 |
archaeology
is a source of information about the past; our own past, “the here and then” so to say. Who do we want to have been? And how do we “know” that? Archaeology provides us with information about |
| the daily life of the past, of ordinary people, but as well about the very high and very low class people. It is a kind of “monkey watching” and as well: “how did people live back then without electricity, without all the comforts we now have? Were they smarter because they were more inventive with the simple means they had? Or were people back then more backward because they hadn’t invented yet all those things we now ...?” |
| “Who do we want to have been” also counts for the public. We can understand each other better if we know our own backgrounds, also those of our parents and ancestors. Of course we live in the present and not in the past. We can’t relive the past at all, but we can learn from it. Often this is even fun, both for the young and old. The public is very often quite interested, because the past is something personal, something very near. And a presentation with a low threshold is in that case an excellent means to bring the past closer by. |
|
|
| ARTICLES: IMAGINATIONS OF THE PAST, ARCHAEOLOGY AND RECONSTRUCTION - BOOK REVIEW |
| Posted 14 08 2008 by Roeland Paardekooper, written in 2005 |
Introduction
Bodil Petersson, a Swedish archaeologist, wrote a PhD, reflecting on archaeological (re)constructions and their functions, forms and goals as well as their relation to archaeology. The book is written about the Scandinavian situation and for a Scandinavian public, as it is in Swedish.
| Imaginations of the Past, Archaeology and Reconstruction - Book Cover.
Click to enlarge |
The author visited over 100 projects or events and collected data about another 200. In these, this can clearly be seen as a good test case, which results can be discussed in a wider, European view. The issues she is addressing, you will find one way or the other in every archaeological open air centre or any other archaeological (re)construction anywhere in Europe.
Mrs Petersson is connected to the Institute for Archaeology and Antique History of the University in Lund, Sweden. Over the past years, she worked on a PhD concerning archaeological open air centres, ships and events in Scandinavia.
She marks the importance of such centres, products and activities, both for research as for popularisation. Imaginations of the past are mediated 'through reconstruction'. Petersson sheds light on the field from three different directions: politics, knowledge and adventure.
Reconstructions themselves ("creative interpretation emanating from the values of the present day") can be divided between: settlement, transport and event. The author has a large collection of shortlists.
Clearly, Petersson takes a stand as an observer and a reviewer. She is outside this world, even though she moves around it like a consumer. Although if she would have taken up another role of active participant or privileged visitor (discussing things directly with the managers), this would have strengthened her work, the limitations which a PhD sets would in that case easily be crossed. Maybe, however, EXARC could invite her to discuss the points she made?
Already in the first pages, Petersson points to some of the contrasts she had to struggle with:
- scientific versus humanistic;
- showing versus proving;
- identification versus alienation;
- physical reconstructions versus mental imaginations.
She tries to find a hold when describing the different (re)constructions or models and their role by leaning on architectural degrees in building with original material or information: conserve - renovate copy - reconstruct. When mentioning restoring, she does not forget to mention the difference between restoring 'in stile' (building a certain type of house) or restoring 'antiquarian' (building a specific house). |
Histories of reconstruction
In the 18th century, 'theme parks' were built by the European upper class. They formed a mixture of beauty, amazement and temptation in an engineered landscape with arranged experiences.
An interesting example is Jægerspris on Sjælland, Denmark. On the grounds of the summer residence of the royal Danish family grave hills and other 'ancient' monuments were established or 'restored' and showed King Frederik as heir of the qualities and virtues of his ancestors.
An old experiment which is brought to light is the attempt to transport ships over land in about 1690. It was not the primitiveness of the people back then which was paid attention to, the abilities and professionalism was much more underlined. In experiments, possibilities were explored and tested.
Experiments in the 19th century helped underlining the possibility of the Three Period System (Müller 1897). Reconstruction based on scientific evidence played a role in the Scandinavian participation in World Exhibitions around 1900 and happenings like the Baltic Exhibition in 1914 in Malmö. Especially in Sweden, the Hembygdsföreningen or 'Local Heritage Movement' was strong around the turn of that century, trying to prevent the population from emigrating which they did en masse, running away from poverty to the States and other 'paradises'. The local heritage movement tried to show the idyllic (Rousseau like) way of life and traditional values.
| Jaegerspris, illustration taken from Petersson, p. 47.
Click to enlarge |
Petersson does not merely give a description of simple acts; it was a history, hung up to a few persons which she very much likes to describe. She places them in their time and environment; take for example the journalist Ernst Klein who set up a 'Stone Age Life Experiment' which must have inspired quite a lot of TV series like the BBC 'surviving the Iron Age' which is set in an 'Iron Age' village but is actually about social interaction rather than life in prehistory. Nice to know, Klein was later employed at Skansen in Stockholm as head of pedagogic.
A weakness which evolves in the later chapters is that Petersson does not follow this line up to the present - most people are still alive. All projects started after 1960 are merely technically described. We all know that - just like in the past - the success of reconstructions and experimental archaeology in Scandinavia (or Europe) over the past few decades depends on individuals. Describing these protagonists and their interactions would help the reader understanding the how and why of the present situation. It is for example nice to know the history of Hans-Ole Hansen, but after the first few years of his activities, in the book, no word is describing the development around him or the developments of Lejre itself, when he was still there and after he left.
What we can learn of is Petersson's description of the attitude in the 1890s to (what we nowadays call 'traditional') open air museums compared to the older (or 'old fashioned') show case museums has clear similarities to the (non) acceptance of archaeological open air centres present. When Skansen was set up, it was not thought to be moving within scientific borders, but within the world of art. This did not stand the ambition in the way to fill the environments in Skansen and its followers with life and craft.
The Raison d'Être of showcase museums lies in being real. Their essence is the Authentic, not the (Re)constructed. With this in mind, (re)constructions can be seen as a kind of pseudo phenomenon without legitimating. But instead, they complement the museums' artefact-centred prehistory by adding the sense to have visited the past, a sensation which no single artefact museum can offer.
If one argues, the risk exists that the public will take the presented past in an archaeological open air centre, full of (re)constructions for real (Schmidt 1995, 2003), doesn't the same danger exist in a show case museum? Even there, A story of the past is presented, not The story. Who is blaming whom?
Petersson realised while working on her thesis, established archaeologists showed less interest in (re)constructions as students and PhD students did. But archaeology is more than excavation and analysis of the finds. Sure, in archaeological open air centres, presentations of the past cannot be so tightly controlled as in a showcase museum. Reconstructions conquer more and more space in presenting the past. The public already accepted these centres decades ago: Lejre will celebrate its 40 year Jubilee in 2004. It still takes time to have the establishment accepting the phenomenon.
If we would read Petersson's descriptions of archaeological open air centres, the message might be: "Rousseau is still alive and living in a newly built Stone Age hut". Nowhere she found a (re)construction of a dark, barbaric and primitive past. The question "what do we want to have been" (Sommer 1999, for example) seems to be already answered uniformly. General (mistaken) assumptions about the past resurface time after time. Visitors to archaeological open air centres might think, it was a hard laborious life back then and one lived closer and more in balance with nature, to name just a few.
One of the qualities of this thesis is that the author takes 'levendegørelse' (translated as 'animation', both including living history and pedagogic) as a meaningful aspect of the use of (re)constructions. Because of these very non-museum aspects, many traditional archaeologists turn away from (re)constructions as animation would be too far apart from science.
The 17th and 18th century can be seen in the light of aristocratic activities, shedding a romantic, Rousseau like image. The activities in the 19th and 20th century had a more nationalistic character, when the three nations each had their own way:
- Denmark: experiments with a technological background;
- Sweden: more into animating museums like Skansen, not solving detailed questions but focussing on atmosphere and nostalgia;
- Norway: specialised in adventurous maritime travels.
his chapter fits well next to the description of the history of experimental archaeology in Germany until the end of the 1980s (Weiner 1991). Hopefully sooner or later this kind of stories can be interconnected to one European story. It is important to see where 'we' came from. |
Reconstruction and politics
"One cannot recreate an image of the past without weaving an image of the present into it" (Petersson, p. 123). This chapter is generally speaking "politically correct" written, no sharp edges which can hurt or which call for debate: a missed chance.
