History as Vallis Aurea. Đorđe Stanković and the Modernization of Serbian Historiography, Tokovi istorije, 3 (2018), 109-145. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Serbian Historiography and the Modern State
Public Power in Europe, 2006
In the end, we may conclude with several considerations. First, there is a firm correlation between the transformations of the Serbian state and Serbian historiography from its very beginning until today. During the relatively short existence of a medieval Serbian state the first works of historiographical character or that used historiographical data – such as hagiographies, chronicles, annals and eulogies – appeared. Parallel to the fall of Serbian state and the coming of Turkish rule Serbian historiography vanished for almost three centuries.Te rebirth of Serbian historiography is connected with the Great Migration of Serbs into Hungary, i.e. the Habsburg monarchy in 1690. In their new homeland Serbs found themselves in a political, social and cultural environment that stimulated their cultural and political activity.According to the tradition of Austro-Turkish conflict, in this early phase of develop-ment Serbian historians considered possible the creation of some sort of Southern Slavic state in connection with the Habsburg monarchy. After the Serbian uprisings they abandoned that idea and gradually accepted the concept of trying to free the Serbs under foreign authorities and forming a strong, centralized national state with broadly extended borders by means of Serbian state politics. Tis plan partly coincides with the concept of the Illyrian Movement promoted by Croat liberal politicians from the 1830s. Yet, for the Serbian political and intellectual elite the main goal was to unify the Serbs and strengthen their own state, not to create a Southern Slav state in the framework of Serbian-Croatian political collaboration.In this era, national emancipation and liberation had the highest priority for all Serbs irrespective of the state to which they belonged. Accordingly, Serbian historiography,until the last decades of the 19th century, was dedicated first and foremost to the goals of a national renaissance and the formation of a Serbian state – so Serbian historiography was characterized by national romanticism, not by a scientific approach. Only after Serbian independence was obtained in 1878, and the Serbian state consolidated, could Serbian historiography enter an era of steady progress in which the bases of scientific historiography research were laid down. That period was ended not for professional historiographical reasons, but under the pressure of state politics and the transformation of Serbian state to a Yugoslav state after Balkan Wars and World War I. Te turbulent events of the 20th century, the un-certainties of Yugoslav relations and Yugoslav unification, as well as the contradictions of the socialist era, halted the straight forward development of Serbian historiography for decades. Its goals, methods, interpretations and fields of interest were seriously influenced by actual state transformations and ideologies. In addition it seems that the events of the 20th century acquired such dynamics and intensity that they were beyond what Serbian historiography was able to investigate, process and interpret. For these reasons Serbian historiography has several serious lacunae: above all a lack o published historical sources and adequate research on the Turkish period; the history of the 20th century is insufficiently explained, especially the period after World War II. Yet, as we have seen above, even under the difficult circumstances we have mentioned,Serbian historiography has experienced significant progress – and if it is to enjoy a longer period of in a stable political environment it will be able to enjoy a new phase of progress
Historijski zbornik, 2022
With the dissolution of Austria-Hungary and the establishment of the new Yugoslav state, mainstream Croatian historians found themselves in a changed situation, yet their long-lasting subscription to Yugoslavism proved to be a valuable asset in adapting to novel circumstances. They could assume the same important role in nation-building efforts in the new state just as well as in the old one. Ferdo Šišić and Gavro Manojlović are perfect examples in this regard. By examining their life and work, especially in the transitional period, this article looks at the strategies they used to position themselves in the altered political context. The central question it poses is in what ways and to what purposes did they employ Yugoslav ideologemes and their prewar Yugoslav loyalties, and in what degree was their historiographical work the result of the expected political role of academic historiography in the historist tradition. In doing this it supports the views which transcend the simplistic and binary interpretations of Yugoslavism, looking at it as a complex and fluid concept that presented an important political framework for engagement by various historical actors.
Politics of memory, historical revisionism, and negationism in postsocialist Serbia
Filozofija i drustvo, 2017
This paper explores the phenomenon of revisionism in historiography, while focusing in particular on illegitimate revisionism and negationism. It is indisputably true that historiography must be subject to constant revisions. Like all scientific theories, it needs to be characterized by a sort of ?conservative? openness towards new ideas; however, revisions and negations are often put forward without scientific grounding. They reject the well-established historiographical methods, while opening themselves to various kinds of ideologies, biases and manipulations. The paper further offers a synthesized overview of the revisionist practice in dominant parts of the society and historiography in post-communist Serbia. The change in the ideological paradigm that occurred in the 1980s was accompanied by a politically motivated reinterpretation of the past, which primarily focused on World War II in Yugoslavia. In Serbia in the 1990s, Tito?s Partisans were no longer celebrated as national h...
