email   Email Us: phone   Call Us: +1 (914) 407-6109   57 West 57th Street, 3rd floor, New York - NY 10019, USA

Lupine Publishers Group

Lupine Publishers

  Submit Manuscript

ISSN: 2690-5752

Journal of Anthropological and Archaeological Sciences

Mini review(ISSN: 2690-5752)

the-short-review-of-tourist-valorized-archeological-sites-in-serbia.ID.000169 Volume 3 - Issue 4

Radmila Jovanović*

  • Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

Received: February 03, 2021   Published: February 18, 2021

Corresponding author:Radmila Jovanović, Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: 10.32474/JAAS.2021.03.000169


Fulltext PDF


The space in Serbia is showed a lot of numbers of archeological sites, which is the result of rich culture and history. This space present the point of connection and separation different civilizations, interest, strategies and politics. Insufficient investment of local government, presentations, education of local residents, non-recognition of the state interest maked difference and uneven tourism development in Serbia. The one of example are archeological sites which haven’t equal tourist values. On the other hand, we have the good example of invesment, presentation sites, building visitor centres, virtual presentation, tecnological inovation, interpretation with multimedia and an unforgettable experience of tourists – Archeological park ‘’Viminacium’’.

Keywords: Archeological Sites; Tourism; Valorization; Serbia


Republic of Serbia is located in southeast part of Europe. The history of Serbia through of centuries was passed wars and turbulent processes. Before Slavs settled this region, on this area had lived different civilizations: Dardanians, Romans, Dacians, Huns. All civilizations had left the deep trace in the history of this region.
From Ottoman period, Serbia has a lot of heritage of archeological sites. Generally, all archeological sites dating from different historic period: Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic, Copper Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman period, Middle Ages - New Century, etc.
Archaeological sites have long been a part of heritage and its display, certainly before the use of the term “heritage” and the formal study of tourism [1]. In recent years, there has been an increasingly noticeable increase in the threat to the archaeological heritage in Serbia, which can be seen on several levels [2].

Materials and Methods

The aim of this short article is presented uneven relation of archaeological sites in Serbia, and show the small number sites which have tourist valorization and arrangement.
Also, to indicate the importance of archaeological sites and point out the directions of its tourist development. Development tourism in places with archeological sites, has the potential to bring local or descendant communities financial gain [3]. Tourism and Heritage Management are part of the economic movement [4].
The data for research were collected in the field, internet analysis of tourist sites (Tourist Organization of Serbia, sites of local tourist organization, Trip Advisor, etc.) and literature.
Serbia is country, where is clear felt unevenness in territorial tourism development. In Serbia have 117 [5] archeolgical sites registered by Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Serbia. Therefrom, 65 is registred in Autonomy Province Kosovo and Metohija , and 52 in Central Serbia and Autonomy Province Vojvodina. However, all of them don’t have equal tourist values. Some archeological sites are recognizable symbol as a part of the World and Serbian cultural heritage, while the others unfairly neglected and unnoticed. The conservation of archeological sites over the centuries is a responsibility of our society, in order to pass on to future generations [6].
Of total number (117) which are registered in Serbia, 15 are included in tourism offer of local municipalities. Those are: Ancient Taurunum, Vinča and Ancient Singidunum in Belgrade; Gamzigrad (Zaječar); Viminacium (Kostolac); Mediana, Fortress and Ancient thermal baths on Fortess in Niš; Timacum Minus (Knjaževac); Remisiana (Bela Palanka); Lepenski vir (Donji Milanovac); Pontes (Kladovo); Lederata (Veliko Gradište); Karataš (Kladovo) and Devil ‘s town (Kuršumlija). The most important are:

1. Gamzigrad (Felix Romuliana) – the only archeological site from Serbia who is on the UNESCO list of protect. The remnants of old and younger fortification were undiscovered. In the north part of the fortress remnants of a Church, Palace 1, Palace 2 and a big building with corridor were undiscovered, and in the south part remnants of a Church, Horeum, Tribunal and Thearme [7] (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Gamzigrad – Felix Romuliana.


2. Viminacium - the most orderly archeological park in Serbia, with all elements for full tourist experience (good example of invesment, with visitor centers, virtual presentation, technological innovation, interpretation with multimedia, etc.). The archeological site Viminacijum is located near the mouth of river Mlava to Danube, at the today’s Kostolac, some 12 km from the city Pozarevac. It was a largest urban settlement in the Upper Mesia and a signifi cant military center [8] (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Viminacium.


3. Vinča and Lepenski vir - the most oldest arranged archeological sites in Serbia for tourist visit in Serbia.
4. Sirmium - the archeological site Sirmium located in Sremska Mitrovica, is an antic city built in the 1st century (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Sirmium.


The construction of ‘’Visitor Centers’’ is one of effective ways to present this valuable heritage. In Serbia have several archeological sites that are very interesting for the development of cultural tourism: Viminacium, Sirmium and Gamzigrad [9].
Other remaining number of archeological sites (102) are noticed that the tourist fit-out insufficient and should be raised to a higher level for the purpose of tourism development. The environments at certain archeological sites have a good quality and can come to empower the spaces for tourist activities. Some of archeological sites have not been researched in detail, and their significance weren’t determined [10].


The aim of develop archeological sites need to do better allocation of funds, greater promotion, getting to know a larger number of residents, the commitment of the competent authorities to their affirmation, an attempt to advance through international cooperation and projects and inclusion in the tourist offer. The culture and heritage tourism has a great significance in the modern world in travel. Therefore, the historical worth of the heritage and culture require preservation and conservation in their usual form.


  1. Matero FG (2008) Heritage, conservation, and archaeology: An introduction. Heritage, Conservation, and Archaeology 1-5.
  2. Црнобрња А (2019) Подизање свести о значајуархеолошког наслеђа, Реализација пројекта Српског археолошког друштва. Модерна конзервација 7: 19-31.
  3. Pacifico D, Melissa M (2012) Archaeological sites, modern communities, and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 39(3): 1588-1611.
  4. Guimarães GM, Anjos FA, Farias DSE, Arnold Junior M (2018) Archaeological heritage management and tourism development: Actions and proposals. Revista Brasileirade Pesquisa em Turismo 12(3): 47-80.
  6. Vicente R, Lagomarsino S, Ferreira TM, Cattari S, Mendes da Silva JAR (2018) Cultural Heritage Monuments and Historical Buildings: Conservation Works and Structural Retrofitting. Strengthening and Retrofitting of Existing Structures 25-57.
  7. Nikolic M (2010) The possibilitis of protection and presentation of urban complex by example of archeological site Sirmium, Proc. of the 5th Regional conference on integrative protection – integrative conservation and sustainable development, Banja Luka, Serbia.
  8. Драгојловић А и др (2007) Споменичко наслеђе Србије. Београд: Републички Завод за заштиту споменика културе.
  9. Nikolić M (2011) Visitors’ centers at archeological sites in serbia as an imput for sustainable development of the country. Institute for Research and Design in Economy, Belgrade, Serbia Journal of Applied Engineering Science 9(1): 253-258.
  10. Mikić Ž (1989) Prilog antropološkom upoznavanju neolita u Srbiji. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog druš Faculty of Philosophy, Univestity of Belgrade, Serbia 5: 18-26.