public archaeology, Vol. 7 No.

4, Winter, 2008, 241258

Public Archaeology as Renewer of the Historical Museum

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN and FREDRIK SVANBERG
The Museum of National Antiquities, Stockholm, Sweden
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

Working towards greater public interaction in the museum, and with archaeology reecting on its contemporary context, traditional collection practices will inevitably be challenged. Archaeologies of the contemporary bring new kinds of artefacts to collections and raises ethical and political questions, since it must interact with the world of the living. Public archaeology, on the other hand, strives to involve people in the making of history, with an aim towards more inclusive, and even democratic, pasts and collections. Three recent research projects at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities have dealt with these issues. The case studies future memories, archaeologist for a day and public contract archaeology question artefact categorizations, policies for storage and display, as well as database organization, design, and availability. It clearly turned out that the way museums work with collections structure and limit the ways in which audiences can engage with them. To deal more intensively with the public relations of archaeology, and to get more engaged in the contemporary, has denite consequences for the collections and collection practices of archaeological museums. A public-need focus will inevitably give opportunities for archaeologists and institutions to renew their perspectives and practices. keywords Community archaeology, Historical museum, Collection practices, Collecting, Authenticity, Interaction

The archaeological collection as point of departure

Collections are often considered to be the core of archaeological museums. In this paper we argue that traditional collection practices not only reect former archaeological ideas, but also shape strategies today, value hierarchies and what kinds of research that will be deployed and frame possible public interaction. However, working with new archaeological ideas of public inclusiveness will inevitably change priorities and the prevailing systems of values. Thanks to strong legislation, excavations in Sweden are often a result of infrastructure development rather than archaeological choice. Nevertheless, archaeological
W.S. Maney & Son Ltd 2008
DOI 10.1179/175355308X389067

242

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

decisions based on changing value systems and research agendas determine what sites in road corridors or other vast areas are to be excavated. Furthermore, every dig is on a tight budget and requires ruthless prioritizing as to what should be investigated into according to what might be adopted by museums in the end. Thus, material is not routinely saved from excavations. A very selective process is in play to determine what ends up in the collection and what does not. Traditionally in Sweden, archaeological collections have not been part of the broader discussions about strategies and collection plans that take place between collecting museums (e.g. Merritt, 2008). The assembled material is often understood as a randomly composed archive of whatever has been excavated from the site in question, but the process of what is collected whether handled within a museum or not is governed by careful evaluation. We argue that archaeological museums should actively work towards gaining more inuence in this decision-making process. The discussion here might strongly benet from the inclusion of additional museum perspectives. Furthermore, the management of archaeological collections will inevitably be characterized by further selectivity as concerns, for example, what is to be conserved, exhibited, recorded in databases, suggested as research material and so on (see for example Pearce, 1995, and Knell, 2004, on the nature and challenges of museum collecting). The broader practices in archaeological collection in northern Europe were mainly established in the decades of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and were consequently shaped by the evolutionist, nationalist, and imperialist beliefs of the era. Although ideas concerning what a museum is and its role within society have moved on and changed profoundly since then, practices surrounding collection remain rather unaltered and yet still affect current museum exhibition work, research, collection management and other practices. Therefore, collection strategies and practices, whether intentionally or unintentionally, are important issues for discussion especially in the light of questions raised by public archaeology.

Reconsidering museum practices

In order to enable new visions of museums and to exorcise unwelcome ghosts of the past, it is not enough just to change policies and the content of displays. The underlying structures of collection practices in museums must also be reconsidered (Merriman, 2007). Current archaeological trends, especially those dealing with the recent past and public dimensions of archaeology, have great potential to act as catalyst to this end. The eld of archaeologies of the contemporary inevitably brings new kinds of artefacts to collections which raise new ethical and political questions (Buchli and Lucas, 2001; Hall and Silliman, 2006). Public archaeology, on the other hand, strives to involve people in the making of history, with an aim towards more inclusive, and even democratic, pasts and collections (e.g. Merriman, 1991, 2004; Peers and Brown, 2003; Hgberg and Holtorf, 2006; Little and Shackel, 2007; Watson, 2007; cf. the aims and scope of the journal Public Archaeology and the eld of action research, e.g. Reason and Bradbury, 2008). Three recent research projects at the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities have dealt with these issues.

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AS RENEWER OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM

243

In the collection and exhibition project Future Memories the public decided what was to be exhibited and collected. Their descriptions and ideas about the chosen artefacts were registered in the museum database. Such public involvement in creating a new part of a collection gives us a contrasting perspective to traditional museum practices and how we deal with exhibited archaeological objects. As it turned out, these personal reections over memories, chosen for the future, inuenced the perception of other exhibited objects in the museum and their history. In addition, the project shed light on current collection practices, especially on the question of what have been deliberately deposited and what have been accumulated through unconscious processes. The project Archaeologist for a Day consisted of a public archaeological excavation of the Museum of National Antiquities itself. Visitors in the summer of 2007 were invited to take part in the excavation of the central courtyard of the museum. A great number of artefacts from the last 350 years, relating to the history of the area as well as of the museum, were unearthed and collected. The project demonstrated the educational possibilities of involving the public in the archaeological process as well as the limits of availability and public use of the collection database system. The third project, Public Contract Archaeology, explored the public relations of Swedish contract archaeology by engaging museum staff in a major archaeological project. Here, we worked with the contemporary and community dimensions of this type of project, otherwise largely neglected. A growing movement towards general engagement with contemporary and community dimensions would undoubtedly result in a very different archaeological system and different museum collections. These projects are part of a general developmental strategy at the museum that aims towards a more inclusive style of archaeology that involves the public in the practices of archaeological investigation and engages people in interpretation processes. A serious interest in public archaeology also helps the professional archaeologist to advance ethical-awareness and self-reection within the archaeological community. Working towards greater interaction with the public in the museum, and archaeology reecting on its contemporary context, traditional collection practices will inevitably be challenged. New kinds of artefacts, collected in new ways, are just one aspect of this; our projects question artefact categorizations, policies for storage and display practices, as well as database organization, design and availability. This conicted with traditional museum practices in several ways. The points of discord revealed by these projects are an excellent starting point for reconsidering outdated ways of doing things and initiating the processes of change.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

Future memories
The concept of future memories plays with the established idea of memorabilia from ancient times. It turns the concept on its head. This twist produces a work of contrast, which focuses on issues such as the signicance of things, the assembling of the collection and the stories that are put forward. The museum contributed the framework, consisting of an exhibition form, while the public created the content by choosing the objects and stories that were to be sent on to the future. This worked at several different levels. The museum was enriched by new stories and knowledge

244

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

gure 1 The collection of future memories was in progress from April until the end of August 2007. Anybody could leave an object in a case in the museum entrance hall, see what others had left and read their stories. Photo: Andreas Hamrin, The Museum of National Antiquities

about the public comprehension of artefacts and their choices of historical focus. It also got attention in unexpected media contexts. The idea of future memories provoked reection on archaeological collecting within the museum, and was the core issue of a professional debate among archaeologists on why certain objects are perceived as bearing information about the past, while others are dismissed as not being museum-worthy (Svanberg and Wahlgren, 2007).

Setting up an incavation
Public invitations to join the incavation were published in newspaper advertisements, through the museum website and in various media reports. The setup allowed people to deposit their chosen future memories in a case in the museum entrance hall during the spring of 2007. The objects were tagged with reminder notes carrying written stories and left on display until the end of the summer, when they were nally incavated, in a pit in the museum courtyard. Each future memory was photographed and registered in the museum database with the full information given by their depositors. In this way, the source information about the objects and their stories is preserved for future studies, even though the things themselves are buried in the ground. Everyone who wanted could participate in making the future museum. On the incavation day, all the objects were placed in a disorganized manner on a long table out in the museum courtyard a museum exhibition or a ea market? In the afternoon, a solemn ceremony was performed at which the public assisted in placing objects in the pit and in shovelling soil to cover them.

