Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:19:46.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

False Analogy: Transfer of Theories and Methods in Archaeology (The Case of Serbia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Aleksandar Palavestra  and
Staša Babić
Aleksandar Palavestra*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Staša Babić*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia
*
[email: [email protected]]
[email: [email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As an academic discipline, archaeology is deeply rooted in the cultural, social, and political practices of Western Europe of the nineteenth century. The emergence of local scholarly communities in other parts of the continent tends to be described as a process that saw the even spread of ideas and concepts in their original form. This further implies a uniform, unilinear sequence of paradigms (culture-historical, processual, postprocessual), each with their own internal logic. However, more often than not, these transfers of disciplinary knowledge from one academic community to the other have introduced distortions of the original concepts, designed to meet the demands of the different cultural and intellectual traditions and research agendas. In this article, we explore the foundation of academic archaeology in Serbia and of the pivotal figure in this process – Miloje M. Vasić, educated at German universities and considered to be the first academically trained archaeologist in the country. His adaptations of the German tradition of Classical scholarship applied to the study of the Balkan past have marked the theory and practice of archaeology in the country up to the present. This example indicates that we should seek to explore the ways in which the concepts we apply in our study of the past are articulated in particular local settings if we are to achieve a better understanding among various academic and professional communities of archaeologists across Europe.

L'archéologie, en tant que discipline académique, est profondément enracinée dans les pratiques culturelles, sociales et politiques de l'Europe occidentale du dix-neuvième siècle. On a tendance à penser que les communautés scientifiques qui se sont développées ailleurs en Europe ont adopté ces idées et concepts sous leur forme initiale. Ceci présuppose une propagation uniforme et unilinéaire de modèles de pensée (culturels, processuels, post-processuel), chacun avec leur propre logique interne. Cependant les notions originales ont bien plus souvent été modifiées lors de ces transferts de connaissances d'une communauté savante à l'autre pour répondre aux exigences des diverses traditions culturelles et intellectuelles ainsi qu'aux diverses orientations de la recherche. Ici nous examinons les origines de l'archéologie académique en Serbie et le rôle clef qu'a joué Miloje M. Vasić dans cette genèse; sa formation universitaire en Allemagne le distingue comme le premier archéologue serbe à avoir reçu une formation professionnelle. En adaptant l'enseignement de l'archéologie classique de tradition allemande aux circonstances des Balkans, il a laissé son empreinte sur la théorie et la pratique de l'archéologie serbe jusqu’à nos jours. Cette étude de cas illustre que nous devons mettre en examen les notions que nous employons dans nos études sur le passé et considérer comment elles s'intègrent au niveau local afin de mieux comprendre les diverses communautés universitaires et professionnelles d'archéologues à travers l'Europe. Translation by Madeleine Hummler.

Als wissenschaftliches Fach ist die Archäologie tief in der kulturellen, sozialen und politischen Praxis des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts in Westeuropa verwurzelt. Die Entstehung von lokalen Gemeinschaften von Gelehrten anderswo in Europa wird oft als ein Vorgang, der zur Verbreitung von Ideen und Begriffe in ihrer ursprünglichen Form führte, beschrieben. Die Voraussetzung ist, dass es sich um eine einheitliche, unilineare Reihe von (kulturhistorischen, prozessualen, post-prozessualen) Denkmustern handelt, die alle ihre eigene innere Logik folgen. Aber die meisten Übertragungen von Fachkenntnissen von einer wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft zur anderen haben die ursprünglichen Konzepte verändert, um sich den verschiedenen kulturellen und intellektuellen Traditionen und Forschungsrichtungen anzupassen. In diesem Artikel wird die Entstehung der wissenschaftlichen Archäologie in Serbien untersucht, und besonders die zentrale Rolle, die Miloje M. Vasić, der sein Studium in Deutschland absolvierte, dabei gespielt hat. Er wird in Serbien als erster akademisch ausgebildeter Archäologe anerkannt und seine Anpassungen der deutschen Tradition der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft an das Studium der Vergangenheit des Balkans hat die Theorie und Praxis der serbischen Archäologie bis heute geprägt. Diese Fallstudie zeigt, dass eine Untersuchung der Anwendungen von verschiedenen Denkmustern hinsichtlich auf unsere Auffassung der Vergangenheit, und besonders der lokalen Gegebenheiten, sich als nützlich erweisen könnte, sodass wir uns als wissenschaftliche und berufliche Gemeinschaften von Archäologen in ganz Europa besser verstehen können. Translation by Madeleine Hummler.

