COMMENT ON “A SPECTRE IS HAUNTING SWEDISH ARCHAEOLOGY” FROM A DANISH POINT OF VIEW

In their keynote article, Anders Gustafsson and Håkan Karlsson (AG & HK) compare the situation in Sweden with the past ten years of Danish cultural politics. I would like to comment on this from my own point of view.1 In 1999 a crisis occurred in Danish archaeology. Due to a massive increase in construction work, there was a lack of means for state­financed excavations. Danish archaeologists tried to get attention from the media and politicians by describing how finds and knowledge of pottery and postholes would be lost without excavations (Jørgensen & Pind 2001). This was not very successful (Jensen 2009a:52ff). But then an archaeologist said: “We must realize that a part of the Danes’ cultural heritage is lost if we do not perform the essential excavations” (my translation).2 Statements like these made it to the headlines, and a new approach not only to Danish archaeology but also to Danish cul­

COMMENT ON "A SPECTRE IS HAUNTING SWEDISH ARCHAEOLOGY" FROM A DANISH POINT OF VIEW Mette Bjerrum Jensen

ARCHAEOLOGY'S ROLE IN THE CHANGE IN DANISH CULTURAL POLITICS SINCE 2001
In their keynote article, Anders Gustafsson and Håkan Karlsson (AG & HK) compare the situation in Sweden with the past ten years of Danish cultural politics. I would like to comment on this from my own point of view. 1 In 1999 a crisis occurred in Danish archaeology. Due to a massive increase in construction work, there was a lack of means for statefinanced excavations. Danish archaeologists tried to get attention from the media and politicians by describing how finds and knowledge of pottery and postholes would be lost without excavations (Jørgensen & Pind 2001). This was not very successful (Jensen 2009a:52ff). But then an archaeologist said: "We must realize that a part of the Danes' cultural heritage is lost if we do not perform the essential excavations" (my translation). 2 Statements like these made it to the headlines, and a new approach not only to Danish archaeology but also to Danish cul 1 My comment builds on analyses and agumentation in my PhD thesis, see Jensen 2009. 2 Interview with the museum curator and archaeologist Orla Madsen in : Knippel 1999. tural politics was founded, one that argued that by giving low priority to archaeology Danes would lose some of their inherited belongings.
This trend coincided with a parliamentary change in Denmark. From an archaeologist's point of view, at least two new agendas had vital im portance for the discourse of the profession in the years to come. In 2002, the new rightwing government with the Danish People's Party (Dansk Folkeparti, DF) as supporting party abolished the national ad visory assemblies, including the Archaeological Board (Det Arkaeolo gisk Naevn). The government's argument stated that leftwing experts had hitherto had too much influence, so now it was time for politicians to set the agenda (Olesen et al. 2002). I find it alarming that the Swe den Democrats (SD) consider the present Swedish cultural politics elit ist and destructive, as AG & HK mention, and that SD's statement in cultural politics is to "focus on […] the maintenance and the anima tion of the cultural heritage" (SD 2011, my translation). Here we find a clear parallel to the political agenda in Denmark since the start of the new millennium.
Gradually many boards were reestablished, but the new Archaeolo gial Advisory Assembly (Det Arkaeologiske Råd) had much less influence on the professional decisions. At the same time, a new Heritage Agency of Denmark (Kulturarvsstyrelsen) replaced the Keeper of the Archaeo logical Records (Rigsantikvaren). Like a hand in glove this fitted into the new conservative line in the Ministry of Culture. The word "herit age" itself was quite rare until 1999 and was mostly used in connection with world archaeology and world heritage. From 1999 onwards, how ever, "heritage" became a frequently used term (Jensen 2009a), not least due to the Ministry of Culture and the Heritage Agency of Denmark who replaced terms like "culture environments" with "culture herit age" (Jensen 2009a:118). While the favourite cause of the Ministry of Culture was a Cultural Canon (Kulturkanon), as AG & HK mention, the agency's first task was to point out 1000 Cultural Heritage Areas of National Value (Kulturarvsarealer).
The Cultural Heritage Areas were selected by archaeologists at the lo cal Danish museums. In my PhD thesis (Jensen 2009a:117ff) I analysed the data from these sites. In line with the situation in Swedish archae ological research funding as shown by AG & HK, my analysis shows that Danish archaeologists are also generally traditionalists. Among the Cultural Heritage Areas of National Value, finds from the metal ages outnumber seven to one those from the Stone Age, although the two eras are evenly represented in the national find database (Fund og For tidsminder). Among the selected sites from the metal ages, 87 % are re lated to kingdoms, state formation, national defence, infrastructure and the Church (Jensen 2009a:129). This fact makes it hard to problematize politicians who find value in the idea of unchanging national states, as even we archaeologists point out these finds as most significant.

