Abstract
Generating new knowledge in rescue archaeology is the prime goal regardless of which system is dominant. The market-oriented ‘capitalist’ model does not generate new knowledge in an adequate way, because it is volatile and prone to crises, and often detached from a wider up-to-date scientific environment. The ‘Dutch’ model presented by Van de Dries as a compromise between the state-financed ‘socialist’ and ‘capitalist’ models is here criticized. It is suggested that the Norwegian and Swedish state-supported models hold the greatest potential. A further point is that large museums or university museums may be the best place to locate excavation units as it is only there that we can play out in full the potential for knowledge production and management, processing as well as disseminating material culture as more than just texts. Generating knowledge at museums, from research-oriented field work to research-generating exhibitions involves the local authorities in a better way than does the Dutch model.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dr Sean Denham for generous assistance and useful comments on language and content. Thanks to two anonymous peer reviewers for comments that improved the paper significantly.
Notes
1 For completeness this would have been the place to discuss the Danish model, but, as it is under revision, suffice it to say that it is also not open to private excavation units. It seems to be moving towards the Norwegian model with larger institutions (exclusively museums) conducting excavations, posited as a positive trend in the current article. The final reforms and consequences remain to be seen; for a review in Danish see Ravn (Citation2004).
2 The Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger, is also a faculty at the university but does not have an education department.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Mads Ravn
Mads Ravn, PhD Cantab., is Associate Professor and Head of Section of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, Norway. He has conducted numerous fieldwork projects in Scandinavia and other parts of the world, most recently in the Pacific. His approach is interdisciplinary and over the last twenty years he has, in a theoretical and methodological perspective, focused on the Neolithic Period, early Medieval Period (historical archaeology), issues of ethnographic and historical analogy, and the nature of written and archaeological sources. He is currently working on how current rescue excavations in Norway may be more research oriented. He was until 2013 coordinator of the national programme, called ‘Development of agrarian societies’, financed by the Norwegian Research Council.