Keywords

history of archaeologytransfer of ideas and methodsculture-historical archaeologyAltertumswissenschaftarchaeology in SerbiaMiloje M. Vasićhistoire de l'archéologietransfert d'idées et de méthodesarchéologie culturelleAltertumswissenschaftarchéologie en SerbieMiloje M. VasićGeschichte der ArchäologieÜbertragung von Ideen und Methodenkulturgeschichtliche ArchäologieAltertumswissenschaftArchäologie in SerbienMiloje M. Vasić
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , 2016 , pp. 316 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arhiv Narodnog Muzeja (Archive of the National Museum, Belgrade) kbr. 47. 1911 (Izveštaj Miloja M. Vasića Srpskoj Kraljevskoj akademiji o konferenciji Ruskog Arheološkog Instituta u Carigradu).Google Scholar
Babić, S. 2002. Still Innocent After all these Years? – Sketches for a Social History of Archaeology in Serbia. In: Biehl, P., Gramsch, A. and Marciniak, A., eds. Archäologien Europas: Geschichte, Methoden und Theorien/Archaeologies of Europe: History, Methods and Theories. Tübingen: Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, Band 3, pp. 309–22.Google Scholar
Babić, S. 2006. Archaeology in Serbia – A Way Forward? In: Tasić, N. and Grozdanov, C., eds. Homage to Milutin Garašanin. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, pp. 655–59.Google Scholar
Babić, S. 2008, Grci i drugi. Antička percepcija i percepcija antike [Greeks and Others. Ancient Perceptions and Perceptions of Antiquity]. Belgrade: Klio.Google Scholar
Babić, S. 2012. Klasični uzori i kako ih steći. Prilog Razmišljanju o ulozi klasične starine u obrazovanju [Classical Role Models and how to Achieve Them: Notes on the Role of Classical Antiquity in Education]. Atnropologija/Anthropology, 2/12:41–52.Google Scholar
Babić, S. 2014. Identity, Integration, Power Relations and the Study of the European Iron Age. In: Popa, C.N. and Stoddart, S., eds. Fingerprinting the Iron Age, Approaches to Identity in the European Iron Age. Integrating South Eastern Europe into the Debate. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 295–302.Google Scholar
Babić, S. 2015. Theory in Archaeology. In: Wright, J.D., ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Vol. 1. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 899–904.Google Scholar
Babić, S. & Tomović, M. eds. 1996. Milutin Garašanin — Razgovori o arheologiji. Beograd: 3T.Google Scholar
Bandović, A. 2014. Muzejski kurs i arheologija tokom II svetskog rata u Beogradu. Etnoantropološki Problemi, 9/3:629–48.Google Scholar
Biehl, P., Gramsch, A. & Marciniak, A. eds. 2002. Archaölogien Europas: Geschichte, Methoden und Theorien/Archaeologies of Europe: History, Methods and Theories. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, Band 3. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bogdanović, S. 1978. Mihajlo Valtrović i Dragutin Milutinović kao istraživači srpskih starina. In: Gvozdenović, N., ed. Izlozi Srpskog učenog društva: istraživanja srpske srednjovekovne umetnosti 1871–1884. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, pp. 5–90.Google Scholar
Bogdanović, S. 1990. Počeci nastave istorije umetnosti na visokim školama u Beogradu – Licej i Velika škola. In: Popović, M., ed. Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta – naučni skup povodom stopedesetogodišnjice Filozofskog fakulteta. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, pp. 101–22.Google Scholar
Bogosavljavić-Petrović, V. & Gačić, D. 2009. Osnivanje Srpskog arheološkog društva 1893. CD katalog izložbe. Beograd & Novi Sad: Narodni muzej Beograd, Muzej Grada Novi Sad.Google Scholar
