Abstract
Network methods have seen a rapid rise in archaeology in recent years. There are still concerns regarding how well formal networks are able to effectively model local interaction. These are often present in the so-called qualitative network approaches—studies that tend to be based on close readings of relations between entities and the way they form dynamic networks of agents. Such studies have demonstrated the value in scrutinizing the way in which relations might be acted on in practice, and how that might differ from expected results. But rarely do such studies produce network data of the kind analyzed by formal network analytical methods. Formal approaches, on the other hand, blur the specificity of individual relations and trade much of their specificity for the ability to make general statements about relations across large datasets. More generally, the modality of the relation/edge is a crucial way in which formal network analysis differs from other prevalent relational approaches popular in archaeology today, where the substantivity of individual relations is paramount. Such relations are often seen as starting points for subsequent hybridizations that radically alter, if only temporarily, the structure of their respective networks. I argue that a key step in allowing networks to reformulate from initial, data-driven network schemata is the introduction of a more symmetrical agency between the node and the edge. In this article, I discuss how ethnographic sources can be used to achieve this for archaeological survey data. I use assemblage theory as a framework to explore the potential the edge has to offer archaeological network modelling. While assemblage theory is helpful for this purpose, the lack of a computational formality to assemblage theory immediately places it at odds with network science. As a complement, I will also employ the computational ontology CIDOC-CRM to more explicitly articulate the character of links between nodes in archaeological networks. The paper will end by suggesting a method of network modelling which integrates the line as a key source of agency. As a nod to Ingold’s call for an increased emphasis on the line, I call this approach network linaeology.
Highlights
Network methods have seen a rapid rise in archaeology in recent years
I argue that a key step in allowing networks to reformulate from initial, datadriven network schemata is the introduction of a more symmetrical agency between the node and the edge
While assemblage theory is helpful for this purpose, the lack of a computational formality to assemblage theory immediately places it at odds with network science
Summary
Cutting the Network, Knotting the Line: a Linaeological Approach to. Nothing can hold on unless it puts out a line, and unless that line can tangle with others. This blurring sets formal network analysis in contrast to other prevalent relational approaches popular in archaeology today, where the substantivity of individual relations is paramount Such relations are often seen as starting points for subsequent hybridizations that radically alter, if only temporarily, the structure of their respective networks. Reviews of network principles and applications in archaeology from the early 2010s by Brughmans (2010, 2013) and Knappett (2005, 2011, 2013) show that network ideas had been present in archaeology for decades, but at the time had not yet made a major impact on the discipline The work by these two authors (and others, e.g. Mills et al 2013) became highly influential, and helped catalyze what has been a steady increase in network approaches to archaeology over the last decade. Peeples (2019) expanded on a bibliographic review by Brughmans and Peeples (2017) to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of formal network approaches in archaeology
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have