Power and History in the Serbs: Historiography after 1990
Journal of Balkan Studies, 2022
This study aims to examine the processes brought forth in Serbian historiography using the structural nature of the mutually influential relationship between power and history as data. The study focuses on the post-1990 period and examines the history, institutions, major works, and historians of Serbian historiography. The period under study includes two distinct power eras: the nationalist transition and the postmodern period. The study examines the characteristics, structures, and dynamics of these periods within this framework and attempts to determine the continuity and differences between these two periods. The study analyzes the results of Serbian historiography's relationship to power and history by examining the Ottoman narrative in general works on Serbian history.
New Revisionism and Old Stereotypes? Post-1991 Historiography on Serbs and Serbia
Abstract. Reading through historical studies on Serbs and Serbia written during and after the wars of the Yugoslav succession (1991–1999) reveals many elements of a biased, one-sided narrative derived from various sources. This contribution looks at the ideological and nationalistic writings on “Greater Serbia”, “Greater Serbian nationalists”, “Serbian hegemony” produced by Croatian nationalists in interwar Yugoslavia and by Croatian Second World War émigrés, who were markedly anti-Yugoslav both in the monarchic and communist period and whose perspective has gained ground in Western Europe and the USA. These writings are often compatible with Albanian historiography produced under the Stalinist regime of Enver Hoxha. This simplistic and biased perception of the Serbs as endemic nationalists, communists and anti-Europeans, allegedly keen on establishing complete hegemony over other nations and minorities in Yugoslavia, has reappeared since 1991 not only in mass media but also in much of Western scholarship, strongly influenced by a black-and-white perspective on the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Such approach, fostered by some scholars from the former Yugoslavia, chime perfectly with the old stereotypes inherited from Austrian and German historiography on Kriegsschuldfrage which have found their way into American historiography in the post-1945 period. Many controversial interpretations (Noel Malcolm, Holm Sundhaussen, Tim Judah, James Gow, Robert Donia, Branimir Anzulovic, Stjepan Meštrović, Philip Cohen, Marcus Tanner, Sabrina Ramet etc.), have been designed to support some immediate political goals or geopolitical claims and have little to do with scholarship and intellectual rigour. Yet, many such works have become standard and wide-spread, albeit stereotyped, perception of the Serbs and their history in the Balkans.
Historijska traganja, 2021
Pregled istoriografskog rada ...) "A group of historians from Sarajevo participated in writing this review according to the intentions of the Commission for History of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Council for Scientific Work of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. " The following are engaged: Esad Pašalić, "Prilog о istoriografiji predslovenskog perioda Bosne i Hercegovine" (3-12); Anto Ваbić-Desanka Kovačević, "Prilog о istoriografiji srednjevjekovne Bosne i Hercegovine" (12-20); Branislav Đurđev, "Prilog о istoriografiji perioda ilirske vladavine u Bosni i Hercegovini" (20-26); Nedim Filipović, "Neke primjedbe о izučavanju perioda turske vladavine u Bosni i Hercegovini" (26-36); Milorad Ekmečić-Hamdija Kapidžić-Ferdo Hauptman, "Prilog о istoriografiji novog vijeka Bosne i Hercegovine" (36-42); Nikola Ваbić, "Prilog о istoriografiji radničkog pokreta i narodne revolucije u Bosni i Hercegovini" (43-52).
Journal of Balkan Studies V(2) I (2) July 2022
Journal of Balkan Studies , 2022
This study aims to examine the processes brought forth in Serbian historiography using the structural nature of the mutually influential relationship between power and history as data. The study focuses on the post-1990 period and examines the history, institutions, major works, and historians of Serbian historiography. The period under study includes two distinct power eras: the nationalist transition and the postmodern period. The study examines the characteristics, structures, and dynamics of these periods within this framework and attempts to determine the continuity and differences between these two periods. The study analyzes the results of Serbian historiography's relationship to power and history by examining the Ottoman narrative in general works on Serbian history.