The Relative Concentration of Interaction—A Proposal for an Integrated Understanding of Centrality and Central Places

Daniel Knitter,Oliver Nakoinz

doi:10.3390/land7030086

Abstract

The importance of a place can be assessed via an analysis of its centrality. However, although central place research has a long history, there is no generally accepted theoretical base, leading to continuous debates about the core elements of centrality and those features that ultimately constitute the centrality of a place. We propose a generalized definition that understands centrality as the relative concentration of interaction. Using this definition, we are able to integrate various social, cultural, and natural aspects in the analysis of a central place and its landscape setting. We present a semi-quantitative method to assess the actual and potential centrality and that enables us (a) to draw conclusions about the type and characteristics of central places, (b) to investigate their development throughout time, and (c) to compare them to each other. We sketch the application of the method using two exemplary sites: the Iron Age site Heuneburg and the Roman palace Felix Romuliana

Highlights

Archaeological research shows that societies are in continuous growth or decline
The concentration of people at certain locations constitutes the nodes for structurally coupled networks of human–landscape as well as human–human interactions
Based upon Nakoinz [2], we propose a conceptual rethinking of centrality and present a methodological tool that can be used to study central places and help to communicate whether, why, or to what degree their landscape setting can be seen as “un-central”

Summary

Introduction

Archaeological research shows that societies are in continuous growth or decline. The focal points and stage of these dynamics have mostly been large settlements and cities. The concentration of people at certain locations constitutes the nodes for structurally coupled networks of human–landscape as well as human–human interactions Such complex networks of various interrelated factors, ranging from ordinary production up to state-wide politics is revealed when we try to understand the history of individual places. Since the beginning of investigations on central places and centrality, there is no common definition or frame and no agreed upon criteria of what makes a place a central place This theoretical and methodological ambiguity mirrors the great amount of factors and parameters that are worth considering in the study of places. The difficulties of measuring centrality affect the definition of centrality It follows that an investigation of central places necessitates concurrently studying its environs, its landscape context, its socio-cultural relatedness, and its history [2]

Objectives

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion