Your browser has javascript turned off or blocked. This will lead to some parts of our website to not work properly or at all. Turn on javascript for best performance.

The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here:

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Bland mumier och mosslik - en jämförande studie av populärarkeologi och fackarkeologi


  • Veronica Larsson

Summary, in English

In my paper I have compared popular science and neutral science regarding language and construction. My task was to find out if there are differences between the language of popular science and that of scientific science. The purpose of my paper is to answer four questions

1.How do the authors present the bogbodies and the mummies in the two categories?

2.What does the popular science imagine that you want to read about?

3.Is there a difference between the target groups of the two categories?

4. Does the presentation of the subject have consequenses when it comes to contents and readers?

I have studied how often the authors use drawings, photos, diagrams, maps, and if the titles of the chapters can tell you something about the nature of books. My studies are based on fourteen books about mummies and bogbodies and I also used six written sources about popular science only. I used tables for the criteria regarding the build of the books When it comes to the criteria regarding language I cited small parts from all the books that were typical of the two categories. To compare popular science and neutral science is an important subject and an interesting task for a paper. The differences between the two categories is a much debated subject. The task for the paper is to show that popular science is better than its repuatation, and that a book on scientific science is not always without failings. In many cases popular science uses more colorphotos than scientific science and scientific science uses more diagrams. When it comes to the total number of photos in the books scientific science uses more pictures than popular science.

When it comes to my study of titles of capters it shows that popular science is more saleable than sientific science. It is the public popular science has as the target group. The targetgroup of scientific science are experts and therefore the titles are not as entcing as the titles of popular science. The language of popular science is free from scientific terms but not that of scientific science. Sometimes the language in a popular science book is humorous. The conclusions are that both categories have to change. Popular science has to be based more on facts to give information to the public and scientific science has to be a bit ?more popular? regarding the language. The more objective popular science is the ideal for both categories. But differences are not as big as one could imagine.


Publishing year




Document type

Student publication for Master's degree (one year)


  • History and Archaeology


  • Populärvetenskap
  • Media
  • Förmedling
  • Archaeology
  • Arkeologi


  • Åsa Gillberg