Rewriting the Past for the Changing Present: The Need for New and Pluriversal Histories of Archaeology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the publication of the second edition of Bruce G. Trigger’s A History of Archaeological Thought in 2006, scholars have produced a negligible number of histories of archaeology. This scarcity contrasts with the considerable amount of historical works on more regionally- and temporally-restricted contexts. With reference to the English-speaking literature, I suggest in this paper that there is a pressing need for new and pluriversal histories of archaeology that connect past and present. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, archaeology has gone through an intense transformation. For instance, during the past twenty years, archaeologists have been concerned with a number of ethical issues, have extensively collaborated with different kind of communities (especially Indigenous), and have reformulated the relationship between theory and practice. It is not only that historians need to incorporate these (and other) developments into our disciplinary history, they also need to rewrite that history with reference to our changing present.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.049 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".