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

Abstract 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 nonprofessional 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 nonprofessional 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.

[1]  Margaret Brown Vega,et al.  Community-Based Archaeology: Research With, By, and for Indigenous and Local Communities , 2014 .

[2]  Tuija-Liisa Soininen Adopt-a-Monument: Preserving archaeological heritage for the people, with the people , 2017 .

[3]  C. Nuckolls Archaeology, Mormonism, and the Claims of History , 2008 .

[4]  Andreas M. Kaplan,et al.  Social media: back to the roots and back to the future , 2012, J. Syst. Inf. Technol..

[5]  Oula Seitsonen,et al.  Crowdsourcing cultural heritage: public participation and conflict legacy in Finland , 2017 .

[6]  J. D. Snowball,et al.  The valuation of campus built heritage from the student perspective: Comparative analysis of Rhodes University in South Africa and St. Mary’s College of Maryland in the United States , 2010 .

[7]  João Vieira Caldas,et al.  Translating heritage into museums: two architectural strategies inside Lisbon Castle , 2017 .

[8]  Michael F. Brown Heritage Trouble: Recent Work on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Property , 2005, International Journal of Cultural Property.

[9]  Suzie Thomas,et al.  Searching for answers: a survey of metal-detector users in the UK , 2012 .

[10]  T. Lähdesmäki,et al.  The EU'S Explicit and Implicit Heritage Politics , 2014 .

[11]  Henry Cleere,et al.  Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World , 1991 .

[12]  A. Trafford,et al.  Repositioning Malta as a cultural heritage destination , 2010 .

[13]  C. Holtorf Beyond crusades: how (not) to engage with alternative archaeologies , 2005 .

[14]  N. Brodie Congenial Bedfellows? The Academy and the Antiquities Trade , 2011 .

[15]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[16]  D. Lowenthal Why Sanctions Seldom Work: Reflections on Cultural Property Internationalism , 2005, International Journal of Cultural Property.

[17]  P. Abeygunawardena,et al.  Energy Security, Food Security, and Economics of Sugarcane Bioethanol in India , 2011 .

[18]  Bailey Ashton Adie,et al.  World Heritage as a placebo brand: a comparative analysis of three sites and marketing implications , 2018 .

[19]  Josephine Munch Rasmussen,et al.  Securing Cultural Heritage Objects and Fencing Stolen Goods? A Case Study on Museums and Metal Detecting in Norway , 2014 .

[20]  Costis Dallas,et al.  Archaeological knowledge, virtual exhibitions and the social construction of meaning , 2007 .

[21]  H. Roued-Cunliffe Collection building amongst heritage amateurs , 2017 .

[22]  G. Fagan,et al.  Crusading against straw men: an alternative view of alternative archaeologies: response to Holtorf (2005) , 2006 .

[23]  Miguel Vidal González Intangible heritage tourism and identity , 2008 .

[24]  L. Richardson I’ll give you ‘punk archaeology’, sunshine , 2017 .

[25]  Yuksel Ekinci,et al.  Destination image and destination personality: An application of branding theories to tourism places , 2006 .

[26]  Meera Ashar,et al.  Public , 2017, The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions.

[27]  Isto Huvila,et al.  Archaeological Practices, Knowledge Work and Digitalisation , 2018 .

[28]  H. W. Winger : The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man , 1963 .

[29]  P. Hayward,et al.  Takarajima: A Treasured Island: Exogeneity, folkloric identity and local branding , 2014 .

[30]  Chiara Bonacchi,et al.  Experiments in Crowd-funding Community Archaeology , 2015 .

[31]  Louise E. Grove,et al.  What’s the Future for Heritage Crime Research? , 2014 .

[32]  D. Harvey Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies , 2001 .

[33]  K. Rountree Neo‐Paganism, Native Faith and indigenous religion: a case study of Malta within the European context , 2014 .

[34]  A. Bosch Museums , 2005, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies.

[35]  W. Poser,et al.  Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory , 1992 .

[36]  P. Deutz,et al.  Archaeological tourism: A creative approach , 2017 .