220 Reviews
Morley’s work that are caused by this risk of an
overly wide definition of the biological capabilities
of music, but the underlying impression given is
that our ancestors pursued a Western musical
ideal of harmony and pleasant sounds, while dis-
sociating from dissonant and rough sounds.
Would it be possible to develop an evolutionary
theory of musicality departing from a wider under-
standing of sound and sound perception? Would
perception of sound and soundscapes, as in Mills
auditory archaeology, have any significance in the
evolutionary development of music? Furthermore,
what is the difference between the perception of
sound and of music? Is there any physiological
difference between perception and organizing of
the sound of running water and the sound of a
Beethoven symphony?
These are difficult and wide-ranging questions
that will be left open here. The point is simply
that the concept of music is problematic, and that
Morley does not address this issue sufficiently,
although he prefers ‘musical behaviours’ to
‘music’, and applies a wide understanding of
music that incorporates rhythm, dance and gesture.
From one point of view, this is a matter of termi-
nology. Morley could have chosen to avoid the con-
cept of music entirely yet still be able to speak about
vocalization, pitch control and ‘metrically-orga-
nized gesture’. Conversely, Mills could have chosen
to include music or musical metaphors in his descrip-
tion of everyday sounds. It would be in accordance
with the tradition from Schafer (1977), who
described soundscapes with musical terms.
From another point of view, the most relevant
difference between Morley and Mills is that they are
interested in very different topics that are accompa-
nied by different theoretical orientations and meth-
odologies. Where Morley is placed basically in
science-based archaeology and anthropology, Mills
is placed in an archaeology of the humanities, despite
his use of some quantitative methods, like auditory
scene analysis (Bregman 1994).
Still, the two authors are both concerned with
humans and social interaction between humans,
and the role of music and sound, respectively, in
communication. Despite their different subjects and
orientations, I will recommend these books to all
with interest in the social and cultural significance
of sound, hearing and musical behaviours in
Kimberley Anna Maria van den Berg, Faculty of Humanities/Research Institute CLUE+, VU University Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, Netherlands. E-mail: k.a.m.vanden.berg@vu.nl
societies of the past, from the earliest humans two
million years ago (in Morley) up to the soundscape
of a costal mining community in England in opera-
tion until the early 20th century (in Mills).
© 2014 Gjermund Kolltveit
REFERENCES
Bregman, A.S., 1994. Auditory scene analysis: the
perceptual organization of sound. London: MIT
Press.
Mithen, S., 2005. The singing Neanderthals: the
origins of language, mind and body. London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Schafer, R.M., 1977. The tuning of the world. New
York: Knopf.
Carl Knappett (ed.): Network
Analysis in Archaeology: New
Approaches to Regional Interac-
tion. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2013. 350 pp. ISBN:
978-0-1996-9709-0
KIMBERLEY A. M. VAN DEN BERG
Network analysis in archaeology is one of the latest
additions to the rapidly-expanding field of archae-
ological network analysis (see also Evans and
Felder 2014, Knappett 2014). The volume has its
origins in the session ‘New Approaches in
Regional Network Analysis’, organised in 2010
by the editor at the 75th Anniversary Meeting of
the Society for American Archaeology, held in St.
Louis, Missouri. The aim of this session was to
bring together scholars working on vastly different
archaeological case studies in order to ‘tease out
some of the pros and cons of network analysis’
(Society for American Archaeology 2010, p. 9).
Network analysis provides a broad range of mod-
els and methods which inspire original analyses of
various past networks and present datasets (e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2014.960446

Knappett et al. 2008, Malkin 2011). As network
analysis gains in reputation, however, more and
more questions arise regarding its applicability,
possibilities and limitations (Brughmans 2010,
2012). Network analysis in archaeology engages
successfully with several of these questions.
The contributions in the volume focus mainly on
the regional scale (p. 4). In addition, most papers use
methods derived from social network analysis
(SNA; p. 7), a branch of network analysis that has
its origins in mathematics and sociology. As a result,
despite the fact that its case studies range from the
political rhetoric on Classic Maya stone monuments
(Scholnick et al.) to the exchange systems of early
foraging groups in the Kuril Islands of far-eastern
Russia (Gjesfjeld and Phillips), the volume exhibits a
high degree of coherency in terms of scope and
approach. This is a trait not always found in con-
ference proceedings and indicates a clear vision of
purpose on the part of the editor.
The volume is divided into four parts and con-
tains 14 chapters. Part I provides the background
and consists of an introduction by Knappett fol-
lowed by the papers of Terrell and Isaksen. Terrell
argues that the strength of SNA lies primarily in
its ability to explore patterns in the data without
making a priori assumptions about the boundaries
of past social groups (p. 18). More importantly,
however, his case studies show that SNA actually
has the potential to expose these assumptions by
producing counterintuitive results. In addition,
these cases demonstrate that in its ability to provide
robust metrics, SNA can help validate patterns in
the data which were already previously observed
using less reliable methods. Contributions such as
Terrell’s clearly illustrate the potential that SNA
holds for archaeology.
As Knappett points out in his introduction, how-
ever, SNA is not always ‘an obvious fit’ for archae-
ological research (p. 7). This issue is best articulated
in the contribution by Sindbæk, the first chapter of
Part II (‘Sites and settlements’). Sindbæk explains
that social scientists use metrics such as ‘centrality’
to analyse the social outcome of a known network
structure. In contrast, archaeologists already have
the outcome (where objects were deposited) and
perhaps the input (where objects came from), but
are left to guess about the network structure in
between (pp. 75–76). He likens this situation to
the so-called ‘black box problem’ of engineers and
finds that their predictive modelling of networks
might provide a way forward. Sindbæk makes the
Reviews 221
salient point, however, that as part of the modelling
process one tends to lose the detailed contextual
information key to archaeological interpretation
(p. 77). Therefore, he proposes an approach that
combines careful contextual study with formal net-
work analysis. He fruitfully applies this approach
to a case study that might be of particular interest
to the readers of the Norwegian Archaeological
Review, the Scandinavian maritime expansion in
the wider North Sea region during the Viking Age
(see also Sindbæk 2007).
Rivers, Knappett and Evans’ chapter in the same
part of the volume provides a different approach to
the problem identified by Sindbæk. Instead of
directly using the data to create networks that are
then subjected to SNA, they use the data to gen-
erate assumptions that are tested by creating a
hypothetical network model (p. 133). By repeatedly
running the hypothetical model in a computer,
these assumptions can be compared against the
actual archaeological data. The approach by
Rivers et al. is inspired by methods used in physics
(p. 9) rather than the social sciences, and involves
intricate mathematical formulas and computer pro-
gramming that most researchers in the humanities
may find intimidating. Indeed, as Isaksen points
out in the first part of the volume, few archaeolo-
gists possess the mathematical background required
to fully grasp complex network calculations. As a
result, network analysis runs the risk of becoming
an ‘academic voodoo’ (p. 44). Many of his fellow
contributors are not immune to this risk. For exam-
ple, the contributions by Mills et al. and Coward in
Part III, though commendable for their rigor, are
so rich in statistics that it can be challenging for
those without sufficient mathematical training to
follow their arguments.
Whereas Part II focuses on sites and settlements,
Part III centres on material culture. This arrangement
comes across as somewhat arbitrary. For example,
many of the chapters in the sites and settlement sec-
tion use the presence of similar types of material
culture as a proxy for links between sites, whereas
contributions in the material culture section often
amount to inter-site analysis. The latter is the case in
Blake’s contribution. Blake uses the distribution of
‘easily traceable foreign objects’ at sites in Late
Bronze Age west-central Italy (p. 204) to reconstruct
the existence of two distinct social networks that are
difficult to trace otherwise, due to the strong degree of
homogeneity in the material culture of the region. She
argues that these social networks form a prerequisite
222 Reviews
for the formation of ethnic groups in the Early Iron
Age. Although questions may be raised regarding her
choice of ‘foreign objects’, Blake’s innovative
approach shows the potential of SNA for studying
ethnicity in antiquity, particularly in prehistoric cases,
for which written sources are lacking. Collar’s chapter
on the changing expressions of Jewish ethnic identity
in the epigraphic record makes it clear that even in
those cases with written sources, SNA can provide
new perspectives. Furthermore, this research indi-
cates that ancient case studies can offer new insights
for SNA. Collar makes an excellent case that, in
contrast to conventional SNA wisdom, ‘strong ties’
rather than ‘weak ties’ can play a major role in the
spread of information across a network.
In the fourth and final part of the volume,
Sander van der Leeuw considers further the topic
of ‘information networks’ in his invited discussion
chapter. He starts from the position that ‘society is
based on information processing’. He then argues
that those groups in society driving the processing
of information require resources that they extract
from their environment in order to sustain them-
selves. For Van der Leeuw, this means that society
can be conceived of as an open system that consists
of two flows or types of networks that are driven by
a feedback loop: information-processing networks
and resource networks. Van der Leeuw argues
that the dynamics between these networks has yet
to be explored and represents one of the future
tasks for archaeologists pursuing network analysis.
