brughmans, t. (2010) connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. computer...

22
Towards Archaeological Network Analysis Tom Brughmans

Upload: tombrughmans8209

Post on 27-Jul-2015

126 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Paper presented at Computer Applications in Archaeology conference 2010 at University College London. It concerns a review of archaeological applications of network analysis and some suggestions for future archaeological use of the method.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

Towards Archaeological Network Analysis

Tom Brughmans

Page 2: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 3: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 4: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 5: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

Issues in current archaeological applications of network analysis

The role of archaeological data in networks The diversity of network structures, their

consequences and their interpretation The critical use of quantitative tools The influence of other disciplines, especially

sociology

Page 6: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

1.The role of archaeological data in

networks

Page 7: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

(Isaksen 2008: fig. 3.)

Page 8: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

Case studyThe ICRATES database of table wares from the Roman East(Prof. Jeroen Poblome, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Over 25000 sherds

Page 9: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 10: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 11: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 12: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 13: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

2.The diversity of network structures,

their consequences and their interpretation

Page 14: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

(Sindbæk 2007: fig. 6)

Page 15: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 16: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

3.The critical use of quantitative tools

Page 17: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

4.The influence of other disciplines,

especially sociology

Page 18: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February
Page 19: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

(Graham 2006: fig. 6.1.)

Page 20: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

Towards Archaeological Network Analysis

1. Consider the full diversity of archaeological relationships

2. The use and interpretation of quantitative tools is dependant on data and aims

3. Define networks and techniques

4. Exploratory and confirmatory network analysis

5. Influenced by all disciplines, but rooted in relational thinking, archaeological reasoning and data critique

Page 21: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

Contact: [email protected]

Presentation, bibliography, and more info on:http://archaeologicalnetworks.wordpress.com/

ICRATES:http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/icrates/

Join 'The Networks Network' Google group!

Page 22: BRUGHMANS, T. (2010) Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Computer Applications in Archaeology UK chapter (CAA UK). University College London, 19-20 February

Acknowledgements: thanks to Prof. Jeroen Poblome, Prof. Simon Keay, Dr. Graeme Earl and Leif Isaksen

Selected bibliography:

BARABÀSI, A.-L. and ALBERT, R. 1999: Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, 286, 509-512.

BENTLEY, R.A. and SHENNAN, S.J. 2003: Cultural Transmission and Stochastic Network Growth. American Antiquity, 68, 459-485.

GRAHAM, S. 2009: The Space Between: The Geography of Social Networks in the Tiber Valley. In Coarelli, F. and Patterson, H. (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). (Rome, British School at Rome - Edizioni QVASAR), 671-686.

GRAHAM, S. 2006: EX FIGLINIS, the network dynamics of the Tiber valley brick industry in the hinterland of Rome (Oxford, Archaeopress).

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/isaksen/.

KNAPPETT, C., EVANS, T. and RIVERS, R. 2008: Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity, 82, 1009-1024.

SINDBÆK, S.M. 2007: Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity, 81, 119-132.

WATTS, D. and STROGATZ, S. 1998: Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440-442.