- Alle tidsskrifter
- Helse- og sosialfag
- Humanistiske fag
- Pedagogikk og utdanning
Danske «moselik» er velkjent i Skandinavia, mindre kjent er det at det også finnes lik fra myr i Norge. Noen av disse er fra middelalder: nye dateringer av kristne begravelser i myr ved kirken i Guddal viser at de er fra middelalderens første halvdel. Disse funnene demonstrerer at mye fortsatt er uklart omkring kristendommens tidligste tid i Norge. Landskapslovene og arkeologisk materiale er viktige kilder til tidlig kristenliv i Norge, men funnene fra Guddal antyder en viss motsetning mellom kildene. Artikkelen vil presentere funnene og de nye dateringene og diskutere hvordan dette passer inn i vår kunnskap om tidlig kristen praksis i Norge.
Iron Age ‘bog bodies proper’ are well known from Denmark, but less familiar are those of various dates found in bogs from other parts of Scandinavia. Fourteen burials are known from bogs in Norway – all as skeletons and mostly prehistoric – but, in addition, many medieval ‘bog bodies proper’ were found during at least the period 1903–1970 near the church site of Guddal, Fjaler in Sunnfjord. Not one of these bodies from Guddal was collected or studied, although some exceptionally well-preserved wooden material and textiles have been assembled and many graves are still in situ. The Guddal case is unique in Scandinavia with respect to the number of bog bodies at one site, as well as the historic context – a medieval, Christian society. Apart from analyses of the textiles, little has been written about other aspects of the Guddal discovery. The site is worthy of closer investigation, however. New dendrochronological analyses reveal that the material is dateable to the 11th – 13th centuries, which is the earliest period of Christianity in Norway. The provincial law codes, homilies and archaeology are important sources of early Christian life in Norway, but much remains uncertain regarding Christianity in this early period. The finds from Guddal demonstrate some intriguing contradictions between sources and so further attention is called for. We take a closer look at the evidence from Guddal – presenting the grave material as well as new information on dates. We conclude that this bog cemetery is an example of local variation which is difficult to explain from current knowledge. Further investigations are needed, but these may involve difficult, ethical issues.
Norske, engelske og franske historikere er enige om at det mastergradsstudenter i historie skal lære i løpet av studiet, er hvordan bedrive historisk forskning. Men hva er historisk forskning? Når historikere fra seks universiteter i disse tre landene i intervjuer beskriver den faglige kjernen de ønsker å formidle til studentene, vektlegger de ulike aspekter: Mens de norske insisterer på ensom og langsom modning gjennom arkivarbeid og skriving av lange oppgaver, er de engelske opptatt av å utvikle studentenes retoriske ferdigheter gjennom kursundervisning og skriving av korte essays. De franske historikerne er derimot opptatt av at studentene skal utvikle et sanselig forhold til gamle dokumenter og «få smaken for støv». Hvordan skal vi forstå disse variasjonene, og hva kan de fortelle oss om sammenheng mellom undervisningspraksiser, disiplinidealer og den historiske og samfunnsmessige konteksten disse inngår i?
Norwegian, English and French historians agree that the key thing that has to be conveyed to their master’s students is how to conduct historical research. But what is historical research? This article is based on interviews with professors of history at six universities in Norway, England and France about how they define their discipline and how they think it ought to be taught. The interviews unveil variations between the historians’ disciplinary definitions and also between their forms of transmission. These turn out to be structured along national dimensions: whereas Norwegian historians primarily value slow and individual work on primary sources and the writing of a single long thesis, the English value training in rhetorical skills through seminars and the writing of several shorter essays. French historians focus on developing the student’s sensitivity for the material aspects of historical research. Furthermore, there are variations between the ways in which historians situate their discipline on a wider disciplinary map: whereas Norwegian historians set up a map pitting disciplines within the humanities against disciplines within the social sciences, and consider history as part of the former, English historians consider that this division takes place within history, opposing humanities-oriented historians to social science-oriented ones. The French depart even further from the others by not opposing the humanities and the social sciences at all, but by considering all these to be part of a common group sharing epistemological ideals and research practices. The article further investigates the historical-sociological context for the development of the discipline of history in each of the three countries in order to make these variations more understandable. The structure of the educational system, the regulation of the relationship between the educational system and the labour market and historical disciplinary debates all shed light on the nationally varying conceptions of history.
Spørsmålet om EF-medlemskap var et av det forrige århundrets mest splittende politiske tema i Norge. Artikkelen setter fokus på selve medlemskapsforhandlingene, som foregikk i perioden juni 1970 til januar 1972 og som dannet grunnlaget for den påfølgende EF-kampen og folkeavstemningen. Basert på et omfattende arkivmateriale analyseres motivene og strategiene til de to regjeringene som var ansvarlig for de norske forhandlingene, ledet av henholdsvis Borten og Bratteli. Dette viser at sentrum/periferi-skillet i norsk politikk er viktig for å forstå forhandlingsstrategiene, og hvordan Bratteli-regjeringen havnet i en svært krevende situasjon på grunn av Borten-regjeringens tøffe åpning.
Membership of the European Community was one of Norway’s most divisive issues in the 20th century. Not only did it bring down two governments, it also brought about intensive, bitter divisions within political parties and among friends and families. The focus of this article is the accession negotiations between the Community and Norway, from June 1970 to January 1972, which became the basis for the subsequent membership debate and referendum. Based on released government archive documents, the article provides insight into the considerations and actions of the two Norwegian governments involved in the negotiations. It establishes how the conservative/centre coalition government led by Per Borten initiated the negotiations by choosing a very tough strategy, not least because a majority of his government had the strong support of rural Norway, where scepticism to membership was prevalent. Particularly important for these areas were permanent exemptions from the Common Market rules on agriculture and fisheries. It was Trygve Bratteli and his Labour Party government that carried out the most substantial parts of the negotiations. They were significantly more positive to European integration and did not have such strong ties to rural Norway. But their predecessor’s tough approach had created high, unrealistic hopes that special arrangements for the primary sectors in the Norwegian periphery could be achieved. Thus, the Bratteli government had to take a tougher approach than they fundamentally wanted to, and play a double game with the Norwegian public. It became a battle between what was achievable in Brussels and what they could get away with domestically, and eventually these positions turned out to be unbridgeable. The analysis hence demonstrates how important the domestic political context is for understanding international negotiations and how opening positions can influence the rest of negotiations and voters’ views on the final treaty.
I 2002 opprettet den norske regjeringen Abelprisen til minne om matematikeren Niels Henrik Abel (1802–1829). Målet var at den årlige prisen på seks millioner kroner skulle etablere seg som verdens ledende matematikkpris. Markedsføringen av Abelprisen som «den manglende nobelprisen i matematikk» fikk fullt gjennomslag blant norske politikere og i det internasjonale matematikkmiljøet. Historien om hvordan Abelprisen ble til er en historie om tette kontakter og nettverk mellom akademikere, politikere, byråkrater og industriledere i en liten nasjon. Den er en del av norsk samtidshistorie som gir et innblikk i hvordan politikk kan bli til utenfor den offentlige scenen, og den er en beretning om hvordan kulturarven kan bli mobilisert for forskningspolitiske formål.
The Abel Prize in Mathematics was created by the Norwegian government in 2002 in memory of the mathematician Niels Henrik Abel (1802–1829). The aim was to establish an annual Abel Prize of NOK 6 million (about US$ 1.1 mill.) that would be world leading in mathematics. Creation of the prize was the result of a short and successful campaign in the spring and summer of 2001, when it was presented as «the missing Nobel Prize in mathematics». The campaign was based on a powerful mobilization of the history of mathematics and of the dissolution of the union between Sweden – the home of the Nobel Prizes – and Norway in 1905. Mobilization was very well received by both an international mathematical community which for a hundred years had been longing for a scientific prize at the highest level, and by a Norwegian political community that had long been expressing increasing concerns about a lack of interest and competence in the natural sciences throughout the entire Norwegian schooling and higher education system. The Swedish Nobel Foundation nevertheless found repeated presentation of the new prize – «a Nobel in mathematics» – to be quite inappropriate. The article deals with how the Abel Prize was successfully established in the relatively mathematical periphery of Norway, and with how well it has lived up to high expectations during its first ten years.