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AS RENEWER OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM

245

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

gure 2 Incavation of future memories at the Museum of National Antiquities on 26 August 2007. Photo: Christer hlin, The Museum of National Antiquities

An incavation is not a time-capsule. The main difference is that an incavation focuses on the connection between concepts of the past in relation to perceptions of the contemporary period and the future, rather than on preserving deposited objects for future generations (Holtorf, 2001; Wahlgren, 2006). Thus a time-capsule collection is often the dened symbol of a certain period; it also works as a remembrance ceremony and to consolidate a group. This can be important in times of change. An incavation, in contrast, is mainly set up to act as the point of departure for engaging in questions about our role in history, for example, and what traces our time will leave behind. But it can also be a way of reecting on what is left from past times and what has disappeared. Both the time-capsule and the incavation are modern interpretations of different forms of ritual depositions that occur throughout (pre)history, and which are effective as metaphors for archaeological problems. Of course some excavated materials reveal unintentionally left traces, but archaeological interpretations are still to a large extent based on depositions, graves and monuments that were deliberately shaped by people. In a general archaeological exhibition, you will nd a bias towards deposited treasures at the cost of everyday patterns. What does that represent? These are core issues for an historical museum that deals with more than just the management of ancient artefacts.

The objects and their stories

A total of 560 objects were handed in and the collection consisted of all sorts of things, from what people happened to have in their pockets, to carefully thought-out

246

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

gure 3 se.

The future memories are accessible through the museum website www.historiska.

items that were brought especially for deposition. They ranged from train tickets, hair ribbons, make-up, and sanitary towels, to irons, telephones, cycle pumps, and typewriters. Several people left photographs, either a portrait of themselves or of someone closely related and beloved. There were items of jewellery, ties, cuddly toys, newspapers, key rings, coins from all over the world, and compact discs with favourite music or home videos. Some objects were also sent in by post from people who did not have the opportunity to come to the museum. Many of the objects may seem ordinary or even trivial to those who do not make an effort to read the reminder notes. It is quite clear that the story content is not directly related to the material value of the object. Some of the most intriguing thoughts were attached to papers, simple gadgets, or plastic toys. Mostly, people wanted to tell about common issues like what makes them feel at home, often about love and loved ones. Since the objects could be left anywhere in the case and could later be moved by other visitors, they also became comments on each other when placed in different combinations. A rough categorization might look like this: ! ! ! ! Changing times out-of-fashion stuff Examples: dial telephone, typewriter, computer oppy disk, alarm clock Environment and politics Examples: bicycle pump, train ticket, EU-tie, bird feeder, badge Love and friendship Examples: make-up, hair ribbon, tampon, photograph, letter Me and my home Examples: iron, potato peeler, keys, dishcloth

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AS RENEWER OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM

247

! !

Leisure Examples: cuddly toy, music player, CD, game Tourist greetings Examples: coin, key-ring, leaet, badge

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

The most provocative contribution to Future Memories was neither a ticket or love letter, nor a useful tool. In the case we found a small plastic zip-lock bag with some of the ashes of Nathan, who died in a motorcycle accident in Canada in 2005. Together with these remains was a message of remembrance from his best friend. Nathan loved to travel but did not manage to visit all of the places that he had hoped to. In honour of his memory, the family and a few close friends are spreading his ashes in beautiful places all over the world. His mother told us that in addition to Sweden, Nathan is present at the Mount Everest base camp in Nepal, in Hawaii, South America, Germany, Scotland, Belize, and at several places in Canada. She considers Future Memories to be a nice way of keeping and spreading his memory, which makes it easier to live with the loss of a much-loved son. Although the museum usually accepts human remains from various archaeological contexts, the handling of this special request was troublesome and did not t the routines. It was ethically challenging, and the legal framework for possible actions to take turned out to be unclear. Therefore some museum staff thought it was beyond our responsibility to deal with the ashes, whereas others saw it as an unexpected response to the project which we should not refrain from handling within the projects framework. In the end, the museum chose not to bury Nathans ashes together with the other objects in the courtyard, most importantly because this would have been at odds with the legal guidelines (whereas, strangely enough, storing ancient ashes in paper boxes in archives a few metres away is not). In Stockholm, human ashes may only be scattered over open water, and burials are restricted to assigned burial grounds. In consultation with Nathans mother, we have registered the deposition in the museum database and, according to her request, spread the ashes at sea in the Stockholm archipelago. A ceremony was performed on 9 January 2008.

Garbage or treasure?
Future Memories undoubtedly started processes in which the museum was forced to reect upon collection and exhibition practices. Due to the rules governing the treatment of accessioned objects, it was not possible to give the future memories real inventory numbers and they were only given an identity code in the database. This clearly illustrated the current limit upon which objects are acceptable in the collection and upon what kind of preservation conditions current policies force the museum to offer to accessioned objects. The greatest stumbling block was the question of how the incavated objects, without preparation or conservation against decay in the ground, could be accounted for from the perspective of collecting. This offered interesting insights, as the collecting practices and the regulatory framework for the retention of collected objects were revealed to have major implications for the possible uses of, and public interaction with, the collections. A serious aim to create exhibitions with greater interactive possibilities must thus include more attention to, and reconsiderations of, the practices of collection work.

248

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

The fact that the future memories were not accessioned to the collection is decisive for their status as museum artefacts. Admittedly, the objects and their stories are accessible and searchable in the database, but their usefulness for research as well as for the public would be considerably improved if they had received full status as museum objects. The documented posts will still be saved for future use, even though the objects themselves are buried and will decay in the ground.

Archaeologist for a day

The current building complex of the Museum of National Antiquities was constructed in 19341939. The collections were moved there from an older, nineteenthcentury building (now the National Museum of Art), and the rst exhibition, Ten thousand years in Sweden, was inaugurated in 1943. From this starting point the policies of the museum have gradually changed, partly in line with changes in archaeology as a discipline and with new general museum policies. Culture-historical museums currently strive to work with pluralism as well as controversial contemporary issues, and to develop more involving and interactive relationships with audiences as a kind of forum (e.g. Hooper-Greenhill, 2007; Karp, 2006; Anderson, 2004; Weil, 2002). They want to become more inclusive as well as responsive (Message, 2006; Lang, Reeve and Woollard, 2006: gren and Nyman, 2002). In this climate of willingness to change, there are good reasons to look back on how institutions have developed historically (e.g. Bennett, 2004). To be able to change, new perspectives are needed on current museum positions and the roads that led to them. In addition to the 150-year-old history of ideas and policies of modern cultural historical museums, an analysis is needed of the history of changing practices. To what extent do old practices concerning, for example, what to collect and how to do it, classication systems, hierarchies of objects and what information is recorded, linger on? Does this continue to reproduce structures and values which on second thoughts are not in line with current ideas? In particular, collecting and classication systems, the selections and hierarchies of artefacts and the changing interpretations of the objects themselves, are areas that most museums need more knowledge about. What has been collected, and based on whose perspective? What stories have been told or not told? If new aspects of the output of museums, and of the question of whose (hi)stories are told, are to be given prominence, then sources other than the traditional ones must be sought. These may consist of photographic archives, exhibition documentation, the archived parts of collections, and relationships between the composition of the collections as wholes, and the selections made for exhibitions. The modern history of artefacts in their new and very articial museum contexts can also be analysed. What has been hidden in the museum cupboards? Such investigations might well be seen as archaeology of sorts.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

Archaeological investigations as catalysts

Archaeological investigations may have different aims. After a test excavation in the autumn of 2006, an extensive archaeological investigation of the inner courtyard of the museum was initiated in the summer of 2007. Professional archaeologists led it,

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AS RENEWER OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM

249

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

gure 4 Archaeologist for a day. An archaeological investigation of the inner courtyard of the museum itself in the summer of 2007. Photo: Christer hlin, The Museum of National Antiquities

250

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

but the museum audience was invited to take part in the investigation and interpret their nds. The artefacts were accessioned and the interpretations registered in the museum database (inventory no. 34 759). The aim of the excavation was to investigate the history of the museum itself as reected in the material remains in the courtyard, and to catalyse an internal discussion on the museums own history and collection practices. Another important aim was to study the situation itself, and to make the museum more competent at handling an interactive audience in an excavation context. In an earlier study of the museums photo archive, it became obvious that the educational activities of previous decades were next to invisible in the preserved archives. A probable reason for this is that this work was seen as low status. Artefacts from more or less all exhibitions have been documented, compiling a collection of thousands of pictures, while there are less than a handful of pictures of the educational work. The excavation of the courtyard, the site for numerous learning activities since the 1940s, might in that perspective actually provide a complementary historical record. As it happened, thousands of objects from the time when the complex was built, and from some 300 previous years of neighbourhood activities and history, had also been deposited in the few cubic metres of excavated courtyard soil. The public excavation is, as a form, a rather obvious platform for getting audiences involved in the exploration and making of history. The archaeological process is demonstrated and gives a sort of understanding, which at least in theory makes people see archaeological exhibitions differently they now know how those objects ended up in glass cases. At the same time, letting people excavate and interpret objects that became part of a collection, to be curated for eternity by the museum, turned out to be very popular. Many people later searched and are still searching, the database for their artefacts, knowing that they themselves have taken part in making the museum. This work with public involvement clearly outlined the possibilities and limits for public work/public availability of various dimensions of the museums collection and registration system. It turned out that this system, and primarily the database, was very much made from the viewpoint of museum specialists, making it hard for audiences to access and use it. Its design and hierarchic classication system clearly did not facilitate public use. This was indeed true for the public search application, although the nds from the courtyard held, and are still holding, high rankings in the search statistics. The database is a different story, being accessed more or less only by researchers. Thus it should be noted that signicant development work is in progress to make the database more place- and context-oriented, rather than being a pure object-based catalogue. This will also make the information more useful to non-professionals.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

Authenticity and collection practices

During the test excavation in the autumn of 2006, a reconstructed Viking Age cremation burial was found and investigated. Previously-employed educational staff, who produced this in the 1980s, or possibly 1990s, had deposited some replicas of cremated bones, a large mosaic bead, an object made from iron thread, and a copy of a Viking period oval brooch. This was the most interesting trace of earlier museum

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AS RENEWER OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM

251

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

gure 5 Oval brooch (SHM 34759:1). An authentic archaeological object? Photo: The Museum of National Antiquities

activities at the site to be documented by the project. Other nds consisted of construction traces from built-up prehistoric-style houses as well as quite a number of fragments from audience activities such as bead-making, demonstrations of metalworking, and the like. But predominantly the nds were from activities before the museum period. The oval brooch was accessioned and registered as a regular object, an act that stirred some controversy among staff, and three different positions rapidly formed. Some thought that the brooch was an object end of story, while others thought that, as a copy, it was not to be raised to the status of a real collected object. Finally, some people held the opinion that while it was originally just a copy, its time in the ground and its subsequent rediscovery and collection, through the process of an archaeological excavation, had in fact made it into a real object. In other words, it had passed through a process which lent it authenticity. These positions, and the competence to actively make choices in this context, will become more and

