CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 183

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation

Collar, Anna, Coward, Fiona, Brughmans, Tom, Mills, Barbara J.·2015·Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
DOI 10.1007/s10816-014-9235-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10816-014-9235-6

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The network perspective has disadvantages because it neglects movement outside the path network, but has analytical advantages because network properties can be used to understand structure and development of reconstructed networks.

    “While this has some disadvantages from a theoretical point of view because it neglects the possibility of movement outside the path network, it also has strong analytical advantages since the properties of the network can be used to better understand the structure and development of (reconstructed) networks (see e.g.Gorenflo and Bell 1991;Brughmans 2010;Collar et al. 2015).”

    From Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Collar et al. 2015

    In “Don’t Believe the Hype?” (page unavailable), the paper uses a hypothetical road network to show how network structure can help explore its future development. It limits one inference to “road-bound traffic,” but does not identify neglected movement outside the path network as a disadvantage of the approach. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Network analysis metrics come in two flavours, global and local.

    “Network analysis metrics come in two flavours, global and local (Wasserman and Faust 1994;Collar et al. 2015).”

    From Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Collar et al. 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Albert, R., & Barabási, A. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(January), 47–97. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Anthonisse, J. M. (1971). The rush in a graph. Amsterdam: Mathematische Centrum.
  3. 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 . · DOI
  4. Borgatti, B., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Los Angeles: Sage.
  5. 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 . · DOI
  6. 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. · DOI
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 . · DOI
  10. 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 . · DOI
  11. Fenn, J., & Raskino, M. (2008). Mastering the hype cycle. How to choose the right innovation at the right time. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
  12. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41. · DOI
  13. 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.
  14. 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 . · DOI
  15. 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 . · DOI · Paper page
  16. 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 . · DOI
  17. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Hess, M. (2004). “Spatial” relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in Human Geography, 28(2), 165–186. · DOI
  20. Hodder, I. (2011). Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17(1), 154–177. · DOI
  21. 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.
  22. Knappett, C. (2011). An archaeology of interaction: Network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
  23. Knappett, C. (Ed.). (2013). Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. 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)
  25. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Lorrain, F., & White, H. C. (1971). Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 49–80. · DOI
  27. 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 · DOI
  28. 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 . · DOI
  29. Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  30. 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 . · DOI
  31. 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.
  32. 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. · DOI
  33. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon.
  34. Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. London: Sage. · DOI
  35. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442. doi: 10.1038/30918 . · DOI · Paper page
  36. 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. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Collar, A., Coward, F., Brughmans, T., & Mills, B. J.
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-01-30
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
1-32
ISSN
  • 1072-5369
  • 1573-7764
DOI
10.1007/s10816-014-9235-6
Cited by
183
References
7
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review