The discipline of archaeology is founded upon the interaction of various practices, in the network of individuals and institutions, jointly shaping and formulating the explanations of the past. The registered sites and material remains represent the places where undefined layers and physical structures are converted from heaps of dirt and discarded material into the knowledge of the past. From the perspective of production of knowledge and construction of facts about the times past, the archaeological excavations are not only a process of research. The production of archaeological knowledge, in the field and beyond, always takes place under specific circumstances, including not only the relations among professionals and institutions, but also the relations between material remains and the individuals “discovering” them and translating them into interpretations. Metaphorically speaking, in the complex relationship between archaeologists and material culture, an individual in the process of creating the knowledge of an object creates his/her own professional identity, while an object creates an archaeologist in the process of identification. The final outcome presents a chosen and formulated explanation about the past, stemming from a specific logic of disciplinary practice. However, the question arises: what or who decides which interpretations are more valid than the others, and who is in the position to declare an authentic interpretation of the excavated material. Thus the discussion enters the field of problematizing the concept of authority and its role in the production of archaeological knowledge. The analyses show that authority should not be understood as a definite source, periodically appearing and disappearing, but rather as an achievement of social and cultural interactions and changes. The theoretical grounds for the research of authority is formulated based upon Foucault’s interpretation of relation between power and knowledge. The axis for identification of authority in disciplinary practices is determined by the chosen categories of executive, epistemic, and intellectual authority, coupled with archaeological ethnography. The suggested development of the theoretical framework is aimed to secure the tools for considering the shapes and sources of authority in archaeology and its role in the production of archaeological knowledge of the past.

In the wider professional community gathered around the notion of archaeological heritage, there is an undisputed consensus that the material traces have to be preserved for research, education and presentation, for the present and future generations. However, the climate change, pollution, intensive urbanization and other perils present a significant source of risk for archaeological remains in their original settings. Additionally, archaeological evidence may be present in the form of skeletal remains, cave drawings, landscapes or negatives of missing objects or materials. Underwater finds, stone monuments, archaeobotanical traces, fortifications, or wooden sanctuaries may all also constitute archaeological remains. In order to be preserved today, each of these examples requires various conditions, processing of material traces and preservation after excavation. Finally, all these artefacts and ecofacts gain different places in the contemporary context. Bearing in mind the variety of situations and forms in which archaeological finds and material remains may occur, it is necessary to reconsider the scope of the content embraced by the term of archaeological heritage and material traces of the past, under the conditions of rapid and intensive changes. Here the theoretical standpoint is applied derived from Bruno Latour, about the role of various actants, live and non-live participants in social processes. In this sense, objects – artefacts and ecofacts, are parts of diverse processes of negotiation and reshaping of their environment. They can equally influence, entice, stop or change processes. In order to contribute to solving this dilemma, the text discusses the notion of archaeological materialities at the intersection of conservation and archaeological perspectives. It is argued that, when facing the current problems, especially in regard to in situ preservation, the answers and inspiration should be sought for in the wider conceptualization of materiality, as the guide and source of specific knowledges, leading to new theoretical insights.

Otpakivanje neotpakovanog. Život i budućnost arheoloških zbirkiApstrakt: Usled snažnog uticaja heritoloških koncepata i zabrinutosti za budućnost nasleđa, dolazi do sve veće muzealizacije prošlosti i nekontrolisanog priliva kulturnih dobara u muzeje. Posledično, sve veći broj muzeja izražava zabrinutost za budućnost zbirki koje se nalaze u, sada već prepunim, depoima.U pogledu velike količine materijala, posebnu kategoriju čine arheološke zbirke koje se od drugih razlikuju prema načinu prikupljanja i dinamici rasta predmeta unutar muzejskog fonda. Postojeći pristupi prikupljanja arheoloških zapisa podrazumevaju nepredvidiv godišnji rast i samim tim predstavljaju neodrživ koncept dugročnog upravljanja arheološkim nasleđem. Posledica ovakvog stanja jeste zapostavljenost prikupljenih nalaza u fazama nakon iskopavanja, kao vitalnog dela "života" arheoloških predmeta. Istovremeno, nepregledni redovi nedostupne građe ukazuju na profesionalni horror vacui, strah da se određeni dokaz ili trag izgubi iz procesa sagledavanja prošlosti ili pak na težnju da se održi imperativ očuvanja nasleđa za buduće generacije. Usled neuređenosti procesuiranja arheoloških ostataka postavlja se pitanje kako tradicije prikupljanja i organizovanja artefakata utiču na vrednosnu ocenu arheoloških zapisa i formiranja slike o prošlosti. Imajući u vidu navedeno, rad predstavlja kritički osvrt na problem dugoročnog upravljanja arheološkim materijalom i zbirkama u muzejima i drugim srodnim institucijama. Pored toga, biće razmotreni i mogući pravci promena praksi korišćenja i redefinisanja vrednosti "neotpakovanog" arheološkog nasleđa.Ključne reči: arheologija, kustoska kriza u arheologiji, arheološko nasleđe, upravljanje zbirkama, muzeji, otpis predmeta Koncept muzeja i njegova društvena uloga se vremenom menjala, od mesta za čuvanje do prostora oblikovanom prema potrebama odabranih i upućenih posetilaca. Istovremeno to je institucija u kojoj su kustosi pa i kulturna dobra menjali uloge tokom različitih društvenih i kulturnih okolnosti. Danas muzeji važe za mesta okupljanja, razmene, višeznačja vrednosti kao i za čuvare seća-