{"id":963,"date":"2012-04-22T11:16:50","date_gmt":"2012-04-22T11:16:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/?p=963"},"modified":"2012-04-22T11:16:50","modified_gmt":"2012-04-22T11:16:50","slug":"an-overview-of-the-connected-past","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/blog\/963","title":{"rendered":"An overview of The Connected Past"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Over the weekend of 24-25 March 2012 a group of 150 archaeologists, historians, mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists and others from 19 different countries met at The University of Southampton. Their objective: to discuss the critical application of network and complexity perspectives to archaeology and history. The result: a stimulating and friendly gathering of academics from very diverse backgrounds who collectively created the exciting discussion platform the organisers believe is crucial to the development of future critical applications in our disciplines.<\/p>\n

The last few weeks were hectic for Anna Collar, Fiona Coward and myself. There were many last-minute decisions to be made and problems to be solved. But in the end everything and everyone arrived on time to kick-start the symposium. Most delegates arrived from all over Europe and North America, and some joined us from as far as Australia and Japan. We were happy to welcome delegates from over 60 different universities. The most important work during the symposium took place behind the scenes by Lucie Bolton and her great team of volunteers who were there to welcome all delegates at 8am and make sure they were fuelled with lunch, coffee and cakes throughout the day. The Connected Past would not have been possible without them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Jon Adams, head of the Department of Archaeology here in Southampton, opened the symposium and introduced our first keynote speaker Alex Bentley<\/a>. Alex discussed in what cases certain types of network approaches are useful when exploring complex social systems. His paper provided a great start of the conference by setting out a framework for complex systems simulation and identifying the role networks could play within this. A first session of the symposium followed with a very diverse group of papers discussing a range of theoretical and methodological issues. Tom Brughmans<\/a> explored the evolution of formal archaeological network analysis through a citation network analysis. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller<\/a> argued for the incorporation of Luhmann\u2019s systems theory in historical network approaches. Andy Bevan<\/a> explored the issues involved in tracing ancient networks in geographical space. After a coffee break Astrid Van Oyen<\/a> presented us with the Actor-Network-Theory perspective and how this might be usefully applied in an archaeological context. S\u00f8ren Sindb\u00e6k<\/a> made some very critical remarks concerning a direct mapping of exchange networks from distributions of archaeological data. Finally, Marten D\u00fcring<\/a> presented a particularly fascinating approach of support networks for persecuted Jews in World War II and compared the usefulness of different centrality measures on it.<\/p>\n

After lunch we reconvened for a session called \u2018Big data and archaeology\u2019, which included presentations of big datasets that showed particular potential to explore using networks on the one hand and archaeological applications of network analysis on the other. The session was opened by Barbara Mills<\/a> who presented the work of her team on exploring distribution networks of a large archaeological dataset from the US southwest. Caroline Waerzeggers<\/a> presented a dataset of tens of thousands of cuneiform tablets which hold a large variety of past relationships that can be usefully explore with network techniques. Mark Depauw and Bart Van Beek<\/a> similarly presented an impressive dataset which includes references to almost half a million people living in Graeco-Roman Egypt. After tea Eivind Heldaas Seland<\/a> introduced us to a highly qualified view of networks of travel and religion in late antiquity. Alessandro Quercia and Lin Foxhall<\/a> presented their networks of loom weights, which is part of the wider Tracing Networks<\/a> project. Angus Mol<\/a> took us to the Caribbean with his network approach of a rather small but fascinating lithic assemblage. Finally, Craig Alexander<\/a> discussed his study of visibility networks in Iron Age Valcamonica.<\/p>\n

At the end of the day we had the pleasure of listening to Carl Knappett live from Toronto via a Skype call. We decided to go for this low-tech option because sadly we could not guarantee tech-support during the weekend and wanted to avoid complications. I am sure this is the first time Carl had a Skype meeting with 150 people at the same time. Carl Knappett suggested that in order for network approaches to be usefully applied in archaeology we need be aware of the diversity of available approaches and preferably work in collaboration with network specialists. In some cases, however, networks are not the best perspective to approach our archaeological questions. In his recently published \u2018An archaeology of interaction\u2019<\/a> Carl points to a wide range of theories and methods that may or may not work within the same framework, but knowledge of this diversity might lead to their more critical and useful applications. This second keynote presentation was followed by a wine reception and a visit to our local pub The Crown.<\/p>\n

After a long night out and a nights-sleep further shortened by daylight savings time we were surprised to see almost all delegates appear at 9am to listen to our third keynote Irad Malkin<\/a>. Irad recently published \u2018A small Greek world\u2019<\/a> in which he sees the emergence of Greek identity through network goggles by using a vocabulary adopted from complex network analysis to describe the processes he identified in ancient sources. Irad\u2019s keynote address stressed how a networks approach allows us to revisit old questions and how it allows for spatial structure to be compared with other types of relationships. The subsequent session titled \u2018Dynamic networks and modelling\u2019 began with a great presentation by Ray Rivers<\/a> stressing that archaeologists need to be aware of the implications of decisions made when modelling the past and selecting \u2018Goldilocks\u2019 networks that seem just right. Next, Anne Kandler<\/a> presented her network model for exploring the transmission of ideas, which shows how the structure of complex networks influences cultural change. Caitlin Buck<\/a> presented the work by her team on a new (and very robust looking) model for the spread of agriculture in Britain and Europe at large. After the break Tim Evans<\/a> presented a much needed paper comparing different network models and their potential uses. The discussions after this paper revealed that such a comparison along with archaeological case studies would be a very welcome resource to archaeologists interested in networks. Juan Barcel\u00f3<\/a> presented a Bayesian network approach to explore causal factors determining the emergence and the effects of restricted cooperation among hunter-gatherer societies. Marco B\u00fcchler<\/a> presented his fascinating work on text re-use graphs he and his team in of the eTraces<\/a> project in the Leipzig centre for eHumanities<\/a> are working on.<\/p>\n

After lunch we had the pleasure of listening to papers in our last session \u2018Personal, political and migration networks\u2019. Wilko Schroeter<\/a> presented on marriage networks of Europe\u2019s ruling families from 1600-1900. Ekaterini Mitsiou<\/a> moved our attention to the Eastern Mediterranean in her discussion of aristocratic networks in the 13th century. Evi Gorogianni<\/a> made us look at dowry in a new way by stressing the relationships they establish and express. After tea Elena Isayev<\/a> made us explore the early 3rd century BC networks of Italy outside the Italian peninsula. Claire Lemercier<\/a> provided us with some critical comments on the historical use of formal network techniques and illustrated this through a case study on migration in northern France. Amara Thornton<\/a> traced networks of individuals linked to the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Finally, Katherine Larson<\/a> showed us a particularly creative way of seeing networks in the archaeological record by linking sculptors\u2019 signatures on ancient statues.<\/p>\n

In our eyes The Connected Past was a great success. We enjoyed the experience of organising the event and were delighted with the overwhelming response to our call for papers and registration. We received some great reviews from Tim Evans<\/a> and Matteo Romanello<\/a>. In the end, however, it was the delegates themselves who seized the opportunity to engage in multi-disciplinary discussions and to consider future collaborations in innovative research directions.<\/p>\n

The Connected Past does not end here! In some time we will make some of the recorded talks available online, we will publish the proceedings and we have plans for future meetings. All to be revealed in time. For now all we want to say is: thank you for a fascinating weekend and keep up the multi-disciplinary discussions!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Over the weekend of 24-25 March 2012 a group of 150 archaeologists, historians, mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists and others from 19 different countries met at The University of Southampton. Their objective: to discuss the critical application of network and complexity perspectives to archaeology and history. The result: a stimulating and friendly gathering of academics from very diverse backgrounds who collectively …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":93015,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6494],"tags":[93836,202894,35630,203193,16101,20531],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/963"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/93015"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=963"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/963\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalhumanities.soton.ac.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}