Implications of the new conservative line on archaeology and cultural history
The rightwing government in Denmark has since 2001 disparaged lib eral and social cultural movements 3 and instead performed what I de scribe as a conservative cultural policy. This change has had effect on the archaeological and cultural historical fields as well. Within archae ology two major projects have been supported in the last few years: the King's Fortresses (Kongens Borge 4 ), which investigates remains of Trelle borg type, and the Jelling Project (Jelling Projektet 5 ) in which further excavations, communication projects, and educational projects focus on prehistoric Jelling, a locality that plays a leading role in the formation of Danish identity (Jensen 2009b). Projects like these are grandiose and basically interesting, and perhaps therefore very few Danish archaeolo gists have questioned the fact that mainly projects supporting the idea of the formation of the nation state have been met economically. Interest ingly, however, the majority of the earlier excavations in Jelling coincide with the years when the nation state of Denmark was being created or challenged (Jensen 2009a:205f). Though hard to see when it happens in one's own time, it is thus reasonable to connect the national archaeologi cal campaigns with a tendency to defend the Danish national identity, a tendency that can also be seen in Danish politics. At the same time the Danish People's Party have had luck supporting several cultural history projects through the Finance Act: a strongly criticized Cold War pro ject (Information 2006); projects concerning Kaj Munk (DR 2009) who serves as a Danish national symbol for the spiritual struggle against Na zism; protection of the Jelling monuments; and getting the Danish act from c. 1280 "Jyske Lov" back from Sweden (Politiken 2008;Kultur ministeriet 2011). In neither of these cases have archaeologists publicly questioned the fact that selected cultural projects are being written into 3 In Denmark, a liberal and social movement referred to as "kulturradikalismen" has had influence on cultural ideas and culture politics since the mid 1950's until the government change in 2001. the Finance Act on the request of a party that uses these national sym bols for their own promotion.
Consider this dilemma: The government's Finance Act makes it pos sible for you to save a prehistoric monument. Does it make a difference that the monument is not only of historical value but also the crux of Danish identity? Does it matter that the fund is a result of the cultural policy of a rightwing nationalist party? Or what about this dilemma: Your institution is offered a subsidy for running a museum. Not just any museum, but an exhibition about a person who serves as a national sym bol, like Kaj Munk. Basically it is a good story that is popular amongst the public, though is does have a nationalistic undertone. Do you accept the offer? And does it matter in this case that the financial basis is due to a rightwing nationalist party? Would you hesitate if the funds were raised by a centre party instead? Are we to justify the political trends that control our professional engagements? When do we as archaeolo gists or historians have an ethical obligation to refuse financial support to certain subjects or to refuse to prioritize finds of national interestand when do we just do our duty as (partly) state employed? The above are real dilemmas that Danish museum and university employees have encountered over the past ten years. However, as the Danish People's Party is not considered an extremist party in Denmark, no one has yet refused the extra funds from the Finance Act. There are perhaps no right or wrong answers to these issues as long as we live in the midst of an epoch. Nonetheless these are dilemmas that we must hold on to for the purpose of discussion.
Danish human science graduates in general have buried their heads in the sand hoping that the political agenda will change by the next elec tion. In the meantime the xenophobic tendencies have grown stronger concurrently with a weakening of the influence of the human sciences due to government policy. In the diary of the German Protestant but Jewishborn professor Victor Klemperer (2000) in the years 1933-1945, it is possible to follow the change from a democratic society with strong emphasis on human sciences to a dictatorship based on mistrust, inform ants and restrictions in citizens' rights. The Nazi regime stands as an ex ample of exclusion because of its extreme consequences, and hopefully the example is still strong enough to secure a humanistic policy in spite of the growing rightwing parties in Europe. If we want a closed, right wingcontrolled, exclusive society, however, Germany of the 1930s has shown us how it is done: Find the arguments for excluding academics who speak against the government. Then gradually close the humanis tic faculties. Let a supporting party announce the most radical exclusive policies that hang in the balance of exceeding human decency and hu man rights, and those relating to the closing of borders to other nation alities. Finally, create a national identity based on a history that justifies why these citizens have the right to a more decent life than those in the rest of the world. Many of these phenomena are occurring in Danish politics right now 6 and ought to be discussed by those archaeologists who will not contribute to the latter.

CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS AVOID POLITICS?
AG & HK are concerned that Swedish archaeology will be used by the Sweden Democrats party's culture policy, regardless of the fact that most Swedish archaeologists avoid participating in the ongoing political ne gotiations. In Denmark at least, and perhaps in Sweden too, most ar chaeologists are trained within a tradition that considers the profession of archaeology a craft. As such it is hard to see ourselves and our pro fession as part of ongoing political debates. The problem is that without reflecting on it, we quickly adjust to the current political agenda, as the examples from the Danish archaeological discourse around the millen nium show. Concurrently, most of us find it easy to accept the idea of archaeological finds being of value to the nation state, as we are edu cated within the national context. In Denmark, upcoming archaeolo gists study the prehistory of Denmark (Danmarks Oldtid), while in Swe den they probably study the history of Sweden (Sveriges historia). Later on, we read articles referring the finds to a national frame (Aronsson 2008). In public schools children are taught that "6000 years ago peo ple in Denmark started to cultivate fields …" (Dehn & Poulsen 2011:16, my translation), but not that it was almost 6000 years before the na tion state of Denmark appeared. It is therefore most essential that the universities train their scholars to reflect on these matters -a skill with low priority in Denmark.
The result is that we have a hard time arguing for our profession when meeting the media. Using the arguments about the loss of national iden tity or heritage then becomes the easy way out. This means, however, that for parties like the Danish People's Party and the Sweden Demo crats Party it is easy to use archaeological cases in their argumentation 6 By initiative of the Danish People's Party, the Danish government has recently intensified the custom controls at the Danish borders. This was commented on by the professor of political science Marlene Wind. Her comment triggered a re sponse from the leading politicians in the Danish People's Party, who stated that Marlene Wind "is dead" as an expert (DR 2011a) and demanded a codex for what experts are allowed to say in the media (DR 2011b). for a conservative culture policy that excludes "new" residents from the cultural community. In fact, most parties in Denmark find reason to constantly rebuild the fundaments of the nation state, as it is their political framework.
AG & HK list a number of suggestions for Swedish archaeology to find a common ground in the battle against xenophobia. I would like to comment on this. First and foremost I find it a fine initiative. Since the institution of the Keeper of the Archaeological Records was closed down in Denmark, no one has been in the position to speak for the cause of archaeology, as the Heritage Agency of Denmark cannot act against the Ministry of Culture. I believe, though, that the guidelines for con trolling the political abuse of archaeology must be quite specific. That is, they must be more precise in what AG & HK call "Present[ing] the societal value of archaeology": When we argue for archaeology, we can stress the fact that we investigate the basic terms of human societies and human existence. We can also argue that many people find substance in knowing about prehistoric lives, being able to compare their own lives with those of thousands of generations. We must argue that confidence in the world can be gained through knowledge of a wide range of ways of living and in knowing that cultural change is not a rare phenomenon that one must act against but instead a fact of life. We can enlighten the public that unchanging cultures and cultural heritages are rarer than the shifting ones. We can start by acting against the biased use of national frames for the archaeological science and the history school books. Then we can try to define the value of the archaeological sites and prehistoric contexts that have no sign of kings and no symbols of power, national defence systems or the Church. Mette Bjerrum Jensen Museet for Varde By og Omegn Lundvej 4, 6800 Varde, Denmark