Butler, E.M. 1958. The Tyranny of Greece over Germany. A Study of the Influence Exercised by Greek Art and Pottery over the Great German Writers of the Eigthteenth, Nineteeenth and Twentieth Centuries. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Calder, W. 1996. Friedrich Welcker. In: Thomson de Grummond, N., ed. Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archaeology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 1189.Google Scholar
Cermanović-Kuzmanović, A. 2001. Miloje Vasić. Anarheologija, 3. Available at: http://www.anarheologija.org. Accessed 15 March 2013.Google Scholar
Childe, V.G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Díaz-Andreu, M. 2007. A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fewkes, V. 1935. On the Interpretation and Dating of the Site of ‘Belo Brdo’ at Vinča in Yugoslavia. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 75/7:651–72.Google Scholar
Fewkes, V. 1936. Neolithic Sites in the Morava-Danube Area. Bulletin of American School of Prehistoric Research, 12:5–81.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. 1981 [1935]. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fotiadis, M. 2006. Factual Claims in Late Nineteenth Century European Prehistory and the Descent of a Modern Discipline's Ideology. Journal of Social Archaeology, 6/1:5–27.Google Scholar
Gačić, D. 2005. Miodrag Grbić, život i delo. Novi Sad: Muzej grada Novog Sada.Google Scholar
Garašanin, M. 1951. Hronologija vinčanske grupe. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Arheološki seminar.Google Scholar
Garašanin, M. 1961. The Neolithic in Anatolia and the Balkan. Antiquity, 35:246–80.Google Scholar
Garašanin, M. 1984. Uvod. In: Ćelić, S., ed. Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku, Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A. & Sommer, U., eds. 2011. A History of Central European Archaeology. Theory, Methods, and Politics. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Grbić, M. 1933–1934. Miloje M. Vasić: Preistorijska Vinča I. Industrija cinabarita i kosmetika u Vinči. Starinar, treća serija 8/9:322–26.Google Scholar
Hansson, U. 2008. Arkeologins Linné. Adolf Furtwängler som storstipendiat i Rom 1876–1878. Tidskrift for Foereningen Svenska Rominstitutets Vaenner och Svenska Rominstitutet, Romhorisont, 49:19–23.Google Scholar
Hansson, U. 2013. Adolf Furtwängler i Grekland. Helenika NR 145, 145:8–10.Google Scholar
Härke, H. 1991. ‘All Quiet on the Western Front?’ Paradigms, Methods and Approaches in West German Archaeology. In: Hodder, I., ed. Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 187–222.Google Scholar
Härke, H. 1995. ‘The Hun is a Methodical Chap.’ Reflection on the German Tradition of Pre- and Protohistory. In: Ucko, P.J., ed. Theory in Archaeology – A World Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 46–60.Google Scholar
Hoernes, M. 1892. Die Urgeschichte des Menschen. Wien: Hartleben.Google Scholar
Holste, F. 1939. Zur chronologischen Stellung der Vinča Keramik. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 26/1:1–21.Google Scholar
Jovanović, A. 2002. Paleoetnografske beleške iz okoline Niša I. Zbornik Narodnog muzeja u Nišu, 11:69–76.Google Scholar
Kirin, A. 2010. Eastern European Nations, Western Culture, and the Classical Tradition. In: Stephens, S.A. and Vasunia, P., eds. Classics and National Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141–62.Google Scholar
Korošec, J., Benac, A., Garašanin, M. & Garašanin, D. 1951. Oko ‘problematike’ Vinče. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, 6:5–32.Google Scholar
Kossak, G. 1999. Prähistorische Archäologie in Deutschland im Wandel der geistigen und politischen Situation. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Stizungsberichte, 4:5–133.Google Scholar
Malina, J. & Vašiček, Z. 1990. Archaeology Yesterday and Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mannheim, K. 1952. The Problem of Generations. In: Kecskemeti, P., ed. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge by Karl Mannheim. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 276–320.Google Scholar
Marchand, S. 1996. Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, S. 2007. From Antiquarian to Archaeologist? Adolf Furtwängler and the Problem of Modern Classical Archaeology. In: Miller, P.N., ed. Momigliano and Antiquarianism: Foundations of the Modern Cultural Sciences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 248–85.Google Scholar
Marić, R. 1956. Miloje M. Vasić (3/16 IX – 4 XI 1956). Starinar. n.s. 5–6:403–06.Google Scholar
Menghin, O. 1913. Vasić M.: Gradac. Preistorijsko nalazište latenskog doba. Glas Srpske Kraljevske akademije LXXXVI. Drugi razred 51. 1911. (Str.97–134.). Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 43:240–41.Google Scholar
Milinković, M. 1984. Mihailo Valtrović, prvi urednik Starinara. Starinar, 30:13–23.Google Scholar
Milinković, M. 2006. Der Werdegang der akademischen Archäologie in Serbien. In: Callmer, J., Meyer, M., Struwe, R. and Theune, C., eds. Die Anfänge der ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie als akademisches Fach (1890–1930) in europäischen Vergleich. Rahden/Westfahlen: Marie Leidorf, pp. 249–62.Google Scholar
Milojčić, V. 1949. Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und Südosteuropas. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Milosavljević, M. 2013a. Niko Županić i konstrukcija jugoslovenske etnogeneze [Niko Županić and the Construction of Yugoslav Ethnogenesis]. Etnoantropološki Problemi/Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 3:717–46.Google Scholar
Milosavljević, M. 2013b. Beleške sa margine: značaj Mihaila Valtrovića za proučavanje srednjovekovnih starina u Srbiji [Notes from the Margin: Significance of Mihailo Valtrović for the Study of Medieval Antiquities in Serbia]. Inicijal, 1:205–26.Google Scholar
Milosavljević, M. in preparation. Koncept drugosti varvarstva i varvarizacije u srpskoj arheologiji. PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade.Google Scholar
Morris, I. 1994. Archaeologies of Greece. In: Morris, I., ed. Classical Greece. Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8–47.Google Scholar
Myres, J.L. 1931. British Association, Proceedings of Section H (Anthroplogy). Man, 31:254–56.Google Scholar
Myres, J.L. 1932. Section IIIB. The Ancient East Including the Mediterranean; Section IIIC. Central and Mediterranean Europe. Man, 32:212–14.Google Scholar
Nikolić, D. 2008. Vinča, praistorijska metropola. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Narodni muzej u Beogradu, Muzej grada Beograda, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.Google Scholar
Nikolić, D. & Vuković, J. 2008. Od prvih nalaza do metropole kasnog neolita; otkriće Vinče i prva istraživanja. In: Nikolić, D., ed. Vinča, praistorijska metropola. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Narodni muzej u Beogradu, Muzej grada Beograda, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, pp. 39–86.Google Scholar
Novaković, P. 2002. Archaeology in Five States – A Peculiarty or Just Another Story at the Crossroads of ‘Mitteleuropa’ and the Balkans: A Case Study of Slovene Archaeology. In: Biel, P., Gramsch, A. and Marciniak, A., eds. Archäologien Europas. Münster: Waxmann, pp. 323–52.Google Scholar
Novaković, P. 2011. Archaeology in the New Countries of Southeastern Europe: A Historical Perspective. In: Lozny, L.R., ed. Comparative Archeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past. New York: Springer, pp. 339–461.Google Scholar
Novaković, P. 2012. The ‘German School’ and its Influence on the National Archaeologies of the Western Balkans. In: Migotti, B., ed. Scripta in honorem Bojan Djurić. Ljubljana: Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
Novaković, P., Lovenjak, M. & Budja, M. 2004. Osamdeset let študija arheologije na Univerzi v Ljubljani. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo.Google Scholar
Palavestra, A. 2005. Dobrosusedsko nemešanje. Srpska arheologija i etnologija. U Etnologija i antropologija: stanje i perspektive, Zbornik Etnografskog instituta SANU 21. Beograd: Etnografski institut, pp. 87–94.Google Scholar
Palavestra, A. 2011. U službi kontinuiteta. Etno-arheologija u Srbiji [In the Service of Continuity. Ethnoarchaeology in Serbia]. Etnoantropološki problemi/Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 6:579–94.Google Scholar
Palavestra, A. 2012. Vasić pre Vinče (1900–1908) [Vasić before Vinča]. Etnoantropološki Problemi/Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 7:649–79.Google Scholar
Palavestra, A. 2013. Čitanja Miloja M. Vasića u srpskoj arheologiji [Images of Miloje Vasić in Serbian Archaeology]. Etnoantropološki Problemi/Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 8:681–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palavestra, A. 2014. Arheološki izlet u pograničnu koloniju [Archaeological Excursion into Proximate Colony]. Etnoantropološki Problemi/Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, 9:669–95.Google Scholar
Perrot, G. & Chipiez, C. 1885. Histoire de l'art dans l'antiquité. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Pruitt, T. 2011. Authority and the Production of Knowledge in Archaeology. PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Raczkowski, W. 2011. The ‘German School of Archaeology’ in its Central European Context: Sinful Thoughts. In: Gramsch, A. and Sommer, U., eds. A History of Central European Archaeology. Theory, Method, and Politics. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
Reinach, S. 1893. Le Mirage oriental. Paris: G. Masson.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. 1903. Tordos. Zeitischrift für Ethnologie, 35:438–69.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. 1904. Troja, Mykene, Ungarn: archäologische Parallelen. Zeitischrift für Ethnologie, 36:608–56.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. 1996. Classical Archaeology of Greece. Experiences of the Discipline. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sklenář, K. 1983. Archaeology in Central Europe: The First 500 Years. New York: St. Martin's Press & Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Sørensen, M. & Rebay-Salisbury, K. 2008. The Impact of 19th Century Ideas on the Construction of ‘Urnfield’ as a Chronological and Cultural Concept: Tales from Northern and Central Europe. In: Lehoërff, A., ed. Construire le temps. Histoire et méthodes des chronologies et calendriers des derniers millénaires avant notre ère en Europe occidentale. Actes du XXXe colloque international de Halma-Ipel, UMR 8164 (CNRS, Lille 3, MCC), 7–9 décembre 2006. Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte, pp. 57–67.Google Scholar
Srejović, D. 1983a. Arheologija na Velikoj školi i Univerzitetu u Beogradu. In: Tasić, N., ed. Spomenica Srpskog arheološkog društva 1883–1983. Beograd: Srpsko arheološko društvo, pp. 17–25.Google Scholar
Srejović, D. 1983b. Uspostavljanje i razvoj umetnost Lepenskog Vira. In: Srejović, D. and Babović, L.J., eds. Umetnost Lepenskog Vira. Beograd: Jugoslavija, pp. 49–60.Google Scholar
Srejović, D. 1984. Miloje M. Vasić, tvorac srpske arheološke nauke. Starinar, n. s. 35:25–32.Google Scholar
Stockowski, W. 2008. How to Benefit from Received Ideas. In: Murray, T. & Evans, C., eds. Histories of Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 346–59.Google Scholar
Tapavički-Ilić, M. 2013. Osvrt na boravak Miloja Vasića u Nemačkoj tokom doktorskih studija. In: Maricki-Gađanski, K., ed. Antika i savremeni svet: naučnici, istraživači i tumači. Beograd: Društvo za antičke studije, pp. 378–85.Google Scholar
Tasić, N., Srejović, D. & Stojanović, B. 1990. Vinča. Centar neolitske kulture u Podunavlju. Beograd: Centar za arheološka istraživanja Filozofskog fakulteta.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2004. Archaeology and Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trgovčević, L.J. 2003. Planirana elita. O studentima iz Srbije na evropskim univerzitetima u 19. veku. Beograd: Istorijski institut.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1905. Arheološka istraživanja u Srbiji. Srpski književni glasnik, 15:520–27, 539–603, 675–87.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1906a. Prilozi ka rešavanju trojanskih problema. Glas Srpske Kraljevske akademije, 70, Drugi razred, 43:163–289.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1906b. Nekoliki preistorijski nalasci iz Vinče. Starinar, n. r. 1:89–127.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1906c. Preistorijska votivna grivna i uticaji mikenske kulture u Srbiji. Starinar, n. r. 1:1–35.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1908. Preistorijski obredni predmeti. Prilozi ka poznavanju preistorijske religije u Srbiji. Starinar, n. r. 3:71–120.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1911. Gradac. Preistorijsko nalazište latenskog doba. Glas Srpske Kraljevske akademije, 86:1–18.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1912. Žuto brdo. Prilozi za poznavanje kulture gvozdenoga doba u Dunavskoj Dolini II, III. Starinar, n. r. 5:1–207.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1914. Žuto brdo. Prilozi za poznavanje kulture gvozdenoga doba u Dunavskoj Dolini IV, V, VI. Starinar, n. r. 6:1–93.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1932. Preistorijska Vinča I. Beograd: Državna štamparija.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1934. Colons grecs à Vinča. Revue internationale des études balkaniques, 1:65–73.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1936. Preistorijska Vinča II-IV. Beograd: Državna štamparija.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1948. Jonska kolonija Vinča. Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, 1:85–224.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1954. Dionis i naš folklor. Glas Srpske akademije nauka CCXIV, Odeljenje društvenih nauka, 3:129–63.Google Scholar
Vasić, M. 1955. Dirigovana arheologija. Istorijski časopis SAN, 5:1–2.Google Scholar
Vassits, M. 1900. Die Fackel in Kultus und Kunst der Griechen. Belgrad: Königl. Serb. Staatsbuchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Vassits, M. 1902a. La nécropole de Kličevac (Serbie). Revue Archéologique, 40:172–90.Google Scholar
Vassits, M. 1902b. Die neolitische Station Jablanica bei Medjulužje in Serbien. Archiv für Anthropologie, 27:517–82.Google Scholar
Vassits, M. 1908. South-Eastern Elements in the Pre-historic Civilization of Servia. Annual of the British School of Athens, 14:319–42.Google Scholar
Vassits, M. 1910. Die Hauptergebnisse der praehistorischen Ausgrabung in Vinča im Jahre 1908. Praehistorische Zeitshrift, 2:23–39.Google Scholar
Vulić, N. 1897. Pincum ili Veliko Gradište od prof. Miloja Vasića. Kolonija Viminacijum studija od M. M. Vasića profesora. Novci kolonije Viminacijuma, arheološka studija prof. Miloja M. Vasića. Delo, 14:371–76.Google Scholar
Vulić, N. 1903. Odgovor M. M. Vasiću, pomoćniku čuvara Narodnog muzeja. Prosvetni Glasnik, 24/2:400–06.Google Scholar
Wolfram, S. 2002. ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ or ‘Kossinna Syndrome’? Archaeological Theory and Social Context in Post-War West Germany. In: Härke, H., ed. Archaeology, Ideology and Society. The Germann Experience. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 183–204.Google Scholar