Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …
Open Access

Open Archaeology

Editor-in-Chief: Harding, Anthony

Covered by:
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

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

Rimvydas Laužikas / Costis Dallas
  • Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, 140 St George St, Toronto, ON, Canada & Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Athena, Greece
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Suzie Thomas / Ingrida Kelpšienė / Isto Huvila / Pedro Luengo / Helena Nobre
  • DEGEIT, GOVCOPP, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitario de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Marina Toumpouri
  • Αθωνική Ψηφιακή Κιβωτός (Athoniki Psifiaki Kivotos), Athens and Mount Athos, Greece & The Church of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Vykintas Vaitkevičius
Published Online: 2018-09-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0022


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.

Keywords: archaeology-related communities; semiosphere theory; Yuri Lotman; digital heritage; nonprofessional archaeology


  • Acropolis of Athens. (2018). http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/3/eh351.jsp?obj_id=2384Google Scholar

  • Adie, B. A., Hall, C. M., & Prayag, G. (2017). World Heritage as a placebo brand: a comparative analysis of three sites and marketing implications. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1359277CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Adopt-a-Monument. (2018). http://adoptoimonumentti.fiGoogle Scholar

  • Akropolis. (2018). http://akropolis.lt/Google Scholar

  • ARKWORK (2016). Memorandum of Understanding for the implementation of the COST action “Archaeological practices and knowledge work in the digital environment” (ARKWORK) CA15201 (COST 002/16). Brussel: COST, http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/ca/CA15201.Google Scholar

  • Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archaeology: research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Barranha, H., Caldas, J. V., & Silva, R. (2017). Translating heritage into museums: two architectural strategies inside Lisbon Castle. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 7(1), 33-47. DOI: 10.1108/JCHMSD-05-2016-0033CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Boeuf, P., Doerr, M., Ore, C. E., & Stead, S. (Eds.). (2017). Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. Produced by the ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group, Continued by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group Version 6.2.3, http://www.cidoccrm.org/docs/cidoc_crm_version_6.2.1.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Bonacchi, C., Pett, D., Bevan, A., & Keinan-Schoonbaert, A. (2015) Experiments in Crowd-funding Community Archaeology. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 2(3), 184-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/2051819615Z.00000000041CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, B. N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brodie, N. (2011). Congenial bedfellows? The academy and the antiquities trade. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(4), 408-437.Google Scholar

  • Brodie, N., Contreras, D., Merryman, J., Harrison, P., Seligman, T., & Meskell, L. (2009). Buying, Selling, Owning the Past, https://news.stanford.edu/news/multi/features/heritage/images/paper_heritage.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Brown, M. F. (2005). Heritage Trouble: Recent Work on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Property. International Journal of Cultural Property, 12(01), 40-61. DOI: 10.1017/S0940739105050010CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bruchac, M., Hart, S., & Wobst, H. M. (2016). Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader on Decolonization. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar

  • Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of The Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

  • Castells, M. (2009). The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

  • Cave of Altamira. (2018). http://www.mecd.gob.es/mnaltamira/home.html;jsessionid=C90FA0A903BE25AB89691921AD9336E7Google Scholar

  • Choo, C. W. (2002). Information Management for the Intelligent Organization: The Art of Scanning the Environment. Medford Township: Information Today, Inc.Google Scholar

  • Christie, A. (1936). Murder in Mesopotamia. London: Collins Crime Club.Google Scholar

  • Clack, T., & Brittain, M. (2007). Archaeology and the media. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar

  • Cleere, H. (2005). Archaeological heritage management in the modern world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Cowell, B. (2013). The National Planning Policy Framework and Archaeology: A Discussion. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22, 27-29. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/pia.397CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dallas, C. (2007). Archaeological knowledge, virtual exhibitions and the social construction of meaning. In P. Moscati (Ed.), Virtual museums and archaeology: the contribution of the Italian National Research Council (pp. 31-64). Roma: Insegna del Giglio. Retrieved from http://soi.cnr.it/archcalc/indice/Suppl_1/4_Dallas.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Dallas, C. & Kelpšienė, I. (2017). Archaeological interactions between objects, amateurs and professionals on Facebook: a meta-analysis and conceptual framework. Presented at the Building Bridges: 23rd Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA2017), Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

  • Dallas, C., & Kelpšienė, I. (2018). Archaeology and social networking sites: a systematic literature review and conceptual analysis of topics, questions and approaches. In Abstracts: Human History and Digital Future: CAA Tubingen 2018 (p. 198). Tubingen: University of Tubingen.Google Scholar

  • Dallas, C. & Kelpšienė, I. (forthcoming). “Archaeology on Facebook: a Qualitative Data Analysis Based on Interviews and Focus Groups with Administrators”.Google Scholar

  • Davies, M. (2016a). BYU corpora: billions of words of data. Retrieved June 24, 2018, from https://corpus.byu.edu/corpora.aspGoogle Scholar

  • Davies, M. (2016b). Mutual information. Retrieved June 24, 2018, from https://corpus.byu.edu/mutualInformation.aspGoogle Scholar

  • Darvill, T. (2008). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Eriksen, T. H. (2018). An Overheated World: An Anthropological History of the Early Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Evans, M. M., Dalkir, K., & Bidian, C. (2014). A Holistic View of the Knowledge Life Cycle: The Knowledge Management Cycle (KMC) Model. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (EJKM), 12(2), http://issuu.com/academic-conferences.org/docs/ejkm-volume12-issue2-article563?mode=a_pGoogle Scholar

  • Fagan, G. G. & Feder, K. L. (2006). Crusading against straw men: an alternative view of alternative archaeologies: response to Holtorf. World Archaeology, 38(4). 718-729.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Foxell, E. & Trafford, A. (2010). Repositioning Malta as a cultural heritage destination. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(2), 156-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181011045226CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Friedman, T. (2005). The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar

  • Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in Corpus-Based Language Learning Research: Identifying, Comparing, and Interpreting the Evidence. Language learning, Volume 67, Issue S1, 155-179. DOI: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lang.12225/fullCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gonzalez, M. V. (2008). Intangible heritage tourism and identity.Tourism Management, 29, 807-810. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.003CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Great Excavations: Volunteering on Archaeological Sites Worldwide. (2018). https://www.vergemagazine.com/volunteerabroad/articles/1484-great-excavations-volunteering-on-archaeological-sites-worldwide.htmlGoogle Scholar

  • Grove, L. & Thomas, S. (2014). What’s the Future for Heritage Crime Research? Heritage Crime, (pp. 224-230), https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9781137357519_13Google Scholar

  • Guarino, N., Oberle, D., & Staab, S. (2009). What is an ontology? In Handbook on ontologies (pp. 1-17). Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_0Google Scholar

  • Hayward, P. & Kuwahara, S. (2014). Takarajima: A Treasured Island Exogeneity, folkloric identity and local branding. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures, 3, 20-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imic.2014.03.001CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hansson, S. O. (2008). Science and Pseudoscience. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/Google Scholar

  • Harding, A. (2006). That Bosnian pyramid! The European Archaeologist, 25, https://www.e-a-a.org/tea/TEA25.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Harvey, D. C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319-338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13581650120105534CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Henson, D. (2014) Avocational Archaeology. In: Smith C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer, New York, NY. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_2061CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holtorf, C. (2005). Beyond crusades: how (not) to engage with alternative archaeologies. World Archaeology, Vol. 37(4), 544-551.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holtorf, C. (2005). From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular Culture. Lanham: Rowman Altamira.Google Scholar

  • Holtorf, C. (2007). Archaeology is a Brand!: The Meaning of Archaeology in Contemporary Popular Culture. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar

  • Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & .Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination personality: An application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business Research, 59, 638-642. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.001CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huvila, I. & Huggett, J. (2018). Archaeological practices, knowledge work and digitalisation. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 1(1), 88-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.6CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • ICOM-COMCOL. (2018). COMCOL. Collecting. International Committee for Collecting, http://icom.museum/the-committees/international-committees/international-committee/international-committee-for-collecting/Google Scholar

  • ICOM-ICMAH. (2018). ICMAH. Archaeology and History. International Committee for Museums and Collections of Archaeology and History, http://icom.museum/the-committees/international-committees/international-committee/internationalcommittee-for-museums-and-collections-of-archaeology-and-history/Google Scholar

  • ICOMOS. (2018). The International Scientific Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM), http://icahm.icomos.org/Google Scholar

  • Kaplan, A. M. & Heinlein, M. (2012). Social media: back to the roots and back to the muture. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 14(2), 101-104. DOI: 10.1108/13287261211232126.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kelly, K. (2016). The Inevitable. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar

  • Kerr, J. (2017). Heritage crime: progress, prospects and prevention. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(7), 677-678. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1317652CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kjellmer, G. (1991). A Mint of Phrases. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B. (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics (111-128). London : Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Koskinen-Koivisto, E. & Thomas, S. (2017). Lapland’s Dark Heritage: Responses to the legacy of World War II. In Silverman, H., Waterton, E., Watson S. (Eds.), Heritage in Action (pp. 121-133). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Kull, K. (2011). Juri Lotman in English: Bibliography. Sign Systems Studies, 39(2/4), 343-356, https://www.flfi.ut.ee/sites/default/files/fl/kulllotmaneng.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Kull, K. (2014). Juri Lotman in English: Updates to bibliography. Sign Systems Studies 42(4), 549-552, https://www.academia.edu/10471872/Juri_Lotman_in_English_Updates_to_bibliographyGoogle Scholar

  • Lahdesmaki, T. (2014). The EU’S Explicit and Implicit Heritage Politics. European Societies, 16(3), 401-421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lisbon Castle. (2018). http://lisbon-portugal-guide.com/Alfama-Lisbon/lisbon-castle-st-george.htmlGoogle Scholar

  • Lobachev, S. (2008). Top languages in global information production. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 3(2), https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/826/1358#.Wo_bRFrFKUlGoogle Scholar

  • Lotman, J. (2001). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: I.B.Tauris.Google Scholar

  • Lotman, J. (2005). On the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 33(1/4), 205-229, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= Scholar

  • Lowenthal, D. (2005). Why Sanctions Seldom Work: Reflections on Cultural Property Internationalism. International Journal of Cultural Property, 12(3), 393-423. DOI: 10.1017/S0940739105050216CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marcinkevičienė, R. (2010). Lietuvių kalbos kolokacijos. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas.Google Scholar

  • Marx A., Nurra F., & Salas Rossenbach K. (2017). Europeans & Archaeology. A survey on the European perception of archaeology and archaeological heritage, Paris: NEARCH. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1043770CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Matten, M. A. (2012). Places of Memory in Modern China: History, Politics, and Identity. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

  • Merriman, N. (Ed.). (2004). Public archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Mutual information. (2018). BYU corpora, https://corpus.byu.edu/mutualInformation.aspGoogle Scholar

  • Nuckolls, C. W. (2008). Archaeology, mormonism, and the claims of history. Marburg journal of religion, 13(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17192/mjr.2008.13.3596.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pauwels, A. (2015). ISIS and illicit trafficking in cultural property: Funding terrorism through art. Freedom from fear magazine, 1 November 2015, http://f3magazine.unicri.it/?p=1098 (22.02.2018).Google Scholar

  • Pearce, S. M. (1990). Archaeological curatorship. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar

  • Pezzini, I. (2013). Nuovi spazi semiotici nella citta. Due casi a Roma. Lexia, 1-2, 49-67.Google Scholar

  • Poor, J. P. & Snowball, J. D. (2010). 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. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(2), 145-154. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2009.05.002CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Raja, R. (2017). A virtual market for illegal trade in cultural goods: Palmyra in Syria as an example. Report. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar

  • Rasmussen, J. M. (2014) Securing cultural heritage objects and fencing stolen goods? A case study on museums and metal detecting in Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 47(1), 83-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2014.899616CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Richardson, L. J. (2017). I’ll give you ‘punk archaeology’, sunshine. World Archaeology, 49(3), 306-317. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2017.1333036CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ross, D., Saxena, G., Correia, F., & Deutzb, P. (2017). Archaeological tourism: A creative approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 67, 37-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.08.001CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roued-Cunliffe, H. (2017). Collection building amongst heritage amateurs. Collection Building, 36(3), 108-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-01-2017-0003CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rountree, K. (2014). Neo-Paganism, Native Faith and indigenous religion: a case study of Malta within the European context. Social Anthropology/Anthropology Sociale, 22, 81-100. DOI:10.1111/1469-8676.12063CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scotland’s Rural Past project. (2018). http://www.scotlandsruralpast.org.uk/Google Scholar

  • Sebastian, L. & Lipe, W. D. (2010). Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Press.Google Scholar

  • Seitsonen, O. (2017) Crowdsourcing cultural heritage: public participation and conflict legacy in Finland, Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage, 4(2), 115-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2016.1252129CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simo, F. (2014). The Latest on Facebook Video. Facebook Newsroom, 7 September, 2014. http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/09/the-latest-on-facebook-video/.Google Scholar

  • Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Skeates, R. (2017). Museums and archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Smith, L. & Waterton, E. (2009). Heritage, Communities and Archaeology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

  • Soininen, T. L. (2017). Adopt-a-Monument: Preserving archaeological heritage for the people, with the people. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 4(2), 131-137.Google Scholar

  • Souza, E. (2010). AD Classics: Le Grande Louvre / I.M. Pei. Arch Daily, 18 November, 2010. https://www.archdaily.com/88705/ad-classics-le-grande-louvre-i-m-pei/ (22.02.2018).Google Scholar

  • StoneAge Inc. (2018). http://www.stoneagetools.com/Google Scholar

  • Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

  • The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation (2018). http://piramidasunca.ba/bsGoogle Scholar

  • The British Numismatic Society. (2018). http://www.britnumsoc.org/Google Scholar

  • Thomas, S. (2012) Searching for Answers: A Survey of Metal-Detector Users in the UK. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(1), 49-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2011.590817CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Eyck. (2017 29 August ‒ 26 November). The Materiality of the Invisible. Maastricht. http://www.janvaneyck.nl/en/news/the-materiality-of-the-invisible_1/Google Scholar

  • Vikings. (2013). A television series, http://www.history.ca/vikings/Google Scholar

  • White, L., Schutt, S., & Roberts, S. (2016). Uncovering ghost signs and their meanings. In S. Schutt, S. Roberts, L. White (Eds.), Advertising and Public Memory: Social, Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Ghost Signs (pp. 1-14). 2017. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.4324/9781315677750CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Williams, S. (1992). Fantastic archaeology: What should we do about it?. Journal of Field Archaeology, 19(4), 521-524. DOI: 10.2307/530434.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-02-23

Accepted: 2018-06-21

Published Online: 2018-09-01

Citation Information: Open Archaeology, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 350–364, ISSN (Online) 2300-6560, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0022.

Export Citation

© by Rimvydas Laužikas et al., published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in