摘要：Discussing the results of archaeological investigation at two important medieval sites - remains of the monastery of St George at Mažići near Priboj and of the church at Drenova near Prijepolje - the author puts forward his critical observations that make significant revisions to the conclusions suggested by excavators. The remains of a monastery at Mažići have long ago been identified with the monastery of St George in the župa (district) of Dabar known from early 13th-century records. In the 1310s a monastery of St George is referred to in association with the toponym of Orahovica. After a long gap, the monastery is referred to again several times in the 1600s until its final destruction in 1743, as St George’s at Orahovica or simply Mažić(i). The report following systematic archaeological excavations suggests the unacceptable and unfounded conclusion, with dating and interpretation that the monastery church was built in the 13th century, received additions in the 14th, and was renovated in the 16th-17th centuries when there was a hospital attached to it. Careful analysis of the structural remains and the site’s stratigraphy clearly shows that the monastery was built on the site of a medieval cemetery of a 14th-15th-century date, which means that the church and its buildings cannot be older than the 16th century. The author also argues against the assumed presence of a monastic hospital, the assumption being based upon metal artifacts misinterpreted as "medical instruments" (parchment edge trimmer, compasses, fork!!!). The author’s inference is that the ruins at Mažići are not the remains of the monastery of St George, which should be searched for elsewhere, but possibly the legacy of a 14th-century monastic establishment which was moved there from an as yet unknown location most likely about the middle of the 16th century. The site at Drenova, with remains of a church destroyed by land slide, has been known since the late 19th century when a stone block was found there bearing the opening part of an inscription: " Te Criste auctore pontifex...", long believed to date from the 9th-10th century. Following the excavations, but based on this dating the church remains were interpreted as pre- Romanesque, and the interpretation entailed some major historical conclusions. From a more recent and careful analysis, the inscription has been correctly dated to the 6th century. With this dating as his starting-point, the author examines the fieldwork results and suggests that the block is an early-Byzantine spolium probably from the late-antique site of Kolovrat near Prijepolje, reused in the medieval period as a tombstone in the churchyard, where such examples are not lonely. It follows that the inscribed block is not directly relatable to the church remains and that it cannot be used as dating evidence. On the other hand, the church remains show features of the Romanesque-Gothic style of architecture typical of the Pomorje, the Serbian Adriatic coast. According to close analogies found for some elements of its stone decoration, the date of the church could not precede the middle of the 13th century. The question remains open as to who had the church built and what its original function was, that is whether a monastic community center round it. Its founder may be sought for among members of the ruling Nemanjić house, but a church dignitary cannot be ruled out. Anumber of complex issues raised by this site are yet to be resolved, but the study should be relieved of earlier misconceptions. Fresh information about this ruined medieval church should be provided by revision excavations in the future.
