|
Innholdet i 2007/08 10. årgang Årest nummer er et dobbeltnummer og inneholder også bidragene fra vårt 10 års-jubileumsseminar 7. desember 2007. Vi svikter ikke prinsippet om minst en faglig debatt. Som vanlig har det også blitt plass til bokanmeldelser, denne gangen seks stykker: Niall John Oma Armstrong om Inger Storli: Hålogaland før rikssamlingen. Politiske prosesser i perioden 200-900 e.kr., Hulda Brastad Bernhardt om Frans-Arne Stylegar: Norges terskel, Europas port. Kristiansand fra istid til sagatid, Atle Omland om Mats Burström: Samtidsarkeologi. Introduktion till et forskningsfelt, Tori Falck og Tortein Arisholm, Knut Paasche og Trine Lise Wahl (red.): Klink og seil. Festskrift til Arne Emil Christensen, Ørjan Engedal om Joakim Goldhahn & Terje Østigård: Rituelle spesialister i bronse- og jernalderen og til slutt Even Ballangrud Andersen om Dagfinn Skre (red.) Kaupang in Skiringssal. Kaupang Excavation Project. Wenche Helliksen Lund, som var med å starte Primitive tider, gikk dessverre bort i 2008, bare 47 år gammel. Tross sykdommen maktet hun å skrive en artikkel om utgravningen hun ledet på Sande i Farsund. Vi er glade for at vi fikk trykke den i vårt jubileumsnummer. Artikkelen etterfølges av en samlet bibliografi over Wenches skriftlige arbeider.
Graves, cults and a chieftain’s hall in Iron Age Sande. During the excavations of 2005–2006 carried out at Sande near Farsund in Vest-Agder, a burial mound, two three-aisled longhouses from the Late Iron age (7th–10th c.) and two large boathouses from the 3rd–10th century were unearthed and investigated. In the burial mound were found four graves from the Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period. One was the richly furnished grave of a woman from the 6th century. Sande was located in a good position to control the traffic along the costal «highway». The large boathouses reflect a centralised maritime organisation under the command of chieftains. A possible hall building from the Merovingian Period suggests the presence of a pagan cult. Finds and sites indicate that there was continuity in regard to the central function of the farmstead. Old and new Europeans: On constructing cultural continuity. This article examines the way in which the European Union and Council of Europe try to establish a notion of an essential and historically rooted pan-European identity by creating cultural continuity between today’s Europe and Europe’s first Golden Age: The Bronze Age. It is argued that once the archaeological interpretations enter the public and politic domain, the heavily debated heritage of culture-historical archaeology is maintained through the process of popularised knowledge dissemination. The Three Age System seen in the light of the rise of secularisation and science in the first half of the nineteenth century. The Danish archaeologist Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788–1865) constructed the modern Three Age System which is arguably the most important construct in archaeological methodology. Although similar systems based on a notion of three ages have occurred in different contexts throughout western history, only Thomsen’s system is still in use today. In this paper I discuss the reasons why this model was first acknowledged in the Danish scientific discourse during the first half of the nineteenth century, and how it was preceded by changes in western European society’s conceptions of human sciences and religion. These are related to the broader changes in mentality and ideology that occurred during the Enlightenment and the Romantic Era. I argue that a new understanding of the past created a need for new intellectual tools to answer complex historical questions, rendering the old explanatory models obsolete. Houses at iron production sites. A large number of iron production sites have been excavated in Eastern Norway in recent years. The remains of houses have been unearthed on several of these sites. These houses are mainly dated to the Medieval period (1000 – 1300 AD). This article deals with the question of why iron production was moved indoors during this period in parts of Norway. Archaeological research and heritage management policies in Norway. This article deals with the relationship between archaeological research and heritage management in Norway. Before 1990, research, education and management of the archaeological heritage were all organised under the University museums. From 1990 and up to 2001 heritage management has gradually been taken over by the counties and the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage, while education takes place at the institutes of the Faculties of Arts at the respective universities of Norway. This has led to an ever-widening gap between archaeological research and heritage management. The article argues that this process must end, and makes a number of suggestions as to how contact between the University archaeologists and the archaeologists in the heritage management sector can be bettered. Also discussed is the role the Directorate for Cultural Heritage in Norway can play, as well as the political signals found in the latest Report to the Norwegian parliament on heritage management. The author also discusses the role archaeologists from both the academic and heritage sector can play in the political field of heritage management. Scientific research and management – the handling of mass finds. Archaeological material is the primary source for research in our field of science. This fact should be reason enough to insist upon the protection and the expedient management of archaeological artefacts. Reports made over the last 20–30 years inform us of the state of stored archaeological material. However, no measures have been taken to correct the issues raised in these reports. The reports demonstrate that overwhelming numbers of finds, particularly from urban excavations, have contributed to the fact that several excavation projects have never finished their reports and their catalogues of finds. They also describe a situation where artefacts are corroding in the museum storerooms, waiting for conservation. We do have a responsibility to manage and protect archaeological artefacts. But, to manage does not mean saving everything uncritically, especially when that ultimately damages what we claim to protect; the artefact’s scientific value. In order to reach a more expedient and realistic management policy, representative selection based on quantity, type and context should be discussed further. If a representative selection is chosen as an alternative, what about the artefacts that are not selected? The cultural heritage law and ICOM’s ethical guidelines do not exclude the possibility of making such selections, nor do they exclude destruction. If this is chosen as a method of managing mass finds, we need to update the museum guidelines and demand a closer connection between excavation and scientific research. This would be the only acceptable way to proceed, especially if destruction of archaeological material is to be the ultimate result. A hillybilly’s speech for the Academy. The journal Primitive tider («Primitive Times») was created in an attempt to respond to two challenges in the archaeology of the 1990’s. Now, ten years later, one might ask whether these challenges are relevant enough to justify the existence of a journal with