CAA UK 2018 Edinburgh CFP

The UK chapter of CAA hosts a conference each year, a perfect opportunity for UK-based researchers to get in touch with their community of computational archaeology practitioners. It’s been a very good place to showcase archaeological network research in the past, so send in those abstracts.

CFP deadline 23 February 2018.

The organisers of CAA-UK 2018 would like to invite papers and posters for the 2018 meeting, to be held in Edinburgh, at Augustine, 41-43 George IV Bridge, EH1 1EL. On the 26th-27th October.

The use of quantitative methods and computer applications in heritage is an ever-changing discipline, with new software becoming available and new processes being created every day.

We would like to invite the submission of papers and posters related to the general topics of quantitative methods and computer applications in heritage. Topics that could be covered include:

  • Archaeogaming
  • Data management
  • Geophysics & Remote sensing
  • GIS & Geospatial Analysis
  • Integration of scientific and theoretical methods in computing
  • Photogrammetry & 3D Recording
  • Public Engagement
  • Semantic web
  • Social media
  • Simulations
  • Statistical methods
  • Visualisation & 3D modelling
  • Visualisation & Mixed Reality in Archaeology
  • Website development in the heritage sector

Please note that this list is not exhaustive and we will consider submissions on any relevant topics.

Speakers will be allocated a maximum of 20 minutes for presentations. Please send your
abstracts to the organisers at:

The deadline for abstract submission is Friday 23rd February 2018.


PhD funding Ancient Near Eastern networks

The below PhD funding opportunity will be of interest to archaeologists/historians with an interest in network analysis and the ancient near east.

ANEE is pleased to announce we are looking for doctoral candidates.
Application text below, link here:

The Centre of Excellence in “Ancient Near Eastern Empires” (ANEE) at the
University of Helsinki will run from 2018-2025 and is directed by Dr.
Saana Svärd. ANEE asks: How do changing imperial dynamics impact social
group identities and lifeways over a millennium? ANEE covers the
Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic, and early Roman /
Parthian Empires. ANEE engages with methodologically varied yet
integrated research on the long-term processes by which social group
identities and lifeways were negotiated. Taken together, the innovations
of ANEE are the integrated longue durée approach; and the methodological
innovativeness of each team (both separately and in collaboration).
There will be several recruitment calls for fixed term positions during
ANEE’s lifespan (doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and
university researchers).

ANEE is now recruiting members for three teams which investigate
identity-building processes. Each team has a methodologically specific
approach yet collaborates on four work packages.

Applications are invited for DOCTORAL RESEARCHERS (1-3) for a fixed term
of up to 4 years, starting on or before 1 September 2018 to work in the
University of Helsinki. The successful candidates’ research projects
will focus on the goals of a team or teams. The applicant should
indicate to which team she/he is applying. The selected doctoral
candidates will need to apply for acceptance in the graduate school for
either the Faculty of Arts or Faculty of Theology in March 2018. Their
main duties will consist of PhD studies and writing of a dissertation.
As ANEE is deeply multidisciplinary, competence in more than one field
and/or proof of successful scientific collaboration will be considered
an advantage.

Team 1 “Digital Humanities Approaches” develops digital humanities
approaches (especially social network analysis and language technology),
using these to supplement the more traditional Assyriological
approaches. Team 1 is looking for applicants with a solid background in
Assyriology or a related field (within the chronological scope of ANEE) and/or skills in Digital Humanities that
can be put to use in relation to ANEE’s goals. Team 1 is led by Saana
Svärd (

Team 2 “Social Scientific Theory & Applications” tests and refines
theoretical models from the social sciences for ancient evidence,
integrating anthropological approaches to archaeology with sociological
readings of textual and archaeological evidence. Team 2 seeks students
with backgrounds in history of the Levant and/or the social sciences,
and especially with an interest in migration, forced labor, and/or elite
identities, and/or ancient historians of the Persian Empire with similar
profiles. Willingness to collaborate with other teams and multiple work
packages is desirable. Team 2 is led by Dr. Jason Silverman

Team 3 “Material Culture & Community Heritage” investigates the impact
of each empire on ancient local communities inhabiting the imperial
fringes and provides a sustainable future for this heritage. This it
does through an archaeological field survey program in the ancient
imperial fringe zone of southern Jordan and by developing a local
community outreach program there. Our work in Finland revolves around
promoting an understanding of Ancient Near Eastern heritage and
culture by developing a touring museum exhibition on the ancient Near
East. The team also aims to collaborate with the Finnish authorities to
further develop the policies and legislation regarding the trade in
illicit antiquities. Team 3 seeks doctoral candidates in ANE
archaeology, preferably with experience in GIS, remote sensing, and/or
satellite analysis. Team 3 is led by Dr. Antti Lahelma
(, who is also the vice-director of ANEE.

For more information on the three teams and the work packages, please

An appointee to the position of doctoral researcher must hold a Master’s
degree in a relevant field, and must subsequently be accepted as a
doctoral candidate in the graduate school in the Faculty of Arts and/or
Theology. The appointee must have the ability to conduct independent
scientific research. Teaching or teaching-related tasks will form 5 % of
the position. The candidate should have excellent analytical and
methodological skills, and be able to work both independently and
collaboratively as part of a multidisciplinary scientific community. The
successful candidates are expected to have excellent skills in written
and oral English. Skills in Finnish or Swedish are not required.
Relocation costs can be negotiated and ANEE will offer help and
information for the practicalities, if needed.

ANEE is functioning in the Faculty of Arts (Teams 1 and 3) and in the
Faculty of Theology (Team 2), located in the City Centre Campus. The
city of Helsinki is the capital city of Finland, with a population of
ca. 600 000. It has been consistently ranked amongst the top cities in
the world for quality of living. Founded in 1640, the University of
Helsinki is an international academic community of 40,000 students and
staff members. It operates on four campuses in Helsinki and at 15
other locations.

The salary for the position will be based on level 2 of the demands
level chart for teaching and research personnel in the salary system of
Finnish universities. In addition, the appointee will be paid a salary
component based on personal performance. The salary is EUR 2,186-2,873
per month, depending on the appointee’s qualifications and experience.
The position will be filled with a 4 months trial period.

Applications should consist of the following English-language documents:
(1) CV including a possible list of publications (max. 3 pages)
(2) Contact information for two referees
(3) A research statement (max. 2000 words) consisting of
i) a brief description of previous experience, such as MA thesis
ii) a proposal for the PhD project that the applicant wants to conduct
in ANEE (including suggested dates for the project)
iii) a brief description of the plans for scientific cooperation
within ANEE, preferably specifying relevant team and work packages.

Further information on the position may be obtained from the team
leaders (see above) or the director Saana Svärd (

Please submit your application, together with the required attachments,
through the University of Helsinki Recruitment System via the link Apply
for job. Applicants who are employees of the University of Helsinki are
requested to send their application via the SAP HR portal. Deadline for
applications is 31 January 2018.

If you need assistance with the University’s electronic recruitment
system or SAP HR portal, please contact

Apply at latest 31.01.2018

Ap­ply link:

Special issue ARCS welcomes paper proposals

A new publication opportunity: ARCS, a multi-disciplinary journal dedicated to network research in the social sciences. I am sure they welcome contributions from archaeologists and historians. Importantly: open access without processing fees!
More info on the journal website.


Since the 1960s, network analysis has been used in many disciplines in social science (sociology, geography, history, etc.) as well as in natural and formal science, with each discipline defining its own concepts and indicators. After the late 1990s, the circulation of concepts and indicators defined in physics, the development of new software and algorithms, and easier access to large relational datasets have changed practices and rearranged bridges and boundaries between disciplines.

Several papers have already assessed the influence of physicists on network analysis in sociology (Crossley, 2008), archaeology (Brughmans, 2013) and geography (Ducruet and Beauguitte, 2014), but there are still few studies of the circulation, or non-circulation, of network analysis methods and concepts between disciplines.

It would for example be interesting to understand why betweenness centrality has become a common indicator in the social sciences, whereas methods developed in ecology to analyze bipartite graphs are seldom used. Similarly, gravity models, which have been used in geography since the 1960s to study valued graphs, are largely ignored in sociology.

We welcome papers addressing (this is a non-limitative list):

  • the circulation, or non-circulation, of a specific concept or method between disciplines. What enabled or hindered this circulation (types of data, routine uses of software, publication formats, etc.), and which channels did it use? How did the concept or method change during its interdisciplinary journey? Reversely, can the reception of a concept or method in a different discipline have effects on the original one?
  • the genealogy of concepts and methods currently used in a specific discipline: where did they come from? How were they translated and adapted?
  • a classical text in network analysis, read from the perspective of a different discipline from that of its author.

