The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction
Abstract
While the study of networks has grown exponentially in the past decade and is now having an impact on how archaeologists study ancient societies, its emergence in the field has been dislocated. This book provides a coherent framework on network analysis in current archaeological practice by pulling together its main themes and approaches to show how it is changing the way archaeologists face the key questions of regional interaction. Working with the term ‘network’ as a collection of nodes and links, as used in network science and social network analysis, it juxtaposes a range of case studies and investigates the positives and negatives of network analysis. With contributions by leading experts in the field, the volume covers a broad range: from Japan to America, from the Palaeolithic to the Precolumbian.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Analysis of network links (edges) is less common.
“Analysis of the network links (edges) is less common (Knappett 2013b).”
From Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Knappett 2013b
Sensitivity analysis and validation of resulting networks is an important issue, but best practices for assessing realism of (re)constructed networks are still largely lacking.
“Sensitivity analysis and validation of the resulting networks would therefore seem an important issue, but best practices for assessing the realism of (re)constructed networks are still largely lacking (Knappett 2013b;Groenhuijzen and Verhagen 2017).”
From Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Knappett 2013b
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Archaeology of Trade in the Western Indian Ocean, 300 BC–AD 700
Seland, E. H. (2014) · Journal of Archaeological Research · doi:10.1007/s10814-014-9075-7 · Cited by 133
Leidwanger, J. (2013) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.016 · Cited by 118
Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches
Verhagen, P., Nuninger, L., & Groenhuijzen, M. R. (2019) · Computational Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04576-0_11 · Cited by 117
Crafting power: New perspectives on the political economy of southern Africa, AD 900–1300
Moffett, A. J., Hall, S., & Chirikure, S. (2020) · Journal of Anthropological Archaeology · doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101180 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2013-04-11
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 0
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
