Archaeological Excavations of Adam Oršić: Fieldwork as a Source of Power and Authority

  • Marko A. Janković Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade
Keywords:
fieldwork practices, Adam Oršić, history of the discipline, authority, power

Abstract

The period between the two world wars is extremely important for the history of Serbian and Yugoslav archaeology, because this is the time when the discipline was rapidly institutionalized – new museums are established, new professionals are trained, and large fieldwork projects are initiated. At that moment, as well as immediately after – during the World War II, European archaeology is to the great extent oriented towards the German professionals and institutions.  In Germany and Austria institutionalization started earlier, by the beginning of the 20th century, so a great number of the Serbian and Yugoslav archaeologists was educated in the German centres – Marburg, Berlin, Munich, Vienna and other universities. Adam Oršić started working in archaeology in 1930s, self-taught and leaning primarily on the experience of older colleagues, rather than on formal education, which he did not possess at the time. However, he started fieldwork on the sites in Niš and the surrounding area, collecting a huge set of data, that remained in his private possession. It was this data collection and his vast fieldwork experience in southern Serbia that for Oršić opened the door of Ahnenerbe and heritage protection institutions during the occupation. As the result of the status he achieved at the time, he was sent to Oswald Menghin in Vienna, where he completed his dissertation in 1944. During the war, his insistence on fieldwork as the essential part of archaeological research became even more pronounced, leading to his suggestion to Ahnenerbe to organize an expedition in Serbia and Macedonia. The status acquired by his doctorate under the mentorship of Menghin, the leading praehistorian of Europe at the time, enabled Oršić to continue his archaeological work after the war, first as a refugee in Austria, and then as an immigrant to Brazil. Oršić considered fieldwork as the means through which archaeologists acquire exclusive knowledge. He himself used this knowledge throughout his career to strengthen his authority and to achieve esteem in the academic community.  His vast experience and knowledge of the sites in Serbia contributed to the respect he enjoyed by the authorities during the war, set his educational path, and ultimately secured him the status he enjoyed in the settings he worked till the end of his life.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arnold, Bettina. 1990. „The Past as Propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany“. Antiquity 64 (244): 464–478. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00078376

Babić, Staša i Miodrag Tomović. 1996. Milutin Garašanin. Razgovori o arheologiji. Beograd: 3T.

Bandović, Aleksandar. 2016. Naučne mreže Miodraga Grbića i njihov uticaj na srpsku arheologiju. Etnoantropološki problemi 11 (3): 831–852. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v11i3.9

Bandović, Aleksandar. 2019a. Nazi archaeology in Serbia: Power and Ideology at the Völkerstrasse. In National-Socialist Archaeology in Europe and its Legacies, edited by Martin Eickoff & Daniel Modl. New York: Springer (in press).

Bandović, Aleksandar. 2019b. „Miodrag Grbić i nastanak kulturno-istorijske arheologije u Srbiji“, Doktorska dis. Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.

Bogdanović, Alimpije. 1936. „Neolitsko naselje u opštini Klenovac“. Moravski arheološki glasnik br. 1, 13–14.

Bošković, Đurđe. 1936. „Osnivanje i delatnost Banovinske arheološke komisije pri Moravskoj banovini“. Starinar X-XI: 193–194.

Cvjetićanin, Tatjana. (ur.) 2009. Muzej kneza Pavla. Beograd: Narodni muzej.

Dugonjić, Mijo. 1936. „Nekoliko nalaza u opštini subotičkoj“. Moravski arheološki glasnik 1: 11–12.

Đorđević, Biljana, Vesna Radić i Tatjana Cvjetićanin. 2005. „Arheološka delatnost Narodnog Muzeja“. Zbornik Narodnog muzeja XVIII-1: 11–46.

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

Fetten, Frank. 2000. „Archaeology and Anthropology in Germany before 1945“. In Archaeology, Ideology and Society: the German Experience, edited by Heinrich Härke, 140–179. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang Verlag.

Fewkes, Vladimir. 1936. „Neolithic sites in the Moravo-Danubian Area (Eastern Yugoslavia)“. Bulletin of American School of Prehistoric Research no. 12, 5–81.

Garašanin, Milutin i Draga Garašanin. 1953. Priručnik za arheološka iskopavanja. Beograd: Publicističko izdavački zavod Jugoslavija.

González, Jorge M. 2010. „Ernst Schafer (1910-1992) – from the mountains of Tibet to the northern Cordillera of Venezuela: a biographical sketch“. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 159: 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1635/053.159.0106

Grbić, Miodrag. 1953. Osnovi istraživanja arheoloških nalazišta. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka.

Grünert, Heinz. 1992. „Ur- und Frühgeschichtsforschung in Berlin“. In Geschichtswissenschaft in Berlin im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Jahrhundert: Persönlichkeiten und Institutionen, edited by Reimer Hansen und Wolfgang Ribbe, 91–148. Berlin: Degruyter.

Hare, Laurence J. 2015. Excavating Nations. Archaeology, Museums and the German-Danish Borderlands. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Härke, Heinrich. 2000. „The German Experience“. In Archaeology, Ideology and Society: the German Experience, edited by Heinrich Härke, 12–39. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang Verlag.

Janković, Marko A. 2018. Arheološke putanje i stranputice Adama Oršića. Niš i Beograd: Narodni muzej Niš – Filozofski fakultet Beograd.

Kennel, Stefanie A. H. 2007. „Schliemann and his papers. A Tale from the Gennadeion Archives“. Hesperia 76: 785–817. https://doi.org/10.2972/hesp.76.4.785

Kohl, Philip L. and Jose Antonio Pérez Gollán. 2002. „Religion, Politics and Prehistory. Reassesing the Lingering Legacy of Oswald Menghin“. Current Anthropology 43 (4): 561–586. https://doi.org/10.1086/341530

Kossack, Georg. 2010. Prehistoric Archaeology in Germany: Its History and current situation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 25 (2): 73–109. https://doi.org/10.1086/341530

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

Leighton, Mary. 2015. „Excavation methodologies and labour as epistemic concerns in the practice of archaeology. Comparing examples from British and Andean archaeology“. Archaeological Dialogues 22 (1): 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203815000100

Lucas, Gavin. 2015. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork. Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. London and New York: Routledge

Milisauskas, Sarunas. 2011. „Historical Observations of European Archaeology“. In European Prehistory. A Survey, edited by Sarunas Milisauskas, 7–21. New York: Springer.

Milinković, Mihajlo. 1998. „Odeljenje za arheologiju“. U Filozofski fakultet 1838-1998, 425–440. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.

Milojčić, Vladimir. 1949. Chronologie der Jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und Südosteuropas. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann.

Nadlački, Luka. 1936. „Venera iz Starčeva“. Moravski arheološki glasnik br. 3, 38–39.

Novak, Viktor. 1936. „Moravski arheološki glasnik, Niš. 1936. Brojevi 1-3, Vlasnik i odgovorni urednik Adam Oršić Slavetić“. Jugoslovenski istorijski glasnik br. 3-4, 367–368.

Novaković, Predrag. 2015. Historija arheologije u novim zemljama Jugoistočne Evrope. Sarajevo: Univerzitet u Sarajevu.

Orssich, Adam & Orssich, Elfriede. 1956. „Stratigraphic Excavations in the Sambaqui de Araujo II, Parana, Brasil“. American Antiquity 21(4): 357–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/277308

Orssich, Adam de Slavetich. 1940. Bubanj, ein vorgeschichtliche ausiedlung bei Niš. Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.

Oršić, Adam. 1934. „Arheološka istraživanja u Nišu i okolini“. Starinar VIII-IX: 303–310.

Oršić, Adam. 1936a. „Kako se traže arheološka nalazišta“. Moravski arheološki glasnik br. 1, 3–7.
Oršić, Adam. 1936b. „Praistorijska nalazišta u okolini Niša“. Starinar X-XI: 174–181.

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

Ruprechtsberger, Erwin Maria. 1980. „Ein kastell des 1. jahrhunderts ist für Lauriacum archäologisch nicht bewiesen“. Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichischen Musealvereines 125: 9–24.

Stroh, Franz. 1949. „Wissenschaftliche Tätigkeit und Heimatpflege in Oberösterreich. 3. Ur- und fruhgeschichte“. Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichischen Musealvereines 94: 17–22.

Stroh, Franz. 1951. „Wissenschaftliche Tätigkeit und Heimatpflege in Oberösterreich. 3. Ur- und fruhgeschichtliche Sammlungen“. Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichischen Musealvereines 96: 15–21.

Stroh, Franz. 1952. „Wissenschaftliche Tätigkeit und Heimatpflege in Oberösterreich. 3. Ur- und fruhgeschichte Sammlungen“. Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichischen Musealvereines 97: 13–19.

Trigger, Bruce. 1984. „Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist“. Man 19: 355–370.

Urban, Otto. 2010. „Die Urgescchichte an der Universität Wien vor, während und nach der NS-Zeit“. In Geisteswissenschaften im Nationalsozialismus. Das Beispiel der Universität Wien, edited by Mitchell G. Ash, Wolfram Niess and Ramon Pils, 371–396. Wien: Vienna University Press.

Veit, Ulrich. 2011. „Toward a Historical Sociology of German Archaeology“. In Comparative Archaeologies. A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, edited by Ludomir R. Lozny, 53–77. New York: Springer.

Vetters, Hermann. 1952. „Ein doppelapsidaler Bauaus der Zivilstadt Lauriacum“. Oberöstereichisches Heimatblätter 6 (4): 608–614.
Published
2019-11-01
How to Cite
Janković, Marko. 2019. “Archaeological Excavations of Adam Oršić: Fieldwork As a Source of Power and Authority”. Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 14 (3), 889–907. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v14i3.7.