Abstract

What do we mean by the term “special investigation”? Collection of data, research and funding in accordancewith the Cultural Heritage Act, § 10.Section 10 of the Cultural Heritage Act stipulates that expenses for special investigation of protected culturalmonuments shall be covered by the developer. In today’s practice, the term "special investigation" includes collectionof archaeological data, but not further research related to the same data. Expenses for data collection will thusbe paid for by the developer, while expenses for further research will be covered by the institution responsible forthe “special investigation”: The University and Maritime Museums and The Norwegian Institute for Cultural heritageResearch (NIKU). This implies a notion that collecting data qualitatively differs from research.However, it is not possible to see data collection as detached from the research process. In this paper, we arguethat this was not the intention behind the term “special investigation” in the first place. The epistemological dividebetween collection of data and research emerged as a result of a politically initiated, functional divide between culturalheritage management on one hand, and archaeological research on the other.We argue that “special investigation” can and should be re-interpreted in order to establish a practice recognizingcollection of data as a natural and inextricably integrated part of the research process. We believe that this does notnecessarily have to be very expensive. At the same time, it opens for a significant potential for future archaeologicalknowledge production.

Highlights

  • Summary: What do we mean by the term “special investigation”? Collection of data, research and funding in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Act, § 10

  • In today’s practice, the term "special investigation" includes collection of archaeological data, but not further research related to the same data

  • Expenses for data collection will be paid for by the developer, while expenses for further research will be covered by the institution responsible for the “special investigation”: The University and Maritime Museums and The Norwegian Institute for Cultural heritage Research (NIKU)

Read more

Summary

Fagfellevurdert artikkel

Slik kulturminneloven praktiseres i dag, omfatter uttrykket «særskilt gransking» innsamling av arkeologiske data, men ikke videre forskning knyttet til de samme dataene. Sitatet viser at Riksantikvaren legger til grunn at uttrykket «særskilt gransking» omfatter innsamling av arkeologiske data, men ikke videre forskning på de samme dataene. Setning nummer to viser at dagens finansieringspraksis ikke forholder seg til dette, da man skiller finansieringen av innsamling av data fra finansieringen av forskning. Riksantikvaren tolker her formuleringen «særskilt gransking» slik at forskning ikke inngår i tiltakshavers dekningsplikt. Dommen i Kvålesaken fra 2007 kan kanskje oppfattes slik, men etter vår mening tar ikke Høyesterett stilling til hvorvidt forskning inngår som en del av «særskilt gransking». Imidlertid kan også et mer overordnet politisk ønske om adskillelse av forskning og forvaltning (se ovenfor) ha hatt en virkning her

Arkeologiske forvaltningsundersøkelser og forskningsfinansiering
Kan praksis endres?
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call