a strange and archaic name. International archaeology today is showing signs of finalism, as if at its sunset. Why are these tendencies to be found in present day archaeology? As a prolongation of such a question, the paper also discusses what might be implied by the term «international archaeology» and why Norwegian archaeologists are so concerned with achieving such a status. In this article I argue for a provincial archaeology. In this perspective lies a poorly exploited resource which could be of considerable benefit to the discipline of archaeology. In my opinion it is likely that such a «down home» strategy is a raison d’être for all the honourable qualities we attach to words such as «international», «current» and «updated». Archaeology is also anthropology. A personal approach. In the late 1980’s the general models of anthropology fell into disrepute among many archaeologists. While archaeology redefined itself as a contextual and hermeneutic discipline, the models of anthropology were considered obsolete and too general to inform us about the past. Thus, archaeology was cut off from universal and cross-cultural explanations. In this author’s opinion, the tension between the general and the specific is not only the paradox of any interpretation – it is a prerequisite for interpretations within the humanities, and the only possible way to interpret. Archaeology is thus not just a study of past events, but a natural prolongation of ‘the science of human beings’ or ‘comparative cultural studies’. While anthropology has provided synchronic perspectives, archaeology can to a greater degree provide time depth. It is argued that rather than ignoring the general aspects of past societies, archaeologists may bridge the universal and the historically unique and create an historically contingent anthropology. Journals, research history, and fishing nets. Journals reflect their time and the volumes of a journal through time shows trends that are a valuable source for the history of research. These are «real life» trends that show the complexity and intrinsic inertness of research traditions that tend to be lost in the struggle to simplify and characterize phases and borderlines. Such trends may be traced in the forty volumes of Norwegian Archaeological Review (1968–2007). This paper discusses how a journal reflects trends in its scientific environment, and the metaphor «fishing with net» is used. In a sense, fishing nets and journals are passive, catching a representative selection of what is swimming around. The catch may also be used to characterise the general habitat. Nonetheless, someone has decided the location and depth as well as the shape and size of the mesh – decisions that subsequently influence what is caught and what slips through. In fact, journals are active players in scientific dynamics. The metaphor also illustrates that the dynamics of change and development are usually found outside the net (or journal) in the general dynamics of the habitat, salinity, temperature, microbiology, or in the endless relationship between a scientific discipline and «what’s on» in its ideological, political, social, ontological, and epistemological surroundings. Scandinavian archaeology 1998-2018: an emigrant's view From the specific perspective of a foreigner who has lived and worked in Scandinavia for the last fifteen years, this paper contains observations and opinions about developments in Nordic archaeology since 1998, and speculates about some of the directions that it might take in the next decade. Among the topics discussed are the impact of ethical considerations in the practice of our work; the increasing emphasis on materiality; and the current interest in archaeology’s relationship to popular culture in a variety of forms, including a concern for the contemporary past. Through all this runs an expansion of Scandinavia’s professional contact with the broader archaeological world. The paper concludes with some rather pessimistic notes on the viable career prospects for archaeologists in Scandinavia – declining in some ways, expanding in some unexpected ones – and suggests that these are going to be the primary factor in determining the future of our discipline. Archaeology’s dance around material culture. The history of archaeological research may be described as a dance with material culture, where the partners take two steps forward, one to the side and one step backward. Although the recent interest in materiality has taken one step backward to recollect some earlier ideas, it also represents new steps forward in the study of associations between humans and the material.The concept of materiality focuses on the understanding that we and all that surrounds us are material, and that we mutually constitute ourselves and others (be they human or non-human) in ongoing relationships. It is argued that just as human identities may be said to be situated, so are the qualities of non-human agents, this suggesting that we may speak of situated materiality. Different qualities of an animal, a rock type or an artefact will be activated depending on the associations in which it is entangled. If we integrate such an understanding of materiality in studies of, for instance, the Northern Fenno-Scandiavian Stone Age, new perspectives on the changing qualities of slate and the perception of seals may be at hand. From test via sign and text to things? Or: Pimp my site? The paper discusses theoretical trends in archaeology from the 1980s and onwards. With the concept «buttonology» coined by the Swedish author August Strindberg in the late 19th century as a point of departure, the paper poses questions like: Where have we been, where are we, and where are we going? Is archaeology about the past as just «past»? Is it about cultural heritage, roots, and identity? Or, is it about the past as another place, movement and difference? The paper argues that the past is both about identity and difference. And as archaeologists working in the Nordic countries we should heighten our awareness about the fact that the population of the Nordic countries constitutes a tiny minority of the total inhabitants of the world. If we do not take care of, and promote, the cultural heritage of e.g. Norway, no one else will. Furthermore, the re-engagement with the archaeology of things, much inspired by the French philosopher Bruno Latour, must be discussed critically by the archeological community: Is it just a re-invention of the old archaeological wisdom: «We shape the things we build, thereafter they shape us» (a slogan of the industrial company Caterpillar)? Furthermore, we should also do a critical evaluation and analysis of whether new digital tools contribute not only to documentation and presentation of archaeology, but to the content of the narratives of the past. Are we pimping our sites (cf. the MTV-show «Pimp my ride») on such a scale and glossy magnitude that questions concerning source-criticism and taphonomy get lost in the process? Do digital tools change our conceptions and the stories that we tell about the past? Are we creating a digital archaeo-virtual cyber-past? Latour’s theoretical propositions about things and humans functioning as actants in networks constitute an interesting theoretical perspective for such an analysis. |
| Opprettet: 20. juli 2008, sist oppdatert 20. juli 2008. ©Primitive tider. |