Zadar. ic between the Sava, Drava and Danube. Arheološki Sundhausen, H. and Clewig, K. (2016). Lexicon muzej Zagreb, 88-91. der Geschichte Südosteuropeas. Böhlau Verlag, Todorova, M. (2006). Imaginarni Balkan. Beograd: Bib-Wien-Köln-Weimar. lioteka XX. vek. Tomičić, Ž. (2002). In memoriam Tasić, Ne. (1998). Starčevačka kultura/Starčevo cul- Mate Suić. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju, Vol. 19, ture. In: Arheološko blago Kosova i Metohije od neolita No. 1, 7–10. do ranog srednjeg veka / The Archaeological Treasures Tomičić, Ž. (1988/89). Arheološka svjedočanstva o of Kosovo and Metohija from the Neolithic to the ear-ranobizantinskom vojnom graditeljstvu na sjev- ly Middle ages, Galerija Srpske akademije nauka i ernojadranskim otocima. Prilozi Instituta za arhe- umetnosti, Beograd 1998, 32–55. ologiju u Zagrebu 5/6, 29-53. Tasić, Ne. (2008). Vinča – praistorijska metropola. Is- Tommasini, G.F. (1837). De commentarii storici-geogra-traživanja 1908–2008: Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, fici della provincia dell’Istria libri otto con appendice, Beograd. (manuscript edited and published by D. Rossetti- Tasić, Ni. (1979). Bubaпj-Salcuţa-Krivodol kompleks ja in Archeolografo Triestino, Vol. IV). In: Praistorija Jugoslavenskih zemalja, Eneolitsko Tóth, I. G. (2002). Franjevci Bosne srebrene kao mi-doba, Vol. 3, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne sionari u turskoj Ugarskoj (1584.-1716.), Scrinia i Hercegovine. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja slavonica 2, 2002, 178-201. Sarajevo 1979, 87-114 Trei, L. (2005), Wayne S. Vucinich, father of East Eu- Tasić, Ni. (1995). Eneolithic Cultures Of Central And ropean studies, dead at 91, Stanford News Ser- West Balkans. Serbian Academy of Sciences and vice April 28, 2005, (https://news.stanford.edu/ Arts, Belgrade. pr/2005/pr-obitwayne-042705.html). Tasić, Ni. (1998). Uvod u praistoriju, antiku i rani sred- Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. nji vek Kosova i Metohije. In: Arheološko blago Koso- Cambridge University Press. va i Metohije od neolita do ranog srednjeg veka / The Tringham, R., Brukner, B. and Voytek, B. (1985). The Archaeological Treasures of Kosovo and Metohija from Opovo Project: A Study of Socioeconomic Change the Neolithic to the early Middle ages, Galerija Srpske in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeolo- akademija nauka i umetnosti, Belgrade, 16–29. gy 12, No. 4 (Winter), 425-444. Tasić, Ni. (1998b). Eneolit. In: Arheološko blago Kosova Tringham, R. and Krstić, D. (1990). Selevac: a Neolithic i Metohije od neolita do ranog srednjeg veka, Galeri-Village in Yugoslavia. Monumenta archaeologica ja Srpske akademije nauka I umetnosti, Beograd 15, Institute of Archaeology, University of Cali- 1998, 88-115. fornia, Los Angeles. 471 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 471 22. 10. 2021 11:06:26 Truhelka, Ć. (1893). Hügelgräber und Ringwälle auf der Vasić, M. (1907). Žuto brdo. Prilozi za poznavanje Hochebene Glasinac. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilun-gvozdenog doba u Dunavskoj dolini I. Starinar II, gen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmu- 1-47. seum, 1, 1893. Vasić, M. (1912). Žuto brdo. Prilozi za poznavanje Truhelka, Ć. (1905). Izlet zajedničkog kongresa gvozdenog doba u Dunavskoj dolini II, III. Stari- njemačkog i bečkog antropološkog društva u nar V, 1-207. Bosnu. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja XVII, 1905, Vasić, M. (1914). Žuto brdo. Prilozi za poznavanje 487-691. gvozdenog doba u Dunavskoj dolini IV, V, VI. Truhelka, Ć. (1922). Bibiografski popis mojih publik- Starinar VI, 1-93. acija. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercego- Vasić, M. (1927). Arheološki institut Srba, Hrvata i vini 33-34, 1921-1922, 37-42. Slovenaca. Srpski književni glasnik 22, 33-43. Truhelka, Ć. (1929). Arheološke beleške iz Južne Srbi- Vasić, M. (1932). Preistoriska vinča I. Industrija cinabari-je. Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društva V, 59–85. ta i kosmetika u Vinči. Beograd: Državna štampari- Truhelka, Ć. (1942). Uspomene jednog pionira. Hrvatski ja Kraljevine Jugoslavije. izdavalački bibliografski zavod, Zagreb 1942. Vasić, M. (1936a). Preistoriska Vinča II. Oblici grobo- Truhelka, Ć., Manjnarić-Pandžić, N. and Bukovac, P. va. Mistične oči. Igra na tablu. Datovanje Vinče. Be- (1992). Uspomene jednog pionira: s pogovorom Nives ograd: Državna štamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Majnarić-Pandžić. Azur Journal, Zagreb. Vasić, M. (1936b). Preistoriska Vinča III. Plastika, Ter- Turk, I. (ed.) (1997). Mousterienska koščena piščal in dru- akote Beograd: Državna štamparija Kraljevine ge najdbe iz Divjih Bab I v Sloveniji. Znanstvenora- Jugoslavije. ziskovalni Center SAZU, Ljubljana. Vasić, M. (1936c). Preistoriska Vinča IV. Keramika. Be- Turk I. (2014). Divje babe I. Paleolitsko najdišče mlajše- ograd: Državna štamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije. ga pleistocena v Sloveniji (2. del: Arheologija) / Divje Vasić, M. (1948). Jonska kolonija Vinča. Zbornik babe I. Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic site in Slovenia Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu I, 85–224. (part 2: Archaeology). Opera Instituti Archaeologici Vasić, R. (1987). Oblast istočnog Kosova, južne Srbije Sloveniae 29, Ljubljana. i severne Makedonije. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih Turk, P. (2016). Settlements of the middle 5th Mil- zemalja, Tom 5, Željezno doba, Akademija nauka i lennium BC in Central Slovenia. Acta Musei Ti- umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za bal- beriopolitani vol. 1, NI Institute for protection kanološka ispitivanja Sarajevo 1987, 673-689. of Cultural Monuments and Museum Strumica, Vasić, R. (2013). Cremation burials in the Morava 146-155. valley between 1300 and 750 BC, 173–183. In: M. Ucko, P. (1987). Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The Lochner, F. Ruppenstein (eds.), Brandbestattun- Story of the World Archaeological Congress. London: gen von der mittleren Donau bis zur Ägäis zwischen Duckworth. 1300 und 750 v. Chr, Akten des internationalen Unverzagt, W. (1945). Neue Ausgrabungen in der Symposiums an der Österreichischen Akademie Festung Belgrad, Berlin 1945. Forschungen und der Wissenschaftenin Wien, 11–12. Februar 2010, Fortschritte 21, 41-45. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis- Uradni list (1945). Uredba ministrstva za prosveto o senschaften, Wien 2013. ustanovitvi in ustroju Zavoda za zaščito in znan- Veletovac, E. (2014). Kasnoantičke bazilike u Bosni i stveno proučevanje kulturnih spomenikov in Hercegovini. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Saraje- prirodnih znamenitosti Slovenije. Uradni list Slov- vu, Knjiga 17. 277-299. enskega narodno osvobodilnega sveta in Narodne vlade Velimirović-Žižić, O. (1986). Ostaci fortifikacione ar-Slovenije I/II, 23, 22.9.1945. hitekture na gradini Đuteza u Dinošima kod Ti- Valvasor, J. V. (1679). Topographia Ducatus Carniolae tograda. In: Odbrambeni sistemu u praistoriji i antici modernae. 1679. na tlu Jugoslavije, Materijali XXII, 1986, Novi Sad, Valvasor, J. V. (1681). Topographia Archiducatus Carin- 80-86. thiae antiquae et modernae completa. 1681. Velušček, A. (1999). Neolithic and Eneolithic investi- Valvasor, J. V. (1689). Die Ehre des Herzogthums Crain. gations in Slovenia. Arheološki vestnik 50, 59-79. 1689. Velušček, A. (2002). Ostanki eneolitskega voza z Lju- Vander Linden, M., Pandžić, I. and Orton, D. (2014). bljanskega barja. Arheološki vestnik 53, 51–57. New radiocarbon dates for Neolithic period in Velušček, A. (2008). Doneski k raziskovanju meta-Bosnia and Herzegovina. Godišnjak centra za bal- lurške dejavnosti na Ljubljanskem barju / Contri- kanološka ispitivanja ANU BIH 43, 2014, 7-34. butions to resarch on metalworking in Ljubljansko 472 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 472 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Barje. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, Vrišer, I. (1980). Industrializacija Jugoslavije. In: Ur-vol. 25, 33-46. bana in industrijska geografija. Jugoslovanski geograf- Velušček, A. and Čufar, K. (2014). Kolišča na Ljubljan- ski simpozij, Ljubljana, 8-10.11.1979, Geographica skem barju / Pile-dwellings at Ljubljansko barje. Slovenica 10, 209-223. Studia Praehistorica in Honorem Janez Dular, Op- Vujić, Ž. (2012). Izidor Kršnjavi – pionir muzealne era Instoituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 30, 39-64. znanosti u Hrvatskoj. Muzeologija 46, 9-35. Venedikov, I. (1943). Zemite po srednya Vardar. Prinos Vujić, Ž. (2007). Izvori muzeja u Hrvatskoj. Art Maga-kum antichnata geografia na Makedonija (Земите zin Kontura, Zagreb 2007. по средния Вардар. Принос към античната Vulić, N. (1938). Archölogische Karte von Jugoslawien, география на Македония), Skopje 1943. Blatt Kavadarci. Beograd. Vergerio, P.P. De situ urbis Iustinopolitanae. (Unpub- Vulić, N. (1925a). Dardanci. Glasnik Srpskog kraljevskog lished essay dated sometimes after 1400.) društva CXIV, Beograd 1925. Veseli, S. (2006). Archaeology, nationalism and the Vulić, N. (1925b). Das neue Grab von Trebenischte, construction of national identity in Albania. In: L. Arch. Anzeiger, Bb. III/IV, 276–279. Bejko and R. Hodges (eds.) 2008. New Directions in Vulić, N. (1931). Antički spomenici naše zemlje. Glas Albanian Archaeology. Studies presented to Muzafer Srpske kraljevske akademije LXX, 1931 Korkuti. International Centre for Albanian Ar- Vulić, N. (1932). Jedan nov grob kod Trebeništa, chaeology Monograph Series No. 1, Tirana: Mali Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društva XI, 1–41. Pleshti Printing House, 323–330. Vulić, N. (1933). Antički spomenici naše zemlje, Glas Vialla de Sommières, J.-L. (1820). Voyage historique et Srpske kraljevske akademije LXXVII. politique au Monténégro. Paris Vulić, N. (1934). Antički spomenici naše zemlje, Glas Vinski, Z. (1971). Rani srednji vijek u Jugoslaviji od Srpske kraljevske akademije LXXV. 400. do 800. Godine. Vjesnik Arheološkog muizeja u Vulić, N. (1937). Archölogische Karte von Jugoslawien, Zgrebu 5, 1, 47-71. Blatt Prilep – Bitolj. Beograd. Vinski-Gasparini, K. (1973). Kultura polja sa žarama u Vulić, N. (1938). Archölogische Karte von Jugoslawien, sjevernoj Hrvatskoj, Zadar. Blatt Kavadarci. Beograd. Vinski-Gasparini, K. (1983), Kultura polja sa žarama Vulić, N. and Premerstein, A. (1900). Antički spomen-sa svojim grupama. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih ici u Srbiji, Spomenik 38, 14– 51. zemalja, Tom 4, Bronzano doba, Akademija nauka Vulić, N., Ladek, F. and Premerstein, A. (1903). An-i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za bal- tički spomenici u Srbiji. Spomenik kralj evske kanološka ispitivanja Sarajevo, 547-646. akademije nauka 39 (1903), 43–88. Vinski-Gasparini, K. (1983b). Ostave s područja kul- Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system. Aca-ture polja sa žarama. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih demic Press 1974. zemalja, Tom 4, Bronzano doba, Akademija nauka Wedekind, M. (2019). Die Bestzung der Vergangenheit. i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za bal- Archäologie, Frühgeschichte und NS-Herrschaftsle- kanološka ispitivanja Sarajevo, 647-667. gitimation im Alpen-Adria-Raum (1939–1945). Stu- Vitić-Ćetković et al. (2018). Vitić-Ćetković, A., Per- dien Verlag Innsbruck, Wien, Bozen, 2019. ović, Đ., Srzentić, Z. and Jovanović, I., Montene- Whallon, R. (1989). The Palaeolithic site of Badanj: Regro. In: M. Vodenska (ed.) Hospitality and Tourism cent excavations and results of analysis, Glasnik in Transition in Central and Eastern Europe: A Com- Zemaljskom muzeja, Arheologija, 44, 7-20. parative Analysis, Cambridge Scholars Publishing Whallon, R. (1999). The lithic tool assemblages at 2018, 295-323. Badanj within their regional context. British School Vodić kroz muzeje Crne Gore (2007). Ministarstvo at Athens Studies, Vol. 3, 330-342. kulture sporta i medija Republike crne Gore, Whallon, R. (2007). Spatial Distribution and Activities Podgorica. in Epigravettian Level 6 at the Site of Badanj, Bos- Vodnik, V. (1818). Römische Denkmähler in Illyrien. nia and Herzegovina. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog (LW 1818); Archiv f. Geogr., Historie, Staats- u. društva 23, Beograd, 9-26. Kriegskunst 1818. Wilson, D. (1986). Foreword. In: I. Longworth in J. Vrančić, F. (1606b). Illyrica historia, fragmenta ex variis Cherry (ed.), Archaeology in Britain since 1945, historicis. Manuscript in National and University The Trustees of the British Museum 1986, 7-8. Library in Zagreb. Wiseman, J. and Mano-Zissi, Dj. (1976). Stobi: A City Vrančič, F. (1606a). De Slowinis seu Sarmatis. Dodatak of Ancient Macedonia. Journal of Field Archaeology, djelu Život nikoliko nizabranih divic. Rim. Vol. 3, No. 3, 269–302. 473 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 473 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Wiseman, J. (1973). Stobi: a guide to the excavations. Ti- Žižek, I. (1992). Muzejsko društvo in arheologija od tov Veles: National Museum, Austin: University 1893 do 1923. Kronika 40 (3), 148-151. of Texas. Žujović, J. (1893). Kameno doba. Beograd: Srpska knji- Wiseman, J. and Mano-Zisi, Đ. (1971). Excavations at ževna zadruga. Stobi, 1970, American Journal of Archeology, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Oct. 1971), 395-411 Wiseman, J. and Mano-Zisi, Dj. (eds.) (1973). Studies in Antiquities of Stobi, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press. Wiseman, J. and Mano-Zisi, Dj. (eds.) (1975). Studies in Antiquities of Stobi, Vol. 2. Princeton University Press. Wiseman, J. and Mano-Zisi, Dj. (eds.) (1981). Studies in Antiquities of Stobi, Vol. 3. Princeton University Press. Wiseman, J. and Mano-Zissi, Dj. (1971). Excavations at Stobi, 1970. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), 395–411. Wolpoff, M. and Caspari, R. (2006). Does Krapina re- flect early Neandertal paleodemography?. Period- icum Biologorum 108, Zagreb, 2006, 425–432. Yastrebov, I.S. (1904). И. С. Ястребов, Старая Сербия и Албания/ Staraya Serbia i Albanija, Spomenik XLI, Srpska kraljevska akademija, Beograd. Youngs, T. (ed.) (2006). Travel Writing in the Nineteenth Century. Filling the Blank Spaces, Anthem Press 2006. Zagarčanin, M. (2018). Ranosrednjovjekovna nak- ropola u Mijelama i pitanje »Komani-Kroja« kul- ture na našim prostorima. Nova antička Duklja IX, 2018, 97- 145. Zaninović, M. (1992). In memoriam Duje Rendić- Miočević. Opuscula archaeiologica 16, 9–13. Zaninović, M. (1993). Stoljeće nastave arheologije u Hrvatskoj. Opuscula Archaeologica 17, 1994, 15–25. Zaninović, M. (2001). Antičke podjele zemljišta na Korčuli i Pelješcu. In: Arheološka istraživanja na po- dručju otoka Korčule i Lastova, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 20, Zagreb 147-160. Zdravković, I. (1956-1957). Iskopavanja na Novom Brdu 1955. godine. Starinar 7-8, 1956-1957, 341-348. Zdravkovski, D. (2013). Neolitska naselba Tumba Madžari, Skopje. In: P. Kuzman (ed.), Makedonija, Mileniumski kulturno-istoriski fakti, vol. 1, Media Print Makedonija and Univerzitet Euro-Balkan, Skopje 2013, 267-296 Zekan, M. (2007). Fra Lujo Marun (1857–1939). Ute- meljitelj, misionar i vizionar hrvatske arheologije. Starohrvatska prosvjeta III/34, 9–39. Zgaga, V. (1990). Počeci muzeja u Hrvatskoj. Muzeo- logija 28, 1990, 7-13. Zirdum, A. (2003). Predgovor. In: Lastrić, F. (2003). Pre- gled starina Bosanske provincije. Synopsis-Sarajevo. 474 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 474 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 475 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 475 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 476 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 INDEX OF PERSONS A Baltić, Jako 222 Abramić, Mihovil 48, 72, 109, 112, 133, 160, 174, 391, Bandović, Aleksandar 159, 160, 163, 293, 400-402, 393-395 Bankoff, Arthur 171 Accoltisi, F. 35 Barić, Henrik 394 Adam, from Govrlevo 273, 296 Barišić, Franjo 239, 395 Adam, Robert 101 Barker, Philip 62, Adams, F.W. 396 Baš, Franjo 48 Agoli, Esmeralda 368 Basler, Đuro 210, 211, 238, 244, 245, 248, 266, 331, Aitchison, Kenneth 64 333, 337, 406, 421 Ajeti, Idriz 242, 368 Batović, Šime 85, 112, 120, 137, 337 Alberti, Leandro 36 Battaglia, Raffaelle 47, 404 Aleksova, Blaga 174, 290, 291, 311, 406, 431 Bauer, Anton 238 Aletin, Antun 102 Baumel, Jacques 247 Alexander the Great 301-303 Bayer, Josef 47 Alexander I, King of Serbia 193 Bayezid (Ottoman Emperor) 206 Alföldy, Andreas 160 Begna, Giorgio (see Benja, Juraj) Alidjun 206 Begnius, Simon (see Benja, Šimun Kožić) Alija (Ali) 206 Begović, Vlasta 94 Alirejsović, Edina 267, 379 Bekić, Luka 93 Allason, Thomas 101 Belsus, Johannes 153 Allcock, John 13 Belošević, Janko 95, 121 Anđelić, Pavao 238, 241, 244 Benac, Alojz 159, 174, 212, 213, 215, 216, 238-246, Antiquus Austriacus 35 248, 252, 253, 265, 321, 331, 333, 351, 366, 395, 406, Antoninus 147 410, 415, 416, 420, 421, 426 Apfelbeck, Viktor 226, 261 Bendorf, Otto 231, 362 Apih, Elio 37 Benecke, Norbert 213 Apollo 217 Benja, Juraj (Giorgio Begna) 98 Apoxiomenos 94 Benja, Šimun Kožić (Simon Begnius; Simon Aranđelović, Draga (see Garašanin, Draga) Modrusiensis) 99 Atanacković Salčić, Vukosava 379 Berisha, Milot 351, 353, 354, 356, 372 Augustus (Roman Emperor) 32, 93, 102, 106, 117, Bersu, Gerhard 72, 160, 145, 217, 278, 323, 355, 403 Bešlagić, Šefik 230 Biasoletto, Bartolomeo 328 B Bickle, Penny 84 Babić, Boško 292, 296, 312, 418 Bilich-Kamenjarin, Ivanka 83 Babić, Staša 9, 169, 174, 176, 177, 181, 182, 298, 382, Binford, Lewis 53, 59, 180 416, 427, 428, 432 Bintliff, John 59 Babić-Janeska, Gordana 292 Biondo, Flavio 36, 100 Babović, Ljubinka 177 Bitelli, Remo 43, 49, 109, 403 Bačkalov, Aleksandar 358, 365 Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Vera 284, 290 Bailey, Douglass 428 Bizjak, Janez 26 Bakić-Hayden, Milica 12, 13 Blagojević, Tamara 142 Baković, Mile 322 Blažević, Zrinka 383 Bakula, Petar 222, 223 Blaževska, Silvana 277 Baldacci, Antonio 329 Bogišić, Valtazar 327, 339 Balen, Jacqueline 83, 84, 86, 87, Bojanovski, Ivo 93, 109, 217, 244, 245, 267, 406 Baliff, Filip 226 Borić, Dušan 320 477 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 477 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Boris III (King of Bulgaria) 164 Chalkokondyles, Demetrius 99 Bormann, Eugen 231, 261 Chapman, John 59, 432 Bošković, Aleksandar 100 Charlemagne 94 Bošković, Djuradj (Đurđe) 100, 166, 168, 196, 410, Charnoyevich (see Čarnojević) 411 Childe, Gordon 120, 158, 159, 429 Bošnjak, Slavoljub (Slavophile Bosniak) 222 Chiudina, Giacomo (Jakov Ćudina) 328 Bošnjović, Ilija 237, 238 Chrystodolous (family) 194 Boué, Ami 154, 220, 257, 362 Čihák, Jan 224 Brache, Tycho de 100 Cipiko, Petar (Pietro Cippico) 98 Brančić, Anton 153 Cippico, Coriolan 98, Brešić, Anto 222 Ciriacus Anconitanus (see Pizzicolli, Ciriaco de) Brišnik, Danijela 62, 64 Ćirković, Sima Brodar, Mitja 25, 47, 54, 331, 333 Clarke, David 53 Brodar, Srečko 25, 26, 46, 47, 49, 54, 55, 75, 76, 406, Clayer, Nathalie 229 410, 416 Clewig, Konrad 229 Brown, Catherine 158 Coblenz, Werner 382, 428 Brown, Alec 158 Collis, John 64 Brown, Edward 153 Constantine V (Byzantine Emperor) 148 Broz, Josip (see Tito) Constantine VII (Porphyrogenetus) 148, 203 Brukner, Bogdan 171, 172, 178, 179, 201 Constantine the Great (Roman Emperor) 147, 154, Brukner, Olga 179, 201 183 Brunnbauer, Ulf 301, 302 Coppo, Pietro (also Kopić, Petar) 36, 100 Brunšmid, Josip 104, 107, 108, 110, 119, 132, 395 Čoralić, Lovorka 327 Budimir, Milan 242, 394 Corbet, Charles 328 Budja, Mihael 27, 45, 58-60, 262 Cordier, G. 271 Bulić, Dejan 325 Čorović, Mirjana (see Ljubinković, Mirjana) Bulić, Frane 41, 45, 104-107, 109, 110, 112, 130, 325, Čorović, Vladimir 394 393-395 Cousinéry, Esprit Marie 284 Bulkin, V. A. 428 Čović, Borivoje 159, 214, 216, 238, 240-242, 244, 248, Bunguri, A. 350, 352, 353, 362 266, 322, 337, 379 Burić, Marcel 84 Crawford, Osbert 72 Burzanović, Slavko 328, 329 Čremošnik, Irma 160, 163, 174, 238, 244, 265, 431 Buzov, Marija 92 Ćudina, Jakov (see Chiudina, Giacomo) Byron, George Gordon 328 Cunja, Rado 36, 37 Čurčić, Vejsil 226, 229, 230, 234, 260, 393 C Ćurković, R. 284 Caesar, Julius 217 Ćurković, V. 349 Cambi, Nenad 112 Curtis, Glenn 385, 387 Cankar, Izidor 393, 394 Cvijić, Jovan 13 Caprin, Giuseppe 403 Cvik Zupančić, Mirina 76 Carli, Gian Rinaldo 37, 67 Cyril 99, 148, 289, 300, 302, 303, 405 Carlton, Richard 432 Čarnojević (Charnoyevich) 329 Casas, Louis François 101 D Caspari, Rachel 82 Daniel, Glynn 11 Casson, Stanley 288 Danieli Tommasoni, Ante 102 Čataj, Lea 83, 84, 86 Darovec, Darko 36 Čausidis, Nikos 9, 303 Daumet, Honoré 284, 305 Çelebi, Evliya 152, 220, 283, 305 Dautbegović, Almaz 234 Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Aleksandrina 169, 178, Dautbegović, J. 136 179, 200, 324, 329, 431 Dautova Ruševljanin, Velika 146 Čerškov, Emil 356-358, 364, 376, 377, 406 Dautović, Andrea 245 Čerškov, Toni 10, 376 Daux, G. 113 478 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 478 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 De Monti (military officer) 156 Erasmus of Rotterdam 99 De Rossi, G.B. 328 Erdschlanger, P. 153 Dechelette, Joseph 43 Erić, Miran 54 Degmedžić, Ivica 242 Erich, Robert 160 Dehn, Wolfgang 56, 159, 175 Estrin, Saul 387, 417 Delacoulonche, A. 284 Eugen of Savoy 153, 220, 401 Delčev, Goce 299, 300 Evans, Arthur 130, 155, 159, 221, 258, 284, 327, 362 Delger, Franz 169 Della Casa, Philippe 322, 334 F Depolo, Josip 395 Fabec, Tomaž 27, 30 Dermschwam, Hans 153 Farbstein, Rebecca 83 Deroko, Aleksandar 166 Fasolo, Michele 283, 284 Desdevises-du-Désert, Théophile 284 Fellenberg, Edmund Count de 231, 261 Devoto, Giacomo 242 Ferdinand I (Emperor) 153 Deyrer, J. 153 Ferdinand Franz (Archduke) 208 Dežman, Karl (Karl Deschmann) 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 52, 68 Ferk, Franc 393 Diamond, Neil 328 Ferrari, Alessandro 28 Díaz-Andreu, Margarita 12, 393 Ferrero, Guglielmo 169 Dilles, Charles 169 Ferri, Naser 365, 379, 380 Dimitrijević, Stojan 113, 114, 119, 120, 135, 337 Fewkes, Vladimir 159, 160, 363, 397 Dimitsas, Margaritis 284, 285, 305 Fiala, Franjo 226, 229, 230, 260, 261 Dinklage, Karl 398, 399 Filipović, Dragana 10, 143 Diocletian (Roman Emperor) 93, 98, 100, 102, 105, Filipović, Milenko 361 106, 117, 127, 130, 145, 147, 178, 324, 356, 357, 394 Filov (Filow), Bogdan 164, 287 Dizdar, Marko 95, Fisković, Cvito 109, 410, 411 Djurić, Bojan 58, 59, 62 Fitzgerald, K. 248 Dobrila, Juraj 115 Forenbaher, Stašo 83-85, 88, 90, 320 Dobruna-Salihu, Exhlale 365, 379 Foretić, Dinko 395 Dolničar, Janez Gregor (Thalnitscher) 37, 67 Forić, Melisa 239 Domaszewski, Alfred von 155, 362 Forlati Tamaro, Bruna 43 Donati, Vitaliano 101 Fortis, Alberto 101, 126 Dow, James 399 Franco, Francisco 390 Draga, Queen of Serbia 193 Franz I (Austrian Emperor) 102 Drechsler Bižić, Ružica 136, 238, 431, 437 Friedrich II (King of Prussia) 111 Đukić, Ana 87 Furtwängler, Adolf 158, 159 Dular, Janez 43, 57 Dulibić, Ljerka 409 G Dumitrescu, V. 113 Gabričević, Branimir 109, 113, 114 Dumont, Albert 328 Gabrovec, Stane 31, 49, 52, 53, 56, 73, 120, 159, 174, Đurić, N. 354, 377 175, 239, 241-244, 406, 421, 426 Dušan (King of Serbia) 280 Gačić, Divna 159-162, 195 Dušanić, Slobodan 358 Gaffney, Vince 59 Dutović, 245 Gaj-Popović, Dobrila 161 Duval, Noel 171 Galerius (Roman Emperor) 147, 177 Dyggve, Einar 109, 117, 133, 397 Gallatay, Michael 428 Džaja, Srećko 206 Galović, Radovan 363 Džino, Daniel 301, 368 Garašanin, Draga 159, 160, 163, 166, 168, 172-175, 178, 198, 240, 242, 243, 290, 332, 333, 337, 364, 395, E 402, 406, 416, 431, 437 Egger, Rudolph 72, 109, 117, 160, 169, 286, 287, 393, 397 Garašanin, Milutin 144, 159, 160, 163, 166, 168, 169, Egges van Gifen, Albert 160 171-178, 180, 182, 198, 239, 242, 243, 275, 290, 292, Elizabeth II (Queen of the United Kingdom) 137 293, 297, 323, 332, 337, 352, 353, 364, 365, 395, 402, Elsie, Robert 362, 363 406, 410, 411, 415, 416, 421, 426, 437 479 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 479 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Garašanin, Milutin jr. 10, 198, Hayden, Robert 13 Gardner, Janet 82 Heierly, Jakob 231 Garevski, Risto 297 Helmut Kramberger, Anja 91 Gaspari, Andrej 32, 54, 399 Hencken, Hugh 43 Gavela, Branko 169, 172-174, 395, 406 Hensel, W. 113 Gazi Husrev Bey 206, 220 Herder, Johann Gottfried 383 Gimbutas, Maria 212, 245, 295 Herodotus 102 Giustiniani, Lorenzo 98 Heurtley, W.A. 158, 170, 288 Gjecovi, Shtjefën 362, 363, 374 Heuzey, Léon 284, 286, 305 Gjinolli (Djinoli, Đinić), Jashar pasha 361 Hilferding, Aleksandr Fedorovich 220, 257, 362 Gladstone, William 328 Hoernes, Moritz 156, 226, 230, 231, 261 Gligorovich, V. 284 Hoffiller, Viktor 72, 104, 108, 109, 111-113, 132, 393, Glišić, Jovan 354, 364, 366, 376, 377, 406 395, 406 Globočnik Anton 42 Hoffman, Robert 213 Glumac, Dušan 169 Holste, Friedrich 175, 401, 402 Gnirs, Anton 106, 107 Homer 99, 102 Goldman, Hetty 160, 287 Hörmann (Herman), Kostantin 226, 230, 231, 232, Goldstein, Ivo 95, 96 261 Goldsworthy, Vesna 13 Horvat, Anđela 107, 110, Gori, Maja 275 Horvat, Jana 32 Gorjanović-Kramberger, Dragutin 82, 104-107, 119, Horvat, Milena 28 131, 395 Hoxha, Gëzim 357 Govedarica, Blagoje 213, 214, 239, 248, 252, 267 Hoxhaj, Enver 368 Gračanin, Hrvoje 95 Hyde, Charles 158, 170 Graecus, Demetrius 99 Grafenauer, Bogo 176 I Granić, Ante 101 Ilić, Olivera 146 Grbić, Miodrag 159-163, 165-168, 170, 171, 173, 195, Imamović, Enver 9, 203, 240, 253, 267 287-290, 292, 295, 401, 402, 406, 410, 411, 416 Islami, Selim 378 Grosman, Darja 60, 62 Iveković, Metod Ćiril (Ćiro) 393, 394 Grujić, Radoslav 394 Ivetic, Egidio 383 Gunjača, Stjepan 112, 116, 132, 174, 416 Guštin, Mitja 2, 27, 28, 33, 57, 61, 321, 322, 400 JJakac, Božidar 134 H Jakovljević, Jovana 349 Hadri, Ali 243, 368 Jakšić, Nikola 404 Hadrian 93, 146, 147, 355, 356 Jamnik, Pavel 26 Hadžihasanović, Jesenko 252 Janeković-Römer, Zdenka 99 Hahn, Johan Georg von 12 Janković, Đorđe 182 Hajdari, Arben 356 Janković, I. 82 Hald, D. 286 Janković, Marko 163, 164, 194, 401 Hald, Karl 284 Jankuhn, Herbert 163 Halifax Sanceau, Vivian 72 Janžekovič, Izidor 51 Halpern, Joel 151 Jelovina, Dušan 116 Hamernik, Gottfried 39 Jeraj, Stanko 377 Hammond, Andrew 13 Jeršinovic, Anton 393 Hampel, József 231, 261 Jireček, Konstantin 362 Han, Vera 411 John Paul II 149 Hänsel, Bernhard 91, 171 Jones, Inigo 101 Harding, Anthony 428 Josifovska, Borka 290, 291, 312 Harris, Edward 62 Josifovski, Pero 278 Hasanbegović, Ismet 379 Jovanova, Lenče 278 Hawkes, Christopher 43 Jovanović, Borislav 172, 178, 364 480 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 480 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Jovanović, V. 180 Komelj, Ivan 409 Jovanović, Vojislav 170, 172 Komšo, Darko 83 Jukić, Franjo 222, 225 Kondyukov, N.P. 284 Jurjević, Marina 94 Kopić, Petar (see Coppo, Pietro) Jurkić, Vesna 115, 137 Koprivica, Tatjana 327-329 Justinian I 147, 325, 357 Korać, Vojislav 325 Justinian II 148 Korkuti, Muzafer 243, 365, 366, 378, 428 Korošec, Josip 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 60, 75, 113, K 159, 173, 174-176, 178, 238, 241, 246, 262, 290, 293, Kabashi, Pleurât 356 395, 398, 400, 406, 410, 411, 415, 416, 425, 427, 437 Kaiser, Timothy 84, 85, 382, 427, 428 Korošec, Josip jr. 75 Kajdiž, Ines 404 Korošec, Paola 75, 174, 235, 238, 262, 395, 406, 431, Kajzer Cafnik, Mihela 60, 64 437 Kaljanac, Adnan 10, 220, 222-224, 242, 252, 256 Kossack, Georg 56, 159, 175 Kallay, Benjamin von 224-227, 231 Kossina, Gustaf 56, 159, 175, 176 Kandler, Pietro 42, 103 Kostić, Đorđe 154 Kanitz, Felix 154, 177, 191, 362 Kostovicova, Denisa 361, 363 Kapetanović, Mehmed Beg 231 Kotlowska, Ryta 377 Kapidžić, Hamdija 229 Kovačević, Jovan 160, 163, 169, 172, 174, 176, 179, Karadžić, Vuk 154 180, 416, 426 Karaman, Ljubo 106, 110, 112, 393, 395 Kovačević, Mirko 325 Karaula, Lovro 222, 257 Kovačič, Franc 394 Karavanić, Ivor 87, 83 Kraljačić, Tomislav 224, 225 Kastelic, Jože 42, 49, 52, 53, 73, 174, 290, 293, 310, Kraljević, Gojko 267 400, 406, 410, 415 Kreso, Muharem 162, 400 Katančič, Matija Petar 101, 102, 126 Kretschmer, Paul 169 Katancsich, Mathius Petrus (see Katančić, Matija Krivokapić, Marija 328 Petar) Križanović Tijana 220, 222-224 Katičić, Radoslav 239, 242 Krstić, Branislav 392 Katsarov, Gavril 288 Krstić, Dušan 171 Kavur, Boris 26, 55 Kršnjavi, Isidor 104, 126, 227 Kečkemet, Dušan 101 Kukuljević, Ivan Sakcinski 103, 126, 384 Kelmendi, Tringa 371 Kulanić, Ahmed 220 Kenner, Hedwig 265 Kunić, Filip 222 Keppler, Johannes 100 Kurelac, Iva 100 Kerényi, Karl 169 Kuzman, Pasko 274-276, Kilibarda, Vesna 328 Kuzmanović, Zorica 156 Kirigin, Branko 59 Kitanoski, Blagoja 275, 312 L Kitzinger, Ernst 286 Labaš Blašovečki, Ivan 102 Klejn, Leo 59, 428, 429 Ladek, Friedrich 287 Klemenc, Josip 32, 46, 49, 51, 52, 58, 72, 74, 109, 168, Lahtov, Vasil 290, 291, 293, 309, 310, 406 395, 396, 404, 437 Lampe, John 382 Kmecl, Matjaž 419 Lalević, Olga 245 Knez, Tone 77 Lalović, Anka 177 Koco, Dimče 289-291, 309, 406 Lamboley, Jean-Luc 356 Koka, Aristotel 378 Lantier, Raymond 43, 160 Kokole, Stanko 98 Lapaine, Miljenko 100 Kolar-Dimitrijević, Mira 104, 109-111 Lartet, Édouard 156 Kolištrkoska Nasteva, Irena 9, 274 Lastrić, Filip 221 Kollár, Ján 383 Lavrin (Laurin), Anton 38, 39 Kolšek, Vera 51, 54 Lawler, Andrew 252, 254 Kolumbić, Jelena 98 Lazić, Miroslav 170, 178 481 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 481 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Lazius, Wolfgang 36 Marović, Ivan 109 Le Roy, Julian David 101 Marr, Nikolay 428, 429 Leake, William Martin 284 Marsigli, Luigi Ferdinando 153, 154, 190 Lebedev, G.S. 428 Martin, Herbert 393 Leclant, J. 113 Martinović, Jovan 325 Leka, Alma 251 Marulić, Marko 99, 125 Leopold I, Emperor 153 Marun, Stjepan (Lujo) 106, 108, 132, 393 Leroi-Gourhan, André 113 Marušić, Branko 52, 55, 115 Letica, Zagorka 172, 199 Matijaško, Martina 104 Lilčić, Viktor 278, 279 Matijević Sokol, Mirjana 404 Linhart, Anton Tomaž 38, 42, 67 Matolić, Marko 228 Ljubić, Šime 103, 104, 131, 327 Maximilian (Archduke) 39 Ljubinković, Mirjana 174, 393-395, 410 Maximin Daja 147 L’Orange, Hans Peter 117 McGuire, Randall 429 Lorber, Črtomir 10, 171, 393, 394, 412, 414, 416 McPherron, Alan 171 Loureiro Fernandes, José 164 Mecklenburg, Dutchess 43, 47 Lovrenović, Dubravko 9, 206 Medaković, Anica 162 Ložar, Rajko 47, 72, 174, 400, 406 Medović, Predrag 171, 179, 201 Lozić, Grga 222 Mehmed II, Sultan 153, 205, 219 Ložnjak Dizdar, Daria 89, 90 Mehmetaj, H. 353 Lozny, Ludomir 7 Menghin, Oswald 57, 160, 163 Lubbock, John 156 Merhart, Gero von 43, 56, 57, 120, 159, 174-176 Lucas, Fridericus Theophilus 284 Mesesnel, France 285, 286, 395, 400 Luci, Kemal 9, 353, 365, 378, 379, Mesihović, Salmedin 9 Lucić, Ivan 99, 125 Methodius 99, 148, 279, 289, 300, 302, 303, 405 Lučin, Bratislav 99 Meyers, John Lynton 158 Lucius, Joannes (see Lucić, Ivan) Mihailović, Dušan 141, 319 Lugli, Giuseppe 72 Mihailović, Mikiša 199 Mihajlović, Vladimir 153, 154 M Miholjek, Igor 93 Mackinder, Harold 13 Mihovilić, Kristina 91 Mahmud, Haji 283 Mijović, Pavle 325, 333, 343 Mahr, Adolf 43 Mikić, Živko 267 Maixner, Franjo 104 Mikl Curk, Iva 54, 78 Majnarić-Pandžić, Nives 114, 120, 225, 226, 286 Milenković, Marija 349 Malenko, Vlado 290 Miletić, Nada 218, 238, 244, 248, 431 Malez, Mirko 271, 297 Miletin, Vera 175 Mandić, Antun 102 Milinković, Mihajlo 148, 156, 169 Mandić, Mihovil 235, 238, 262, 406 Miljković, Đorđe 283-285, 288, 289 Maneva, Elica 279 Milleker, Felix 162, 192 Mano-Zisi, Đorđe 171, 172, 295 Miloglav, Ina 87 Mantuani, Josip 393-395 Milojčić, Vladimir 57, 119, 159, 160, 163, 395, 402 Marchand, Susan 14 Milosavljević, Monika 395, 429 Marchesetti, Carlo 44 Milošević, Slobodan 150, 181, 336, 360, 388 Marcus Aurelius 146, 355 Milyukov, Pavel Nikolayevich 284 Marić, Miroslav 143 Mirabella Roberti, Mario 403, 404 Marić, Rastislav 169 Miracle, Preston 83-85, 320 Marić, Zdravko 238, 242,244, 245, 248 Mirdita, Zef 243, 365, 378, 380 Marijanović, Brunislav 84, 85, 112, 213, 214, 248 Mirnik, Ivan 109 Marin, Emilio 343 Mirosavljević, Vladimir 113, 114 Marjanović, Gordana 377 Misilo, Krunoslav 241, 395 Marković, Čedomir 319-324, 329, 332-334, 342, 344 Mitrevski, Dragi 271-275 Marmont, Auguste de 102 Mlakar, Štefan 115 482 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 482 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Mlinar, Janez 46 Pahič, Stanko 77 Mócsy, András 242, 355, 356 Palavestra, Aleksandar 9, 155, 156, 159, 169, 173, 174, Molè, Vojeslav 45, 46, 71, 106, 393, 394, 400, 406 182, 354 Mommsen, Theodore 36, 53, 155, 327, 362 Paletin, Vinko 100 Montelius, Oscar 43, 231, 261 Palikruševa, Galaba 198 Montejo, Francisco de 100 Palladio, Andrea 101 Moroni, Carlo 98 Pančić, Josif 156 Mortillet, Gabriel de 156, 231, 232, 261 Pandžić, Ivana 10, 210, 212 Moshin, Vladimir 169 Papazoglu, Fanula 200, 242, 277, 290, 395 Mowat, Robert 327, 328 Parović-Pešikan, Maja 322, 354, 356 Muchar, Anton 42 Paržik, Karlo 233 Mujkić, Sabina 237 Pašalić, Esad 240, 242, 395 Müller, Johannes 213 Pašić, Radmila 276 Müller-Karpe, Hermann 56 Pasini Tržec, Iva 409 Müllner, Alphons 40, 41, 43 Paškvalin, Veljko 238, 244, 248, 267 Munro, Robert 231, 261, 327, 328, 339 Patsch, Carl 169, 226-230, 260, 261, 362, 397 Murko, Matija 393 Patte, Ettiene 271 Murray, Tim 11 Paul, Duke (Pavle, knez) 402 Mušicki, Lukijan 155 Pavlovska, Eftimija 277 Peckham, Robert 285 N Pečnik, Jernej 42, 43 Napoleon Bonaparte 13, 38, 102, 207, 326, 383 Peja, Fatmir 365, 379 Naumov, Goce 9, 272, 273 Pelcer-Vujačić, Olga 327 Navarro, J.M. de 43 Perc, Bernarda 77 Nemanjić (Serbian royal dynasty) 149, 155, 359 Perić, Slaviša 212 Neralić, Jadranka 99 Periša, Darko 10, 75, 104, 108, 109, 111, 113, 234, 235, Nezlobinski, Nikola 285 241, 262, 421, 437, 444 Niederle, Lubor 159 Perthes, Boucher de 156 Nikola, Montenegrin princ (see Nikola II) Peter the Great 100 Nikola II 328, 330, 341 Petković, Vladimir 165, 166, 168, 196, 393-395, 406 Nikolanci, Mladen 109 Petričić, Franjo 104 Nilsson, Marin 169 Petricioli (Petrićoli), Ivo 109, 112, 174 Nobile, Pietro 106 Petrinec, Mija 221, 222 Novak, Grga 86, 99, 112, 113, 174, 285, 286, 395, 406, Petrov, Konstantin 292 415, 416 Petrović, Jozo 235, 238, 262, 406 Novak, Viktor 394 Petrović (Petruševki), Mihajlo 395 Novaković, Predrag 36, 38, 40, 45, 59, 60, 62, 64, 104, Petrović, P. 153 109, 155, 168, 171, 175, 250, 262, 301, 382, 389, 397, Petru, Peter 33, 51, 57 398, 412, 414, 428, 430, 432 Petru, Simona 26 Nugent, Count Laval 103 Petruševski, Mihajlo (see Petrović, Mihajlo) Nuić, Anđeo (Angjeo) 223, 257 Peuntinger, Konrad 36 Phidias 287 O Philelpho, Xenophont 99 Odar, Boštjan 54 Philip II, Macedon 301 Orbini, Mauro 99, 100, 125, 383 Philippus de Occhevia (see Lastrić, Filip) Orfelin, Zaharije 155 Piccard, Charles 169 Oršić, Adam 163, 164, 401 Piccolomini, Silvio Eneo 383 Ortelius, Abraham 100 Pichler, Friedrich 42 Orton, David 212 Pigorini, Luigi 231, 261 Osole, France 54, 75 Piletić, D. 172 Ostrogorsky, Georgiy 169, 279 Pintarić, Vesna 430 Piranesi, Giovanni Battista 101 P Pirković, Jelka 64, 350 483 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 483 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Pittioni, Richard 113, 244 Reiswitz, Johann von 160, 288, 292, 293, 397, 400-402 Pizzamiglio, Gilberto 101 Rendić Miočević, Duje 109, 113, 114, 119, 120, 135, Pizzicolli, Ciriaco de 14, 98, 99, 152 174, 239, 241, 242, 395, 406, 415, 416, 418 Plato 99 Renfrew, Colin 53 Plesničar Gec, Ljudmila 54, 77 Rey, Leon 288 Plethon, Georgius Gemistus 14 Rimpf, Andrea 95 Pliny the Elder 102 Rink, W.J. 82 Polizzoti Greis, Gloria 43 Ritter Vitezović, Pavel 153 Pompeius 217 Roganović, Stanko 330 Popović, Avram 362, 374 Rogoznica, Deborah 44 Popović, Petar 355 Roksandić, Drago 383, 385 Popović, Vladislav 171 Rosenberg, Alfred 160 Porčić, Marko 142 Rossetti, Domenico 36, 100 Potrebica, Hrvoje 89-92 Rossos, Andrew 288 Poulton, Hugh 285 Rostovtsev, Mikhail 169 Pouqueville, François Charles Hugues Laurent 284, Rothenbacher, Franz 347 305 Rovinsky, Pavel Antolovich 328 Praschniker, Camilo 329 Rutar, Simon 41, 42, 44, 68, 106, 391 Preložnik, Andrej 321, 322 Ružička, Leon Leopold 393, 435 Premerstein, Anton 41, 157, 287, 356, 362, 363, 397 Pribojević, Vinko (Vincenzo Priboevo, Vincentius S Priboevius) 99, 383, 426 Sabljar, Mijat 103 Pricot de Sainte-Marie, Jean-Baptiste 328 Šačić (also Šačić Beća), Amra 267 Primas, Margarita 322, 324 Šafarik, Janko 156, 190 Prličev, Kiril 289 Said, Edward 12, 13 Proeva, Nade 9, 287, 302, 304 Salamanov-Korobar, Ljiljana 271 Prygl, Auguštin (also Tyffernus) 35 Samuil (Tsar of Western Bulgaria) 279 Ptolemy 99, 102 Sanev, Vojislav 27, 290, 296 Pudić, Ivan 242 Šanjek, Franjo 99 Puško, Asian 361 Santonin, Pavel (see Santoninus, Paulus) Santoninus, Paulus 35 Q Sanudo, Marino 36 Quatrefages, Jean Louis Armand 156 Sarakinski, Voislav 304 Saria, Balduin 43, 46, 47, 51, 71, 72, 109, 160-162, 168, R 285, 286, 308, 391, 393, 395-397, 399, 400, 403, 406 Radics, Peter 42 Šašel, Jaroslav 33, 54, 76 Radimsky, Vaclav 218, 226, 229-231, 260, 261 Šavel, Irena 29 Radnoti, Aladar 72 Scalamonti, Francesco 98 Radojčić, Svetozar 166, 358, 411 Schier, Wolfram 213 Rajkovača, Tonko 183, 184 Schlanger, Nathan 64 Ralph, Elisabeth 171 Schkorpil, Karel 287 Ranke, Johannes 231, 261 Schliemann, Heinrich 287 Rapan Papeša, Anita 95 Schmid, Walter 41, 44, 47, 406 Rapanić, Željko 390, 419 Schmidt, Rudolf 111, 397 Rašajski, Rastko 174 Schober, Arnold 329 Rassman, Knut 213 Schönleben, Janez Ludvik 36, 37, 67 Ratzel, Friedrich 12 Schrunk, Ivančica 94 Raubar, Krištof 35 Schuchhardt, Carl 159 Reinach, Salomon 231, 232, 261 Schwab, Gustav 53 Reinecke, Paul 41, 160, 175, 235 Sedaj, Engjel 379 Reinerth, Hans 175 Sefvet-pasha 223 Reisch, Emil 393 Šeparović, Tomislav 221, 222 Reiser, Otmar 226 Šeper, Mirko 111-113 484 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 484 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Septimius Severus (Roman Emperor) 147 Strange, John 101 Serafimovski, Tome 305 Strommer, Ludwig (see Thallóczy, Ljudevit) Sergejevski, Dimitrije 235, 238-240, 244, 406 Strossmayer, Josip Juraj 384, 394 Sermage, Josip 103 Stuart, James 101 Serventi, Zrinka 94 St. Clement (Sv. Kliment) 279, 289 Seton-Watson, Robert 155 Sučić, Mijo 222 Seyrig, Henri 72 Sugar, Peter 206 Shukriu, Edi 365, 379 Suić, Mate 109, 112-114, 118-120, 135, 174, 239, 241- Sievers, Wolfram 163, 401 243, 323, 406 Šimić, Jasna 83 Sundhausen, Holm 229 Simon Modrusiensis (see Benja, Šimun Kožić) Supilo, Frano 155 Siuave, Etienne-Marie 38 Syme, Ronald 160, 169 Skazov, Ivan 169 Szabo, Gyula 107 Škegro, Ante 221-223, 225, 241 Szombathy, Josef 230, 231, 261 Skok, Petar 394 Skrabar, Viktor 44, 72, 393, 394, T Slabe, Marjan 33 Tasić, Nenad 143, 169, 200, 350, Slapšak, Božidar 9, 36, 38, 58, 59, 301, 382, 427, 428 Tasić, Nikola 169, 178, 200, 242, 274, 352, 354, 360, Slavophile Bosniak (see Jukić, Franjo) 364, 379, 421 Slukan Altić, Mirela 359, 361 Tennyson, Alfred 328 Šmaljcelj, Marija 114 Teržan, Biba (Ljubinka) 31, 57, 58, 91 Šmalcelj Novaković, Pia 95 Težak-Gregl, Tihomila 83, 84 Smičiklas, Tadija 107, 110 Thallóczy, Ljudevit (Lajos) 225, 231, 261 Šmitek, Janez 37, 39 Thomas, Archdeacon (Thomas Archidiaconus Smith, Fred 82 Spalatensis, Toma Arhiđakon) 98 Sokolovska, Viktorija 287 Tito (Josip Broz) 34, 97, 111, 137, 208, 237, 386, 388, Solarić, Miljenko 92 389, 411, 419, 420, 425, 426 Solarić, Nikola 92 Todorova, Maria 12, 13, 153 Solovyov, Alexander 169 Todorović, Jovan 354, 364, 377, 395, 406, 419 Solter, Ana 10, 103 Tomičić, Željko 94, 113 Šošić Klindžić, Rajna 83, 84 Tommasini, Giaccomo Filippo 36, 100 Špikić, Marko 106 Tommasoni, Ante Danieli 102 Špoljarić, Luka 98 Tomović, Miodrag 169, 174, 182, 382, 416, 428 Spon, Jacob 100, 101 Tompa, Ferenc 43, 160, 162 Šprajc, Ivan 58 Torma, Karl 162 Srejović, Dragoslav 147, 169-172, 177-179, 199, 320, Tóth, István György 222 324, 329, 333, 334, 364, 365 Traian 145, 199 Stalin, Joseph Vissarionovich 176, 282, 428 Travner, Vladimir 394 Stančić, Zoran 59, 60 Trbuhović, Vojislav 242, 322 Stare, France 56, 58, 76, 120, 159, 174, 175, 242 Trei, Lisa 245 Stare, Vida 33 Trigger, Bruce 11, 12 Stefanović, Sofija 142, 185 Tringham, Ruth 171 Steindl, Franz 398 Trojanović, Sima 394 Stelè, France 48, 49, 56, 73, 106, 107, 393-395, 407, 410 Truhelka, Ćiro 222, 226-231, 233, 234, 259, 261, 285, Sterija Popović, Jovan 156 286, 391, 393, 395, 396 Sticotti, Piero 329, 340 Trumbić, Ante 155 Stojanović, Dubravka 303 Tuđman, Franjo 121, 388, 419 Stojanović, L. 284 Turk, Ivan 25, 55 Stojković, Ivan (Stoycus, Yoannes, Ioanes de Turk, Peter 29, 31, 59 Ragusio) 998 Tutundžić, Savo 169 Stoye, John 153 Tvrtko I (Bosnian King) 205 Strabo 102 Tyffernus (see Prygl, Auguštin) Strada, Jacopo de 100 485 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 485 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 U Vuksanović, Lj. 172 Ucko, Peter 172 Vulić, Nikola 157-161, 168-170, 173, 178, 193, 285, Unverzagt, Wilhelm 160, 163, 288, 292, 293, 397, 402 287, 290, 356, 362, 363, 393-396, 406 Urfeld, Kornfiz 153 Uvarova, Praskovya Sergeevna 393, 435 W Wagner, Elizabeta 104, 19-111 V Wallerstein, Immanuel 15 Valens 278 Walter, Michail (see Valtrović, Mihajlo) Valentinian 278 Watkinson, Charles 428 Valtrović, Mihajlo (Michail Walter) 154, 155, 157, Wedekind, Michael 398, 399 158, 191 Wegner, Max 113 Valvasor, Janez Vajkard 36, 37, 153 Werner, Joachim 56, 57, 159, 175 Vander Linden, Marc 212 Whallon, Robert 210 Vasić, Miloje 4, 50, 57, 155, 157-161, 165, 166, 168- Wheler, George 100, 101 170, 172-175, 178, 187, 193, 194, 241, 288, 394, 395, Wilhelm II 43 401, 406, 416 Willvonseder, Kurt 163, 164, 401, 402 Vasić, Rastko 172, 297, 353, 354, 365 Wilson, David 14 Vego, Marko 238 Winter, Frederick 171 Velenrajter, Pavle 395 Wiseman, James 295 Veletovac, Edin 218 Wolpoff, Milford 82 Velimirović-Žižić, Olivera (see Žižić, Olivera) Velušček, Anton 27, 29, 54, 60 Y Venedikov, Ivan 289 Yastrebov, Ivan Stepanovich 362, 374 Vergerio, Pier Paolo (the Elder) 36 Youngs, Tim 328 Verneau, René 231, 261 Veseli, Sabina 368 Z Veselinović, M. 284 Zaborowski, Sigismond 156 Vespasian (Roman Emperor) 93, 278 Zagarčanin, Mladen 325 Vialla de Sommières, Jacques-Louis 328, 339 Zancani, Niccoló 98 Vidal de la Blache, Paul 13 Zaninović, Marin 52, 92, 98, 113, 114, 118, 119 Vilotijević, Dragutin 201 Zdravković, Ivan 378 Vinski, Zdenko 52, 56, 95, 112-114, 120, 136, 148, 174, Zdravkovski, Dragiša 273 176, 406 Zekan, Mate 106 Vinski-Gasparini, Ksenija 89, 90, 109, 120, 136, 174, Zelinsky, Tadeusz 169 416, 421, 431 Žeravica, Zdenko 248 Virchow, Rudolf 40, 231, 261 Zgaga, Višnja 99, 102 Virmont, Damien Hugo von 153 Zirdum, Andrija 221, 222 Višeslav (Croatian Prince) 404 Žižek, Ivan 394 Vitić-Ćetković, Andriela 335 Žižić, Olivera 323, 324, 329, 333, 344, 431 Vittorio Emanuele III (Italian King) 329 Zmajević, Andrija 327, 339 Vodnik, Valentin 38 Žujović, Jovan 156 Vogt, Emil 43 Županič, Niko 393, 394 Voss, Albert 231, 261 Voytek, Barbara 171 Vrančić, Faust 100 Vrdoljak, Bono Mato 221, 222 Vrišer, Igor 209, 329 Vucinich, Wayne 245 Vučković Todorović, Dušica (Dušanka) 163, 174, 395, 416, 431 Vujić, Željka 102, 104 Vukčić, Stjepan Kosača 203, 205 Vukomanović, M. 410 486 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 486 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 GEOGRAPHICAL INDEX A Aquileia 32, 35, 102, 109, 391 Acruvium 323 Arabia 152 Acumincum 146 Aranđelovac 167 Acursed Mountains (see Prokletije) Argos (see also Vodovrati) 277 Ad Basante 225 Arnautovići 212, 241 Ad Pirum 57 Asia 280 Adrianopolis (Edirne, Jedrene) 147, 280, Asia Minor 153, 206 Adriatic 13, 15, 16, 23-25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 39, 43, Asseria 109 44, 51, 55-57, 79-81, 83, 84, 85, 87-94, 96, 98, 101, Astibo(s) 277, 278 113, 119, 120, 141, 146, 149, 151, 203, 204, 205, 208, Atenica 145 211-218, 221, 269-271, 274, 276, 279, 284, 315, 317, Athens 12, 41, 105, 284, 285, 288, 295, 301 318, 320, 321, 323-326, 328, 330, 335, 337, 347, 349, Austin 295 351, 352, 354-356, 383, 403, 427 Austria (-n, - ns) (also Österreich (-ische)) 3, 4, 7, 8, Adriatic Littoral (province) 34, 39, 43, 44 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 33, 34, 36, 38-49, 52, 53, 55- Adriatisches Küstenland 44 57, 61, 67, 79-81, 83, 84, 86, 93, 96, 97, 100, 102, Aegean 14, 16, 30, 31, 57, 91, 119, 141, 145, 149, 153, 103, 105, 106, 108-111, 118, 119, 121, 149, 151-155, 159, 216, 269, 271, 276-278, 281, 284, 287, 322, 323, 157, 161-164, 176, 187, 191, 205-208, 219, 220, 222- 348, 349, 353, 354, 401 237, 240, 245, 246, 256, 261, 280, 284, 286, 326, 327, Aegida 36 329, 334, 359, 361, 362, 364, 372, 375, 382-386, 390- Aenona 95, 109 393, 395-399, 401, 402, 414, 421, 426 Aequum 93, 109 Austria (also A. Empire, A. Monarchy) 7, 8, 12, 13, Ajdovska jama 27, 28 15, 16, 23, 24, 33, 34, 36, 38-49, 52, 53, 55-57, 61, Albania (-ns) 8, 14, 16, 19, 84, 91, 150, 152, 162, 181, 67, 79-81, 83, 84, 86, 93, 96, 97, 100, 102, 103, 105, 208, 216, 219, 221, 225, 228, 229, 243, 269, 276, 106, 108-111, 118, 119, 121, 149, 151-155, 157, 161- 279- 284, 288, 293, 298, 301, 302, 315, 317, 322-325, 164, 176, 187, 205-208, 219, 220, 222-237, 240, 245, 329, 332, 337, 347-349, 351, 353-356, 359-363, 365- 246, 256, 261, 280, 284, 286, 326, 327, 329, 334, 359, 369, 371-374, 378, 383, 385, 386, 389, 401, 404, 426, 361, 362, 364, 372, 375, 382-386, 390-393, 395-399, 428, 430, 433 401, 402, 414, 421, 426, 435 Albany 172 Austria-Hungary (also Austro-Hungary) 15, 18, 191, Albanian Alps (Alpet Shqiptare) 348 205, 225, 384-386, 392 Alihodže 214 Avars 94-96, 147, 148, 218, 325, Aljmaš 86 Axios (see also Vardar river) 284 Alps 23-26, 31-33, 47, 49, 57, 91, 383, 398 America 100 B Anatolia 14, 152, 175, 272, 273, 280 Bačka 144 Ancona 14, 25, 81, 98, 153, 221, 327 Bačka Palanka 144, 148, 167 Andautonia 93 Bačka Topola 183 Anderva 324 Badanj 210, 245, 266 Anine 146 Baden 265 Antigonea 279 Baden (cultural group, pottery style) 29, 86-88, 214, 352 Anzabegovo (place) 198, 272, 293 Bajina Bašta 146 Anzabegovo–Vršnik (also cultural group, pottery Bakarno Gumno 274, 275 style) 141, 273, 274, 296 Balkan(s) 1, 2, 7-18, 20, 21, 25, 27, 32, 34, 46, 53, 57, Apatin 144 81, 83, 85, 88, 91, 104, 120, 139, 141, 143-145, 148- Apulia 91 159, 161, 166, 169, 171, 173-179, 187, 188, 200, 205- Aquae Iassae 93 (Varaždinske Toplice) 208, 211, 213, 214, 216, 218-221, 224, 227-229, 233, Aquae S 217 239-247, 265, 269, 271, 272, 274, 276-281, 283, 284, 487 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 487 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 287, 288, 292, 295-297, 315, 317, 320, 323, 326, 328, Bihać 216, 217, 229, 230, 234, 238, 248, 251, 253, 267 329, 349, 350, 352-356, 358-362, 365, 368, 373, 382- Bijeljina 238, 250, 252 385, 388, 400, 411, 420, 421, 426-428, 432 Bijelo Brdo 89, 104, 109 Banate (region) 162 Bijelo Polje 321, 331 Banja Luka 205, 207-210, 214, 217, 218, 234, 236, 238, Bileća 245, 419 249-254, 263, 362, 396, 433 Bioča 319 Banja Luka–Kastel 21, 218 Biograd na moru 114 Banja e Malishevës (see Mališevska Banja) Biokovo 80 Banja e Pejës (see Pećka Banja) Birmingham 158 Banjë near Istog (see Banjice near Istok) Bistue Vetus 217 Banjice near Istok (Banjë near Istog) 352 Bistuensium 217 Bapska 84, 86, 111 Bitola (incl. Monastiri) 158, 160, 168, 271, 277-280, Bar 325, 327, 331, 339 283-285, 287, 288, 290, 293, 299, 300, 396 Barajevo 145 Bitovnja 203 Baranja 81, 97 Bjelasica 317 Barbariga 94 Bjelašnica 203 Bargala–Bregalnica 291 Bjelovar 111 Barice 89, 215 Bjeshkët e Nemuna (see Prokletije) Barileva (see Bariljevo) Black Drin (Crni Drim, Drini i zi) 269 Bariljevo (Barileva) 352 Black Sea 16, 25, 149, 279, 317, 347 Basques 390 Bled 33, 53, 398-400, 413, 418, 419, 444 Bassianae 146 Bogovinska pećina 144 Bathinus 203 Bohemia (-n) (see also Czechia, Czech Republic) 226, Batrovci 145 228, 230, 384 Bavaria (-n, -ns) 53, 176, 399 Bojana 317 Bela Crkva 144, 157 Boka e Përçëves (see Boka Prčevo) Bela Palanka (see also Remesiana) 146, 167 Boka Kotorska 80, 315, 317, 324, 325, 327, 330, 332, Belačevac (Bellaçec) 352, 353 334, 336 Belasica 269 Boka Prčevo (Boka e Përçëves) 354, 358 Belegiš 89, 144, 145 Boljetin 147 Belgrade (see also Beograd, Belgrad) 9, 46, 48, 50, 56, Boljevića gruda 90, 321, 322 57, 59, 76, 84, 92, 96, 109, 114, 121, 143, 145, 146, Bologna 36, 37 149-152, 155-180, 182-185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193- Bononia (see Bonoštor) 196, 199, 200, 208, 216, 228, 234, 235, 238, 240-244, Bonoštor (Bononia) 146 252, 282, 285-293, 295, 297, 330, 331, 333, 337, 343, Bor 141, 146, 165, 183, 413, 441 363-365, 371, 372, 379, 392-397, 400-402, 405, 406, Bordeaux 246 410, 413-416, 419-421, 431, 436, 441, 442, 445 Bosanska Gradiška 216, 250, 292 Bellaçec (see Belačevac) Bosanska Krajina 238, 250, 251 Belotić 144 Bosanska Posavina 204, 205, 210 Benkovac 114 Bosanski Novi (also Novi Grad) 238, 250 Beram 44 Bosna (river) 203, 204, 211, 212, 217, 225 Beran krš 321, 332 Bosna Srebrena 219 Berane 321, 325, 331, 332 Bosnia (region) 203, 204, 211-219, 329 Berek 218 Bosnia, -n, -ns (medieval state, Ottoman province, Berkeley 171 ethnic B.) 7, 108, 151, 203, 205-207, 218-225, 228 Berlin 15-17, 19, 57, 105, 106, 150, 157, 160, 163, 171, 175, Bosnia and Herzegovina 7-9, 15, 19, 35, 50, 51, 53, 77, 207, 231, 254, 261, 281, 284, 326, 359, 362, 368, 384, 433 79-81, 84, 85, 87-93, 96, 97, 100, 101, 107, 108, 110, Berlin (Eastern) 292, 293, 116, 119, 121, 139, 145, 150-155, 159, 163, 168, 174, Bërnicë e Poshtme (see Donja Brnjica) 180, 182, 187, 203-205, 207-236, 240, 241, 243-257, Bersumno 324 259, 264-267, 280, 282, 284, 286, 298, 300, 301, 303, Besançon 291 315, 317, 319, 322, 326, 333, 336, 353, 359, 362, 363, Betalov spodmol 25, 47 373, 379, 383-393, 395-397, 404, 406, 409, 410, 415, Bigeste 217 418, 420, 421, 423, 424, 432, 433 488 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 488 22. 10. 2021 11:06:27 Bosniak(s) (see also Muslims, nationality) 79, 203, California 171, 245 209, 225, 247, 253, 256, 301, 315, 368, 388, 389, 425 Cambridge 43, 175, 183, 210, 254, 433 Bosnian-Herzegovinian 9, 10, 101, 208, 209, 221, 228, Čapljina 218, 228 239, 240, 241, 244, 246, 392, 433 Capodistria (see Koper) Bosut 145 Caričin grad (see also Iustiniana Prima) 147, 171, 183 Botoš 160 Carinthia (see also Kärnten) 23, 31, 33, 34, 39, 40, 45, Brač 80 153, 385 Bradford 59, 118, 421 Carniola (incl. Kranjska, Krain) 23, 34-36, 38-45, 47, Brazda 277 67, 68, 73, 106, 153, 385, 391, 392, Brazil 164 Carniola (Inner) 31, Brčko 209, 251, 252 Carniola (Lower) 31, 32, 43, Bregalnica 269, 271, 289 Carniola (Upper) 31, 398, 399 Breza 218 Carpathians 139, 221 Brežec 30 Carso (see Karst) Brežice 50, 61 Carthaginians 100 Brianion (Gradište near Debrešte) 277 Caspian Sea 148 Bribir 85, 86,394 Castra (in Banja Luka) 217 Brioni 88, 93, 94, 115 Catalans 390 Brno 230 Čatež–Sredno polje 27, 28 Brooklyn 171 Caucasus 152 Brugg 265 Cavtat 81, 93, 114, 324, 327 Brussels 105, 227, 233, 369, 396 Čazma 111 Bubanj 142, 144, 163 Čelarevo 148 Bubanj–Salcuţa–Krivodol (cultural group, pottery Celeia 31, 32, 35 style) 144, 274, 352, 353 Celje 31, 32, 35, 39, 48, 50, 54, 56, 70, 393, 435, 436 Bucharest 228 Central Europe 91, 102, 114, 174, 235 Budapest 39, 43, 101, 102, 106, 126, 155, 156, 161, 162, Čepigovo (see also Stibera) 277 172, 224, 227, 231, 233, 242, 261, 384 Cerknica Lake 36 Budva 322-325, 330-333, 343 Cervignano 286 Buffalo 295 Cetina (cultural group, pottery style) 90, 215 Bugojno 214, 215, 244, 333 Cetina (river) 80, 96, 215 Bujanovac 354 Cetinje 208, 234, 329-331, 334, 340, 343, 344, 359, 396 Buković–Lastvine 88 Chicago 295 Bukovo 271 Chichen Itza 100 Bulgaria 7, 8, 14, 16, 19, 100, 139-141, 146-148, 150, Cibalae 93, 102, 104 152-154, 162, 182, 206, 207, 215, 222, 243, 269, 270, Çiflak (see Čiflik) 273, 278, 281-283, 287, 288, 293, 326, 355, 359, 383- Čiflik (Çiflak) 357 386, 397, 401, 426, 428, 430 Ciganska jama 26 Bulgars 148, 149, 279 Cimmerians 145 Burnum 93, 109 Cinna 324 Buško Blato 214 Čitluk (near Sinj) 93 Buthua 323 Claustra Alpium Iuliarum 33, 403 Butković 218 Čoka 143 Butmir (place, also cultural group, pottery style) 85, Constantinople (see Istanbul) 212-214, 226, 228-233, 256, 259 Copenhagen 102 Buzet 114 Cres 80, 103 Byzantium (-ine(s)) 13, 14, 46, 56, 94-96, 98, 99, 118, Crete 152 120, 147-149, 151, 154, 171, 180, 203, 205, 218, 279, Crikvenica 122 280, 291, 262, 296, 325, 357-359, 372, 416 Crimea 152 Criş (river, cultural group, pottery style) 141 C Crkveni Livadi 274 Čačak 141, 148, 165, 359 Crkvine (nesr Turbe) 214 Čakovec 111 Crkvine (near Rogačići) 218 489 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 489 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Crkvine (near Vruce) 218 171, 173, 175, 177, 179, 187, 190, 204, 206, 216, 269, Crna Gora (see Montenegro) 271, 274, 276, 278, 280, 324, 349, 350, 353, 355, 358, Crni Drim (Drini i zi; see Black Drin) 400, 401 Crnokalačka bara 142, 143 Danube limes 94, 148, 154, 161, 179 Croatia 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29, 32-37, 41, 43, Daorsi 216, 245 51-53, 55, 57, 59, 79-84, 86-126, 131, 132, 134, 135, Daorson 92, 216 139, 146, 147, 149-154, 157, 162, 166, 168, 170, 172, Dardania (-n(s)) 145, 221, 271, 278, 354-357, 362, 366, 174, 176, 180-184, 187-189, 203-205, 208-210, 217, 367 219, 220, 221, 223, 225-229, 234, 235, 237, 239, 241- Dayton 150, 209, 247, 249, 251 244, 246, 251, 253-255, 269, 282, 285, 292, 296, 298, Debelo Brdo 214, 230 299-301, 303, 315, 323, 327, 335-337, 367, 372, 373, Debrešte 277, 279, 296 382-389, 392, 393, 395-397, 403, 404, 406, 407, 409, Deçan (see Dečani) 410, 413, 415, 417-421, 423, 424, 426, 432, 433 Dečani (Deçan) 149 Croatian Banate 110 Delčevo 274 Croatian Littoral (region) 80, 83 Delmati 91, 93, 215-217 Croats 16, 19, 34, 45, 79, 95, 96, 102, 103, 105, 107, Delminium 92, 217, 228 108, 110, 121, 149, 150, 154, 155, 203, 205, 207, Demir Kapija 277, 310 208-210, 218, 221, 224, 226, 233, 234, 237, 288, 301, Demovo (also Demёs) 350 326, 359, 361, 381, 383-386, 388, 390, 394, 403, 405, Đerdap (see also Iron Gorge) 147, 177, 179 418, 425 Despotovac 394 Crvena Stijena 241, 319-321, 331-333, 345 Diana 106, 147 Csanada 100 Diklo 101 Ćuprija 146, 148, 165 Diluntum 217 Czech Republic, Czech (see also Bohemia) 148, 156, Dimitrovgrad 141, 184 229, 230, 287, 337, 372, 398 Dimov Grob–Ulanci 275 Czechoslovakia 390, 428 Dinaric (D. Mountains, D. Alps) 23-25, 27, 28, 30, 80, Czechs 39, 79, 149, 208, 384, 390 81, 139, 203-205, 217, 269, 315, 315, 317, 319, 320, 347, 349, 350, 427 D Dinoše 325 Dabinci-Sopot 276 Divje Babe 25, 55 Dacia (-n(s)) 145, 147, 355, 426 Divostin 142, 143, 171 Dacia Mediterranea 278, Dober 277 Đakovica (Gjakovë) 369. Doboj 210, 238, 250, 252 Đakovo 111, 384 Dobova 30 Đakovo–Franjevac 87 Dobrna 393, 394, 399, 435, 436 Dalj 89, 90, 109 Dobrovodica 171 Dalmatia (Austrian province) 97, 327, 334, 391 Doclea 324-329, 331, 334, 339, 340, 342, 344 Dalmatia (region) 3, 13, 15, 20, 27, 28, 30, 41, 45, 51, Dojevići 145 80, 81, 83-85, 90-92, 94-103, 105-107, 109-113, 115, Dolenjska (see also Lower Carniola) 31, 42, 43, 74, 77 118-120, 125, 126, 129, 152, 154, 161, 203, 205, 207, Doljani 325, 333 208, 212, 215-218, 221, 223, 284, 315, 322, 323-325, Dolno Oreovo 279 327-329, 332, 334, 337, 354, 355, 362, 382, 384, 385, Domavia 217 391, 403, 404 Donja Brnjica (Bërnicë e Poshtme) 353, 365, 366 Dalmatia (Roman province) 46, 54, 93, 94, 117, 146, Donja Dolina 216, 227, 229, 233, 235, 244, 259 205, 217, 228, 323, 324, 325, 355, 362, Donja Mahala 235 Dalmatinska zagora 80 Donje Nerodimlje (Nerodime e Poshtme) 357 Danilo (place, also cultural group, pottery style) 51, Donje Pazarište 82 85, 86, 212, 213, 321, 351 Donje Polje (near Šibenik) 95 Danilovgrad 322, 331 Donji Milanovac 147 Danilovića brdo 210 Donji Petrovci 146 Danube (Banate) 161 Dragačevo 144 Danube (river) 14, 25, 81, 83, 86, 87, 90, 92-94, 96, Dragomelj 27 117, 139, 141, 143-149, 151, 153, 154, 158-163, 166, Dragonja 24, 25 490 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 490 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Drava (Banate) 34 France 13, 14, 54, 57, 97, 121, 163, 171, 184, 231, 243, Drava (river) 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 81, 83, 90, 94, 95, 247, 248, 257, 291, 328, 400, 414, 421 97, 216 Frankfurt 106, 175, 213 Drenic (Drenicë) (river) 349 Franks 33, 34, 96 Drenica (Drenicë) (mountains) 349 Free Territory of Trieste 110, 176 Drenicë (see Drenica) French 38, 59, 63, 64, 101, 102, 105, 106, 110, 171, 220, Drenje (near Zaprešić) 94 242, 245, 251, 257, 271, 284, 305, 328, 339, 383, 441 Drenovac 142, 143, 184 French Empire 38 Drina (Banate) 208, 234 Friuli 27, 57, 153 Drina (river) 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 203, 204, 212, Fruška gora 139, 155 317 Fshej (see Fšej) Drini i Bardhë (see White Drin) Fšej (Fshej) 354 Drini i zi (see Black Drin) Drniš 111 G Drnovo 32, 54 Gacko field 81 Drulovka 27 Gadime e Epërme (see Gornje Gadimlje) Dubovac 144 Gail 33 Dubravice 95 Gaj 145 Dubrovnik 80, 81, 93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 116, 125, Galicians 390 152, 317, 328, 395 Gallap (see Goljak) Duklja 326, 328, 331, 333 Galovo 83 Dumbovo 146 Gamzigrad (see also Felix Romuliana) 146, 147, 170, Dupljaja 144, 443 171, 177, 183 Đurđevi Stupovi 149 Genoa 152 Đurinac 144 Gepids 94, 95, 147 Đuteza 323, 325 German(y) 12, 14, 23, 33, 34, 36, 40-43, 46, 48-50, 53, Duvanjsko field 265 54, 56-58, 72, 94, 95, 97, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111, Dvorovi 214 113, 119-121, 149, 150, 152, 154, 157, 159, 160, Dyrrachion 278 162-164, 167, 169, 170-176, 185, 196, 205, 207, 208, Džinovce (Gjinoc) 354 210, 213, 218, 225, 227, 228, 231, 233, 235, 237, 241, 242-244, 252, 284, 286-288, 291, 292, 295, 326, 372, E 382, 383, 386, 391, 396-402, 404-406, 414, 421, 428, Edirne (see Adrianopolis) 429 Egypt 14, 38, 39, 101, 152 German Democratic Republic (GDR) 292, 293, 295, Emona 32, 37, 41, 54, 67, 77 382, 428 Epetion (Stobreč) 92 Gërnçar (see Grnčara) Epidaurum (also Epitaurum) 93, 221, 324 Gevgelija 276 278, 290, 298 Epirus Novus 278 Gevgelija–Vardarski Rid 276, 277 Ethiopia 152 Gjakovë (see Đakovica) Etruria 91 Gjilan (see Gnjilane) Eudarist (Gradište near Drenovo) 277 Gjinoc (see Džinovce) Eurasia 60, 148 Gladnice (Glladnicë) 350 Gllarevë (see Iglarevo) F Glasinac (area, also cultural group) 145, 214-216, Fafos 352, 364 226-233, 241, 244, 249, 261, 322, 353 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 209, 248-252 Glavice (near Sinj) 95 Felix Romuliana (see also Gamzigrad) 147, 177 Glavnik (Gllamnik) 356 Ferizaj (see Uroševac) Glladnicë (see Gladnice) Feudvar 144, 171 Gllamnik (see Glavnik) Florenz (also Firenze) 36, 99, 100, 119, 175, 242 Glamoč 222 Foča 220, 238 Gnjilane (Gjilan) 369 Fojnica 362 Godljevo 145 Forli 37, 100 Golema Pesht 271 491 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 491 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Golemo Gradište 279 159, 172, 176, 178, 179, 207, 216, 221, 269-270, Goljak (Gallap) 349 273, 274, 276-278, 280-285, 293, 298, 301, 302, Golubovec 82 304, 305, 323, 326, 328, 334, 351, 354, 359, 372, Gomjenica 218 389, 397, 400, 411 Gomolava 143-145, 200, 442 Grgur Tumba 293 Goražde 251 Grivac 142, 143, 171 Gorica (near Grude) 223 Grnčara (Gërnçar) 350 Gorizia 34, 37, 41 Grnčarica–Krupište 272 Gornja Stražava 145 Grotta dell’Edera 27 Gornja Toponica 144 Grude 223 Gornja Tuzla 212 Gudnja 88 Gornje Gadimlje (Gadime e Epërme) 352, 353, 365 Guva e Mrrizit 351 Gorska Hrvatska 81 Guvnine 214 Gortinia 276 Gospić 111 H Gostilj 32 Hadži Prodanova pećina 141 Goths 33, 95, 147, 163, 278, 325 Hajdina 30 Gotovuša 322 Halata 324 Gotschee (see Kočevje) Harvard 43, 160, 171, 287 Govrlevo 273, 296 Heidelberg 57, 94, 119, 155, 357 Graboc (see Grabovac) Heraclea Lyncestis 160, 227, 278, 287, 290 Grabovac (Graboc) 358, 372 Herceg Novi 243, 331, 332, 343, 413 Gračanica (B&H) 238 Herzeg-Bosnian Canton (Hercegbosanska županija) Gračanica (Gracanicë, Kosovo) 149, 356, 362, 371 251 Grad (near Berane) 321 Herzegovina (Hercegovina) (region) 92, 96, 203-205, Gradac–Budimlja 325 210-219, 221, 223 Gradac–Kaludra 325 Hisar 351-353, 366 Gradačac 251 Histri 91, 216 Gradec near Mirna 27 Holy Roman Empire 23, 34 Gradina (Montenegro) 329 Horgoš 144 Gradina Arilača (Kalaja e Harilaqit) 357, 372 Horreum Margi (Ćuprija) 148 Gradina Koriše (Kalaja e Korishës) 357, 372 Hrtkovci–Vranj 146 Gradina na Jelici 148 Hrustovača 214, 235, 241 Gradina near Martinići 325 Hrvatska (also Croatia, Kroatien) 81, 99, 102, 103, 110 Gradina u Otoku 95 Hrvatsko primorje (see Croatian Littoral) Gradina–Andrijevica 325 Hum 144 Gradina–Bosut 145 Humac near Livno 223, 257 Gradištanska 278 Humac near Ljubuški 223 Gradište (near Debrešte) 277, 279, Hungary 13, 15, 18, 23, 24, 29, 43, 83, 84, 86, 96, 97, Gradište (near Drenovo) 277 100, 121, 139, 141, 146, 148-151, 154.162, 163, 182, Gradište (near Negotino) 279 205, 222, 231, 280, 401, 430 Gradište Sv. Erazmo 160, 288, 292, 400, 402 Huns 33, 147 Gradište–Grad 274 Hvar (cultural group) 85, 86, 88, 112 Gradište–Pelince 275 Hvar (island) 59, 60, 80, 85, 86, 88, 92, 117, 118, 135, Grahovo 316 216, 421 Grapčeva spilja 86, 88, 112 Hvar (place) 99 Grashticë (see Graštica) Hvar–Lisičići (cultural group) 213, 214, 321 Graštica (Grashticë) 353 Graz 39, 41, 42, 44, 46, 104, 397-400, 406 I Grdova gradina 322 Iader (Zadar) 93, 94, 217, 323 Gređani 89 Ibar (Ibri) 349, 350, 352, 356 Greece (incl. Greek) 7, 13, 14-16, 19, 38, 41, 43, 80, Ibri (see Ibar) 91, 92, 98-100, 113, 117-119, 141, 148, 150, 152, Idomene (see also Isar–Marvinci) 276-278 492 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 492 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Iđoš 142, 143 Jama na Prevali 2 (also Mušja jama) 31 Ig 40, 41 Jama v Lozi 25 Iglarevo (Gllarevë) 353, 366 Jamina Sredi 85, 86 Illinois 295 Janina 261, 280 Illyria 288, 383 Janjevë (see Janjevo) Illyrian (-s) 91, 99, 102, 119, 181, 216, 221, 225, 239- Janjevo (Janjevë) 363 246, 266, 267, 301, 322, 323, 354, 355, 366-368, 379, Japan 60, 162 383, 384, 421, 426, 428 Japodes 91, 216, 228 Illyrian Provinces 38, 106, 221, 383 Jarak 145 Illyricum 54, 93, 98, 100, 147, 155, 217, 221, 284, 323, Jasenovac 245 327, 328, 383, 426, Javorike 88 Ilok 89, 111 Jazbine near Butković 218 Imaret 291 Jena 106 Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna država Josipovac Punitovački 89 Hrvatska) 97, 110, 111, 208, 229, 237, 241, 386, 404, 420 K Indo-European (-s) 143, 242 Kadar 210 Indogermans 401, 402, Kakanj (place, also cultural group, pottery style) Inner Carniola (see also Notranjska) 31 212, 241, 251, 321 Ionia (-n) 153, 159, 173, 174, Kalaja e Harilaqit (see Gradina Arulača) Ionian Sea 84, 92, 216, 270, 315, 347 Kalaja e Korishës (see Gradina Koriše) Iran 60, 152, 319 Kalakača 145 Iraq 152 Kale near Dolno Oreovo 279 Iron Gorge 139, 141, 146, 147, 161, 177, 179, 188, 216. Kale–Krševica 354 430 Kalemegdan 149, 160, 163, 183, 293, 401, 402 Isar–Marvinci 276-278 Kallaba 350 Issa 92, 109 Kamen 210 Istanbul (also Constantinople) 14, 98-100, 147, 153, Kamenica (Kamenicë) 354 154, 187, 206, 207, 220, 223, 283, 284, 285 Kamenicë (see Kamenica) Istog (see Istok) Kamnik 50, 61 Istok (Istog) 352 Kaptol 91, 117 Istria (-n) 13, 15, 16, 20, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35-37, 39, 42, Kaptol–Gradca 91 44,45, 47, 49, 54, 55, 80, 83-85, 88, 91-98, 100-103, Karaburma 145 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 115, 137, 176, 323, 328, 385, Karagaç (see Karagač) 387, 391, 402-404 Karagač (Karagaç) 352, 364 Italy (Italia, -n) 7, 8, 13-16, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30-38, 43, Karain 319 45-49, 52-57, 60, 72, 80, 85, 90, 93, 94, 97-102, 103, Karanovo (place, cultural group, pottery style) 141, 106, 107, 109-113, 115, 118, 119, 121, 125, 150, 152, 272 153, 162, 172, 176, 190, 208, 216, 221-223, 231, 233, Karlovac 107, 111 237, 242-244, 283, 286, 288, 323, 326-329, 337, 340, Karlsruhe 157 360, 382, 385-387, 398-400, 402-405, 414, 426 Karmakaz 350 Iustiniana Ahridom 283 Karst (Kras, Carso) 27, 28, 30, 47, 404 Iustiniana Prima (see Caričin grad) 147, 148, 171,183 Kaštela 122 Iustiniana Secunda 357 Kašić 95 Iustinopolis (Koper) 36 Katoro 94 Ivoševci (see also Burnum) 93 Kavadarci 158, 168, 287, 290, 396 Izola 37, 100 Keleia (see Celeia) Khazars 148 J Kičevo 279,290 Jagodina 144, 162, 165 Kiev Kingdom 148 Jajce 208, 218, 220, 235, 237, 386 Kikinda 165 Jakovo – Ekonomija Sava 145 Kiseljak 217 Jalžabet 92 Kitino Kale 279 493 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 493 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Kladenčište 184 Krapina 82, 105, 114, 117, 131 Kladovo 179, 183 Kratovo 291 Klagenfurt 39, 398 Kras (see Karst) Kličevac 144 Krbavsko field 81 Kličevo 322 Kremenac 141 Knideans 92 Kremeštica 320 Knin 55, 94, 95, 96, 103, 106-108, 114, 132, 134, 393 Kremna 145 Knin–Biskupija 95 Kresen 281 Knjaževac 167 Kreševo 223, 362 Knossos 159 Kristiforovo 271 Kočani 274, 278 Krivodol (see Salcuţa) Kočevje 26, 61, 399 Križevci 111 Kokino 275 Krk 80 Kolovrat near Prijepolje 325 Krka 24, 25, 31 Kolpa (also Kupa) 24, 27, 92 Krstićeva humka 142 Komani (place, cultural group Komani-Kruja) 279, Krstilovica 349 325, 326 Kruče near Ulcinj 324 Komini 324 Kruja 279 Konjic 228 Kruševac 162, 165 Kopaonik 139, 349 Kučište (near Donja Mahala) 235 Koper (incl. Capodistria) 35-37, 39, 44, 50, 61, 67, 70, Kulina (KOS) 353 100, 109, 253, 254, 404, 432, 433 Kulina (MNE) 322 Koprivnica 111 Kumanovo 275, 278, 283, 290 Korčula 80, 81, 83, 85, 88, 92, 98, 100, 111 Kumanovska Banja–Vojnik 276 Koriša (Korishë) 353 Kupres 215, 222, 262, 265 Korishë (see Koriša) Kupa (see Kolpa) Korita 218 Kustendil 280 Koronina 320 Kvarner (Quarnaro) 30, 80, 84, 97, 107, 109, 111, 385, Körös (culture, group, pottery style) 141 387 Kosovo 5, 8, 9, 19, 107, 139, 140, 146, 149, 150, 155, 162, 167, 180, 182, 243, 269, 276, 283, 298, 302, 315, L 317, 329, 333, 335, 347-376, 379, 380, 385-388, 390, La Valletta 63 393, 396, 405-407, 423, 424 Labin 111, 114 Kosovo plain 349, 350, 352, 356 Langobards 33, 94, 95 Kosovska Kosa 141 Lasinja (place, also cultural group, pottery style) 28, Kosovska Mitrovca (Mitrovicë) 352, 361, 362, 364, 29, 86, 88, 214 369, 374 Laško 35 Kostolac (place, also cultural group, pottery style) Lazaruša 214 87, 88, 144, 146, 214, 352 Lederata (see also Ram) 147 Kostoperska Karpa 274 Leicester 59 Kotor 41, 323, 325, 327, 330, 332, 334, 336, 340, 391, 396 Leipzig 154, 169, 284, 363, 399 Kovačica 145 Lengyel (culturual group, pottery style) 27-29, 84, Kozara 245, 433 86, 212 Kozjak (CRO) 80 Lepenac (Lepenci) 348, 349 Kozjak (NM) 269 Lepenci (see Lepenac) Kozluk 142 Lepenski Vir 141, 170, 171, 177, 179, 183, 199, 202 Kragujevac 161, 165, 167 Leposavić (Leposaviq) 167, 369, 371 Krain (see Carniola) Leposaviq (see Leposavić) Krakow 45, 46, 400 Lerina 280 Kraljeva Sutjeska 218, 221 Leskovac 147, 165 Kraljevo 165, 167, 241, 361 Leusinum 324 Kranj 33, 50, 56, 61 Levant 101 Kranjska (see Carniola) Liburni 91, 113, 216 494 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 494 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Ličko field 81 Magdalenska gora 31, 43 Lim 317 Maglić 203 Linz 36, 164 Magyars 33, 147, 148 Lipjan (see Lipljan) Mainz 172 Lipljani (Lipjan) 362 Majdanpek 141 Lisijevo polje 322 Makarovec 271, 297 Lissus 356 Makarska 122 Littoral Banate 208 Mala Balanica 141 Livanjsko field 217 Mala Gradina 210 Livno 221-223 Mala gruda 321, 322, 334 Ljubljana (also Laibach) 9, 25, 28, 32, 33-54, 56-62, 67, Maleševo (Malishevë) 269 68, 71-77, 90, 109, 113-115, 118, 120, 159, 161, 162, Mali Dol–Tremnik 275 173, 175, 178, 180, 235, 238, 240, 241, 242, 244, 253, Mali Iđoš 148 254, 286, 291, 295, 310, 331, 384, 391-397, 399, 400, Mali Lošinj 114 403, 406, 413, 419-421, 431-433, 444, 445 Maliq 353 Ljubljana Marshes (incl. Ljubljansko barje) 28, 29, 40, Mališevska Banja (Banja e Malishevës) 358, 372 54, 60, 68 Malishevë (see Maleševo) Ljubljana–SAZU 30 Mališina pećina 319 Ljubljanica 28 Malo Korenovo (place, also cultural group, pottery Ljubomir 214 style) 83 Ljubuški 217, 223, 257 Malvesatium (see also Skelani) 217 Llashticë (see Vlaštica) Manasija 394, 436 Ločica 32 Manitowoc 47 London 36, , 59, 118, 155, 221, 385 Marburg (on Lahn) 41, 43, 57, 120, 159, 174, 175 Londža 210 Maribor 30, 34, 39, 48, 50, 56, 69, 394 Lopatica 279 Marinovo 283 Lopud 81 Markova spilja 85, 86 Lošinj 80, 94 Markove Kuli near Demir kapija 277 Lovas 89 Martinići 325 Lovćen 315, 317 Massachusetts 295 Lower Carniola (see also Dolenjska) 31, 32, 43 Mati (place, also cultural group) 216, 322 Lublin 291, 292 Matičane (Matiqan) 358, 372 Lumbarda 92 Matiqan (see Matičan) Lušac 322 Maya (-n) 100 Luščić 210 Medena stijena 319, 320 Lychnidos 276-278, 284 Mediana (place, cultural group) 145, 146, 154, 183 Lyon 100 Mediterranean 24, 25, 59, 61, 80, 91, 98, 100, 121, 205, 218, 219, 270, 317, 382 M Medun (also Meteon) 323 Macedonia Secunda (see M. Salutaris) Mengeš 50, 61 Macedonia Prima 271, 278 Meteon (see Medun) Macedonia Salutaris 271 Metochia (also Metohija, Rrafshi e Dukagjinit) 347, Macedonia (see Aegean M.; Pirin M.; Vardar M.; 349, 350-353, 356, 357, 364, 366, 371 Macedonia (historical region), Macedonia Metohija (see Metochia) (ancient Kingdom), North Macedonia) Metulum (also Viničica near Josipdol) 92, 93 Macedonian(s) 9, 19, 58, 150, 161, 172, 208, 269, 275, Michigan 210, 245 278-285, 288-303, 305, 312, 369, 385, 389, 390, 396, Mijele near Virpazar 325, 332, 333 405, 425 Milano 37, 102, 183 Macedonian(s) (ancient) 14, 269, 270, 277, 279, 296, Military Frontier (also Vojna Krajina) 79, 96, 103, 299, 301, 355 151, 154, 206 Maćija 144 Milovića gumno 321 Mačva 146 Minina pećina 321 Mađilka 184 Miramare 39 495 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 495 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Mirište near Petrovac 324 N Mitrovicë (see Kosovska Mitrovica) Nadin 91, 92 Mljet 81, 93, 94 Naissus 146, 147, 149, 355, 356 Modruš 99 Nakovana (cave, also cultural group, pottery style) Moesia 32, 145, 146-148, 278, 355 88 Moesia (Lower/Inferior) 145, 355 Naples 35 Moesia (Prima) 357 Narona 93, 117, 217, 323, 324 Moesia (Upper/Superior) 145, 146, 355, 362 Nauportus 32 Mogorjelo 218, 228 Nebo 213, 241 Mokra gora 139 Nedinum 92 Mokrin 144, 148 Negotin 147, 161, 165, 197 Mokriška jama 26 Negotino 279, 290 Mokronog 30, 32 Negova 400 Moldova 8, 17 Nepërbisht (see Neprebište) Monastiri 280, 283 Neprebište (Nepërbisht) 362 Monkodonja 91 Neretva 80, 85, 96, 204, 205, 323 Montenegrin Littoral (region) 315, 320, 329 Nerodime (see Nerodimka) Montenegro 4, 8, 13, 16, 19, 27, 34, 41, 80, 84, 85, 90, Nerodime e Poshtme (see Donje Nerodimlje) 91, 108, 139, 150-152, 154, 178, 180-182, 203, 205, Nerodimka (Nerodime) 350, 352, 356 206, 208, 216, 221, 234, 241, 243, 279, 284, 302, Nesactium 92, 112 315-340, 344, 345, 347, 348, 350, 354, 359, 367, 373, Netherlands 152 383-385, 387-390, 393, 396, 405-407, 409, 410, 418, Neum 80, 203, 208 419, 423, 424 Neviodunum 32, 43, 46, 54 Morača 315, 317, 324 New York (city) 43, 171 Morava (river) 92, 139-142, 144, 146, 171, 213, 217, New York (state) 172 269, 276, 296, 324, 349, 350, 353, 355, 356, 401 Newcastle 59, 118 Morava Banate 162 Nidže Mountains 269 Morava, Southern 139, 140, 145, 146 Nikadin (see Nikodim) Morava, Western 349 Nikodim (Nikadin) 357 Moravče (near Sesvete) 89 Nikšić 317, 322, 324, 325, 329, 331, 333, 341 Moravia 84, 86, 148, 230 Nikšić field 316 Moscow 156, 157, 333, 393, 435 Nin 95, 96, 103 Mosor 80 Niš 140, 141, 144, 146, 149, 152, 153, 161-167, 179, Most na Soči 31, 44 183, 188, 194, 356, 395 Mostar 151, 207, 209, 218-220, 222, 234, 238, 241, 243, Nišava 140, 141, 146 251, 253, 254, 266, 267, 379, 413, 418, 444 Nishor (see Nišor) Mountainous Croatia 81 Niška Banja 51, 175, 176, 241, 246, 410, 412, 416, 425, Moverna vas 27 427, 429, 437 Mrkonjić grad 237 Nišor (Nishor) 351 Mujevina 241 Noricum (incl. Noric) 32, 41, 42, 47, 51 Munich 57, 104, 105, 157, 158, 169, 228, 261, 293, 398 North Macedonia (incl. N. Macedonia, (Socialist) Municipium D.D. 355-357, 362, 364, 366 Republic of M., Former Yugoslav Republic of M.) Municipium S 324, 332 7, 8, 14, 46, 58, 107, 114, 139, 141, 150, 157, 158, Münster 241 160, 162, 164, 168, 170, 174, 175, 180, 182, 198, 206, Mura 24, 25, 29, 34 228, 247, 269-313, 323, 336, 341, 348-350, 352-356, Mursa 93, 102, 162 359, 360, 365, 373, 385-389, 392, 395-397, 404-407, Murska Sobota 50, 61 410, 415, 418, 423, 424, 430, 432, 433 Murter 94 Nova Gorica 50, 56, 61 Mušja jama (see Jama na Prevali 2) 31 Nova Gradiška 111 Muslims (nationality; see also Bosniak(s)) 108, 207- Novačka Ćuprija 171, 209, 219, 234, 237, 247, 256, 315, 385, 389, 425 Novi Grad (see Bosanski Novi) Mycenae, Mycenean 275, 276, 287, 322, 353, 366 Novi Kostolac 145 Novi Pazar 145 496 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 496 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Novi Sad 155, 156, 160, 165, 167, 171, 178, 179, 184, Pale 250, 252, 253 185, 188, 190, 201, 389, 395, 413, 418, 419 Palikura 284 Novi Travnik 251 Pančevo 144, 160, 161, 165, 167, 395 Novigrad (Croatia) 36, 37, 100, 122 Pannonia (geographical region) 30, 32, 148, 211, 212, Novo Brdo (Novobërdë) 358, 362, 364, 371, 378 216, 325 Novo mesto 31, 32, 50, 56, 61, 72, 74, 77, 403 Pannonia (Lower, Inferior) 93, 145-148, 205 Novo mesto–Mestne njive 30 Pannonia (Roman province) 41, 47, 51, 54, 94, 96, Novobërdë (see Novo Brdo) 102, 145, 146, 179, 205, 217, 323 Pannonia (Secunda) 145 O Pannonia (Upper, Superior) 32, 93, 145 Obre I, 212, 241, 245 Pannonian Plain 23-25, 27, 79, 83, 139, 143, 203, 211, Obre II 241 215, 317 Obrežje 32 Pannonians 93, 144 Odessa 327, 339 Paračin 144, 167 Odmut 320, 321, 332, 333 Parana 164 Odžaci 148, 167 Parentium 93 Odžak 241 Paris 43, 98, 105, 128, 156, 227, 231, 246, 261, 284, 286, Ohio 171 288, 328, 333, 399 Ohrid (lake) 157, 160, 269, 271, 274, 275, 284, 287, Pavla Čuka 277 290, 326 Pavlovac 142, 143, 184 Ohrid (place) 198, 275-280, 282-284, 287-293, 295, Pazin 111 296, 298-300, 302, 303, 305, 309, 310, 397, 400, 413 Peć (Pejë) 149, 155, 333, 350, 359, 361, 369 Okolište 212, 213 Pećka Banja (Banja e Pejës) 353, 354, 366 Olcinum (Olkinion) 323 Pejë (see Peć) Omiš 114 Pelagonia 269, 271-278, 353 Onogošt 325, 333 Pelješac 80 Opovo 171 Peloponnese 90, 149 Orašje 235 Pelva 217 Oregon 295 Pepelana 84 Orjen 315 Perast 327, 330, 332, 345, 396 Orlić (near Knin) 94 Perseida 277 Orlovi Čuki 276 Persians 148, 277 Ošanići 92, 214, 216, 244, 266 Pesaro 100, 125 Osekovo 94 Pešterica–Prilep 272 Osijek 89, 92, 93, 102, 103, 104, 107, 109, 111, 116, Pešturina 141 122, 133, 244, 253 Petrovac 324 Osijek–Hermanov vinograd 84 Petrovac na Mlavi 167 Osogovo 139, 269, 278 Petrovaradin 141, 146 Ostrogoths 33, 94, 95, 218 Petrovići 322 Ottoman Empire (O. state, O. rule, O. lands) (see also Pharos 92 Turkey) 12-15, 96, 97, 101, 107, 149, 151-154, 187, Philippopolis 147 203, 205, 207, 219, 223, 280-282, 326, 347, 359, 361, Picenum 91 384 Pilavo–Burilčevo 274 Ottoman (-s) (see also Turks, Turkish) 4, 8, 12-16, Piran 37, 50, 56, 61 79, 80, 96, 97, 101, 126, 149, 150-155, 187, 190, 203, Pirot 141, 146, 149, 162, 165, 184 205-207, 210, 218-220, 222-227 246, 247, 256, 257, Pisa 37, 60 271-284, 280, 281, 305, 326, 329, 338, 347, 359, 360, Piva 316, 317, 320 361, 375, 383, 401 Pivka 25, 26 Ovče Polje 269, 271 Pivnica 214 Plačkovica 278 P Plandište 212 Padua 37, 47, 101, 404 Pljačkovica 349 Paeonians 276, 277 Pljevlja 317, 324, 331 497 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 497 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Ploča–Mićov Grad 275 Ptuj 27, 32, 33, 39, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 61, 69, 72, Pločnik 160 77, 109, 168, 174, 391, 393, 394, 396, 397, 399, 400, Plovdiv (Philippopolis) 147 416 Po 92 Pula 110, 112, 115, 117, 122, 128, 137, 379, 403, 404, Počitelj 219 412, 438 Pod 214, 244, 333 Punikve 82 Pod Kotom–jug 29 Pupina peć 83 Podgorica 315, 317, 319, 321, 323-325, 328, 329, 331, Pustopolje 215 334 Puteolo 35 Podujevë (see Podujevo) Podujevo (Podujevë) 356 Q Poetovio 32, 44, 46, 48, 54, 391 Quarnaro (see also Kvarner) 80 Pola 32, 37, 93 Polače 93 R Poland 46, 84, 291, 292, 296, 337, 372, 400, 421, 428, Rab 80 429, 433 Radavca pećina (also Shpella e Radavcit) 350 Polog 271,272 Radoborska Tumba 275 Ponoševac (Ponoshec) 353 Raduša 203 Ponoshec (see Ponoševac) Raetinium 217 Pontes 147 Rajac 171 Popovača 94 Rakovčani 218 Poreč 93, 94, 97, 103, 109, 112, 115, 117, 403, 404, Ram (Lederata) 147 438 Rama 217 Porodin (place, cultural group Veluška–Porodin) Raša 80 273, 279, 295, 296, 333) Rascia (see Raška) Portugal 280, 389 Raška (see aslo Rascia) 149, 359 Postojna 25, 26, 47, 50, 61, 403, 404 Raskršče 212 Posušje 213 Rastuša 210 Potočka zijalka 26, 47, 75 Ravlića pećina 214 Požarevac 157, 161, 162, 165, 361, 431 Ravna (see also Timacum Minus) 146 Požega 91, 107, 117, 395 Razlovo 281 Praevalitana 145, 324, 325, 357, 362 Reading 60 Prague 39, 41, 50, 100, 102, 156, 159, 228, 229, 235, Remesiana 146 286, 393, 398, 401 Republic of Srpska 150, 209, 239, 238, 248-254, 263 Predionica (Tjerrtore) 352 Resen 283 Prekmurje 27, 45 Reshtan (see Reštani) Prespa 301, 304 Resnikov prekop 27, 29 Prespa Lake 269, 271 Reštani (Reshtan) 350-352 Preševo 139 Retz-Gayary (cultural group, pottery style) 29, 86-88 Prijedor 209, 218, 238, 241, 250, 254, 433 Rhine 14 Prijepolje 167, 325 Rhodope mountains 269 Prilep 275, 278, 279, 283, 287, 288, 290, 292, 293, 295, Ripač 229, 230 296, 299, 300, 311, 312, 413, 418, 419, 443 Rijeka 32, 33, 103, 107, 109, 114, 116, 122 Prilep–Bolnica 275 Rimski Šančevi 144, 201 Prishtina 167, 242, 348, 352, 353, 356, 359, 361, 363- Risan 323, 325, 330, 332 366, 369-372, 375, 378, 380 Rison (Rhizinium) 323 Privlaka 325 Risovec 25 Prizren 350, 359, 361-364, 369, 374 Rogačići 218 Prokletije (also Bjeshkët e Nemuna, Accursed Rogatec 46, 168, 396 Mountains) 317, 348, 349 Rogovë (see Rogovo) Prokuplje 160, 165 Rogovo (Rogovë) 353, 354 Prozor 229 Rogozina (mountain) 139 Prussia (-n) 111, 207 Roma (people) 269 498 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 498 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Roman 114, 15, 31-39, 41-54, 59, 67, 74, 77, 80, 91, 265, 266, 286, 291, 328, 331, 366, 373, 379, 390-393, 93-95, 97-99, 101, 102, 109, 113, 115-120, 125, 129, 395, 396, 406, 413, 426, 431, 433, 440 135, 137, 141, 145-147, 149, 153-157, 161, 169, 171, Šarengrad–Klopare 95 172, 177-179, 191, 203, 205, 212, 216-218, 221, 225, Šarkamen 147 228, 230, 233, 235, 239, 245, 246, 260, 265, 267, 269, Sarmatians 147, 278 270, 278, 279, 286, 287, 296, 299, 315, 323-332, 339, Sarvaš 84, 86, 87, 89, 111, 397 349, 350, 352, 355-358, 362, 364-366, 372, 391, 396- Sastavci 320 398, 403, 411 Sava (Banate) 162 Romania (-n, -ns) 8, 16, 19, 139, 141, 147, 149, 152, 154, Sava (cultural group) 27-29 155, 157, 182, 207, 208, 243, 292, 426, 430, 433, 435 Sava (river) 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 81, 83, 84, 86-90, 92, Rome (ancient city) 92, 105 93, 95, 96, 139, 141, 145, 146, 149, 162, 163, 203- Rome (modern city) 35, 37, 72, 98, 105, 109, 171, 261, 206, 210, 212, 216, 217, 317, 323, 401 403 Ščitarjevo 93 Rovinj 111, 112, 404 Scodra 221, 324, , 325 Rrafshi i Dukagjinit (see also Metochia, Metohija) Scordisci 92, 93, 145, 355 349 Scotland 390 Rrafshi i Kosovës (see also Kosovo plain) 349 Scupi 157, 278, 287, 299 Rudnik (Runnik) 350, 364 Scupi-Ulica 279 Rujen 349 Scythians 145 Ruma 144, 167 Segestica (see also Siscia) 92 Rumelia 205, 280, 283, 359 Semendria 146 Runnik (see Rudnik) Šempeter 32, 51, 53, 74 Ruše 30 Selci Đakovački 89 Russia (-n) 45, 105, 220, 233, 235, 257, 283-285, 327, Selevac 143, 171 328, 362, 374, 390, 435 Senj 114 Russinians 154 Seocka 320 Serbs 16, 19, 34, 45, 79, 107, 110, 111, 149-152, 154, S 155, 182, 187, 203, 207-201, 218, 224, 233, 234, 269, Saarbrücken 57 280, 281, 285, 288, 301, 315, 326, 338, 347, 359-361, Šabac 161, 165, 395 369, 372, 373, 381, 383-386, 388-390, 392, 394, 401, Salcuţa (cultural group Bubanj-Salcuţa-Krivodol) 405, 425 144, 274, 352, 353 Serbia (-n) 7-9, 16, 19,34, 41, 46, 58, 81, 84, 87, 93, 97, Salines (see also Tuzla) 212 100, 102, 105, 107-109, 111, 114, 116, 121, 139-188, Sallunto 324 190, 191, 193, 203, 205-210, 212, 216, 217, 219, 220, Salona 93, 95, 98, 99, 102, 105, 109, 110, 117, 129, 130, 224, 227, 234, 237, 239-241, 243, 246, 247, 250, 251, 133, 217, 218, 221, 323, 325, 397, 404 253, 269, 270, 273, 275, 280-282, 284-293, 298, 300- Šalitrena pećina 141 303, 306, 315, 317, 326, 329-333, 335-338, 347-350, Saloš 87 352-355, 358-369, 371-374, 383-390, 392-398, 400- Samadrezha (see Samodreža) 402, 404-407, 409, 410, 413, 415, 417, 418, 420, 423, Samobor (Croatia) 111 424, 430-433, 437, 444, 445 Samobor (Montenegro) 323 Serbia and Montenegro (state) 19, 150 Samodreža (Samadrezha) 353 Serdica 147, 278 Samograd 325 332 Sesvete 89 Sana 251 Sevid 94 Šandalja I 82 Sharr (see Šara) Šandalja II 83 Shiroka (see Široko) Sanjak (region) 167, 208, 326, 329, 347, 362 Shkëmbi i Kuq 350 St. Petersburg 100, 235, 328, 362 Shkodra (see Skadar) Sanski Most 230, 235 Shpella e Radavcit (also Radavca pećina) 350 Santa Barbara 60 Shpella e Zezё 350 Šara (Sharr) 269, 348, 349, 356 Šibenik 84, 85, 95, 100, 107, 116, 395 Sarajevo 7, 9, 50, 113, 151, 203-210, 212-215, 217, 218, Siberia 45 220, 222-236, 238-242, 244-248, 250-254, 258-262, Šimanovci 145 499 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 499 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Singidunum 145-147, 149, 355 Slovenj Gradec 50, 61 Sinj 93, 95, 108, 111 Smederevo 146, 149, 161, 165, 167 Sinjajevina 317 Smilčić 85, 86 Šipan 81, 325 Smolućka pećina 141 Sirmium 32, 93, 95, 146, 147, 154, 171, 218, 333 Sočanica (Soqanicë) 356, 377 Široko (Shiroka) 353, 354 Sofia 141, 146, 147, 164, 228, 278, 280, 287, 288 Sirova Katalena 89 Solin 98, 105, 117, 129, 133, 323 Sisak 92, 93, 107 Sombor 144, 157 Siscia (also Segestica) 32, 92, 221 Somogyvár 29 Sitnica (Sitnicë) 349, 350, 352, 356 Sopoćani 149 Sitnicë (see Sitnica) Sopot (CRO) (place, cultural group, pottery style) Skadar (town; also Shkodra) 324, 326, 362, 374 83, 84, 86, 212 Skadar lake 315, 317, 319, 323-326 Sopot (NM) 276 Škarin Samograd 85, 86, 90 Sorna (near Poreč) 94 Skelani (see also Malvesatium) 217, 218, 228, 251 Sotla 24 Škocjan 31, 44 South African Republic 172 Škofja Loka 48, 50, 395 South Slavs (see also Slavs) 16, 67, 103, 155, 180, 224, Skopje 9, 59, 112, 114, 159, 227, 228, 242, 271, 273, 383-386, 411, 426 274, 277, 278, 280, 282, 283, 285, 286, 288-296, 299- South Tyrol 399 303, 306-309, 312, 348, 355, 359, 361, 391, 394-397, Southampton 172 400, 405, 431, 445 Southeastern Europe 7, 8, 11, 13-15, 17, 46, 97, 104, Skopje–Hipodrom 275 117, 157, 158, 180, 185, 221, 229, 231, 233, 240, 246, Skopje–Kumanovo (cultural group) 275 315, 367, 368, 400 Skopska Crna Gora 269, 348, 356 Soviet Union 181, 387, 390, 400, 414, 428, 429 Skopsko Kale 274, 275, 299, 307, 308 Spain 100, 185, 282, 390 Skradin 95 Spila 320, 321, 332 Slankamen 146, 148 Split 2, 41, 45, 59, 72, 92, 93, 96-99, 102, 103, 105-107, Slavic 8, 15, 23, 33,34, 41, 45, 47, 49-53, 55, 56, 95, 109-113, 115-119, 122, 127, 129, 130, 133, 147, 208, 98-101, 103, 104, 113, 115, 120, 121, 126, 148-150, 217, 222, 223, 234, 253, 296, 328, 334, 342, 391, 393, 155,156, 169, 176, 179, 180, 182, 208, 218, 219, 221, 394, 406, 413, 416, 419, 421, 439, 442 222, 225, 243, 246, 247. 279-282, 292, 295, 296, 300, Spuž 329 301, 303, 312, 325, 326, 347, 358, 359, 383-385, 389, Srebrenica (see also Domavia) 217, 220, 238, 251 400, 402, 403, 416, 419, 426 Srem 81, 95, 97, 109, 111, 144, 145, 216 Slavs (see also South Slavs) 33, 38, 55, 56, 94-96, 99, Sremska Mitrovica 93, 102, 109, 146, 154, 157, 162, 100, 106, 118, 147, 148, 149, 155, 176, 180, 205, 208, 167, 179 218, 222, 224, 243, 279, 283, 285, 292, 296, 302, 325, Sremski Karlovci 80, 190 326, 358, 365, 367, 383-386, 403, 411, 426 Srpski Krstur 143 Slavonia 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89-92, 95, 96, 103, 104, 107- Štajerska 42 110, 120, 126, 139, 204, 221, 244. Stalać Gorge 139 Slavonski Brod 87, 107, 395 Stanecli 217 Slovakia 86, 146, 148, 430, 433 Stanford 245 Slovene Littoral 16, 45, 387, 402, 404 Star Karaorman–Sv. Đorđi 279 Slovenes 16, 19, 34, 38, 40, 45, 49, 55, 107, 110, 150, Stara Planina 139 155, 208, 233, 234, 288, 301, 326, 359, 361, 381, Starčevo (place, cultural group, pottery style) 83, 84, 383-386, 388-390, 394, 398, 402, 403, 405, 425 141-143, 160-162, 170, 171, 178, 195, 212, 320, 350- Slovenia (-ene) 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 20, 23-66, 68, 71-73, 76- 352, 363, 397 78, 80, 81, 84, 86-88, 92, 97, 100, 105-111, 114, 117, Stare gmajne 29 120, 121, 124, 134, 150-153, 159, 161, 164-166, 168, Stari Grad (N. Macedonia) 274 170, 172-176, 180-185, 187-189, 208, 210, 235, 236, Stari Ras 149 238-240, 246, 253, 255, 269, 282, 286, 293, 299-301, Stari Slankamen 145 329, 336, 337, 350, 367, 372, 373, 382, 384-389, 391- Stari Grad polje 92 393, 395-400, 402-404, 406, 407, 409, 410, 413, 415, Stari Trg 361 417-420, 423, 424, 426, 430, 432, 433, 443 Stari Trogir 94 500 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 500 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Steiermark 42 Timişoara 155, 233 Stenae 277 Tirana 229, 243, 365, 366, 371-373, 378 Stibera (see also Čepigovo) 277, 278 Tisa 145 Stična 31, 38, 43, 53, 57 Tiszapolgar–Bodrogkeresztur 143 Štip 277-279, 283, 288, 290, 291, 293, 295-297, 299, Titograd (see also Podgorica) 331 300, 312 Tivat 321, 324, 325, 332 Stobi 46, 160, 161, 275, 277, 278, 284, 286, 290, 295, Tjerrtore (see Predionica) 299, 300, 308, 311, 392, 396, 405 Tominčeva jama 44 Stobi–Zapadna nekropola 275 Tomislavgrad 92, 217, 218, 223 Stobreč 92 Tomsk 45 Stolac 210, 213, 216, 217 Topolka 291 Struga 279, 284, 285, 290 Topolnica 145 Struga–Ciganski grobišta 279 Tragurion 92 Strumica (place) 288, 293, 299, 300, 313 Travnik 151, 205, 207, 213, 220, 234, 235, 238, 254, Strumica (river) 269, 274, 277, 284, 433 Strymon 284 Trebački krš 319 Stubline 143 Trebenište 157, 161, 164, 276, 287, 288, 291, 293, 306, Studenica 149 310, 397, 400 Styria (see also Štajerska, Steiermark) 23, 31, 34, 35, Trebinje 221, 238, 244, 250, 252, 263, 267, 317, 324 39, 41-45, 49, 153, 230, 398, 399, 400 Trepča 361 Subotica 157, 165-167, 197 Treskavica 203 Sudan 152 Tribali 145 Sudeten 106 Triest(e) 32, 36, 37, 39, 41-44, 47, 60, 100, 103, 106, Suharekë (see Suva reka) 109, 110, 176, 328, 340, 385, 402-404 Šumadija 139, 143, 150, 161 Trnje near Bijelo Polje 321 Suva Reka (Suharekë) 350, 352, 356, 362, 366 Trogir 92, 98, 99, 114 Suvodol near Marinovo 286, 287 Trojane 399 Svać 325 Trostruka gradina 244 Sveti Nikole 290, 298 Troy 14, 35, 159 Swabians 399 Tübingen 53, 105 Switzerland 24, 104, 231 Tumba Barešani 275 Sydney 60 Tumba Crnobuki 274, 275, 277 Syracuse 92 Tumba Karamani 274, 275 Syria 72, 152 Tumba Kravari 274, 275 Tumba Madžari 273 T Tumba Porodin 273, 292, 295, 333 Taliata 147 Tumba Velušina 273 Tara 317 Tures (also Pirot) 146 Tarsatica 32 Turkey 60, 80, 151, 153, 219, 220, 228, 229, 256, 319, Taurisci 32, 92, 93 328, 359, 360 Teneš Dol (Teneshdol) 353, 357 Turks, Turkish 8, 12, 19, 96, 147, 151-154, 175, 206, Teneshdol (see Teneš Dol) 208, 212, 219-222, 228, 269, 280, 281, 285, 359, 361 Tergeste 32 Turnišče 29 Tešanj 251 Tuzla (see also Salines) 205, 209, 212, 220, 234, 238, Tetovo 290 248, 251, 253, 254, 264, 433 Texas 295 Thessaloniki 99, 146, 147, 228, 269, 280, 281, 283, 284, U 288, 328 Ukraine (-ian(s)) 154, 208 Thessaly 153 Ulanci 275 Third Reich 46, 49, 97, 398-400, 402 Ulcinj 317, 323, 324, 331, 332, 343 Thrace (-ian(s)) 145, 147, 184, 270, 277, 284, 288, 302, Ulpiana 355-357, 362-364, 366, 372, 373, 380 426 Umag 114 Timacum Minus 146 Una 203, 204 501 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 501 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Una–Sana Canton 251 Vid 93, 122, 323 United Kingdom (also UK, Grat Britain, British) 13, Vienna (inc. Wien) 36, 38, 39-41, 4348, 57, 72, 93, 102- 14, 52, 53, 58, 59, 62, 64, 72, 121, 158, 162, 170, 172, 105, 108, 109, 118, 119, 146, 154, 156, 157, 159, 163, 183-185, 210, 221, 231, 243, 284, 288, 328, 361, 386, 224, 226-233, 235, 242, 244, 254, 260, 261, 286, 287, 390, 414, 421 329, 362, 384, 391, 393, 396-398, 433 United States of America (also USA) 47, 57-60, 121, Viminacium 146-148, 153, 154, 157, 162, 171, 172, 171, 172, 185, 245, 295, 397, 414, 421, 432 183, 355 Uroševac (Ferizaj) 369 Vinča (cultural group, pottery style) 84, 143, 160, Ustie na Drim 274 171, 173-175, 212, 213, 301, 321, 350, 352, 402, 416 Užice 165, 234 Vinča (place) 143, 144, 158, 159, 161-163, 166, 170, 171, 173, 175, 187, 193, 194, 241, 274, 401, 402 V Vindenis 356, 372 Valač (Vallaç) 352, 364 Vindija 82 Valandovo 276 Vinica (in N. Macedonia) 278, 290, 298 Valjak (Volljakë) 353 Vinica (in Slovenia) 43, Valjevo 165, 167, 185 Viničica near Josipdol (also Metulum) 92, 93 Vallaç (see Valač) Vinkovci (place, cultural group) 29, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95, Valpovo 111 102, 111, 144 Varaždin 102, 107, 395 Vinkovci–Tržnica 87 Varaždinske Toplice 93, 107 Vinogradine 214 Vardar (river) 141, 269-276, 278, 284, 296, 348, 349, Vipava 25, 38 355, 401 Virovitica (place, cultural group) 89, 107, 111 Vardar Banate 360 Virpazar 325 Vradar Macedonia 208, 281, 285, 288, Vis 80, 92, 101 Vardarski Rid 275-277 Vis near Modran 214, 216, 244 Varis 324 Višesava 145, 146 Varna 287 Visoi–Beranci 276 Varošište 218 Visok Rid 275 Varvara (Velika Gradina) 91, 214, 229, 244 Visoko 212, 213, 241 Vatican 99, 222 Visoko Brdo 210, 214, 238 Vatin (place, also cultural group, pottery style) 89, Viti (see Vitina) 144, 162, 353 Vitina (Viti) 350 Vela Luka 83 Vlachs 8, 154 Vela spila 83, 85, 88 Vladimir near Svać 325 Velebit (Croatia) 80, 315 Vlasac 141 Velebit (Serbia) 133 Vlashnje (see Vlašnje) Veles 271, 274, 278-290, 295, 297 Vlašnje (Vlashnje) 350 Velika Balanica 141 Vlaštica (Llashticë) 354, 358, 366, 378 Velika Gorica 90, 111, 114 Vlora 359 Velika Grabovnica 142 Vodovrati (see also Argos) 277 Velika gruda 90, 321, 322, 334 Vodovratski pat 275 Velika Pećina (near Goranci) 82 Vojka 148 Velje ledine 323 Vojna Krajina (see Military Frontier) Veluška-Porodin (cultural group) 373 Vojvodina 139-145, 149-152, 154-156, 160-162, 165- Venice, Venetian(s) 8, 13, 15, 16, 35-37, 80, 96, 97-101, 167, 171, 178-180, 187, 188, 201, 208, 383-385, 387, 103, 110, 118, 126, 151, 152, 205, 207, 222, 301, 326, 388, 392, 401, 407, 409, 423, 424 327, 337, 361, 382, 404 Volksdeutschers 401 Vergina 301 Volljakë (see Valjak) Verige 93 Vranica 203 Vërmicë (see Vrbnica) Vranjaj 320, 321 Via Axia 278 Vranje (Serbia) 163, 165, 241, 359 Via Egnatia 269, 278, 283, 284, 287, 356 Vranje (Slovenia) 33, 57 Vicianum 356 Vrba 218 502 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 502 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Vrbas (place) 148, 183 Z Vrbas (river) 204, 217 Zadar 25, 53, 56, 59, 81, 84, 91-98, 101, 102, 107, 109, Vrbas Banate 208, 234, 236, 238, 396 111-114, 116-119, 121, 122, 134, 135, 137, 240, 241, Vrbićka pećina 320 245, 253, 323, 385, 387, 403, 404, 413, 418, 445 Vrbnica (Vërmicë) 358 Zadubravlje 83 Vrdnik 144 Zagreb 10, 46, 51, 56, 59, 72, 103-120, 122, 126, 128, Vrela (Vrellë) 372 131, 132, 135, 136, 156, 162, 168, 227, 233, 238, 240, Vrellë (see Vrela) 242, 245, 252, 253, 290, 295, 365, 380, 383, 384, Vrhnika 32 393-396, 404, 406, 423, 431, 433, 445 Vršac 141, 144, 157, 162, 166, 192, 401 Zagros 319 Vršac-At 141, Zaječar 162, 165 Vršac-Crvenka 141 Zaprešić 94, 114 Vršačke planine (Vršac Mountains) 139, Zecovi 214, 241 Vršnik (place, also cultural group, pottery style, Zelena pećina 212, 214, 241 Anzabegovo-Vršnik) 141, 273, 274, 296 Zelengora 203 Vruce 218 Zelenikovo 274, 292, 295 Vučedol (place, also cultural group, pottery style) Zemono 26 29, 86-90, 111, 117, 144, 162, 214, 215, 321, 322, Zemun 144, 165 397 Zenica 209, 238, 251 Vučitrn (Vushtrri) 359, 362 Zeta (river) 315, 317, 324, Vukovar 89, 111, 117, 121 Zeta (Princedom) 326 Vushtrri (see Vučitrn) Zeta Banate 19, 208, 234, 326, 329, 359, 360 Zhitkoc (see Žitkovac) W Žiča 149 Wales 390 Židovar 145, 173 Wallachia 147 Žitkovac (Zhitkoc) 350, 352, 364 Washington 171 Zlastrana–Sredoreče 272 Westphalia 399, Zlokučani 157 Wewelsburg 399 Zlotska pećina 144 White Drin (Beli Drim/Drini i Bardhë) 349, 351, 356 Zobište 210 Wies 230 Zrenjanin 157, 160, 165, 167 Wisconsin 47 Zubin Potok (Zubin Potoku) 369 Zubin Potoku (see Zubin Potok) Y Žugića gumno 322 Yugoslavia 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 34, 35, Žukovićka pećina 212 45-60, 64, 65, 73, 75, 97, 106-110, 112-118, 120- Zurich 43, 172, 261, 334 122, 150, 158-166, 168, 170-172, 174, 176, 178-182, Žuto brdo 144, 158, 188, 203, 208-210, 214, 234, 235, 237-247, 256, Zvornik 220, 238 269, 282, 285-290, 292-298, 301-303, 326, 329-331, 333-335, 337, 344, 347, 360, 365-368, 372, 373, 381-398, 400-402, 404-407, 409-432, 435, 437, 441-444 Yugoslavia (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) 19, 208, 326, 381 Yugoslavia (Kingdom of Y.) 19, 48, 50, 56, 97, 107, 160, 208, 227, 282, 326, 360, 381, 385, 424 Yugoslavia (Federal People’s Republic of Y.) 381, 412 Yugoslavia (Federal Republic of Y.) 19, 181, 336 Yugoslavia (Socialist Y./Socialist Federal Republic of Y.) 150, 187, 205, 281, 282, 381, 382, 391, 411, 425, 427 Yuruks (Yöröks) 280 503 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 503 22. 10. 2021 11:06:28 Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 504 22. 10. 2021 11:06:29 Document Outline History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries - naslovka - FINAL History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries -FINAL