死亡文化

Pub Date : 2011-12-01 DOI:10.3176/ARCH.2011.2.01
V. Lang
{"title":"死亡文化","authors":"V. Lang","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2011.2.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a small collection of articles initiated by the Centre of Excellence in Cultural Theory and dedicated to the study of some selected aspects of the culture of death in archaeology, folkloristics, and media studies. Such a selection of research fields is to some extent random depending mostly on authors who responded to the call for papers and succeeded in finishing their contributions before the deadline. This selection could easily be quite different and the collection itself much thicker because the focus--the topic of death--touches everyone and forms an essential part in human culture. Nevertheless, even this casual selection of different aspects in the culture of death gives a good overview of the essential and inexhaustible nature of the topic, and of how some nuances of the culture of death share surprisingly many features in totally different research disciplines. The authors hope that their modest contribution complements that extremely large and rich discussion which does exist on the culture of death in various social and human sciences. Although due to the nature of this journal the emphasis is on archaeology, it makes sense to start with the question from the last paper about the death in newspapers written by Halliki Harro-Loit and Kadri Ugur. They ask: \"since everyone dies, whose death is worthy of media coverage?\" One can replace the word \"media\" in this question with some other words more characteristic of someone's own research field. An archaeologist, for instance, could ask: since everyone dies, whose death was worthy of proper burying? The problem here lies in the circumstance that the graves and cemeteries we know from prehistory have often belonged only to a minor part of human population, while the majority of prehistoric people were buried in a way, which has not preserved their burials over longer times. Death leaves traces in human culture only if it is interpreted through that culture, as stated by Valter Lang in his article in the current volume, and by far not every death has shared this fate in prehistoric past. The proper burying, leaving traces in material culture, has been selective for a very long time, in our corner of the world until the spread of Christianity at the latest. But such selectiveness can also be found in many other prehistoric and historical societies around the world, while towards the modern societies it has achieved more shaded or hidden features. The media coverage of death today is actually also selective, therefore compensating the selectiveness of culturally treated death by other and modern means. Thus, death touches everyone of us but its phenomena interpreted through culture very much depend on both time and place. This culture-specificity is also demonstrated by the articles included in this volume. Trying to answer the question, whose death is worthy of rendering cultural meaning, the researchers of prehistoric to modern societies usually refer to those persona who have possessed more remarkable and outstanding positions in their lifetime. Still, in egalitarian societies of distant past the question of who was buried in a few graves is quite incomprehensible for us, as there is insufficient data to make reliable suggestions. In more complex and stratified (pre)historic societies the buried people were most likely those who shared social, religious and economical power. Today the range of such people is much wider embracing also politically and culturally (in its broader sense) or otherwise active and outstanding individuals. Anyway, whatever has been the exact practice in particular cultures, death has been used as a means for distinguishing and remembering people who were somehow important for those societies. Speaking of the representation of death in modern press, the main idea of death notices is the wish of survivors (e.g. relatives, friends, colleagues) to inform the others about someone's demise. All such notices and other texts share the grief and mourning; they speak much more about the living people than about those who died (Harro-Loit & Ugur, this volume). …","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Culture of Death\",\"authors\":\"V. Lang\",\"doi\":\"10.3176/ARCH.2011.2.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This is a small collection of articles initiated by the Centre of Excellence in Cultural Theory and dedicated to the study of some selected aspects of the culture of death in archaeology, folkloristics, and media studies. Such a selection of research fields is to some extent random depending mostly on authors who responded to the call for papers and succeeded in finishing their contributions before the deadline. This selection could easily be quite different and the collection itself much thicker because the focus--the topic of death--touches everyone and forms an essential part in human culture. Nevertheless, even this casual selection of different aspects in the culture of death gives a good overview of the essential and inexhaustible nature of the topic, and of how some nuances of the culture of death share surprisingly many features in totally different research disciplines. The authors hope that their modest contribution complements that extremely large and rich discussion which does exist on the culture of death in various social and human sciences. Although due to the nature of this journal the emphasis is on archaeology, it makes sense to start with the question from the last paper about the death in newspapers written by Halliki Harro-Loit and Kadri Ugur. They ask: \\\"since everyone dies, whose death is worthy of media coverage?\\\" One can replace the word \\\"media\\\" in this question with some other words more characteristic of someone's own research field. An archaeologist, for instance, could ask: since everyone dies, whose death was worthy of proper burying? The problem here lies in the circumstance that the graves and cemeteries we know from prehistory have often belonged only to a minor part of human population, while the majority of prehistoric people were buried in a way, which has not preserved their burials over longer times. Death leaves traces in human culture only if it is interpreted through that culture, as stated by Valter Lang in his article in the current volume, and by far not every death has shared this fate in prehistoric past. The proper burying, leaving traces in material culture, has been selective for a very long time, in our corner of the world until the spread of Christianity at the latest. But such selectiveness can also be found in many other prehistoric and historical societies around the world, while towards the modern societies it has achieved more shaded or hidden features. The media coverage of death today is actually also selective, therefore compensating the selectiveness of culturally treated death by other and modern means. Thus, death touches everyone of us but its phenomena interpreted through culture very much depend on both time and place. This culture-specificity is also demonstrated by the articles included in this volume. Trying to answer the question, whose death is worthy of rendering cultural meaning, the researchers of prehistoric to modern societies usually refer to those persona who have possessed more remarkable and outstanding positions in their lifetime. Still, in egalitarian societies of distant past the question of who was buried in a few graves is quite incomprehensible for us, as there is insufficient data to make reliable suggestions. In more complex and stratified (pre)historic societies the buried people were most likely those who shared social, religious and economical power. Today the range of such people is much wider embracing also politically and culturally (in its broader sense) or otherwise active and outstanding individuals. Anyway, whatever has been the exact practice in particular cultures, death has been used as a means for distinguishing and remembering people who were somehow important for those societies. Speaking of the representation of death in modern press, the main idea of death notices is the wish of survivors (e.g. relatives, friends, colleagues) to inform the others about someone's demise. All such notices and other texts share the grief and mourning; they speak much more about the living people than about those who died (Harro-Loit & Ugur, this volume). …\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2011.2.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2011.2.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

这是由文化理论卓越中心发起的一个小文集,致力于研究考古学、民俗学和媒体研究中死亡文化的一些选定方面。这种研究领域的选择在某种程度上是随机的,主要取决于响应论文征集并在截止日期前成功完成论文的作者。这本书的选集很可能会截然不同,而且选集本身也会更厚,因为它的主题——死亡——触及了每个人,并构成了人类文化的重要组成部分。然而,即使是对死亡文化不同方面的随意选择,也能很好地概述这个话题的本质和无穷无尽的本质,以及死亡文化的一些细微差别如何在完全不同的研究学科中惊人地分享许多特征。作者希望他们的微薄贡献补充了在各种社会和人文科学中确实存在的关于死亡文化的极其广泛和丰富的讨论。虽然由于本刊的性质,重点是考古学,但从哈利基·哈罗·洛伊特和卡德里·乌古尔写的关于报纸上死亡的最后一篇论文中的问题开始是有意义的。他们问:“既然人人都会死,谁的死值得媒体报道?”在这个问题中,人们可以用其他一些更具有某人自己研究领域特征的词来代替“媒体”这个词。例如,一位考古学家可能会问:既然每个人都会死,那么谁的死值得妥善埋葬呢?这里的问题在于,我们从史前时代就知道的坟墓和墓地通常只属于一小部分人类,而大多数史前人的埋葬方式并没有长久地保存他们的墓葬。正如瓦尔特·朗(Valter Lang)在他的文章中所说,只有通过这种文化来解释死亡,死亡才会在人类文化中留下痕迹,到目前为止,在史前的过去,并不是每一次死亡都有同样的命运。妥善的埋葬,在物质文化中留下了痕迹,在很长一段时间里,在我们这个世界的角落里一直是有选择性的,直到最迟基督教的传播。但是,这种选择性也可以在世界上许多其他史前和历史社会中找到,而对于现代社会,它已经取得了更多的阴影或隐藏特征。今天媒体对死亡的报道实际上也是有选择性的,因此用其他现代手段补偿了文化上对待死亡的选择性。因此,死亡触及我们每一个人,但通过文化来解释死亡现象在很大程度上取决于时间和地点。这种文化的特殊性也被包括在本卷中的文章所证明。试图回答这个问题,谁的死亡值得赋予文化意义,史前到现代社会的研究人员通常指的是那些在他们的一生中拥有更显著和杰出地位的人。然而,在遥远的过去的平等主义社会中,谁被埋在几个坟墓里的问题对我们来说是相当难以理解的,因为没有足够的数据来提出可靠的建议。在更复杂和分层的(前)历史社会中,被埋葬的人最有可能是那些分享社会、宗教和经济权力的人。今天,这些人的范围要广泛得多,包括政治上和文化上(广义上)或其他方面活跃和杰出的个人。无论如何,在特定的文化中,死亡都被用作区分和纪念那些对这些社会有重要意义的人的一种手段。说到死亡在现代媒体中的表现,死亡通知的主要思想是幸存者(例如亲属,朋友,同事)希望将某人的死亡通知其他人。所有这样的通知和其他文本分享悲伤和哀悼;他们更多地谈论活着的人,而不是那些死去的人(Harro-Loit & Ugur,本卷)。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
The Culture of Death
This is a small collection of articles initiated by the Centre of Excellence in Cultural Theory and dedicated to the study of some selected aspects of the culture of death in archaeology, folkloristics, and media studies. Such a selection of research fields is to some extent random depending mostly on authors who responded to the call for papers and succeeded in finishing their contributions before the deadline. This selection could easily be quite different and the collection itself much thicker because the focus--the topic of death--touches everyone and forms an essential part in human culture. Nevertheless, even this casual selection of different aspects in the culture of death gives a good overview of the essential and inexhaustible nature of the topic, and of how some nuances of the culture of death share surprisingly many features in totally different research disciplines. The authors hope that their modest contribution complements that extremely large and rich discussion which does exist on the culture of death in various social and human sciences. Although due to the nature of this journal the emphasis is on archaeology, it makes sense to start with the question from the last paper about the death in newspapers written by Halliki Harro-Loit and Kadri Ugur. They ask: "since everyone dies, whose death is worthy of media coverage?" One can replace the word "media" in this question with some other words more characteristic of someone's own research field. An archaeologist, for instance, could ask: since everyone dies, whose death was worthy of proper burying? The problem here lies in the circumstance that the graves and cemeteries we know from prehistory have often belonged only to a minor part of human population, while the majority of prehistoric people were buried in a way, which has not preserved their burials over longer times. Death leaves traces in human culture only if it is interpreted through that culture, as stated by Valter Lang in his article in the current volume, and by far not every death has shared this fate in prehistoric past. The proper burying, leaving traces in material culture, has been selective for a very long time, in our corner of the world until the spread of Christianity at the latest. But such selectiveness can also be found in many other prehistoric and historical societies around the world, while towards the modern societies it has achieved more shaded or hidden features. The media coverage of death today is actually also selective, therefore compensating the selectiveness of culturally treated death by other and modern means. Thus, death touches everyone of us but its phenomena interpreted through culture very much depend on both time and place. This culture-specificity is also demonstrated by the articles included in this volume. Trying to answer the question, whose death is worthy of rendering cultural meaning, the researchers of prehistoric to modern societies usually refer to those persona who have possessed more remarkable and outstanding positions in their lifetime. Still, in egalitarian societies of distant past the question of who was buried in a few graves is quite incomprehensible for us, as there is insufficient data to make reliable suggestions. In more complex and stratified (pre)historic societies the buried people were most likely those who shared social, religious and economical power. Today the range of such people is much wider embracing also politically and culturally (in its broader sense) or otherwise active and outstanding individuals. Anyway, whatever has been the exact practice in particular cultures, death has been used as a means for distinguishing and remembering people who were somehow important for those societies. Speaking of the representation of death in modern press, the main idea of death notices is the wish of survivors (e.g. relatives, friends, colleagues) to inform the others about someone's demise. All such notices and other texts share the grief and mourning; they speak much more about the living people than about those who died (Harro-Loit & Ugur, this volume). …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信