1JZGauQ

6: AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE IRON CURTAIN
inherent in the material itself that is valuable and uses the provocative
example of Stonehenge to make her point that it “is basically a collection of
rocks in a field” (Smith 2006:3). Criticism of this statement from archaeologist
Brit Solli on the other hand counterclaims that “Stonehenge’s essence
is its durable ‘stoniness’” and that there is something inherent in its
materiality and permanence (Solli 2011:45). What is missed in this discussion,
as shown by Pétursdóttir, is to recognise the hierarchy that is implied within
these discussions of tangible or intangible, with one seen as better than the
other. Pétursdóttir agrees with Smith that Stonehenge is exactly that, a
collection of rocks in a field but what she disagrees with is Smith’s way of
seeing this to be meaningless and instead she claims that the ‘stoniness’
should be seen as valuable and important (Pétursdóttir 2013:47). She writes
“Conversely though, it is not her [Smith’s] statement that ‘Stonehenge… is
basically a collection of rocks in a field’… that is problematic; that is in fact
exactly what it is. The problem, however, is to see that as meaningless. What
characterizes the intangible heritage discourse (or even heritage discourses in
general), as well as much of interpretative archaeology, is not only that meaning,
value and significance are seen as inevitably subjective, but also that
meaning is confused with or restricted, rather to symbolical or other modes of
derivative meanings… is it so that Stonehenge itself, in its simple
‘stoniness’… brings nothing of value to the encounters with the subjective
experiences that for centuries have circulated around it” (Pétursdóttir
2013:47, emphasis in original). Although the example of Stonehenge may
appear exaggerated it is exactly because of its status as a monumental heritage
that it becomes interesting and brings several questions forward. Most of all, I
believe, it makes it clear that the discussions in which we place tangible and
intangible against each other are not really going to bring the discussion of
heritage forward. Similarly to discussions of the different sources we deal with
in our research we have to be open to the different types of heritage we are
faced with, tangible or intangible, and recognise the value in both. It is here
that I fear this material turn is slipping over into the wrong type of focus in
which strengthening the value and status of physical objects also means
intensifying the divide between objects and other sources even further and
with that we risk falling down in Andrén’s in-betweeness even further. I
believe this material turn has its strength in the way it helps us interpret our
sources in order not to load them with cultural and social values they are unfit
to hold. It can help us to have an open and holistic methodology towards our
sources so that we do not subject our narratives and metaphors to the mater-
191