The History of Archaeology in the Western Balkans by Znanstvena zalozba FF

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

Pontes academici

The History of Archaeology in the Western Balkans

Predrag Novaković

History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 1

22. 10. 2021 11:05:22

EM le lo h an od co in su th in k w b fo c p to og p th co fi h tu in im a c ti so

T in a a v c m d c m in p si ra m la

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 AttributionShareAlike 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

I. INTRODUCTION

II. SLOVENIA

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

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 monograph ‘Historija arheologije u novim zemljama Jugoistočne Evrope’, originally published in Sarajevo in the Bosnian language. The groundwork for the original book was laid by a longer article entitled ‘Archaeology in the New Countries of Southeastern Europe: A Historical Perspective’, which appeared in 2011 in the monograph ‘Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past’, published by Springer and edited by the American archaeologist Ludomir Lozny (2011).

him a draft of chapters on archaeology in Slovenia and Croatia. The beginnings of archaeology in these two countries date back to the Renaissance, a fact known only to those with the most extensive knowledge of the history of archaeology in Europe. In the draft text, it was also clearly shown that, despite the more than seventy-year long period of federal state unity, which included the critical period in the formation of contemporary archaeological discipline, the two national archaeologies were founded on different traditions and achievements and, during the Yugoslav period (1918–1991), they preserved their own character even though Slovene and Croatian national archaeologies have the largest number of common elements in their culture-historical and epistemological evolution among all Western Balkan archaeologies.

Ludomir Lozny asked me to contribute a text on ‘Balkan Archaeology’ to complete the section on the history of less-known national and regional archaeologies in Europe. Less known, that is, from the Anglo-American viewpoint. The editor explicitly stated that one of his book’s aims was, by using multiple perspectives, to critically reflect on the globally dominant Anglo-American discourse in archaeology. Another apparent reason for including ‘Balkan archaeology’ was the political turmoil and civil wars in the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia. In the correspondence that followed, I tried to explain that it would be impossible to present such complex issues within such modest and limited space (20 to 25 pages) without resorting to large generalisations and simplifications. If Lozny’s collection of papers was conceived mainly as a means of presenting ‘other’ archaeologies to an Anglo-American audience, then such a short text on Balkan archaeology would be understood only by readers already familiar with the many cultural and political contexts of this region within which it is necessary to observe the development of a humanistic discipline such as archaeology.

To my astonishment, the editor agreed with my suggestions and in practice gave me a free hand on the project. My insistence on presenting the history of archaeology in the Western Balkan region in a more comprehensive and contextualised way was based on my experiences in preparing a proposal for a large research project in 2008. Together with colleagues from nine Southeast European countries, I coordinated an application for a very ambitious and financially demanding project entitled Culture and Politics of Sciences of Antiquity in Southeast Europe (CULPA EST). The main goal was a detailed reflection on and analysis of the development of several disciplines dealing with the archaeology and early history of Southeast Europe and, in parallel, the creation of a new regional perspective on these disciplines in modern European society. Though the reviewers gave us very high scores, the project was ultimately not accepted for funding. Nonetheless, the intensive discussions that occurred with fellow archaeologists, historians, philologists, sociologists and other scholars from Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, Italy, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria revealed a great need for a fresh critical assessment of the cultural history of humanities in this region.

I have long been aware of how little is known about the history of archaeology in the Balkan region beyond its borders. Only a few scholars outside this region have been familiar with the exceptional heterogeneity of its cultural and historical development. I thus tried to explain this problem to the editor by sending

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 and hard-to-access texts on the early days of the national archaeologies of former Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, and Moldova. The more effort and attention I was paying to these countries, the more I realised how difficult it was to present them in as much detail and as accurately as I could effectively describe archaeology in the states of the former Yugoslavia. Until the last moment, I had hoped to be able also to complete this part of the paper, but the limited time and the broad scope of the topic represented too large an obstacle. The information that I was able to find in the literature was simply not sufficient to build a coherent picture of all national archaeologies in these areas. The history of institutions, the professional and personal biographies, the circumstances that greatly influenced the discovery of important sites and their subsequent investigation, the social, economic and political environment within which certain ideas were expressed, and practices carried out – these and many other aspects represent important sources for understanding the development and fate of archaeology. However, not much can be found concerning this in standard archaeological publications such as the catalogues of sites and discoveries, excavation reports or interpretations of the evidence, not even in monographs. This knowledge is buried deep in the archives, and we still know very little of it. It is also questionable just how much of the data has been preserved and systematically archived. Much of the information extracted from the published papers had to be discussed with several colleagues who were personally involved in the processes or events that produced the data, or had a more comprehensive knowledge of the broader context within which certain archaeological activities took place.

a population of more than seven million, encompass three main religions (Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, as well as Islam) along with the Jewish and Protestant populations; they represent the zone of influence of three great cultural traditions of powers which dominated this region for several centuries (Italian/Venetian, central European/Austrian and Hungarian, and Ottoman), and numerous local Slavic cultures. Ten major languages are in use here – besides the dominant Slavic languages, Albanian, Vlach, Romanian, Hungarian, Turkish, Italian and Romani are the mother tongues of the non-Slavic populations and ethnic groups living in this region. The area has a rich history in terms of the major political and demographic shifts in the last two centuries, unparalleled by any other part of Europe. The archaeologies of these countries bear traces of all these factors, circumstances and historical trajectories. This English edition is intended for a ‘foreign audience’, and thus, a certain number of additional explanations are required for issues already familiar to local archaeologists and others with a good knowledge of Southeast Europe’s history. The most important thing is to understand the political and cultural contexts. The political, social and cultural settings of the last two centuries were not only changing rapidly, but these changes were also of a magnitude rarely seen outside central and Southeastern Europe. However, since the whole region was not always similarly affected by these changes, I found it better to present these contexts for each country individually rather than in one more extensive chapter. The book is divided into chapters dedicated to the individual modern countries and their archaeologies, with the final chapter reflecting the concept of ‘Yugoslav’ archaeology. Each chapter starts with a brief geographical and archaeological and historical introduction of the country in question. In the English edition, these parts are somewhat enlarged to help readers who are not well acquainted with the geography, archaeology and history of the region to contextualise the subject of study better.

To my great regret, I had to limit my scope to the seven new countries created after the break-up of Yugoslavia: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, N. Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo. Nonetheless, by confining the study to the Western Balkans, I could not escape or reduce the complexity and diversity of the development of archaeological discipline over the last two centuries. Indeed, it is precisely in this region that the complexity may be the greatest. These seven countries, none of which has

This book is not a simple reworking of the original paper from 2011, and not just the translation of the

History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 8

22. 10. 2021 11:05:22

consequent monograph published in Sarajevo. Working on the English edition allowed me to revise and add some new aspects and topics not included in the original two texts. I also had a chance to include some contents that appeared after 2015, when the original monograph was published, which significantly complemented the latest developments. To my great satisfaction, in the English translation I was also able to include some photographs, which enrich both archaeology and archaeologists’ historical image.

many colleagues across Europe and the experience in preparing proposals for EU funding. Thus in 2011, with the great help and efforts of the colleague Adnan Kaljanc of the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo, we succeeded in winning significant funding from the TEMPUS programme, which has enabled the building of the much-needed research infrastructure for archaeological education and practice in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Writing the present book was one of my tasks on the project.

The context in which the 2017 book was published is also of significance. I was involved in the project entitled Curricular Reform of Heritage Sciences in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIHERIT) in the EU TEMPUS programme frame. The project’s principal goal was to design and implement a sustainable infrastructural base to renew archaeology and other heritage-related disciplines in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the last war. As the Secretary of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA), I had an opportunity to visit colleagues in Sarajevo in 2006, 20 years after my previous visit to this country. I saw the catastrophic consequences of the war on the cultural heritage and the archaeological discipline itself. As a student at the University of Ljubljana, I would listen to my professors who spoke with great professional respect about their colleagues from the Provincial Museum in Sarajevo and the impressive achievements of Bosnian-Herzegovinian archaeology since its beginnings over 120 years ago. Few institutions enjoyed such a reputation as their Provincial Museum, and the publications of the Centre for Balkanological Research of the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina were compulsory for degree examinations. The short, two-day meeting with my colleagues in Sarajevo in 2006 remained in my memory as a very painful experience. It was not just the immense damage to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s cultural heritage monuments that struck me, but also the realisation of the almost complete helplessness of archaeology deprived of funding, people and institutions. The question was whether there was any immediate prospect of its revival. A major advantage of the secretarial position in the EAA has been the access to well-developed professional networks in Europe, the chance to communicate effectively with

The original paper and the book would not have been possible without the help of numerous colleagues who shared their knowledge and experience with me. I am particularly thankful to Božidar Slapšak, my professor and later a colleague at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. The discussions we had on Slovene and other archaeologies of the former Yugoslavia were most satisfying, and I genuinely admire his extremely insightful intellect. Staša Babić and Aleksandar Palavestra, my long-term ‘Gesprächspartners’ from the University of Belgrade, significantly helped me enlarge my knowledge of Serbian archaeology and also shared their views on numerous ‘Yugoslav’ issues in archaeology. Their comments on some of my previous texts were invaluable for improving the quality of the present study. The data on the latest developments in archaeology in Kosovo would have been mostly incomplete without the exhaustive information and recent literature on Kosovan archaeology regularly supplied by Kemal Luci of the Museum of Kosovo. Nade Proeva, Nikos Čausidis and Goce Naumov, my colleagues from the University of Skopje, and Irena Kolištrkoska Nasteva from the Archaeological Museum in Skopje, provided much important information on Macedonian archaeology on whose development, unfortunately, not much has been published. During my frequent visits to the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo I talked to Enver Imamović, Salmedin Mesihović and Adnan Kaljanc about archaeology’s progress in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its fate in the course of the recent war. Reading Dubravko Lovrenović’s works revealed to me some new views of this country and its fascinating history. His recent passing robbed Bosnia and Herzegovina of one of the most brilliant historians 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 archaeology 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 Bosnian-Herzegovinian archaeologies. I am also very grateful to Dragana Filipović, who translated the 2015 book into English, and especially Charles French and Paul Steed, who checked the English edition. Without their assistance, this volume would not be possible. I am also very glad that I have completed this book with photographic materials. 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 Duplančič, Naser Fereri, Ana Solter, Aleksandar Bandović, Bernarda Županek, Adnan Kaljanac, Miloš Petričević, Pere Ardžanliev, Ivana Pandžić, Vladimir Milanovski, Dušica Nikolić, Tomislav Kajfež, Toni Čerškov, Darko Periša, Milutin Garašanin jr., Katarina 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 literally) would not have been made.

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 centuries and the large cultural diversity of Southeast Europe, and the Western Balkans in particular, make the study of the history of archaeology of this region very challenging. To many archaeologists who do not live and work in this region, the task may, at first sight, seem not too different from similar studies in other European regions or countries. However, to those more familiar with the political and social context in Southeast Europe, this enterprise would appear much more difficult. The fact that until my book from 2014 there were no comprehensive studies on the history of archaeology in Yugoslavia (and on other countries in the Balkans) speaks for itself. The awareness of the exceptional complexity of the history of this region, which requires one to possess detailed knowledge of several linguistic, cultural, religious and political aspects and contexts to understand the historical, cultural and other routes of development, calls for caution and careful critical consideration to avoid simplifications and superficial inferences.

not produce some key contributions to a broader knowledge of archaeology other than ‘supplying’ the ‘raw materials’? Was the archaeological discipline in the Balkan countries less known because of greater difficulties in accessing adequate literature and archive records from Southeastern Europe, mostly written in local languages? Or was it because the Balkan scholars did not invest more efforts to inform the international archaeological community about their works and achievements? A bit of all these, I would say.

It could be argued that the ‘Western’ perspective, which dominates in the principal studies of the history of world archaeology (e.g. Daniel 1967; 1975; Trigger 1989; Murray 1999; Murray and Evans 2008), very rarely considered the archaeological discipline in Southeast Europe. While some great sites and discoveries from this region may have found their way to the works of the principal international texts on the history of the discipline, this was rarely the case with scholars or ‘schools’ of archaeology. Was this because it was considered that archaeological schools and archaeologists from Southeast Europe perhaps did not carry such a significant weight in the development of world archaeology in the last century, that archaeology in this region of Europe was more at the ‘receiving’ end in terms of knowledge transfer, and that in the past did

To enter into the written history of any scientific discipline is a matter of the author’s perspective and selection. Good histories pay great attention to the context, magnitude or weight of events and processes and their effects and eventually reveal a certain logic behind them. Having said this, it is common knowledge that traditional works on the history of archaeology were written mostly as a history of ideas and intellectual achievements (and their authors). Priority was given to places, objects, events and processes for which greater weight in the development of the discipline was assumed and argued. With time such narratives and places eventually became canonical, in many ways freed from their original contexts and conditions of knowledge, reaching the status of ‘classical’ cases. The truth is that until the mid-20th century, the centres of production of archaeological knowledge, and particularly the knowledge of archaeology, were all in the most developed Western countries. And it is the perspective of these centres within which the relevance and weight of archaeological developmental trajectories and achievements were reflected and eventually inserted in the history of the discipline. Nowadays, critics consider this perspective, common in earlier histories of archaeology, as stemming 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 was not until the end of the 1980s when works on the history of archaeology attempted to be more inclusive and address the defects of this ‘colonial’ approach. The first such effort was certainly the book by Bruce Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought (1989; 2006). While he did not explicitly address the ‘colonial’ perspective, he did pay significant attention to other, little-known regional archaeological traditions. This was followed by the highly influential study by M. Díaz-Andreu, A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology (2007), which not only opened the door to many regional and cultural traditions, but was also written from a clear post-colonial view. Nonetheless, even her remarkable historiographical work on modern archaeology left archaeology in Southeast Europe mostly underrepresented and poorly discussed. I agree that local archaeology in most countries of 19th century Southeast Europe was still largely underdeveloped and poorly institutionalised, still the book misses an opportunity to at least briefly reflect the peculiar ‘pseudo-colonial’ attitude towards this region. Maria Todorova (1997; 2006, 793) demonstrated very clearly the circumstances of how the term ‘Balkans’ entered into the European geopolitical discourse relatively late, at the end of the 18th century, and how this area became a metaphor for the ‘other’, ‘distinct’, non-European, Oriental, etc., a sort of binary opposition to the values of the West. 1 There are a myriad of reasons for such a perception of the Balkans: increased anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim propaganda in the West during the 19th century; insufficient knowledge of cultural, historical and social life of the ‘indigenous’, non-Turkish population; the perception 1

of Orthodox Christianity as alien to the Catholicism and Protestantism; an opposition between advanced industrialisation and capitalism, and the non-industrialised, post-feudal societies; language barriers, and so on. This attitude continued well into the 20th century. In the current political discourse, the term ‘Balkan’ is often replaced with ‘Southeast Europe’ to avoid disrespectful connotations. However, this label is also not entirely ‘neutral’ and free of contentious historical contents. ‘Südost Europa’ was coined by Johan Georg von Hahn (1811–1869), an Austrian consul in Janjina and Athens. Initially, the term was, perhaps, entirely appropriate but was later compromised when the German expansionist politics, especially during the period of Nazism, included Südost in its geopolitical agenda (Todorova 2006, 88–89). Clearly, the present-day re-introduction of ‘Southeast Europe’ is distanced from any references to the previous meanings, butIwonder whether the ‘Eurocratic’ proposers of the term have thought through in detail the history of this term and all the implications it had in different historical contexts. However, my intention is not to delve into the ‘phenomenology’ of the Balkans. For this study, it is sufficient to point to some key aspects of the Western ‘construction’ of the Balkans that served over many decades as a general matrix through which the images and ideas about the Balkans and its past and cultures spread across Europe.2 No study of the Balkan 2

In this context emerged the term ‘balkanisation’, used to describe the division of multi-national countries into smaller, ethnically more homogeneous units; it is also used in reference to ethnic conflicts in multi-ethnic states. Balkanisation, however, is a somewhat later term, which was coined as part of the geopolitical discourse after the First World War when it was used to describe the fragmentation following the breakdown of Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires in Southeast Europe.

Some influential scholars (such as Bakić-Hayden 1995) 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 ‘invented’ the Balkans and their ‘content’ to adapt them to its viewpoints, ideology, and politics in relation to the East. In this context, Balkan studies emerged as a separate scientific field within the tradition of regional studies at the beginning of the 20th century. One should not forget that this was the period when the leading national schools of geography embraced anthropogeography as the main paradigm of regional studies, and when the most prominent national geographers (for instance, F. Ratzel in Germany,

History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 12

22. 10. 2021 11:05:23

historical and cultural phenomena can ignore the effects of such impressions and views, which, to a significant degree, were reflected in the shaping of the archaeological discipline and its practice in this region in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Unfortunately, the wars that marked Yugoslavia’s disintegration aided in the revival of old stereotypes (see, for example, Allcock (2000, 1–3)). It should be kept in mind that Southeastern Europe is an area of highly contrasting paths of development, and perhaps the most controversial ones from the European perspective. It is true that, during some periods, large parts of the region did indeed represent the remote outskirts of the dominant political and economic powers.

Since medieval times, large parts of Southern Europe were governed by powers with their centres outside the region (e.g. the Byzantine Empire, Venice,3 Hungary, the Holy Empire, Austria). This ‘marginal’ position was further cemented with the Ottoman rule from the 15th century onwards. However, this position did not necessarily mean the completely ‘inactive’ and marginal status of the local population. Bosnia and Herzegovina was, for example, one of the most developed Ottoman provinces in the whole Empire, and from Istria and Dalmatia came some of the finest scholars in the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. Throughout this time and across this region, one could find people and achievements that far exceeded its peripheral status. But merely criticising the ‘colonial’ views would not contribute much to a better grasp of the origins and development of archaeology and associated disciplines in the region. First, what is needed is to understand how the image of the Balkans (and its past) was created, what and which pasts were selected and built into ‘Western’ thought, and ultimately appropriated, and what was left marginalised and outside. Ancient Greece is undoubtedly the most famous case of ‘extraction’ of a phenomenon from its regional historical and cultural context and its promotion to the European rank. The Antiquity of the southern Balkans (i.e. Greece) has still to be examined more

H. Mackinder in the UK, P. Vidal de la Blache in France, and in the Balkans certainly Jovan Cvijić and his school) very seriously investigated political and geographical aspects of the main strategic issues in modern European politics. Before the conceptualisation of Balkan studies, the most popular source of information on this region was travel journals written by travellers and visitors to this area, especially to the countries under Ottoman rule. Systematic research into Balkan phenomena within the framework akin to the Orientalism of Said is more recent, and originates from the early 1990s. A much more detailed introduction to this topic is offered by Maria Todorova (1997), which provides a basis for understanding the historical and cultural concomitances that led to the ‘discovery’ of the Balkans. Vesna Goldsworthy in 3,. The Imperialism of the Imagination (Yale University 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 colonialism. Milica Bakić-Hayden (1995) produced important work on the Balkan version of Orientalism. The oriental frame of analysis is also the topic of the oft-quoted paper by Milic Bakić-Hayden and Robert Hayden (1992), which examines the power of symbols and signs in the cultural geography of former Yugoslavia. In a book edited by Andrew Hammond (2004), several papers discuss modern cases of ‘underestimating’ the Balkans. Much of the recent works on the Balkans were driven by the wars and ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The choice of bibliography on this subject is certainly much greater than for the other topics, and an overview cannot be provided here. For a more insightful presentation, we strongly recommend the bibliographies listed in the publications mentioned above.

In the discussions of the major political and cultural divisions of the Balkans (e.g. Allcock (2000); Todorova (2006)), foreign scholars somehow tend to ignore Venice, which controlled large territories in the eastern Adriatic and its hinterland from the 12th to the end of the 18th century. After a short period under Napoleon’s rule (1806–1813), these areas were allocated to the Austrian Empire. The influence of Venetian and, in general, Italian culture was crucial in the cultural development of modern Croatia and Montenegro, and also had a great significance for the political development of the Western Balkans. Concerning the history of archaeology, the Venetian period and culture left a strong imprint in the traditions that shaped modern archaeology in parts of Slovenia, Croatia and Montenegro.

13 History of Archaeology in Western Balkan Countries FINAL.indd 13

22. 10. 2021 11:05:23

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