CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Digital and Traditional Archives ManagementCultural Heritage Management and PreservationConservation Techniques and Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Kindred contexts: archives, archaeology, and the concept of provenance

Open access
Anderson, Bethany G.·2024·Archival Science
DOI 10.1007/s10502-024-09459-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The disciplines of archives and archaeology are each about the power of context: they both preserve the context wherein objects and records are found and created to aid in their interpretation and take those materials as evidence of context. As context-based disciplines, archives and archaeology foreground the concept of provenance and construct meanings about objects and records from contextual relationships. Context, which is related to but also distinct from provenance, is difficult to disentangle from the latter. While sometimes conflated and used interchangeably, subtle differences distinguish the two concepts. This article explores the ways that archives and archaeology employ the concepts of provenance and context, and the messiness with which they do. Fundamentally, this exercise aims to understand where they might share common ground while enriching discussion and fostering introspection and cross-disciplinary exchange and suggest ways these fields might rethink and extend their own uses of these concepts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10502-024-09459-5

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Approaches to provenance from AI/ML domains can evolve archival approaches to provenance.

    “Like museology and archaeology (Anderson 2024;Millar 2002), approaches to provenance from AI/ML domains can evolve archival approaches to provenance.”

    From Can AI provenance inform archival provenance? (2026) · cites this paper as Anderson 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 39 · Cited by 10

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Acabado S, Martin M, Datar F (2017) Ifugao archaeology: collaborative and indigenous archaeology in the Northern Philippines. Adv Archaeol Pract 5:1–11 · DOI
  2. Bastian JA (2003a) In a “house of memory”: discovering the provenance of place. Arch Issues 8:9–19
  3. Bastian JA (2003b) Owning memory: how a caribbean community lost its archives and found its history. Conn., Libraries Unlimited, Westport · DOI · Paper page
  4. Anderson BG (2021) On constructing a scientific archives network: exploring computational approaches to the cybernetics thought collective. Archivaria 91:104–147 · DOI
  5. Bahn P (2014) The archaeology of archaeology: pre-modern views of the past. In: Bahn, P (ed) The History of Archaeology: An Introduction. New York, Routledge · DOI
  6. Barnard A (2000) History and theory in anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · DOI
  7. Binford LR (1962) Archaeology as anthropology. Am Antiq 28(2):217–225 · DOI
  8. Blouin K (March 7, 2022) Ancient texts and conference cocktail party: some uncomfortable truths and personal thoughts. Everyday Orientalism, https://everydayorientalism.wordpress.com/2022/03/07/ancient-texts-and-conference-cocktail-party-some-uncomfortable-truths-and-personal-thoughts/
  9. Braekmans D, Boschloos V, Hameeuw H, Van der Perre A (2019) Tracing the provenance of unfired ancient Egyptian clay figurines from Saqqara through non-destructive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Microchem J 145:1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2018.12.029 · DOI
  10. Brilmyer GM (2022) Toward a crip provenance: centering disability in archives through its absence. J Contemp Arch Stud 9:1–25
  11. Burke P (2022) Context in context. Common Knowl 28(1):11–40 · DOI
  12. Butzer KW (1980) Context in archaeology: an alternative perspective. J Field Archaeol 4:417–422 · DOI
  13. Clayton PA (1996) Some more 'fierce lions' and a 'marriage' scarab: the large commemorative scarabs of Amenophis III. J Egyptian Archaeol 82: 208-210 · DOI
  14. Cline S (2022) The archivist as translator: representation and the language of context. American Archivist 85(1):126-145. doi:10.17723/2327-9702-85.1.126 · DOI
  15. Colwell-Chanthaphonh C (2012) Archaeology and indigenous collaboration. In: Hodder I (ed) Archaeological Theory Today, 2nd edn. Polity, Cambridge, pp 267–291
  16. Cook T (1993) The concept of the archival fonds in the post-custodial era: theory, problems and solutions. Archivaria 35:24–37
  17. Cook T (2001) Fashionable nonsense or professional rebirth: postmodernism and the practice of archives. Archivaria 51:14–35
  18. Cunningham A (2008) Digital curation/digital archiving: a view from the national archives of Australia. Am Arch 71:530–543
  19. Douglas J (2017) Origins and beyond: the ongoing evolution of archival ideas about provenance. In: MacNeil H and Eastwood T (eds) Currents of Archival Thinking. Santa Barbara, CA, Libraries Unlimited. 25–52 · DOI
  20. Duranti L (1997) The archival bond. Arch Museum Inform 11:213–218 · DOI
  21. Flannery KV (1967) Culture history versus cultural process: a debate in American archaeology. Sci Am 2:119–122 · DOI
  22. Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, New York
  23. Hauser MW (2008) An archaeology of black markets: local ceramics and economies in eighteenth-century Jamaica. University Press of Florida, Gainesville
  24. Hodder I (1986) Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  25. Horsman P (2002) The last dance of the phoenix or the de-discovery of the archival fonds. Archivaria 54:1–23
  26. Johnsen H, Olsen B (1992) Hermeneutics and archaeology: on the philosophy of contextual archaeology. Am Antiq 57(3):419–436. https://doi.org/10.2307/280931 · DOI
  27. Jones A (2002) Archaeological theory and scientific practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  28. Jones A (2007) Memory and material culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · DOI
  29. Kaplan E (2002) ‘Many paths to partial truths’: archives, anthropology, and the power of representation. Arch Sci 2:209–220 · DOI
  30. Kolb CC (2014) Provenance studies in archaeology. In: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, New York: Springer · DOI
  31. Lemieux VL ed (2016) Building trust in information: perspectives on the frontiers of provenance. Cham, Switzerland, Springer
  32. Lodolini E (1989) The war of independence of archivists. Archivaria 28:36–47
  33. Lyman RL (2012) A historical sketch on the concepts of archaeological association, context, and provenience. J Archaeol Method Theory 19:207–240 · DOI
  34. MacNeil H (2000) Trusting records: legal, historical, and diplomatic perspectives. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht · DOI
  35. Mark P (2019) Finding provenance, seeking context. Afriques. https://doi.org/10.4000/afriques.2752 · DOI
  36. McCracken K, Hogan-Stacey S-S (2023) Decolonial archival futures. ALA Neal-Schuman/Society of American Archivists, Chicago
  37. Mellaart J (1963) Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1962: second preliminary report. Anatol Stud 13:43–103 · DOI
  38. Millar L (2002) The death of the fonds and the resurrection of provenance: archival context in space and time. Archivaria 53:1–5
  39. Nesmith T (ed) (1993) Canadian archival studies and the rediscovery of provenance. NJ, Scarecrow Press Inc, Metuchen
  40. Nesmith T (2002) Seeing archives: postmodernism and the changing intellectual place of archives. Am Arch 65:24–41
  41. Nesmith T (2006) The concept of societal provenance and records of nineteenth-century aboriginal-European relations in Western Canada: implications for archival theory and practice. Arch Sci 6:351–360 · DOI
  42. Nordland LP (2004) The concept of “secondary provenance”: re-interpreting Ac Ko Mok Ki’s map as evolving text. Archivaria 58:147–159
  43. Podany AH (2022) Weavers, scribes, and kings: a new history of the ancient near east. Oxford University Press, Oxford · DOI
  44. Posner E (1972) Archives in the ancient world. Harvard University Press, Cambridge · DOI
  45. Posner E (2006) Archives and the public interest. Society of American Archivists, Chicago
  46. Price TD and Burton JH (2011) An introduction to archaeological chemistry. Cham, Springer Science and Business Media · DOI
  47. Punzalan RL, de la Cruz D (2022) Reparative approaches to Philippine collections at the University of Michigan. Museum Int 74(3–4):72–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13500775.2022.2234193 · DOI
  48. Renfrew C, Bahn P (2004) Archaeology: theories, methods, and practice, 4th edn. Thames and Hudson, New York
  49. Scott PJ (1966) The record group concept: a case for abandonment. Am Arch 29(4):493–504. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.29.4.y886054240174401 · DOI
  50. Shanks M and Hodder I (1995) Processual, postprocessual, and interpretive archaeologies. In: Ian Hodder et al. (eds) Interpretative Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. Routledge, London
  51. Terrell P, Schnorr V, Smith WVA, Breitsprecher R (2004) Collins German-English English-German Dictionary, Unabridged, 5th edn. Collins, New York
  52. Trigger BG (2006) A history of archaeological thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  53. Van Buren ED (1925) Archaeologists in antiquity. Folklore 36(1):69–75 · DOI
  54. Wade L (2023) Archaeologists study what ruins meant to people in the past. Science 379(6639):1282–1283 · DOI
  55. Whitt, WD (1993) Archives and administration in the royal palace of Ugarit. PhD Dissertation, Duke University
  56. Wilson D (1975) The new archaeology: how new and revolutionary scientific techniques are transforming our study of the past. Knopf, New York
  57. Wurl J (2005) Ethnicity as provenance: in search of values and principles for documenting the immigrant experience. Arch Issues 29:65–76
  58. Yeo G (2021) Record-making and record-keeping in early societies. Routledge, London · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, B. G.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Bethany G.
ORCID
Anderson, Bethany G.
Venue
Archival Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-10-12
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
761-781
ISSN
  • 1389-0166 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7500
DOI
10.1007/s10502-024-09459-5
OpenAlex
W4403356943
Cited by
10
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3
FWCI
28.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Archival Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Digital and Traditional Archives Management
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Conservation Techniques and Studies
Keywords
provenance, context, archives, archaeology, archival theory, archaeological theory, material culture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review