 I'm Rimdas Lovjikas from Vilnius University and I will present a pilot study about the phenomenon which happens on the borders of archeological knowledge. It's mean about archeology interested non-professional communities. It's people, it's groups of people who are interested in archeology knowledge, who are interested in archeological heritage, objects, information, in different ideas, in different things which are connected with archeology, but they are not professional archeologists. Actually they can be the professional teachers, school teachers who are interested in archeological knowledge as I'm teaching subject for pupils, but actually non-professional communities means that they are not professional archeologists. And the aim of this pilot study was to identify the different groups of people, the different kinds of communities who are interested in archeology. And from theoretical point of view, was used two different theoretical considerations. One is the Uri Lokman semiosphere theory. Uri Lokman was the founder of Tartu in Estonia School of Semiotic. And idea of semiosphere was inspired by idea of biosphere. Biosphere is general set of all life in the earth that actually semiosphere is set of all informational objects in the culture. That from, and by idea of Uri Lokman semiosphere is structured to smallest spheres, to smaller structures with approximately under standard center and periphery. It's something similar as galaxies with centers and peripheries. And in some situations different semiotical structures connects one with some other. And we have the spaces which are named by Uri Lokman as crystallized spaces. That actually connections between different communities under archeology. It's crystallized space between some kind of archeological knowledge, of professional archeological knowledge, of scholarly archeology, and different another cultural spheres, cultural spaces as arts, as education, as tourism, as another different. And next theoretical consideration is informational management cycle models. Here is the part of true model, but actually it's very important questions. What is main differences between communities? And hypothetically we consulted the main differences is in informational needs of different people and different communities. They collect the different aspects of archeological knowledge. They recreate by different ways the archeological knowledge and they create the different final products based on the scholarly archeological knowledge. Method, hypothetically we can talk about different kinds of crystallized spaces. One could be temporal. For example, connections between processional archeology and post-processional archeology. It's different stages in development of archeology. Another could be connected with different sciences or scholarly disciplines. For example, crystallized spaces between chemistry and archeology or anthropology and archeology. But our interest is on the crystallized spaces with non-professional communities. And method analysis of collocations for worn archeology in different corpse was used at different corpse of English language. And it was some pilot project to create some kind of collocation dictionary of archeology. The first step is to identify the main potential possible collocations with not-academic meanings. For example, if you find the collocation, I don't know, archeology and university or archeology and chemistry, that it could be understood more or less than the academic connections. But if you found the, for example, art, museums, religion, tourism, adventure, sacred stories, Disney, cinema and similar, it's potentially non-academic collocations which could be deep investigated. Here we can look to 20 most popular collocations to word of archeology. It's a place of collocation in a list of collocations from different corpse. For example, in Time Magazine Corpus, collocation of archeology with arts is number one collocation by freakings. For example, I don't know, Disney is 64 collocation in British national corpse. The next step is to analyze, ah, what is interesting? Interesting is that collocations from news, wiki or contemporary language corpse are more turn it to the side of community archeology. It's more not-academic in comparison with, for example, Google books. It's 10 most popular collocations in Corpus of Contemporary American English. It's history, American Editorial University Anthropology Indigenous Museum Institute Art and Society. And by Google books, in American English it's anthropology, ethnology, philology, ethnography, Palestinian linguistics, geology, history. It's in first 25 collocations in Google books, we cannot find any collocation with potential or with not-academic potential. So next step is context analysis. And the next step, the collocations with non-academic potential, we are analyzed the context of these collocations. But for example, this context for tourism, that we found the different synthesis, the different concordations where archeology and tourism are together, form the collocations. And actually from this example, we can find a lot of different groups and a lot of different nuances in collocations between archeology and tourism. Actually by the same name, by the same method we can re-analyze all possible and all potential collocations. This name was a family name of one archeologist. It's not, no funny, no, no funny things. So, and actually we can analyze the popularity or trends about evolution of collocations of archeology. And for example, is collocation antiquities, which was very popular in 19th century, but goes to town in 19th century and to 25th century. And in other situations, and in cases of not-academic occasions, for example, it's collocation archeology and folklore. We can find that in the textile archive of Google books, it starts only on the second half of 19th century and it's more or less popular now. So, after this, we can discuss and we can talk about provisional results, about criminalized spaces between scholar archeology as information and knowledge, as heritage, as artifacts, as co-facts, how they are understanding and how they are interpreted in the scholar level. And different non-professional communities on the results of this investigation, we can preliminary identify the communities as education, as arts, in arts, archeological knowledge usually works as a source of inspiration. With non-professional archeologists who really investigate and who really probe to find something, it's amateur archeology, or cement archeology, local history researchers. Archeology works in creating of identities as part of volunteering, tribal and tourism, pseudo-archeology, for example, in the case of Bosnian pyramids, crime archeology, it's destruction of heritage, treasure-granting, dark market and also in branding. The most popular supermarket in Vilnius is named Acropolis. I don't know why, but it's how archeology works in branding. Thank you all for coming.