Resources

This article aims to provide an interpretation of the structure and spatial patterning of the non-ceramic refuse from the Neolithic site of Bylany. The data are considered at three levels: tackling questions of refuse management and deposition in the vicinity of houses; the spatial distribution of refuse within the settlement area as a whole; and the quantity and structure of non-ceramic refuse from a long-term settlement perspective. The analysed assemblage of non-ceramic finds is divided into five categories: chipped stone, polished stone, whetstones, manos/metates, and other stones without use-wear traces. The analysis is based on GIS and multivariate statistics. The spatial distribution and quantity of refuse are analysed with respect to space (in terms of proximity to Neolithic houses and the whole of the excavated settlement area) and time (the duration of settlement in six chronological stages). No deliberate pattern of refuse management was identified in the vicinity of the houses, but the refuse was found to have a tendency towards peripheral grouping within the settled area as a whole. Refuse quantity depends on the number of houses and settlement duration. The negative correlation between the mean density of non-ceramic artefacts per house and the number of houses in corresponding chronological stages may be explained by the interpretation that refuse was commonly deposited within abandoned houses, which would be consistent with ethnoarchaeological observations.

The relationship between heritage management and nature conservation in Sweden has changed over time, from an earlier division between the two sectors — with nature conservation attached to the growing movement of environmental politics — towards more integrated ways of working under the umbrella of sustainable development. As forests have been associated with nature, the earlier divide has been more evident with forested areas than agricultural areas, a view that has contributed to the marginalization of such landscapes and their inhabitants. With the more integrated policy, heritage management is drawn into the societal discourse of ecological modernization, where environmental and sustainability issues have become new business ideas and sources of further economic growth. From an ecological modernization perspective, nature and cultural heritage are today (touristic) commodities, enforcing the power of the urban world over the rural world and thus risk contributing to further marginalization of the inhabitants. However, heritage sites appear to function as boundary objects in local communities, and may thus function as meeting places and sources of enhancement of community pride. Therefore, we argue for community participation and public communication within the heritage sector, especially concerning marginalized, forested landscapes in order to contribute to an increased knowledge and understanding of the local heritage and history, thus opening the way for creative local processes.