Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1095–1126 | Cite as

Tracing Teams, Texts, and Topics: Applying Social Network Analysis to Understand Archaeological Knowledge Production at Çatalhöyük

Article

Abstract

Social network analysis (SNA) is an analytical technique rapidly gaining popularity within archaeology for its applicability to a wide variety of issues relating to past communities. Using the 20-year project at Çatalhöyük, Turkey, as a case study, I demonstrate how SNA can be helpfully used to understand knowledge production in archaeology. Balancing network visualization and computation with contextual knowledge, combining SNA with topic modeling, and concentrating on social structures all work to provide a diachronic view of how information flows between disparate research teams at Çatalhöyük as well as the social structures and specific individuals promoting this flow. SNA has the undeniable potential to provide new perspectives on how dispersed datasets are assembled to produce archaeological knowledge, illustrating the value of retaining focus on the social conditions of scientific practice even as significant insights are being derived from instead investigating objects and ontology.

Keywords

Social network analysis Topic modeling Knowledge production Reflexivity Turkey 

Supplementary material

10816_2015_9261_MOESM1_ESM.docx (81 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 80 kb)

References

  1. Amann, K., & Knorr-Cetina, K. (1990). The fixation of (visual) evidence. In M. Lynch & S. A. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 85–122). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archaeology: research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balter, M. (2005). The goddess and the bull. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barabasi, A. (2002). Linked: the new science of networks. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Human Relations, 7, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartu, A. (2000). Where is Çatalhöyük? Multiple sites in the construction of an archaeological site. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük (pp. 101–110). Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  7. Bentley, R. A., & Shennan, S. J. (2003). Cultural transmission and stochastic network growth. American Antiquity, 68(3), 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg, I. (2013). Dumps and ditches: prisms of archaeological practice at Kalaureia in Greece. In A. Källén (Ed.), Making cultural history: new perspectives on western heritage (pp. 173–183). Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Berggren, Å., Dell’Unto, N., Forte, M., Haddow, S., Hodder, I., Issavi, J., . . . Taylor, J. (2015). Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük: integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel’s edge. Antiquity.Google Scholar
  10. Berggren, Å., & Nilsson, B. (2014). Going back, looking forward: reflexive archaeology or reflexive method. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Integrating Çatalhöyük: themes from the 2000–2008 seasons (pp. 55–68). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blei, D. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 10, 1000.Google Scholar
  13. Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonde, S., & Houston, S. (Eds.). (2012). Re-presenting the past: archaeology through image and text. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  15. Borgatti, S. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  18. Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brughmans, T. (2010). Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29(3), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  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. Burri, R. V., & Dumit, J. (2008). Social studies of scientific imaging and visualization. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 297–318). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  23. Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (Eds.). (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Carusi, A., Hoel, A. S., Webmoor, T., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (2014). Visualization in the age of computerization. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Castañeda, Q. E., & Matthews, C. N. (Eds.). (2008). Ethnographic archaeologies: reflections on stakeholders and archaeological practices. Lanham: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  26. Chapple, E.D. (1940). Measuring human relations: an introduction to the study of interaction of individuals. Genetic Psychology Monographs.Google Scholar
  27. Clarke, D. L. (1972). Models in archaeology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  28. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (Eds.). (2005). Exploratory network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C., & Renfrew, C. (Eds.). (2005). Rethinking materiality: the engagement of mind with the material world. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
  30. Dural, S. (2007). Protecting Çatalhöyük: memoir of an archaeological site guard. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  31. Edgeworth, M. (2003). Acts of discovery: an ethnography of archaeological practice. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  32. Edgeworth, M. (2006). Multiple origins, development, and potential of ethnographies of archaeology. In M. Edgeworth (Ed.), Ethnographies of archaeological practice: cultural encounters, material transformations (pp. 1–19). Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  33. Edgeworth, M. (2014). From spade-work to screen-work: new forms of archaeological discovery in digital space. In A. Carusi, A. S. Hoel, T. Webmoor, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Visualization in the age of computerization (pp. 40–58). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Erdos, P., & Renyi, A. (1959). On random graphs I. Math Debrecen, 6, 290–297.Google Scholar
  35. Erdos, P., & Renyi, A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publications of the Mathematics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 5, 17–61.Google Scholar
  36. Erdos, P., & Renyi, A. (1963). Asymmetric graphs. Acta Mathematics Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Hungary, 14, 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Evans, S., & Felder, K. (2014). Making the connection: changing perspectives on social networks. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 29(1), 9–17.Google Scholar
  38. Fortes, M. (1949). The web of kinship among the Tallensi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Fotiadis, M. (2013). Naked presence and disciplinary wording. In S. C. Humphreys & R. G. Wagner (Eds.), Modernity’s classics (pp. 293–313). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. S. Smith Trans.). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  41. Foucault, M. (2002). The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: a study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
  44. Friemel, T. N. (Ed.). (2008). Why context matters: applications of social network analysis. Wiesbaden: VS Research.Google Scholar
  45. Gero, J. M. (1996). Archaeological practice and gendered encounters with field data. In R. P. Wright (Ed.), Gender and archaeology (pp. 251–280). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  46. Graham, S. (2006). Networks, agent-based models and the Antonine itineraries: implications for Roman archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19(1), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Graham, S., Weingart, S. & Milligan, I. (2012). Getting started with topic modeling and MALLET. Retrieved from http://programminghistorian.org/lessons/topic-modeling-and-mallet.
  48. Haggett, P., & Chorley, R. J. (1969). Network analysis in geography. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  49. Hamilakis, Y. (2011). Archaeological ethnography: a multitemporal meeting ground for archaeology and anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hamilton, C. (2000). Faultlines: the construction of archaeological knowledge at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük (pp. 119–128). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  51. Hart, J. P., & Engelbrecht, W. (2012). Northern Iroquoian ethnic evolution: a social network analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19(2), 322–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hawe, P., Webster, C., & Shiell, A. (2004). A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social network analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 971–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18, 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hodder, I. (Ed.). (2000). Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  55. Hodder, I. (2003). Archaeology beyond dialogue. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  56. Hodder, I. (Ed.). (2006). Çatalhöyük perspectives: themes from the 1995–99 seasons. Ankara: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  57. Hodder, I. (Ed.). (2012a). Archaeological theory today (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  58. Hodder, I. (2012b). Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hogan, B. (2008). Analyzing social networks via the Internet. In N. Fielding, R. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The Sage handbook of online research methods (pp. 141–160). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Holtorf, C. (2002). Notes on the life history of a pot sherd. Journal of Material Culture, 7(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ilerbaig, J. (2010). Specimens as records: scientific practice and recordkeeping in natural history research. The American Archivist, 73, 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ingold, T. (2007). Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues, 14(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Isaksen, L. (2008). The application of network analysis to ancient transport geography: a case study of Roman baetica. http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/4/isaksen/. Accessed 5 December 2014.
  64. 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. 43–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Jenkins, D. (2001). A network analysis of Inka roads, administrative centers, and storage facilities. Ethnohistory, 48(4), 655–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jennings, H. H. (1943). Leadership and isolation: a study of personality in interpersonal relations. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
  67. Kassabaum, M. C., & Nelson, E. S. (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
  68. Knappett, C. (2011). An archaeology of interaction: network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Knappett, C. (2013). Network analysis in archaeology: new approaches to regional interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Knappett, C., & Malafouris, L. (Eds.). (2008). Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  71. Knappett, C., Evans, T., & Rivers, R. (2008). Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean bronze age. Antiquity, 82(318), 1009–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science (New York, N.Y.), 311(5757), 88–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers throughout society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. A. (1979). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Leidwanger, J., Knappett, C., Arnaud, P., Arthur, P., Blake, E., Broodbank, C…. Van de Noort, R. (2014). A manifesto for the study of ancient Mediterranean maritime networks. Antiquity. http://journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/leidwanger342. Accessed 13 December 2014.
  79. Llobera, M. (2006). What you see is what you get? Visualscapes, visual genesis, and hierarchy. In T. L. Evans & P. T. Daly (Eds.), Digital archaeology: bridging method and theory (pp. 148–168). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Lucas, G. (2001). Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: a study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  83. Lynch, M. (1990). The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In M. Lynch & S. A. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 153–186). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  84. Lynch, M. (2013). Ontography: investigating the production of things, deflating ontology. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 444–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mapping Controversies on Science for Politics (MASCOPOL). (n.d.) http://mappingcontroversies.net/ Accessed April 8, 2015.
  86. Marsden, P. V. (2005). Recent developments in network measurement. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 8–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Matthews, W., Hastorf, C., & Ergenekon, B. (1996). Ethnoarchaeology: studies in local villages aimed at understanding aspects of the Neolithic site. In I. Hodder (Ed.), On the surface: Çatalhöyük (pp. 1993–1995). Ankara: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  88. McGrath, C., Blythe, J., & Krackhardt, D. (1997). The effect of spatial arrangement on judgments and errors in interpreting graphs. Social Networks, 3, 225–249.Google Scholar
  89. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  90. Mickel, A., & Meeks, E. (2015) Networking the teams and texts of archaeological research at Çatalhöyük. In A. Marciniak and I. Hodder (Eds.), Assembling Çatalhöyük (pp. 25-42). Praha: European Association of Archaeologists.Google Scholar
  91. Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 22, 61–67.Google Scholar
  92. Miller, D. (Ed.). (1998). Material cultures: why some things matter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  93. Mills, B. J., Roberts, J. M. J., Clark, J. J., Haas, W. R. J., Huntley, D., Peeples, M. A., . . . Breiger, R. L. (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.Google Scholar
  94. Mitchell, J. C. (Ed.). (1969). Social networks in urban situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: a guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. 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
  97. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Molyneaux, B. L. (Ed.). (1997). The cultural life of images: visual representation in archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Moreno, J. L. (1932). Application of the group method to classification. New York: National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor.Google Scholar
  100. Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? Washington, D.C.: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  101. Moreno, J. L., & Jennings, H. H. (1938). Statistics of social configurations. Sociometry, 1, 342–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Mortensen, L., & Hollowell, J. (Eds.). (2009). Ethnographies and archaeologies: iterations of the past. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  103. Moser, S. (2001). Archaeological representation: the visual conventions for constructing knowledge about the past. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological theory today (pp. 262–283). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  104. Moser, S. (2007). On disciplinary culture: archaeology as fieldwork and its gendered associations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Moser, S. (2012). Archaeological visualization: early artifact illustration and the birth of the archaeological image. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological theory today (pp. 292–322). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  106. Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  107. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Nadel, S. F. (1962). Toward a theory of social structure. London: Cohen and West.Google Scholar
  109. Newman, M., Barabasi, A., & Watts, D. J. (Eds.). (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T., & Witmore, C. (2012). Archaeology: the discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28, 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Perry, S. (2009). Fractured media: challenging the dimensions of archaeology’s typical visual modes of engagement. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeology Congress, 5(3), 389–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Ramsay, S. (2011). Reading machines: toward an algorithmic criticism. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  114. Rapoport, A. (1957). Contribution to the theory of random and biased nets. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 19, 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rapoport, A. (1963). Mathematical models of social interaction. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 293–579). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  116. 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
  117. Rountree, K. (2007). Archaeologists and goddess feminists at Çatalhöyük: an experiment in multivocality. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 23(2), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Schmidt, B. (2012). Words alone: dismantling topic models in the humanities. Journal of Digital Humanities, 2(1). Available at: http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-1/words-alone-by-benjamin-m-schmidt/.
  119. Scott, J. (1988). Social network analysis. Sociology, 22(1), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Shankar, K. (2004). Recordkeeping in the production of scientific knowledge: an ethnographic study. Archival Science, 4(3–4), 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Shankland, D. (1999a). Ethno-archaeology at Küçükköy. Anatolian Archaeology, 5, 23–24.Google Scholar
  122. Shankland, D. (1999b). Integrating the past: folklore, mounds and people at Çatalhöyük. In A. Gazin-Schwartz & C. Holtorf (Eds.), Archaeology and folklore (pp. 139–157). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  123. Shanks, M. (1998). The life of an artifact. Fennoscandia Archeologica, 15, 15–42.Google Scholar
  124. Shanks, M. (2007). Symmetrical archaeology. World Archaeology, 39(4), 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Shanks, M., & McGuire, R. H. (1996). The craft of archaeology. American Antiquity, 61(1), 75–88.Google Scholar
  126. Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1992). Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  127. Shanks, M., & Webmoor, T. (2012). A political economy of visual media in archaeology. In S. Bonde & S. Houston (Eds.), Re-presenting the past: archaeology through image and text (pp. 85–108). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  128. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  129. Sindbæk, S. M. (2007a). Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity, 81(311), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Sindbæk, S. M. (2007b). The small world of the Vikings: networks in early medieval communication and exchange. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 40(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Models for longitudinal network data. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 215–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Solomonoff, R. J., & Rapoport, A. (1951). Connectivity of random nets. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 13, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Steyvers, M., & Griffiths, T. (2007). Probabilistic topic models. In T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Latent semantic analysis: a road to meaning. Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  135. Terrell, J. E. (2010). 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. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  137. Tringham, R., & Stevanovic, M. (2000). Different excavation styles create different windows into Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük (pp. 111–118). Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  138. van der Leeuw, S. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. van Heur, B., Leydesdorff, L., & Wyatt, S. (2013). Turning to ontology in STS? Turning to STS through ‘ontology.’. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Warner, W. L., & Lunt, P. S. (1941). The social life of a modern community. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  141. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: the science of a connected age. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  143. Webmoor, T. (2007). What about ‘one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously. World Archaeology, 39(4), 563–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Witmore, C. L. (2007). Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology, 39(4), 546–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: a turn to ontology in science and technology studies? Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from things: essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  147. Yarrow, T. (2003). Artifactual persons: the relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 36(1), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Young, M., & Willmott, P. (1957). Family and kinship in East London. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  149. Zak, J. (2004). Shared endeavors across disciplinary boundaries: exploring collaboration between archaeologists and conservators. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_41.html. Accessed 5 December 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations