Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 248–274 | Cite as

The Equifinality of Archaeological Networks: an Agent-Based Exploratory Lab Approach

  • Shawn Graham
  • Scott Weingart


When we find an archaeological network, how can we explore the necessary versus contingent processes at play in the formation of that archaeological network? Given a set of circumstances or processes, what other possible network shapes could have emerged? This is the problem of equifinality, where many different means could potentially arrive at the same end result: the networks that we observe. This paper outlines how agent-based modelling can be used as a laboratory for exploring different processes of archaeological network formation. We begin by describing our best guess about how the (ancient) world worked, given our target materials (here, the networks of production and patronage surrounding the Roman brick industry in the hinterland of Rome). We then develop an agent-based model of the Roman extractive economy which generates different kinds of networks under various assumptions about how that economy works. The rules of the simulation are built upon the work of Bang (2006; 2008) who describes a model of the Roman economy which he calls the ‘imperial Bazaar’. The agents are allowed to interact, and the investigators compare the kinds of networks this description generates over an entire landscape of economic possibilities. By rigorously exploring this landscape, and comparing the resultant networks with those observed in the archaeological materials, the investigators will be able to employ the principle of equifinality to work out the representativeness of the archaeological network and thus the underlying processes.


Agent-based modelling Networks Roman economic history Simulation Trade Natural resources 



An early exploration of this model was presented at the Land and Natural Resources in the Roman World conference in Brussels, May 2011. A subsequent elaboration was presented at SAA2013 in Honolulu at the Connected Past session. We would like to thank Paul Erdkamp, Koen Verboven and Tom Brughmans for inviting us to participate in those conferences, and also the participants for their insight and criticism of these ideas. Thanks also to Fiona Coward, Anna Collar and Barbara Mills for their feedback and support for this special issue. Various drafts have been seen by various people at various stages, and we thank them for their comments and patience, especially Mark Lawall. We are especially grateful for the thoughtful and generous comments of the anonymous peer reviewers. Errors of logic or understanding are of course our own.


