A performance test of archaeological similarity-based network inference using New Guinean ethnographic data

IF 2 1区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Pub Date : 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jaa.2023.101550
Mark Golitko
{"title":"A performance test of archaeological similarity-based network inference using New Guinean ethnographic data","authors":"Mark Golitko","doi":"10.1016/j.jaa.2023.101550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Network analysis has become increasingly common within archaeological practice, yet little consensus exists as to what networks based on material culture actually reveal about ancient social life. One common approach to archaeological network inference relies on constructing similarity networks based on shared material types or stylistic categories between archaeological sites or contexts. Many studies implicitly or explicitly assume that the topology of similarity networks is a useful proxy for underlying patterns in ancient social networks, yet this basic assumption has not been rigorously evaluated. Here, I present a preliminary test of how well network measures inferred from material culture—in this case, bone daggers made on the island of New Guinea between 1845 and 2002—predict network measures derived from ethnographic accounts of social engagement between 1720 New Guinea communities. In this case study network distance partially predicts material similarity, and neighborhood/cluster identification algorithms partially identify similar patterning in underlying patterns of inter-community engagement. However, most commonly applied network measures of centrality are not strongly predicted by material cultural similarity. Similarity based network analysis is a powerful means of visualizing and exploring data, and can help in formulating archaeological hypotheses, but may be problematic as a direct inference procedure.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47957,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology","volume":"72 ","pages":"Article 101550"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278416523000661","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Network analysis has become increasingly common within archaeological practice, yet little consensus exists as to what networks based on material culture actually reveal about ancient social life. One common approach to archaeological network inference relies on constructing similarity networks based on shared material types or stylistic categories between archaeological sites or contexts. Many studies implicitly or explicitly assume that the topology of similarity networks is a useful proxy for underlying patterns in ancient social networks, yet this basic assumption has not been rigorously evaluated. Here, I present a preliminary test of how well network measures inferred from material culture—in this case, bone daggers made on the island of New Guinea between 1845 and 2002—predict network measures derived from ethnographic accounts of social engagement between 1720 New Guinea communities. In this case study network distance partially predicts material similarity, and neighborhood/cluster identification algorithms partially identify similar patterning in underlying patterns of inter-community engagement. However, most commonly applied network measures of centrality are not strongly predicted by material cultural similarity. Similarity based network analysis is a powerful means of visualizing and exploring data, and can help in formulating archaeological hypotheses, but may be problematic as a direct inference procedure.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用新几内亚人种学数据的考古相似性网络推断的性能测试
网络分析在考古实践中越来越普遍,但对于基于物质文化的网络究竟揭示了古代社会生活的内容,人们几乎没有达成共识。考古网络推理的一种常见方法依赖于基于考古遗址或上下文之间共享的材料类型或风格类别来构建相似性网络。许多研究隐含或明确地假设相似性网络的拓扑结构是古代社交网络中潜在模式的有用代理,但这一基本假设尚未得到严格评估。在这里,我对从物质文化中推断出的网络测量——在本例中,是1845年至2002年间在新几内亚岛上制造的骨匕首——在多大程度上预测了从1720个新几内亚社区之间的社会参与的民族志描述中得出的网络测量。在这种情况下,研究网络距离部分预测物质相似性,邻域/聚类识别算法部分识别社区间参与的潜在模式中的相似模式。然而,最常用的网络中心性度量并不能通过物质文化相似性来有力地预测。基于相似性的网络分析是可视化和探索数据的强大手段,可以帮助制定考古假设,但作为一种直接推理程序,可能会有问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: An innovative, international publication, the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology is devoted to the development of theory and, in a broad sense, methodology for the systematic and rigorous understanding of the organization, operation, and evolution of human societies. The discipline served by the journal is characterized by its goals and approach, not by geographical or temporal bounds. The data utilized or treated range from the earliest archaeological evidence for the emergence of human culture to historically documented societies and the contemporary observations of the ethnographer, ethnoarchaeologist, sociologist, or geographer. These subjects appear in the journal as examples of cultural organization, operation, and evolution, not as specific historical phenomena.
期刊最新文献
Negotiating interaction during the Late Woodland-Mississippian transition in Southern Appalachia Understanding the intersection of Rapid climate change and subsistence Practices: An isotopic perspective from a Mediterranean Bell Beaker case study Editorial Board Migration and state expansion: Archaeological and biochemical evidence from Pataraya, a wari outpost in Nasca, Peru (A.D. 650–1000) The tyranny of nomadic ethnography: Re-approaching Late Bronze Age (2100–1300 BCE) mobility in the central Eurasian steppes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1