Resources and Articles

I wanted to put up a quick post while I’m here at ASOR as a location to share some resources and articles that were being discussed at some of the women’s networking events.I welcome suggestions and additions and will try and work this into a more stable location after the conference.

I welcome the addition of comments, other articles or suggested topics either here or at

Letters of Recommendation

Teaching Evaluations
Open Letter on why not to ask for Teaching Evals:

Fatherhood Bonus/Motherhood Tax:




General Resources
Bibliography – Graduate Education:
Benevolent Sexism:
Leaky Pipeline:

Twitter paper on challenges facing women by Trowelblazers


DAHSS17: What is Digital Art History?

Second in what I expect to be a series of posts about what I learned/made at the Digital Art History Summer School in Malaga this September.

When the summer school opened with the question of “What is Digital Art History?” I realized I might be in over my head. After all, I’m not even an art historian, much less a digital art historian (whatever that is???). I still don’t have a concrete answer to what is digital art history, but overall left the summer school with a lot of interesting insights and new ways of thinking about problems/approaches/questions that could be addressed through digital methods.

For me the initial question really came down to one big question, is digital art history about using digital methods/tools to answer traditional questions or is it a different field/sub-field that asks different questions that the technology now allows us to address that weren’t possible before? What do I mean by that? Well, if we look at option 1, using technology to do something we were doing before; I see it like using a word processor to write your book, people wrote books before typing, but it became easier with computers and therefore we have more books – similarly we could do even more analysis that would have taken longer by hand now that we have new technologies in art history. Option 2 on the other hand suggests that there are questions out there we haven’t even thought to ask yet because we didn’t know how we would answer them, with the idea being that new analysis, new ways of thinking can lead us to not only new answers, but totally new questions. In the end I think we didn’t really answer this question, but for the projects we did some people applied new tech to their traditional questions, and some people tackled totally new questions. I guess that means the answer is option 1 and 2.

One of the most important things we talked about was data itself. How do we even create or acquire data to use for analysis. We talked about how all data is a form of abstraction – in order to turn a piece of art into something digital whether it is turning a painting into a set of pixels in a photograph, or coding relationships between collaborators, or creating metadata that gives additional information about an image.

For me, as an archaeologist I’m always thinking about context. The context is the frame that allows us to say anything at all. In the same way data requires context. Greg Niemeyer explained the process of working with data in the following way.


data: original abstraction from reality

record: addition of context (metadata, framework for coding, etc)

information: addition of value propositions (this is a type of interpretation, what do we add, how do we select what is “information?).

knowledge: addition of experience (bringing it all together)

action: this is the step where we transform from abstraction to practice


In the end, Greg said we need both new tech and new ideas to move forward. This will allow digital art historians to be prophets and revolutionaries.


DAHSS 17 Productive Failure

We are working at the Malaga Digital Art History Summer School to think about ways that we can visualize or analyze “Big Data” for Art History. I’ve been doing little meaningless tests on the 6000+ objects from the Metropolitan Museum of Art Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art. I thought this could be a fun place to start. We were doing a workflow of importing the data from the Met Github repository, refining/reducing in R Studio, then exporting to Gephi to do network visualizations. I made a bunch of meaningless visualizations that I’m embedding here to discuss with my group on Monday.


This is a network visualization of the object names by material – since some objects share names “cylinder seal” etc they appear as larger dots, but that’s not actually meaningful. At least it looks a little interesting. Untitled

I then tried to look at “classification” and “culture” to see if I would see different materials/types of object by culture. With two different visualizations

ANE_class_culture1ANE_class_culture2I also made a visualization of objects by culture – but then forgot somehow that this would lead to totally separate groups because in the database you can only be attached to one culture at a time.


so that’s really ugly, but when you zoom in in Gephi you can see each object number – if somehow that was useful. I don’t know. Anyway, it’s been fun looking at these visualizations, but in the end I think I need to use multimodal networks and think more carefully about questions that could be answered. I actually think that maybe network visualization is not the right method for this dataset, but since we are a group and all working together at the summer school it’s fun to see what I can make together with my colleagues.

Standby for more tests and weird experiments!

Upcoming Talk at Metropolitan Museum of Art

Since September I’ve been working at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and you will find my research incorporated into their website, rather than here. I do, however, have an upcoming public talk that is part of the annual Fellows Colloquia, specifically the session,

The Ancient Near East from Site to Museum

10:00 A.M.–2:00 P.M.
My talk is:

“An Admirable Scheme”: The Symbiotic Relationship of Archaeology and Art at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in the Early Twentieth Century

Caitlin Chaves Yates, Andrew W. Mellon Curatorial Research Fellow, Department of Ancient Near Eastern Art

Full information is available at:

Building the Test Cases – Part 1

Before embarking on a full-scale network analysis of Northern Mesopotamian EBA cities, it seemed prudent to do a small test case to see 1. if it would work at all, 2. what kind of results we might expect, and 3. what kind of information should we be collecting.

Today I want to talk about number 3. What kind of information should we be collecting?

We decided to start with lithics, since Tobias’ recent dissertation focused on lithic use. We thought it might be an easy entry point to try a preliminary analysis since we could easily create the table of data necessary from his background knowledge. Since it was only a feasibility test we were not too concerned with the specifics of the data, knowing we could refine and update the data later if it turned out to be a useful avenue for our test. We supplemented our chart using data from the ARCANE database.

We used three main categories in our chart: Obsidian use, finished Canaanean blades, Finished Non-Canaanean blades and Canaanean blade production by-products. Using a presence absence scale. This is technically a bi-modal network  site->lithic<-site, but we converted it to a uni-modal network, so the sites are connected site<->site with the edge being shared lithic use. The maximum weight that any edge can have is 4 – indicating that the linked 2 sites both have evidence of all 4 types of lithic remains

The results were the following graph

Lithics 1+ no cutoff

While the graph is interesting and appears to show many connections, if we sought to explain anything about EBA connections between cities, there is little to say using this graph. It shows that some sites have more than one type of lithic used, and that those are more central to the network. But if we think about this in terms of what the graph means, we are saying that sites with a more diverse lithic assemblage are somehow more central to EBA system of cities, but in fact, that may not be true. Even by reducing the interpretations to only lithics, it also does not tell much since the data was selected poorly – obviously sites with Canaanean blade production with have evidence of finished Canaanean blades as well, thereby setting up these sites to be most central to the network (e.g. Titris and Chuera), but in fact we do not know that Canaanean blade production does in fact make a site more central to the system, instead it may be that Titris and Chuera are peripheral to the network and finished blades are distributed through sites that are central in other ways. In short, by not thinking carefully about the categories we chose for this analysis, we set the analysis up to fail. After realizing that the graph was not particularly illustrative, I still decided to play around with it a little to see how I could manipulate the data and use it as an experiment for thinking about what kinds of categories I will need going forward and how I can rectify some of the problems I created in this test case.

Also, this graph suffers from the dreaded “spaghetti monster” problem where every node is connected to almost every other node. This of course is unsurprising when you think about the data we input to make this graph – all sites have some use of lithics, and we selected common types to graph, therefore, there are many connections. Once you start to establish cut-off weights for the edges or connections, however, you can start to see the peripheral sites dropping out of the network.

Lithics 2+ cutoff

In this graphic representation, the edge weight is reduced to only sites that share 2 or more connections (i.e. 2, 3, 4 values for edge weight). You can see that the sites on the bottom left and top right have become disconnected from the graph.

Lithics 3+ cutoff

Raising the cutoff for the edge weight to 3 or 4 shows most sites not longer as part of the network, with only the core of the graph remaining.

So what does this series of graphs really show us?

Well first, it does show that there are meaningful differences in the distribution of lithic types (i.e. we don’t find all types everywhere), but as you can probably imagine, this is not a revolutionary conclusion and you do not need network analysis to tell that lithics are distributed differently across the region (any archaeologist working in the region knows that already).

Second, it shows that lithics alone can not be used to answer the kind of question we set out to answer about the connections between sites. That is not say that a network analysis of the distribution of types of lithics, particularly if sourcing could be included would not be valuable, only to say that our network is insufficient for answering these types of questions.  This test case showed us that using one type of material culture was not going to be enough to reveal meaningful patterns, or at least not on the level of the data we had available to us. There is some amazing work on obsidian sourcing and obsidian use (see Golitko, Mark, and Gary M. Feinman, 2015 Procurement and Distribution of Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican Obsidian 900 BC-AD 1520: A Social Network Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22: 206–247.) but our data was not nearly as refined and not designed to look at sourcing.

Third, this case clearly demonstrated that determining the cutoff weights for connection will be very important in deciding which sites are connected. As you can see from the first graph, at a low edge weight it appears that the network is tightly connected, however, using the higher cut-off weights reduces the network to almost nothing, suggesting that there in fact, is not really a strong network here at all, but rather a set of very loose connections.

This small test confirms the common saying among network analysts that just because you CAN make something into a network, doesn’t mean you should.

Overall, this short test case demonstrated that we will need a broader approach if we were going to produce any kind of pilot project. I will discuss our selection of categories in the next post.

tl:dr Using only one type of find did not reveal the kinds of connections necessary for our investigation of EBA cities.