Introduction
In modern history, the term ‘colonies’ usually refers to the European overseas territories in America, Asia, and Africa. While Austria(-Hungary) was one of the great European powers until the First World War, it never possessed such colonies. However, in its widest definition, ‘colonialism’ is the forcible rule over a foreign people.1 Since the Habsburg Empire in central Europe comprised many different nations, all ruled from Vienna, the term ‘internal colonialism’ has been applied to it.2 On the other hand, Habsburg rule over territories such as Hungary, Bohemia, and Carniola went back centuries and was not foreign and ‘colonial’ but rather feudal and anachronistic in character – similarly to the Ottomans’ rule over the Balkans.
In the Balkans, Austria-Hungary occupied the Ottoman province of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878 and annexed it in 1908. The occupied territory’s first head statistician, Ferdinand Schmid (1862–1925), affirmed in retrospect that Bosnia-Herzegovina, albeit not overseas, had become and largely remained an Austro-Hungarian ‘colony,’ because the new rulers had introduced their own, ‘Western European’ culture, which had been foreign to the colony.3 A current definition of colonialism likewise states that modern colonisers justified themselves with their allegedly superior ‘civilisation’ they would bring to the colonised.4
The peculiar, unique relationship between Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Austro-Hungarian Empire has been explored most importantly in a collective volume edited by Clemens Ruthner and Tamara Scheer (2018). Ruthner advanced several arguments for using the term ‘colony,’ such as: Austria-Hungary conquered the territory by military force; unlike the regular ‘crown lands,’ Bosnia-Herzegovina was granted little provincial autonomy and no imperial representation; and again, Austria-Hungary regarded Bosnia-Herzegovina’s inhabitants as culturally backward and subjected them to a ‘civilising mission.’5 In the end, one may speak of a ‘colony,’ a ‘proximate colony,’6 or something else, but at least Austria-Hungary’s ‘civilising mission’ under military occupation amounted to some sort of colonialism in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which put the latter in a ‘colonial situation.’7 The occupation distinguished the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina from Austria-Hungary’s ‘civilising missions’ in other parts of the empire.8
Modern colonisers sought scientific knowledge on the colonised territory to facilitate their rule and extend it to cultural and intellectual spheres. Various sciences were involved in this epistemic appropriation. In the context of Bosnia-Herzegovina, art/architectural history has been analysed by Maximilian Hartmuth, and ethnography by Reinhard Johler.9 My paper examines Austro-Hungarian archaeology in this occupied and annexed territory: how was that archaeology ‘colonial,’ and how not?
Johler explains that the new rulers of Bosnia-Herzegovina attempted to create a Bosnian identity committed to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and that ‘historians and archaeologists were markedly more important and useful than ethnographers’ for that purpose.10 A Bosnian-Herzegovinian archaeologist, Blagoje Govedarica, recently commemorated in a retrospect how archaeology in Bosnia-Herzegovina began in 1880 under Austro-Hungarian rule, and that this land became a major worksite of archaeology in Europe in the 1890s.11 Scholars have studied various aspects of the history of archaeology in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including colonialism, but this aspect has not been discussed systematically. The colonial character of Austria-Hungary’s general cultural policies in Bosnia-Herzegovina has been emphasised in particular by Yugoslav historians.12
Archaeology is the study of the human past through material remains, which are searched, collected, excavated, conserved, displayed, and interpreted. In Austro-Hungarian Bosnia-Herzegovina, archaeology was mostly concerned with Roman and prehistoric remains (while also recording the territory’s countless medieval, Old Slavic tombstones). During the Neolithic, it was in Southeastern Europe that the continent’s first long-term settlements emerged. Bosnia-Herzegovina also lay at the crossroads of East and West and was constantly influenced by various cultures. By the end of the first century BC, the Romans had conquered the western Balkans, which they turned first into their province of Illyricum and later into their provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia. While the area’s urban centres developed on the Adriatic coast, in today’s Istria and Dalmatia, the Romans built many roads through Bosnia-Herzegovina, the hinterland.
What are the potential links between archaeology and colonialism?13 While knowing a foreign territory is a prerequisite for effectively ruling over it, archaeological knowledge seems less useful in this sense than knowing the topography, population, economy, climate, and other aspects of the territory’s present rather than its distant past. After the Austro-Hungarians had occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1878, they immediately started to map the country.14
However, archaeology may help justify colonialism by corroborating the alleged civilisational gap between the coloniser and the colonised. In this logic, Austria-Hungary has developed a science such as archaeology and cares about archaeological remains, whereas people in Bosnia-Herzegovina are at best indifferent about those remains and at worst destroy them (although local archaeological interest and research actually predated the occupation15). This would give Austria-Hungary an additional right to colonise Bosnia-Herzegovina: it must save the latter’s archaeological remains from indigenous barbarism.
The ways of implementing archaeology may be colonial as well. Since this science depends on material objects being retrieved from the soil of the area studied, it affects the people living in the area and requires their assistance to find and excavate those objects. The colonised and their soil may thus be colonially exploited, with the colonised, even those scientifically qualified, reduced to subaltern roles in that archaeology. The colonisers may further appropriate the finds by exporting them to their home country, displaying them there to illustrate their imperial power.
Yet even if the finds remain in the colony, archaeology may serve colonialism by focusing on certain remains and interpreting them in a certain way. Between the world wars, for instance, when Italy ruled Istria and the Dalmatian city of Zadar (Zara), its cultural policies emphasised those regions’ Roman and Venetian histories to justify their belonging to Italy rather than to Yugoslavia.16 In Bosnia-Herzegovina, as cited above, Austria-Hungary attempted to create a Bosnian identity committed to the new rulers rather than to the Ottoman Empire, to the Kingdom of Serbia, or to an envisioned state of Croatia independent from Austria-Hungary. I will elaborate on this later.
This paper first outlines the context of Austria-Hungary’s occupation and annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, how the territory was administered, and what archaeological activities and structures accompanied the administration. The second section identifies Austro-Hungarian motives for archaeology and views of antiquities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Finally, I investigate archaeologists’ practices and relations with the population in the territory. My sources are Austro-Hungarian government documents17 and archaeological publications, and key archaeologist Carl Patsch’s personal papers.18
I Austro-Hungarian Bosnia-Herzegovina and Archaeology
In the nineteenth century, Ottoman rule over the Balkans gradually declined, and the European great powers sought to fill this power vacuum in a way that would preserve the balance of power between them. In 1875, Herzegovinians revolted against their rulers. The uprising spread to Bulgaria and was supported by Serbia, Montenegro, Russia, and Romania, which all went to war against the Ottomans. After the latter’s defeat, the European powers’ Congress of Berlin in June–July 1878 recognised the independence of Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire. In addition, Austria-Hungary was authorised to ‘occupy’ and ‘administer’ the Ottoman province of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia Vilayet), to check Russia’s influence in the Balkans.19
Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina by October 1878, in a bloody campaign against the armed resistance of primarily Muslim and Serbian/Orthodox populations. Austria-Hungary’s own motives for taking over Bosnia-Herzegovina remain uncertain. The occupied territory may have been envisioned as an economic outlet and source of raw materials; it may have served to protect the surrounding crown land of Dalmatia from Serbian expansionism, and to compensate for Austria’s military defeats against Italy and France in 1859 and Germany in 1866 and the resulting territorial losses to Italy. On the downside, the new land would claim incalculable funds, and add a large number of Slavic inhabitants to the ethnically divided empire.20
In any case, Austro-Hungarians embarked on what they often called their ‘cultural mission’ (Kulturmission) in, or mission to bring civilisation (Civilisation) to, Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1879, the latter’s population consisted of Orthodox Christians (Serbs, 43%), Muslims (‘Turks,’ 38%), and Catholics (Croats, 18%).21 The Muslims rejected a non-Muslim government, while Serbs and Croats pursued their respective nationalisms. In April 1878, Austria-Hungary’s foreign minister, Gyula Andrássy (1823–1890), explained to Britain that only an external ruler such as his country could reconcile Bosnia-Herzegovina’s ethnic groups, establish law and order, and bring social stability and economic progress.22
After the occupation, Bosnia-Herzegovina formally remained under Ottoman suzerainty, but it was ruled by the Austro-Hungarians, who placed it under the authority of their Ministry of Finance in 1882. In 1908, with the Ottoman Empire further weakened, the Austro-Hungarians fully annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, despite international protests. Their rule ended with the dissolution of their empire in 1918, after which Bosnia-Herzegovina became part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (subsequent Yugoslavia).
From 1882 to 1903, the Austro-Hungarian finance minister and thereby governor of Bosnia-Herzegovina was the Hungarian Benjámin Kállay (1839–1903). He subjected the occupied territory to a far-reaching modernisation. One element of this was to instil in the inhabitants a common, Bosnian identity, which would detach them from their nationalisms and attach them to Austria-Hungary as the protector of the ‘Bosnian’ nation. Consequently, Kállay expanded secondary education, promoted literature and the press, and attempted to standardise the Croatian and Serbian languages’ Bosnian-Herzegovinian dialects under the name ‘Bosnian language.’23 In 1888, his government also took over, as the Provincial Museum (Landesmuseum/Zemaljski muzej), a Bosnian-Herzegovinian museum ‘patriotic’ citizens and officials in the capital of Sarajevo had initiated in 1884.24
As early as 1879, Austrian politician and historian Joseph Alexander von Helfert (1820–1910) proposed a national museum/learned society/university for the occupied territory, to scientifically explore the latter and ‘enlighten’ its population.25 Helfert was the president of Austria’s Central Commission for the Research and Conservation of Artistic and Historic Monuments (Zentral-Kommission für Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmale; founded 1850), which also conducted archaeology in Austria and crown lands such as the Littoral (with Istria) and Dalmatia.26 In addition, an Austrian Archaeological Institute (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut) was founded in 1898.27 Due to Bosnia-Herzegovina’s special status, however, monuments and archaeology there remained the purview of the Provincial Government (Landesregierung).
The Provincial Museum became the centre of related activities, and in 1892, the Provincial Government officially assumed care of all historic objects, with a decree concerning both public and private, both mobile and immobile artefacts. It banned the mobile ones from being exported and the immobile ones from being altered or excavated without permission. Subordinate authorities and private citizens were encouraged to make and report discoveries, and the government would have the first right to purchase them.28
The museum was subdivided into a department of natural sciences and one of archaeology and art history, which included an ethnographic collection. The collections, sparse when the museum was founded, grew rapidly through purchases, private donations, and the museum’s own explorations and excavations. By 1892, the archaeological department possessed thousands of prehistoric, Roman, and medieval items.29 The museum was first housed within the building of the Public Servants Pension Fund, and moved into its own, newly built, sumptuous complex in 1913. It still exists there today as the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The museum launched a bulletin in Croatian and Serbian (Glasnik) in 1889, whose most important contributions were additionally published in a journal in German (Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen) from 1893 onwards.
During the first decade of the occupation, archaeological finds were made in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austro-Hungarian military personnel and state officials, who looked for them in their spare time or came upon them while on duty.30 Most importantly, while constructing a strategic road through the Glasinac plateau in 1880, soldiers uncovered a prehistoric tomb containing a bronze cult chariot. Their officer, Lieutenant Johann Lexa (1854–1903), sent the artefact to the Natural History Museum in Vienna, where it has remained ever since.31 The sensational find demonstrated Bosnia-Herzegovina’s rich archaeological heritage.
This heritage had already been surveyed in 1879 and 1880 by Austrian archaeologist Moriz Hoernes (1852–1917), who had served as a military officer on the 1878 occupation campaign. His subsequent survey, on behalf of the Imperial Ministry of Education, was aimed at Roman remains but also found large numbers of medieval, Old Slavic tombstones. Yet in the mid-1880s, excavations in Greece inspired Hoernes to turn to prehistory, which he then established as a new discipline in Austria. As a collaborator of the Natural History Museum in Vienna, he was appointed scientific supervisor of the Sarajevo museum.32 While his actual role as such should not be overstated,33 he supervised some prehistoric excavations of the museum at Glasinac and elsewhere, and edited the museum’s German journal.34
The museum’s director was Croatian-Slavonian-born public servant and ethnographer Konstantin (Kosta) Hörmann (1850–1921), while the department of archaeology/art history was led by Croatian-Slavonian-born archaeologist Ćiro Truhelka (1865–1942),35 who succeeded Hörmann as director in 1905. A second archaeologist, the Bosnian Vejsil Ćurčić (1868–1959), joined the museum in 1891, and a third, the Bohemian Carl Patsch (1865–1945),36 in 1893. In addition, two more collaborators of the museum conducted archaeology: Bohemian-born mining official Václav Radimský (1832–1895) and Moravian-born chemist/botanist Franz Fiala (1861–1898).
Truhelka, Ćurčić, Radimský, and Fiala primarily excavated Bosnia-Herzegovina’s prehistoric sites,37 the most famous of which were Glasinac and Butmir. At the latter village near Sarajevo, during the construction of an agricultural research building in 1893, a Neolithic settlement was discovered, after which an entire ‘Butmir culture’ would be named. In the following year, the Provincial Government convened an international, mostly prehistoric Congress of Archaeologists and Anthropologists in Sarajevo, with excursions to Butmir and Glasinac, to showcase the archaeological achievements in Bosnia-Herzegovina and receive feedback from leading experts.38
The museum’s Roman archaeology and collection at first lagged behind prehistory. This changed with Patsch, who had been trained in Roman history and epigraphy. As a scientific assistant at the University of Vienna, he was sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina for the first time in 1891 to study Roman inscriptions. In 1893, Patsch returned permanently, since Hoernes had asked him to head the Sarajevo museum’s Roman collection.39 Patsch retained this function until 1918–19, and performed extensive epigraphic and archaeological work in Bosnia-Herzegovina. His most important excavation site was the Roman estate/villa at Mogorjelo.40
In the archaeology of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Middle Ages – which ended when the territories were conquered by the Ottomans in 1463 and 1482, respectively – the museum was much less active than in prehistoric and Roman archaeologies.41 It focused on the recording of the above-mentioned tombstones.42
In 1904, Patsch privately created an Institute for Balkan Research (Institut für Balkanforschung) within the museum, to extend research to other Balkan countries and integrate the scientific disciplines involved.43 Despite poor support from the government, the institute, publicly recognised in 1908, built up a library and produced research, especially on Albania, which Patsch visited himself during its Austro-Hungarian occupation in World War I. After Austria-Hungary’s dissolution, the institute was merged into the museum.44 The latter continued in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, but declined in the decade from 1919, as Patsch, Truhelka, Ćurčić, and other crucial employees departed, and the new state was heavily centralised in the capital of Belgrade.45
II Austro-Hungarian Motives for Archaeology and Views of Antiquities in Bosnia-Herzegovina
In the century before the Austro-Hungarian occupation, Bosnia and Herzegovina was a peripheral province of the Ottoman Empire; rural and mountainous in character, with a feudal agriculture, poor transport infrastructure, and a low level of education.46 Starting in the 1850s, the Ottoman administration implemented a series of modernising measures, one of which tightened agricultural taxation. This triggered the uprising in 1875,47 which led to the occupation in 1878.
Bosnia-Herzegovina’s antiquities had been described and collected by local Franciscan friars since the eighteenth century. They were further investigated by foreign travellers such as the Austrian Ami Boué (1794–1881) in the 1830s, the Russian Alexander Hilferding (or Gilferding; 1831–1872) in the 1850s, the Prussian Otto Blau (1828–1879) in the 1860s and 70s, and the Briton Arthur Evans (1851–1941) in the 1870s before the occupation.48 Bosnia-Herzegovina’s Roman remains, on which the travellers’ publications focused, were of course not as numerous and monumental as those in coastal Dalmatia (with, famously, Diocletian’s Palace in Split), since Bosnia-Herzegovina had always been a hinterland.49 Yet it had been an intriguing contact zone between East and West.50
Under Ottoman rule, the province had been relatively inaccessible to Westerners. Travellers required a government permit (firman), and exploration was hindered by a lack of roads51 and potentially hostile locals.52 For instance, when Blau was copying a Roman inscription built into a house’s doorway, the owner threatened him with a weapon.53 In general, locals may have suspected archaeologists of digging for treasures or desecrating graves.54 Ottoman Bosnia-Herzegovina thus remained a ‘terra incognita’ for archaeology and other sciences.55
Once occupied in 1878, the territory was open to, and safe for, Austro-Hungarians and their guests, and extensive roads and railways were constructed. Systematic inspection or often construction works revealed that the archaeological remains were even richer than expected, in terms of Roman antiquities as well as prehistoric sites and medieval tombs. Archaeologists explained that this ‘El Dorado’ had been preserved because Bosnia-Herzegovina had been sparsely populated and cultivated, and the Muslim inhabitants had respected graves for religious reasons.56
Now that the archaeologists were able to conduct research on site, they realised their discipline did not work without this access, and that studies from before the occupation, with their access limits and reliance on texts, were incomplete or wrong.57 For prehistoric times, there were no textual sources, even by definition. Prehistoric archaeology developed in Europe from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. In Austria-Hungary, its institutionalisation began in the 1870s, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, along with Istria and Carniola, provided ample materials for that young science. Hoernes, the Sarajevo museum’s supervisor, established prehistory at the University of Vienna in the 1890s.
Despite the occupation, however, Bosnia-Herzegovina’s archaeological remains seemed to be threatened – by the construction works of the government’s modernisation programme and by the local inhabitants. Austro-Hungarian and other Western authors argued that Ottoman rule had reduced Bosnia-Herzegovina to a state of ‘barbarism,’ whereas Austro-Hungarian rule would now elevate it to a state of ‘culture’ or ‘civilisation.’58 This Orientalist discourse, which referred to Muslims as well as Christians in Bosnia-Herzegovina, served to explain and justify Austria-Hungary’s colonialism.59 Regarding antiquities, inhabitants and Ottoman authorities were accused of ignorance and/or vandalism.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina, ancient stones were often used for new buildings. Patsch explained that in mosques or Muslim homes, the inscriptions of such stones faced outwards, so that they were ‘safe’ and archaeologists – like Blau in the above-cited example – could read them. By contrast, Serbian/Orthodox builders would knock off Latin inscriptions, since they reminded them of the ‘hated’ Catholic Church (of the Croats).60 According to Hoernes, Ottoman authorities even ordered Roman remains to be destroyed.61 Furthermore, locals might destroy or remove antiquities in search of gold or silver,62 or once they knew that travellers would buy them.63
In 1869, the Ottomans in Bosnia-Herzegovina legislated for the protection of antiquities,64 as they were also introducing such regulations in their empire in general.65 Yet unlike the Europeans, the Ottomans did not develop an archaeological science,66 partly due perhaps to Islamic misgivings about pre-Islamic, pagan cultures. Consequently, the Austro-Hungarians saw it as their responsibility to ‘save’ Bosnia-Herzegovina’s antiquities. For this purpose, they established the Provincial Museum in 1888 and decreed the protection of historic objects in 1892.
Upon the occupation, Hoernes had first proposed that Austria’s Central Commission for Monuments should take care of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well, as very few locals would be qualified for the task of archaeology.67 The Commission then appointed some Bosnian-Herzegovinians as correspondents.68 However, the Provincial Museum originated from a local initiative. In 1884, Julije Makanec (1854–1891), a doctor and Sarajevo city councillor, launched a German-speaking newspaper (Bosnische Post), in which he published two calls for a museum society. Almost immediately, this society was founded and began to collect artefacts. Makanec was from Croatia-Slavonia and had moved to Bosnia-Herzegovina only in 1879, but the initiative was backed by several people, including natives and Muslims, and they acted in a private capacity.69
The subsequent Provincial Museum was driven by Governor Kállay. He was an amateur Balkan scholar himself, specialising in Serbia, and the museum served two political purposes: to contribute to a Bosnian identity and to demonstrate Austria-Hungary’s ‘civilising’ power and success in Bosnia-Herzegovina – which would honour the mandate received from the European powers in 1878.70 In addition to public exhibitions, the museum published a periodical for each of these two purposes. The Bosnian, that is, Croatian and Serbian Glasnik aimed to instil patriotism in the natives.71 It was distributed to schools, whose classes visited the museum.72
The German Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen was exchanged with learned institutions in Austria-Hungary and abroad to demonstrate the museum’s scientific accomplishments. For the same purpose, the museum also participated in imperial and international scientific congresses and exhibitions, and hosted the above-mentioned international prehistoric congress in 1894,73 after which participants praised both the museum and Austria-Hungary’s administration in Bosnia-Herzegovina.74 Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary presented all its lands in an encyclopaedia known as Kronprinzenwerk (1886–1902). In the volume on Bosnia-Herzegovina (1901),75 the museum’s collaborators authored many articles, including the three on archaeology.76 These were on the prehistoric (by Hoernes), Greek and Roman (by Patsch), and medieval periods (by Truhelka).
Within the medieval period, the museum focused on the tombstones called stećci, tens of thousands of which lay scattered across Bosnia-Herzegovina, but less so in the surrounding countries. Austro-Hungarian historiography took the stećci as proof that the distinct Bosnian nation Kállay was seeking to construct had existed since the Middle Ages. The narrative regarded those medieval Bosnians as Bogomils. These had been a Christian sect from Bulgaria, so that Bosnians would originally have been neither Orthodox Serbs nor Catholic Croats; rather, the Catholic and Orthodox churches had persecuted them as heretics. Therefore, the myth77 continued, when Bosnia-Herzegovina was conquered by the Ottomans, the Bogomils readily converted to Islam, meaning that Bosnia-Herzegovina’s Muslims were no Turks but Bosnians like the Christians.78 It would therefore be possible for the Austro-Hungarians to ‘civilise’ even their Muslim subjects.79
The Sarajevo museum, however, paid relatively little attention to the Middle Ages. Perhaps the Austro-Hungarians sought to sideline medieval Bosnia and Herzegovina, ruled by Slavic princes, to further distance Bosnians from the Serbian and Croatian nations.80 Moreover, the Ottoman period barely played a role at the museum. To be sure, the Austro-Hungarian administration did not attempt to expel or convert Bosnia-Herzegovina’s Muslims; on the contrary, they were an essential counterbalance to Serbian and Croatian nationalisms.81 Hoernes even rejected the stereotype of the ‘Turkish yoke’ over the Balkans, explaining that the Ottoman conquerors had once brought culture and prosperity like the Austro-Hungarian occupiers did now.82
Still, the Austro-Hungarians implemented a legal, cultural, and architectural ‘deosmanisation’/‘Europeanisation’ in Bosnia-Herzegovina83 – although many new public buildings were given an orientalising, ‘Moorish’ style.84 Yet in many other areas, the new rulers ignored that the Ottoman Empire had ruled the territory for centuries until 1878 and remained its suzerain until 1908. Accordingly, the museum considered hiring an orientalist only in 1910.85 A few Austro-Hungarian authors and European visitors also clung to the fanciful myth arisen in the early nineteenth century that the famous Old Bridge in Mostar (Herzegovina) had been built not under the ‘barbaric’ Ottomans (in the sixteenth century) but under the Romans over a thousand years earlier.86
While the scholars of the Sarajevo museum did not share this, the archaeologists focused on prehistory and Roman antiquity. One reason may have been that Classical archaeology and the exciting new prehistoric archaeology would garner the most attention in Europe, whereas medieval archaeology was still underdeveloped.87 Yet the Romans also served to legitimise Austro-Hungarian rule – despite the Orthodox possibly despising Latin inscriptions. Patsch in particular portrayed the Romans in Bosnia-Herzegovina as militaristic yet progressive and tolerant rulers, who constructed roads, developed the economy, and respected the different ethnic and religious groups. Thus, they led the province to a height that was allegedly ruined when the barbarian tribes invaded in Late Antiquity – and Austria-Hungary would now restore it by ruling in the same style.88
III Archaeologists’ Practices and Relations with the Population in Bosnia-Herzegovina
The preface of the first volume of the Sarajevo museum’s Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen defined the ‘cultivation of art and science’ as ‘one of the characteristic, victorious qualities of Occidental civilisation.’89 Therefore, the Austro-Hungarian administration in Bosnia-Herzegovina provided the museum with substantial funds, which aroused the envy of a colleague of Patsch in Zagreb.90 The government also covered the travel costs of the participants of the 1894 congress.91
Due to the museum’s systematic excavations, its collections soon reached a size that called for a new, independent building. Since this seemed too costly even to Kállay, it became a reality only after his death in 1903. While the complex, completed in 1913, was monumental, its form was motivated by practical requirements of the collection rather than by imperial pomposity.92 In any case, the museum had already amassed immense collections and developed into a leading scientific institution in the Balkans, both to the Provincial Government’s satisfaction.93
Before the museum’s founding in 1888, some archaeological finds, such as the cult chariot from Glasinac, had been sent to Vienna; and when the Ottomans still ruled, they sent provincial finds to their capital of Constantinople.94 With the museum in Sarajevo open and supposedly contributing to a Bosnian identity, however, the finds had to go and remain there. Even in its first years, the museum saw good and growing numbers of visitors from all religions present in Sarajevo, including Jews.95
Moreover, all agencies and officers of the Provincial Government were directed to assist the museum by immediately reporting when they or civilians had discovered ancient objects.96 To allow excavations, the government would suspend public construction works97 or take over private land against compensation98 – as long as it did not cost too much or conflict with economic necessities such as the completion of a dam to protect fields.99
The decree of 1892 officialised the protection of historic objects, with many bans and duties for the population and fines for violations. The museum’s then-director, Hörmann, explained that the strict regulations were necessary ‘to preserve’ Bosnia-Herzegovina’s ‘sacred and indisputable right to collect and research its historical and cultural monuments.’ This right was threatened by ‘vandalism,’ including the repurposing of ancient stones for new objects or buildings.100
Despite its strictness, the decree promised private sellers of historic objects that the government, if interested, would purchase the latter for the highest price offered by other buyers; and the finders of ‘particularly important and interesting antiquities’ would receive a financial reward. The decree’s explicit goal was to foster the population’s ‘trust in the authorities’ and ‘predilection for seeking and researching’ historic objects101 – since archaeology in Bosnia-Herzegovina depended on the population’s assistance. The museum’s Glasnik had also asked for that assistance in its preface in 1889.102 As Patsch remarked, the country was large and modernisation works incessantly uncovered new objects and sites to be saved from destruction.103 The museum’s resources alone, however generous, would not have sufficed for that task.
Hence, Patsch’s field diaries show us how he constantly visited residents across Bosnia-Herzegovina to inspect ancient objects or structures they had noticed in their fields or gardens, or while constructing a building; and how he asked residents of a (prospective) archaeological site for more information about it.104 People may have been incentivised by the chance of money from the government. On the other hand, they had legendary notions about the history of their areas and the origin of local antiquities,105 including the widespread belief that the ancestors had left great treasures in the earth, in old buildings, or in the medieval tombstones.106 Patsch remarked that small finds such as coins would be easy to hide from the authorities or smuggle out of the country.107
Once identified, worthwhile sites would be excavated not only by the Sarajevo museum’s professional archaeologists – Patsch, Truhelka, and Ćurčić – but also by passionate amateurs such as mining official Radimský and chemist/botanist Fiala, and even by local inhabitants whom the museum had granted excavation permits.108 We furthermore know that in Patsch’s excavations, the following foremen worked rather independently: brothers Abid and Mustafa Salihagić (life dates unknown), and Grgo Matić Mlinarević (1877–1943).109 Matić had originally been an illiterate peasant and then became Patsch’s long-term, trusted foreman and travel companion. He learnt how to read and write, and still sent Patsch warm letters to Vienna for many years after World War I.110 While these letters have survived in Patsch’s papers, the latter contain very little other information about excavation workers.
The fact that local amateurs excavated prehistoric sites in Bosnia-Herzegovina was already being criticised by contemporaries who assumed that amateurs lacked the understanding of this new class of objects. Radimský, however, defended amateur assistance as indispensable and published a manual for the scientifically appropriate treatment of prehistoric sites.111 More generally, Bosnian-Herzegovinian archaeologist Adnan Kaljanac denounced in 2023 that many archaeological objects in the Sarajevo museum were of little scientific value, since the amateurs excavating them had failed to record the precise locations and contexts of discovery.
Kaljanac concluded that Austro-Hungarian archaeology in Bosnia-Herzegovina was, until the 1908 annexation, ‘exclusively colonial,’ as the museum sought to collect as many finds as possible, with no time for scientific standards. If the occupation had remained temporary, the Austro-Hungarians would then have easily taken the collections with them.112 The latter allegation, however, raises the question of why objects were not transferred to Vienna before 1908, when the Sarajevo museum was suffering from an increasing lack of space. Methodological shortcomings, in turn, were common in archaeology at the time, and not only in Bosnia-Herzegovina.113 Amateur archaeologists were active in all of Austria-Hungary,114 and saved many objects and sites that otherwise would have been lost, since professional archaeologists could not be present everywhere.
Conclusion
To close the prehistoric congress in Sarajevo in 1894, Hugo von Kutschera (1847–1909), the assistant of Governor Kállay in Bosnia-Herzegovina, quoted the dictum ‘science is power.’115 The science of archaeology was indeed an instrument of power for the government of the Austro-Hungarian ‘colony.’ The government emphatically supported the collection and excavation of archaeological objects across Bosnia-Herzegovina and their exhibition and publication at the museum in Sarajevo, to teach the population their supposed ‘Bosnian,’ pro-Habsburg identity, style the Austro-Hungarian rulers as the new Romans, and demonstrate to Europe and the world the success of Austria-Hungary’s ‘civilising mission’ in an ‘oriental’ country – whose ‘oriental,’ Ottoman past was sidelined at the museum. The ‘civilising mission’ under military occupation was the strongest indicator of an Austro-Hungarian colonialism.
The occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina allowed Austro-Hungarian archaeologists to finally access an archaeological ‘El Dorado,’ which they wanted to save from the ‘ignorance’ and ‘vandalism’ of the local inhabitants. The Austro-Hungarians treated Bosnian-Herzegovinians with paternalism,116 but deemed it possible to ‘civilise’ all of them. Thus, the decree of 1892 obliged people to respect historic objects and even enlisted their assistance for archaeology. This assistance may be interpreted in two ways: people were either exploited for the accumulation of antiquities or empowered to help preserve their heritage.
Except Ćurčić (who had studied in Vienna), the Sarajevo museum’s archaeologists came not from Bosnia-Herzegovina but from other Habsburg lands; and the 1894 congress presented archaeology in Bosnia-Herzegovina as an Austro-Hungarian achievement. The individual archaeologists worked in a colonial situation, whether they supported it or not. Yet Patsch, for example, made a liberal and rather unpolitical impression in his personal and published writings after World War I, with no more Habsburg Empire to serve.117 And before, he epistemologically sided with Bosnia-Herzegovina against Vienna by dedicating himself to a Roman province, whose modest remains some metropolitan Classical archaeologists discounted as barbaric.118
Furthermore, Croatian-Slavonian-born actors such as Truhelka and Hörmann were not very foreign to Bosnia-Herzegovina in terms of language and culture. In general, there was much more contact and exchange between this ‘internal colony’ and the rest of the empire than there was between European metropoles and their overseas possessions. If Bosnia-Herzegovina had belonged to Austria-Hungary for longer than a mere four decades, it would possibly have evolved into another ‘organic’ crown land, which no one would have deemed ‘colonial.’119
The Austro-Hungarians’ seemingly most ‘uncolonial’ policy was that they generally kept archaeological finds from Bosnia-Herzegovina within the country, at the Provincial Museum after it had been established in Sarajevo in 1888, and everyone was welcome to visit the exhibitions. In this regard, the museum was more independent than, for example, the Provincial Museum of Carniola in Ljubljana, which regularly had to cede finds to Vienna.120
On the other hand, Kállay intended the Sarajevo museum to contribute to a Bosnian identity and the occupiers’ public image and thereby buttress Austro-Hungarian rule. This rule used ‘soft power’ rather than the violence of many other colonisers,121 and archaeology was one such non-violent tool. While this archaeology successfully produced scientific results and international prestige, however, a Bosnian identity was not accomplished, as Serbian and Croatian nationalisms proved too strong.122 By contrast, the archaeological science and museum Kállay’s government established in Bosnia-Herzegovina have continued there until today, through the turmoil of the twentieth century in the Balkans.123 Thus, Austria-Hungary’s power from science lingers on long after the end of its rule in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the rest of its empire.
Notes
[1] Cf. Jürgen Osterhammel and Jan C. Jansen, Kolonialismus: Geschichte, Formen, Folgen (C.H. Beck, 2021), 22.
[2] Johannes Feichtinger et al., eds., Habsburg postcolonial: Machtstrukturen und kollektives Gedächtnis (StudienVerlag, 2003); further on Austria-Hungary as an ‘empire’: Bernhard Bachinger et al., eds., Österreich-Ungarns imperiale Herausforderungen: Nationalismen und Rivalitäten im Habsburgerreich um 1900 (V&R unipress, 2020), DOI: https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737010603.
[3] Ferdinand Schmid, Bosnien und die Herzegovina unter der Verwaltung Österreich-Ungarns (Veit, 1914), 1, 795.
[5] Clemens Ruthner, “Bosnien-Herzegowina als k.u.k. Kolonie: Eine Einführung,” in Bosnien-Herzegowina und Österreich-Ungarn, 1878–1918: Annäherungen an eine Kolonie, ed. Clemens Ruthner and Tamara Scheer (Narr Francke Attempto, 2018), 34–43.
[6] Robert J. Donia, “‘Proximate Colony’: Bosnien-Herzegowina unter österreichisch-ungarischer Herrschaft,” in Bosnien-Herzegowina und Österreich-Ungarn, 1878–1918: Annäherungen an eine Kolonie, ed. Clemens Ruthner and Tamara Scheer (Narr Francke Attempto, 2018), 147–162.
[7] Cf. on this ‘situation’ Ruthner, “Bosnien-Herzegowina als k.u.k. Kolonie,” 34; Donia, “‘Proximate Colony’ Bosnien-Herzegowina,” 147.
[8] Cf. Werner Telesko, “Colonialism without Colonies: The Civilizing Missions in the Habsburg Empire,” in Cultural Heritage as Civilizing Mission: From Decay to Recovery, ed. Michael Falser (Springer, 2015), 35–48, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13638-7_2.
[9] Maximilian Hartmuth, “No News as Good News? Occupied Bosnia’s Ottoman Heritage in the Habsburg Imperial Imaginary, ca. 1900,” in Patrimonialization on the Ruins of Empire: Islamic Heritage and the Modern State in Post-Ottoman Europe, ed. Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz Hartmuth (transcript, 2024), 15–35, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839471043-002; Reinhard Johler, “Die Okkupation Bosnien-Herzegowinas und die Institutionalisierung der österreichischen Volkskunde als Wissenschaft,” in Bosnien-Herzegowina und Österreich-Ungarn, 1878–1918: Annäherungen an eine Kolonie, ed. Clemens Ruthner and Tamara Scheer (Narr Francke Attempto, 2018), 325–358.
[10] Johler, “Okkupation Bosnien-Herzegowinas und Institutionalisierung der österreichischen Volkskunde,” 330.
[11] Blagoje Govedarica, “Hundertvierzig Jahre Archäologie in Bosnien und Herzegowina (1880–2020),” Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 42 (2021): 71–72, 74, DOI: https://doi.org/10.30819/mbgaeu.42.6.
[12] Daniel Baric, ed., Die Lebenserinnerungen von Carl Patsch: Archäologie eines Lebens zwischen Böhmen und Bosnien (Frank & Timme, 2023), 71 with fn. 146, DOI: https://doi.org/10.23665/DigiOst/IOS-17; Snježana Vasilj, “Arheologija i arheološka istraživanja u Bosni i Hercegovini u vrijeme austrougarske uprave,” in Međunarodna Konferencija: Bosna i Hercegovina u okviru Austro-Ugarske, 1878–1918, Sarajevo 2009, ed. Zijad Šehić (Filozofski Fakultet, 2011), 530–531.
[13] Cf. Maximilian Georg, “Das alte Ägypten besitzen… Ägyptologie und Kolonialismus seit 1798,” in Der Kolonialgedanke als Manipulator archäologischer Ratio?, ed. Raimar W. Kory et al. (curach bhán, 2022), 37–56.
[14] Eduard Richter, “Beiträge zur Landeskunde Bosniens und der Herzegowina,” Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 10 (1907): 392–393, 402–403.
[15] Predrag Novaković, The History of Archaeology in the Western Balkans (Ljubljana University Press, 2021), 220–224, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/9789610605393.
[16] Antonija Mlikota, “Strengthening Feelings of National Identity: The Case of Zadar,” in Contested Space – Contested Heritage: Sources on the Displacement of Cultural Objects in the 20th-Century Alpine-Adriatic Region, ed. Donata Levi and Michael Wedekind (Forum, 2021), 162–168.
[17] From the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, central documents related to scientific institutions have been published in Hamdija Kapidžić, ed., Naučne ustanove u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme austrougarske uprave (Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine, 1973).
[18] Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich, Nachlass Carl Patsch. From these archives, Patsch’s memoirs have been published in Baric, Lebenserinnerungen Patsch.
[21] Robin Okey, Taming Balkan Nationalism: The Habsburg ‘Civilizing Mission’ in Bosnia, 1878–1914 (Oxford University Press, 2007), 1, 8, 26, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213917.001.0001.
[22] Reproduced in Johannes Lepsius et al., eds., Die Große Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914, vol. 2: Der Berliner Kongreß und seine Vorgeschichte (Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft für Politik und Geschichte, 1922), 285.
[23] Imre Ress, “Versuch einer Nationenbildung um die Jahrhundertwende: Benjámin Kállays Konzeption der bosnischen Nation,” in Nation und Nationenbildung in Österreich-Ungarn, 1848–1938: Prinzipien und Methoden, ed. Endre Kiss and Justin Stagl (Lit, 2006), 61–68; Okey, Habsburg ‘Civilizing Mission’ in Bosnia, 65–70.
[24] Oliver Bagarić, “Museum und nationale Identitäten: Eine Geschichte des Landesmuseums Sarajevo,” Südost-Forschungen 67 (2008): 149–152.
[25] Joseph Alexander Freiherr von Helfert, Bosnisches (Manz, 1879), 286–288.
[26] Theodor Brückler, Zur Geschichte der österreichischen Denkmalpflege: Die Ära Helfert, pt. 1: 1863 bis 1891 (Böhlau, 2020), DOI: https://doi.org/10.7767/9783205210184.
[27] Manfred Kandler and Gudrun Wlach, eds., 100 Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, 1898–1998 (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, 1998).
[28] Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Hercegovina, ed., “Verordnung vom 27. Juni 1892, betreffend die Erhaltung historischer Denkmäler und das Verfahren mit Alterthümern sowie mit sonstigen historischen oder culturgeschichtlich wichtigen Objecten,” Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt für Bosnien und die Hercegovina 1892, no. 12: 256–258.
[29] Constantin Hörmann, “Zur Geschichte des bosnisch-hercegovinischen Landesmuseums,” Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina 1 (1893): 3, 11–16.
[30] Moriz Hoernes, “Die Altertumsforschung in Bosnien-Herzegowina,” Globus: Illustrierte Zeitschrift für Länder- und Völkerkunde 61, no. 10 (1892): 151.
[31] Blagoje Govedarica, “Cult Chariot from Glasinac in Eastern Bosnia,” Eurasia Antiqua: Zeitschrift für Archäologie Eurasiens 24 (2022): 115–134.
[32] Andreas Lippert, Moritz Hoernes: Der Wiener Pionier der Urgeschichtsforschung (Springer, 2024), 13–26, 95, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-43559-2.
[35] Nives Majnarić-Pandžić, ed., Ćiro Truhelka: Zbornik (Matica hrvatska, 1994); Adnan Kaljanac, In a Foreign Country: Ćiro Truhelka in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2024).
[37] Almaz Dautbegović, ed., Spomenica stogodišnjice rada Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine, 1888–1988 (Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, 1988), 74–83.
[44] Dautbegović, Muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, 392–396; Kurt Gostentschnigg, Wissenschaft im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Militär: Die österreichisch-ungarische Albanologie, 1867–1918 (Springer, 2018), 87–92, 617–626, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18911-2.
[46] Justin McCarthy, “Ottoman Bosnia, 1800 to 1878,” in The Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina: Their Historic Development from the Middle Ages to the Dissolution of Yugoslavia, ed. Mark Pinson (Harvard University Press, 1994), 53–70.
[47] Hannes Grandits, The End of Ottoman Rule in Bosnia: Conflicting Agencies and Imperial Appropriations (Routledge, 2022), 1–130, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429023989.
[48] Adnan Kaljanac and Tijana Križanović, “Bosanskohercegovački antikvarizam osmanskog doba: Antikvari na razmeđu istoka i zapada,” Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 41 (2012): 240–246, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5644/Godisnjak.CBI.ANUBiH-40.14; Novaković, Archaeology in Western Balkans, 219–223.
[49] Moriz Hoernes, Dinarische Wanderungen: Cultur- und Landschaftsbilder aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina (Carl Graeser, 1888), 327, 330–331; Moriz Hoernes, Bosnien und die Hercegovina (= Die Länder Oesterreich-Ungarns in Wort und Bild, vol. 15) (Karl Graeser, 1889), 12–13.
[51] Heinrich Sterneck, Geografische Verhältnisse, Communicationen und das Reisen in Bosnien, der Herzegovina und Nord-Montenegro (Wilhelm Braumüller, 1877), 4–5, 22–25, 38; Hoernes, Bosnien und die Hercegovina, 70.
[53] Otto Blau, Reisen in Bosnien und der Hertzegowina: Topographische und pflanzengeographische Aufzeichnungen (Dietrich Reimer, 1877), 91, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.147209.
[54] Moriz Hoernes, “Archäologische Streifzüge in der Hercegovina,” pt. 1, Beilage zur Wiener Abendpost 11 August, no. 184 (1879): 733.
[55] Helfert, Bosnisches, 287; similarly Anon., “Vorwort,” Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina 1 (1893): III–IV.
[56] Felix von Luschan, “Altbosnische Gräber,” Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 10, nos. 1–4 (1880): 113–114. On those religious reasons: Ahmed Al-Dawoody et al., “International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): Management of the Dead under Islamic Law,” Forensic Science International: Reports 3 (2021): online, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir.2021.100196.
[57] Moriz Hoernes, “Alterthümer der Hercegovina (II.) und der südlichen Theile Bosniens, nebst einer Abhandlung über die römischen Strassen und Orte im heutigen Bosnien,” Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 99 (1882): 926–946; Karl Patsch, “Bericht über eine Reise in Bosnien,” Archaeologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn 16, no. 2 (1893): 134.
[59] Zoltán Fónagy, Machtpolitik oder Kulturmission? Überlegungen zur Integration und Modernisierung von Bosnien und Herzegowina nach der Okkupation (= Donau-Institut Working Paper 49) (Donau-Institut, 2014).
[62] Carl Patsch, “Die griechischen Münzen des bosnisch-hercegovinischen Landesmuseums,” Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina 4 (1896): 114; Stefan Milijević, “Schatzgräberei,” Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina 5 (1897): 438–439 (see below, fn. 106).
[64] Kaljanac and Križanović, “Bosanskohercegovački antikvarizam,” 246–249; Novaković, Archaeology in Western Balkans, 223–224.
[65] Alev Koçak, The Ottoman Empire and Archaeological Excavations: Ottoman Policy from 1840–1906, Foreign Archaeologists, and the Formation of the Ottoman Museum (Isis, 2011), esp. 47–81.
[66] Edhem Eldem, “From Blissful Indifference to Anguished Concern: Ottoman Perceptions of Antiquities, 1799–1869,” in Scramble for the Past: A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753–1914, ed. Zainab Bahrani et al. (SALT, 2011), 281–329.
[67] Moriz Hoernes, “Römische Alterthümer in Bosnien und der Hercegovina,” Archaeologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich 4 (1880): 207.
[68] Risto Besarović, Iz kulturnog života u Sarajevu pod Austrougarskom upravom (Veselin Masleša, 1974), 77.
[69] Besarović, Kulturni život u Sarajevu, 73–85; Bagarić, “Landesmuseum Sarajevo,” 149–153; Kapidžić, Naučne ustanove u Bosni i Hercegovini, 457–463.
[73] Aleksandar Palavestra, “Arheološki izlet u pograničnu koloniju,” Etnoantropološki problemi 9, no. 3 (2014): 669–695, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21301/EAP.v9i3.7.
[74] Novaković, Archaeology in Western Balkans, 231–233; Patsch in Baric, Lebenserinnerungen Patsch, 156, 184, 243.
[75] Laurent Dedryvère, “Der Bosnien-Band der Österreichischen Monarchie in Wort und Bild (1901): Eine imperiale Darstellung des Besatzungsgebietes im Zeichen des Dualismus,” Revue d’Allemagne et des pays de langue allemande 56, no. 1 (2024): 203–223, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/11uxa.
[76] Rudolf (Crown Prince of Austria), ed., Die österreichisch-ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild: Bosnien und Hercegovina (K.k. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1901), 153–178.
[77] Cf. Ines Aščerić-Todd, “Patarenes, Protestants and Islam in Bosnia: Deconstructing the Bogomil Theory,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 33, no. 3 (2022): 214–215, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2022.2121494.
[78] Marian Wenzel, “Bosnian History and Austro-Hungarian Policy: The Zemaljski Muzej, Sarajevo, and the Bogomil Romance,” Museum Management and Curatorship 12, no. 2 (1993): 128–131, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09647779309515352; Maximilian Hartmuth, “The Habsburg Landesmuseum in Sarajevo in Its Ideological and Architectural Contexts: A Reinterpretation,” Centropa: A Journal of Central European Architecture and Related Arts 12, no. 2 (2012): 198; Ress, “Kállays Konzeption der bosnischen Nation,” 65–66; cf. Hoernes, Bosnien und die Hercegovina, 115–116 (describing the ‘difference’ between Bosnian Muslims and Ottomans).
[79] Johannes Feichtinger, “Komplexer k.u.k. Orientalismus: Akteure, Institutionen, Diskurse im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert in Österreich,” in Orientalismen in Ostmitteleuropa: Diskurse, Akteure und Disziplinen vom 19. Jahrhundert bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg, ed. Robert Born and Sarah Lemmen (transcript, 2014), 56–59, DOI: https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839426975.31.
[83] Tomasz Jacek Lis, “Deosmanisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1878 and 1918 on the Example of Sarajevo,” Acta Poloniae Historica 126 (2022): 55–60, DOI: https://doi.org/10.12775/APH.2022.126.03.
[84] Maximilian Hartmuth, “Amtssprache Maurisch? Zum Problem der Interpretation des orientalisierenden Baustils im habsburgischen Bosnien-Herzegowina,” in Bosnien-Herzegowina und Österreich-Ungarn, 1878–1918: Annäherungen an eine Kolonie, ed. Clemens Ruthner and Tamara Scheer (Narr Francke Attempto, 2018), 251–266.
[88] Daniel Baric, “Archéologie classique et politique scientifique en Bosnie-Herzégovine habsbourgoise: Carl Patsch à Sarajevo (1891–1918),” Revue germanique internationale 16 (2012): 80–82, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rgi.1340; Baric, Lebenserinnerungen Patsch, 42, 49–50, 55–56, 77; cf. 43.
[90] Josip Brunšmid (1858–1929) in an 1899 letter to Patsch, quoted in Bagarić, “Landesmuseum Sarajevo,” 152, fn. 33.
[98] E.g. Carl Patsch, Travel Journal (in German), 1911–1913, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich, Nachlass Carl Patsch, no. Südost-Institut 339, 30 August 1912.
[99] Ćiro Truhelka, “Prähistorische Funde aus Bosnien,” Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 11 (1909): 28–29.
[100] Constantin Hörmann, “Eine Verordnung zum Schutze der Alterthümer in Bosnien und der Hercegovina,” Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina 1 (1893): 337–338.
[102] Editorial Office, “Čitaocima ‘Glasnika’,” Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini 1, no. 1 (1889): 4.
[103] Carl Patsch, “Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien [pt. 7],” Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina 11 (1909): 104; Patsch in Baric, Lebenserinnerungen Patsch, 191.
[104] Carl Patsch, Travel and Excavation Journals (in German), 1896–1914, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich, Nachlass Carl Patsch, nos. Südost-Institut 306, 308–312, 319, 325–327, 337–340.
[105] Constantin Kovačević, “Denkmäler und Ueberlieferungen im Bezirke Bihać,” Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina 1 (1893): 445–456.
[108] Adnan Kaljanac, Paradoxes of Early Archaeology in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2023), 76–121.
[110] Jozo Džambo, “Carl Patsch i Grgo Matić Mlinarević: Arheologija jednog prijateljstva,” Bosna Franciscana 61 (2024): 21–70.
[111] Václav Radimský, Die prähistorischen Fundstätten, ihre Erforschung und Behandlung, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Bosnien und die Hercegovina, sowie auf das österreichisch-ungarische Fundgebiet (Landesregierung für Bosnien und die Hercegovina, 1891).
[113] On those in the crown land of Carniola: Jernej Kotar et al., “Karl Deschmann and His Museum Legacy,” in National Museum of Slovenia: 200 Years, ed. Tomaž Lazar et al. (National Museum of Slovenia, 2022), 135.
[114] Florian M. Müller, ed., Graben, Entdecken, Sammeln: Laienforscher in der Geschichte der Archäologie Österreichs (Lit, 2016).
[115] Rudolf Virchow, “Conferenz in Sarajevo,” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 27 (1895): 59.
[119] Tamara Scheer, “‘Kolonie’ – ‘Neu-Österreich’ – ‘Reichsland(e)’: Zu begrifflichen Zuschreibungen Bosnien-Herzegowinas im österreichisch-ungarischen Staatsverband, 1878–1918,” in Bosnien-Herzegowina und Österreich-Ungarn, 1878–1918: Annäherungen an eine Kolonie, ed. Clemens Ruthner and Tamara Scheer (Narr Francke Attempto, 2018), 48–49, 56.
[123] Govedarica, “Archäologie in Bosnien und Herzegowina,” 71; Aliye Fatma Mataracı, “(Identity) Politics and the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” in Tangible and Intangible Heritage in the Age of Globalisation, ed. Lilia Makhloufi (Open Book Publishers, 2024), 201–218, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0388.11.
Acknowledgements
I thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.