Analytical Challenges for the Application of Social Network Analysis in Archaeology

As the chapters and citations in this volume attest, applications of network analytical techniques using archaeological data have a great deal of potential for both addressing traditional archaeological questions and for providing new directions for archaeological research. Importantly, however, many of the network models and methods imported from other fields that are currently gaining popularity within archaeology (see Brughmans 2013) have not yet been fully assessed in relation to the unique strengths and constraints of archaeological data. We argue that archaeological applications of network analyses necessitate particularly careful consideration of the nature of the data included and the applicability of network metrics, many of which were designed with quite different time-scales and levels of certainty in mind. We further argue that, if archaeologists are able to overcome such challenges, the opportunities afforded by archaeological data (e.g. long-term perspectives, material perspectives) will allow us to contribute substantially to broader interdisciplinary discussions of network methodology, interpretation, and theory. In this chapter, we explore four general challenges facing archaeologists applying formal network methods: (1) the use of artefacts to construct network relations; (2) temporal variation among the units of analysis; (3) the definition of network boundaries; and (4) the impact of incomplete datasets. We have confronted each of these issues in our own archaeological network analyses focused on prehispanic settlements in the US Southwest. Some challenges are unique to archaeology while others have been extensively discussed in other disciplinary contexts. Following a brief overview of the data and methods that form the basis of our study, we summarize each of these major issues and offer suggestions for how they might be addressed based on our own experiences and analyses. We do not suggest that we cover all or even most of the challenges archaeological network analysts will face. We do, however, offer a framework for assessing other factors that may influence characterizations of archaeological networks and a general approach for tempering interpretations in relation to such factors.