Self-Citation in Archaeology: Age, Gender, Prestige, and the Self

  • Scott R. Hutson

Citation analyses in archaeology have detected prestige tactics, shifts in research agendas, and patterns of gender differentiation. This paper focuses on self-citation in archaeology and systematically analyzes the factors that affect rates of self-citation. Self-citation rates in archaeology are significantly higher than in socio-cultural anthropology but are average for a social science with interdisciplinary ties to the physical sciences. Self-citation correlates weakly with the gender of the citing author and the geographic and thematic focus of research, but correlates strongly with the age of the author. Additional analyses reveal partial evidence for the use of self-citation as a prestige tactic. The paper concludes with a discussion of citations to writers close to the author (mentors, friends).


socio-politics of archaeology citation analysis authorship prestige 



I thank Meg Conkey, Eugene Hammel, Christine Hastorf, Rosemary Joyce, Shanti Morell-Hart, Fred McGee, and Ruth Tringham for various forms of assistance in this project. I also thank Mary C. Beaudry, an anonymous reviewer, and the editors of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory—Cathy Cameron and James Skibo—for promptly suggesting revisions that benefited the manuscript greatly.


  1. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). A macro-study of self-citation. Scientometrics 56(2): 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, B. (1985). About Science, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, J. E. n.d. The Stories behind the numbers: Gendered perspectives of archaeology among its practitioners. Poster presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, March 31, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Beaudry, M., and White, J. (1994). Cowgirls with the blues? A study of women's publication and the citation of women's work in Historical Archaeology. In Claassen, C. (ed.), Women in Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 138–158.Google Scholar
  5. Becher, T., and Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  6. Binford, L. R. (1968). Archaeological perspectives. In Binford, L. R., and Binford, S. R. (eds.), New Perspectives in Archaeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 5–32.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus, Translated by R. Nice, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  8. Clifford, J., and Marcus, G. (eds.) (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  9. Conkey, M. W. (2002). Expanding the archaeological imagination. American Antiquity 67: 166–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conkey, M., and Wylie, A. (in press). Doing Archeology as a Feminist, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
  11. Conkey, M., and Tringham, R. (1996). Archaeology and the goddess: Exploring the contours of feminist archaeology. In Stewart, A., and Stanton, D. (eds.), Feminisms in the Academy: Rethinking the Disciplines, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 199–247.Google Scholar
  12. Conkey, M., and Williams, S. (1991). Original narratives: The political economy of gender in archaeology. In di Leonardo, M. (ed.), Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Post-Modern Era, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 102–139.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1979). What is an author? In Harari, J. (ed.), Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 141–160.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse, Translated by I. McLeod. In Young, R. (ed.), Untying the Text, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 48–77.Google Scholar
  15. Geertz, C. (1988). Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  16. Gero, J. (1996). Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data. In Wright, R. (ed.), Gender and Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 251–280.Google Scholar
  17. Glanzell, W., Thijs, B., and Schlemmer, B. (2004). A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citation in scientific communication. Scientometrics 59:(1) 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamermesh, D. S., Johnson, G. E., and Weisbrod, B. A. (1982). Scholarship, citations and salaries: Economic rewards in economics. Southern Economic Journal 49: 472–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated fnowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  21. Hodder, I. (1989). Writing archaeology: Site reports in context. Antiquity 63: 263–274.Google Scholar
  22. Hutson, S. R. (1998). Strategies for the reproduction of prestige in archaeological discourse. Assemblage 4:∼assem/4/.Google Scholar
  23. Hutson, S. R. (2002). Gendered citation practices in American Antiquity and other archaeology journals. American Antiquity 67: 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Institute for Scientific Information (1998–1999). Journal Citation Reports, ISI: Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  25. Joyce, R. A. (2002). The Languages of Archaeology, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (1994). Pragmatogonies: A mythical account of how humans and non-humans swap properties. American Behavioral Scientist 37(6): 791–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Layton, R. (ed.) (1989). Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology, Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
  28. Leenhardt, M. (1979 [1947]). Do Kamo, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  29. Lowenthal, D. (1990). Conclusion: Archaeologists and others. In Gathercole, P., and Lowenthal, D. (eds.), The Politics of the Past, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 302–314Google Scholar
  30. Lutz, C. (1990). The erasure of women's writing in sociocultural anthropology. American Ethnologist 17: 611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacRoberts, M. H., and MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 40(5): 342–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrison, B. A. (n.d.). Juggling a family and career. Poster presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, March 31, 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, M. C., Nelson, S. M., and Wylie, A. (eds.) (1994). Equity Issues for Women in Archaeology, Archaeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association Number 5, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Paynter, R. (1983). Field or factory? Concerning the degradation of archaeological labor. In Gero, J., Lacy, D. M., and Blakey, M. L. (eds.), The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, Research Reports Number 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar
  35. Redman, C. (1991). Distinguished lecture in archaeology: In defense of the seventies: The adolescence of new archaeology. American Anthropologist 93: 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reid, J. (1990). Editor's corner: American Antiquity and space. American Antiquity 55: 449–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenswig, R. (2005). A tale of two antiquities: Evolving editorial policies of the SAA journals. The SAA Archeological Record 5(1): 15–21.Google Scholar
  38. Rountree, K. (2001). The past is a foreigners’ country: Goddess feminists, archaeologists, and the appropriation of prehistory. Journal of Contemporary Religion 16: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Snyder, H., and Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self-citation across disciplines (1980–1989). Journal of Information Science 24(6): 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sterud, E. (1978). Changing aims of Americanist archaeology: A citations analysis of American Antiquity 1946–1975. American Antiquity 43: 294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strathern, M. (1988). The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  42. Swidler, N., Dongoske, K., Anyon, R., and Downer, A. (eds.) (1997). Native Americans and Archaeologists. Stepping Stones to Common Ground, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
  43. Tagliacozzo, R. (1977). Self-citation in scientific literature. Journal of Documentation 3: 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tilley, C. (1989). Discourse and power: the genre of the Cambridge inaugural lecture. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M., and Tilley, C. (eds.), Domination and Resistance, Routledge, London, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar
  45. Tilley, C. (1990). On modernity and archaeological discourse. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.), Archaeology after Structuralism, Routledge, London, pp. 127–152.Google Scholar
  46. Tringham, R., and Conkey, M. (1998). Rethinking figurines. A critical view from archaeology of Gimbutas, the ‘Goddess’ and popular culture. In Goodison, L., and Morris, C. (eds.), Ancient Goddesses, The Myths and the Evidence, British Museum Press, London, pp. 22–45.Google Scholar
  47. Victor, K., and Beaudry, M. (1992). Women's participation in American prehistoric and historic archaeology: A comparative look at the journals American Antiquity and Historical Archaeology. In Claassen, C. (ed.), Exploring Gender through Archaeology, Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
  48. Watkins, J. (2000). Indigenous Archaeology, Altamira, Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
  49. Wobst, M., and Keene, A. (1983). Archaeological explanation as political economy. In Gero, J., Lacy, D. M., and Blakey, M. L. (eds.), The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, Research Reports Number 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, pp. 79–90.Google Scholar
  50. Wylie, A. (1983). Comments on the ‘socio-politics of archaeology’: The demystification of the profession. In Gero, J., Lacy, D. M., and Blakey, M. L. (eds.), The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, Research Reports Number 23, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, pp. 119–130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dumbarton Oaks Research LibraryWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations