From the Opposite Corner: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on American Archaeology in European Publications

Abstract

________________________________________________________________We see what we are prepared to see. Scientific research aims at breaking down this situation, analysing its subjects/objects of study from different points of view. Although multiple meanings can be derived from every question and a myriad of positions can be adopted, some are bound to be silenced by traditional criteria of authenticity. Archaeology is not an exception to this: the prevailing agenda severely impacts on our perception of what archaeological practice consists. In turn, its ethos is recreated as part of our own identity processes through our productions, whether by passively accepting monolithic standards or by dynamically proposing alternative positions in response. The study of the prehistoric and colonial periods in America can be a good test bed for surveying the influence of academic background upon the analysis of human history. Here we review two Spanish journals of American studies to discuss the different orientations of the authors according to their provenance. Plotted against the country represented by the authors, we consider his/her research as regards the object of study (ie. artefacts/written sources), its origin, chronology and, finally, the aim of the paper. We found interesting orientations in relation to focus on particular subjects, most probably conditioned by the ontology of the researchers. Although the selection is quite taxative, it may usefully complement studies carried out in the Americas. ________________________________________________________________Résumé: Nous voyons ce que nous sommes prêts à voir. La recherche scientifique vise à analyser cette situation, en analysant ces sujets/objets d'étude de différents points de vue. Bien que des significations multiples puissent dériver de chaque question et une myriade de positions peut être adoptée, certaines sont vouées au silence à cause de critères traditionnels d'authenticité. L'archéologie n'est pas une exception à cela : l'ordre du jour actuel impacte sérieusement notre perception de ce qu'est la pratique archéologique. Son génie est tour à tour recréé comme faisant partie des RESEARCH

TRAC at 30: A Bibliometric Analysis of the TRAC Community

“…Bibliometric analysis has been used in various forms to better characterise the multidisciplinary nature of archaeological research (Sinclair 2016). Specific studies include establishing trends in archaeological science (Marriner 2009), the influence of academic background on research (Mallía and Vidal 2009), trends in osteoarchaeology (Mays 2010), network analysis (Brughmans 2013;Brughmans and Peeples 2017), the use of R software (Schmidt and Marwick 2020), and gender disparities in publishing (Victor and Beaudry 1992;Beaudry and White 1994;Hutson 2002;Hutson 2006). Although archaeology is an interdisciplinary field, it is important to determine how alike TRAC is to our nearest sub-genres.…”

Typifying scientific output: a bibliometric analysis of archaeological publishing across the science/humanities spectrum (2009–2013)

“…Today bibliometrics constitutes its own field of study, mainly directed at methodological development, providing numeric and evaluative input to scientific disciplines, as well as to policy-making, and to grant and application management. Although an established tool in informatics, mathematics, quantitative science studies and library science, bibliometrics has seen almost no application in archaeology (for exceptions, see Mallía andVidal 2009, Mays 2010). As such, there is an untapped potential in applying bibliometrics to archaeology.…”