CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Honoring Ambiguity/Problematizing Certitude

Gero, Joan M.·2007·Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
DOI 10.1007/s10816-007-9037-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10816-007-9037-1

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Adavasio, J. M., Soffer, O., & Page, J. (2007). The invisible sex. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.
  2. Barker, J., & Dumont, C. (2006). Contested conversations: Presentations, expectations, and responsibility at the National Museum of the American Indian. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 30, 111–140. · DOI
  3. Bourque, B. (1995). Diversity and complexity in prehistoric maritime societies. New York: Plenum. · DOI
  4. Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. · DOI
  5. Conkey, M. W. (2003). Has feminism changed archaeology? SIGNS, 28, 867–880. · DOI
  6. Conkey, M. W. (2005). Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies, 2005. Archaeologies, 1, 9–59. · DOI
  7. Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. M. (1991). Tensions, pluralities and engendering archaeology. In J. Gero & M. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering archaeology (pp. 3–30). Oxford: Blackwell.
  8. Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. M. (1997). Programme to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 411–437. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Costin, C. (2007). Thinking about production: Phenomenological classification and lexical semantics. Rethinking craft specialization in complex societies. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 17, 143–162. · DOI
  10. Daston, L. (1994). Baconian facts, academic civility and the prehistory of objectivity. In A. Megill (Ed.), Rethinking objectivity (pp. 37–63). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  11. Dumbar, J. S., & Webb, S. D. (1996). Bone and ivory tools from submerged Paleoindian sites in Florida. In D. Anderson & K. Sassman (Eds.), The Paleoindian and early archaic southeast (pp. 331–353). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  12. Emerson, T. (1991). Cahokia and the hinterlands: Middle Mississipian cultures of the midwest. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  13. Emerson, T. (1997). Cahokia and the archaeology of power. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  14. Gatens, M. (1991). Feminism, philosophy, and riddles without answers. A reader in feminist knowledge (pp. 181–198). Sneja Gunew. New York: Routledge.
  15. Geller, P., & Stockett, M. (Eds.) (2006). Feminist anthropology: Past, present and future. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  16. Gero, J. M. (n.d.) Archaeology (In) Forms. Paper presented to the Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Nov. 1991.
  17. Gero, J. M. (1993). The social world of prehistoric facts: Gender and power in paleoindian research. In H. D. Cros & L. Smith (Eds.), Women in archaeology: A feminist critique (pp. 31–40). Department of Prehistory Research School of Pacific Studies Australian National University.
  18. Gero, J. M. (1996). Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data. In R. P. Wright (Ed.), Gender and archaeology (pp. 251-280). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  19. Gillings, M. (2000). Plans, elevations and virtual worlds: The development of techniques for the routine construction of hyperreal simulations. In J. Barceló, M. Forte, & D. Sanders (Eds.), Virtual reality in archaeology. Oxford: BAR International Series.
  20. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  21. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multi-cultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms and epistemologies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
  22. Hekman, S. (1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 341–365. · DOI
  23. Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Studies of Science, 26, 393–418. · DOI
  24. Kus, S. (2006). In the midst of the moving waters: Material, metaphor and feminist archaeology. In P. Geller & M. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology (pp. 105–114). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
  25. Laughlin, W. S. (1980). Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering land bridge. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  26. Liapunova, R. G. (1996). Essays on the ethnography of the Aleuts. Kingston, Ontario: Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series Volume IX.
  27. Lightfoot, R. R. (1994). The duckfoot site, volume 2: Archaeology of the house and household. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Occasional Papers, No. 4. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
  28. Lippert, D. (1997). In front of the mirror: Native Americans and academic archaeology. In N. K. Swidler, K. E. Dongoske, R. Anyon, & A. S. Downer (Eds.), Native Americans and archaeologists: Stepping stones to common ground (pp. 120–127). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
  29. Megill, A. (Ed.) (1994). Rethinking objectivity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  30. Meltzer, D. J. (2006). Folsom. Berkeley: University of California Press. · DOI
  31. Meskell, L. M. (2000). Feminism in archaeology. In L. Code (Ed.), Encyclopedia of feminist theories (pp. 26–27). London: Routledge.
  32. Milner, G. R. (1986). Mississippian period population density in a segment of the Central Mississippi River Valley. American Antiquity, 51, 227–238. · DOI
  33. Pauketat, T. (2002). A fourth-generation synthesis of Cahokia and Mississippianization. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 27, 149–170.
  34. Ryan, R. (1996). Computer based visualization of the past: Technical ‘realism’ and historical credibility. In T. Higgins, P. Main, & J. Lang (Eds.), Imaging the past. London: British Museum Press.
  35. Sandlin, J., & Bey, G. (2006). Trowels, trenches and transformation. Journal of Social Archaeology, 6, 255–276. · DOI
  36. Sassaman, K. (1996). Early archaic settlement in the South Carolina Coastal plain. In D. Anderson & K. Sassman (Eds.), The Paleoindian and early archaic southeast (pp. 58–83). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  37. Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  38. Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. · DOI
  39. Smith, L. (2004). Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage. London: Routledge. · DOI
  40. Smith, C., & Ward, G. K. (Eds.) (2000). Indigenous cultures in an interconnected world. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
  41. Smith, C., & Wobst, H. M. (Eds.) (2005). Indigenous archaeologies: Decolonizing theory and practice. London: Routledge.
  42. Spector, J. D. (1993). What this awl means: Feminist archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota village. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.
  43. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd expanded ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Wilkie, L. (2003). The archaeology of mothering: An African-American midwife’s tale. New York: Routledge. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological research on gender. American Antiquity, 57, 15–35. · DOI
  46. Wylie, A. (1997). The engendering of archaeology: Reconfiguring feminist science studies. Osiris, 12, 80–99. · DOI
  47. Wylie, A. (2000). Standpoint matters—in archaeology, for example. In S. Strum & L. Fedigan (Eds.), Primate encounters: Models of science, gender and society (pp. 243–260). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  48. Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters. In R. Figueroa & S. Harding (Eds.), Philosophical explorations of science, technology and diversity (pp. 26–48). New York: Routledge.
  49. Wylie, A. (2006). Afterword: On waves. In P. Geller & M. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology (pp. 167–175). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
  50. Young, B., & Fowler, M. (2000). Cahokia: The great native American metropolis. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 79

Metadata

Authors
Gero, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007-07-31
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
311-327
ISSN
  • 1072-5369
  • 1573-7764
DOI
10.1007/s10816-007-9037-1
Cited by
79
References
2
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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