Call for papers for a special issue of ARCSon Concepts and methods in network analysis: interdisciplinary circulation and boundaries, edited by Laurent Beauguitte (geographer, CNRS, Rouen) and Claire Lemercier (historian, CNRS, Paris)

Submission Guidelines

Authors must choose between two formats: “research paper” or “debates” (as defined here). Research papers must be based on clearly defined empirical data. Authors may use diverse types of data and methods: while this special issue explores practices in network analysis, these practices may be studied through network analysis (of citations or other types of links) as well as through other qualitative or quantitative methods. The editors have no a priori definition of “network analysis”: the aim of this special issue is precisely to emphasize the diversity of definitions across disciplines. Each author should therefore precisely state which exact methods or concepts he or she is considering.

Authors should send a one-page abstract to

before the end of 2017

The editors will confirm whether the intended contribution fits with the special issue and the journal. The complete papers will then be peer reviewed (the process is described here; the journal is committed to getting back to the authors within three months at most) and published between June 2018 and June 2019.


  • Brughmans, T. (2013). Thinking Through Networks: A Review of Formal Network Methods in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20, 623–662.
  • Crossley, N. (2008). Small-world networks, complex systems and sociology. Sociology, 42(2), 261–277.
  • Ducruet, C. & Beauguitte, L. (2014). Spatial science and network science: Review and outcomes of a complex relationship. Networks and Spatial Economics, 14(3-4), 297-316.

The Journal

ARCSis a multi-disciplinary journal dedicated to network analysis in social sciences. It publishes open access papers (without article processing charges) in English and French, under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. The authors are encouraged to publish their data along with their papers; the journal can provide advice in this regard. The authors must use a Word or Latex template (available here). The journal insists on the use of gender-inclusive language and can provide advice in this regard.

Scientific Committee

Editor in chief

  • Laurent Beauguitte  Géographie (CR, UMR IDEES)

Publishing board

  • Claire Lagesse, Géomatique (UMR THÉMA)
  • Serge Lhomme, Géographie (MCF, EA Lab’Urba)
  • Marion Maisonobe, Géographie (UMR LISST)
  • Silvia Marzagalli, Histoire (PU, EA CMMC)
  • Pierre Mercklé, Sociologie (MCF, UMR CMW)

Agents, networks and models: CFP for our CAA2018 session

We welcome abstracts from those studying the human past using tools from network science, agent-based modelling and other complexity science approaches.
What? A session at the Computer Applications and Quantitative Techniques in Archaeology (CAA) conference
CFP deadline: 22 October
When? 19-23 March 2018

Agents, networks and models: formal approaches to systems, relationships and change in archaeology

Iza Romanowska
Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Spain

Tom Brughmans
University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Benjamin Davies
University of Auckland, New Zealand

Even if much ink has already been spilled on the need to use formal, computational methods to represent theories, compare alternative hypotheses and develop more complex narratives, the idea is still far from being firmly established in archaeology.

Complexity Science, the study of systems consisting of a collection of interconnected relationships and parts, provides a useful framework for formalising social and socio-natural models and it is often under this umbrella term that formal models are presented in archaeology. It has a particular appeal for researchers concerned with humans, as it stresses the importance of individual actions and interactions, as well as relations between individuals and wider system elements. Archaeology is a discipline that studies long-term, large-scale shifts in social change, human evolution, and relationships with the environment; how these phenomena emerge through the actions and interactions of individuals are questions that lie at the heart of our interests. Complexity Science offers an arsenal of methods that were developed specifically to tackle these kind of mulitscalar, multifaceted research questions.

This session will provide a forum for archaeological case studies developed using Complexity Science toolkits as well as for more methodological papers. We invite submissions of models at any stage of development from the first formalisation of the conceptual model to presenting final results.

Possible topics include but are not limited to applications or discussions of the following approaches:

  • Complexity science,
  • Network science,
  • Agent-based and equation-based modelling,
  • System dynamics,
  • Long-term change in social systems,
  • Social simulation in geographical space,
  • Complex urban systems, space syntax, gravity models.

Open Science in Archaeology: publication and special interest group

Work for two years, write a paper about it in two months, lose all rights to it in a second, hide it behind a pay-wall… Sound familiar? This is the traditional academic process in archaeology. Our very diverse work ranging from excavation, over lab tests, to interpretations is often only made available through a summarising publication that is rarely accessible to anyone other than institutions paying huge amounts of money. This is just not the way science works anymore. In such a system, how can we find out all the details of excavation results? How can we reproduce lab tests? How can we evaluate the empirical and historical background to a published interpretation in exhaustive detail? The answer is: we can’t.

It’s time for this traditional practice to change. Archaeology should follow the trend in academia towards more open science. The argument for open science in archaeology is made elaborately by Ben Marwick in a recently published paper in the SAA archaeological record, and the statements are supported by a large group of archaeologists (including myself). The paper announces the start of the SAA open science in archaeology special interest group. Check out the group’s wiki and get involved!

Here’s the paper’s abstract:

In archaeology, we are accustomed to investing great effort into collecting data from fieldwork, museum collections, and other sources, followed by detailed description, rigorous analysis, and in many cases ending with publication of our findings in short, highly concentrated reports or journal articles. Very often, these publications are all that is visible of this lengthy process, and even then, most of our journal articles are only accessible to scholars at institutions paying subscription fees to the journal publishers. While this traditional model of the archaeological research process has long been effective at generating new knowledge about our past, it is increasingly at odds with current norms of practice in other sciences. Often described as ‘open science’, these new norms include data stewardship instead of data ownership, transparency in the analysis process instead of secrecy, and public involvement instead of exclusion. While the concept of open science is not new in archaeology (e.g., see Lake 2012 and other papers in that volume), a less transparent model often prevails, unfortunately. We believe that there is much to be gained, both for individual researchers and for the discipline, from broader application of open science practices. In this article, we very briefly describe these practices and their benefits to researchers. We introduce the Society for American Archaeology’s Open Science Interest Group (OSIG) as a community to help archaeologists engage in and benefit from open science practices, and describe how it will facilitate the adoption of open science in archaeology.

The Romans and calculators: discuss! (debate published in Antiquity)

What are the limits of using computational modelling for understanding the Roman past? Where do such formal approaches fit in the existing theoretical context of Roman studies? These are the questions we debate in a discussion piece published today in Antiquity; a reply to Astrid Van Oyen’s critical and constructive discussion of our previous computational modelling work also published in Antiquity.

In our original work we argued that computational modelling should become more commonly used in the study of the Roman economy, because it holds the potential of overcoming the current deadlock in Roman macroeconomic debates by formally expressing and comparing the many interesting conflicting descriptive models, simulating their predicted behaviour (in terms of distributions of goods and prices) and comparing these simulations with archaeological data such as distributions of ceramics.

Astrid Van Oyen wrote an elaborate discussion piece, reviewing the beneficial and challenging aspects of this kind of work. She usefully and correctly places the potential of this method within current Roman economic debates, arguing for the timeliness of the approach. However, most of Van Oyen’s piece is concerned with problematising three aspects of the approach, asking whether these pose problems, and constructively thinking through possible alternatives:

  1. Can formalist modelling yield primitivist results?
  2. Do the big archaeological datasets of ceramics necessarily have to be interpreted in light of the flow of commodities?
  3. Is it possible to consider heterogeneity in agent behaviour?

In our reply, we answer the first question with a firm “yes”. We find the link commonly drawn between primitivist theories and substantivist methods on the one hand, and modernist theories and formalist methods on the other, an unhelpful and unnecessary byproduct of common practice in Roman economy studies. We argue we have shown in our own work that primitivist ideas can be formally explored (agents with limited information, the effects of social network structures), and that much more of this kind of work is necessary.

We find this debate hugely important and constructive, because we have argued that Roman economy studies is stuck in a deadlock due to a number of issues:

  1. Many models use different and sometimes ill-defined concepts to describe the complexities of the Roman economy, making them difficult to compare.
  2. The concepts used often lack specifications as to how they may be explored using data, i.e. what sort of patterns would be expected as the outcome of hypothetical processes.
  3. Consequently, the development of these conceptual models has not gone hand in hand with the development of approaches to represent, compare and (where possible) validate them formally.
  4. The role of archaeological data in testing conceptual models, although increasingly recognised, deserves greater attention, as it is the only source of information on the functioning and performance of the Roman economy that can be used for quantitative validation of complex computational and conceptual models.

Brughmans and Poblome 2016. Antiquity.

We sincerely hope that together we can position computational modelling in its rightful place in Roman studies to constructively contribute to ongoing substantive debates. We have argued that in order for this to happen, a few things are necessary:

authors of conceptual models should:

(a) clearly define the concepts used and discuss exactly how these differ from the concepts used by others,

(b) make explicit how these concepts can be represented as data,

(c) describe the expected behaviour of the system using the defined concepts,

(d) describe the expected data patterns resulting from this behaviour, and

(e) define how (if at all) archaeological and historical sources can be used as reflections or proxies of these expected data patterns.

Brughmans and Poblome 2016 5.6

Want to know more? Have a look at discussion through the links below:

Our original paper in Antiquity
Van Oyen’s discussion
Our reply

Submit your work to the new CAA journal!

Finally those of us developing and applying computational techniques to the study of the human past have an appropriate place to publish our work. At last year’s CAA conference in Atlanta the new Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology was launched! A much needed journal on a topic that’s booming. It’s entirely open access and supports online data deposition. The journal has an open rolling call for papers: submit now!


The Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology (JCAA) publishes high quality, original papers that focuses on research on the interface between archaeology and informatics. This peer-reviewed journal provides immediate open access.

We now invite high quality papers on all the aspects of digital archaeology, including, – but not restricted to – databases and semantic web, statistics and data mining, 3D modelling, GIS, spatial analysis, remote sensing and geophysics, other field recording techniques, simulation modelling, network analysis and digital reconstructions of the past for consideration for publication in the Journal. Papers can be targeted towards scientific research, cultural heritage management and/or public archaeology.

We accept papers falling in one of the following four categories:

• Research articles, describing the outcomes and application of unpublished original research
• Case studies, expanding on the application of established technologies/methods to shed light on archaeological enquiries.
• Position papers, summarising and reflecting upon current trends in the application of established or new technologies, methods or theories.
• Reviews, covering topics such as current controversies or the historical development of studies as well as issues of regional or temporal focus.

Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Manuscript Preparation

Please refer to the Journal Information and submission instructions for Author about manuscript preparation:
All manuscripts should be submitted online at:

Publication Frequency

The journal is published online as a continuous volume and issue throughout the year. Articles are made available as soon as they are ready to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays in getting content publicly available.

Article Processing Charge

JCAA is a full Open Access journal. Accepted papers will be published upon payment of a £300 Article Processing Charge. For APC waiver options, please contact the Editors.

For further information please refer to the JCAA website or contact the JCAA Editorial Team at .

Complex Systems and Change, session at Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference

Calton-Hill-2-CAMWe invite papers for a session on complexity science/advanced data analysis/formal modelling at the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC, Edinburgh, 12-14 April 2018). Please find the abstract below. This is a double session, the first part ‘Exploring Complex Systems’ will focus on finding patters, defining relationships and exploring past complexity, while the second part ‘Understanding Change’ will showcase applications of formal methods to understand social and economic processes and change.

To submit an abstract (300 words), please complete the submission template available here:

and send it to .
Deadline: 6 October 2018.
If you would like to discuss your paper before submitting, please feel free to contact us (see cc).

Tom Brughmans, John W. Hanson, Matthew J. Mandich, Iza Romanowska, Xavier Rubio-Campillo

Call for papers, session at Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Edinburgh 12-14 April 2018:

Formal Approaches to Complexity in Roman Archaeology: Exploring Complex Systems and Understanding Change

Part 1: Exploring Complex Systems
Part 2: Understanding Change

Session Organisers: Tom Brughmans (University of Oxford) – John W. Hanson (University of Colorado) – Matthew J. Mandich (University of Leicester) – Iza Romanowska (Barcelona Supercomputing Center) – Xavier Rubio-Campillo (University of Edinburgh)

In recent years archaeologists have increasingly employed innovative approaches used for the study of complex systems to better interpret and model the social, political, and economic structures and interactions of past societies. However, for the majority of Roman archaeologists these approaches remain elusive as a comprehensive review and evaluation is lacking, especially regarding their application in Roman archaeology.

In brief, a complex system is made up of many interacting parts (‘components’ or ‘agents’) which form a whole that is more than the sum of its parts – i.e. the interactions of these parts lead to emergent behaviors or outcomes that cannot be (easily) predicted by examining the parts individually. While such systems are characterized by their unpredictable, adaptive, and/or non-linear nature, they are (often) self-organising and governed by observable rules that can be analysed via various methods. For example, many past phenomena, such as urbanism or the functioning of the Roman economy, are complex systems composed of multiple interacting elements and driven by the diverse processes acting upon individuals inhabiting the ancient world. Thus, they can be explored using the approaches and methods of complexity science.

The study of complex systems has primarily been undertaken in contemporary settings, in disciplines such as physics, ecology, medicine, and economics. Yet, as the complex nature of ancient civilizations and their similarity to present-day  systems is being steadily realized through ongoing analysis, survey, and excavation, archaeologists have now begun to use methods such as scaling studies (e.g. settlement scaling theory), agent-based modeling, and network analyses to approach this complexity. Since these methodologies are designed to examine the interactions and feedback between components within complex systems empirically, they can provide new ways of looking at old data and old problems to supply novel conclusions. However, such methods have only been applied sporadically in ancient settings, and even less so in a Roman context or using Roman archaeological data.
Thus, in this two part session we aim to bring these methods, and the Roman archaeologists using them, together by offering a critical review of the theoretical and empirical developments within the study of past complex systems and their interplay with existing ideas, before investigating how we might capitalize on the new opportunities afforded by them in the future. Part I of this session, ‘exploring complex systems’, is concerned with examining and unraveling the underlying structures present in the archaeological record using the formal tools provided by the complex systems framework. Part II, ‘understanding change’, will focus on applications exploring the dynamics of change that generated the patterns observed in existing evidence. In particular, we invite contributions using formal methods including computational modelling and simulation, GIS, and network analyses, as well as diverse theoretical approaches to better understand ancient complex systems.

The Connected Past CFP deadline 21 May and registration open now!

Registration for The Connected Past conference and workshop is now open:

Don’t forget to send in your abstracts: call for papers deadline 21 May. Further information below:

Call for papers The Connected Past 2017, August 24-25th 2017, Bournemouth University (UK)

The Connected Past 2017: The Future of Past Networks? 

August 24-25th 2017 

Bournemouth University (UK) 

August 22-23rd 2017 Practical Networks Workshop

 The Connected Past 2017 is a multi-disciplinary, international two-day conference that aims to provide a friendly and informal platform for exploring the use of network research in the study of the human past. 

 It will be preceded by a two-day practical workshop offering hands-on experience with a range of network science methods.

Deadline call for papers: May 21, 2017

Notification of acceptance: May 29, 2017

Conference registration (includes coffee breaks and lunch): £35

Workshop registration (includes coffee breaks): £20

Keynotes: Eleftheria Paliou and discussant Chris Tilley (tbc)

Organisers: Fiona Coward, Anna Collar & Tom Brughmans

Call for Papers

Five years have passed since the first Connected Past conference (Southampton 2012) brought together scholars working in archaeology, history, physics, mathematics and computer science to discuss how network methods, models and thinking might be used to enhance our understanding of the human past. Much has happened in these intervening years: applications of network analysis have expanded rapidly; a number of collected volumes dealing explicitly with network analysis of the past have been published (e.g. The Connected Past, OUP 2016; Special Issue of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2015; Network Analysis in Archaeology, OUP 2013); and several dedicated groups of scholars are thriving, including the Connected Past itself which hosted conferences in Paris and London, but also the Historical Network Research group, Res-Hist and others. The Connected Past 2017 will provide an opportunity to take stock of the developments of the past five years and to discuss the future of network research in archaeology and history. How will new network models, methods and thinking shape the ways we study the past? 

We welcome submissions of abstracts that address the challenges posed by the use of or apply network approaches in historical/archaeological research contexts, welcoming case studies drawn from all periods and places. Topics might include, but are not limited to: 

        Missing and incomplete data in archaeological and historical networks

        Networks, space and place

        Network change over time

        What kinds of data can archaeologists and historians use to reconstruct past networks and what kinds of issues ensue?

        Categories in the past vs categories in our analysis: etic or emic, pre-determined or emergent?

        Formal network analysis vs qualitative network approaches: pros, cons, potential, limitations

Please submit your abstract limited to 250 words before midnight (GMT) of May 21st 2017 to  

 NB. If there is sufficient demand, we will endeavour to organise a crêche for delegates’ children (under 3). An extra fee may be payable for this, although fee-waivers may be available in certain circumstances. Further details would be provided in due course. In order to allow us to assess demand, please let us know in advance if this would be useful for you.  

Blog at

Up ↑