Comments on Quality from the Ivory Tower

Abstract

Andersson, Lagerlöf and Skyllberg raise several important questions concerning the issue of quality in development-led archaeology.Their analysis of the system is precise and thought provoking.From a Norwegian point of view, however, one has to notice a blind spot in their argumentation.This area of debate was originally of great importance to Swedish archaeology and is still in prime focus in the Norwegian management of cultural heritage.The authors point out that in Scandinavia there now exist two different systems of doing developmentled archaeology, that is, inside a state monopoly and as part of a competitive system.The main trend in public life in Scandinavia has been to break down the state monopolies and replace them by different systems of private or semi-private competition.One might ask why development-led archaeology in countries such as Norway has not been reorganised in a similar manner, as the idea of such a reform has regularly been suggested by several politicians and bureaucrats.I think the main reason for the Norwegian hesitance has been a continuous regeneration of the intellectual fundament of development-led archaeology.Development-led archaeology is primarily done in order to secure source material and documentation of past societies for research, when development plans are threatening the heritage.The importance of using this knowledge in public life is still sub-ordered such an ambition.There are two interrelated consequences of this stand.Firstly, in this system the developer is not expected or obliged to pay for any research or public appropriation of the past.The developer only pays for securing the source material for storage and future research.Secondly, this

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.