Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
For archaeologists, artists, and cultural heritage workers, paradata are generally viewed as explicitly selected and documented attributes, or defined sets of circumstances, authoritatively considered to have a material outcome on the provenance, collection, and manipulation of both recorded data and metadata and their subsequent interpretation or analysis of artefacts and other (contextual) remains. Being chosen, their own provenance is questionable: why were the selected data, metadata, and paradata more relevant than other options? We (re)consider embodied practice as a form of paradata-making normally airbrushed out of the hegemonic accounts of how works of art and archaeological excavations are presented and analysed. Decisions to not include the embodied worker, their apparatus, and their practices of making, or uncovering, haunt images purporting to be historical accounts in the art and archaeology literature by their absence. Adopting a diffractive art/archaeology approach, and subversively applying several well-known cultural heritage recording and presentation techniques, recursively and unconventionally, we throw light on embodied paradata and (re)present them as potentially very valuable pedagogical boundary objects. We also dislocate paradata away from a purely epistemological dimension into an entangled onto-epistemological nexus.
For archaeologists, artists, and cultural heritage workers, paradata are generally viewed as explicitly selected and documented attributes, or defined sets of circumstances, authoritatively considered to have a material outcome on the provenance, collection, and manipulation of both recorded data and metadata and their subsequent interpretation or analysis of artefacts and other (contextual) remains. Being chosen, their own provenance is questionable: why were the selected data, metadata, and paradata more relevant than other options? We (re)consider embodied practice as a form of paradata-making normally airbrushed out of the hegemonic accounts of how works of art and archaeological excavations are presented and analysed. Decisions to not include the embodied worker, their apparatus, and their practices of making, or uncovering, haunt images purporting to be historical accounts in the art and archaeology literature by their absence. Adopting a diffractive art/archaeology approach, and subversively applying several well-known cultural heritage recording and presentation techniques, recursively and unconventionally, we throw light on embodied paradata and (re)present them as potentially very valuable pedagogical boundary objects. We also dislocate paradata away from a purely epistemological dimension into an entangled onto-epistemological nexus.
In this art/archaeological study, we question the utility of the interrelated concepts of provenance, provenience, and paradata as applied to assemblages in art, archaeology, and cultural heritage contexts. We discuss how these overlapping concepts are used to establish values of authenticity and authoritative attributions. However, as cultural assemblages are increasingly being extended through virtualisation, they may exist digitally as well as physically, or as combinations of both, that is phygitally. We show how provenances and paradata can now become unstable and even detached from the assemblage. Through a sequence of collaborative projects, we expose two provenance illusions at the centre of archaeological recording and presentation practices. In these illusions, the archaeologists and much of the archaeology they record actually disappear from the authoritative reports that are published. Using a transdisciplinary, diffractive art/archaeology approach, these illusions are unpacked to reveal how superficially slight changes to traditional archaeological “drawings” and “photographs” have wrought fundamental ontological shifts in their modern phygital incarnations which undermines their provenances and associated paradata. We conclude that archaeology like fine art does not require conscious paradata in order to support statements of authority and interpretation. Instead, we argue that archaeologists should adopt an art/archaeology approach and subvert and dismantle established practices, methods, tools, techniques, and outputs. By highlighting and challenging inconsistencies in what we say we do with what we actually do, we expose gaps in our knowledge and data and shortcomings in our practices. These deficiencies can then be tackled by developing more robust (trans)disciplinary approaches.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.