  1. Agar, M. (2003). My kingdom for a function: modeling misadventures of the innumerate. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6(3) Accessed 19 Sep 2013.
  2. Aubert, J.-J. (1994). Business managers in Ancient Rome. A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 BC – AD 250. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 21. New York: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
  3. Bang, P. (2006). Imperial Bazaar: towards a comparative understanding of markets in the Roman Empire. In P. Bang, M. Ikeguchi, & H. Ziche (Eds.), Ancient economies modern methodologies. Archaeology, comparative history, models and institutions (pp. 51–88). Bari: Edipuglia.Google Scholar
  4. Bang, P. (2008). The Roman Bazaar. A comparative study of trade and markets in a tributary empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bang, P. (2009). The ancient economy and new institutional economics. Journal of Romance Studies, 99, 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Linked: the new science of networks. Cambridge: Perseus.Google Scholar
  7. Bastian, M., S. Heymann, & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2009), San Jose, Ca. 2009. and
  8. Bentley, R. A., Lake, M., & Shennan, S. (2005). Specialisation and wealth inequality in a model of a clustered economic network. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32(9), 1346–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloch, H. (1959). The Serapeum of Ostia and the brick-stamp of 123. New landmark in the history of Roman architecture. American Journal of Archaeology, 63, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boone, J., & Kessler, K. (1999). More status or more children? Social status, fertility reduction, and long-term fitness. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 20, 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Box, G., & Draper, N. (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Brughmans, T. (2010). Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29(3), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brughmans, T. (2013a). Thinking through networks: a review of formal network methods in archaeology. Archaeological Method and Theory, 20, 623–662. doi: 10.1007/s10816-012-9133-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brughmans, T. (2013b). Review of I. Malkin 2011. A small Greek world. Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. The Classical Review (New Series), 63(1), 146–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brughmans, T., Keay, S., & Earl, G. P. (2014). Introducing exponential random graph models for visibility networks. Journal of Archaeological Science, 49, 442–454. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christakis, N., & Fowler, M. (2009). Connected: the surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  17. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Coward, F. (2010). Small worlds, material culture and Near Eastern social networks. Proceedings of the British Academy, 158, 449–479. Scholar
  19. Dibble, C. (2006). Computational laboratories for spatial agent-based models. In L. Tesfatsion & K. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2: Agent-Based Computational Economics (pp. 1511–1550). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Drummond, A. (1989). Early Roman clientes. In A. Wallace-Hadrill (Ed.), Patronage in ancient society (pp. 89–116). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Frier, B., & Kehoe, D. (2007). Law and economic institutions. In W. Scheidel, I. Morris, & R. Saller (Eds.), The Cambridge economic history of the Greco-Roman world (pp. 113–143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garnsey, P., & Woolf, G. (1989). Patronage of the rural poor in the Roman world. In A. Wallace-Hadrill (Ed.), Patronage in ancient society (pp. 153–170). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, S. (2005). Of lumberjacks and brick stamps: working with the Tiber as infrastructure. In A. MacMahon & J. Price (Eds.), Roman urban living (pp. 106–124). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  25. Graham, S. (2006a). Ex Figlinis: The Network Dynamics of the Tiber Valley Brick Industry in the Hinterland of Rome. BAR International Series 1468. Oxford: John Hedges.Google Scholar
  26. Graham, S. (2006b). Networks, agent-based models and the Antonine itineraries: implications for Roman archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19(1), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham, S. (2006c). Who’s in charge? Studying social networks in the roman brick industry in Central Italy. In C. Mattusch & A. Donohue (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology (pp. 359–362). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, S. (2009a). The space between: The Geography of Social Networks in the Tiber Valley. In Coarelli, F. and H. Patterson (eds.) Mercator Placidissimus: the Tiber Valley in Antiquity. New research in the upper and middle river valley. Proceedings of the Conference held at the British School at Rome, 27-28 Feb. 2004. (pp.671-686) Rome: British School at Rome – Edizioni QVASAR.Google Scholar
  29. Graham, S. (2009b). Behaviour space: Simulating Roman social life and civil violence. Digital Studies / Le Champ Numérique, 1(2). Accessed 18 Sep 2013.
  30. Graham, S., & Ruffini, G. (2007). Network analysis and Greco-Roman prosopography. In K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, (ed.) Prosopography Approaches and Applications. A Handbook. Occasional Publications of the Unit for Prosopographical Research (pp. 325–336). Oxford: Linacre College.Google Scholar
  31. Graham, S., & Steiner, J. (2008). Travellersim: growing settlement structures and territories with agent-based modelling. In J. Clark & E. Hagemeister (Eds.), Digital discovery: exploring new frontiers in human heritage. CAA 2006. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 34th Conference, Fargo, United States, April 2006 (pp. 57–67). Budapest: Archaeolinga.Google Scholar
  32. Grimm, V., Berger, U., Bastiansen, F., Eliassen, S., Ginot, V., Giske, J., Goss-Custard, J., Grand, T., Heinz, S. K., Huse, G., Huth, A., Jepsen, J. U., Jørgensen, C., Mooij, W. M., Müller, B., Pe'err, G., Piou, C., Railsback, S. F., Robbins, A. M., Robbins, M. M., Rossmanith, E., Rüger, N., Strand, E., Souissi, S., Stillman, R. A., Vabø, R., Visser, U., & DeAngelis, D. L. (2006). A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecological Modelling, 198(1-2), 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Helen, T. (1975). Organization of roman brick production in the first and second centuries A. D.: an interpretation of Roman Brick stamps. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
  34. Hirt, A. (2010). Imperial Mines and Quarries in the Roman World. Organizational Aspects 27 BC–AD 235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holleran, C. (2010). The Roman Economy (P.F.) Bang The Roman Bazaar: a comparative study of trade and markets in a tributary empire. The Classical Review (New Series), 60(2), 529–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Horden, P., & Purcell, N. (2000). The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Katsari, C. (2010). P. Bang, The Roman Bazaar: a comparative study of trade and markets in a tributary empire. The Journal of Romance Studies, 100, 260–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiiskinen, H. (2009). Review of: The Roman Bazaar: A Comparative Study of Trade and Markets in a Tributary Empire. Cambridge Classical Studies (51 2009). Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2009.06.51 Accessed 20 Nov 2013.
  39. Knappett, C. (2011). An archaeology of interaction. Network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kohler, T., Gumerman, G., & Reynolds, R. (2005). Simulating ancient societies. Scientific American, 293(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kowarik, K., Reschreiter, H., & Wurzer, G. (2012). Modelling Prehistoric Mining. In F. Breitenecker, I. Troch, (eds.) Mathmod Vienna 2012, full paper preprint volume. Accessed 18 Sep 2013.
  42. Kuchar, J. (2011). Social network analysis plugin for Gephi. Accessed 18 Sep 2013.
  43. Lo Cascio, E. (2006). The role of the state in the Roman economy: making use of the New Institutional Economics. In P. Bang, M. Ikeguchi, & H. Ziche (Eds.), Ancient economies modern methodologies. Archaeology, comparative history, models and institutions (pp. 215–236). Bari: Edipuglia.Google Scholar
  44. Macal, C., & North, M. (2010). Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation, 4(3), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Malkin, I. (2011). A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Greeks Overseas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Malkin, I., Constantakopoulou, C., & Panagopoulou, K. (2007). Preface: networks in the ancient Mediterranean. Mediterranean Historical Review, 22(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Manning, J. (2010). Networks, hierarchies, and markets in the Ptolemaic economy. In J. Archibald, J. Davies, & V. Gabrielsen (Eds.), The economies of Hellenistic societies, third to first centuries BC (pp. 296–323). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Manning, J., & Morris, I. (2005). The ancient economy: evidence and models. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Meiggs, R. (1982). Trees and timber in the ancient Mediterranean world. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  50. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: a guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Morley, N. (2010). Peter Fibiger Bang. The Roman Bazaar: a comparative study of trade and markets in a tributary empire. The American Historical Review, 115(1), 267–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Premo, L. S. (2006). Agent-based models as behavioral laboratories for evolutionary anthropological research. Arizona Anthropologist, 17, 91–113.Google Scholar
  54. Ruffini, G. (2008). Social networks in byzantine Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruffini, G. (2012). Irad Malkin. A small Greek World: networks in the ancient Mediterranean. The American Historical Review, 117(5), 1643–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheidel, W. (2012). The Cambridge companion to the roman economy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scheidel, W., & Meeks, E. (2012). ORBIS The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World. Stanford. Accessed 18 Sep 2013.
  58. Setälä, P. (1977). Private Domini in Roman brick stamps of the empire: a historical and prosopographical study of landowners in the district of Rome. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
  59. Shennan, S. (2002). Genes, memes and human history: Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  60. Silver, M. (2009). Historical otherness, the Roman bazaar, and primitivism: P.F. Bang on the Roman economy. Journal of Romance Archaeology, 22(2), 421–443.Google Scholar
  61. Skydsgaard, J. (1976).The Disintegration of the Roman Labour Market and the Clientela Theory. Studia Romana in honorem Petri Krarup Septuagenari (pp. 44–48). Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Steinby, E. M. (1993).L’Organizzazione produttiva dei laterizi: un modello interpretativo per l’instrumen in genere? In W. Harris (Ed.), The inscribed economy : production and distribution in the Roman empire in the light of instrumentum domesticum : the proceedings of a conference held at the American Academy in Rome on 10-11 January, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 6 (pp. 139-144). Portsmouth, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  63. Tesfatsion, L. (2013). Growing Economies from the Bottom Up. Agent-Based Computational Economics (ACE) Accessed 2 Sep 2013.
  64. Verboven, K. (2002). The economy of friends. Economic aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic. Bruxelles: Latomus.Google Scholar
  65. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (Ed.). (1989a). Patronage in ancient society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1989b). Patronage in Roman society: from Republic to Empire. In A. Wallace-Hadrill (Ed.), Patronage in ancient society (pp. 63–87). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Watts, D. (1999). Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness. Princeton Studies in Complexity, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Weingart, S. (2011) Demystifying Networks, Parts I & II. Journal of Digital Humanities 1.1. Accessed 20 Nov 2013.
  69. Wilensky, U. (1998). NetLogo Wealth Distribution model Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  70. Wilensky, U. (1999) NetLogo. . Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  71. Wilkinson, T. J., Gibson, M., Christiansen, J., Widell, M., Schloen, D., Kouchoukos, N., Woods, C., Sanders, J., Simunich, K.-L., Altaweel, M., Ur, J. A., Hritz, C., Lauinger, J., & Tenney, J. (2007). Modeling settlement systems in a dynamic environment: case studies from Mesopotamia. In T. Kohler & S. Van der Leuw (Eds.), The model-based archaeology of socionatural systems (pp. 175–208). Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.406 Paterson Hall, Department of HistoryCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of Informatics and ComputingIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations