Abstract

In Swedish archaeology, studies of towns have diverged from definition to deconstruction. One reason is that landscape studies stress the existence of occasional similar expressions of power in rural and urban contexts. Another is the observation that towns can display vague forms of urbanity, with lack of dense settlement and varied economy, as well as showing strong agrarian production. A focus on power functions in the landscape and vagueness in urban space have led to definitions such as “urbanities”, with connotations to urban functions in non-urban contexts. Instead of using “urbanities” as a basis for the terminology, the article argues that the constant variable was the maintenance of power with its material discourse in the landscape. As such, towns were only one structure among others, but a special one. Deconstructing the urban phenomenon does not strengthen research on towns.

Since the 1990’s, a need for writing an urban “history from below” has been stressed. However, analyses still show strong structural affiliations and superficial interpretations. I advocate a higher definition for artefact studies, spatial patterning, comparative studies in- and between towns, as well as sociological perspectives on a face-to-face level to make the intentions operational. Social perspectives emanating from subjective interactionism and social neuroscience are brought forward as possible tools for interpreting material culture. Case studies from Sigtuna and Nyköping on coeval artisan activities in building plots and cultural contrasts in urban culture due to different political interfaces are used as examples.