CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43

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

Why are there so few black American archaeologists?

Franklin, Maria·1997·Antiquity
DOI 10.1017/s0003598x00085732
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A Society for American Archaeology survey (1997) reports that its membership is overwhelmingly ‘European American’. Although it is no longer true that archaeology in the US is simply man's business rather than woman's, where are the practising archaeologists descended from historically marginalized groups so much of archaeology studies?

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003598x00085732

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

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Black scholars have addressed their underrepresentation in the profession, partnered with Black communities in research, and produced Black feminist and anti-racist scholarship.

    “Black scholars have addressed our underrepresentation in the profession”

    From The Future is Now: Archaeology and the Eradication of Anti-Blackness (2020) · cites this paper as Franklin 1997

  • According to the Society for American Archaeology's 1994 membership survey, only two out of over 1,600 respondents self-identified as Black.

    “According to the Society for American Archaeology's 1994 membership survey, only two out of over 1,600 respondents selfidentified as Black (Agbe-Davies 2002;Franklin 1997a;Zeder 1997:13).”

    From “The Future of Archaeology Is Antiracist”: Archaeology in the Time of Black Lives Matter (2021) · cites this paper as Franklin 1997a

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Leone, 1992, a multicultural African-American historical archaeology: how to place archaeology in the community in a state capital
  2. Stone, 1997, Presenting the past: a framework for discussion, 23
  3. 10.1016/0278-4165(85)90007-8 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Wylie, 1983, The sociopolitics of archaeology, 119
  5. Franklin, ‘Power to the people’: sociopolitics and the archaeology of Black Americans, Historical Archaeology
  6. Davis, 1997, Sites without sights: interpreting closed excavations, 84
  7. Bond, 1994, Social construction of the past: representation as power
  8. Pinsky, 1989, Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology
  9. Potter, 1994, Public archaeology in Annapolis: a critical approach to history in Maryland’s ancient city
  10. Zeder, 1997, The American archaeologist: results of the 1994 SAA census, Society for American Archaeology Bulletin, 15, 12
  11. 10.1086/203531 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bograd, 1997, The interpretation of slavery: Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Colonial Williamsburg, 193
  13. Jameson, 1997, Introduction: what this book is all about, 11
  14. 10.22191/neha/vol23/iss1/1 · DOI
  15. Epperson, 1997, The politics of ‘race’ and cultural identity at the African burial ground excavations, 108
  16. Jameson, 1997, Presenting archaeology to the public: digging for truths

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Franklin, M.
Venue
Antiquity
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1997-12
Volume
71
Issue
274
Pages
799-801
ISSN
  • 0003-598X
  • 1745-1744
DOI
10.1017/s0003598x00085732
Cited by
43
References
2
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 6241 d)

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