It is nice to know, half of the total of 303 projects and activities in Scandinavia which Petersson has registered in her index has the Vikings as theme: the Danish boat builders, the Swedish entrepreneurs and the Norwegian adventurers.
| Nordic Vikings in Europe, illustration taken from Petersson, p. 131.
Click to enlarge |
In this chapter, the author describes the at first sight obvious kind of politics which lead to reconstructions. Unfortunately, her choice of examples here is limited to the likewise obvious centres. Would other examples have led to more surprises? Well, honestly, if politics are involved, surprises are most often far fetched. Less known centres might have offered the readers just as much insight in the mechanisms of politics and money.
Petersson is in her description of projects not the judge who says whether a (re)construction is "right" or is used by people, sensitive to quality. Quality, Petersson claims in general, lies not in the economic base or in whether a centre is focussed on education or tourism. It lies in the engagement of the people involved and in with which knowledge and enthusiasm they work. The projects themselves are very eager to find out if they do it "right" and could very much use a "quality seal" but how to define quality? EXARC is working with this difficult problem (www.exarc.net ).
But considering the less obvious politic mechanisms: in describing the plans for a King's Hall at the Lejre Centre, some more inside information on the politics would have strengthened her argumentation. Sure, the plans for the Hall in itself touch upon national sentiments, but did Petersson ever wonder why after 12 years of talking and writing, still nothing is built?
A well chosen example, however, is the Dybbøl Banke Project, on the 1864-65 Danish-Prussian battlefields. This is about national heritage, about the national Danish Conscience. The subject and emotions can be very much charged by the way this chapter of history is set to life again. But Hans-Ole Hansen, the man behind Dybbøl Banke did not turn it into a Disney Land Park.
The European perspective is poorly given attention to in this book. The choice for a certain (pre) historic period alone was never the only reason the EU supported a project or a network. EU projects are often about cross-border cooperation. The value of the phrase 'culture' in European circles should not be overestimated.
Petersson could have chosen to see what exactly the 'European Added Value' of different supported EU projects was. Unfortunately, no criticism towards the EU is paid or to the way some centres try to copy and paste political phrases into their proposals in order to be rewarded well. Petersson concludes: "reconstruction could as well function as support for a common European culture, in which we all stand together against the rest of the world" (Petersson, p 204-205). Maybe, she projects an all-Scandinavian image upon the whole of Europe. The EU focus is however more on inward binding Europealism than on outward segregating.
Including a political message into your open air centre, your ship project or manifestation will strengthen the possibilities for support and success. That is a clear message, but we know that. |
Dimensions of knowledge
Can one gain knowledge through reconstruction? And what is it like in such a case? The author defines the different kinds of knowledge as:
- related to research;
- related to education or mediation;
- related to animation.
This chapter is about knowledge and experience, the struggle for the (re)constructor's experience to be heard.
There is a difference between knowledge learnt from books and knowledge gained by experience, not solely captured in words (see Godal 2001). The latter enters the non-graspable realms of intuition. The tension between these two kinds of knowledge often plays a role in defining the kind or level of experimentation.
| Eketorp, illustration taken from Petersson, p. 272-275.
Click to enlarge |
However, Petersson is not solely interested in experimentation, but in (re)construction, being between research and mediation. (Re)construction does not solely serve science. In (re)constructional projects, scientific archaeology loses its monopoly on the past, There are more objectives than just that. Archaeologists involved in (re)constructing will realise that giving up that monopoly is rewarded with synergy. Understanding the past goes beyond explaining it. Explaining can be tried with presenting lectures and books. Understanding follows from experimenting, experiencing and reconstructing.
Many principal questions about (re)construction and knowledge can be discerned in the Eketorp project in Sweden. It started off as a scientific project of the State Archaeological Service, was heavily disputed and discussed on the way. It would be very worth while if anybody could describe the (hi)story of the Eketorp project in detail in English, as many lessons are to be learnt. Even Petersson can do no more in her PhD than to touch upon varying points, like:
- Does a (re)construction have any use at all?
- What is the goal of (re)constructing? Is it research, education, tourism or adventure?
- What are the starting points for this new creation?
- Does it generate new knowledge or does it reproduce established knowledge?
- Which view on knowledge do the individual (re)constructions mediate? Is it about differentiating between different ideals of knowledge?
- What does the contact between research and mediation look like?
- What does the word 'authenticity' stand for in relation to (re)construction?
Looking at other projects, the author sees no clear border between what could be defined as knowledge on the one end and adventure on the other. One can see things from an experimental, technologic point of view ("authenticity" - nature science) or can focus on the action, the use, the "travel" ("experience" - humaniora). Clearly there are different ideals of knowledge.
"The experimental scientific tradition wants to keep the working process hypothesis - test - result upright. But how should this hypothesis look like when one formulates how Vikings experienced travelling east - and what would be the result? Can the experiment be repeated? Will a novel be written or a report?" (Petersson, p 231). "Many who work with experiment and reconstruction within archaeology experience a lot, but there are no accepted ways on how to handle and describe experiences. Thus, they cannot be integrated in the overall work. This what can be described should preferably be measurable and weighable." (Petersson, p. 233-234).
The author writes from a Swedish point of view, clearly arguing against a pure nature scientific approach as pursued by many universities. In a way she stands up for Swedes like Bengt Edgren and Tomas Johansson, following a more humanistic approach. The humanistic reconstruction focuses on man, action and experience (see for similarities in Tilley 1994).
Will we be able to combine thought and action in a single understanding of knowledge? We should, as an experiment is an action itself, while a (re)construction is mere by product.
In many professions (architecture, craft, music) a strict professional knowledge is present. None of these abilities however can be practised without empathy and experience. In a (re)construction too, one needs both technique and using ones senses. One needs thinking tools to help understand their combination. Craft as an important ingredient of (re)construction is not just to be analysed and divided into technical and cultural factors. It is not just about rational intelligence.
Popularisation is the final step in archaeological work, be it best executed by educational experts and PR professionals. Again, the past is not the monopoly of scientific archaeologists. But can a presentation be too vulgar, too much amusement and too little education? Is an archaeological open air centre - in contrast to showcase museums - more about folk culture than about 'fine culture, about the elite? And if so, is that a problem? The traditional museums will experience problems with modern day tourism, which is shifting from passive consuming towards active learning.
The heavy transition between science and education is a major point for Petersson. In their logo, the European network of archaeological open air centres EXARC uses a bridge - not just because it looks nice. It is this bridging the gap between those researching and those mediating. We have to set up and keep this bridge in good condition together.
Even in Renaissance, there was heavy opposition against the experimental method as it involved handwork, operations. One cannot separate research and mediation in two separate fields. Even at Butser farm, UK it turned out to become a joint-venture.
One not without the other.
The relation between research and mediation is often a one way street, but there is no clear border between the one and the other activity, if you are just willing to accept input by others. One could outline a circle where popular science creates interest which leads to new research, bringing new knowledge which needs to be mediated again.
Petersson sees possibilities and chances for (re)constructions:
- Experimental archaeology is meant to show something, not to prove anything. Uncertainty is an important aspect of experimental archaeology as well as (re)constructions;
- Reconstructions are not fit as illustration of sequences, of changes and continuity over time; aspects which do are important to quite some archaeologists; A moment in time simply cannot be turned into a time line. A (re)construction has another time perspective.
- The spatial aspect: one can move around inside and outside a (re)construction. No other kind of mediation can give the three dimensional space to imagine travelling into the past, possibly even including landscape.
|
Time-travelling adventures
Adventures as Petersson describes are much about 'the right scenery' and 'the right experience'. Authenticity in props and attitude of the actors in role play are highly valued. Authenticity is prioritised by professionals. It is however not the authenticity of the product which is important (the house, the artefact): the public is looking for an authentic experience.
In this last of her large chapters, Petersson argues that "fun 'n games" are something, everybody gets involved in. Even science can be seen as playing a game. Adventure and travel leads to discovery and even though the author claims the contrary, it does lead as well to escapism.
| "Fortidsfamilie" in Dejbjerg Jernalder, Jutland, Denmark. Picture from Petersson, p. 290.
Click to enlarge |
Theme parks, like Disney World or Aqua Park function as props and sceneries for a travel towards another time and place, away from the daily life, into a reserve, be it Duck City, a 19th century Gold-rush scene or an Viking Age ship yard.
Time travel (if visitors experience it this way) with archaeological (re)constructions have both spatial as mental ingredients. Different kinds of (re)constructions (buildings, ships and events) include different aspects of time travel, the author argues.
- Buildings are about living in one place, to manage typical actions to that specific time frame;
- Transport includes ideas like adventurous Viking ship travels to the East or evening circumnavigating the globe;
- Actions or events include markets, festivals, tournaments and processions. These events are not just extraordinary - outside the normal life, but in some cases even (according to Petersson) extravagant.
Living history or re-enactment in the UK often is about war and conflict, experienced in a playful manner. In Scandinavia the more peaceful daily life gets as much attention as the fighting does. "Role play as an instrument in education" is an idea the rest of Europe could think of putting to practice as well.
"Time travel" - from hobby to life style - involves more people every year. In 2002, Foteviken Museum estimated the population of "modern Vikings" in Europe between three and four thousand. To them, authenticity is not priority, but one owns ability to imagine.
Petersson spends a large part of her essay on the adventure of time travel with an expose, a long (40 pages) time travel "prehistory up to the Middle Ages according to archaeological open air centres". The long list is interesting in itself but does not contribute to her argumentation here as it would in any other chapter. It can be used to pick examples from to convince your local politicians.
She characterises the different "era's" in open air centres:
- Iron Age: 'fortidsfamilier', families spending their holidays in Iron Age' houses and clothing
- Viking Age: re-enactment
- Middle Ages: Live action role play
Conclusion
Petersson focuses on the Politician, the archaeologist, the constructor or hobbyist, the educator and the adventurer. If she would have focussed as well on the visitor (the role she so often took upon her), she would realise another completely other set of items become meaningful: visitors have other goals when coming to such a project or taking part in an event. However, there are limitations to a PhD.
| Bodil Petersson as visitor to Skaftekarr Iron Age Village on Oland, Sweden. Picture from Petersson, p. 363.
Click to enlarge |
The positive aspects of archaeological open air centres have been described in detail in the book itself. An important weakness is the following. The character of the presentation in open air centres, involving all senses, is not focussed on alienating or creating a distance. The public is not stimulated to question the presentation but instead, identifies with it. (Re)constructors would gain strength if they would leave the public with questions.
One might take in account that because of the actual self-sufficient character of most of these centres (in contradiction to showcase museums) it is a necessity to be popular and to mediate a popular past. Are (re)constructions a sort of free floating uncontrollable phenomenon? Is a (re)construction about making money, doing research or about education?
It involves every kind of people, from hard core archaeologist to teacher, from craftsman to New-Age adept. This broad involvement is a strength. Archaeological open air centres are a great stage, a right instrument to mediate between archaeology and the public.
Clearly, (re)constructions mirror the present. The very carefulness which marks archaeological publications about the past is a weakness in itself. It turns the past in kind of archetype descriptions of periods ("the heroic Viking Age"). However, in threir turn "reconstructions can also constructively turn established representations upside down".
It gets about time that that happens. |
Book information
Bodil PETERSSON (2003): Föreställningar om det Förflutna. Arkeologi och rekonstruktion, Nordic Academic Press (Lund) ISBN 91-89116-48-8, 496 pp, engl. summary: Imaginations of the past. SEK 270 (about € 30), numerous photographs
Published by Nordic Academic press
www.nordicacademicpress.com |
|
|
