Network Perspectives in the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean

1 Introduction

This Special Issue originates from the workshop Network Perspectives in the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, organized by Ancient Near Eastern Empires (ANEE), a Centre of Excellence funded by the Research Council of Finland (2018–2025). The workshop, held at the University of Helsinki on 13–14 December 2021, brought together archaeologists engaged in network analysis to explore new methods for studying data and materials without the need for additional fieldwork, as the Covid-19 pandemic continued to restrict mobility.

The pandemic profoundly affected archaeology and the humanities more broadly, disrupting established research practices, delaying educational achievement, and creating economic hardship (e.g., Balandier et al. 2022; Hoggarth et al. 2021). Excavations, surveys, and heritage projects across the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East were postponed or cancelled, causing significant delays in data collection and training. Yet, alongside the reduction in travel and the increase in remote collaborations brought on by online meetings, not all consequences were negative, as the circumstances compelled archaeologists to experiment with alternative ways of addressing research questions. In particular, they accelerated the adoption of digital methodologies, a transformation that continues to reshape the discipline. When they were prevented from going to the field, many archaeologists were forced to reorient their work toward archival materials, studies based on remote sensing, and digital datasets.

Having been exposed to network analysis since the inception of ANEE, we chose to shift our research focus toward computerized network analysis and the modelling of archaeological datasets. Such approaches could be pursued remotely using published fieldwork data, spatial analysis (e.g. GIS-based least-cost path analysis), and satellite imagery. This shift had unexpected benefits. Whereas inter-team communication had previously been hampered by disciplinary differences in data and methodology used by linguists, sociologists, and archaeologists, network analysis provided, for the first time, a shared conceptual and methodological foundation for exploring our distinct datasets with common computational tools. It thus enabled a genuinely multidisciplinary study of the past, significantly lowering the traditional barriers between textual scholars and archaeologists.

The rise of network analysis has transformed how archaeologists conceptualize past connectivity, yet it also intensifies concerns about data sovereignty and ethical engagement. In politically sensitive regions such as the Near East, where heritage carries profound contemporary significance, it is essential to ensure that digital and analytical innovations do not marginalize local stakeholders or reinforce external control over cultural data. Moving forward, only through ethical, reflexive, and collaborative practices can network archaeology foster genuine knowledge co-production with local scholars and communities while mitigating the enduring legacy of colonialism and data extraction.

2 Networks in Archaeology

In recent decades, network thinking has become one of the most productive frameworks for understanding interaction, mobility, and material entanglement in the ancient world (Dawson & Iacono 2021; Terrell et al. 2023). Although widely used across the humanities and social sciences, network analysis remains a relatively recent methodological and conceptual addition to archaeology (Brughmans and Peeples 2023). The first archaeological applications appeared already in the late 1960s and 1970s, inspired by developments in the social sciences, but this process was constrained by limited computational capacity and by broader theoretical shifts within processual and post-processual archaeology, which emphasized systemic or interpretive rather than formal relational models.

Renewed interest emerged in the late 1990s, with the rise of complexity science and the growing availability of digital datasets. By the early 2010s, network approaches had become established in mainstream archaeology, reflected in major conferences such as The Connected Past and a growing body of methodological and theoretical work (e.g., Knappett 2011; Brughmans 2010, 2013; Collar et al. 2015). These developments drew variably on two main traditions: the sociological study of social relations (social network analysis, SNA) and network or complexity science, which models systemic interactions in natural and social systems. The shared premise is that the structure of relationships among actors – whether people, sites, or artefacts – constrains and enables their behaviour, influencing historical outcomes.

In sociology, SNA typically examines relationships between individuals or institutions, represented as ‘nodes’ connected by ‘edges’ that denote social ties. Networks can be visualized as graphs, in which nodes and connections are mapped diagrammatically, or as matrices, in which links are expressed numerically. Archaeological network analysis, by contrast, often substitutes people with places, assemblages, or objects, reconstructing patterns of interaction indirectly from material evidence. Links between archaeological nodes are usually defined through the presence or similarity of material classes, such as shared ceramic types, lithic industries, or architectural forms. The strength of connection may be quantified by the degree of similarity – e.g., the proportion of shared artefacts – or modelled in combination with geographic distance or transport cost. In this sense, archaeological networks operate simultaneously on social and spatial dimensions, making the discipline particularly well suited for network approaches.

Network approaches in archaeology operate along two complementary axes: as computational tools for modelling connectivity and as conceptual frameworks for interpreting relations. On the one hand, formal techniques such SNA, graph theory, and GIS-based connectivity modelling allow researchers to quantify patterns of exchange or communication. On the other, network theory extends into the ontological domain, emphasizing the relational constitution of past worlds – an orientation that resonates with broader developments such as Actor-Network Theory (Latour 2005), complexity studies (Daems 2021), and material agency (Knappett 2011; Malafouris 2013).

A number of conceptual distinctions derived from sociology and network science have proven particularly fruitful for archaeology (Dawson 2020), such as the differentiation between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ ties (Granovetter 1973). Strong ties – frequent and sustained interactions, such as the repeated exchange of multiple goods – tend to reinforce cohesion and internal stability. Weak ties – occasional or single exchanges, for example a rare pottery type traded between distant communities – often play a disproportionate role in transmitting innovations and connecting otherwise separated groups. Networks rich in strong ties are typically conservative and prone to forming closed cliques, whereas those with numerous weak ties exhibit greater openness and adaptability.

‘Gateways’ represent nodes that connect distinct networks or cultural spheres, functioning as intermediaries for goods and ideas. The concept of scale-free networks, characterized by a ‘rich-get-richer’ tendency in which certain nodes accumulate ever more connections, can illuminate the emergence of elite or central sites within regional systems. A further model of interest is that of ‘small-world’ networks (Watts and Strogatz 1988). These are highly clustered but also contain numerous ‘short-cuts’ linking distant nodes. Such configurations combine local cohesion with global reach, ensuring that connections persist even if some nodes disappear – a property associated with resilience. The familiar ‘six degrees of separation’ phenomenon illustrates this principle, in which most actors can be reached through a small number of intermediaries. In archaeological terms, small-world structures may characterize trade or communication systems capable of maintaining integration despite disruptions.

Network analysis thus provides archaeology with a versatile set of tools for exploring patterns of connectivity, interaction, and resilience. Whether used qualitatively to trace social relationships through material culture or quantitatively to model system properties, network approaches foreground the relational nature of the archaeological record. They enable the integration of social, spatial, and material data within a single analytical framework, offering new ways to investigate how ancient communities organized, interacted, and endured change. Beyond their methodological value, networks have also transformed how archaeologists conceptualize the ancient world itself – not as a mosaic of bounded cultures or discrete regions, but as a web of interlinked relationships among people, places, materials, and ideas.

3 Contributions to This Special Issue

The ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, with their long-standing traditions of exchange and cultural convergence, provide an ideal context for network-based approaches. In these regions, trade routes, migration corridors, and shifting imperial systems intersected to create enduring structures of interaction. Network analysis offers a powerful tool for exploring such complexities, revealing how patterns of movement and communication shaped social, economic, and ideological formations. Over the past decade, its application in Near Eastern archaeology has expanded considerably, enhancing our understanding of enduring questions – such as human-environment interaction, societal complexity, mobility, and trade – while also opening new avenues of research.

The six papers assembled here contribute to this growing body of work by demonstrating how network approaches can be adapted to diverse forms of evidence – from ceramics and inscriptions to papyri and literary texts – and applied across varied temporal and spatial scales to address a wide spectrum of research questions. They share a common goal: to move beyond static typologies and region-bound analyses toward dynamic, relational understandings of connectivity in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean and Near East. Through case studies ranging from the Neolithic Zagros to Byzantine Constantinople, the contributors apply network thinking to archaeological, textual, and pictographic data alike. Collectively, these studies reveal how relational approaches can illuminate the interplay between material culture, environment, and social process across both local and transregional scales.

Dries Daems’ article, Networks of Pots: The Usage of Ceramics in Network Analysis in Mediterranean Archaeology, offers a critical methodological overview of how ceramic datasets can inform network analysis. Through three case studies – Bronze Age Apulia, Roman trade (via the ICRATES database), and Byzantine Crete – Daems demonstrates how pottery, the most ubiquitous archaeological material, can serve as both a proxy for social interaction and a testing ground for computational modelling. His discussion of temporal bias and time-averaging highlights the need for nuanced engagement between material specialists and data scientists. In this sense, the paper provides a methodological cornerstone for the volume, positioning ceramics as a bridge between empirical observation and formal network theory.

Amy Richardson’s Networks of Knowledge, Materials, and Practice in the Neolithic Zagros extends network thinking to prehistory. Drawing on results from the Central Zagros Archaeological Project, she traces how obsidian, marine shells, clay figurines, and ornamental stones linked highland and lowland communities across the early Holocene. Integrating geochemical and typological data with Material Engagement Theory (Malafouris 2013), Richardson reconceptualizes Neolithic exchange as a process of embodied knowledge transfer rather than simple material movement. Her model of “networks of practice” reveals how technological creativity, ritual expression, and environmental adaptation were co-constituted through ongoing relational engagement.

Laurel Darcy Hackley, Jennifer Gates-Foster, and Bérangère Redon in Weak Ties on Old Roads: Inscribed Stopping-Places and Complex Networks in the Eastern Desert of Graeco-Roman Egypt address the interplay between landscape, mobility, and inscriptional practice. Drawing on the ERC-funded Desert Networks project, they analyse how the material affordances of the Eastern Desert shaped human interaction between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea. Using GIS modelling and the concept of ‘weak ties’, they demonstrate how ephemeral stopping-places such as Wadi Minayh and Buweib functioned as crucial nodes in long-distance communication systems. Inscriptions dedicated to deities like Pan and Min accumulated over centuries, forming palimpsests of movement, devotion, and social contact. The study exemplifies how network analysis can merge spatial, environmental, and semiotic dimensions of connectivity.

Dermot Grant’s Mediterranean Trade Networks and the Diffusion and Syncretism of Art and Architecture Styles at Delos investigates how commercial, artistic, and religious networks intersected on the island of Delos from the Archaic through the Hellenistic periods. Employing SNA to correlate trade goods, building materials, and stylistic influences, Grant visualizes the island as an evolving ‘ego-network’ embedded within wider Mediterranean systems. The same routes that conveyed commodities also transmitted architectural and iconographic forms, turning Delos into a cosmopolitan hub of syncretism. His results underscore how network perspectives can unite economic and cultural histories, and how art and architecture can function as active participants in systems of exchange.

Lena Tambs’ People and Things on the Move: Tracking Paths with Social Network Analysis applies digital network methods to the Zenon Archive, a vast corpus of third-century BCE papyri documenting the operations of the Ptolemaic administration. Through a carefully delimited dataset of 36 early texts, Tambs constructs multi-partite networks linking individuals, places, and documents, visualizing mobility and interaction within the empire’s administrative geography. Her combination of prosopography, spatial analysis, and SNA demonstrates the potential of text-based datasets for reconstructing ancient systems of communication. The study marks an important methodological advance for historical network archaeology, illustrating how documentary and archaeological evidence can be integrated within a common relational framework.

Finally, Marlena Whiting and Marco Weppelmann-Akyildiz in Networks and the City: A Network Perspective on Procopius De Aed. I and the Building of Late Antique Constantinople turn to the literary construction of networks. Using Procopius’s sixth-century Buildings as a source, they compare narrative and historical networks of patronage and architecture in Justinian’s Constantinople. By mapping relationships among patrons, architects, and projects, and contrasting these with external archaeological data, they reveal Procopius’s rhetorical manipulation of connections – particularly his deliberate centering of Justinian and suppression of alternative agents. The study showcases network visualization as a critical tool for textual hermeneutics, uncovering the ideological work performed by ancient narratives of connectivity.

4 Towards Relational Archaeologies of Connectivity

Although the papers range widely in period and dataset, some unifying themes emerge. First, and as already noted, all contributors emphasize the value of relational rather than typological thinking. Whether through ceramic typologies, inscriptions, or papyri, each author treats data as traces of interactional processes rather than isolated artefacts. Second, the volume demonstrates the methodological diversity of network analysis in archaeology. Some papers employ quantitative SNA and computational modelling (Daems, Tambs, Grant), while others integrate qualitative, phenomenological, or textual perspectives (Richardson, Hackley et al., Whiting & Weppelmann-Akyildiz). This diversity underscores the view that networks extend beyond mere statistical analysis into the interpretative realm, exploring the structure and nature of social and material relations. Third, several contributions foreground the agency of non-human actors – objects, landscapes, and infrastructures – in constituting networks. The Eastern Desert’s topography (Hackley et al.), the affordances of ceramics (Daems), and the textual architectures of Procopius all demonstrate that connectivity in the ancient world depended as much on environmental and material affordances as on human intent. Such insights resonate with broader currents in relational and posthumanist archaeology (e.g., Watts 2013; Herva and Lahelma 2020; Crellin et al. 2021), but have not yet been sufficiently discussed in formal explorations of network analysis in archaeology. Finally, the geographic and chronological scope of the issue – spanning the Neolithic Zagros, Pharaonic deserts, Classical Greece, Hellenistic Egypt, and Byzantine Constantinople – highlights the potential of network perspectives to transcend conventional regional and disciplinary boundaries. The Eastern Mediterranean emerges here not as a set of discrete cultural domains but as a continuous zone of interaction extending from the Iranian highlands to the Aegean and beyond.

Taken together, the papers in this special issue demonstrate that network analysis is not a monolithic method but a flexible and evolving approach. It can serve as a quantitative framework for measuring exchange, as a conceptual language for relational thinking, and as a critical lens for analysing representation and ideology. Importantly, it offers a means to connect traditionally separate domains of evidence – archaeological, textual, environmental, and art-historical – within a shared analytical space. In the archaeology of the ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, where the divide between textual and archaeological scholarship has been notoriously difficult to bridge, such integration is particularly valuable. Moreover, these regions were defined by recurrent cycles of expansion, contraction, and re-connection – processes that are best understood not through static cultural boundaries but through shifting patterns of relational density. Network approaches help visualize these dynamics, revealing how local practices and long-distance interactions co-evolved.

Network analysis has become one of the most visible and rapidly expanding approaches in contemporary archaeology. Its appeal lies in both its accessibility – user-friendly software produces visually striking results with minimal technical expertise – and its conceptual breadth. Some scholars have even spoken of a ‘relational turn’ in the humanities (e.g., Alberti 2016), comparable to the ‘spatial turn’ of the 1990s. As digital infrastructures continue to expand – through open datasets, linked repositories, and interoperable GIS and SNA platforms – the possibilities for comparative network research are multiplying. But this popularity also carries risks: network analysis is sometimes applied uncritically, used more for its aesthetic and statistical convenience than for the theoretical insights it can offer. The contributions here remind us that computational models must remain grounded in the interpretive richness of archaeological and historical data. Networks are most illuminating when treated not as ends in themselves but as instruments for thinking relationally about the past.

From a theoretical standpoint, network approaches promote a relational mode of explanation, emphasizing the patterns of connection that structure and transform the entities involved. This perspective offers an alternative to deterministic narratives based on migration, diffusion, or environmental causation. Instead of privileging centres and peripheries, network analysis encourages a dynamic, localized, and bottom-up understanding of past social and material processes. Importantly, networks can be used not only descriptively – to visualize observed similarities or distributions – but also exploratorily, as heuristic models for testing hypotheses about movement, communication, or interaction.

As we explained at the start, in archaeological applications, networks may represent the presence or absence of shared material traits, or the degree of similarity between assemblages such as pottery, metals, or architectural features. Links between nodes are thus probabilistic, grounded in the assumption that similarity implies contact – an assumption that must always be critically examined. Exploratory modelling allows hypotheses to be tested by constructing hypothetical networks (for instance, connecting sites reachable within a day’s travel) and comparing them against the archaeological record. If observed patterns diverge from modelled ones, the underlying assumptions can be refined – demonstrating the iterative and experimental potential of network research (Terrell et al. 2023).

Because of this flexibility, network approaches are well suited for interdisciplinary comparison. When linguistic, textual, and material datasets yield convergent network structures, confidence in broader interpretations increases. Yet networks remain models, not reconstructions of concrete historical realities. They are abstractions that help us think relationally about data, not depictions of past social worlds in themselves. For this reason, archaeologists must continually interrogate what the lines in a diagram actually signify – exchange, imitation, shared tradition, or coincidence – and how these choices shape interpretation.

Beyond their methodological utility, network approaches carry significant ontological and epistemological implications. The idea that entities are constituted through relations rather than existing as self-contained units challenges long-standing assumptions in Western thought. Social network analysis emerged from a structuralist social-scientific tradition and is often treated as a technical method. Yet its underlying premise – that the world itself is relational – aligns with broader philosophical and anthropological perspectives that question the boundedness of persons, objects, and societies (e.g., Hallowell 1960; Latour 2005; Descola 2013).

Recognizing this broader relational ontology invites archaeologists to move beyond anthropocentric and essentialist frameworks, reconsidering ancient societies as networks of interacting human and non-human actors. It also opens space for dialogue between formal network analysis and theoretical relationalism – two traditions that have evolved largely in isolation but share a concern with connectivity, transformation, and emergence. Integrating them may represent one of the next major challenges for archaeological theory: to develop a more holistic understanding of networks as both empirical models and as expressions of a relational world.

As the editors of this issue, we hope that the case studies collected here will encourage further dialogue across disciplines and regions. By combining formal analysis with humanistic interpretation, they exemplify the promise of network archaeology as a bridge between data-driven research, research ethics, and broader questions of social complexity, identity, and cultural transmission.