Search results

The dynamic processes of knowledge production in archaeology and elsewhere in the humanities and social sciences are increasingly viewed within the context of negotiation, cooperation and exchange, as the collaborative effort of groups, clusters and communities of scholars. Shifting focus from the individual scholar to the wider social contexts of her work, this volume investigates the importance of informal networks and conversation in the creation of knowledge about the past, and takes a closer look at the dynamic interaction and exchange that takes place between individuals, groups and clusters of scholars in the wider social settings of scientific work. Various aspects of and mechanisms at work behind the interaction and exchange that takes place between the individual scholar and her community, and the creative processes that such encounters trigger, are critically examined in eleven chapters which draw on a wide spectrum of examples from Europe and North America: from early modern antiquarians to archaeological societies and practitioners at work during the formative years of the modern archaeological disciplines and more recent examples from the twentieth century. The individual chapters engage with theoretical approaches to scientific creativity, knowledge production and interaction such as sociology and geographies of science, and actor-network theory (ANT) in their examination of individual–collective interplay. The book caters to readers both from within and outside the archaeological disciplines; primarily intended for researchers, teachers and students in archaeology, anthropology, classics and the history of science, it will also be of interest to the general reader.

Open Access (free)
Clusters of knowledge

its theoretical foundation the history and philosophy of science, in which there is a rich tradition of investigating the role of communication among practitioners using Ludwik Fleck’s theory of ‘thought collectives’, Bruno Latour’s actor-­ network theory, and the geography of knowledge (Fleck, 1979 [1935]; Livingstone, 2003; Latour, 2005; Shapin, 2010). Fleck (1979 [1935]) argued that the production of scientific knowledge is largely a social process which depends upon not only the actors themselves, but the cultural and historical contexts of their work. Related

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Open Access (free)
The first Dutch excavation in Italy, 1952–58

to show how archaeological knowledge is produced through the interaction of individual and collective processes of networking that develop within specific geographies of knowledge (in our ROBERTS 9781526134554 PRINT.indd 66 03/12/2019 08:56 Digging dilettanti67 case the particular institutional setting of foreign institutes in Rome) and through both structured collaborations and informal conversations between archaeologists and non-archaeological actors. The data we present especially reveal to what extent scholarly concerns about archaeological inexperience

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Felix Kanitz and Balkan archaeology

everyday practice of today’s archaeologists: for instance, his site reports are usually a starting point for research, and his writings have been used in the construction of contemporary identities (Babić, 2001: 173; 2002; Cvjetićanin, 2011: 151). Having in mind the important role of Felix Kanitz in Serbian archaeology, the aim of this chapter is to shed light on the context of his research in the field. In order to complete this task, I shall use theoretical insights from geography of knowledge (Naylor, 2002, 2005; Livingstone, 2007; Livingstone and Withers, 2011

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
James Breasted’s early scientific network

reverse is also true, that is, who is allowed to create knowledge depends on where science is done (e.g. Naylor, 2002, 2005; Livingstone, 2007; Livingstone and Withers, 2011; Terrall, 2014). Geography of knowledge determines how relationships within scientific networks operate depending on where they were built, where they operate, and where and how their knowledge is spread. To comprehend this, it is crucial to understand who is interacting at different types of site such as universities, excavation sites, museum offices, private homes, hotel dining rooms, and formal

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Open Access (free)
Education and development in modern Southeast Asian history

Studies Kratoska, Paul H. (1975). ‘The Chettiar and the Yeoman: British cultural categories and rural indebtedness in Malaya’, Occasional paper No. 32, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Krakosta, Paul H., Remco Raben and Henk Schulte Nordholt (eds) (2005). Locating Southeast Asia: Geographies of Knowledge and Politics of Space, Singapore: KITLV Press Laffan, Michael (2004). ‘An Indonesian community in Cairo: continuity and change in a cosmopolitan Islamic millieu’, Indonesia 77: 1–26 Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, http

in History, historians and development policy
The key role of the Italian antiquarian market in the inception of American Classical art collections during the late-nineteenth century

of knowledge theory (Livingstone, 2003) is also useful to highlight the existence of a strict relationship between the ‘sites’ where knowledge was created, the subjects that were allowed to access those ‘sites’ and the way that knowledge was spread. Livingstone writes: Just how knowledge embedded in a particular location moves from its point of origin to general circulation, and thereby transcends locale, is an inherently spatial question and introduces a crucial dynamic to the geography of science. Rather than being understood simply as an inevitable consequence

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Open Access (free)
Antonín Salač and the French School at Athens

, 2003: 1–16). Since the 1990s, studies of nationalism and archaeology – essentially, ‘geographies of knowledge’ at the scale of the nation-state – have flourished (see e.g. Kohl and Fawcett, 1995; Díaz-Andreu and Champion, 1996; Meskell, 1998). If archaeology builds nation-states at home, so, too, might it negotiate for nation-states abroad; hence, the study of the entanglement of archaeology with cultural diplomacy (see Luke and Kersel, 2012). This chapter is a contribution to the latter area of enquiry. As we shall see, the scholarly networks Salač cultivated with

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
The permeable clusters of Hanna Rydh

Hanna could participate in the Museum’s research, this was a far from unique model. The historiography of archaeology shows several examples of how families of fortune supported cultural or scientific projects, where their daughters were appointed to perform a specific task, giving them access to a profession (Arwill-Nordbladh, 2008: 160). As a conclusion concerning the importance of the familial network in these instances, the conventional divide between private and public seems to be more complex than generally assumed. The geography of knowledge production and the

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology