There are over 60 museums and collections in Serbia today holding archaeological material and archaeological displays, offering an ever-present, public image of the results of the development of archaeological discipline in our country, its theoretical framework, and above all, present the official interpretation of the past. In spite of the fact that displays and exhibitions represent the most visible museum forum and the basic medium of museums, presenting official representations of the past, constructing memories, forming values and attitudes, these are rarely the object of consideration from the theoretically informed perspective. The aim here is to consider the characteristics of the archaeological displays and thematic exhibitions in Serbia, and especially of the National Museum in Belgrade after the World War II, since this institution is still the paradigm of museum archaeology in the country. The questions are raised whether the changes in the archaeological theory, and especially in museology, have induced the changes in the custodians’ practice; whether the deeply rooted dominant archaeological concepts have been transformed; finally, and perhaps more importantly, whether the mission of museums has changed. The interpretive context is still completely based upon the culture-historical approach and the idea of continuity, and the past is presented by rarities and utmost achievements, mainly estheticized. Museums and museum archaeology have travelled along the road from research institutions, whose expertise is not challenged, temples of knowledge and sanctuaries of the past in which the national idea slowly enters the focus, to the marginalized cultural institutions trying to become relevant to the community.

The graves with cremated burials labelled as Mala Kopašnica – Sase type, supposedly covering more than 70% of registered burials in Moesia Superior, are considered to be an autochthonous form, associated to pre-Roman population, characteristic for the Moesian-Dacian region from 1st to 3rd centuries, rarely spanning to the beginning of 4th century. The general similarity of burial form and relative homogeneity of grave goods are taken as arguments in the interpretation of the key concept of continuity of the prehistoric practices, but as well of unchanged burial practices and continuity of funerary customs lasting at least two centuries of the Roman domination, its cultural superiority, and visible transformation of local identities as a result of systemic and standardized Romanization, and finally, of identification of the autochthonous population of Moesia Superior as actors of this practice. The paper discusses the necropolis Gomilice near Guberevac, the only systematically investigated one in the area of Roman imperial mines at Kosmaj, with domineering burial type of Mala Kopašnica – Sase, as the starting point in reconsidering the current interpretation of this type of burial.

Although every local museum or parts of national museums keep archaeological finds, museums in general play a very limited role on the archaeological scene, often being passive and marginalized. Well-grounded investigation into the archaeological objects kept in museum collections and, above all, the public domain of museums, the nature of collections and exhibitions, both permanent and occasional, have not been adequately recognized, discussed or considered. In spite of the fact that museum exhibitions legitimize the dominant social and political norms of the present, museums remain marginalized, separated from the currents of various pertinent disciplines, and not prepared for the necessary changes. Archaeological theory, shaping the archaeological practice of museums as well, is not understood as its constituent part, and the interpretive context in which exhibitions are created, contents and nature of interpretation are not considered. The analysis of the exhibitions of the National Museum in Belgrade, being the paradigm of museum archaeology in Serbia up to the middle of the 20th century, has shown that the culture-historical approach, the idea of continuity and dynamic artistic presentations of alienated past have marked this public presence of museums. The Museum has developed from the storage space and knowledge presentation, over exhibition space to an ideal museum, dominated by estheticized expositions, establishing various official representations of the past. The changes in the theory of museology, somewhat coinciding with the changes in archaeological theory, have posed a new challenge to museum archaeology, that may be defined in short as the need for the new interpretation of the past.

Public archaeology and community archaeology are some of the terms denoting various ways in which archaeologists, convinced that archaeology should not act in isolation, reach out to the public or include it into disciplinary practices. The public is principally educated and enabled to embrace the social relevance of archaeology. Archaeologists are primarily visible in the public as the ones excavating and discovering the past. When we inform the public, educate or include it in our activities, work with or for the public – or when the public is dealing with archaeology on its own – archaeological fieldwork is not only the most recognizable and the most popular image of archaeology, but also undoubtedly the basic area of our activities. In Serbia, the field excavations are perceived as almost the only way of approaching the past, and the field directors, participants in excavations and interpreters of fieldwork are recognized as reliable (and often the only) public faces of the discipline. Authority is generated through discovery, and visibility is the result of popularisation. Public archaeology is mainly understood as public relations, or even as media relations. Collective anxiety, neoliberalism, and the political populism of the moment, all result in the trend of increase in discourse of memory and musealization of society. This contemporary politics of memory is an answer to the current space and time, with accelerated changes and endangered traditional values. Additionally, the new political reality from the 1990s on has dissolved the symbolic capital of the supra-nation, so the establishment of a new collective memory and cultural identity became necessary. The narrative of the “(celestial) people with history” is chosen, on the soil with a special spiritual axis, and the celebration of the unique homogenous nation is embraced. The construction of the new identity is helped by the disciplines dealing with the past, and various institutions –including the archaeological ones – go a step further in “imprinting upon heart and soul” the new cultural/political memory. This step further demonstrates that they recognize the public only in the structures of power. The institutional and ethic crisis is apparent: even in the places where the professional community (including conservators, custodians, academic community, as well as archaeologists) emphatically opposes excavations, they will be conducted nevertheless. More often than not, the sensational, unique or luxurious is emphasized, mainly to secure the social, political and financial support for projects, as well as prestige. The authorized narratives of the past and the pre-packaged heritage corrupt the image of archaeology and contribute to the misconception of the past. The paper treats both the examples of good and bad practice, with the intention to demonstrate that the need to promote must be supplemented by responsibility, and the public archaeology in Serbia broadened by new aims.

Institutional authority, Roman heritage and the “Đerdap” projects Although “the archaeological research in the Đerdap area represents the most important crossroad in Serbian archaeology” (Bikić i Šarić 2017, 67), the role of the two large research projects Đerdap I and II in the development of the discipline and the local archaeological community remains to be thoroughly reconsidered. In search for the answer whether the vast corpus of archaeological material and information gained in the course of these projects influenced the shift in interpretation of the Roman past and in presentation of the Roman frontier on the Danube, the paper presents certain scientific and research aspects and the consequences of the projects for the interpretive framework of the Roman period. It may be expected that, just as the fieldwork itself was a large opportunity for professional training and growing, the huge amount of information on the Roman border collected during the projects became a constant source for further consideration and disciplinary growth. The innovations introduced – multi-disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, preventive conservation and integral protection of heritage – foreshadowed the space for testing of ideas. However, the archaeological record of the Roman period, approached from the culture-historical point of view, dominant at the time, is still principally interpreted according to the concepts formed in 19th century and significantly reconsidered over the last couple of decades. The majority of the recovered material is not published yet, the limited access to the “finds in boxes” obliges current researchers to work on the base of available publications, and the confidence in “discoveries” induces the transfer of ideas of original researchers without further reconsideration. The abandonment of the concept of Romanization is slow, mainly due to the institutional “keepers”, as illustrated by chosen examples, e.g. the monograph Vivere Militare est. From Populus to Emperors – living on the Frontier (Golubović, Mrđić 2018) and the exhibition Roman Limes and Cities in Serbia, organized on the occasion of the 24th International Limes-Congress, as well as the new permanent display of the National Museum, opened in 2018. It may be concluded that the constant affirmation of institutional authority, where the archaeological heritage of the Roman frontier acts as an academic symbolic capital, is more important than multivocal interpretation and presentation.