Once Upon a Site - a story of archaeological knowledge production (original) (raw)
Related papers
Excavation to Storytelling: Perspectives from Archaeological Heritagescapes in Sweden
Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 2022
Recent research has revealed that interdisciplinary work combining archaeological and heritage practice continues to be limited by enduring what is possible in what archaeologists and heritage practitioners 'do'. Though archaeologists play an integral role in the discovery and interpretation of the past-providing the foundation for the heritage-making process, there is often position storytelling as a key to bridging the divide between archaeological practices in Sweden, we argue that a renewed focus on storytelling creates more dynamic and collaborative pathways to interpret, communicate and experience archaeological heritagescapes.
Man the Interpreter From Natural Science to Hermeneutics in Swedish Archaeology
Current Swedish Archaeology, 2000
The epistemological principles of natural science dominate the archae- ological discourse. Methods and theories developed exclusively for natural science are used in archaeology without further ado. Archaeological institutions employ experts on scientific methods. University departments, scholarship foundations and other institutions spend large amounts of money on projects and education with an explicit connection to natural science. The significance and outcome of such projects are hardly ever questioned. In this article the background of the present situation is analysed. It is also argued that archaeologists should pay more attention to life. It is in the ontology of life that we as archaeologists seek a significant meaning in history, not in explanations of present conditions constructed with methods developed for natural science. It is stated that archaeologists should tum to the first science — philosophy — if our mission, which is to explore the ontological aspects of life, shall become explicit in the discourse of archaeology.
Being through the past. Reflections on Swedish archaeology and heritage management
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.
Archaeological Dialogues, 2018
The paper ponders on the object of archaeology, called here 'the archaeological.' It argues that the existence of such an object is a necessary premise of the field and that ultimately it is on this object that the validity of all claims and arguments must rest. The paper suggests that the archaeological be conceived as a cultural phenomenon that consists in being disengaged from the social, an understanding that positions archaeology as a counterpart to the social sciences and the humanities, rather than a member in the same milieu. The first part of the paper focuses on the position of the archaeological with reference to the concepts of 'Nature' and 'Culture' that eventually leads us to a confrontation of archaeological statics with the dynamics of the world. Efforts to justify and understand archaeological statics, consequently, leads to the recognition of a constitutive distinction between buried and non-buried conditions, upon which the differentiation of the archaeological from the social is established.
Current Swedish Archaeology, 2024
In 2019 I claimed that archaeology suffers from 'digital escapism', a term that can denote two different phenomena. The first is the dismissal of artefacts as subjects of scientific interest and a shift in focus to digital methods as subjects of studies. The second is the use of big data in archaeology and the attempt to make the discipline more scientific (Stobiecka 2019). While the first understanding of digital escapism refers mainly to the proliferation of method-oriented studies that praise technologies and unveil a particular technosolutionism described by Jeremy Huggett in his paper, the second way of embracing digital escapism falls into what Tim Flohr Sørensen has described under the banner of 'new empiricism' (Sørensen 2017). Both tendencies have universalistic ambitions. A method-focused approach aims at developing means for pushing digital archaeology forward and making it more applicable-sometimes regardless of the costs, potential users, general availability and meaningfulness of purpose. The second dimension has far more serious consequences, suggesting that, as in 'new empiricism', all small details are lost in the quest for big data. Similar concerns are presented in an interesting and thought-provoking paper by Jeremy Huggett. He views the last thirty years of digital archaeology in realistic terms and accurately diagnoses the main challenges for
The key chain of archaeology is not stronger than its weakest link
"Debating contract led archaeology in Sweden: "We live in a changing world in which terms such as “cost efficiency” and “quality assurance” have become doxa. This is apparent to the ar- chaeological field in general and to development-led archaeology (DA) in particular. Since the new regulations for the DA in Sweden were an- nounced, I have noticed a rising discontent among my archaeological colleagues. This goes for researchers at the academic strongholds as well as those who work on a daily basis with DA at the National Her- itage Board, museums, foundations and firms, but also those situated at the county administrations in different parts of Sweden. All seem to agree that the current system is not functioning and that something must be done"."
Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica - Natural Sciences in Archaeology
In 1994, he founded there the University Centre of Experimental Archaeology and the regionally-active Society of Experimental Archaeology that brought together students and academics interested in experimental archaeology. His first long-term experimental project was focused on the construction of a basic settlement unit of first farmers in central Europe. An early Neolithic longhouse was built in 1994 in a typical Neolithic settlement location positioned on a gentle southern slope at the confluence of two streams near Librantice, a few kilometres to the east of Hradec Králové (Figure 1). The house, as a basic structure of a Neolithic settlement unit, was accompanied by reconstructions of structures documented in the archaeological record-hearths, ovens, storage pits, a clay pit, a well-and also by theoretically-assumed components of the economic hinterland. All the structures were constructed using replicas of Neolithic artefacts. The experimental field trips focused on the building of the house and other structures, and subsequently on their use, and the replication of a whole spectrum of production activities as documented in an Early Neolithic context, was organised over several summer and winter campaigns (Tichý, 2000a). The project was terminated in 1998 due to changes in the land ownership. The same year, the experimentally-used area was excavated with the aim to interpret depositional processes on the site. The basic result of the excavation was that most of the lost or discarded artefacts and debris remained laying on the surface and did not enter the sunken features. Neolithic pottery, in particular, has a low potential to enter the deposits in sunken features as it soon disintegrates on the open surface (Tichý, 2001a). 2. Centre of Experimental Archaeology and Archaeopark Všestary In 1996, R. Tichý, together with students of history, started to develop the Centre of Experimental Archaeology Všestary (CEA). The initial aim of the project was to create Volume X • Issue 1/2019 • Pages 97-104
Nordisk Museologi, 2013
The public's growing interest in archaeology in recent years is reflected in increased visits to excavation sites, part of a trend coined in the research as Public Archaeology. Public visits are often sponsored through museum outreach and education programmes for schools and families, offering diverse activities and encounters with archaeologists in the field. Yet there are few empirical studies of archaeologists' mediation practices in these settings and what such interactions may mean for visitors' learning about history and past cultures. This study empirically investigates a museum's archaeological excavation site as a setting for students' meaning making in the subject of history at the upper secondary level (17-19 years old).