Skip to content
1882
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2736-2426
  • E-ISSN: 2736-2434

Abstract

Abstract

Relational approaches have profoundly changed archaeology and related fields in recent years. This has shifted focus from agents to the interaction between them. Past processes, however, are finished and gone, and the only way to investigate them is through their outcomes as preserved in the archaeological record. Every edge (tie) in a network graph describes relations and associations between the entries in the dataset, not within the societies that produced them. In order to move from description to explanation of past processes, the nature and dynamics of connections need to be addressed. In this article, the possibilities and problems connected with this are discussed from the vantage points of four common and timetested qualitative approaches to relational data: ethnographic analogies, semiotics, Actor Network Theory, and outcome analysis, each briefly exemplified on urban networks in the Roman Near East.

Open-access
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1484/J.JUA.5.123680
2021-01-01
2025-12-06

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Appadurai, A. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. As’ad, K., J.-B. Yon, and T. Fournet. 2001. Inscriptions de Palmyre: promenades épigraphiques dans la ville antique de Palmyre, Guides archéologiques de l’Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient, 3 (Paris: Geuthner).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Avner, U. 2001. ‘Sacred Stones in the Desert’, Biblical Archaeology Review, 27: 3041.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boivin, N. 2008. Material Cultures, Material Minds: The Impact of Things on Human Thought, Society, and Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brand, M. 2017. ‘Speech Patterns as Indicators of Religious Identities: The Manichaean Communityin Late Roman Egypt’, in H. F. Teigen and E. H. Seland (eds), Sinews of Empire: Networks in the Roman Near East and Beyond (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. 10519.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Broodbank, C. 1993. ‘Ulysses without Sails: Trade, Distance, Knowledge and Power in the Early Cyclades’, World Archaeology, 24: 31531.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brughmans, T. 2013. ‘Thinking through Networks: A Review of Formal Network Methods in Archaeology’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20: 62362.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brughmans, T., A. Collar, and F. Coward. 2016. The Connected Past: Challenges to Network Studies in Archaeology and History (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brughmans, T., J. W. Hanson, M. J. Mandich, I. Romanowska, X. Rubio-Campillo, S. Carrignon, S. Collins-Elliott, K. Crawford, D. Daems, F. Fulminante, T. de Haas, P. Kelly, M. del Carmen Moreno Escobar, E. Paliou, L. Prignano, and M. Ritondale. 2019. ‘Formal Modelling Approaches to Complexity Science in Roman Studies: A Manifesto’, Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal, 2: 119.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brughmans, T., S. Keay, and G. Earl. 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: 58143.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Burns, R. 2017. Origins of the Colonnaded Streets in the Cities of the Roman East (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Castells, M. 1996. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, i: The Rise of the Network Society (Oxford: Blackwell).
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cunningham, J. 2009. ‘Ethnoarchaeology beyond Correlates’, Ethnoarchaeology, 1: 11536.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Damsholt, T., D. G. Simonsen, and C. Mordhorst. 2009. Materialiseringer: Nye perspektiver på materialitet og kulturanalyse (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fletcher, R. 2004. ‘Materiality, Space, Time, and Outcome’, in J. Bintliff (ed.), A Companion to Archaeology (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 11040.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fletcher, R. 2010. ‘Urban Materialities: Meaning, Magnitude, Friction, and Outcomes’, in D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 45983.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gawlikowski, M. 2005. ‘L’Apothéose d’Odeinat sur une mosaïque récemment découverte à Palmyre’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2005: 12931304.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, S. 2006. Ex figlinis: The Network Dynamics of the Tiber Valley Brick Industry in the Hinterland of Rome (Oxford: Archaeopress).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gregory, S. and D. Kennedy. 1985. Sir Aurel Stein’s Limes Report, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 272 (Oxford: Archaeopress).
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hammad, M. 2008. ‘Un amphithéâtre à Tadmor-Palmyre?’, Syria, 85: 33946.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hodder, I. 1982. The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists (London: Batsford).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hodder, I. and A. Mol. 2016. ‘Network Analysis and Entanglement’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23: 106694.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Knappett, C. 2005. Thinking through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Knappett, C. 2011. An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Knappett, C. 2016. ‘Networks in Archaeology: Between Scientific Method and Humanistic Metaphor’, in T. Brughmans, A. Collar, and F. Coward (eds), The Connected Past: Challenges to Network Studies in Archaeology and History (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 2133.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Knappett, C., T. Evans, and R. Rivers. 2008. ‘Modelling Maritime Interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age’, Antiquity, 82: 100924.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf).
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Latour, B. 1996. ‘On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications’, Soziale Welt, 47: 36981.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mann, M. 1986. The Sources of Social Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Meyer, J. C. and E. H. Seland. 2016. ‘Palmyra and the Trade Route to the Euphrates’, ARAM Periodical, 28: 497523.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Patrich, J. 1990. The Formation of Nabataean Art: Prohibition of a Graven Image among the Nabataeans ( Jerusalem: Magnes).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Poidebard, A. 1934. La trace de Rome dans le désert de Syrie (Paris: Geuthner).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rollinger, C. 2020. ‘Prolegomena. Problems and Perspectives of Historical Network Research and Ancient History’, Journal of Historical Network Research, 4: 135.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1932. ‘The Caravan Gods of Palmyra’, Journal of Roman Studies, 22: 10716.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Roux, V. 2007. ‘Ethnoarchaeology: A Non Historical Science of Reference Necessary for Interpreting the Past’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14: 15378.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schlumberger, D. 1951. La Palmyrène du Nord-Ouest (Paris: Geuthner).
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schor, A. M. 2011. Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria (Berkeley: University of California Press).
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Seland, E. H. 2013. ‘Networks and Social Cohesion in Ancient Indian Ocean Trade: Geography, Ethnicity, Religion’, Journal of Global History, 8: 37390.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Seland, E. H. 2014. ‘The Organisation of the Palmyrene Caravan Trade’, Ancient West and East, 13: 197211.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Seland, E. H. 2016. Ships of the Desert and Ships of the Sea: Palmyra in the World Trade of the First Three Centuries ce (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Seland, E. H. 2019. ‘Portable Religion and the Palmyrene Diaspora’, in R. Raja (ed.), Revisiting the Religious Life of Palmyra, Contextualizing the Sacred, 9 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 18188.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Seland, E. H. 2021. ‘Local Dynamics of Globalization in the Roman Near East: The Case of Palmyra’, in T. Stordalen and O. S. LaBianca (eds), Levantine Entanglements: Local Dynamics of Globalization in a Contested Region (Sheffield: Equinox), pp. 22239.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Seyrig, H. and J. Starcky. 1949. ‘Genneas’, Syria, 26: 23057.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sindbæk, S. M. 2007. ‘The Small World of the Vikings: Networks in Early Medieval Communication and Exchange’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 40: 5974.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Teigen, H. F. and E. H. Seland. 2017. ‘Sinews of Empire and the Relational Turn in Classical Scholarship’, in H. F. Teigen and E. H. Seland (eds), Sinews of Empire: Networks in the Roman Near East and Beyond (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. vxii.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Teixidor, J. 1979. The Pantheon of Palmyra (Leiden: Brill).
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Weber, T. 1995. ‘Karawanegötter in der Dekapolis’, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 8: 20311.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1484/J.JUA.5.123680
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field.
Please enter a valid email address.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An error occurred.
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error:
Please enter a valid_number test
aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYnJlcG9sc29ubGluZS5uZXQv