Archaeological Knowledge Production and Global Communities: Boundaries and Structure of the Field

被引:8
作者
Lauzikas, Rimvydas [1 ]
Dallas, Costis [2 ,3 ]
Thomas, Suzie [4 ]
Kelpsiene, Ingrida [1 ]
Huvila, Isto [5 ]
Luengo, Pedro [6 ]
Nobre, Helena [7 ]
Toumpouri, Marina [8 ,9 ,10 ]
Vaitkevicius, Vykintas [1 ]
机构
[1] Vilnius Univ, Fac Commun, Sauletekio Al 9, LT-10222 Vilnius, Lithuania
[2] Univ Toronto, Fac Informat, 140 St George St, Toronto, ON M2S 3G6, Canada
[3] IMIS Athena Res Ctr, Digital Curat Unit, Maroussi, Greece
[4] Univ Helsinki, Dept Cultures, Fabianinkatu 33, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland
[5] Uppsala Univ, Dept ALM, Thunbergsvagen 3C, S-75238 Uppsala, Sweden
[6] Univ Seville, Dept Hist Art, C Maria Padilla S-N, Seville 41004, Spain
[7] Univ Aveiro, GOVCOPP, DEGEIT, Campus Univ Santiago, P-3810193 Aveiro, Portugal
[8] Athoniki Psifiaki Kivotos, Athens, Greece
[9] Athoniki Psifiaki Kivotos, Mt Athos, Greece
[10] Church Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
关键词
archaeology-related communities; semiosphere theory; Yuri Lotman; digital heritage; non-professional archaeology; HERITAGE; TOURISM; MUSEUMS; WORK;
D O I
10.1515/opar-2018-0022
中图分类号
K85 [文物考古];
学科分类号
0601 ;
摘要
Archaeology and material cultural heritage enjoys a particular status as a form of heritage that, capturing the public imagination, has become the locus for the expression and negotiation of regional, national, and intra-national cultural identities. One important question is: why and how do contemporary people engage with archaeological heritage objects, artefacts, information or knowledge outside the realm of an professional, academically-based archaeology? This question is investigated here from the perspective of theoretical considerations based on Yuri Lotman's semiosphere theory, which helps to describe the connections between the centre and peripheries of professional archaeology as sign structures. The centre may be defined according to prevalent scientific paradigms, while periphery in the space of creolisation in which, through interactions with other culturally more distant sign structures, archaeology-related non-professional communities emerge. On the basis of these considerations, we use collocation analysis on representative English language corpora to outline the structure of the field of archaeology-related non-professional communities, identify salient creolised peripheral spaces and archaeology-related practices, and develop a framework for further investigation of archaeological knowledge production and reuse in the context of global archaeology.
引用
收藏
页码:350 / 364
页数:15
相关论文
共 70 条
[1]   World Heritage as a placebo brand: a comparative analysis of three sites and marketing implications [J].
Adie, Bailey Ashton ;
Hall, C. Michael ;
Prayag, Girish .
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM, 2018, 26 (03) :399-415
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2010, LIETUVIU KALBOS KOLO
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2000, RISE NETWORK SOC
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2016, INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLO
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2005, STONEHENGE VEGAS ARC
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1991, English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik
[7]  
Atalay Sonja., 2012, Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities, DOI DOI 10.4324/9781315416533
[8]  
Barranha H, 2017, J CULT HERIT MANAG S, V7, P33, DOI 10.1108/JCHMSD-05-2016-0033
[9]  
Bauman Z., 2000, LIQUID MODERNITY
[10]  
Boeuf P. L., 2017, DEFINITION CIDOC CON