False monuments?: On antiquity and authenticity
2004 (English)In: Public archaeology, ISSN 1465-5187, Vol. 3, no 3, 151-161 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
What is a true monument of the past?
Many ancient monuments have been reused over the centuries, rebuilt, added to or copied – processes which continue into the present. These monuments form part of the historical, traditional, social and mental landscape of individuals. Should their use or even their construction in the present be considered less meaningful than their use or construction in, say, the 18th century or the Neolithic?
The demands made by Swedish legislation, for instance, that cultural remains should be “old” and “abandoned” expresses a decontextualizing and conservative view that is based in a conception of cultural remains as monuments, representing a specific event or time. But opposite views are expressed in the fields of arts and architecture, where accretions, deliberate additions and a living tradition are seen as valuable elements in their own right.
This paper addresses the problem of authenticity in objects of cultural heritage, beginning with the case study of a stone labyrinth on the Swedish archipelago. I will raise questions concerning authenticity, heritage management and archaeological views of cultural relics. Is the age and date of construction really the most important aspect of cultural objects or could there be other attributes that tell us just as much about their previous use and the thoughts that have been associated with them?
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2004. Vol. 3, no 3, 151-161 p.
Authenticity, reuse, labyrinth, archaeological method, palimpsest, copy, ancient remains, cultural remains, cultural heritage, monument
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-20762OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-20762DiVA: diva2:187288