Vladimir R. Petković and the foundation of the institute of archaeology: Circumstances and realization

In the process of establishing the Institute of Archaeology, the role of Vladimir Petković turned out to be crucial. Starting in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and ending in the post-war Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, the process had a constant which was contained in the idea and intention to organize and coordinate archaeological research in Serbia under the umbrella of a scientific institution. The initiation of the process, regarding that, lasted a little more than ten years and had several stages. The beginning was marked by a change at the head of the main museum institution - the History and Art Museum, in the spring of 1935. Instead of Vladimir Petković, that year Milan Kašanin was appointed as the director of the museum, and the change did not take place in a peaceful manner and without controversy. The decision to leave the museum after several years probably influenced Petković to implement the first attempt to form the Institute of Archaeology. It can be assumed that he, together with Nikola Vulić, during the summer of 1935, prepared a plan for the formation of an archaeological scientific organisation that would be a counterpart to the museum, and certainly have a role in coordinating planned scientific studies of archaeological sites, monuments, and material culture in the territory of Serbia. The strongly emphasised need for the coordination of archaeological work in the country was stated very concisely first in the Decree on the establishment of the Institute of Archaeology of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the summer of 1939. It can even be stated that within some of the proposed articles of the document, the predetermined dominance of the Institute over other institutions can be observed. The reason that led the Minister of Education, Stevan Ćirić, to convene the Commission in order to take further steps towards the formation of a scientific organisation is currently unknown. In this paper, a well-founded assumption was made that one of the main reasons could be a reflection on the work of the Kondakov Institute in Belgrade, primarily due to the intention of its collaborators to conduct research in Yugoslavia. Petkovic’s position on the issue of expeditions carried out independently by foreigners was expressly negative. In addition, the arrival of the “Kondakovs” in Belgrade and the strained relations with the museum, where the former director was still on the sidelines, created a new opportunity for Petković to open the issue of establishing the Institute of Archaeology. Probably together with other Byzantologists (Grujić and others), Petković, as a leading figure in this field in the country, was able to influence representatives of the Ministry of Education to bring up the issue of forming a scientific archaeological institution. The proposed Founding Regulation lists certain tasks that the future scientific organisation would undertake. One of them was the supervision of fieldwork, but also a note that all research managers in the country would be obliged to submit a report to the Institute after the research has been completed. Such suggestions indicate that the Establishment Decree was written under Petković’s influence. The third attempt to establish the Institute of Archaeology based on Petković’s initiative would take place after the Liberation. Under the auspices of the new state leadership, the Academy implemented a programme for the formation of scientific institutions based on the example of the USSR. According to the programme, one of the first institutes that was supposed to be formed was the Institute of Archaeology, based on the proposal of Vladimir Petković, which was presented at the end of 1945. At the sessions, where the future manager was present, it was noted that the Institute of Archaeology should have the task of supervising field studies and coordinating the work of all professional institutions in the country. It seems that Petković once tried to officially found the Institute in 1946 after he requested a loan for excavating Caričin Grad and the necessary material for fieldwork in the name of war reparations. However, this idea was not realised, probably due to the writing of the Memoir on the establishment of academy institutes, which was compiled by Aleksandar Belić, the president of the SAS at that time, for the Presidency of the Government of the Republic of Serbia. In January 1947, Aleksandar Deroko’s Elaboration on the establishment of the Institute of Archaeology SAS was completed, in which one of the prominent tasks was to organise “collaboration” with all related scientific institutions in the country and abroad. In the context of the circumstances at the time, we assumed that the Elaboration was compiled under Petković’s supervision or influence. The content of this document was the basis used to draw up the statutes of the Institute of Archaeology SAS, which were handwritten by the future manager. The documentation for establishing the institution was intended for the Committee for Scientific Institutions, University and Higher Education Institutions of the Republic of Serbia. This social institution, specially formed by the state, aimed to approve budget funds and control the work of scientific organisations. On May 31, 1947, Vladimir Petković was appointed director of the Institute of Archaeology SAS by decree of the Committee. The formation of an archaeological scientific institution at SAS is a legacy from the interwar period. Numerous attempts to establish the Institute of Archaeology, whose leading initiators were Miloje Vasić and Vladimir Petković, bore fruit only after the Second World War. The work of the newly founded institution in the new state during the time of its first administrator, Vladimir Petković, was established on the old idea of coordinating archaeological works within the country, which was an attempt to organise the complex situation in the sector of monument and archaeological heritage both inter-institutionally on domestic soil and with interested foreign partners. The systematic study of monument complexes and archaeological sites throughout the country is organised using a multidisciplinary approach and in conjunction with carefully designed research topics and appropriate field activities. The Institute of Archaeology tries to maintain the same approach even today, constantly improving it with the help, above all, of methods from natural sciences and remote sensing.