Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation

  • Anna Collar
  • Fiona Coward
  • Tom Brughmans
  • Barbara J. Mills
Article

Abstract

The application of method and theory from network science to archaeology has dramatically increased over the last decade. In this article, we document this growth over time, discuss several of the important concepts that are used in the application of network approaches to archaeology, and introduce the other articles in this special issue on networks in archaeology. We argue that the suitability and contribution of network science techniques within particular archaeological research contexts can be usefully explored by scrutinizing the past phenomena under study, how these are abstracted into concepts, and how these in turn are represented as network data. For this reason, each of the articles in this special issue is discussed in terms of the phenomena that they seek to address, the abstraction in terms of concepts that they use to study connectivity, and the representations of network data that they employ in their analyses. The approaches currently being used are diverse and interdisciplinary, which we think are evidence of a healthy exploratory stage in the application of network science in archaeology. To facilitate further innovation, application, and collaboration, we also provide a glossary of terms that are currently being used in network science and especially those in the applications to archaeological case studies.

Keywords

Archaeology Network science Social network analysis Relational archaeology 

References

  1. Albert, R., & Barabási, A. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(January), 47–97.Google Scholar
  2. Anthonisse, J. M. (1971). The rush in a graph. Amsterdam: Mathematische Centrum.Google Scholar
  3. Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509.Google Scholar
  4. Borck, L., Mills, B. J., Peeples, M. A., & Clark, J. J. (2015). Are social networks survival networks? An example from the Late Prehispanic U.S. Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory ,22(1). doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9236-5.
  5. Borgatti, B., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Brandes, U., Robins, G., McCranie, A., & Wasserman, S. (2013). What is network science? Network Science, 1(01), 1–15. doi:10.1017/nws.2013.2.Google Scholar
  7. Brughmans, T. (2013). Networks of networks: a citation network analysis of the adoption, use and adaptation of formal network techniques in archaeology. Literary and Linguistic Computing, The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 28(4), 538–562.Google Scholar
  8. Brughmans, T. (2014). The roots and shoots of archaeological network analysis: a citation analysis and review of the archaeological use of formal network methods. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 18–41.Google Scholar
  9. Brughmans, T., Collar, A., & Coward, F. (2015). Introduction: challenging network perspectives on the past. In T. Brughmans, A. Collar, & F. Coward (Eds.), The connected past: challenges to network studies of the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brughmans, T., Keay, S., & Earl, G. P. (2015). Understanding inter-settlement visibility in Iron Age and Roman Southern Spain with exponential random graph models for visibility networks. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(1). doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9231-x.
  11. Crabtree, S. (2015). Inferring ancestral Pueblo social networks from simulation in the Central Mesa Verde. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(1). doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9233-8.
  12. Fenn, J., & Raskino, M. (2008). Mastering the hype cycle. How to choose the right innovation at the right time. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.Google Scholar
  14. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks. I. Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.Google Scholar
  15. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Gjesfjeld, E. (2015). Network Analysis of archaeological data from Hunter-Gatherers: methodological problems and potential solutions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(1). doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9232-9.
  17. Golitko, M., & Feinman, G. M. (2015). Procurement and distribution of Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican Obsidian 900 BC–AD 1520: a social network analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(1). doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9211-1.
  18. Graham, S., & Weingart, S. (2015). The Equifinality of archaeological networks: an agent-based exploratory lab approach. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(1). doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9230-y.
  19. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
  20. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.Google Scholar
  21. Hess, M. (2004). “Spatial” relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in Human Geography, 28(2), 165–186.Google Scholar
  22. Hodder, I. (2011). Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17(1), 154–177.Google Scholar
  23. Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Isaksen, L. (2013). “O what a tangled web we weave”—Towards a practice that does not deceive. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 43–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Knappett, C. (2011). An archaeology of interaction: Network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Knappett, C. (Ed.). (2013). Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Knappett, C. (2015). Networks in archaeology: between scientific method and humanistic metaphor. In T. Brughmans, A. Collar, & F. Coward (Eds.), The connected past: Challenges to network studies of the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (in press)Google Scholar
  28. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lorrain, F., & White, H. C. (1971). Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 49–80.Google Scholar
  30. Mills, B. J., Borck, L., Clark, J. J., Haas, Jr., W. R., Peeples, M. A., & Roberts, Jr. J. M. (2014). Multiscalar perspectives on Southwest social networks, A.D. 1200–1450. American Antiquity.Google Scholar
  31. Mills, B. J., Clark, J. J., Peeples, M. A., Haas, W. R., Roberts, J. M., Hill, J. B., Shackley, M. S. (2013). Transformation of social networks in the late pre-Hispanic US Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.1219966110
  32. Mol, A. A. A., Hoogland, M., & Hofman, C. L. (2015). Remotely local: ego-networks of late pre-colonial (AD 1000–1450) Saba, Northeastern Caribbean. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(1). doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9234-7.
  33. Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Östborn, P., & Gerding, H. (2015). The diffusion of fired bricks in Hellenistic Europe: a similarity network analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(1). doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9229-4.
  35. Peeples, M. A., Mills, B. J., Roberts, J. M., Jr., Clark, J. J., & Haas, W. R., Jr. (2014). Analytical issues in the application of network analyses to archaeology. In T. Brughmans, A. Collar, & F. Coward (Eds.), The connected past: Challenges to network studies of the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  38. Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442. doi:10.1038/30918.Google Scholar
  41. White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 730–779.Google Scholar

References included in Fig. 2

  1. Alexander, C. (2008). The Bedolina map: an exploratory network analysis. In A. Posluschny, K. Lambers, & I. Herzog (Eds.), Layers of perception: Proceedings of the 35th international conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), Berlin, Germany, April 2–6, 2007. (Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Vol. 10) (pp. 366–371). Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, K. M. S. (1990). Modelling early historic trade in the eastern Great Lakes using geographic information systems. In K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, & E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), Interpreting space: GIS and archaeology (pp. 319–329). London - New York - Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  3. Barthélemy, M. (2014). Discussion: social and spatial networks. Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 51–61.Google Scholar
  4. Bentley, R. A., & Maschner, H. D. G. (2003). Complex systems and archaeology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bentley, R. A., & Maschner, H. D. G. (2007). Complexity theory. In R. A. Bentley, H. D. G. Maschner, & C. Chippendale (Eds.), Handbook of archaeological theories (pp. 245–270). AltaMira Press. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.09.012.
  6. Bentley, R. A., & Shennan, S. J. (2003). Cultural transmission and stochastic network growth. American Antiquity, 68(3), 459–485.Google Scholar
  7. Bentley, R. A., & Shennan, S. J. (2005). Random copying and cultural evolution. Science, 309, 877–878. doi:10.1126/science.309.5736.874b.Google Scholar
  8. Bentley, R., Lake, M., & Shennan, S. (2005). Specialization and wealth inequality in a model of a clustered economic network. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32(9), 1346–1356. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.03.008.Google Scholar
  9. Bernardini, W. (2007). Jeddito Yellow Ware and Hopi social networks. Kiva, 72(3), 295–328.Google Scholar
  10. Bevan, A., & Crema, E. R. (2014). Une modélisation géographiquement explicite d’interaction culturelle. Dialectes crétois modernes, archéologie de l'âge du Bronze. Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 45–50.Google Scholar
  11. Bevan, A., & Wilson, A. (2013). Models of settlement hierarchy based on partial evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(5), 2415–2427. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.025.Google Scholar
  12. Bintliff, J. (2004). Time, structure, and agency: the Annales, emergent complexity, and archaeology. In J. Bintliff (Ed.), A companion to archaeology (pp. 174–194). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Blake, E. (2013). Social networks, path dependence, and the rise of ethnic groups in pre-Roman Italy. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: new approaches to regional interaction (pp. 203–222). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Blake, E. (2014). Dyads and triads in community detection: a view from the Italian Bronze Age. Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 28–31.Google Scholar
  15. Branting, S. (2007). Using an urban street network and a PGIS-T approach to analyze ancient movement. In E. M. Clark, J. T. Hagenmeister (Ed.), Digital discovery: Exploring new frontiers in human heritage. Proceedings of the 34th CAA conference, Fargo, 2006 (p. 87–96). Budapest.Google Scholar
  16. Broodbank, C. (2000). An island archaeology of the early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Brughmans, T. (2010). Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29(3), 277–303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0092.2010.00349.x.Google Scholar
  18. Brughmans, T. (2012). Facebooking the past: A critical social network analysis approach for archaeology. In A. Chrysanthi, M. P. Flores, & C. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Thinking beyond the tool: Archaeological computing and the interpretative process. British Archaeological Reports International Series (pp. 191–203). Oxford: Archaeo press.Google Scholar
  19. Brughmans, T. (2013a). Thinking through networks: a review of formal network methods in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20, 623–662. doi:10.1007/s10816-012-9133-8.Google Scholar
  20. Brughmans, T. (2013b). Networks of networks: a citation network analysis of the adoption, use and adaptation of formal network techniques in archaeology. Literary and Linguistic Computing, The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 28(4), 538–562. doi:10.1093/llc/fqt048.Google Scholar
  21. Brughmans, T. (2014). The roots and shoots of archaeological network analysis: a citation analysis and review of the archaeological use of formal network methods. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 18–41.Google Scholar
  22. Brughmans, T., Isaksen, L., & Earl, G. (2012). Connecting the dots: an introduction to critical approaches in archaeological network analysis. In M. Zhou, I. Romanowska, Z. Wu, P. Xu, & P. Verhagen (Eds.), Proceedings of computer applications and quantitative techniques in archaeology conference 2011, Beijing (pp. 359–369). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Brughmans, T., Keay, S., & Earl, G. (2012). Complex networks in archaeology: urban connectivity in Iron Age and Roman Southern Spain. Leonardo, 45(3), 280.Google Scholar
  24. Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  25. Classen, E. (2004). Verfahren der “Sozialen Netzwerkanalyse” und ihre Anwendung in der Archäologie. Archäologische Informationen, 27, 219–226.Google Scholar
  26. Classen, E. (2008). Early Neolithic social networks in Western Germany. In A. Posluschny, K. Lambers, & I. Herzog (Eds.), Layers of perception. Proceedings of the 35th international conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (CAA), Berlin April 2-6 2007. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Vol. 10. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. 372+CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  27. Classen, E., & Zimmerman, A. (2004). Tessellation and triangulations: Understanding Early Neolithic social networks. In K. F. Ausserer (Ed.), Enter the past: proceedings of the 30th CAA conference held in Vienna, Austria, April 2003. Oxford, 467–471.Google Scholar
  28. Cochrane, E. E., & Lipo, C. (2010). Phylogenetic analyses of Lapita decoration do not support branching evolution or regional population structure during colonization of Remote Oceania. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 365, 3889–3902.Google Scholar
  29. Collar, A. C. F. (2007). Network theory and religious innovation. Mediterranean Historical Review, 22(1), 149–162. doi:10.1080/09518960701539372.Google Scholar
  30. Collar, A. C. F. (2008). Networks and religious innovation in the Roman Empire. PhD thesis, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
  31. Collar, A. C. F. (2013a). Religious networks in the Roman Empire: The spread of new ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Collar, A. C. F. (2013b). Re-thinking Jewish ethnicity through social network analysis. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 223–246). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Collar, A. C. F., Brughmans, T., Coward, F., & Lemercier, C. (2014). Analyser les réseaux du passé en archéologie et en histoire. Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 9–13.Google Scholar
  34. Coward, F. (2010). Small worlds, material culture and ancient Near Eastern social networks. Proceedings of the British Academy, 158, 449–479.Google Scholar
  35. Coward, F. (2013). Grounding the net: social networks, material culture and geography in the Epipalaeolithic 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
  36. Coward, F., & Gamble, C. (2008). Big brains, small worlds: material culture and the evolution of the mind. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363(1499), 1969–1979. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0004.Google Scholar
  37. Doran, J. E., & Hodson, F. R. (1975). Mathematics and computers in archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dunn, H. (2014). Population genetics and the investigation of past human interactions. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 42–66.Google Scholar
  39. Earl, G., & Keay, S. (2007). Urban connectivity of Iberian and Roman Towns in Southern Spain: a network analysis approach. In J. T. Clark, & E. M. Hagenmeister (Eds.) Digital discovery: Exploring new frontiers in human heritage. Proceedings of the 34th CAA conference, Fargo, 2006 (pp. 77–86).Google Scholar
  40. Evans, S., & Felder, K. (2014). Making the connection: changing perspectives on social networks. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 9–17.Google Scholar
  41. Evans, T., Knappett, C., & Rivers, R. (2009). Using statistical physics to understand relational space: a case study from Mediterranean prehistory. In D. Lane, D. Pumain, S. Van Der Leeuw, & G. West (Eds.), Complexity perspectives in innovation (pp. 451–479). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Fulminante, F. (2012). Social network analysis and the emergence of central places: a case study from Central Italy (Latium Vetus). BABesch, 87, 27–53.Google Scholar
  43. Fulminante, F. (2014). The network approach: tool or paradigm? Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 167–178.Google Scholar
  44. Gamble, C. (1999). The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Gjesfjeld, E., & 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. 281–306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Golitko, M., Meierhoff, J., Feinman, G. M., & Williams, P. R. (2012). Complexities of collapse: the evidence of Maya obsidian as revealed by social network graphical analysis. Antiquity, 86, 507–523.Google Scholar
  47. Graham, S. (2005). Agent-based modelling, archaeology and social organisation: the robustness of Rome. The Archaeological Computing Newsletter, 63, 1–6.Google Scholar
  48. Graham, S. (2006a). EX FIGLINIS, the network dynamics of the Tiber valley brick industry in the hinterland of Rome, BAR international series 1486. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  49. Graham, S. (2006b). Networks, agent-based models and the Antonine Itineraries: implications for Roman archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19(1), 45–64.Google Scholar
  50. Graham, S. (2006). Who’s in charge? Studying social networks in the Roman brick industry in Central Italy. In C. Mattusch & A. Donohue (Eds.), Common ground: Archaeology, art, science, and humanities—Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Oxford (pp. 359–362).Google Scholar
  51. Graham, S. (2009). The space between: the geography of social networks in the Tiber valley. In F. Coarelli & H. Patterson (Eds.), Mercator Placidissimus: the Tiber Valley in Antiquity, new research in the upper and middle river valley. Edizioni Quasar: Rome.Google Scholar
  52. Graham, S. (2014). On connecting stamps—network analysis and epigraphy. Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 39–44.Google Scholar
  53. Graham, S., & Steiner, J. (2007). TravellerSim: growing settlement structures and territories with agent-based modeling. In J. T. Clark & E. M. Hagenmeister (Eds.), Digital discovery: exploring new frontiers in human heritage. Proceedings of the 34th CAA conference, Fargo, 2006 (pp. 57–67). Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
  54. Hage, P., & Harary, F. (1983). Structural models in anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Hage, P., & Harary, F. (1991). Exchange in Oceania: A graph theoretic analysis. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  56. Hage, P., & Harary, F. (1996). Island networks: communication, kinship and classification structures in Oceania. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Hiorns, R. W. (1971). Statistical studies in migration. In F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendall, & P. Tăutu (Eds.), Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences, Proceedings of the Anglo-Romanian conference, Mamaia 1970 (pp. 291–302). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Hunt, T. L. (1988). Graph theoretic network models for Lapita exchange: a trial application. In P. V. Kirch & T. L. Hunt (Eds.), Archaeology of the Lapita cultural complex: A critical review (pp. 135–155). Seattle: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum Research Reports no. 5.Google Scholar
  59. Hutchinson, P. (1972). Networks and roman roads: a further Roman network. Area, 4(4), 279–280.Google Scholar
  60. Irwin, G. (1978). Pots and entrepôts: a study of settlement, trade and the development of economic specialization in Papuan prehistory. World Archaeology, 9(3), 299–319.Google Scholar
  61. Isaksen, L. (2007). Network analysis of transport vectors in Roman Baetica. In J. T. Clark & E. M. Hagenmeister (Eds.), Digital discovery: Exploring new frontiers in human heritage. Proceedings of the 34th CAA conference, Fargo, 2006 (pp. 76–87). Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
  62. Isaksen, L. (2008). The application of network analysis to ancient transport geography: a case study of Roman Baetica. Digital Medievalist, 4, http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/4/isakse.
  63. Isaksen, L. (2013). “O what a tangled web we weave”—Towards a practice that does not deceive. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 43–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Jenkins, D. (2001). A network analysis of Inka roads, administrative centers, and storage facilities. Ethnohistory, 48(4), 655–687.Google Scholar
  65. Jiménez, D., & Chapman, D. (2002). An application of proximity graphs in archaeological spatial analysis. In D. Wheatley, G. Earl, & S. Poppy (Eds.), Contemporary themes in archaeological computing (pp. 90–99). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  66. Kendall, D. (1969). Incidence matrices, interval graphs and seriation in archeology. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 28(3), 565–570.Google Scholar
  67. Kendall, D. G. (1971a). Seriation from abundance matrices. In F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendall, & P. Tăutu (Eds.), Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences, Proceedings of the Anglo-Romanian conference, Mamaia 1970 (pp. 215–252). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Kendall, D. G. (1971b). Maps from marriages: an application of non-metric multi-dimensional scaling to parish register data. In F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendall, & P. Tăutu (Eds.), Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences, Proceedings of the Anglo-Romanian conference, Mamaia 1970 (pp. 303–318). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Knappett, C. (2011). An archaeology of interaction: Network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Knappett, C. (2013a). Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Knappett, C. (2013b). Introduction: why networks? In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Knappett, C. (2014). Avant-propos. Dossier: Analyse des réseaux sociaux en archéologie. Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 5–8.Google Scholar
  73. Knappett, C., Evans, T., & Rivers, R. (2008). Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity, 82(318), 1009–1024.Google Scholar
  74. Knappett, C., Evans, T., & Rivers, R. (2011). The Theran eruption and Minoan palatial collapse: new interpretations gained from modelling the maritime network. Antiquity, 85(329), 1008–1023.Google Scholar
  75. Kohler, T. A. (2012). Complex systems and archaeology. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological theory today II (pp. 93–123). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  76. Leidwanger, J. (2014). Maritime networks and economic regionalism in the Roman Eastern Mediterranean. Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 32–38.Google Scholar
  77. Lock, G., & Pouncett, J. (2007). Network analysis in archaeology session introduction: an introduction to network analysis. In J. T. Clark & E. M. Hagenmeister (Eds.), Digital discovery: exploring new frontiers in human heritage. Proceedings of the 34th CAA conference, Fargo, 2006 (pp. 71–73). Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
  78. Mackie, Q. (2001). Settlement archaeology in a Fjordland archipelago: Network analysis, social practice and the built environment of Western Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada since 2,000 BP. BAR international series 926. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  79. Menze, B. H., & Ur, J. A. (2012). Mapping patterns of long-term settlement in Northern Mesopotamia at a large scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(14), E778–E787. doi:10.1073/pnas.1115472109.Google Scholar
  80. Mills, B. J., Clark, J. J., Peeples, M. A., Haas, W. R., Roberts, J. M., Hill, J. B., Shackley, M. S. (2013). Transformation of social networks in the late pre-Hispanic US Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.1219966110
  81. Mills, B. J., Roberts, J. M., Clark, J. J., Jr., Haas, W. R., Huntley, D., Peeples, M. A., & Breiger, R. L. (2013b). In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 181–202). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Mizoguchi, K. (2009). Nodes and edges: a network approach to hierarchisation and state formation in Japan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28(1), 14–26. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2008.12.001.Google Scholar
  83. Mizoguchi, K. (2014). Evolution of prestige good systems: An application of network analysis to the transformation of communication systems and their media. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 151–179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Mol, A. A. A. (2014). Play-things and the origins of online networks: virtual material culture in multiplayer games. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 144–166.Google Scholar
  85. Mol, A. A. 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. 307–333). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Müller, U. (2010). Zentrale Orte und Netzwerk Zwei Konzepte zur Beschreibung von Zentralität. In C. Dobiat, P. Ettel, & F. Fless (Eds.), Zwischen Fjorden und Steppe. Festschrift fur Johan Callmer zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 57–67). Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.Google Scholar
  87. Müller, U. (2012). Networks of towns—networks of periphery? Some relations between the North European Medieval town and its hinterland. In S. Brather, U. Müller, & H. Steuer (Eds.), Raumbildung durch Netzwerke? Der Ostseeraum zwischen Wikingerzeit un Spaetmittelalter aus archaeologischer und geschichtswissenschaftlicher Perspektive (pp. 55–78). Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.Google Scholar
  88. Munson, J. (2013). From metaphors to practice: operationalizing network concepts for archaeological stratigraphy. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. doi:10.1007/s10816-013-9181-8.Google Scholar
  89. Munson, J. L., & Macri, M. J. (2009). Sociopolitical network interactions: a case study of the Classic Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28(4), 424–438. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2009.08.002.Google Scholar
  90. Nelson, E. S., & Kassabaum, M. C. (2014). Expanding social networks through ritual deposition: a case study from the Lower Mississippi Valley. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 103–128.Google Scholar
  91. Orser, C, Jr. (2005). Network theory and the archaeology of modern history. In P. Funari, A. Zarankin, & E. Stovel (Eds.) Global archaeological theory SE - 7 (pp. 77–95). Springer US. doi:10.1007/0-306-48652-0_7.
  92. Orton, C. (1980). Mathematics in archaeology. London: Collins.Google Scholar
  93. Östborn, P., & Gerding, H. (2014). Network analysis of archaeological data: a Systematic Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science.Google Scholar
  94. Peeples, M. A. (2011). Identity and social transformation in the prehispanic Cibola world: A.D. 1150-1325. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  95. Peeples, M. A., & Roberts, J. M. (2013). To binarize or not to binarize: relational data and the construction of archaeological networks. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(7), 3001–3010. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.014.Google Scholar
  96. Peregrine, P. (1991). A graph-theoretic approach to the evolution of Cahokia. American Antiquity, 56(1), 66–75.Google Scholar
  97. Phillips, S. C. (2011). Networked glass: Lithic raw material consumption and social networks in the Kuril islands. University of Washington, Seattle: Far Eastern Russia. Unpublished PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
  98. Pouncett, J., & Lock, G. (2007). A vector-based approach to the integration of geophysical and test-pitting data: Phasing the South Cadbury Environs Project. In E. M. Clark & J. T. Hagenmeister (Eds.), Digital discovery: Exploring new frontiers in human heritage. Proceedings of the 34th CAA conference, Fargo, 2006 (p. 97–106). Budapest.Google Scholar
  99. Riede, F. (2014). Eruptions and ruptures—a social network perspective on vulnerability and impact of the Laacher See eruption (c. 13,000 BP) on Late Glacial hunter-gatherers in northern Europe. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 67–102.Google Scholar
  100. Rivers, R., & Evans, T. S. (2013). What makes a site important? Centrality, gateways and gravity. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 125–150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Rivers, R., & Evans, T. S. (2014). New approaches to Archaic Greek settlement structure. Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 21–28.Google Scholar
  102. Rothman, M. (1987). Graph theory and the interpretation of regional survey data. Paléorient, 13(2), 73–91. doi:10.3406/paleo.1987.4430.Google Scholar
  103. Santley, R. S. (1991). The structure of the Aztec transport network. In C. D. Trombold (Ed.), Ancient road networks and settlement hierarchies in the New World (pp. 198–210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Schich, M., & Coscia, M. (2011). Exploring co-occurrence on a meso and global level using network analysis and rule mining. In Proceedings of the ninth workshop on mining and Learning with Graphs (MLG ’11). San Diego: ACM.Google Scholar
  105. Schich, M., Hidalgo, C. A., Lehmann, S. J., & Park, J. (2009). The network of subject co-popularity in Classical Archaeology. Bollettino di Archeologia Online, 49–57.Google Scholar
  106. 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. 95–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Schweizer, T., Hage, P., Harary, F., Houseman, M., Kent, S., & Wolfe, A. W. (1997). Embeddedness of ethnographic cases: a social networks perspective. Current Anthropology, 38(5), 739–760.Google Scholar
  108. Shuchat, A. (1984). Matrix and network models in archaeology. Mathematics Magazine, 57(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  109. Sindbæk, S. M. (2007a). Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in Early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity, 81(311), 119–132.Google Scholar
  110. Sindbæk, S. M. (2007b). The small world of the Vikings: Networks in Early Medieval communication and exchange. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 40, 59–74.Google Scholar
  111. Sindbæk, S. M. (2009). Open access, nodal points, and central places: maritime communication and locational principles for coastal sites in south Scandinavia, c. AD 400–1200. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 13(2), 96. doi:10.3176/arch.2009.2.02.Google Scholar
  112. Sindbæk, S. M. (2013). Broken links and black boxes: Material affiliations and contextual network synthesis in the Viking world. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 71–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Stoner, J. (2014). “Extending the self” through material culture: private letters and personal relationships in second-century AD Egypt. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 129–143.Google Scholar
  114. Swanson, S. (2003). Documenting prehistoric communication networks: a case study in the Paquimé polity. American Antiquity, 68(4), 753–767.Google Scholar
  115. Terrell, J. E. (1976). Island biogeography and man in Melanesia. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, 11(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  116. Terrell, J. E. (1977a). Geographic systems and human diversity in the North Solomons. World Archaeology, 9(1), 62–81.Google Scholar
  117. Terrell, J. E. (1977b). Human biogeography in the Solomon Islands. Fieldiana Anthropology, 68(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
  118. Terrell, J. E. (2010a). Language and material culture on the Sepik Coast of Papua New Guinea: using social network analysis to simulate, graph, identify, and analyze social and cultural boundaries between communities. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 5(1), 3–32.Google Scholar
  119. Terrell, J. E. (2010b). Social network analysis of the genetic structure of Pacific islanders. Annals of Human Genetics, 74(3), 211–232. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2010.00575.x.Google Scholar
  120. Terrell, J. E. (2013). Social network analysis and the practice of history. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 17–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Van der Leeuw, S. E. (2013). Archaeology, networks, information processing, and beyond. In C. Knappett (Ed.), Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction (pp. 335–348). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Van Oyen, A. (2014). Les acteurs-réseaux en archéologie: État de la question et perspectives futures. Nouvelles de l’Archéologie, 135, 14–20.Google Scholar
  123. Verhagen, P., Brughmans, T., Nuninger, L., & Bertoncello, F. (2013). The long and winding road: Combining least cost paths and network analysis techniques for settlement location analysis and predictive modelling. In Proceedings of computer applications and quantitative techniques in archaeology conference 2012, Southampton (pp. 357–366). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Wernke, S. A. (2012). Spatial network analysis of a terminal prehispanic and early colonial settlement in highland Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(4), 1111–1122. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.12.014.Google Scholar
  125. Zubrow, E. B. W. (1990). Modelling and prediction with geographic information systems: a demographic example from prehistoric and historic New York. In K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green, & E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), Interpreting space: GIS and archaeology (pp. 307–318). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Collar
    • 1
  • Fiona Coward
    • 2
  • Tom Brughmans
    • 3
  • Barbara J. Mills
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Classical ArchaeologyAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Archaeology, Anthropology and Forensic ScienceBournemouth UniversityDorsetUK
  3. 3.Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  4. 4.School of AnthropologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations