How Archaeological Evidence Bites Back

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractArchaeological data are shadowy in a number of senses. Not only are they notoriously fragmentary but the conceptual and technical scaffolding on which archaeologists rely to constitute these data as evidence can be as constraining as it is enabling. A recurrent theme in internal archaeological debate is that reliance on sedimented layers of interpretative scaffolding carries the risk that "preunderstandings" configure what archaeologists recognize and record as primary data, and how they interpret it as evidence. The selective and destructive nature of data capture in archeology further suggests that there may be little scope for putting "legacy" data to work in new ways. And yet archaeologists have been strikingly successful in mining old datasets for new insights. I situate these concerns in the broader context of debate about the epistemic standing of the historical sciences, and then consider three strategies by which archaeologists address the challenges posed by legacy data. The first two -secondary retrieval and recontextualization -are a matter of reconfiguring the scaffolding that underpins evidential reasoning. The third turns on redeploying old data in the context of computational models that support the experimental simulation of the cultural systems and contexts under study.

THE CREATION OF GENDER BIAS IN MUSEUM COLLECTIONS: Recontextualizing Archaeological and Archival Collections from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico

“…Such resources also offer an opportunity to study the discursive forms of interaction and knowledge production captured in archival texts and images . Following the recent work of Robert Chapman and Alison Wylie (, 57–73), I argue that such resources also enable evidential reasoning through “epistemic iteration” (Chang , 43–44; Chapman and Wylie , 5) by enabling the secondary retrieval and recontextualization of primary data. Secondary retrieval is the process of using new methods or technical tools to enlarge the archaeological database (Wylie , 208).…”

“…Following the recent work of Robert Chapman and Alison Wylie (, 57–73), I argue that such resources also enable evidential reasoning through “epistemic iteration” (Chang , 43–44; Chapman and Wylie , 5) by enabling the secondary retrieval and recontextualization of primary data. Secondary retrieval is the process of using new methods or technical tools to enlarge the archaeological database (Wylie , 208). Recontextualizing data involves a “related set of practices for putting old data to work in new ways” in order to reanalyze “an existing body of primary data with the aid of documenting the ‘conjunctions’ between its constituent elements or properties” (Wylie , 212).…”

Whose Data Is It Anyway? Lessons in Data Management and Sharing from Resurrecting and Repurposing Lidar Data for Archaeology Research in Honduras

“…As we noted above, this area has long been neglected in Central American archaeology and more recently in wide area (>100 km 2 ) lidar acquisitions (apart from data discussed in Fernandez-Diaz et al 2018;Fisher et al 2016). This means that legacy ALS datasets have the potential to not only be repurposed for different disciplines, but also for different research goals within the field of archaeology (Huggett 2018;Wylie 2016). We recognize that it is impossible to anticipate all potential uses for ALS data and future processing or analytical developments, and yet our experience with the 2k-Hn-Lidar demonstrates that data should at least be preserved in their raw and/or primary forms for future studies.…”

Reuse Remix Recycle

“…Relevant questions include the following: Recognizing that archaeological data do not create themselves but are performative in nature, how are they created and subsequently used, and how can this be represented for future reuse? How can the presumptions and “preunderstandings” (Wylie 2017:204) be incorporated in data past and present?Given that data have potential that we cannot anticipate, how should data be defined, captured, recorded, and curated in order that limits on future reuse are minimized?Since archaeological data are by their nature incomplete and imperfectly captured, how can this incompleteness and inconsistency best be represented and handled during their reuse? What are the implications of data being made to speak for data that are not captured and hence not available?What are the effects of reusing, repurposing, remixing, recycling, and recontextualizing data on archaeological knowledge?…”

“…Recognizing that archaeological data do not create themselves but are performative in nature, how are they created and subsequently used, and how can this be represented for future reuse? How can the presumptions and “preunderstandings” (Wylie 2017:204) be incorporated in data past and present?…”