u/Educational_Onion_74

I am a writer and researcher. For the past several months I have found prehistoric rock art, ritual remains and burial grounds that have never appeared in any official record, and the historical sources make clear that this was not an oversight.
The locations themselves are registered as prehistorically important, but they claim that nothing of interest remains. No rock carvings, no graves, nada.

I have cross-referenced medieval primary sources, centuries old local history and modern archaeological reports. The sources are consistent with each other and with what I am finding in the field. I understand the difference between observation and interpretation and have been careful about that distinction.
When I first reported this I was not taken seriously. I submitted a 200 page report with field documentation, photographs and historical sources. Since then I have been completely ghosted. I have been trying to get a response for two months. The authorities have institutional and practical motives to delay engagement with this for as long as possible.
I am interested in the historical and archaeological significance of what is here, and in making sure it is properly investigated before anything happens to it.
I am writing a book, which means I have spent significant time with the primary sources and I am not going into this conversation empty-handed. I can prove that this area was deliberately erased from my hometowns history during the christening, and that its been kept hidden because the people in charge has preferred it that way.

Two questions. Is it appropriate to reach out to archaeologists directly when the authorities are unresponsive? And if so, how do you actually want to be contacted — email, institution, a specific department? What approach gets taken seriously and what gets deleted without being read?
Im in Sweden.

Sorry if this is a stupid question. This is all very surreal and my mind is all over the place.

Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone, layperson here hoping for some expert input.

I’m looking at an archaeological survey report where 36 trenches were dug across a large area. The excavators hit what they called “sterile clay” at around 0.5–0.7 m depth and concluded no prehistoric remains existed on the site.

The site sits in the bend of a river, surrounded by hills, and today consists of dry clay soil. During the Viking Age this river was connected to a larger lake system. Historical texts mention the possible existence of a harbour in this area during the Iron Age, and the surrounding hills are associated with a prehistoric pagan cult site. The area has also been theorized as a border zone between two kingdoms.

Given this broader context and the fact that harbour and cult environments tend to accumulate cultural layers over time, I’m wondering:

1.	Could what they identified as “sterile clay” actually be sediment deposits from the former lake system, with Iron Age cultural layers lying beneath?

2.	Is 0.5–0.7 m a sufficient depth to reach Iron Age strata in this kind of environment?

3.	Should a paleoenvironmental analysis be standard practice before concluding a site is archaeologically empty, given this dramatically changed waterscape and the broader historical significance of the surrounding area?

Grateful for any thoughts from people with wetland or harbour archaeology experience.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​