Serbia

Archaeology as a scientific field in the Balkans and specifically in Serbia has a long and illustrious tradition. It is well legislated, follows – for the most part – actual standards in methodology and has produced fascinating archaeological information. However, the study of human skeletal biology did not follow the strengths of archaeological research in the area. The discipline is relatively new, with its own methodology dependent on individual researchers involved. In this brief overview of history and current practices in the field in Serbia, we are going to concentrate on both the current advances and areas that still need improvement in this domain. Archaeological sites are valuable sources of information about our past that are destroyed in

the very process of excavation. This fact requires careful balancing of the need to excavate archaeological sites in order to get as much scientific information as possible with the necessity to preserve sites and protect them from destruction. In general, control over the archaeological resources is always dependent on current scientific development, funding issues, and the local strategy of the community. Skeletal remains, as part of this general archaeological issue, are bound by the same constraints and require the same approach. In essence, if the excavation of the remains is not followed by their thorough anthropological analysis, documentation, and proper curation, they cannot contribute to the improvement of our knowledge of past populations. Unfortunately, one or all of these aspects in the treatment of human remains from archaeological contexts is often lacking in Serbia. Skeletal remains have been excavated from a large percentage of archaeological sites in Serbia.

When conducting research for this chapter we quickly perceived that, to even attempt to assess the total number of skeletons excavated from different sites, we were confronted with substantial uncertainty. Despite the fact that many archaeological reports and papers indicated the presence of buried individuals at the site, bioarchaeological information, if present at all, is commonly limited to basic age and sex data, and often published as appendices to archaeological papers and monographs. Furthermore, many archaeologically collected human remains from the past (excavated bones or chance finds) have not been reported at all, and others have been mentioned without any precise information on the number or composition of the skeletal sample. This is not limited to published papers, but extends to the ‘grey literature’ as well. When we tried to

review the official report files at the Serbian Ministry of Culture, the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, and the National Museum in Belgrade, we were not able to assemble a reliable list of all the excavated human remains and the minimum number of individuals per site. In order to create the best possible estimate, we have included in Table 35.1 information gathered from the interviews with archaeologists and physical anthropologists who either excavated or curated the collections. The drastic discrepancy between the number of archaeologically recorded human remains

(excavated or discovered as chance finds) on one side, and analysed and/or published anthropological data on the other, is the result of obvious insensitivity of the researchers towards the importance of skeletal material in furthering the interpretation of our past. Generally, for decades archaeologists were not aware of the potential of anthropological analysis towards our understanding of the past. This was supported by the attitude of anthropologists who, particularly in the case of cemeteries from the Classic period, were predominantly focused on determining the different anthropological types of Balkan populations. Moreover, many published reports on cemeteries, especially from the context of ruined mediaeval churches or monastery graveyards, do not actually have any relevant osteological data, except for the number of graves and the number of individuals that had been buried. Such types of grave regularly do not include grave goods, so in written reports authors would mention skeletal remains only in a ‘binary style’ (either there was or there was not). As a result of this, we now have a significant discrepancy between recovered and analysed skeletons, and a kind of blurred picture about the number and distribution of human remains from different archaeological periods in Serbia. The very first findings of human skeletal remains from the ancient past in Serbia go back to

the end of 18th century, reported briefly in popular magazines by non-experts. An extraordinary chance find of human skull from Belgrade, dating from the Middle Pleistocene, was described by Đ. Jovanovic´ (Stefanovic´ 2007). At the end of the 19th century, with the rise of scientific archaeology, the number of archaeologically excavated graves and necropoli with more descriptive information increased. Many Roman necropoli had already been excavated and/or identified at this time, but little attention was paid to the human remains. As early as 1908, Serbian ethnographer T. Đorđevic´, in his article ‘Unknown graveyard in Žagubica’, insisted that it was important to study burials and skeletal remains since they were often the only source of information on what people looked like and how they lived in ancient times (Đorđevic´ 1909). In keeping with the ‘culture history paradigm’, the types of burial ritual, the size and shape of the graves, and the nature of the grave goods were described and analysed, in order to create a proper typological and chronological sequence.