A Contemplation of the Politicization of Archaeological Material

Journal of Danish Archaeology, 1984

Within any discipline periods of change alternate with periods of stability. In Danish archaeology the last 2 to 3 generations have seen a long period of consolidated research with little need to question either the basic premises of research or the future goals of archaeology as they were commonly, and implicitly, agreed upon. The last 10 to 15 years, however, have witnessed rather drastic changes in the archaeological environment, making a general debate on research policies urgent (e.g. .

Shows how different social groups employed archaeology and history to consolidate their newgained positions during the last 200 years. The epilogue summarize the sad return of neo-nationalism during the last 20 years and its impact on archaeology and heritage.

Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage, 2019

Archaeological heritage in Norway is seen as a national treasure and non-renewable resource, and according to the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act of 1978 § 10, developers – regardless whether they represent public or private sector – should cover expenses for surveys and eventually salvage excavations. This general understanding is a part of the idea that polluter pays, though the public sector actually covers the entire cost of small projects. Misperceptions regarding this legislation have created an unwanted gap between the field of cultural heritage and the rest of society. Many developers perceive archaeology as a source of trouble, something that delays their projects and consumes a considerable portion of their finances, particularly when they believe that they have to pay for the archaeological investigations not only once but twice (first for surveys and thereafter for excavations). Although the majority is interested in archaeological heritage, they fear it because – in their eyes – it represents a possible economic burden and potential delays. This chapter aims to shed light on Norwegian cultural heritage and on how local historical associations, amateurs and archaeologists can contribute towards its protection. At the same time, I will discuss the current Cultural Heritage Act, focusing on the fact that archaeological remains are deemed as valuable as education, healthcare, transport, security and so forth. Consequently, I argue that the state should cover a larger portion of archaeological expenses. At the same time, developers are those who will benefit from excavating the archaeological sites, and thus they should also contribute somehow to the archaeological investigations.

Arkæologisk Forum, 2019

2008

Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu. Chapter 3 appeared in an earlier form as "Class Confrontations in Archaeology," Historical Archaeology 33, no. 1 (1999).

Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 2022

In this article, I argue for the value of community inclusion, transparency, and engagement in efforts to change attitudes towards archaeology, using a case from Åland, an autonomous archipelago in the Baltic Sea. With its own legislation concerning the protection of archaeological sites, archaeology on Åland has been a contentious subject for decades. This culminated in 2013 with the controversial trial and conviction of a family for severely and knowingly damaging one of the Stone Age sites on Åland. Against this backdrop, I initiated a project concerning an Iron Age settlement site. I discuss my experience of setting up an independent research project with a focus on publicly engaged archaeology and storytelling within an initially hostile framework, and in a region where archaeology is highly professionalized. The article also illustrates how friction around a community-oriented project can arise between stakeholders as a result of the social dynamics of archaeology itself.

World Archaeologies: A Comparative Perspective. Ed: Ludomir Lozny. Springer Press., 2011

Narratives of archaeology and cultural heritage have no relevance for the people who lived in the past; they are only significant in the context in which they are expressed. Hence the meaning of these narratives must be in the present. The question is then, why the narratives of archaeology and heritage are significant at all? One possible answer is that they are important for our sense of Being. Through these narratives, archaeological remains and cultural heritage become a part of our own Existence, of our Being-in-the-world. We not only are living in history but also live with it, and one of the purposes of history is to give perspectives on our Being and Existence in the world. Such perspectives easily let us understand cultural heritage and archaeological remains as belonging to our society and us. In this essay, we discuss and analyse Swedish archaeology and heritage management from the perspective of our present Being-in-the-world. We begin with a brief historical overview demonstrating how Swedish archaeology and heritage management have for centuries been consistently involved in the construction of a nationalistic and essentially ethnic identity, creating a confident standpoint from which the Swedes can judge their surroundings. Thus the existential possibility that always lies within the narratives of archaeology and heritage becomes a political and ontological tool, an instrument easily used to protect the Swedish existence against perceived threats, from the eerie inside the nation itself, from the Other that defines the Us and the Ours. This potentially problematic situation is discussed in relation to the Field, the Law, and with the example of a recently produced Handbook of Contract Archaeology.

Nuncius 37, 2022

Contrary to other forms of heritage (i.e., art collections), archaeology is based on allegedly objective data and is, therefore, particularly suitable to support ideological narratives on the past. Its scientific nature, combined with the proximity between its subject, material findings, and the cultural heritage of certain groups, entails that its history is key to understanding the interactions between science and its public. From an historical analysis that highlights the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion, participation and narration of heritage, we can move on to reconstruct a critical approach to museums, collections, and cultural heritage in the society of the present and the future and re-imagine the role of history of science in this complex process.