252

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

more important as public interaction increases and the area of archaeologies of the contemporary becomes interesting to more archaeologists. In a global context, the idea of xed criteria for authenticity and the value of cultural objects are gradually being abandoned. UNESCO sponsored major research work in the 1990s in order to try to nd a globally acceptable denition of authenticity. One of the most important results, the Nara Document on Authenticity, states that all judgements on the value of cultural heritage vary between cultures, and may also vary within the same culture. Thus it is not possible to base judgements of authenticity on dened universal criteria (Larsen, 1995; Myrberg, 2004; Holtorf, 2005). This means that a view of authenticity is dependent on the context of the viewer. The status of the oval brooch mentioned above depends entirely on the values held by its collector. However, if this is true, the converse is also true that the identity of the collector is constructed by the values and classication system of the collection. Not only does the collector make the collection, but the collection system and practises also make the collector in an intriguing interplay (cf. Pearce, 1995, on the poetics of collection). The question of the authenticity or non-authenticity of the oval brooch is therefore not a question of whether it has some essential qualities or not. The question of where the borderline between public interaction possibilities and professional collection practices should be drawn is not a question of nding a natural system. These questions can only be answered by making decisions about what the museum wants to be that is to say, its identity and value system. With a public perspective the museum can become more of a facilitator for historical interest than the sole authority over objects, and the public become co-producers rather than just visitors (Walsh, 1992). The oval brooch can be seen as authentic and valuable or as a worthless copy but that makes two different museums.

Public contract archaeology

As was indicated in the outset, the collecting activities of archaeological museums are most often dependent on what archaeological projects, staged by other institutions, choose to excavate or are commissioned to excavate, in a given section of landscape which is to be exploited by modern society. In countries where rescue excavations are legislated, this context thus becomes the most important one for the selection of material remains to be documented and brought to museums. The structure of the Swedish contract archaeology system seldom allows for any higher degree of public interaction with the process, or for the excavation of the material remains of later periods. Still, many archaeologists are eager to reach out to the public, and several important public projects are carried out each year. The problem is not primarily a lack of interest in communicating results but the difculties of integration between public projects and ordinary archaeological work. Public engagements tend to be added on the side instead of becoming parts of what is signicant for archaeology and its results. The project Public Contract Archaeology explored the public relations of Swedish contract archaeology through the engagement of museum staff in an archaeological project in the suburb Hjulsta, north of Stockholm. Major highway construction work

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AS RENEWER OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM

253

was underway in the area, and archaeologists had evaluated the landscape section, focusing their attention on the large-scale remains of what had formerly been Hjulsta village. As it turned out, settlements from the Iron Age up to some time in the 1970s had been located on the site; it had also been a burial site during the Iron Age. The archaeological project, however, was commissioned to investigate all the older remains, but no remains more recent than the seventeenth century. The archaeologists were not allowed to do any public relations work beyond spreading very basic information. The museum project rst undertook a stakeholder analysis in the community, to identify the people who might be interested in taking part in the archaeological project and to nd out what would then be interesting for them to investigate. This was based on interviews and visits to institutions in the area. It turned out that local schools were very interested and that their obvious starting point was the recent history of the area, in other words, twentieth-century events and actions, which could easily be related to their history curriculum. The community project aimed to excavate, document, and collect objects from part of one of the main twentieth-century farm buildings of Hjulsta, in cooperation with three classes of teenage school children. This was done in the autumn of 2007 and proved to be an interesting complement to the ongoing contract archaeological project. The children performed the excavation, but they did also participate in deciding questions for research and in the interpretation process in relation to their nds on site. One of the classes continued their work on this theme until the spring of 2008, when they produced an exhibition in the Museum of National Antiquities about their Hjulsta in history and today. In this project, the museum thus reached out to explore the initial stages of the collection process, a point at which, under normal circumstances, other institutions make the most important decisions in relation to what later becomes the collection. As the project progressed, it became clear that the growing interest within archaeology for contemporary history and public engagement would lead to changes in the selection of sites and materials for excavation and collection work. It also illuminated the need for development of strategies to promote museum engagement in the earliest stages of the collection process, usually during the contract archaeology situation. Otherwise the museum will never be able to gain further understanding of and inuence over its collection system.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

