Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 182–205 | Cite as

Network Analysis of Archaeological Data from Hunter-Gatherers: Methodological Problems and Potential Solutions

  • Erik Gjesfjeld


Network analysis using hunter-gatherer archaeological data presents a number of unique challenges. At the forefront of these challenges are issues associated with the aggregation and fragmentation of archaeological data that influence the size, density, and confidence in network models. These methodological challenges are unfortunate, as the diverse roles of social networks among hunter-gatherers have long been recognized within anthropological research. In order to enhance the research potential of networks constructed from hunter-gatherer archaeological data, this research highlights two data evaluation methods established in social science research to assess the stability of network structure. More specifically, this research constructs network models from the compositional analysis of ceramic artifacts recovered in the Kuril Islands of northeast Asia and evaluates network centrality measures using bootstrap simulation and sensitivity analysis. Results of this research suggest that while archaeologists may never fully identify the “true” network of past relationships, network models that approximate “true” network structure can provide useful metrics in exploring the behavior of past hunter-gatherer populations. Overall, given the challenges associated with hunter-gatherer archaeological data, it is argued here that critically evaluating the structure and stability of network models is an essential first step in developing an archaeological network analysis that is relevant and informative to research on past small-scale societies.


Network analysis Hunter-gatherers Kuril Islands Compositional analysis 



I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, Ben Fitzhugh, S. Colby Phillips, Tom Brughmans, Anna Collar, Fiona Coward, and Barbara Mills for the extremely helpful and insightful comments on earlier versions of this text. In addition, I would like to give a special thanks to Steve Goodreau for not only his comments but also his patience in helping me develop the ideas and statnet code for this paper. Funding support for the geochemical analysis of pottery artifacts was provided by a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant from the National Science Foundation-Arctic Social Sciences division. Finally, I would like to thank all of the wonderful collaborators and participants from the Kuril Biocomplexity Project that have worked so hard on understanding one of the most unique and amazing regions of the world.


  1. Aikens, C. M., & Higuchi, T. (1982). Prehistory of Japan. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Baksh, M., & Johnson, A. (1990). Insurance policies among the Machiguenga: an ethnographic analysis of risk management in a non-Western society. In E. A. Cashdan (Ed.), Risk and uncertainty in tribal and peasant economies (pp. 193–227). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, M. J., & Buck, C. (2000). Data handling and statistical analysis. In E. Ciliberto & G. Spoto (Eds.), Modern analytical methods in art and archaeology (pp. 691–741). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L., & Holley, G. R. (1982). Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 5, 275–330.Google Scholar
  5. Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2(1), 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social networks, 27(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgatti, S. P., Carley, K. M., & Krackhardt, D. (2006). On the robustness of centrality measures under conditions of imperfect data. Social networks, 28(2), 124–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun, D. P., & Plog, S. (1982). Evolution of “tribal” social networks: theory and prehistoric North American evidence. American Antiquity, 47(3), 504–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brughmans, T. (2010). Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29(3), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brughmans, T. (2013). Thinking through networks: a review of formal network methods in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(4), 623–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bulgakov, R. (1996). Reconstruction of Quaternary history of southern Kuril Islands. Journal of Coastal Research, 930–939.Google Scholar
  12. Butts, C. T. (2008). Social network analysis: a methodological introduction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 13–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collar, A. (2013). Re-thinking Jewish ethnicity through social network analysis. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: new approaches to regional interaction (pp. 223–245). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Costenbader, E., & Valente, T. W. (2003). The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Social networks, 25(4), 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coward, F. (2013). Grounding the net: social networks, material culture, and geography in the Epipaleolithic and early Neolithic of the Near East (∼21–6,000 cal BCE). In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: new approaches to regional interaction (pp. 247–280). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Deryugin, V. (2008). On the definition of the term “Okhotsk culture”. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 33(1), 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzhugh, B. (2004). Colonizing the Kodiak archipelago: trends in raw material use and lithic technologies at the Tanginak Spring Site. Arctic Anthropology, 41(1), 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzhugh, B. (2012). Hazards, impacts and resilience among hunter-gatherers of the Kuril Islands. In J. Cooper & P. D. Sheets (Eds.), Surviving sudden environmental change: answers from archaeology (pp. 19–42). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  19. Fitzhugh, B., Moore, S., Lockwood, C., & Boone, C. (2004). Archaeological paleobiogeography in the Russian Far East: the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin in comparative perspective. Asian Perspectives, 43(1), 92–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fitzhugh, B., Etnier, M., MacInnes, B., Phillips, S. C., & Taylor, J. (2007). Report of archaeological field research in 2006, including geological descriptions of archaeological locales. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  21. Fitzhugh, B., Phillips, S. C., Etnier, M., Anderson, S., Taylor, J., Walsh, M., MacInnes, B., & Bourgeious, J. (2009a). Report of archaeological field research in 2007, including geological descriptions of archaeological locale. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  22. Fitzhugh, B., Etnier, M., Phillips, S. C., & Gjesfjeld, E. (2009b). Report of archaeological field research in 2008, including geological descriptions of archaeological. Locales: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  23. Fitzhugh, B., Phillips, S. C., & Gjesfeld, E. (2011). Modeling variability in hunter-gatherer information networks: an archaeological case study from the Kuril Islands. In R. Whallon, W. Lovis, & R. K. Hitchcock (Eds.), Ideas, debates and perspectives 5 (pp. 85–115). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, L. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freeman, L. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman, L. C., Borgatti, S. P., & White, D. R. (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13(2), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galaskiewicz, J. (1991). Estimating point centrality using different network sampling techniques. Social Networks, 13(4), 347–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ganzei, K. S., Razzhigayeva, N. G., & Rybin, A. V. (2010). Landscape structure change of Matua Island in the latter half of the 20th—beginning of the 21st centuries (Kuril Archipelago). Geography and Natural Resources, 31(3), 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gjesfjeld, E. W., & Phillips, S. C. (2013). Evaluating adaptive network strategies with geochemical sourcing data: a case study from the Kuril Islands. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 281–305). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Glascock, M. (1992). Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR by neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics. In H. Neff (Ed.), Chemical characterization of ceramic pastes in archaeology (pp. 11–26). Madison: Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
  31. Glascock, M. D., Neff, H., & Vaughn, K. J. (2004). Instrumental neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics for pottery provenance. Hyperfine Interactions, 154(1–4), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Golitko, M., Meierhoff, J., Feiman, G. M., & Williams, P. R. (2012). Complexities of collapse: the evidence of Maya obsidian as revealed by social network graphical analysis. Antiquity, 86(332), 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Habu, J. (2004). Ancient Jomon of Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hamilton, M. J., Milne, B. T., Walker, R. S., Burger, O., & Brown, J. J. (2007). The complex structure of hunter–gatherer social networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1622), 2195–2203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Handcock, M. S., Hunter, D. R., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., Morris, M. (2003). statnet: software tools for the statistical modeling of network data, Available at:
  36. Heckathorn, D.D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social problems, 174–199.Google Scholar
  37. Heckathorn, D. D. (2002). Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social problems, 49(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoekstra, H. E., & Fagan, W. F. (1998). Biodiversity research-body size, dispersal ability and compositional disharmony: the carnivore-dominated fauna of the Kuril Islands. Diversity and Distributions-a Journal of Biological Invasions and Biodiversity, 4(3), 135–150.Google Scholar
  39. Hudson, M. J. (2004). The perverse realities of change: world system incorporation and the Okhotsk culture of Hokkaido. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 23, 290–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huston, T. L., & Robins, E. (1982). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44(4), 901–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kelly, R. L. (1995). The foraging spectrum diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  42. Knappett, C., & Nikolakopoulou, I. (2005). Exchange and affiliation networks in the MBA southern Aegean: Crete, Akrotiri and Miletus (pp. 175–184). Emporia: Aegeans in East and West Mediterranean.Google Scholar
  43. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  44. Laumann, E. O., & Knoke, D. (1986). Social network theory. In S. Lindenberg, J. S. Coleman, & S. Nowak (Eds.), Approaches to social theory (pp. 83–104). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Leonov, A. (1990). The Sea of Okhotsk. Springfield: National Technological Information Service.Google Scholar
  46. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship Rev. ed. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  47. MacInnes, B. T., Bourgeois, J., Pinegina, T. K., & Kravchunovskaya, E. A. (2009). Tsunami geomorphology: erosion and deposition from the 15 November 2006 Kuril Island tsunami. Geology, 37(11), 995–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Malinowski, B. (1953). Argonauts of the western Pacific: an account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. New York: EP Dutton.Google Scholar
  49. Marsden, P.V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 435–463.Google Scholar
  50. Mauss, M. (1954). The gift; forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mills, B., Roberts, J. M., Jr., Clark, J. J., Haas, W. R., Jr., Huntley, D., Peeples, M. A., Borck, L., et al. (2013). The dynamics of social networks in the Late Prehispanic US Southwest. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: new approaches to regional interaction (pp. 181–202). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Minc, L. (1986). Scarcity and survival: the role of oral tradition in mediating subsistence crises. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5(1), 39–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Minc, L. D., & Smith, K. P. (1989). The spirit of survival: cultural responses to resource variability in North Alaska. In P. Halstad & J. M. O’Shea (Eds.), Bad year economics: Cultural responses to risk and uncertainty (pp. 8–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mizoguchi, K. (2009). Nodes and edges: a network approach to hierarchisation and state formation in Japan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mol, A., & Mans, J. (2013). Old boy networks in the indigenous Caribbean. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 307–334). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Moore, J. A. (1981). The effects of information networks in hunter-gatherer societies. In B. Winterhalder & E. A. Smith (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer foraging strategies: ethnographic and archaeological analyses (pp. 194–217). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Nakagawa, M., Ishizuka, Y., Hasegawa, T., Baba, A., & Kosugui, A. (2008). Preliminary report on volcanological research of KBP 2007–2008 cruise by Japanase Volcanology Group. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  58. Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1259–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Peeples, M. A., & Roberts, J. M., Jr. (2013). To binarize or not to binarize: relational data and the construction of archaeological networks. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(7), 3001–3010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Phillips, S. C. (2011). Networked glass: Lithic raw material consumption and social networks in the Kuril Islands. Unpublished Dissertation. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  61. Phillips, S. C., & Speakman, R. J. (2009). Initial source evaluation of archaeological obsidian from the Kuril Islands of the Russian Far East using portable XRF. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(6), 1256–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pietsch, T. W., Bogatov, V. V., Amaoka, K., Zhuravlev, Y., & Barkalov, V. (2003). Biodiversity and biogeography of the islands of the Kuril Archipelago. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 1297–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. R Development Core Team. (2010). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: Scholar
  64. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). Structure and function in primitive society, essays and addresses. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  65. Rautman, A. (1993). Resource variability, risk, and the structure of social networks: an example from the prehistoric southwest. American Antiquity, 58(3), 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Razjigaeva, N. G., Ganzey, L. A., Belyanina, N. I., Brebennikova, T. A., & Ganzey, K. S. (2008). Paleoenvironments and landscape history of the Minor Kuril Islands since the Late Glacial. Quaternary International, 179(1), 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Razjigaeva, N. G., Ganzey, L. A., Arslanov, K. A., Grebennikova, T. A., Belyanina, N. I., & Mokhova, L. M. (2011). Paleoenvironments of Kuril Islands in Late Pleistocene–Holocene: climatic changes and volcanic eruption effects. Quaternary International, 237(1), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scholnick, J. B., Munson, J. L., & Macri, M. J. (2013). Positioning power in a multi-relational framework: a social network analysis of Classic Maya political rhetoric. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 65–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Tokinaga, H., & Xie, S. P. (2009). Ocean tidal cooling effect on summer sea fog over the Okhotsk Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 114(D14), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Whallon, R. (2006). Social networks and information: non-utilitarian mobility among hunter-gatherers. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 25(2), 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wiessner, P. (1977). Hxaro: a regional system of reciprocity for reducing risk among the !Kung San. Unpublished Dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  73. Wiessner, P. (1982). Risk, reciprocity and social influences on !Kung San economics. In E. Leacock & R. Lee (Eds.), Politics and history in band societies (pp. 61–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Wiessner, P. (1997). Seeking guidelines through an evolutionary approach: style revisited among the !Kung San (Ju/’hoansi) of the 1990s. In M. Barton & G. Clark (Eds.), Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary theory and archaeological explanations (pp. 157–176). Washington D.C: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
  75. Wiessner, P. (1998). On network analysis: the potential for understanding (and misunderstanding) !Kung Hxaro. Current Anthropology, 39(4), 514–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wiessner, P. (2002). Hunting, healing, and hxaro exchange: a long-term perspective on !Kung (Ju/’hoansi) large-game hunting. ENS Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(6), 407–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wobst, H. M. (1974). Boundary conditions for paleolithic social systems: a simulation approach. American Antiquity, 39(2), 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations