The Work of Jovan Cvijić and Vladimir Dvorniković through the Prism of Serbian Archaeology

Palavestra, Aleksandar; Milosavljević, Monika

doi:10.21301/eap.v10i3.4

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Iz biografskih skica o Vasiću koje se prenose u tradiciji srpske arheologije do danas, Vasićeva edukacija iz oblasti klasične arheologije se smatra jednom vrstom određenja koje je njegove interpretacije odvukla u smeru pogrešnog datiranja Vinče i proglašenja ovog praistorijskog lokaliteta grčkom kolonijom iz VI veka pre naše ere (Nikolić i Vuković 2008;Ružić 2013;Palavestra, Milosavljević 2015;Novaković 2015, 114−118). Odatle proističe da Vasićeva pogrešna kontekstualizacija Vinče proizilazi iz ,,sirenskog zova" klasičnog obrazovanja i sasvim neadekvatnih mogućnosti koje su mogla pružiti arheološka iskopavanja u Srbiji.…”

Section: Kultna Inicijacijaunclassified

“…Ideju o dubokom iskonskom kulturnom supstratu, koji nedefinisanim, ali snažnim silama zrači i prožima na sve kulture i stanovnike Balkana prihvatili su i razradili drugi. Ovakva konceptualizacija dobila je popularnost i vidljive obrise zahvaljujući uticajima ideja Milana Budimira, Veselina Čajkanovića, Nika Županića i Vladimira Dvornikovića, ali i mlađih generacija u srpskoj i jugoslovenskoj arheologiji 6 (za kritičke osvrte na pitanja kontinuiteta u srpskoj arheologiji v. Palavestra 2011, 581−589;Kuzmanović 2012;Mihajlović 2013, 779−798;Milosavljević 2012, Kuzmanović i Babić 2015Palavestra i Milosavljević 2015).…”

Section: Poučna Istrajnostunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vasić’s law of periphery

Milosavljević

Palavestra

2016

EAP / IEA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The understanding of the ways in which the pioneer of Serbian archaeology Miloje M. Vasić explained cultural changes is important for the archaeological tradition we work in. Consequently, the aim here is to detect the weak spots in the epistemological foundations of the Serbian archaeology and to enable the improvement of the conceptual tools we use. Vasić’s entire interpretive concept of the praehistoric Danubian valley periphery was constructed before the World War I, and stated that it was decisively influenced by the religious ideas from the cult centres of the Aegean, and by the direct contact with the Greek colonists as well. Searching for the explanations for the then unknown material culture of Vinča, he chose cult objects because he believed these objects preserved conservative practices and reflected conservative tendencies of communities. The conclusions founded upon cult objects Vasić transformed into generalizations related to all other phenomena. Having chosen his sample, he used specific methods for analysis of archaeological material, developing a complex mechanism to explain how in the periphery these original ideas were transformed beyond recognition. He used stylistic analysis and method of groups, proceeding to the Kopienkritik method, developed by his teacher Adolf Furtwangler. Just like written sources are valorised by their place in the chain of reproduction form the original, in the same manner certain objects represent forms whose distance from the centre can be estimated. However, Vasić further complicated his equation, by introducing at least one more force operating upon the degeneration of objects on the periphery – the influence of deep substrate levels of the peripheral cultures. This intersection of forces may be labelled as Vasić’s “law of periphery”, according to which the corruption of material culture in the periphery is influenced by the distance from the centre and the conservatism of the deeper popular layers. Although he linked this profound traditionalism of population to the survivals, in Vasić’s interpretive key these in fact represent the mutated form of the concept of survivals, borrowed from unilineal evolutionism, and are more linked to substrate, according to which continuity is supposed to be monitored, than to evolutionary phases of development. He identified this mutated concept of survivals and substrate in folk customs, the most famous being the recognition of the Dionysian ritual in the ethnographic present of his time. This manner of chronologically and spatially unlimited analogical reasoning inevitably led to erroneous interpretations, with long-lasting epistemological consequences in Serbian archaeology.

show abstract

Section: Kultna Inicijacijaunclassified

Section: Poučna Istrajnostunclassified

Vasić’s law of periphery

Milosavljević

Palavestra

2016

EAP / IEA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…U okviru tih studija istraživani su različiti koncepti, načini na koji su korišćene ideje o prošlosti, konteksti interesovanja pojedinaca kako u akademskoj zajednici, tako i van nje. Ipak, specifično bavljenje konceptom autoriteta u arheologiji deo je retkih studija koje su se bavile istorijom discipline i istorijom ideja u arheologiji (Palavestra 2013;Palavestra i Milosavljević 2015;Palavestra and Babić 2016). Dosadašnje analize proizvodnje znanja i transfera ideja kroz istoriju discipline pokazale su da autoriteti snažno oblikuju produkciju znanja u arheologiji i određuju načine na koji su artikulisana specifična znanja o prošlosti.…”

Section: N ć 750unclassified

Authority and the production of archaeological knowledge

Ćosić¹

2016

EAP / IEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discipline of archaeology is founded upon the interaction of various practices, in the network of individuals and institutions, jointly shaping and formulating the explanations of the past. The registered sites and material remains represent the places where undefined layers and physical structures are converted from heaps of dirt and discarded material into the knowledge of the past. From the perspective of production of knowledge and construction of facts about the times past, the archaeological excavations are not only a process of research. The production of archaeological knowledge, in the field and beyond, always takes place under specific circumstances, including not only the relations among professionals and institutions, but also the relations between material remains and the individuals “discovering” them and translating them into interpretations. Metaphorically speaking, in the complex relationship between archaeologists and material culture, an individual in the process of creating the knowledge of an object creates his/her own professional identity, while an object creates an archaeologist in the process of identification. The final outcome presents a chosen and formulated explanation about the past, stemming from a specific logic of disciplinary practice. However, the question arises: what or who decides which interpretations are more valid than the others, and who is in the position to declare an authentic interpretation of the excavated material. Thus the discussion enters the field of problematizing the concept of authority and its role in the production of archaeological knowledge. The analyses show that authority should not be understood as a definite source, periodically appearing and disappearing, but rather as an achievement of social and cultural interactions and changes. The theoretical grounds for the research of authority is formulated based upon Foucault’s interpretation of relation between power and knowledge. The axis for identification of authority in disciplinary practices is determined by the chosen categories of executive, epistemic, and intellectual authority, coupled with archaeological ethnography. The suggested development of the theoretical framework is aimed to secure the tools for considering the shapes and sources of authority in archaeology and its role in the production of archaeological knowledge of the past.

show abstract

“…Aleksandar Palavestra i Monika Milosavljević poslednjih su godina nizom tekstova argumentovano pokazali da je srpska (paleo)balkanologija dvadesetog veka obeležena idejom duhovnog i kulturnog kontinuiteta (Palavestra 2011a(Palavestra , 2011b(Palavestra , 2012(Palavestra , 2013Milosavljević 2012Milosavljević , 2013Milosavljević , 2017Milosavljević , 2020Palavestra i Milosavljević 2015). Naime, brojni istraživači istorije i praistorije Balkana -Niko Županić, Vladimir Dvorniković, Veselin Čajkanović, Miloje Vasić, Milan Budimir, ali i kasniji Milutin Garašanin i Dragoslav Srejović (preliminarnom spisku bi svakako trebalo dodati i Miloša Đurića i Vojina Matića) -sagledavali su Balkan kao prostor na kome kulturne, jezičke ili materijalne forme nikada uistinu ne umiru, iako se neprestano menjaju.…”

unclassified

The Return of the Suppressed and (Palaeo)Balkanology: Vojin Matić, Vladimir Dvorniković i Dragoslav Srejović

Teodorski¹

2021

eap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous researchers into the history and prehistory of the Balkans – Niko Županić, Vladimir Dvorniković, Veselin Čajkanović, Miloje Vasić, Milan Budimir, Miloš Đurić, Vojin Matić, Milutin Garašanin, Dragoslav Srejović – have considered this region as the area in which cultural, linguistic, or material forms never really die out, although they constantly change. In the writings of these authors, an invisible (sometimes historical) thread is established between the past and the present of the Balkans, along which the previously forgotten forms can always come back, and the long suppressed cultural forms can resurface. A distinctive trope is thus constructed, according to which the past of the Balkans is seen as a dark repository of cultural, religious, or psychological contents, emerging again at the times of social crisis – the trope of the return of the supressed. The author here argues that this trope is in its essence psychoanalytical: it belongs to a thought system, a hermeneutics originating in the 1930s, parallel to the (palaeo)balcanological research, among the abovementioned authors. Some authors speak in explicitly psychoanalytical terms, and the text focuses on the three of them: Vojin Matić, Vladimir Dvorniković and Dragoslav Srejović. Vojin Matić was active over a long period from the 1930s to 1990s, and his work establishes a chronological structure of the psychoanalytical influences in the Serbian humanities. His palaeopsychology gave an explicitly psychoanalytical turn to the (palaeo)balkanological thought, in the search for the continuity of the psychological mechanisms towards which a subject can always regress. Karakterologija Jugoslovena by Vladimir Dvorniković marked the (palaeo)balkanological research before the WWII. Conceiving it as an explicitly psychoanalytical study, Dvorniković developed a classical “psychoanalytical vertical” – bottom/down/dark/subconscious, opposed to surface/up/light/conscious, along which the supressed “autochthonous” cultural layers surface. The interest of Dragoslav Srejović for human “behind” the archaeological material naturally led him towards psychoanalysis (or was induced by it). The explicitly psychoanalytical phase of his work is notable (late 1950s and early 1960s), to become a constant tendency of his later theoretical approach. Srejović added to the vertical constructed by Dvorniković the opposition of archaeological/historical time. It is argued here that with all the authors mentioned the psychoanalytical trope of the return of the suppressed is indubitable: the past of the Balkans is described as its dark subconscious, not recognizing time, and therefore able to emerge again into the conscious, the light, the surface.

show abstract

The Work of Jovan Cvijić and Vladimir Dvorniković through the Prism of Serbian Archaeology

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Vasić’s law of periphery

Vasić’s law of periphery

Authority and the production of archaeological knowledge

The Return of the Suppressed and (Palaeo)Balkanology: Vojin Matić, Vladimir Dvorniković i Dragoslav Srejović

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About