Public archaeology and museum self-reection

Voices have recently been raised in favour of more discussions concerning theoretical frameworks for dening community archaeology. In a recent issue of Public Archaeology, Gemma Tully deals with this question and list criteria for community archaeology methodology, an important matter for future work within the eld (Tully, 2007). But as Gabriel Moshenska points out, Tully seems to view community archaeology as those parts of archaeological projects that are set out by the archaeologists for the benet and involvement of the local community, which implicitly makes the community the other. Although the aim is to listen to a variety of voices and to reach a more inclusive archaeology, this charitable perspective is based on

254

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

gure 6 The children asked questions about old Hjulsta and we tried to answer them together through the excavation, stories about the artefacts, and further archive studies. They also chose future memories and documented their own special places in the neighbourhood. Photo: Fredrik Svanberg

inequality and might even strengthen some colonial structures. Moshenska emphasizes that community archaeology can and should take the needs and interests of the community as its starting point, rather than existing research priorities (Moshenska, 2008: 52). But it has also been argued that many projects do not live up to the aims of achieving long term benets for the community, and that there are other factors related to contemporary society which are more inuential for a successful outcome than the actual project setting (Simpson and Williams, 2008). From our perspective, different projects may be valuable for various reasons. Diversity is much desired and will in the end include the broadest scope, although not

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AS RENEWER OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM

255

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

gure 7 The participants perspectives on Hjulsta in past and present were presented in the exhibition Hjulsta d.nu that was on display in the Museum of National Antiquities during 2008. Photo: Johan Anund

every project lives up to all its aims. That is not to say that tools for evaluation are not needed. On the contrary, a continuous discussion on how public archaeology can develop and take active part in more important processes in society would be welcome. The benets and problems of participatory inclusion are central issues within the elds of action or interactive research (e.g. Aagaard Nielsen and Svensson, 2006; Jason, 2004), and maybe further interdisciplinary collaboration together with the appraisal of practice and tacit knowledge will contribute more specically also to public archaeology. To deal more intensively with the public relations of archaeology, and to be more engaged in the contemporary, has denite consequences for the collections and collection practices of archaeological museums such as ours. As it turns out, the converse also holds true. The way museums work with collections will structure and limit the ways in which they may engage with audiences and communities. These limits and structures may only become visible if actively explored. We believe that such active project work, though it will most probably generate some frictions, is the best way to institutional self-discovery and development. A public-need focus will inevitably give opportunities for archaeologists and institutions to renew their perspectives and practices. The topic is a research area in its own right with potential to change institutional archaeology. For an established

256

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

gure 8 Public engagement and a more thorough interest in the contemporary may take archaeological museums and collection practices out of their traditional frameworks.

institution, it is important to move away from the charitable attitude towards communities and to focus more on the possibilities of self-reection and of highlighting hidden histories which are offered through public inclusion. In that sense public archaeology has the power to renegotiate the relations between museums and their users and thereby hopefully to help to transform the old museum structures for the benet of more people in the future.

Bibliography
Aagaard Nielsen, K and L Svensson (eds) 2006 Action and interactive research: beyond practice and theory. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht. gren, P-U and S Nyman (eds) 2002 Museum 2000. Conrmation or Challenge? Riksutstllningar, Stockholm. Anderson, G (ed) 2004 Reinventing the museum: historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Bennett, T 2004 Pasts beyond memory: evolution, museums, colonialism. Routledge, London. Buchli, V and G Lucas 2001 The absent present: archaeologies of the contemporary past. Archaeologies of the contemporary past. Routledge, New York and London. Hall, Martin and Stephen Silliman (ed) 2006 Historical archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford. Holtorf, C 2001 Archaeological Incavation Berlin-Schliemannstrae: Final Report. University of Cambridge/ Department of Archaeology, Cambridge, UK, available at <http://web.comhem.se/cornelius/Incavation/ incavation1.html> Holtorf, C 2004 From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Archaeology as Popular Culture. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Hooper-Greenhill, E 2007 Museums and education: purpose, pedagogy, performance. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.

PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AS RENEWER OF THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM

257

Holtorf, C and A Hgberg 2007 Talking people: from community to popular archaeologies. Lund Archaeological Review 2005/2006 11/12, 7988. Jason, L 2004 Participatory community research: theories and methods in action. Chicago Conference on Community Research. 1st ed. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Karp, I (ed) 2006 Museum frictions: public cultures/global transformations. Duke University Press, Durham, N.C. Knell, S (ed) 2004 Museums and the future of collecting. Ashgate, Aldershot. Lang, C, J Reeve and V Woollard (eds) 2006 The responsive museum. Working with audiences in the twenty-rst century. Ashgate, Aldershot. Larsen, K (ed) 1995 Nara conference on authenticity. Proceedings of the conference in Nara, Japan, 16 November 1994. Agency for Cultural Affairs, Tokyo. Little, B J and P A Shackel (eds) 2007 Archaeology as a tool of civic engagement. AltaMira, Plymouth. Merriman, N 1991 Beyond the glass case: the past, the heritage and the public in Britain. Leicester University Press, Leicester. Merriman, N 2004 Introduction: diversity and dissonance in public archaeology. In: Merriman, N (ed) Public archaeology. Routledge, London. Merriman, N 2007 A sustainable future for collections? Keynote speech at Curating for the Future: a conference exploring the curatorial role in the 21th century, September 19. Organized by Renaissance North West in partnership with the University of Manchester and the North West Federation of Museums and Galleries. Warrington: MLA North West, available at <http://www.mlanw.org.uk/museumslibrariesarchives/museums/ northwestmuseumshub/renaissancenews> Merritt, E E 2008 Beyond the cabinet of curiosities: towards a modern rationale of collecting. In: Fgerborg, E and E von Unge (eds) Connecting collecting. Stockholm: Samdok/Nordiska museet. Pp. 1725. Message, K 2006 New museums and the making of culture. Berg, Oxford. Moshenska, G 2008 Community archaeology from below: a response to Tully. Public Archaeology 7(1), 5152. Myrberg, N 2004 False monuments?: on antiquity and authenticity. Public Archaeology 3(3). Pearce, S M 1995 On collecting: an investigation into collecting in the European tradition. Routledge, London. Peers, L and A K Brown (ed) 2003 Museums and source communities: a Routledge reader. Routledge, London. Reason, P and H Bradbury (ed) 2008 The SAGE handbook of action research. 2nd ed. SAGE, Los Angeles. Simpson, F and H Williams 2008 Evaluating community archaeology in the UK. Public Archaeology 7(2), 6990. Tully, G 2007 Community archaeology: general methods and standards of practice. Public Archaeology 6(3), 155187. Svanberg, F and K H Wahlgren 2007 Publik arkeologi. Nordic Academic Press, Lund. Wahlgren, K 2006 Memories for our future: an archaeological incavation in the Swedish suburbs. Public Archaeology 2. Walsh, K 1992 Representation of the past: museums and heritage in the post-modern world. Routledge, London. Watson, S (ed) 2007 Museums and their communities. Leicester Readers in Museum Studies. Routledge, London and New York. Weil, S E 2002 Making museums matter. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited

Notes on contributors
Katty Hauptman Wahlgren is currently the project manager for research and development of public archaeology at the Museum of National Antiquities in Sweden. She has a PhD in Archaeology specializing on Scandinavian rock carvings and Bronze Age society, and has for several years been involved in different research and collaboration projects within the eld of public archaeology. She has also worked as a university lecturer and with contract archaeology. Correspondence to: The Museum of National Antiquities, Box 5428, SE-114 84 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: katty.wahlgren@historiska.se.

258

KATTY HAUPTMAN WAHLGREN AND FREDRIK SVANBERG

Fredrik Svanberg is currently a research and development co-ordinator at The Museum of National Antiquities in Sweden. He has a PhD in Archaeology specializing on the Viking Age in a post-colonial perspective, and has worked within contract archaeology for several years as well as in museums. Correspondence to: The Museum of National Antiquities, Box 5428, SE-114 84 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: fredrik.svanberg@historiska.se.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) W.S Maney & Son Limited