Добросуседско немешање - Српска археологија и етнологија
Good-Neighbourly Uninvolvement - Serbian Archaeology and Ethnology

Author(s): Aleksandar Palavestra
Subject(s): Anthropology, Social Sciences, Archaeology
Published by: Етнографски институт САНУ
Keywords: Serbian archaeology; Serbian ethnology; anthropology; cultural history; cultural evolution
Summary/Abstract: The relationship between Serbian archaeology and ethnology, ever since the 19th century, have been demarcated by the respective theoretical frameworks of the disciplines. However, due to the specific developments in the country, the sweeps of the pendulum that have, in the European anthropology and archaeology, oscilated between cultural evolutionism and cultural particularism, have remained almost invisible in Serbia. From the very initial works of the pioneers of the Serbian archaeology and ethnology, the principle of good neighbourly non-interference was practiced. Consequently, only if there was a burning need, archaeologists reached out freely for ethnographic analogies, without much concern for theoretical foundations, contemporaneous trends or paradigm changes in anthropology. In the Serbian archaeology of the first half of the 20th century, the relationship with ethnology was almost non-existent. More precisely, this relationship was even less present than in the framework of the traditional European culture-historical approach, where sometimes evolutionary and functionalist influences may be recognized. The Serbian archaeology was dominated for half a century by the sovereign personality of Miloje Vasić, who did not accept the culture-historical method, and had some specific ideas about ethnology. His approach to the issue was selective, and he was even overtly dismissive of the Serbian ethnology. The next generation of archaeologists grew out of the approach of Vasić, but along with culture-historical archaeology, they accepted a latent dislike towards anthropology, and the principle of non-interference of two disparate disciplines – archaeology and ethnology. Archaeologists, admitedly rarely, have borrowed formal analogies from ethnology, and even the notorious »stages of development«, but as ready-made, finite concepts from another discipline, therefore unquestionable nor obliging. Great theoretical debates and the foundation of processual arcaheology during 1960s, have been decisively based upon neo-evolutionism, cultural ecology, and functionalistic systems theory. Dragoslav Srejović understood very well that the essence of new archaeology is in the rapprochment of archaeology and anthropology. However, he did not see anything rewarding in this process, but considered this tendency as jeopardizing for both archaeology and ethnology as independent disciplines, threatening to deconstruct and decompose them. The attitude of Srejović was not only the resistance of culture-historical towards processual archaeology, as in the case of moderate caution of Milutin Garašanin towards new archaeology. Srejović was especially critical towards the postivistic base of new archaeology, which endangered his personal theoretical credo of ”intuitive or metaphysical approach to understanding mankind“. It is interesting to note that Srejović was equally critical towards postmodern tendencies in archaeology and anthropology, in spite of the fact that they – in their critique of positivism and harnessing of hermeneutic approach – could have offered a wider framework to his personal understanding of archaeology. Serbian arcaheology has not accepted the processual paradigm shift, nor the post-processual critique of new archaeology during the 1980s. Under these conditions, the mild relationship between archaeology and anthropology in Serbia have remained virtually unchanged for more than a century. The sporadic theoretical ventures towards multidisciplinary Balkanology and long-term history have mainly remained on the declarative programatic level. The oportunity for redefining of the relationship between the Serbian archaeology and anthropology lies in the internal reconsideration of the disciplines themselves, and in the joint post-modern themes (material culture studies, gender studies, critical theory, neo-Marxist and post-structuralist approaches). On the other hand, the chance for the renewed synthesis of archaeology, ethnology and anthropology is also offered by the new evolutionary paradigm, based upon evolutionary psychology, new social biology and evolutionary anthropology and archaeology.

• Details
• Contents