Citing methods literature: citations to field manuals as paradata on archaeological fieldwork
Isto Huvila, Lisa Andersson and Olle Sköld
Introduction. This article investigates how researchers cite methods literature, and to what extent and how these citations could function as a form of paradata i.e., descriptive data on research processes.
Method. Citations to two prominent field manuals were retrieved using Scopus; full-texts were obtained for analysis.
Analysis. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used.
Results. Field manuals are cited both for compliance and contrast to clarify procedures and actions, understanding of what is considered conventional and extra-ordinary, to elucidate work processes in broader terms, and to explain concepts and what is common disciplinary knowledge. Even if literature use seems indicative of work procedures, a citation to a method cannot necessarily be considered as direct evidence of what was done in reality.
Conclusions. Citations to field manuals can function as a complementary form of paradata to other information on how archaeological work has been conducted. However, rather than forming a standalone corpus of evidence, they can be expected to function best if combined with other indicators. A citation to a specific methods text can be indicative of certain patterns of work or presence of a shared scope of relevance with other works citing the same text.
Researchers can report on the research methods used in specific studies in multiple ways. In many disciplines, it is conventional to include a section in research reports that provides a descriptive narrative of the methods, materials and procedures used in the study. Apart from explaining what was done, it is also conventional to provide citations to methods literature. Similarly to citations in general (Wouters 2014), also citations to methodological texts and manuals can serve multiple purposes (Thompson 2010).
In spite of the thinkable variety of motives and disciplinary differences in the prevalence of citing methods literature, there is not much doubt that perhaps the most typical reason for citing these types of texts is the one noted in the methods literature itself (e.g., Schneider 2015; Ravitch and Carl 2020), that is, to explain why and how the procedures of collecting, managing and analysing a particular set of ’material’ (or, data) chosen and used in the particular study should be considered adequate and relevant. In this sense, the citations function as paradata i.e., data about the process of how the data came into being and how it was used to achieve the reported results (Couper 2000; Huvila 2012).
Citations can complement other forms of paradata (e.g., manual descriptions of procedures, automatically extracted and collected process data) as evidence of the appropriateness of research procedures, increase trust in the results, and improve the (re)usability of earlier research results and data (cf. Huvila 2022). Some of the potential advantages of using citations as paradata are that they are plentiful and reasonably easily available for analysis, and there is a large corpus of established methods, tools and theories relating to citing and citations developed in the context of bibliometrics research. So far, in contrast to their potential significance, there is, however, little earlier research on to what extent the citations in practice can inform of the origins and underpinnings of the data.
The aim of this article is to address this research gap and provide insights into 1) how researchers cite methods literature when they are reporting their research, and 2) to what extent and how these citations could function as paradata, i.e., serve as information about how the research was conducted. The investigation is based on a study of how archaeologists cite two prominent archaeological field manuals in research publications and how these references are indicative of data collection, management and use procedures. Archaeology provides an interesting context for this type of inquiry as a data and data collection driven (Hodder 1999; Khazraee Afzali 2014) interdisciplinary field in the nexus of humanities, social sciences and sciences with a strong tradition of data and data collection intensive research.
Citations and methods literature
Determining the meaning of citations, including the criteria, quality and reason for citing, is one of the major questions of bibliometrics scholarship (Borgman and Furner 2002). On a macroscopic level, they have become an increasingly central element of the infrastructure of scholarly communication, its impact and the practice of research itself (Wouters 2014; Cronin and Sugimoto 2014).
Citations have many functions (Garfield 1996). Ingwersen has noted that they are ‘footprints of information interaction[s]’ and ‘manifestations of degrees of utility of methods, results and ideas’ (Ingwersen 2012, p. 1). Further, they can be seen as indications of the relevance of cited works, at least at some point in a research or writing process (Borgman and Furner 2002), and a part of the process of argumentation (Carrascal 2014; Gullbekk and Byström 2019) and social practices of performing scholarship (Gullbekk and Byström 2019).
Experienced researchers and readers of scholarly literature tend to have a working understanding of the meaning of citations in their own areas of expertise and how to cite others but the conventions are not necessarily easy to articulate or navigate (cf. Gullbekk and Byström 2019). In addition to disciplinary differences even within seemingly similar clusters of research fields, the function of citations vary from case to case within a text and between different types of texts written for different audiences (Hammarfelt 2016), similarly to how different types of texts and resources are cited differently. This has been linked to the diverging roles different genres play in scholarly communication (Bazerman 1988; Swales 2004). The length and comprehensiveness of books mean that they are cited in a broader variety of ways than journal articles (Glänzel et al. 2016). As Hammarfelt (2011) shows further, the citation profiles of the different parts of books also vary.
Citation analysis has been used to a certain extent in earlier research to analyse methodological literature. A part of the studies has focused on the mapping of the use of research methods in specific disciplines. Patil and Kant (2014) have investigated methods used in knowledge management research and Partington and Jenkins (2007) have analysed citations to research methods literature in organization studies. The latter provides a template for structuring citation usage in academic research, however, primarily for educational rather than strictly analytical purposes. Bricker (1988) analyses accounting literature and notes that a large part of references out of the research field are citations to methodological and theoretical work.
There are also studies of handbooks, which have certain similarities with methods literature (Milojević et al. 2014). Closest to the present study, Brughmans (2014) has investigated citation networks related to formal network analysis in archaeology. The findings show that citation networks are fragmented and many archaeologists have traditionally focused on rudimentary methods rather than the state-of-the-art. Sinclair (2016) conducted a comprehensive analysis of all archaeological literature indexed in the Web of Science data and published in 2004-2013. The study identified a large theory and interpretation cluster, and several clusters relating to specific scientific methods but none specific to field methods.
Others have focused on analysing the influence of particular methods and texts. For instance, Titscher and colleagues (2000) have surveyed the popularity of different text analysis methods in social science literature using keywords based approach whereas Thompson (2010) analyses citations to a seminal article by Golder (2000) that describes and exemplifies the use of the historical method in the context of marketing research. Her analysis of the most cited articles citing Golder shows that the text has been cited for its empirical findings and the method, or parts of it, as they have been used in later studies, and to discuss the method, its strengths and weaknesses.
Archaeological field manuals
The appearance of field manuals is linked to the evolution of archaeology as a scholarly rather than antiquarian discipline. In Anglo-American archaeology, theory and method remained tightly interconnected until the early postwar years. During the first decades of the 20th century, only a few field manuals were published whereas the number has proliferated since the late 1940s (Collis 2013). Simultaneously, the theoretical and methodological discussion drifted apart to a degree that began to raise concerns about the lack of theory in field archaeology (Lucas 2012). Even if some of the manuals have had an impact on fieldwork practices around the world (Collis 2013), as Aitchison (2017) argues, archaeology is highly parochial and local. Therefore, the different manuals tend to have fairly distinct orientations to particular national practices (e.g., Hester et al. 2009 for the US, and Joukowsky 1980 for US overseas archaeology; Westman 1994 for British urban archaeology; for German handbooks, see Davidović 2009). In some cases, international collaborations and campaigns have imported foreign practices to specific archaeological sites. Sometimes, direct influences spread when archaeologists study abroad and return to their home countries (e.g., Barretto-Tesoro, 2013). More often, the influences are mediated and adapted to the local practices.
At its most basic level, the field manual should provide an introduction to field archaeology for the person who does not want to display ignorance and incompetence during the first days of an archaeological excavation’ (Dyson 1981, p. 78). As Dyson continues, it can also provide information on what ’archaeologists actually do’ and provide guidance to experienced fieldworkers to develop their skills (Dyson 1981, p. 78).
In parallel with the calls for comprehensive texts, the attempts to write comprehensive prescriptive manuals have also been criticised (e.g., Stanford 1981; Straus 1981) for the inherent impossibility of the task. An experienced archaeologist should know everything covered in a generic manual and needs only specialist publications for learning purposes (Dyson 1981). The ambivalent attitude that underlines the importance of manuals and criticises their shortcomings revolves undoubtedly around the attitude Roskams (2001) has described as manual worship. A further, perhaps not too surprising, related issue is that in spite of their perceived importance, the actual practice is not necessarily the one described in the manuals as Sellers (1973) suggests in a humorous but fundamentally very serious essay on the gap between explicit and implicit expectations and practices.
While archaeological manuals have been both praised and criticised, the manual of field archaeology as a literary genre evades a concise definition beyond a basic-level shared understanding reflected, for instance, in the above-quoted passage in Dyson’s (1981) text. There is a considerable variation in, for instance, for whom they are written (e.g., students, experts, field directors), what is their primary purpose (e.g., to function as a textbook, cheatsheet, handbook), and to what extent their audience and aims are articulated and plausibly met or not (cf. e.g., Pavel 2011; Straus 1981; Dever 1981).
In addition to generic texts, there are numerous manuals and handbooks describing specialised techniques from archaeological surveying to soil analysis (Carver 2009), and manuals or guidelines issued by individual research projects, and local and regional archaeological authorities. In regards to generic field manuals, individual authors have referred to slightly different sets of texts as classics (see e.g., Carver 2009 and the lists of recommended readings in Hester et al. 2009; Joukowsky 1980; Roskams 2001 and others). In some cases, a particular volume might be popular as a textbook (e.g., Barker 1993; Joukowsky 1980) but not necessarily representative of field practices in a particular country (Thorpe 2012). Some volumes, like Joukowsky (1980), have been described in different sources as textbooks (Payne 1982; Gaughwin 1982) or as manuals (e.g., Spoerl 1982; Dyson 1981; Dever 1981; Straus 1981; Stanford 1981; Thomas 1981) whereas some, as Davidovic (2009) notes of German field manuals, have been written specifically for field directors, not students.
As a whole, the genre of field manuals appears to meander somewhere between being and not being a textbook. The recurring question in the reviews of field manuals of the audience of the texts is symptomatic of this ambiguity. In best cases, field manuals are suggested to be useful for both newcomers and specialists (e.g., Spoerl 1982) but all too often the critics struggle to see whether they would be relevant for either of the groups (e.g., Pavel 2011; Straus 1981; Dever 1981).
Theoretical considerations: paradata and citations
The concept of paradata refers to data that describes processes (Couper 2000). It is comparable to metadata that describes data (Pomerantz 2015) but also closely related to terms context (e.g., Faniel et al. 2013), provenance and provenance metadata (e.g.,Doerr et al. 2016; Huggett 2012 cf. the earlier popular notion provenience i.e., the origins or birthplace of an object, Buchanan 2016) as a specific kind of information relating to the origins, context and processes pertaining to the earlier life of data or information.
The importance and usefulness of knowing about processes and origins of data have been acknowledged for some time both in archaeology and other domains as a key constraint of research with secondary data. Analysing excavation documentation created by someone who has not excavated at a particular site is ‘a very difficult endeavour’ (Demoule 2011, p. 8) not necessarily because of the lack of data or metadata, but because there is not enough contextual knowledge to interpret them properly (Voss 2012; Faniel et al. 2013).
A central problem with acquiring and keeping useful paradata is the difficulty of foreseeing what future users would exactly need to know and that manual documentation of scholarly processes is very time-consuming. Therefore, it has been proposed that a fruitful course of action to approach the problem would be to use automatically collectable paradata and forensic post-hoc approaches to extract paradata from data and metadata to reduce the amount of manually created paradata (Huvila 2022).
The suggestion that a citation to a methodological text in a (scholarly) publication is linked to particular understandings of (scholarly) processes is derived from citation theory. In citation theory (Leydesdorff and Wouters 1999), a citation to a methods text can be hypothesised to be a direct pointer to a method i.e., what was done. However, it is also conceivable that these citations might have other functions as well, and (or) that the citations to a particular modus operandi is more indirect. In a parallel sense, as a part of the formalised paratext of a scholarly work (Leydesdorff and Wouters 1999), a citation is a sign of membership in and codification of particular scholarly communities (Leydesdorff 2011), epistemic frameworks (Hyland 2013), or invisible colleges (Crane 1972) indicated by the presence of co-citations (Farideh 2009) to particular methods or methodological texts.
Similarly, a presence of co-citations could sign that multiple authors share the same or similar ‘documentation ideals’ (Börjesson 2016, p. 674). Börjesson writes that documentation ideals concern ‘what documentation should be like, for what purposes, and for whom’ (Börjesson 2016, p. 674). In comparison to the literary formulations found in official texts like information policies (Börjesson 2016) or methods literature, the ideals are closer to practitioners and their everyday work. Similarly to Börjesson’s (2016) analysis of documentation ideals and information policies in development-led archaeology, the present study investigates how archaeological documentation is conditioned by literature. More precisely, the focus of this study is on how citations to field manuals can be understood as formal but explicit and implicit (cf. Börjesson 2016) expressions and links to certain (documentation) ideals of documenting archaeological practices.
The present study is based on a qualitative analysis of citations to two prominent English-language archaeological field manuals. The first, Archaeological Site Manual, widely known as the MoLAS (for Museum of London Archaeology Service) manual, is a reference work originally published by the Museum of London to function as a field manual for archaeological investigations conducted in London. The first edition of the text was published in 1980 with second, third and fourth editions respectively in 1990, 1994 and 2002. The second field manual included in the analysis is Martha Joukowsky’s A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology (Complete Manual) published in 1981 as a literal attempt to to provide a complete reference for conducting fieldwork in archaeology.
The two field manuals have become well-received not only in their countries of origin but also to a certain extent, around the world (Collis 2011; Hodder 1997) as two popular albeit very different types of reference works on archaeological field methodology. They have been referred to as being canonical or standard (Thorpe 2012; Masur et al. 2014) works in archaeological field methodology even if, as discussed later in this article, there are limits to the degree their recommendations have been followed in practice.
The Archaeological Site Manual is essentially a ’site’-specific manual for archaeology in London and as such resembles many other project field handbooks produced by archaeological projects and organizations around the world from larger research projects to contract archaeology operators and archaeological administrative bodies. The main objective of these texts is to standardise archaeological field practices within a given organization or area. At the same time, however, this Manual has become a standard reference to a specific fieldwork approach known as the >single-context method developed in the UK from the 1960s onwards, especially in the context of urban archaeology (Collis 2011). Even if the method is far from being a standard approach to conducting fieldwork, especially outside of the UK, it has inspired many archaeologists and different versions of it have been adopted in use around the world.
In contrast to the Archaeological Site Manual, the Complete Manual was written as a generic reference work even if it draws heavily from its author’s experiences and background in classical archaeology. Thorpe (2012) suggests that it is more representative of fieldwork conducted by American archaeological missions abroad rather than, for instance, of fieldwork in the US or in another individual country. This applies even if the Complete Manual contains a lot of US-specific references to excavation and funding opportunities (Thomas 1981).
Even if it has been criticised, both at the time of its publication (e.g.,Stanford 1981; Thomas 1981; Straus 1981; Spoerl 1982; Payne 1982) and later, (e.g.,Buccellati 2017) for omissions, an urge to standardise all aspects of archaeological fieldwork (Stanford 1981), and for being atheoretical, it is has considered by many to be a ’canonical’ (Thorpe 2012, p. 42) ’tour de force... advising people how best to proceed with the practicalities of archaeological fieldwork’ (Thomas 1981, p. 670), and a ’virtual Larousse Gastronomique of field archaeology’ (Dever 1981, p. 86).
The two field manuals were selected for the present study based on a pre-study of citation profiles of popular field manuals and textbooks using Google Scholar and Scopus. The total volume of such literature is large. To exemplify the extent of English-language literature, Caraher (2017) listed twenty-five excavation manuals he found using a Google search that were available online in 2017. The Parks Canada Archaeological Recording manual (2005) lists twenty-two general, mainly British, North American and French archaeology field manuals and general volumes in its list of recommended readings. Archaeology textbooks do also contain long, partly overlapping lists of manuals and other textbooks (e.g. Greene 1998; Roskams 2001). However, as Thorpe (2012) remarks, many of the texts are used only locally in specific projects, regions and parts of the world. In addition, even if some texts have been longer-lived than others, many of them have been disseminated as grey literature rather than as published books (Caraher 2017). In this respect, the two manuals are examples of manuals with a broader than usual scope of citation and use.
The principal reasons for selecting the particular two manuals were their recognised status in archaeology, (consequent) comparably high citation counts, and distinct profiles (as explained above). As Thomas (1981, p. 671) notes of the Complete Manual, ‘[t]here will always be room in a field library for this book’ and even if ’the crew might not refer to it often... it’s nice to know it’s there’. Even if Joukowsky sees novices as the principal audience of her book, neither of the two are introductory textbooks proper (cf. Watson 2019), or specialist handbooks discussing very particular types of archaeological activities (e.g., processing of specific types of finds, conducting fieldwork in particular contexts). They both also focus on the practical aspects of working in the field rather than on theory. As such, they can be expected to have been cited at least to a certain degree as indications of how work was done, making it meaningful to enquire if these citations could be treated as a form of paradata on the processes of how archaeological fieldwork is conducted. The conceivable citation profile of project, organization and area specific manuals, textbooks and theoretical work is likely to be different and less interesting to the aims of the present study.
Selecting two different types of works was anticipated to increase the variety and breadth of insights into citation practices. The fact that they are not entirely new can be assumed to lead to a broader and more diverse citation profile than with newer texts.
The citation data for the main study with the Archaeological Site Manual (N=73) and the Complete Manual (N=60) were collected using Scopus in October 2019 to retrieve citations in scholarly publications. A list of the analysed publications is in Appendix 1. Individual texts are referred to in the reporting using codes (indicated in the Appendix) in brackets consisting either of A or C (referring to the relevant manual) and an index (e.g., A1 or C54). A cursory comparison between Scopus and Google Scholar data did not reveal any obvious substantial differences between the citation patterns in the two reference sources that would have invalidated the use of Scopus as a data source. The main difference was the higher citation counts retrieved in Google Scholar (227 for the Complete Manual, 126 for the Archaeological Site Manual). Other citation databases (Social Science Citation Index, the Book Citation Index) were considered but abandoned because of their lack of coverage of texts citing the two investigated texts. The full-texts of the citing literature were retrieved through the library system of a major research university where the main author of the article was working at the time of the study.
The material was analysed using descriptive statistics (frequencies) and qualitative content analysis to understand how researchers cite methods literature when they are reporting their research, what are the functions of the citations, and consequently, to what extent and how these citations could function as paradata, i.e., serve as information about how the research was conducted. The analysis covers the text authors’ country of origin and patterns of collaboration, text audience and disciplinary context, the citations’ functions, and the texts’ themes.
These aspects together provide the grounds to discuss citation practices and how citations can function as paradata. The qualitative coding of the material was done by the main author of the article and conducted iteratively first to identify preliminary categories and to consolidate them later in the course of the analysis using writing (cf. Richardson 2000) as an explicit method of inquiry. The analysis, including the reading of the texts, took approximately 120 hours. A sample of 20% of the material was reanalysed one month after the original analysis for quality control. The reanalysis led to minor revisions in the descriptions of the categories and themes, not in abandoning old or introducing new ones.
It is important to note that the chosen method limits the study to a small subset of published scholarly and scientific texts. The coverage of humanities-orienteddisciplines is limited in all major citation databases (Hammarfelt 2016), an issue that also pertains to archaeology (cf. Brughmans 2014) and Scopus. The exclusion of the quantitatively largest genre of archaeological texts, investigation reports (Börjesson 2016), is another shortcoming in the analysed material. The first omission was not considered to be critical because the present study does not aim to provide a comprehensive mapping of all citations to particular works, but rather to understand the patterns and functions of citing a particular type of literature based on a qualitative rather than quantitative analysis.
Grey literature was excluded for two principal reasons: first, the poor representation of grey literature in citation databases would have made it difficult to produce a dataset, which would have been comparable to the one with published texts. Secondly, a preliminary exploration of a corpus of reports from three European countries confirmed a working hypothesis that stemmed from reading earlier literature (Donnelly 2016; Börjesson 2015). It seems that the number of citations to field manuals in archaeological reports is very low and consequently, it is unlikely that these citations would function as a significant form of paradata in that particular context.
Even if the analysed sample was fairly small, several of the texts citing the Archaeological Site Manual were written or co-written by the same authors. It suggests that particular individuals might have a habit of citing a field manual in their texts. Eleven authors had participated in writing two texts, and one author three. With the Complete Manual, nine individual authors had participated in writing two different texts in the material but none of them more than that.
Unsurprisingly, even if the evidence is admittedly anecdotal, most of the texts referring to the Archaeological Site Manual have at least one author with an affiliation in the UK, the country of origin of the manual (Table 1) whereas the Complete Manual was popular among authors with a US affiliation. It is equally unsurprising that three Israeli authors have cited the Complete Manual considering that its author is known for her fieldwork in the Middle East.
|No. of texts referring to|
|Country||Archaeological Site Manual||the Complete Manual|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||2||1|
Audience and disciplinary contexts
Both manuals were cited in texts that explained archaeological methods for non-archaeologists and in texts that can be described as intra-disciplinary for archaeology itself. The citations from outside of archaeology relate often to the use of archaeological methods in other disciplines (e.g., [A66][C26][C35][C45]). Correspondingly, field manuals were cited in cases when methods borrowed from other disciplines (e.g., soil analysis in [A49] and [A12]) were applied in archaeological research. In these cases (e.g., [A13][A18][A60][A66][C26]), the citations could serve the purpose of explaining the usual procedures of archaeological work, or how an investigation was conducted in the specific case described in the text (e.g., [A2]). Table 2 lists the disciplinary subject areas assigned to the analysed texts in Scopus. The most frequently used categories were unsurprisingly social sciences (59 for the Archaeological Site Manual and 34 for the Complete Manual) and arts and humanities (58 the Archaeological Site Manual, 36 the Complete Manual), the disciplinary domains where archaeology is conventionally categorised. The presence of a fairly large number of other disciplines shows the interdisciplinary interest in archaeological research and the interdisciplinarity of the field itself.
|Subject area||Archaeological Site Manual||the Complete Manual|
|Agricultural and Biological Sciences||2||-|
|Arts and Humanities||58||36|
|Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology||1||1|
|Earth and Planetary Sciences||9||5|
|Immunology and Microbiology||1||-|
|Business, Management and Accounting||-||1|
It was possible to identify certain thematic variation in the literature that contain citations to the two manuals. Partly, the analysis resulted in three broad categories of archaeological texts that cited them. First, a group of texts consisting of reports of fieldwork results (for examples, see category 3 in Table 4) cite the manuals predominantly to show how a particular investigation was conducted. A second major category includes theoretical and methodological texts that discuss, for instance, the implications of particular field techniques or archaeological practices in general, propose new methods or tools, or advocate the use of specific techniques in particular contexts (e.g., [A1][A8][A71][C8][C15][C28]). Third and finally, some of the non-archaeological texts cite the two texts as an information source of archaeologists’ work practices (e.g., [A2][C3][C25]). The Archaeological Site Manual seems to have been cited to a greater extent as a general reference to the single-context method whereas the Complete Manual has been cited for its descriptions of specific procedures.
A parallel to a thematic categorisation of the texts that cite the Archaeological Site Manual and the Complete Manual, it was possible to see a contrast in what types of texts cite respectively the Archaeological Site Manual and the Complete Manual. The pattern was obvious in close reading of the texts but could also be discerned in the keywords assigned to them. Table 3 lists author-assigned keywords (occurring more than once) retrieved from Scopus and used to describe the texts. Multiple texts citing the Archaeological Site Manual have been assigned keywords stratigraphy (9) and excavation (5), but also interpretation (2), excavation methods (2), and digital archaeology (3), that all relate to the approach and perspective of the texts i.e., what kind of archaeological research they are relating to.
In contrast, many of the geographic (e.g., Andes, Argentina) and thematic keywords (e.g., geoarchaeology, rock art, taphonomy, training, sediment analysis) are related to the empirical research contexts of the individual authors with more than one publication in the material. The higher proportion of fieldwork reports among the texts citing the Archaeological Site Manual is reflected in the keyword frequencies in comparison to the Complete Manual where all terms used more than once relate to archaeology and its subfields, and different tools and techniques. The same applies also to the frequencies of keywords in Table 3 and categories in Table 4. Citations to the Archaeological Site Manual are focused on pointers to the stratigraphic method (Category 1 in Table 4) and its applications (Category 3) whereas the Complete Manual was used as a generic source of knowledge and details of archaeological fieldwork (Categories 2 and 5).
|Archaeological Site Manual||the Complete Manual|
|Andes||2||Cultural Resource Management||2|
|Comparative Study||2||Forensic Archaeology||2|
|Excavation Methods||2||Forensic Pathology||2|
|Geoarchaeology||2||Interactive Computer Systems||2|
|Later Stone Age||2||Three Dimensional||2|
Functions of citations
Even if the citations in the two analysed texts had many similarities, the Archaeological Site Manual was cited as a specific reference to the single-context approach of field archaeology (in contrast to others), whereas the Complete Manual was cited typically as a source of what is commonly known about archaeological field practices. In some cases, the Complete Manual was cited for the archaeological subject matter described in the text.
The analysis revealed five primary functions of citations that are summarised in Table 4. It is worth observing that the categories are not exclusive and in several cases, a particular citation could be classified to have several parallel functions. For instance, in [A41] it appears that when the authors explain that ‘collected artifacts were catalogued following conventional methods’ (followed by a citations to the Archaeological Site Manual), they were simultaneously describing what was done at a particular excavation (category 5) but also what is considered to be a common practice in archaeology (category 2). Considering this, the number of citations to the two manuals per function given in Table 4 should be interpreted as indicative of their probable primary functions rather than as absolute figures. However, keeping this in mind, the analysis shows that the Complete Manual has been cited much more frequently as an information source on archaeological common knowledge and practices, whereas the Archaeological Site Manual has been cited to describe or refer to specific practices and work procedures.
|Function||Example||No. in Complete Manual||No. in Archaeological Site Manual|
|1. Specific practices in field archaeology||’Cleaning protocols (Semenov 1964; Complete Manual; Sease 1987) used during stone tool curation call for treatments that may interfere with DNA and protein recovery.’ [C41]; ’In the West, standards for single context recording based on the Harris Matrix were already established more than years ago, notable that of the Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS)’ [A68]||3||13|
|2. Regular practices in field archaeology||‘Archaeological field work involves the use of various specialized tools. (Complete Manual)’ [C2]; ’Since the nineteenth century, many practitioners have sought to observe and objectively document the world, be it the changing colours of soils or similarities of form. Archaeologists are trained in technical practices as a means of rendering things objective and allowing comparative analyses (e.g., Archaeological Site Manual).’ [A37]||15||5|
|3. How we did what we did||’In order to allow for good control over the excavation process, which involved the removal of soil in equal layers to prevent damage, remains were buried and excavated by means of archaeological techniques (shovels, brushes and trowels).’ (Complete Manual) [C3]; ’On the excavations we used a modified version of single context recording system as devised by the Museum of London Archaeological Service and widely used by field archaeologists trained in the UK or Ireland (Archaeological Site Manual). This system emphasizes excavator interpretation and allows for a greater sharing of on-site responsibilities.’ [A56]||3||18|
|4. Reference to a concept explained in the text||’The concept of assemblage in archaeology is in many ways a very loose term, used in various ways, but two of its most common meanings are a collection of objects associated on the basis of their depositional or spatial find—context (e.g., midden assemblage) and a collection ’Of one type of object found within a site or area (eg. pottery assemblage), often also referred to as an industry (eg. Complete Manual: 279; Carver 2009: 224; also see Joyce & Pollard 2010).’ [C24]; ’Many of the observational terms in Table 1 are used in other recording systems (e.g., those derived from the Archaeological Site Manual).’ [A1]||4||3|
|5. What is generally known in archaeology||’A report is a compilation of the description of an archaeological excavation or a survey process, a survey of the related literature, and an interpretation of the results of the investigation (Complete Manual).’ [C25]||11||0|
To give a summary of the categories, first, the texts were cited to refer to specific practices in field archaeology such as a particular technique or an aspect of archaeological fieldwork and documentation. Such practices could be, for instance, a computer-based recording system used at the Museum of London [A72], a particular type of recording sheet [A66], a method of describing soil [A49], a burial excavation technique [C40] or a cleaning protocol [C41].
Second, the citations were used to make remarks on the regular practices in field archaeology i.e., how archaeologists act in general (e.g., [A60][A71]). For instance, [C46] suggests that the classification of pottery is done by categorising ceramic finds using two-dimensional drawing and measurement techniques, [C13] refers to typical health concerns relating to archaeological fieldwork, [A43] explains how the single-context method has become a common practice at urban excavations [A43], and [A37] how ’[a]rchaeologists are trained in technical practices as a means of rendering things objective and allowing comparative analyses’.
Third, citations to the manuals are used to explain how we did things i.e., how the author or a particular group of archaeologists conducted their fieldwork. These types of references were typical in texts reporting fieldwork results, and considerably more common in citations to the Archaeological Site Manual. The authors could explain, for instance, how pits were dug at a particular excavation [A7], what was the excavation strategy [A30], and what excavation protocols were adopted at a particular site [A34]. A citation to either manual could suggest conformity to a specific approach or technique (e.g., [A25][A31][A32][C31]).
Using the Archaeological Site Manual, it was common to refer to the single-context excavation method described in the manual (supposedly) in its entirety (exceptions e.g., [A61][A31) whereas with the Complete Manual, the citations tended to refer to individual techniques (ranging from surveying techniques [C29] and post-excavation analysis techniques [C11] to the management of pottery finds [C23][C28]) rather than to the manual’s approach as a whole (exceptions [C9][C45][C57]). Citations could also suggest that the adopted approach was ’based’ (e.g., [A67]) on, ’followed’ (or ’sequimos’ in [A55]), ’derived’ [A2], used ’a modified version’ of [A56], or ’modified and expanded upon’ [C36] a method explained in the text rather than ’used’ (e.g., [A5][A21][C40]) or ’employed’ [A4] it.
A third alternative was to use the citation to contrast the chosen (often characterised as a better alternative) or typical (characterised explicitly or implicitly as inferior, e.g., [A3][A53], or merely different, e.g., [A25][A29]) approach in a specific context and the approach described in a manual. For instance, [A29] contrasts the system described in the Archaeological Site Manual with the one used in North American urban archaeology.
Fourth, the citations could make a citation to what is generally known in archaeology. It could be used to explain what is an archaeological report [C25] and what are their ’key components’ [C26], that historical maps are important sources for understanding the past [C24], or that accurate and rapid measurements are crucial in archaeological fieldwork’ [C56]. These citations could be found only in relation to the Complete Manual.
Finally, citations are used to make a reference to a concept explained in the text. These could be the notion of ’context’ (e.g., [A3][A45][A52][A60]), ’assemblage’ [C24], ’field’ [C39], ’attribute’ [C47], or a broader set of, or instance, terms used to describe observations [A1][C19].
In addition to the five categories, one citation to the Complete Manual referred to a map published in the book on early population in North America [C44]. A small number of texts lacked citations and referred to the texts only in their bibliographies [C37][C38][C27][C55][A26], or in a list of recommended readings [C30]. In two cases the citation was apparently misplaced and was intended to cite another text [C1][C35]. In twelve cases, the Complete Manual was cited as a general example of archaeological field manuals or literature.
The findings confirm several earlier observations and remarks on methods literature and in particular on archaeological field manuals. In general, the analysis suggests that it is relatively uncommon to make explicit citations to field manuals, especially when reporting fieldwork results. The low number and diversity of citations to the two well-known manuals suggest that they are cited when individual authors experience a need to make a specific point by providing a pointer rather than that citing them would be considered relevant or necessary by default.
Citations had also clearly multiple parallel functions, for example, to explain what is common practice and what was done during a particular excavation. This means that any identified primary functions of specific citations are at the most indicative. However, keeping this in mind, it was possible to see many similarities but also several differences in the citation profiles of the two texts. It was possible to discern variation in the expressions used to refer to the literature relating to how the cited works were used, from likely rather instrumental ‘use’ to ‘modifying and expanding upon’ them. The analysis shows similarly that the texts citing the Archaeological Site Manual were usually described with both in-total fewer and fewer unique keywords. A plausible reason is that the Complete Manual has a broader scope and it is cited by a more heterogeneous group of researchers, an observation that is supported by a qualitative reading of the individual citations and their contexts.
Both Watson (2019) and Buccellati (2017) criticise that there is little convergence between technical field manuals and theoretical literature. More specifically, field manuals hav e been criticised for lacking theoretical consideration or depth (Thomas 1981). The present findings confirm this observation in that the citations to the field manuals were unmistakably related to technical rather than theoretical considerations. At the same time, however, it was apparent that the field manuals embody to a certain degree a distinct kind of ‘practical theory’ (Cronen 2001) of archaeological field practice. This is especially apparent with the Archaeological Site Manual and how it is used as a reference to the ’theory’ and practice of the archaeological single-context method but it also to an extent applies to the Complete Manual.
Based on the analysis, it seems that citing a field manual is relevant especially when it is representative of the specific field practices discussed in the text but when the modus operandi is different from what a reader might expect. As Morgan and Wright (2018) note of archaeological drawings, those who are familiar with local conventions have no difficulties in interpreting them without explicit metadata. In contrast, it is difficult or impossible for others. A perceptible documentation ideal that appears to guide the use of citations is to use them as markers for practices that are at odds to what a seasoned reader would be inclined to expect.
As a whole, from the citing perspective, manuals might suffer from an image problem as the presentation text of Carver’s volume Archaeological investigation (2009, p. i) suggests: ‘[t]his is no plodding manual but an inspiring, provocative, informative and entertaining book’ that does, at the same time, intend to be ’a companion for a newcomer to professional archaeology’ from student to a ’fully fledged professional’. Quoting other, ‘[a] comprehensive guide to field archaeology is needed today’ (Spoerl 1982) and it may be useful to have in hand during an archaeological investigation (cf. Thomas 1981 on the Complete Manual) but not necessarily there to be cited without a very particular reason to refer to a specific technique or idea. The eclecticism of the archaeological practices of citing methods literature is further illustrated by the fact that similarly to some earlier field manuals (Thompson 2010), also the Complete Manual has been cited both for its archaeological content and method descriptions.
A comparison of how the two manuals are cited for different purposes shows that the citations to the Complete Manual unfold as more technical than those to the Archaeological Site Manual. The Complete Manual seems to work as a handbook that helps to appreciate and understand ‘the complexity of archaeology’ (Spoerl 1982, p. 249) both within and outside of the discipline but the specific procedures need to be integrated into the situation-specific research strategies rather than considered as a checklist of a series of technical procedures (Spoerl 1982). Even if it has been cited as a description of regular practices in field archaeology and what is generally known about archaeology, as the findings show, the Complete Manual is cited in fieldwork contexts primarily as a technical reference. This supports earlier remarks that even if Joukowsky’s work undoubtedly belongs to the canon of field manuals, the comprehensive approach described in the Complete Manual has never been embraced to a comparable extent in its entirety (Thorpe 2012).
Similarly, even if the analysis shows that the Archaeological Site Manual also has readers around the world from the UK to France, Italy (Collis 2011), Sweden (Dell’Unto et al. 2017), Kazakhstan (Dawkes and Jorayev 2015) and the Philippines (Barretto-Tesoro, 2013), the specific steps described in the text have not become a global standard (Aitchison 2017). However, in contrast to the Complete Manual, the Archaeological Site Manual appears to have emerged as a popular reference of the idea of the single-context method – especially in contexts where it is not supposed to be the norm. It is used to establish a relationship with the epistemic framework of that particular approach (cf. Hyland 2013), and (literally) ’used’ as a monographic reference of an entire fieldwork approach whereas the citations to the Complete Manual tended to focus on specific techniques and details rather than to Joukowsky’s approach as a whole.
Citations as paradata
A major problem with assuming that citations to methods literature can function as paradata is the potential discrepancy between cited works and the actual practices. Even if a particular manual would be representative of local practice, it is not necessarily followed to the point. The varying degrees of expressing conformance to the texts echo historical studies of archaeological recording practices (e.g., Pavel 2010), and how ideals, techniques and details of archaeological documentation practices can have a tendency to spread much wider than complete sets of procedures.
Similarly to how the earlier literature criticises that the methods described in the Archaeological Site Manual (Davies and Parker 2016) or other manuals (Sellers 1973) are seldom followed to the point, the analysed citations to the Archaeological Site Manual and the Complete Manual evince a lack of total compliance. In the studied material, citations are used to refer to general principles and specific procedures (e.g., [A17], [A20]) that were applied or adapted in a local context to form a creolised version of the line of action described in the literature. Both the unspecific blanket citations and the selective use of specific pointers to particular techniques and procedures suggests what Sellers describes as developing alternative field practices ‘to get their work done and reach their objectives’ (Sellers 1973, p. 140).
Instead of indicating compliance with a set of canonical instructions (Amerine and Bilmes 1990), the specificity and style of citations insinuate that the archaeologists were improvising and engaging in ’metagaming’ (Huvila 2013) their work as it is represented in the formal descriptions. This is not surprising considering the practical nature of archaeological knowing and how learning archaeology by digging (Dyson 1981) on the field has been emphasised as the only way to develop ’a sense of judgment, which is the key to conducting successful archaeological experiments’ (Straus 1981, p. 106). As Dyson suggests, even if manuals have their place and can serve as a convenient repository of appropriate references, they are only the beginning of a complex archaeological learning experience (Dyson 1981).
Another problem with using citations as descriptive paradata is that citations and citing change over time. As Wouters (2014) remarks, they evolve as a part of the evolution of scholarly knowledge infrastructures. Still, a citation marks awareness of a particular work, and by proxy, a method and its significance, even if the practices described in the literature and applied in practice would differ from each other. From this perspective, the citations should not be discarded directly but used together with other indicators that ’have different meanings in the social and/or intellectual organization of the sciences’ (Leydesdorff 2011, p. 73) such as the country and region where an investigation has been carried out, where the excavating team and its leaders have received their education, where the results are published (e.g., a particular publishing outlet, or broader informational genre) and for what type of an audience, and what directives (including contracts) have guided the work.
Even if using citations as paradata has certain limitations, the results do still suggest that they have potential to reduce the need for and to complement manually created paradata. In the functional categories 1-3 and to a certain extent in 4 (Table 4) citations are indicative of work procedures, their theoretical and procedural underpinnings and how they are conceptualised by the authors of the citing texts. It is unlikely that the manuals have been followed to the point. Nonetheless, it is within reason to assume that the presence of citations and formulations suggesting compliance, contrast, and influence all point to a specific significance and exceptionality of the cited text and approach.
According to Ingwersen’s theory of polyrepresentation, in information retrieval, the overlap of multiple different structures of representation, for instance, user-written search terms and index terms, keywords in full-text or citations, that point in the same direction can be considered as an indication that a particular text is relevant for the user (Ingwersen 1994).
Building on the original proposal, it has been suggested that polyrepresentation could indicate the presence of a common scope of relevance (Huvila 2016). From this perspective, a repeated co-occurrence of citations to a specific field manual together with other cognitively (using Ingwersen’s term) diverse evidence that suggests particular ways how the fieldwork was conducted (or is suggested to be conducted) might point towards a certain modus operandi (how things are done) and a related documentation ideal (cf. Börjesson 2016) that unfolds a lieu of ’practical theory’ of how things should be done in a perfect world.
Considering the variation and complexity of archaeological practices, it is likely that the possibilities to recognise functions of citations or the specifics of how the cited works have been used are limited. To a certain extent, the citations that can be classified into functional categories 1, 3 and 4 (Table 4) might have some potential in this respect. They all refer to specific concepts and activities with direct relevance to the citing text and therefore can provide cues of its both practical and theoretical underpinnings i.e., (to a certain degree) what was done and (especially) how the doing and its results were conceptualised. Also, the citations to complete manuals typically cited for work procedures (e.g., Archaeological Site Manual) and specific sections in other works (e.g., in quadrant excavation method, [C40] or pottery analysis [C33] in the Complete Manual) cited for the same purpose seem promising in this sense. However, rather than to function as an independent instance of paradata, it is conceivable that the principal value of citations is likely to be in providing useful complementary information to automatically or manually compiled human-readable process summaries at least as long as the current citation practices remain prevalent.
The main conclusion of this study is that citations to methodological texts can serve several different purposes and by functioning as a source of complementary paradata, provide multiple insights into archaeological practices. Methods literature is cited to clarify specific procedures and actions, understand what is considered conventional and extraordinary, to elucidate work processes in broader terms, and to explain concepts and what is common disciplinary knowledge. Even if the literature use is beyond doubt indicative of work procedures, a citation to a method cannot necessarily be considered direct evidence of what was done in reality (cf. Plutniak and Aguera 2013).
In contrast, a cited work can be expected to play a particular role as a point of reference or inspiration in the described activity and how the citing author prefers to frame it. The context of the citation in the text and how it is formulated (whether a method is ’used’, ’employed’ or if it serves as a ’basis’) can provide further cues of the function of the citation. Even if the present findings do not directly support the idea that citations, their specific function and relation to the actual work process could be harvested and classified automatically for producing structured descriptions or paradata on research work, they show that the citations have the potential to complement the polyrepresentative model of research practices. As such, if combined with other indicators, a particular type of citation to a specific text can be indicative of specific patterns of work, and function as a valuable additional piece of paradata on the reported research work.
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this text. This work has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant agreement No 818210 as a part of the project CApturing Paradata for documenTing data creation and Use for the REsearch of the future (CAPTURE).
About the authors
Isto Huvila is Professor in Information Studies at the Department of ALM (Archives, Libraries, Museums), Uppsala University in Sweden. Huvila chaired the recently closed COST Action ARKWORK and is directing the ERC funded research project CAPTURE. His primary areas of research include information and knowledge management, information work, knowledge organization, documentation and social and participatory information practices. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
Dr. Lisa Andersson works as a researcher at the Department of ALM at Uppsala University in Sweden. Her research focuses on research information including research information management systems, data descriptions, data publishing and use. She can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dr. Olle Sköld is a senior lecturer at the Department of ALM and the director of Uppsala University’s Master’s Programme in Digital Humanities. His research is characterised by a broad interest in the ALM field, research data creation and use and digital humanities. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
- Adams, G., Burke, C., Élie, M., Fedje, D., Ross, B., Ringer, a.J., Hamilton, J., & Gauvin, R. (2005) Parks Canada archaeological recording manual. Parks Canada.
- Aitchison, K. (2017). On the outside looking in: what will Brexit mean for European archaeology? The Historic Environment, 8(3), 194–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2017.1358321.
- Amerine, R., & Bilmes, J. (1990). Following instructions. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar, (Eds.) Representation in scientific practice, (pp. 323–335). MIT Press.
- Barker, P. (1993) Techniques of archaeological excavation. Routledge.
- Barretto-Tesoro, G. (2013). The meanings of objects Calatagan and archaeological research in the Philippines. Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints, 61(3), 263–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/phs.2013.0016.
- Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press.
- Borgman, C.L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Reviews of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 2–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440360102.
- Börjesson, L. (2015). Grey literature – grey sources? Nuancing the view on professional documentation: the case of Swedish archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 71(6), 1158–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2014-0137.
- Börjesson, L. (2016). Beyond information policy: conflicting documentation ideals in extra-academic knowledge making practices. Journal of Documentation, 72(4), 674–695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JDOC-10-2015-0134.
- Bricker, R. J. (1988). Knowledge preservation in accounting: a citational study. Abacus-a Journal of Accounting Finance and Business Studies, 24(2), 120–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.1988.tb00209.x.
- Brughmans, T. (2014). The roots and shoots of archaeological network analysis: a citation analysis and review of the archaeological use of formal network methods. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 18–41.
- Buccellati, G. (2017) A critique of archaeological reason: structural, digital and philosophical aspects of the excavated record. Cambridge University Press.
- Buchanan, S. A. (2016). A provenance research study of archaeological curation. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
- Caraher, W. (2017). A survey of archaeological excavation manuals. Archaeology of the Mediterranean World. https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/a-survey-of-archaeological-excavation-manuals/ (Internet Archive).
- Carrascal, B. (2014). The authority of citations and quotations in academic papers. Informal Logic, 34(2), 167–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v34i2.3649.
- Carver, M. O. H. (2009) Archaeological investigation. Routledge.
- Collis, J. (2011). The urban revolution: Martin Biddle’s excavations in Winchester, 1961-1971. In J. Schofield, (Ed.) Great excavations: shaping the archaeological profession, (pp. 74–86). Oxbow Books.
- Collis, J. (2013). The development of archaeological thought as evidenced in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 85(1), 5–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/0084427613z.00000000018.
- Couper, M. P. (2000). Usability evaluation of computer-assisted survey instruments. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 384–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089443930001800402.
- Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. The University of Chicago Press.
- Cronen, V. E. (2001). Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory, 11(1), 14–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00231.x.
- Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. MIT Press.
- Davidović, A. (2009). Praktiken archäologischer Wissensproduktion – Eine kulturanthropologische Wissenschaftsforschung. [Practices of archaeological knowledge production - a cultural-anthropological science study.]. Ugarit-Verlag.
- Davies, P., & Parker, G. (2016). Cities in the modern world. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 50(1), 53–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2016.1169825.
- Dawkes, G., & Jorayev, G. (2015). A case study of an early Islamic city in Transoxiana: Excavations at the medieval citadel in Taraz, Kazakhstan. Archaeological Research in Asia, 4, 17–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2015.09.001.
- Dell’Unto, N., Landeschi, G., Apel, J., & Poggi, G. (2017). 4D recording at the trowel’s edge: using three-dimensional simulation platforms to support field interpretation. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 12, 632–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.03.011.
- Demoule, J-P. (2011). We still have to excavate - but not at any price. Archaeological Dialogues, 18(1), 5–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1380203811000043.
- Dever, W. G. (1981). A complete manual of field archaeology: tools and techniques of field work for archaeologists by Martha Joukowsky. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 242, 86–87.
- Doerr, M., Stead, S., & Theodoridou, M. (2016) Definition of the CRMdigAn extension of CIDOC-CRM to support provenance metadata. (Version 3.2.1 ed.). FORTH.
- Donnelly, V. (2016). A study in grey: grey literature and archaeological investigation in England 1990 to 2010. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Dyson, S. L. (1981). A complete manual of field archaeology by Martha Joukowsky; Techniques of archaeological excavation by Philip Barker; Field methods in archaeology. (sixth edition) by Thomas R. Rester, Robert F. Heizer and John A. Graham. Archaeology. A Magazine Dealing with the Antiquity of the World, 34(6), 78–79.
- Faniel, I., Kansa, E., Whitcher Kansa, S., Barrera-Gomez, J., & Yakel, E. (2013). The challenges of digging data: a study of context in archaeological data reuse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries July 22–26, 2013, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, JCDL ’13, (pp. 295–304). Association for Computing Machinery. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467712.
- Farideh, O. (2009). Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: a review of literature I. Libri, 46(3), 149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/libr.19188.8.131.52.
- Garfield, E. (1996). When to cite. The Library Quarterly, 66(4), 449–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/602912.
- Gaughwin, D. (1982). Martha Joukowsky. "A complete manual of field archaeology. Tools and techniques of field work for archaeologists" (book review) Mankind, 13(5), 437.
- Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Chi, P.-S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: the book citation index. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2165–2179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2046-7.
- Golder, P. N. (2000). Historical method in marketing research with new evidence on long-term market share stability. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 156–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.184.108.40.20632.
- Greene, K. (1998) Archaeology: an introduction. Routledge.
- Gullbekk, E., & Byström, K. (2019). Becoming a scholar by publication - PhD students citing in interdisciplinary argumentation. Journal of Documentation, 75(2), 247–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2018-0101.
- Hammarfelt, B. (2011). Citation analysis on the micro level: the example of Walter Benjamin’s Illuminations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(5), 819–830.
- Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Beyond coverage: toward a bibliometrics for the humanities. In M. Ochsner, S.E. Hug & H-D. Daniel, (Eds.) Research assessment in the humanities: towards criteria and procedures, (pp. 115–131). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_10.
- Hester, T.R., Shafer, H.J., & Feder, K.L. (2009). Field methods in archaeology. (7th ed.). Mayfield.
- Hodder, I. (1997). ’Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71(273), 691–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003598x00085410.
- Hodder, I. (1999) The archaeological process: an introduction. Blackwell.
- Huggett, J. (2012). Promise and paradox: accessing open data in archaeology. In C. Mills, M. Pidd & E. Ward, (Eds.) Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Congress 2012, Sheffield, 6–8th September 2012. Humanities Research Institute.
- Huvila, I. (2012). The unbearable complexity of documenting intellectual processes: paradata and virtual cultural heritage visualisation. Human IT, 12(1), 97–110. https://humanit.hb.se/article/view/96/82 (Internet Archive).
- Huvila, I. (2013). Meta-games in information work. Information Research, 18(3), paperC01. http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC01.html (Internet Archive).
- Huvila, I. (2016). Some remarks on the possibility of extending the theory of polyrepresentation to the study of the relevance and qualities of ’things’ represented in information collections. In L. Farkaš, D. Vican, S.F. Tanacković & M.D. Ivanović, (Eds.) Ogledi o Informacijskim Znanostima - Zbornik Radova u č Tatjane Aparac-Jelušić, (pp. 187–203). Filozofski fakultet u Osijeku & Sveučilište u Zadru.
- Huvila, I. (2022). Improving the usefulness of research data with better paradata. Open Information Science, 6(1), 28–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0129.
- Hyland, K. (2013) Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
- Ingwersen, P. (1994). Polyrepresentation of information needs and semantic entities: elements of a cognitive theory for information retrieval interaction. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, July 3-6, 1994, Dublin, (pp. 101–110). Springer.
- Ingwersen, P. (2012). Citations and references as keys to relevance ranking in interactive IR. In Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context (Symposium, IIIX ’12, (pp. 1–1). Association for Computing Machinery. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2362724.2362726.
- Joukowsky, M. (1980). A complete manual of field archaeology. Prentice-Hall.
- Khazraee Afzali, S. E. A. (2014). Archaeology of archaeology: a study of the creation of archaeological knowledge in practice. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
- Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Bibliometrics/citation networks. In G. A. Barnett, (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Networks, Vol. 1, (pp. 72–74). SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/urn:nbn:nl:ui:29-429917.
- Leydesdorff, L., & Wouters, P. (1999). Between texts and contexts: advances in theories of citation? (A rejoinder). Scientometrics, 44(2), 169–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02457378.
- Lucas, G. (2012). Understanding the archaeological record. Cambridge University Press.
- Masur, A., May, K., Hiebel, G., & Aspöck, E. (2014). Comparing and mapping archaeological excavation data from different recording systems for integration using ontologies. In W. Börner, (Ed.) Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies 2013 (CHNT 18, 2013), Vienna, Austria, 11-13 November, 2013. Stadtarchäologie Wien.
- Milojević, S., Sugimoto, C.R., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., & Ding, Y. (2014). The role of handbooks in knowledge creation and diffusion: a case of science and technology studies. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 693–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.003.
- Morgan, C., & Wright, H. (2018). Pencils and pixels: drawing and digital media in archaeological field recording. Journal of Field Archaeology, 43(2), 136–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488.
- Partington, D., & Jenkins, M. (2007). Deconstructing scholarship. Organizational Research Methods, 10(3), 399–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300202.
- Patil, S. K., & Kant, R. (2014). Methodological literature review of knowledge management research. Tekhne, 12(1), 3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tekhne.2014.07.001.
- Pavel, C. (2010). Describing and interpreting the past: European and American approaches to the written record of the excavation. Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti.
- Pavel, C. (2011). Rezension von [Review of]: G.J. Tassie / L.S. Owens: Standards of archaeological excavation. A field handbook. London Golden House Publications 2010. sehepunkte, 11(6). http://www.sehepunkte.de/2011/06/19695.html (Internet archive).
- Payne, S. (1982). A complete manual of field archaeology. Tools and techniques of field work for archaeologists, Martha Joukowsky. American Journal of Archaeology, 86(3), 448–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/504436.
- Plutniak, S., & Aguera, D. (2013). Reliquats en devenir: Une approche dynamique de l’écologie documentaire d’un laboratoire de mécanique des fluides. [Remains in the making: a dynamic approach to the documentary ecology of a fluid mechanics laboratory.Remains in the making: A dynamic approach to the documentary ecology of a fluid mechanics laboratory.]. Sciences de la société, (89), 55–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/sds.241.
- Pomerantz, J. (2015) Metadata. MIT Press.
- Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2020). Qualitative research: bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. SAGE Publications.
- Richardson, L. (2000). Writing. A method of Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 923–948). SAGE Publications.
- Roskams, S. (2001) Excavation. Cambridge University Press.
- Schneider, J. A. (2015). NIH R01 grant application mentor: social & behavioral sciences. Scientific Researchers Resources.
- Sellers, M. (1973). The secret notebook for the practicing archaeologist: with preliminary notes toward an ethno-science of archaeology. Plains Anthropologist, 18(60), 140–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2052546.1973.11908657.
- Sinclair, A. (2016). The intellectual base of archaeological research 2004-2013: a visualisation and analysis of its disciplinary links, networks of authors and conceptual language. Internet Archaeology, (42). http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.42.8.
- Spoerl, P. M. (1982). A complete manual of field archaeology: tools and techniques of field work for archaeologists. Martha Joukowsky. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980. x + 630 pp., illus., biblio., index. $14.95 (paper). American Antiquity, 47(1), 248–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/280089.
- Stanford, D. (1981). Joukowsky, "A complete manual of field archaeology: tools and techniques of field work for archaeologists" (book review). New Mexico Historical Review, 56(4), 421.
- Straus, L. G. (1981). A complete manual of field archaeology: Tools and techniques of field work for archaeologists. Martha Joukowsky. Journal of Anthropological Research, 37(1), 104–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/jar.37.1.3629520.
- Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.
- Thomas, D. H. (1981). Archaeology: a complete manual of field archaeology: Tools and techniques of field work for archaeologists. Martha Joukowsky. American Anthropologist, 83(3), 670–671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1981.83.3.02a00440.
- Thompson, A.-M. K. (2010). Golder’s historical method in research in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1269–1272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.09.005.
- Thorpe, R. (2012). Often fun, usually messy: fieldwork, recording and higher orders of things. In H. Cobb, O.J.T. Harris, C. Jones, & P. Richardson, (Eds.) Reconsidering archaeological fieldwork: exploring on-site relationships between theory and practice, (pp. 31–52). Springer.
- Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000) Methods of text and discourse analysis: in search of meaning. SAGE Publications.
- Voss, B.L. (2012). Curation as research. A case study in orphaned and under-reported archaeological collections. Archaeological Dialogues, 19(2), 145–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1380203812000219.
- Watson, S. (2019). Whither archaeologists? Continuing challenges to field practice. Antiquity, 93(372), 1643–1652. http://dx.doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.141.
- Westman, A., (Ed.) (1994) Archaeological site manual. (3rd ed.). Museum of London Archaeology Service.
- Wouters, P. (2014). The citation: from culture to infrastructure. In B. Cronin & C.R. Sugimoto, (Eds.) Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 47–66). MIT Press.
How to cite this paper
Appendix 1: Analysed publications
The references include the code (e.g., A1) used in the article text, authors, year, title, publication title, volume, issue, pages, publisher, an eventual DOI identifier, and either ASM to refer to the Archaeological Site Manual or CMF to the Complete Manual of Field Archaeology.
- A1 Holdaway S.J., Emmitt J., Phillipps R., Masoud-Ansari S. 2019 A Minimalist Approach to Archaeological Data Management Design. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory (26)2, p. 873-893. Springer New York LLC DOI: 10.1007/s10816-018-9399-6 (ASM).
- A2 Khazraee E. 2019 Assembling narratives: Tensions in collaborative construction of knowledge. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (70)4, p. 325-337. John Wiley and Sons Inc. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24133 (ASM).
- A3 Croix S., Deckers P., Feveile C., Knudsen M., Qvistgaard S.S., Sindbæk S.M., Wouters B. 2019 Single Context, Metacontext, and High Definition Archaeology: Integrating New Standards of Stratigraphic Excavation and Recording. Journal of Archaeological Method and TheorySpringer New York LLC DOI: 10.1007/s10816-019-09417-x (ASM).
- A4 Marsh M., Hiscock P., Williams D., Hughes P., Sullivan M. 2018 Watura Jurnti: A 42000–45000-year-long occupation sequence from the north-eastern Pilbara. Archaeology in Oceania (53)3, p. 137-149. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd DOI: 10.1002/arco.5152 (ASM).
- A5 Inglis R.H., French C., Farr L., Hunt C.O., Jones S.C., Reynolds T., Barker G. 2018 Sediment micromorphology and site formation processes during the Middle to Later Stone Ages at the Haua Fteah Cave, Cyrenaica, Libya. Geoarchaeology (33)3, p. 328-348. John Wiley and Sons Inc. DOI: 10.1002/gea.21660 (ASM).
- A6 Faulkner P., Harris M., Ali A.K., Haji O., Crowther A., Horton M.C., Boivin N.L. 2018 Characterising marine mollusc exploitation in the eastern African Iron Age: Archaeomalacological evidence from Unguja Ukuu and Fukuchani, Zanzibar. Quaternary International (471), p. 66-80. Elsevier Ltd DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.051 (ASM).
- A7 Wendrich W., Holdaway S. 2018 Basket use, raw materials and arguments on early and Middle Holocene mobility in the Fayum, Egypt. Quaternary International (468), p. 240-249. Elsevier Ltd DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.01.010 (ASM).
- A8 Morgan C., Wright H. 2018 Pencils and Pixels: Drawing and Digital Media in Archaeological Field Recording. Journal of Field Archaeology (43)2, p. 136-151. Taylor and Francis Ltd. DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488 (ASM).
- A9 Pinto H., Archer W., Witelson D., Regensberg R., Baker S.E., Mokhachane R., Ralimpe J., Ndaba N., Mokhantso L., Lecheko P., Challis S. 2018 The Matatiele Archaeology and Rock Art (MARA)Program Excavations: The Archaeology of Mafusing 1 Rock Shelter, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Journal of African Archaeology (16)2, p. 145-167. Brill Nijhoff DOI: 10.1163/21915784-20180009 (ASM).
- A10 Taylor J., Issavi J., Berggren A., Lukas D., Mazzucato C., Tung B., Dell’Unto N. 2018 ’The rise of the machine’: The impact of digital tablet recording in the field at Çatalhöyük. Internet Archaeology 47, p. -. Council for British Archaeology DOI: 10.11141/ia.47.1 (ASM).
- A11 Mallol C., Mentzer S.M. 2017 Contacts under the lens: Perspectives on the role of microstratigraphy in archaeological research. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (9)8, p. 1645-1669. Springer Verlag DOI: 10.1007/s12520-015-0288-6 (ASM).
- A12 Pietsch D., Kühn P. 2017 Buried soils in the context of geoarchaeological research—two examples from Germany and Ethiopia. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (9)8, p. 1571-1583. Springer Verlag DOI: 10.1007/s12520-014-0180-9 (ASM).
- A13 Garcia-Garcia E., Andrews J., Iriarte E., Sala R., Aranburu A., Hill J., Agirre-Mauleon J. 2017 Geoarchaeological core prospection as a tool to validate archaeological interpretation based on geophysical data at the roman settlement of Auritz/Burguete and Aurizberri/Espinal (Navarre). Geosciences (Switzerland)(7)4 104MDPI AG DOI: 10.3390/geosciences7040104 (ASM).
- A14 Nevett L.C., Tsigarida E.B., Archibald Z.H., Stone D.L., Horsley T.J., Ault B.A., Panti A., Lynch K.M., Pethen H., Stallibrass S.M., Salminen E., Gaffney C., Sparrow T.J., Taylor S., Manousakis J., Zekkos D. 2017 TOWARDS A MULTI-SCALAR, MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO THE CLASSICAL Greek CITY: THE OLYNTHOS PROJECT. Annual of the British School at Athens (112), p. 155-206. Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/S0068245417000090 (ASM).
- A15 Gheco L., Gastaldi M., Marte F., Quesada M., Tascon M., Mastrangelo N. 2017 About fires and paintings: Three stratigraphic insights on the history of a cave with prehispanic rock art. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (15), p. 48-58. Elsevier Ltd DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.07.009 (ASM).
- A16 Aitchison K. 2017 On the outside looking in: What will brexit mean for European archaeology?. Historic Environment: Policy and Practice (8)3, p. 194-198. Taylor and Francis Ltd. DOI: 10.1080/17567505.2017.1358321 (ASM).
- A17 Dell’Unto N., Landeschi G., Apel J., Poggi G. 2017 4D recording at the trowel’s edge: Using three-dimensional simulation platforms to support field interpretation. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (12), p. 632-645. Elsevier Ltd DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.03.011 (ASM).
- A18 Ulguim P.F. 2017 Recording In Situ Human Remains in Three Dimensions: Applying Digital Image-Based Modeling. Human Remains: Another Dimension The Application of Imaging to the Study of Human Remains, p. 71-92. Elsevier Inc. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-804602-9.00007-2 (ASM).
- A19 Gastaldi M.R. 2017 Monuments, archaeology and local view. The case of the waste mounds of Ambato Valley (northwest of Argentina)[Monumentos, arqueología y perspectiva local. El caso de los montículos basureros del Valle de Ambato (noroeste de Argentina)]. Estudios Atacamenos 55, p. 57-83. Universidad Catolica del Norte DOI: 10.4067/S0718-10432017005000015 (ASM).
- A20 Evis L.H., Hanson I., Cheetham P.N. 2016 An experimental study of two grave excavation methods: Arbitrary Level Excavation and Stratigraphic Excavation. Science and Technology of Archaeological Research (2)2, p. 177-191. Routledge DOI: 10.1080/20548923.2016.1229916 (ASM).
- A21 Steel L. 2016 Exploring Aredhiou: New light on the rural communities of the Cypriot hinterland during the late bronze age. American Journal of Archaeology (120)4, p. 511-536. Archaeological Institute of America DOI: 10.3764/aja.120.4.0511 (ASM).
- A22 Sands R. 2016 Prehistoric woodworking: The analysis and interpretation of bronze and iron age toolmakers. Prehistoric Woodworking: The Analysis and Interpretation of Bronze and Iron Age Toolmakers, p. 1-114. Taylor and Francis DOI: 10.4324/9781315422053 (ASM).
- A23 Ward I., Winter S., Dotte-Sarout E. 2016 The lost art of stratigraphy? A consideration of excavation strategies in Australian indigenous archaeology. Australian Archaeology (82)3, p. 263-274. Taylor and Francis Ltd. DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2016.1251014 (ASM).
- A24 Davies P., Parker G. 2016 Cities in the modern world [Les villes dans le monde modern] [Die Archäologie moderner Städte] [Le città del mondo moderno] [Las ciudades en el mundo modern]. Post-Medieval Archaeology (50)1, p. 53-72. Taylor and Francis Ltd. DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2016.1169825 (ASM).
- A25 Lindskoug H.B. 2016 Fire Events, Violence and Abandonment Scenarios in the Ancient Andes: The Final Stage of the Aguada Culture in the Ambato Valley, Northwest Argentina. Journal of World Prehistory (29)2, p. 155-214. Springer New York LLC DOI: 10.1007/s10963-016-9095-y (ASM).
- A26 Frolík J., Musil J. 2016 A contribution to the social identification of the medieval inhabitants of chrudim on the example of the graveyard by the church of the assumption of the virgin mary [P&racron;íspěvek k sociální identifikaci st&racron;edověkých obyvatel chrudimi na p&racron;íkladu h&racron;bitova u kostela nanebevzetí panny marie]. Archaeologia Historica (41)2, p. 243-262. Masaryk University Press DOI: 10.5817/AH2016-2-12 (ASM).
- A27 Zakrzewski S., Shortland A., Rowland J. 2015 Science in the study of ancient Egypt. Science in the Study of Ancient Egypt, p. 1-410. Taylor and Francis Inc. DOI: 10.4324/9781315678696 (ASM).
- A28 Dawkes G., Jorayev G. 2015 A case study of an early Islamic city in Transoxiana: Excavations at the medieval citadel in Taraz, Kazakhstan. Archaeological Research in Asia (4), p. 17-24. Elsevier Ltd DOI: 10.1016/j.ara.2015.09.001 (ASM).
- A29 Wynne-Jones S., Fleisher J. 2015 Fifty years in the archaeology of the eastern African coast: A methodological history. Azania (50)4, p. 519-541. Routledge DOI: 10.1080/0067270X.2015.1102943 (ASM).
- A30 Dirks P.H.G.M., Berger L.R., Roberts E.M., Kramers J.D., Hawks J., Randolph-Quinney P.S., Elliott M., Musiba C.M., Churchill S.E., de Ruiter D.J., Schmid P., Backwell L.R., Belyanin G.A., Boshoff P., Hunter K.L., Feuerriegel E.M., Gurtov A., Harrison J.G., Hunter R., Kruger A., Morris H., Makhubela T.V., Peixotto B., Tucker S. 2015 Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa. eLife (4)42248 e09561eLife Sciences Publications Ltd DOI: 10.7554/eLife.09561 (ASM).
- A31 Evans J., Mills P. 2015 Excavation, processing and studying the pottery from Ras el Bassit, Syria. Field Methods and Post-Excavation Techniques in Late Antique Archaeology, p. 553-572. Brill DOI: 10.1163/22134522-12340019 (ASM).
- A32 Carver M., Gaydarska B., Montón-Subías S. 2015 Field archaeology from around the world: Ideas and approaches. Field Archaeology from Around the World: Ideas and Approaches, p. 1-245. Springer International Publishing DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09819-7 (ASM).
- A33 Sevketoglu M., Hanson I. 2015 Akanthou-Arkosykos, a ninth Millenium BC coastal settlement in Cyprus. Environmental Archaeology (20)3, p. 225-238. Maney Publishing DOI: 10.1179/1749631415Y.0000000018 (ASM).
- A34 Roosevelt C.H., Cobb P., Moss E., Olson B.R., Ünlüsoy S. 2015 Excavation is destruction digitization: Advances in archaeological practice. Journal of Field Archaeology (40)3, p. 325-346. Maney Publishing DOI: 10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000004 (ASM).
- A35 Birch T., Scholger R., Walach G., Stremke F., Cech B. 2015 Finding the invisible smelt: using experimental archaeology to critically evaluate fieldwork methods applied to bloomery iron production remains. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (7)1, p. 73-87. Springer Verlag DOI: 10.1007/s12520-013-0141-8 (ASM).
- A36 Bernarda Marconetto M., Gastaldi M.R., Lindskoug H.B., Laguens A.G. 2014 Merging the matrix: Stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, and fire regimens in the Ambato valley (Catamarca, NW Argentina). Radiocarbon (56)1, p. 189-207. DOI: 10.2458/56.16100 (ASM).
- A37 Russell I.A., Cochrane A. 2014 Introduction. Art and Archaeology: Collaborations, Conversations, Criticisms, p. 1-6. Springer New York DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8990-0_1 (ASM).
- A38 Hanson I. 2014 Forensic Archaeology and the International Commission on Missing Persons: Setting Standards in an Integrated Process. Forensic Archaeology: A Global Perspective, p. 415-425. Wiley Blackwell DOI: 10.1002/9781118745977.ch48 (ASM).
- A39 Ashby E., Hudson B. 2014 The Current Status of Forensic Archaeology in New Zealand. Forensic Archaeology: A Global Perspective, p. 319-325. Wiley Blackwell DOI: 10.1002/9781118745977.ch38 (ASM).
- A40 Forssman T. 2014 Dzombo shelter: A contribution to the later stone age sequence of the Greater Mapungubwe Landscape. South African Archaeological Bulletin (69)200, p. 182-191. South African Archaeological Society (ASM).
- A41 Munyikwa K., Gilliland K., Gibson T., Mann E., Rittenour T.M., Grekul C., Blaikie-Birkigt K. 2014 Late holocene temporal constraints for human occupation levels at the Bodo archaeological locality, East-central Alberta, Canada using radiocarbon and luminescence chronologies. Plains Anthropologist (59)230, p. 109-143. Maney Publishing DOI: 10.1179/2052546X14Y.0000000011 (ASM).
- A42 Mitchell P., Arthur C. 2014 Ha makotoko: Later Stone age occupation across the Pleistocene/Holocene transition in western Lesotho. Journal of African Archaeology (12)2, p. 205-232. Africa Magna Verlag DOI: 10.3213/2191-5784-10255 (ASM).
- A43 Collis J. 2013 The Development of Archaeological Thought as Evidenced in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal (85)1, p. 5-26. Routledge DOI: 10.1179/0084427613Z.00000000018 (ASM).
- A44 Beresford-Jones D. 2013 The Lost Woodlands of Ancient Nasca: A Case-study in Ecological and Cultural Collapse. The Lost Woodlands of Ancient Nasca: A Case-study in Ecological and Cultural Collapse, p. 1-208. Oxford University Press DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197264768.001.0001 (ASM).
- A45 Carver M. 2013 Archaeological Investigation. Archaeological Investigation, p. 1-424. Taylor and Francis DOI: 10.4324/9780203523124 (ASM).
- A46 Iles L. 2013 Analysis of iron working remains from Kooki and Masindi, Western Uganda. Nyame Akuma (80), p. 43-58. Society of Africanist Archaeologists (ASM).
- A47 Rowland J., Ikram S., Tassie G.J., Yeomans L. 2013 The sacred Falcon Necropolis of Djedhor(?)at Quesna: Recent investigations from 2006-2012. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (99), p. 53-84. Egypt Exploration Society (ASM).
- A48 Barretto-Tesoro G. 2013 The changing meanings of objects Calatagan and archaeological research in the Philippines. Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints (61)3, p. 263-296. Ateneo de Manila University DOI: 10.1353/phs.2013.0016 (ASM).
- A49 Pietsch D., Schenk K., Japp S., Schnelle M. 2013 Standardised recording of sediments in the excavation of the Sabaean town of Sirwah, Yemen. Journal of Archaeological Science (40)5, p. 2430-2445. Academic Press DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.037 (ASM).
- A50 Morgan C., Eve S. 2012 DIY and digital archaeology: What are you doing to participate?. World Archaeology (44)4, p. 521-537. DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2012.741810 (ASM).
- A51 Praetzellis A. 2012 Crm Archaeology: The View from California. The Oxford Handbook of Public ArchaeologyOxford University Press DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199237821.013.0017 (ASM).
- A52 Cobb H., Members of the Ardnamurchan Transitions Project 2012 The struggle within: Challenging the subject/object relationship on a shoestring. Reconsidering Archaeological Fieldwork: Exploring On-Site Relationships between Theory and Practice, p. 113-130. Springer US DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2338-6_8 (ASM).
- A53 Lapadula E., Limoncelli M. 2012 The excavation and structures. The Chora of Metaponto 4: The Late Roman Farmhouse at San Biagio (9,78029E+12), p. 19-53. University of Texas Press (ASM).
- A54 Lapadula E., Carter J.C. 2012 The Chora of Metaponto 4: The late roman farmhouse at San Biagio. The Chora of Metaponto 4: The Late Roman Farmhouse at San Biagio (9,78029E+12), p. 1-261. University of Texas Press (ASM).
- A55 Gastaldi M.R. 2012 The place of objects in the stratigraphic theory of Edward C. Harris: Reflections from a habitation in the Ambato Valley, Argentina [El lugar de los objetos en la teoría estratigráfica de Edward C. Harris: Reflexiones desde una habitación del Valle de Ambato, Argentina]. Intersecciones en Antropologia (13)1, p. 89-101. (ASM).
- A56 Arthur C., Mohapi M., Mitchell P. 2011 Archaeology and dam projects in Lesotho. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites (13)44230, p. 231-252. DOI: 10.1179/175355211X13179154166196 (ASM).
- A57 Tudhope D., May K., Binding C., Vlachidis A. 2011 Connecting archaeological data and grey literature via semantic cross search. Internet Archaeology 30 (ASM).
- A58 Jervis B., Lockyear K., Popescu A., Sly T. 2011 The medieval ceramic sequence from Noviodunum. Peuce 9, p. 327-340. (ASM).
- A59 Gearey B.R., Chapman H.P., Howard A.J., Krawiec K., Bamforth M., Fletcher W.G., Hill T.C.B., Marshall P., Tetlow E., Tyers I. 2011 Beccles triple post alignment, Beccles marshes, Suffolk: Excavation and palaeoenvironmental analyses of an iron age Wetland Site. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (77), p. 231-250. (ASM).
- A60 Photos-Jones E., Hall A.J. 2011 Archaeological recording and chemical stratigraphy applied to contaminated land studies. Science of the Total Environment (409)24, p. 5432-5443. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.08.035 (ASM).
- A61 Goodburn D., Meddens F., Holden S., Phillpotts C. 2011 Linking Land and Navy: Archaeological investigations at the site of the Woolwich Royal Dockyard, south-eastern England. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (40)2, p. 306-327. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2011.00316.x (ASM).
- A62 Beresford-Jones D.G., Whaley O., Ledesma C.A., Cadwallader L. 2011 Two millennia of changes in human ecology: Archaeobotanical and invertebrate records from the lower Ica valley, south coast Peru. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany (20)4, p. 273-292. DOI: 10.1007/s00334-011-0292-4 (ASM).
- A63 Drewett P.L. 2011 Field Archaeology: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Field Archaeology: An Introduction, 2nd edition, p. 1-182. Taylor and Francis DOI: 10.4324/9780203830871 (ASM).
- A64 Bowens A. 2009 Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Second Edition, p. 1-226. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444302875 (ASM).
- A65 White R. 2009 Data Collection by Excavation. The Oxford Handbook of ArchaeologyOxford University Press DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199271016.013.0008 (ASM).
- A66 Barros García J.M. 2009 Recording stratigraphic relationships among non-original deposits on a 16th century painting. Journal of Cultural Heritage (10)3, p. 338-346. Elsevier Masson SAS DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2009.01.001 (ASM).
- A67 Bashford L., Sibun L., Barber L., Jones G., Pollard T., Richmond M., Rudling D., Seel S., Start H. 2007 Excavations at the Quaker Burial Ground, Kingston-upon-Thames, London. Post-Medieval Archaeology (41)1, p. 100-154. Maney Publishing DOI: 10.1179/174581307X236210 (ASM).
- A68 Lavan L., Swift E., Putzeys T. 2007 Material spatiality in late antiquity: Sources, approaches and field methods. Late Antique Archaeology (5), p. 1-42. Brill Academic Publishers DOI: 10.1163/22134522-90000102 (ASM).
- A69 Sofaer J.R. 2006 The body as material culture: A theoretical osteoarchaeology. The Body as Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology, p. 1-188. Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511816666 (ASM).
- A70 Beck A., Seif A. 2005 Computer-aided reflexivity and data management in archaeology. GIS for Sustainable Development, p. 367-381. CRC Press (ASM).
- A71 Benko H., Ishak E.W., Feiner S. 2004 Collaborative mixed reality visualization of an archaeological excavation. ISMAR 2004: Proceedings of the Third IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, p. 132-140. DOI: 10.1109/ISMAR.2004.23 (ASM).
- A72 Lock G. 2003 Using computers in archaeology: Towards virtual pasts. Using Computers in Archaeology: Towards Virtual Pasts, p. 1-300. Taylor and Francis DOI: 10.4324/9780203451076 (ASM).
- A73 Waywell G.B., Wilkes J.J. 1997 Excavations at Sparta: The roman stoa, 1988–91 part 3. The Annual of the British School at Athens (92)1, p. 401-434. DOI: 10.1017/S0068245400016750 (ASM).
- C1 Wen H., Sang S., Qiu C., Du X., Zhu X., Shi Q. 2019 A new optimization method of wind turbine airfoil performance based on Bessel equation and GABP artificial neural network. Energy (187.)DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116106 (CMF).
- C2 Lu Q., Shaoen M., Li J., Mi H., Xu Y. 2019 Irelics: Designing a tangible interaction platform for the popularization of field archaeology. TEI 2019-Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, p. 45-54. DOI: 10.1145/3294109.3295647 (CMF).
- C3 Marais-Werner A., Myburgh J., Meyer A., Nienaber W.C., Steyn M. 2017 Decomposition patterns of buried remains at different intervals in the Central Highveld region of South Africa. Medicine, Science and the Law (57)3, p. 115-123. DOI: 10.1177/0025802417705263 (CMF).
- C4 McCann A.M. 2017 Introduction. The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa: A Center of Ancient Trade, p. 3-11. (CMF).
- C5 Buccellati G. 2017 A critique of archaeological reason: Structural, digital, and philosophical aspects of the excavated record. A Critique of Archaeological Reason: Structural, Digital, and Philosophical Aspects of the Excavated Record, p. 1-375. DOI: 10.1017/9781107110298 (CMF).
- C6 Evis L.H., Hanson I., Cheetham P.N. 2016 An experimental study of two grave excavation methods: Arbitrary Level Excavation and Stratigraphic Excavation. Science and Technology of Archaeological Research (2)2, p. 177-191. DOI: 10.1080/20548923.2016.1229916 (CMF).
- C7 Dirkmaat D.C., Cabo L.L. 2016 Forensic Archaeology and Forensic Taphonomy: Basic Considerations on how to Properly Process and Interpret the Outdoor Forensic Scene. Academic Forensic Pathology (6)3, p. 439-454. DOI: 10.23907/2016.045 (CMF).
- C8 Leader J. 2016 Archaeological prospection: Near-surface geophysics. Archaeology in South Carolina: Exploring the Hidden Heritage of the Palmetto State, p. 200-212. (CMF).
- C9 Magyar Z. 2015 Late antique archaeology in Hungary: The development of fieldwork methodologies. Field Methods and Post-Excavation Techniques in Late Antique Archaeology, p. 123-156. DOI: 10.1163/22134522-12340007 (CMF).
- C10 De Jesus P., Dardeniz G. 2015 Archaeological and geological concepts on the topic of ancient mining. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration (2015)150, p. 231-246. (CMF).
- C11 De Jesus P., Dardeniz G. 2015 Archaeological and geological concepts on the topic of ancient mining [Antik madencilik hakkinda arkeolojikve jeolojik görüşler]. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration (2015)151, p. 235-250. 264563 (CMF).
- C12 Knibbe J., O’Hara K.P., Chrysanthi A., Marshall M.T., Bennett P.D., Earl G., Izadi S., Fraser M. 2014 Quick and Dirty: Streamlined 3D Scanning in Archaeology. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, p. 1366-1376. DOI: 10.1145/2531602.2531669 (CMF).
- C13 Patterson E.S. 2013 Archaeological safety considerations on construction sites. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment (134), p. 391-399. 17433509 DOI: 10.2495/SAFE130351 (CMF).
- C14 Apoh W. 2013 The Archaeology of German and British Colonial Entanglements in Kpando-Ghana. International Journal of Historical Archaeology (17)2, p. 351-375. DOI: 10.1007/s10761-013-0220-7 (CMF).
- C15 Gilboa A., Tal A., Shimshoni I., Kolomenkin M. 2013 Computer-based, automatic recording and illustration of complex archaeological artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science (40)2, p. 1329-1339. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.09.018 (CMF).
- C16 Carver M. 2013 Archaeological Investigation. Archaeological Investigation, p. 1-424. DOI: 10.4324/9780203523124 (CMF).
- C17 Olsen B., Shanks M., Webmoor T., Witmore C. 2012 Archaeology: The discipline of things. Archaeology: The Discipline of Things (CMF).
- C18 Eisenstadt M., Vincent T. 2012 The knowledge web: Learning and collaborating on the net. The Knowledge Web: Learning and Collaborating on the Net, p. 1-295. DOI: 10.4324/9780203046012 (CMF).
- C19 Lyman R.L. 2012 A Historical Sketch on the Concepts of Archaeological Association, Context, and Provenience. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory (19)2, p. 207-240. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-011-9107-2 (CMF).
- C20 Dirkmaat D.C. 2012 Documenting Context at the Outdoor Crime Scene: Why Bother?. A Companion to Forensic Anthropology, p. 48-65. DOI: 10.1002/9781118255377.ch2 (CMF).
- C21 Thorpe R. 2012 Often fun, usually messy: Fieldwork, recording and higher orders of things. Reconsidering Archaeological Fieldwork: Exploring On-Site Relationships between Theory and Practice, p. 31-52. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2338-6_3 (CMF).
- C22 Biers W.R. 2012 Art, artefacts, and chronology in classical archaeology. Art, Artefacts, and Chronology in Classical Archaeology, p. 1-105. DOI: 10.4324/9780203713860 (CMF).
- C23 Orton C., Hughes M. 2012 Pottery in archaeology, second edition. Pottery in Archaeology, Second Edition, p. 1-340. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511920066 (CMF).
- C24 Lucas G. 2012 Understanding the archaeological record. Understanding the Archaeological Record, p. 1-306. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511845772 (CMF).
- C25 Huvila I. 2011 The politics of boundary objects: Hegemonic interventions and the making of a document. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (62)12, p. 2528-2539. DOI: 10.1002/asi.21639 (CMF).
- C26 Li R., Luo T., Zha H., Lu W. 2011 Computer-assisted archaeological line drawing. Computer (44)7 6000000, p. 62-65. DOI: 10.1109/MC.2011.160 (CMF).
- C27 White T.D., Black M.T., Folkens P.A. 2011 Human osteology: Third edition. Human Osteology: Third Edition, p. 1-662. (CMF).
- C28 Karasik A., Smilansky U. 2011 Computerized morphological classification of ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science (38)10, p. 2644-2657. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2011.05.023 (CMF).
- C29 Drewett P.L. 2011 Field Archaeology: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Field Archaeology: An Introduction, 2nd edition, p. 1-182. DOI: 10.4324/9780203830871 (CMF).
- C30 Magness J. 2010 The archaeology of the holy land: From the destruction of Solomon’s temple to the Muslim conquest. The Archaeology of the Holy Land: From the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest, p. 1-385. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139013833 (CMF).
- C31 Lönnqvist K.K.A. 2009 Pyhtää susikopinharju (1), Finland: A site with mesolithic dwellings. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (75), p. 305-334. DOI: 10.1017/S0079497X00000384 (CMF).
- C32 Huvila I. 2008 Work and work roles: A context of tasks. Journal of Documentation (64)6, p. 797-815. DOI: 10.1108/00220410810912406 (CMF).
- C33 Karasik A., Smilansky U. 2008 3D scanning technology as a standard archaeological tool for pottery analysis: practice and theory. Journal of Archaeological Science (35)5, p. 1148-1168. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2007.08.008 (CMF).
- C34 Reid B.A., Torres J.M., Knight D.W., Conolley I., Farmer K., Rodríguez Ramos R. 2008 Archaeology and geoinformatics: Case studies from the Caribbean. Archaeology and Geoinformatics: Case Studies from the Caribbean, p. 1-234. (CMF).
- C35 Willis A., Speicher J., Cooper D.B. 2007 Rapid prototyping 3D objects from scanned measurement data. Image and Vision Computing (25)7, p. 1174-1184. DOI: 10.1016/j.imavis.2006.06.011 (CMF).
- C36 Mercader J., Marti R., Wilkins J., Fowler K.D. 2006 The eastern periphery of the Yoruba cultural sphere: Ceramics from the lowland rain forests of southwestern Cameroon. Current Anthropology (47)1, p. 173-184. 113204 DOI: 10.1086/499551 (CMF).
- C37 Dong L. 2005 Cross culture and faith: The life and work of James Mellon Menzies. Cross Culture and Faith: The Life and Work of James Mellon Menzies, p. 1-329. (CMF).
- C38 White T., Folkens P. 2005 The Human Bone Manual. The Human Bone ManualDOI: 10.1016/C2009-0-00102-0 (CMF).
- C39 Witmore C.L. 2004 On multiple fields. Between the material world and media: Two cases from the Peloponnesus, Greece. Archaeological Dialogues (11)2, p. 133-164. DOI: 10.1017/S1380203805001479 (CMF).
- C40 Hanson I.D. 2004 The importance of stratigraphy in forensic investigation. Geological Society Special Publication (232), p. 39-47. DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.232.01.06 (CMF).
- C41 Shanks O.C., Kornfeld M., Ream W. 2004 DNA and protein recovery from washed experimental stone tools. Archaeometry (46)4, p. 663-672. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00181.x (CMF).
- C42 Mires P.B. 2004 Teaching geographic field methods to cultural resource management technicians. Journal of Geography (103)1, p. 8-15. DOI: 10.1080/00221340408978567 (CMF).
- C43 Jeske R.J., Kuznar L.A. 2003 Canine digging behavior and archaeological implications. Journal of Field Archaeology (28)04-mars, p. 383-394. (CMF).
- C44 Davis L.G. 2003 Geoarchaeology and geochronology of Pluvial Lake Chapala, Baja California, Mexico. Geoarchaeology (18)2, p. 205-223. DOI: 10.1002/gea.10058 (CMF).
- C45 Green D., Cosmas J., Degeest R., Waelkens M. 2003 A distributed universal 3D cyberworld for archaeological research and education. Proceedings-2003 International Conference on Cyberworlds, CW 2003 1000000, p. 458-465. DOI: 10.1109/CYBER.2003.1253490 (CMF).
- C46 Cooper D.B., Willis A., Andrews S., Baker J., Cao Y., Han D., Kang K., Kong W., Leymarie F.F., Orriols X., Velipasalar S., Vote E.L., Joukowsky M.S., Kimia B.B., Laidlaw D.H., Mumford D. 2001 Assembling Virtual Pots from 3D Measurements of their Fragments. Proceedings VAST 2001 Virtual Reality, Archeology, and Cultural Heritage, p. 241-253. (CMF).
- C47 Hicks R.D. 2001 What Is a Maritime Museum?. Museum Management and Curatorship (19)2, p. 159-174. DOI: 10.1016/S0260-4779(01)00037-1 (CMF).
- C48 Acevedo D., Vote E., Laidlaw D.H., Joukowsky M.S. 2001 Archaeological data visualization in VR: Analysis of lamp finds at the Great Temple of Petra, a case study. Proceedings of the IEEE Visualization Conference, p. 493-496. (CMF).
- C49 Jeske R.J., Kuznar L.A. 2001 Canine digging behavior and archaeological implications. International Journal of Phytoremediation (21)1, p. 383-394. DOI: 10.1179/jfa.2001.28.3-4.383 (CMF).
- C50 Hicks R.D. 2001 What is a maritime museum?. Museum Management and Curatorship (19)2, p. 159-174. DOI: 10.1080/09647770100401902 (CMF).
- C51 Hodder I. 1997 ’Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: Towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity (71)273, p. 691-700. DOI: 10.1017/S0003598X00085410 (CMF).
- C52 Shanks M., McGuire R.H. 1996 The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity (61)1, p. 75-88. 27316 (CMF).
- C53 Ritchie N.A. 1990 Archaeological techniques and technology on Ross Island, Antarctica. Polar Record (26)159, p. 257-264. DOI: 10.1017/S0032247400011761 (CMF).
- C54 Stone T.T., Dickel D.N., Doran G.H. 1990 The preservation and conservation of waterlogged bone from the Windover site, Florida: A comparison of methods. Journal of Field Archaeology (17)2, p. 177-186. DOI: 10.1179/009346990791548312 (CMF).
- C55 Kotsakis K. 1989 Runsect: A computer program for the analysis of excavation data. Journal of Field Archaeology (16)3, p. 369-375. DOI: 10.1179/jfa.19220.127.116.119 (CMF).
- C56 Pendery S.R. 1988 Archaeological applications of the electra–level. Journal of Field Archaeology (15)4, p. 479-480. DOI: 10.1179/jfa.1918.104.22.1689 (CMF).
- C57 Skinner M. 1987 Planning the archaeological recovery of evidence from recent mass graves. Forensic Science International (34)4, p. 267-287. DOI: 10.1016/0379-0738(87)90040-5 (CMF).
- C58 Caldararo N.L. 1987 An outline history of conservation in archaeology and anthropology as presented through its publications. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation (26)2, p. 85-104. DOI: 10.1179/019713687806027889 (CMF).
- C59 Chartkoff J.L. 1986 World Prehistory and the Theory of Cultural Evolution. Reviews in Anthropology (13)4, p. 283-294. DOI: 10.1080/00988157.1986.9977791 (CMF).
- C60 Booth B.K.W. 1983 Documentation; recording soil colors in the field. Journal of Field Archaeology (10)1, p. 118-120. DOI: 10.1179/009346983791504363 (CMF).