Eighteenth-century visions of the Stone Age – Stone artefacts and the concept of the furthest past in theses published at the Academy of Turku in 1700–1828 (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Journal of Archaeology, 2006
It is usually assumed by historians of archaeology that the ‘concept of prehistory’ and the terms ‘prehistoric’ and ‘prehistorian’ first appeared in Britain and/or France in the mid-nineteenth century. This contribution demonstrates that the Scandinavian equivalent terms forhistorisk and förhistorisk were in use substantially earlier, appearing in print first in 1834. Initial usage by Molbech differed slightly from that of the present day, but within three years the modern usage had been developed. The concept of prehistory was first developed at the same time by C.J. Thomsen, though he did not use the word. It was used more frequently in the nationalism debates of the 1840s, particularly by J.J.A. Worsaae. One of the other protagonists, the Norwegian Peter Andreas Munch, was probably responsible for introducing the concept to Daniel Wilson in 1849, and suggesting that an English equivalent to forhistorisk was required.
The political Stone Age. Prehistoric ethnicities and Finnish national narratives
Fornvännen 118, 2023
The article examines depictions of the Stone Age in two Finnish books aimed at both archaeologists and the public: Suomen kansan esihistoria (1894) by Väinö Wallin (Voionmaa), a historian and Social Democratic politician, and Suomen muinaisuus (1931) by A. M. Tallgren, the first professor of archaeology at the University of Helsinki. The Stone Age is examined from the viewpoint of identifying narratives related to the idea of the Finnish nation and the concept of Finnishness. The analysed texts reveal different strategies of connecting the Stone Age to the Finnish past, depending on the authors' respective opinions about the ethnicity of the Stone Age population. These opinions were affected by notions of cultural and racial hierarchies and the pressure to construct a national past. Late 19 th-century-early 20 th-century discussions and tensions regarding Finns, Sámi, and Scandinavians were reflected onto the past, and even the remote, ethnically ambiguous Stone Age was not left outside history politics. Some lasting "historical master narratives" about the Stone Age in Finland were created during the early 20 th century, which continue to affect its depictions even today.
THE MATTER OF PREHISTORY: PAPERS IN HONOR
Modes of Production Revisited, 2020
Encouraged by Antonio Gilman, archaeology has witnessed a partial return to materialist theories based on Modes of Production. Modes should never be thought of as a new typology; rather they are models that define political processes ground- ed in material conditions that result in contrasting social formations. These Modes can then be used to compare cases across prehistory and history
To let mute stones speak – on the becoming of archaeology.
In: Dodd, James & Meijer, Ellen (eds.). Giving the Past a Future. Essays in Archaeology and Rock Art Studies in Honour of Dr. Phil. h.c. Gerhard Milstreu. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2018
This article presents some thoughts on the emergence of the archaeological science in the 18th century. My starting point is the debate that occurred in the wake of the discovery of rock art in the famous Bronze Age cairn Bredarör on Kivik in Scania, southern Sweden. Here we find one of the first documented attempts to formulate an archaeological method based on the study of prehistory without explicit support from historical sources – a brave attempt ‘to let mute stones speak’. The authors of this attempt, Anders Forssenius and Sven Lagerbring, introduced an innovative comparative dating method and a novel use of distribution maps. Either way, this bold attempt to formulate a free-standing archaeological method for the study of prehistory did not attain any direct followers, and it was several decades before these methods were revisited again.
In Search of a Nordic Idea? The first five Nordic Meetings of Archaeologists 1916 - 1927
Fennoscandia archaeologica, 2016
International congresses of archaeology ceased abruptly after the outbreak of the First World War. The first Nordic Meeting of Archaeologists was held in 1916 in Kristiania (Norway). The first five meetings are analysed in this study. From the very beginning, these meetings were highly significant both for introducing new finds and for bringing interpretations under discussion. Also methodological questions, especially those relating to scientific methods, were included in the programmes. On the other hand, archaeological theory was not dealt with, nor was there any unanimity on theoretical questions. Diffusionist explanation models dominated the presentations, but a considerable plurality of views was allowed. Ideological connotations can be observed in several papers and excursions, but ethnic questions were relatively marginal. The various attempts to discover a common Nordic idea at the meetings did not lead to significant results. On a practical level, the meetings proved to be important from the beginning.