The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
6 What Makes a Site Important? Centrality, Gateways, and Gravity
Abstract
This chapter uses techniques from physics to interrogate some of the principal ideas from social network analysis used in archaeology; namely, centrality. After discussing some null models — geographical networks, proximal point analysis, and simple gravity models, in the sense that all assume undirected links — it turns to models that accommodate gravity while being directed, and which hence can be dynamic. After critiquing the Rihll/Wilson model, based on urban retail models to define the most suitable locations for shopping malls, i.e., those that will best draw in all the ‘outflow’ of their neighbours, the chapter presents as more appropriate the ‘ariadne’ model, which uses a cost-benefit function to arrive at ‘efficient’ networks. This is a useful tool to model how centrality might be emergent in socio-spatial networks.
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?
Commonly used network construction techniques limit the number of allowed connections on the basis of distance and/or the number of closest neighbours.
“Commonly used and effective network construction techniques limit the number of allowed connections on the basis of distance and/or the number of closest neighbours (see Gorenflo and Bell 1991;Jiménez Badillo 2004;Rivers et al. 2013;Groenhuijzen and Verhagen 2017;Fulminante et al. 2017).”
From Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Rivers et al. 2013
In most published studies the edges are undirected, but some places act as hubs and others as net suppliers, so edges can be directed with different weights depending on direction of flow.
“In most published studies the edges are undirected, i.e. there is no difference between going to and from a place.However, some places will act as 'hubs', attracting goods, wealth, and workforce, whereas others are only net suppliers of, for example, mineral resources, food, or people.The edges between the network nodes will then be directed and have different weights depending on the direction of”
From Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Rivers, Knappett & Evans 2013
Maritime networks can more readily be reconstructed based on concepts such as centrality, gravity, and proximal point analysis, whereas land-based commodity flows are hampered by people often choosing apparently suboptimal routes for safety or transaction costs.
“While network analyses of land-based flows of commodities are hampered by the fact that people are known to often choose an apparently suboptimal route of travel for reasons of safety or transaction costs (Seland 2012a), maritime networks can more readily be reconstructed based on concepts such as centrality, gravity, and proximal point analysis (Knappett et al. 2008;Rivers et al. 2013).”
From Archaeology of Trade in the Western Indian Ocean, 300 BC–AD 700 (2014) · cites this paper as Rivers et al. 2013
If the assumptions behind XTENT are plausible and significant, then the observations have general repercussions for understanding past networks and connectivity, independent of shortcomings in concepts or flaws in data of individual case studies.
“Provided that the assumptions behind XTENT are both plausible and significant (gravity models are an accepted tool in spatial analysis: Evans et al., 2008;Rivers et al., 2013;Ortman et al., 2015), then these observations have general repercussions for our understanding of past networks and connectivity, that are independent of shortcomings in concepts or flaws in the data of individual case studie”
From Exploratory network reconstruction with sparse archaeological data and XTENT (2022) · cites this paper as Rivers et al., 2013
Citations
Cites
Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology
Conolly, J., & Lake, M. (2006) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807459 · Cited by 761
Flagged first, then by 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
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
Exploratory network reconstruction with sparse archaeological data and XTENT
Ducke, B., & Suchowska, P. (2022) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-021-09529-3 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Rivers, R., Knappett, C., & Evans, T.
- Venue
- Network Analysis in Archaeology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2013-04-11
- Pages
- 125-150
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 1
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