+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Nationally owned heritage (/showthread.php?tid=454)
Pages:
1
2
Nationally owned heritage - troll - 19th February 2007
Seems that in Sweden, all archaeology is seen as publically owned property.I confess at the outset that I have no real impression of just how this works or otherwise-anyone? but it just strikes me that Swedens perception of the intrinsic social value of their archaeology is a good start.When so much of our archaeology is being eaten through development and reduced to a4 paper reports, I just wondered how the Swedish system works or, not.Does the concept of public ownership also include consultation and accountability to the public? Does the state provide a bottomless purse (no sleep till natural
) or does it err on the side of preservation in situ? Just how would such a shift in policy over here affect our perception of archaeological value? Is public ownership of archaeology desirable? There just seems to be such an ideological contrast between Sweden who seem to value their nations identity and ours, where we compete to remove it.:face-huh:..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Nationally owned heritage - 1man1desk - 19th February 2007
I did discuss this with a Swedish archaeologist quite a number of years ago.
As far as I remember (and I may be mis-remembering), the system then was that any archaeological site was automatically given protected status as soon as it was discovered - even if that discovery took place during construction work. The protection was less than for a SAM in the UK, but more than for an SMR site.
That sounds pretty good in principle, but it also carries risks for the archaeology. By all accounts, there was a strong tendency for people to destroy archaeological remains as fast as they could, before they came to the attention of the authorities.
I would be very interested to hear from anyone with more reliable and up-to-date information.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Nationally owned heritage - kevin wooldridge - 19th February 2007
I happpen to work in Scandinavia and think that whilst Norwegian and Swedish heritage protection has a lot going for it, it also has its disadvantages (very much like the situation in the UK and Ireland).
Not so sure about suggestions that Swedish protected sites are owned by the state either. I don't think Swedish archaeological site protection changes the ownership of the land (or purchases it), it just protects the remains. (Much the same as UK law). Mind you a Norwegian farmer did get fined close to 1 million kroner (£80,000) last year for trashing a burial mound after being told specifically by the county archaeologist to leave it alone. So maybe there is a lesson to be learnt there...
But why not read what a local archaeologist thinks. Check out Dr Martin Rundkvist's fantastic Swedish archblog (Aardvarchaeology) at
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/archaeology/index.php?page=3
for a 'local' opinion. In English (mainly).
Nationally owned heritage - kevin wooldridge - 19th February 2007
A brief outline of the Swedish Heritage protection laws (in English) is posted on the Riksantikvarieambetet website.
http://www.raa.se/cms/en/cultural_heritage/legislation_and_resposibility/heritage_conservation_act.html
Nationally owned heritage - 1man1desk - 19th February 2007
I checked out Dr Martin Rundkvist's blog as suggested - very good and very informative. There was a particularly good bit at this link:
http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/03/field-archaeological-paradox.html
Overall, the similarities between the Swedish and British systems and their effect on archaeological remains seem to vastly outweigh the differences.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Nationally owned heritage - kevin wooldridge - 20th February 2007
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk Overall, the similarities between the Swedish and British systems and their effect on archaeological remains seem to vastly outweigh the differences.
Thinking further about 1M1D's posting this morning it occurred to me that there is one essential difference between the Swedish and UK systems.
In Sweden the responsibility for monitoring and protecting archaeological remains, historic buildings, protected landscapes and even historic placenames scheduled under national legislation, is delegated to the locality (equivalant to the county level in UK terms). One could argue the pros and cons of the adoption of such a system across the whole of the UK.
(I realise this could constitute showing a red rag to Troll[8D])
Nationally owned heritage - troll - 20th February 2007
Good day to all, hmmmmmmmm, red rag accepted and being chewed sir! Thanks to all for the useful links. It would be reasonable to assume then, that whilst the Swedish system placates its people with plattitudes of "national, public ownership", the delegated responsibilities on a localised/regional level would result in largely the same farce and pantomime seen over here? Anyone? How does the Swedish system work on the ground? Calling Swedish archaeologists out there!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Nationally owned heritage - vulpes - 20th February 2007
Quote:quote:In Sweden the responsibility for monitoring and protecting archaeological remains, historic buildings, protected landscapes and even historic placenames scheduled under national legislation, is delegated to the locality (equivalant to the county level in UK terms). One could argue the pros and cons of the adoption of such a system across the whole of the UK.
This is potentially one of the proposals in the much delayed heritage white paper - so we may get a chance to find out how this devolution of responsibility works. For one thing it will need to be accompanied by considerable capacity building at the local authority level if it is to work.
Nationally owned heritage - kevin wooldridge - 20th February 2007
Quote:quote:Originally posted by vulpes
This is potentially one of the proposals in the much delayed heritage white paper - so we may get a chance to find out how this devolution of responsibility works. For one thing it will need to be accompanied by considerable capacity building at the local authority level if it is to work.
I am guessing that the most important consideration, if such a proposal was adopted, would be to give locally based archaeological provision proper legal standing. Would it be the first time that archaeological provision was legally required at a local level in the UK?
Smart move for any field archaeologist who had transfered over to a local curatorial-type post.
Nationally owned heritage - vulpes - 20th February 2007
Kevin, yes I suppose so. However, we haven't seen the white paper yet. And even if these things (including statutory HER/SMRs) are in it there's no guarantee they'll survive through to becoming legislation. Here's hoping! But seriously, it would be at least 2010 before anything makes it onto the statute books and the political situation could have changed radically by then.
Not really a 'pot person'.