Introduction into Research of the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia (1949–1991)

Abstract

The text lays the grounds for the research into the activities of the Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia (ASY) in all its organizational aspects (1949–1991). The concept of scientific societies – one of the forms of organization of scholars in various discipline, is investigated. The aim is to introduce a wider investigation of ASY’s importance in archaeology, organized into several interconnected parts. A short chronology of the genesis of scientific societies in the territory of former Yugoslavia is laid out. The fact is emphasized that ASY was founded upon older traditions that shaped the diversity of archaeological practices in the region. New information is offered on organization of archaeologists in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, introducing for the first time the meeting of Yugoslav archaeologists in Dobrna by Celje, Slovenia, in 1922, thus acquiring a wider context for the interpretation of the first congress of Yugoslav archaeologists, held the same year in Belgrade. The importance of these meetings is emphasized, as well as the idea of the foundation of an archaeological institute in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, although it is clearly stated that the process of joining archaeologists in the Kingdom was unsuccessful in the long term. A chronological overview of the development of ASY is presented through its organizational forms: Coordination Board of Yugoslav Archaeologists (1949–1954), Archaeological Society of Yugoslavia (1954–1972) and Association of Archaeological Societies of Yugoslavia (1972–1991). The activities and achievements of the association are described (congresses, symposia, publishing activity...), implicitly linking the genesis of ASY with the development of the Yugoslav society and state. The importance of ASY is discussed and of the research issues its work raises. Since the paper is the result of the work in progress, the conclusions are not final, and the focus of research is flexible. The accessible evidence is discussed. The concluding part of the paper offers the author’s assessment of the importance of ASY and the concept of autonomous “Yugoslav archaeology”.