Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:45:06.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communication in archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Anthony Harding
Anthony Harding*
Affiliation:
University of Exeter, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Communicating archaeology from one person or group to another is beset with problems. The media, the public and students all have different requirements, while the language in which they are addressed – both the spoken language and the intellectual framework or discourse – can act as a disincentive to understanding. Big changes are in store for archaeologists and for other members of the academic community as electronic publication takes over from traditional methods of dissemination such as the printed book. Archaeologists must be prepared for these changes, and should endeavour to put their findings across in a way that interests and stimulates their audience.

La communication de l'archéologie d'une personne ou groupe à un autre se heurte à de nombreux problèmes. Les médias, le public, les étudiants ont tous des besoins différents, tandis que le langage dans lequel ils sont adressés– aussi bien le langage parlé que la structure ou le discours intellectuel – peut être défavorable à la compréhension. Les archéologues et autres membres de la communauté académique se voient confrontés à d'importants changements, étant donné que les publications électroniques prennent le relais des méthodes de propagation traditionnelles comme le livre imprimé. Les archéologues doivent être préparés à ces changements et devront s'efforcer de présenter leurs découvertes de façon à intéresser et stimuler leur audience.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Die Kommunikation der Archäologie von einer Person oder Gruppe zur anderen ist mit Problemen verbunden. Die Medien, die Öffentlichkeit und die Studenten haben alle unterschiedliche Bedürfnisse, während die Sprache, in der sie angesprochen werden – die gesprochene wie auch der intellektuelle Rahmen bzw. Diskurs – als Entmutigung für das Verständnis wirken kann. Große Veränderungen bahnen sich für Archäologen wie auch andere Mitglieder der akademischen Gemeinschaft mit dem Übergang von traditionellen Methoden der Verbreitung, wie dem gedruckten Buch, zu elektronischen Publikationen an. Archäologen müssen auf diese Veränderungen vorbreitet sein und sollten sich bemühen, ihre Funde auf eine Weise zu präsentieren, die ihr Publikum interessiert und stimuliert.

Keywords

communicationdiscourselanguagemediacommunicationdiscourslangagemediasKommunikationDiskursSpracheMedien
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 10 , Issue 2-3 , 2007 , pp. 119 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Sage Publications 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ascherson, N., 2004. Archaeology and the British media. In Merriman, N. (ed.), Public Archaeology: 145–158. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Babel Fish. URL (accessed July 2008: http://uk.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt Google Scholar
Bartu, A., 2000. Where is catalhoyiik? Multiple sites in the construction of an archaeological site. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Catalhöyiik: 101–109. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British Institute at Ankara. McDonald Institute Monographs/BHA Monograph 28.Google Scholar
Candan, Bartu, 2005. Entanglements/Encounters/Engagements with prehistory: Çatalhöyük and its publics. Hodder, I. (ed.), Çatalhöyük Perspectives: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons: 27–38. Cambridge/London: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British Institute at Ankara. McDonald Institute Monographs/Çatalhöyük Research Project Vol. 6 BIIA Monograph 40.Google Scholar
Beavis, J. and Hunt, A., eds, 1999. Communicating Archaeology. Papers presented to Bill Putnam at a Conference held at Bournemouth University in September 1995. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bournemouth University School of Conservation Sciences, Occasional Paper 4.Google Scholar
Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C., 1997. Leskernick: Stone worlds; alternative narratives; nested landscapes. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63:147–178.Google Scholar
Brown, T., Hawken, S., Griffith, F., Franklin, L. and 2004. Science, landscape archaeology and public participation: The Community Landscape Project, Devon, UK. Public Archaeology 3(4):217–226.Google Scholar
Dobinson, C. and Gilchrist, R., eds, 1986. Archaeology, Politics and the Public. Papers Given to the Young Archaeologists' Conference in York in 1984. York: Department of Archaeology, University of York. York University Archaeological Publications, 5.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2003. Acts of Discovery: An Ethnography of Archaeological Practice. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 1131.Google Scholar
Fagan, G.G., 2002. Alternative archaeology. In Shermer, M. (ed.), The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Fagan, G.G., ed., 2006. Archaeological Fantasies. How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feder, K.L., 2002. Frauds, Myths and Mysteries. Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology (4th edition). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Mayfield.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1989. Writing archaeology: Site reports in context. Antiquity 63(239):268–274.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2001. Monumental Past: The Life-Histories of Megalithic Monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for Instructional Technology Development. Electronic monograph, URL (accessed July 2008): http://tspacelibrary.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/245 Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2004. The future of electronic scholarship. Internet Archaeology 15. URL (accessed July 2008: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issuel5/holtorf_index.html Google Scholar
Joyce, R.A., Preucel, R.W., Lopiparo, J., Guyer, C. and Joyce, M., 2002. The Languages of Archaeology. Dialogue, Narrative and Writing. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McLuhan, M., 1964. Understanding Media. The Extensions of Man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
McManamon, F.P., 2000. Archaeological messages and messengers. Public Archaeology 1(1):5–20.Google Scholar
Nebelsick, L., 2002. Review of K. Kristiansen and M. Rowlands, Social Transformations in Archaeology. Global and Local Perspectives (1998). European Journal of Archaeology 5(2):262–265, reply by M. Rowlands: 265–269.Google Scholar
Rainbird, P. and Hamilakis, Y., ed., 2001. Interrogating Pedagogies. Archaeology in Higher Education. Oxford: Archaeopress. Lampeter Workshop in Archaeology, 3; BAR International Series 948.Google Scholar
Schadla-Hall, T., 2004. The comforts of unreason: The importance and relevance of alternative archaeology. In Merriman, N. (ed.), Public Archaeology: 255–271. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1989. Excavation as theatre. Antiquity 63(239):275–280.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., Bender, B. and Hamilton, S., 2007. Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reflexivity in Landscape Archaeology. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Wilmore, M., 2006. Landscapes of disciplinary power: An ethnography of excavation and survey at Leskernick. In Edgeworth, M. (ed.), Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice. Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations: 114–125. Oxford: Altamira Press.Google Scholar