Ambivalent praktisering av statlig eierskap i arkeologiske gjenstander
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7339503 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Atle Omland (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1970 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 19-19 |
| Publication date | 1970-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Nordisk Museologi (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1103-8152 • E-ISSN: 2002-0503 |
| Publisher | University of Oslo Library (PUBLISHER • NO) |
| DOI | 10.5617/nm.3127 |
| OpenAlex | W2587235679 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Ever since Norway adopted its first Cultural Heritage Act in 1905, all newly discovered archaeological artefacts that predate AD 1537 are owned by the Norwegian state. Five designated university museums currently take care of such archaeological finds. However, private individuals often keep such finds in their possession, and in many cases archaeologists make no active effort to collect these. In order to attain knowledge about attitudes to state ownership in Norway, and the situation whereby private individuals keep archaeological finds, three surveys have been carried out: one among archaeologists and two among the public. These surveys document ambivalence about how state ownership is practiced. Although both archaeologists and members of the public support – in principle – the idea that all artefacts ought to be handed in to the museums, in practice they take a more pragmatic approach. About 6 per cent of the respondents in the surveys conducted among the general public report that they keep archaeological finds. A personal relationship between the keeper, artefact and place/land seems to be the most important reason why such respondents keep them in their possession. Nevertheless, a majority of even these respondents still supports the public ownership of such finds – in principle. The surveys indicate that more efforts ought to be made to stimulate the collecting of archaeological finds, as well as providing better access to such artefacts in local communities. For instance, it is suggested that a greater degree of local or private storage of artefacts might be formalised. In this regard, it is important that heritage management develop priorities, and provide archaeologists with ap- propriate advice in order to stimulate well-considered decisions about whether they collect artefacts to the museums or deposit them locally
Ambivalence · Archaeology · Cultural heritage · Ethnology · Norwegian · Political science · Possession (linguistics · Sociology · State (computer science · Archaeological Research and Protection · Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation · History · Museums and Cultural Heritage · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,25 |
| Citation span | 2014 - 2014 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |