Re-visiting the field: Collaborative archaeology as paradigm shift

McAnany, Patricia A.; Rowe, Sarah M.

doi:10.1179/2042458215y.0000000007

Cited by 53 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Archaeologists in some contexts, like the Amazon, have involved local farmers in site documentation and ecological survey (Gomes 2006). Other projects have centered on community mapping (e.g., Larrain and McCall 2019;McAnany and Rowe 2015). And some have sought to engage local site residents' proximity -like O'Grady, Luke, Mokrišová, and Roosevelt (2018) who drew on "local understanding of biodiversity and climate … to document seasonal weather impacts on mudbrick."…”

Section: Proximity and Big Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Proximity of Communities to the Expanse of Big Data

Mickel

2020

Journal of Field Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While individuals living near or on archaeological sites have frequently been hired around the world to dig on archaeological excavations, they have very rarely participated in the recording or documentation of those excavations. They have played even less of a role in designing the structures of either paper or electronic data management systems. In this paper, I describe some potential gaps in the archaeological record as a result of this exclusion, by detailing some ways that the communities at Çatalhöyük, Turkey and Petra, Jordan have developed highly situated forms of knowledge about these archaeological sites due to their proximities to them. I also argue that "proximity" inculcates not only forms of knowledge about an archaeological site, but also, under certain conditions, an important means of sharing knowledge between archaeologists and the communities who live where we work. I contrast proximity to the expansiveness of big data, and question whether it is possible and even preferable to imagine ways of integrating local, proximate perspectives into the rubric of big data.

show abstract

Section: Proximity and Big Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Proximity of Communities to the Expanse of Big Data

Mickel

2020

Journal of Field Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Snodgrass (2002) claims that among Classical Archaeologists, an increase in research on previously neglected periods of antiquity, such as the Greek Early Iron Age, constitutes a paradigm shift. McAnany et al (2015) propose that the appearance of community-based participatory models of research among some communities of archaeologists is a paradigm shift, though they concede that it is transformational rather than revolutionary. Harris (2012) similarly argues that community crowdsourced geographic knowledge (or volunteered geographic information) could be paradigm shift for archaeological communities.…”

Section: Revolutions In Science: Idea-driven or Tool-driven?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tool-driven Revolutions in Archaeological Science

Schmidt¹,

Marwick²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an argument in philosophy of science that revolutions in science are either ideas-driven or tool-driven. We explore this debate in light of recent efforts by many scientific disciplines to embrace methods to improve the reproducibility of their research. One of the most profound changes driven by this concern for reproducibility and transparency is from analysing data using tools dependent on pointing-and-clicking with a mouse in commercial software, to a new set of tools based on writing scripts in free and open source programming languages. We present bibliometric evidence for this change in the sciences generally and in archaeology in particular to test if the adoption of these new tools may be considered a revolution or some other process. We identify a citation effect for papers that use code. We discuss how computational approaches to improving reproducibility and transparency in archaeology are mediated and transformed by the use of code.

show abstract

“…In reference to including communities in a study of the past, Patricia McAnany and Sarah Rowe assert, “asking what the past means to people today—when people relate to the past in many different ways—seems to be opening Pandora's Box. In reality, the box cannot be kept shut and is opening anyway” (, 7). In terms of transnational efforts of heritage management, Lafrenz Samuels () notes that a major shift has occurred among transnational organizations, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Bank, in which the top‐down model of conservation has been supplanted by a model of development, which involves community participation, capacity building, and sustainability efforts…”

Section: Collaborations In Archaeological Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…When archaeologists engage with communities, however, to what “communities” are they referring? As Chip Colwell (, 8.5–8.6) notes, and as alluded in the above quote by McAnany and Rowe (), the idea of a “community” is often too simplistic, as archaeologists rarely work with “a” community but rather with subsets of people with varying interests and perspectives. Individuals are undoubtedly part of multiple, overlapping, and at times conflicting communities, yet archaeologists often reify “the community” as a single, monolithic entity, or as a more general “imagined community” (Pyburn ).…”

Section: Collaborations In Archaeological Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropological Archaeology in 2016: Cooperation and Collaborations in Archaeological Research and Practice

Halperin

2017

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideas of collaboration and cooperation are often implicit, taken-for-granted elements in archaeological models and theorizing. Overshadowed by a growing archaeological preoccupation with warfare, violence, conflict, and crisis, cooperative acts and collaborative dispositions appear to lack the same emotional resonance and changestimulating properties that attract archaeological attention. Nonetheless, many archaeological publications in 2016 directly take on notions of collaboration in thinking about the past and our roles as archaeologists and as citizens of the future. This review underscores the significance of thinking about collaboration and cooperation as ambiguous, ambivalent, multiscalar, and dynamic. At issue is not just the creation of community but also of getting things done and, of course, celebrating, revising, or reworking the intended or unintended consequences of those actions over the generations. [archaeology, collaboration, cooperation] RESUMEN Las ideas de colaboración y cooperación son a menudo elementos implícitos, que se dan por sentados en los modelos y teorización arqueológicos. Opacados por una creciente preocupación arqueológica por la guerra, la violencia, el conflicto, y la crisis, a los actos cooperativos y disposiciones colaborativas parecen faltarles la misma resonancia emocional y propiedades estimulantes de cambio que atraen la atención arqueológica. No obstante, muchas publicaciones arqueológicas en 2016 empiezan directamente a tratar las nociones de colaboración, reflexionando acerca del pasado y nuestros roles como arqueólogos y como ciudadanos del futuro. Esta revisión enfatiza la importancia de considerar la colaboración y cooperación como ambiguas, ambivalentes, de múltiples escalas, y dinámicas. En cuestión no sólo está la creación de comunidad, sino también el lograr que se hagan las cosas, y por supuesto, celebrar, revisar, o rehacer las consecuencias planeadas o no planeadas de esas acciones sobre generaciones. [arqueología, colaboración, cooperación]

show abstract

Re-visiting the field: Collaborative archaeology as paradigm shift

Cited by 53 publications

References 34 publications

The Proximity of Communities to the Expanse of Big Data

The Proximity of Communities to the Expanse of Big Data

Tool-driven Revolutions in Archaeological Science

Anthropological Archaeology in 2016: Cooperation and Collaborations in Archaeological Research and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About