What Kind of Archaeology do We Need?


  • Staša Babić Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Universitz of Belgrade, Serbia




archaeological epistemology, paradigm shift, social responsibility of archaeologists


From the time of the constitution of archaeology as an academic discipline to the present, two radical changes have taken place of theoretical postulates, aims, methods, relationships with other disciplines. However, potentially far-reaching consequences of these fundamental changes have not had the same impact in all the academic communities. The critical assessment of the epistemological foundations of archaeology in Serbia indicates that our professional community has remained resistant to the large extent to the paradigm changes in the wider disciplinary surrounding, so the culture-historical approach still prevails, even though it was severely criticized as early as by the middle of the 20th century. Facing this significant delay raises many important questions, starting by the issue of selection among various, sometimes mutually conflicting theoretical approaches, being a part of archaeological research for several decades and implying certain consequences in terms of methodological aspects of the discipline. Partial, non-critical and insufficiently theoretically informed borrowing of individual elements of research may lead to equally bad results as the total rejection of influences from other archaeological environments. It is therefore necessary to bring into the discipline the comprehension of the social responsibility of archaeologists, the importance of the academic narratives we produce and the ways of their creation.


Download data is not yet available.


Babić, Staša. 2002. „Still innocent after all these years? – Sketches for a social history of archaeology in Serbia“. In Archäologien Europas: Geschichte, Methoden und Theorien/Archeologies of Europe: History, Methods and Theories, eds. Peter F. Biehl, Alexander Gramsch and Arkadiusz Marciniak, 309–322. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 3. Münster: Waxmann.

Babić, Staša. 2006. “Archaeology in Serbia – A Way Forward?” In Homage to Milutin Garašanin ed. by Nikola Tasić and Cvetan Grozdanov, 655 – 659. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Babić, Staša. 2009. Jezik arheologije II, ili: Kako sam preživela promenu paradigme. Etnoantropološki problemi 4/1: 123–132.

Babić, Staša. 2010. Priča o dva grada – Šta je to svetski kongres arheologa? Etnoantropološki problemi 5/3: 283–286.

Babić, Staša. 2013. “Identity, integration, power relations and the study of the European Iron Age: Implications from Serbia”. In Figerprinting the Iron Age. Approaches to Identity in the European Iron Age. Integrating South-Eastern Europe into the Debate, ed. by Simon Stoddard and Catalin Popa. Cambridge: Cambridge Unievrsity Press (u pripremi).

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Daniel, Glyn. 1976. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Draaisma, Douwe. 2013. Tvornica nostalgije. Pamćenje, vrijeme, starost. Zagreb: Ljevak.

Džonson, Metju. 2008. Arheološka teorija. Beograd: Clio.

Gibbon, Guy. 1989. Explanation in Achaeology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Jones, Andrew. 2002. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kun, Tomas. 1974. Struktura naučnih revolucija. Beograd: Nolit

Kuzmanović, Zorica. 2012. Refleksivna priroda arheološkog zaključivanja. Studija slučaja korpusa helenističkih nalaza u Srbiji. Doktorska disertacija. Univerzitet u Beogradu – Filozofski fakultet.

Latour, Bruno. 2004. Nikada nismo bili moderni. Ogled iz simetrične antropologije. Zagreb: Arkzin.

Lucas, Gavin. 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork – Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge

Milosavljević, Monika. 2011. Arheologija nad moštima. Antropologija 11, sv. 2: 115–140.

Olsen, Bjornar. 2002. Od predmeta do teksta. Teorijske perspektive arheoloških istraživanja. Beograd: Geopoetika.

Palavestra, Aleksandar. 2010. Izmišlјanje tradicije: “vinčansko pismo”. Etnoantropološki problemi 5/2: 241–258.

Palavestra, Aleksandar. 2011. Kulturni konteksti arheologije. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.

Palavestra, Aleksandar. 2012. Vasić pre Vinče. Etnoantropološki problemi 7/3: 649–679.

Palavestra, Aleksandar. 2013. Čitanja Miloja M. Vasića u srpskoj arheologiji. Etnoantropološki problemi 8/3:

Stoczkowski, Wiktor. 2008. „How to Benefit from Received Ideas“. In Histories of Archaeology, ed. by Tim Murray and Christopher Evans, 346–359. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, Julian. 2004. Archaeology and Modernity. London: Routledge.

Yoffee, Norman and Andrew Sherratt (eds) 1993. Archaeological Theory: who sets the agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




How to Cite

Babić, Staša. 2013. “What Kind of Archaeology Do We Need?”. Etnoantropološki Problemi / Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 8 (3):621-31. https://doi.org/10.21301/EAP.v8i3.1.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>