Symposium report : experimental archaeology - method and future : Gällö 24-25 September 1986
Olausson, Deborah
Fornvännen 1988(83), s. 112-114
http://kulturarvsdata.se/raa/fornvannen/html/1988_112 Ingår i: samla.raa.se
Kongresser
Symposium report Experimental archaeology — method and future Gällö 2 4 - 2 5 September 1986
There is a growing interest in the use of prac- tical trials and the reconstruction of prehistoric handicrafts in Sweden. This interest is manifested in the numerous prehistoric centers (Sw. " f o r n b y a r " ) which have sprung up in various parts of the country (cf. Forntida teknik 1985, Nr. 10). Neverthdess, it can also be sug- gested that there is some uncertainty as to what the goals of practical research should be, and of its place in the discipline of archaeology. T h e symposium held in Gällö was organised by the Institute for Prehistoric Technology (Institut för förhistorisk teknologi) to enable those engaged in this field to meet and discuss both the present and the future of this type of ac- tivity.
T h e participants (about 50) were a rather heterogenous group linked by an interest in practical archaeology. Representatives from most of the existing prehistoric centers in Swe- den, and graduates from the courses in pre- historic technology organized by the Institute at Bäckedals Folkhögskola, were in the majori- ty. T h e comparativdy small n u m b e r of repre- sentatives from the académie institutions in Sweden probably rellects the minor role this approach has so far played in such an environ- ment. Attendance was mostly Swedish and Danish, which indicates the weaker interest in this kind of activity in Norway and Finland.
T h e first day's program was devoted to pre- sentations by six invited "experimentalists" of their work and their thoughts about experimen- tal archaeology. Following a brief welcome by Lars R u m a r from Föreningen Norden, Tomas Johansson spöke on the theme "Experimental ar-
chaeology — transitory trend or topic of the future". T h e presentation included a glimpse into the activities of the Institute for Prehistoric Technology and established the theme for the rest of the symposium. T h e author followed with a discussion of experimental archaeology
in the ideal and in practice, illustrated with ex- amples from her research on Neolithie axes.
She stressed that the term " e x p e r i m e n t "
should be reserved for testing hypotheses under conditions of control, although she maintained that less rigorously designed projects also have a place in the study of prehistoric lifeways.
Frands Herschends presentation centered on his work with reconstrueting the fortification and houses at Eketorp on the island of Öland.
Herschend suggested that attempting such reconstruction allows archaeologists to con- sider the question of why prehistoric people behaved in a certain way — to evaluate if their actions were rational. He also noted that trying out prehistoric tasks can cause the archaeo- logist to look at the archaeological record in a different way.
U n f o r t u n a t d y Kjel Knutsson, scheduled as the next speaker, was unable to attend. In his place Seren Nancke-Krogh spöke briefly of his ex- perience with practical trials, and Roger Engelmark described the experimental farm at Baggböle in northern Sweden.
T h e afternoon session was devoted to presen- tations by Danish colleagues. E. Benner Larsson of the School of Conservation in Copenhagen described his work with investigating and documenting manufacturing traces on prehistoric objects. T h e ability to identify in- dividual craftsmen or workshops has ramifica- tions for locating workshops and for discussing exchange. Next Bo Madsen described his work with flint, i n d u d i n g the identification of traces of manufacture and axe grinding experiments.
Madsen's many years of experience with flint- knapping, in combination with formål training in archaeology, give him unique opportunities for making concrete statements about many questions about stone age technology of interest to archaeologists. Seren Vadstrup, an architect by profession, spöke of his experiences with recon-
l-mmmm-n 83 (1938)
Kongresser 113
structing Viking craft. Vadstrup's presentation reflected his particular area of interest, as it em- phasized the practical difficulties involved in building a boat for which the only blueprint may be rows of rivets and impressions left by wooden planks.
T h e next event on the program was to have been a ride on the newly completed replica of the boat from Välsgärde 14. This boat represents a 9th century craft designed for in- land waterways. It was built with copies of 9th century tools under the direction of Jan Bill. Un- fortunatdy the boat could not be launched in time for the symposium. Neverthdess we gain- ed good insight into the project through J a n Bill's slide presentation and from a visit to the
" s h i p y a r d " on the shore of the lake Revsunds- sjön.
T h e second day of the symposium was devoted to discussion, with Anna-Lena Sege- stam of Ekehagens Forntidsby acting as mode- rator. T h e discussion centered around general questions, circulated to the participants in ad- vance, about the past and future of experimen- tal archaeology.
Knut Odner of the Department of Social An- thropology at the University of Oslo had been invited to act as critic at the symposium. H e opened the day's discussion with a few pro- vocative and timely comments. O d n e r caution- ed against letting exploration into prehistoric technology become an end in itself. As a social anthropologist, he found that the presentations of the previous day had not reflected a wish to understand prehistoric society, which he saw as a major goal for archaeologists as cultural historians. He also cautioned against isolation from the rest of archaeology. H e suggested that by letting reconstruction become an end in itself (a possible danger of the prehistoric centers) we are m e r d y building a new kind of amusement park.
T h e general discussion which followed was naturally colored by these remarks, at the same time as it centered around the six discussion points. There was general agreement that
"prehistoric technology" (Sw. "forntida tek- n i k " ) is a more appropriate label for the activi- ty of trying to rediscover and preserve pre- historic handicrafts than the term "experimen-
tal archaeology". We also agreed that experi- mental archaeology cannot and should not be a separate branch of archaeology, but rather is one of many methods for arriving at knowledge about prehistory.
There was also discussion about problems of generalising on the basis of results from prac- tical trials. Tomas Johansson pointed out that generalisations in time and space are a com- mon and accepted part of traditional ar- chaeology. T h e practical and theoretical prob- lems connected with documentation were also aired, although Johansson's suggestion that film/video documentation should in some cases replace (rather than supplement) a written pre- sentation did not gain wide support. H e also described plans for a project by the Institute for Prehistoric Technology to record non-indus- trial technologies worldwide before they disap- pear. We did agree that documentation was an important part of any project involving pre- historic technology. T h e last question to be taken up dealt with the limits to experimental archaeology. Here the discussion centered around whether the experimental archaeo- logist himself/herself should perform all the ac- tivities being investigated. Greater objectivity is possible if he does not, but this may occur at the expense of a loss of insigt gained by ex- perience. There is however a great deal of dif- ference between being able to perform a task oneself and becoming an expert at the task. T h e former may be sufficient for gaining the per- sonal insight which can be valuable in evaluating a practical experiment, while perfection of the latter may require years which can better be spent more wisely. When prac- ticing more traditional archaeology we are not hesitant to rely on experts — why should we not do so as experimental archaeologists as well?
T h e symposium adjourned without having reached any concrete decisions about the future of experimental archaeology. However one result to come out of the symposium was the founding of a working group composed of rep- resentatives from the existing prehistoric centers in Sweden. T h e participants found it both useful and stimulating to have had an op- portunity to meet and discuss areas of mutual concern. We were thankful to Tomas Johansson
Fornvännen 83 (1988)
114 Kongresser
of the Institute for Prehistoric Technology for part of the archaeological community and will taking the initiative for the symposium, and to
Anna-Lena Segestam for seeing to it that all the practical arrangements worked smoothly. It is to be hoped that the publication of the sym- posium, planned as an issue in the Institute's publication Forntida teknik, will be read by a large
lead to a wider acceptance of experimental ar- chaeology.
Deborah Olausson Lunds universitets Historiska museum Krafts torg 1, 223 50 Lund
Den internationella arkeologkongressen i Mainz 1987
För 1800-talets arkeologer blev kongresserna ett viktigt forum för kommunikation inom äm- nesområdet och för tvärvetenskapliga kontak- ter. Naturforskarmöten hölls internationellt frän och med 1828, då det första ägde rum i Ber- lin. Sven Nilsson, som bekant både naturfors- kare och arkeolog, var med om att organisera nordiska naturforskarmöten, första gången
1839. Naturforskarmötena inspirerade till an- ordnandet av en serie internationella kongres- ser för antropologi och arkeologi, från och med
1860-talet till en bra bit in på 1900-talet. Bland annat genom Sven Nilssons dagboksanteck- ningar får man en uppfattning om den betydel- se som kongresserna hade för kunskapssprid- ning och internationell kontakt under en tid då senare tiders kommunikationer ännu inte var utbyggda. Kongresserna var ett fritt forum öp- pet för alla forskare och intresserade. Debatten var livlig och gällde kunskapsproblem och fors- karresultat.
För arkeologerna fick kongresserna en ny re- nässans på 1900-talet då man vid tiden för det första världskriget och under mellankrigstiden tog upp dels nordiska arkeologmöten, det första i Kristiania 1916, dels internationella arkeolog- kongresser. Vid en internationell konferens i Bern 1931 tog en internationell arkeologkon- gress form. Ett förslag till en Congrés interna- tional des scienees préhistoriques et protohisto- riques presenterades av Robert Lantier. På så sätt tillkom de nuvarande internationella arkeo- logkongresserna.
Före senaste kriget hölls den första i London
1932 och den andra i Oslo 1936. De omtalas — inte minst Oslokongressen — som en succé både vetenskapligt och för de kontakter som där etablerades. Med andra världskriget skedde ett avbrott men redan 1950 togs kongresserna upp igen. De inleddes då av den internationella ar- keologkongressen i Zurich, den oförglömmdi- ga, som på ett suveränt sätt organiserades och genomfördes av Emil Vogt. Det var inte någon särskilt stor kongress. Den var lagom för att forskare från olika länder och världsdelar skulle kunna återknyta kontakterna som brutits av kriget och för att kontakterna skulle etableras och utvecklas. Det var första gången j a g själv deltog i en internationell arkeologisk kongress.
J a g fick där en stor del av de forskarkontakter som varit av den största betydelse genom åren.
De följande kongresserna i regi av Union Inter- nationale des scienees préhistoriques et proto- historiques har j a g haft förmånen att bevista:
M a d r i d 1954, H a m b u r g 1958, Rom 1962, Prag 1966, Belgrad 1971, Nice 1976, Mexico City 1981 och nu senast Mainz 1987.
Det är många problem med världskongresser i ett föränderligt samhälle. M a n kan anföra några som motverkar intentionerna. Kongres- serna blir kanske för stora och mångfalden av material och problemställningar blir alltför överväldigande. Motsättningar av politisk art försvårar och hotar ett fritt deltagande. Det var det sistnämnda som hände en planerad kon- gress i Southampton—London 1986 och som gjorde att den fick en speciell karaktär och att den planerade UlSPP-kongressen, den X I , i
Fornvännen 83 (1988)
