Abstract
Our study uses computational archaeology tools to investigate how researchers in our field present interpretations of the past in patterned ways. We do so in order to illuminate assumptions, naturalised categories, and patterned interpretative moves that may direct or impact the ways we interact with our evidence and write about our research. We approach this topic through a meta-analysis, using large-scale textual data from archaeological publications, focusing on the case study of bone. Are there patterned ways that archaeologists write about artefacts like bone that are visible when analysing larger datasets? If so, what underlying ideas shape these shared discursive moves? We present the results of three analyses: textual groundwork, conducted manually by field experts, and two machine-based interactive topic modelling visualisations (pyLDAvis and a hierarchical tree based on a Model of Models). Our results indicate that there are, indeed, patterns in our writing around how artefactual and archaeological materials are discussed, many of which are overt and sensical. However, our analyses also identify patterned discourses that are less obvious, but still part of regularised discourses in written narratives surrounding bone. These include: the use of multiple conceptual positions within, rather than simply between, articles, and a lack of patterned centrality of indigenous ontologies in how our field writes about bone. This pilot approach identifies data-informed, applied tools that will aid reflexive practices in our field. These operate at a scale that impacts future scholarly interactions with both evidence and published interpretations by shifting observation and reflection from an individual or small group exercise to a larger and more systematic process.
Highlights
Archaeologists are trained to look carefully, and are increasingly sensitive to the ways that such looking is channelled, with resulting impacts on focus and interpretation
Are there patterned ways that archaeologists write about artefacts like bone that are visible when analysing larger datasets? If so, what underlying ideas shape these shared discursive moves? We present the results of three analyses: textual groundwork, conducted manually by field experts, and two machine-based interactive topic modelling visualisations
The first is a sense of the multiple conceptual positions contained within, rather than between, articles
Summary
Archaeologists are trained to look carefully, and are increasingly sensitive to the ways that such looking is channelled, with resulting impacts on focus and interpretation. This may happen, for instance, through professional training (e.g. Goodwin 1994) or through local, cultural categories (e.g. Boivin and Owoc 2004; Henare et al 2007; Meskell and Joyce 2003). Adopting different scales of analysis may reveal blindspots that were not visible from a previous scalar perspective. Such repositioning can be especially effective in strengthening disciplinary reflexivity, which we invoke in the present work in a specific sense, as related to efforts to examine and critically understand the practices and structures of our field. Taking a larger perspective on archaeological analyses, as is possible with computational archaeology and the use of large datasets, opens opportunities for better understanding how researchers in our field present interpretations of the past in patterned ways (Huggett 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
