After I posted my previous contribution I saw that K-blogg (The National Heritage Board’s blogg (RAA)) has published all the signs, there are obviously in total four signs. I will read these tomorrow and come back with some comments. It is possible that these three other signs gives another picture.
Martin Rundqvist has also written a new post regarding RAA’s policy in the matter.
Perhaps I need a good nights sleep to ponder over its content and what I really think about it.
…at Aardvarchaeology. Martin Rundkvist have made good of his promise and he has published a photo of the now infamous info sign at Ale stenar, oddly enough it seems to be printed only in Swedish. Most signs nowadays are printed in Swedish, English and German. So I will ask Martin if this is the whole sign or only a part printed in Swedish? How does this go along with RAA’s goal of availability?
On The National Heritage Board’s (RAA’s) homepage under the headline: Accessible, Useful and Vital, RAA writes:
Heritage belongs to everyone… At the core of what we do is the vision of a heritage that is accessible, useful and vital for people everywhere.
My questions are:
- How is it accessible to people everywhere if it is only printed in Swedish?
- How and for who is the information useful it is not based on scientific fact or cumulative knowledge?
- How and for who is the information vital it is not based on scientific fact or cumulative knowledge?
The text starts something like this: “To be recognized (catalogued) as an ancient monument a place or object shall be lastingly abandoned (this according to the Swedish law regarding ancient monuments). And this is something that can’t be said about Ale stenar… “
This leads me to question the intention of this frase: Does it imply that Ale stenar is not a ancient monument or does it mean that objects or monuments that are being frequented by tourists or studied by archaeologists should be regarded as something as in use and therefore not be regarded as ancient monuments?
The rest of text does not take any standpoints regarding dating, function or meaning. But refers to both archaeologists and Mr. Bob Lind and seems to give equal weight to the interpretation of Mr. Lind and “the archaeological researchers”. I stand baffled and at loss of words.
The picture at the bottom of the sign is an explanation of the solar calendar theory presented by Mr. Bob Lind. The picture gives the impression that this is the most likely theory.
I do think, like Martin Rundqvist and others, that this sign should never have been made, please bury it and repent!
I will read the sign more thorough before I comment on its content in detail.