A Consideration of Public Archaeology Theories
A Consideration of Public Archaeology Theories
复制标题
对公共考古学理论的思考
DOI：
10.1080/14655187.2016.1209377
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
0.2
通讯作者：
Akira
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matsuda;Akira
公共考古学有四种方法：教育的、公共关系的、多元的和批判的。在过去的几十年里，公共考古学话语中最重要的分歧存在于教育和公共关系方法与多元主义和批判性方法之间。然而，今天，这四种方法的分界线正在逐渐改变，因为多元主义和批判性方法，迄今为止一直倾向于作为一个更理论和后过程的类别被归在一起，正在逐渐分裂。因此，正在出现的是一种新的分歧，一方是教育、公共关系和多元主义方法，另一方是批判性方法。这种转变似乎是由经济新自由主义造成的，它要求考古学在经济方面更加可行。然而，考古学越是寻求经济可行性，就越是远离批判性反思。因此，批判性的方法面临着被视为对考古学可持续性的损害的危险。因此，今天最迫切需要的似乎是重新配置公共考古学，以便它能够科普目前占主导地位的经济范式，同时继续批评它。
It is possible to identify four approaches to public archaeology: educational, public relations, pluralist, and critical. The most significant divide in the discourse of public archaeology over the last few decades has existed between the educational and public relations approaches on one side, and the pluralist and critical approaches on the other. Today, however, the dividing line in these four approaches is gradually shifting, as the pluralist and critical approaches, which have so far tended to be grouped together as a more theoretical and post-processual category, are progressively splitting apart. What is emerging, as a result, is a new divide between the educational, public relations, and pluralist approaches on the one side, and the critical approach on the other. This shift seems to be caused by economic neo-liberalism which demands that archaeology be more viable in economic terms. The more archaeology seeks economic viability, however, the more it alienates itself from critical reflection. The critical approach is, thus, faced with the danger of being regarded as a detriment to the sustainability of archaeology. What seems to be crucially needed today, then, is to reconfigure public archaeology, so that it can cope with the presently dominant economic paradigm, while at the same time continuing to keep critiquing it.