Pseudo-scholarly imagining the past and the process of globalization: the case of ex-Yu

Although the history of Serbian archaeology has recently been a vivid field of study from various standpoints, the focus of this research has mainly been upon the early phases of the discipline, while the last thirty years have rarely been discussed. Additionally, the more extreme abuses of archaeological practice for political purposes, although minority positions, but still evident in the recent past, are mainly avoided. Therefore, this paper presents a critical discursive analysis of the recent history of Serbian archaeology in the context of the wars and crises of the 1990s and the post-conflict circumstances. The issue is raised of the transition achieved by Serbian archaeology from the dominance of ethnic determinism, apparent in the majority of archaeological interpretations, to the state of epistemic optimism, as a possible characterisation of the current state. The idea of “the Serbian gromile”, penned by Đorđe Janković, is taken as the case study, focusing on the explanatory mechanisms supporting it. The emergence of this idea is contextualized in the situation of social crisis, war, and trauma, and interpreted on the other hand as a continuation of the tradition of the Slavic archaeology, adhering in Yugoslavia to the culture-historical approach. The interpretation of “the Serbian gromile” offered here is thus specific in arguing that it is not an exception, but the tip of an iceberg – a part of the general tendency of Serbian archaeology in the traditional key. The analysis has revealed that the explanatory mechanism, serving as a scaffold to the interpretation offered by Janković in his search for the early Medieval “Serbian gromile”, was in fact the abuse of interdisciplinarity. Namely, the relationships with ethnology and physical anthropology were problematic in Serbian archaeology under the culture-historical framework, since they were not theoretically explicated and therefore prone to political appropriation. The dark shadow of interdisciplinary unity can only be avoided through the explication of approaches of individual fields of research and their integration, from the research design to the final interpretation. In its new iteration, incorporating social anthropology and bioarchaeology, interdisciplinarity in Serbian archaeology fostered new perspectives in the spirit of epistemic optimism.

Section: M 1038unclassified

From Ethnic Determinism to Epistemic Optimism: A Critical History of the Recent Past of Serbian Archaeology

Živaljević

2022

“…Sećanje i prošlost se menjaju: u višku prošlosti koji živimo potrebno je znanje da razaznamo tolerantne, etične, nenasilne prošlosti, one koje ne unižavaju druge, odnosno "korisne prošlosti od onih kojih možemo da se oslobodimo" (Huyssen 2000). 32 Uz već pomenute radove koji govore o upotrebi rimske prošlosti vidi i Babić 2002;Babić 2008;Vranić 2011;Manojlović Nikolić i Mihajlović 2016;Milosavljević i Palavestra 2017;Milosavljević 2020. 33 U Bosni i Hercegovini primer su "praistorijske bosanske piramide", geološki fenomen koji pseudoarheologija tumački kao trag ljudske napredne i drevne kulture.…”

Section: T B C 1028unclassified

Identity Crises and Confusions: Metamorphosis Constantiniana

Cvjetićanin

2022

Public monuments are the materialization of historical events or persons chosen to be remembered by a society, official factors of collective and cultural memory, elements of the chosen identity and the ways in which the community aims to be perceived by the outsiders. In the series of identity searches of the current representative monument culture in Serbia, rare are the examples that include the archaeological imagery. The paper examines the ideas and motifs of one such sculpture – Metamorphosis Constantiniana, not from the artistic perspective, but from the viewpoint of archaeology and cultural heritage, as well as the meanings ascribed to it by the participants of its ceremonial unveiling, and finally the reception of this public marker by the current citizens of Niš. Although the sculpture is erected on the occasion of the jubilee of 1700 years from the Edict of Milan, and although tolerance, acceptance, and cooperation are deeply rooted in the Christian ethics, these principles are rejected and not represented by this monument. The possibility is also rejected that the monument is aimed to promote the linear connection between the Roman state and today’s Serbia – our “Roman-ness” equated to the European roots and “civilisation”, the narrative that pervades the public discourse, at the same time being a flagrant abuse of the Roman past, both in the political and disciplinary domains. The main value promoted by the monument is identified in the “Primal Parent” – in the “beginning” from which stems a specific spiritual vertical, continuity and the celebration of the people with history. Valorisation and sacralization of the past are also discussed, and the influx of pseudo-scientific interpretations, images of ignorance contributing to the current identity crisis

“…Teme iz oblasti pseudoarheologije obično zaokupljaju veliku pažnju, bilo da je reč o lokalnim ili globalnim pseudoanučnim fenomenima (Pruitt 2011, 165-233;Manojlović-Nikolić, Mihajlović 2016). Počevši od traganja za ču-dovištima, Pildaunske lobanje, pronalaženja fosilnog golijata, prepoznavanja vinčanskog pisma, preko Denikenovske interpretacije prošlosti do piramida u Visokom i kreacionizma, pseudoarheologija se pre percipira kao zabavna nego kao opasna pojava (Čatipović 1980, 8-22;Палавестра 2010, 239-258;Žaku-la 2013, 31-50;Džino 2014, 245-252).…”

unclassified

Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology

Milosavljević¹,

Palavestra²

2017

Apstrakt: U pseudoarheološkim tekstovima, bilo da oni dolaze iz sasvim marginalnih izvora, ili iz sive zone bliske pseudonauci unutar same discipline, primećuje se navada pozivanja na različite analize i metode iz domena prirodnih nauka, koje bi trebalo da osnaže autorove stavove. Suština ove pseudonaučne strategije je izmeštanje težišta sa polja arheološke argumentacije i proverljivih arheoloških podataka, na klizaviji teren lažne kompleksnosti i tobožnje multidisciplinarnosti. Arheološka epistemologija podrazumeva da svaka interpretacija prošlosti zahteva jasan i ekspliciran teorijski okvir i proverljive podatke, kao i njihov dinamičan, recipročan odnos osmišljavanja i provere. Pseudonaučne tvrdnje po pravilu nemaju teorijski i metodološki okvir, a sami podaci kreću se od najobičnijih falsifikata, pa do proizvoljnih interpretacija autentičnih artefakata. Kako bi se prikrila slaba, ili nikakva, arheološka zasnovanost takvih interpretacija pribegava se izmeštanju argumentacije u oblast, za koju se podrazumeva da je arheološkoj publici manje poznata, te se lakše mogu poturiti lažne i neutemeljene tvrdnje.Ključne reči: arheologija, pseudoarheolgija, prirodne nauke, arheološka epistemologija, arheometalurgija, arheogenetika, arheoastronomija * Članak je rezultat rada na projektu Arheološka kultura i identitet na Zapadnom Balkanu, br. 177008, koji finansira Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja Republike Srbije. Posebnu zahvalnost dugujemo studentima koji su na Odeljenju za arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, tokom zimskog semestra 2016/2017. godine pohađali kurs Arheologija i pseudoarheologija.