Overall, the various contributions indicate that
much can be achieved at the regional scale of
analysis, provided that the dataset is robust
enough to be subjected to SNA or other types of
formal network analysis. Focusing on the regional
scale also has potential downsides. The science
of networks teaches us that networks are in fact
complex systems. The individual nodes are consid-
ered ‘discrete dynamic entities, with their own
rules and behaviors’ (Newman et al. 2006, p. 7).
Whenever these dynamic local parts interact to
form a global whole, the network begets emergent
properties; these are new attributes which cannot
be found in the separate nodes. In this context, an
oft-cited definition of complexity is that ‘the whole
is greater than the sum of its parts’ (Christakis and
Fowler 2011, p. 26). The contribution of Mol and
Mans hints at such complexity and reveals some of
the potential issues that may arise from focusing
only on the regional scale. As Knappett puts it in
his introduction, their analysis indicates that the
‘inter-site network can be misinterpreted if we do
not pay attention to intra-site dynamics’ (p. 12).
The crossing of scales has recently been the topic
of Knappett’s (2011) publication An archaeology
of interaction, but as he too observes, much work
remains to be done in order to deal with this
challenging issue.
I leave the reader with some brief reflections on
the book’s physical condition. The volume is pub-
lished by Oxford University Press, from which one
expects a high standard, even more so in light of the
book’s price tag. Indeed, the hard-cover volume is
printed on good quality paper, is laid out in a plea-
sant format and contains legible black-and-white
images and figures. The binding of the book, how-
ever, lowers the bar. After one week of normal use,
the first 10 pages came loose from the reviewer’s
copy. Despite this minor drawback, Network analy-
sis in archaeology is well worth the investment for
readers who are familiar with the subject and are
eager to engage with SNA on the regional scale.
Readers who are drawn by its main title in search
of an introduction or overview of archaeological
applications are perhaps better served by Knappett
(2011). Yet even those interested in approaches that
the volume does not cover, such as actor-network
theory (Latour 2005) or the use of conceptual net-
work models (Malkin 2011), will find its contents
stimulating. These involve high-quality contribu-
tions of leading experts in the field, who are paving
the way towards a more mature and critical use of
network analysis in archaeology.
© 2014 Kimberley A. M. van den Berg
REFERENCES
Society for American Archaeology, 2010.
Abstracts of the SAA 75th anniversary meeting
[online]. Available from: http://www.saa.org/
Portals/0/abstracts.pdf [Accessed 25 July 2014].
Brughmans, T., 2010. Connecting the dots:
towards archaeological network analysis.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29 (3): 277–303.
Brughmans, T., 2012. Facebooking the past: a
critical social network analysis approach for
archaeology. In: A. Chrystanti, P. Murrieta-
Flores and C. Papadopoulos, eds. Thinking
beyond the tool: archaeological computing and
the interpretative process. Oxford: Archaeopress,
pp. 191–203.

Christakis, N. and Fowler, J., 2011. Connected:
the amazing power of social networks and how
they shape our lives. London: Harper Press.
Evans, S. and Felder, K., eds., 2014. Social net-
work perspectives in archaeology. Cambridge:
Labute Group Ltd.
Knappett, C., Evans, T. and Rivers, R., 2008.
Modeling maritime interaction in the Aegean
Bronze Age. Antiquity, 82, 1009–1024.
Knappett, C., 2011. An archaeology of interaction:
network perspectives on material culture and
society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knappett, C., ed., 2014. Analyse des réseaux
sociaux en archéologie. Paris: Éditions de la
Maison des sciences de l’homme.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the social: an intro-
duction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Malkin, I., 2011. A small Greek world: networks in
the ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Newman, M.E.J., Barabási, A.L. and Watts, D.J.,
2006. Introduction. In: M.E.J. Newman, A.L.
Barabási and D.J. Watts, eds. The structure and
dynamics of networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1–8.
Sindbæk, S.M., 2007. The small world of the
Vikings: networks in early Medieval communi-
cation and exchange. Norwegian Archaeological
Review, 40 (1), 59–74.
Ola Wolfhechel Jensen (ed.):
Histories of Archaeological Pra-
ctices: Reflections on Methods,
Strategies and Social Organis-
ation in Past Fieldwork. The
National Historical Museum,
Stockholm, Studies 20, 2012. 335
pp. ISBN: 978-9-1891-7647-8
INGRID BERG
Ingrid Berg, Stockholm University, Sweden. E-mail: ingrid.berg@ark.su.se
Reviews 223
Archaeology is a particular way of constructing and
mediating versions of the past. This is done through
a varied set of practices, some with a long and wind-
ing history and others which have been recently
applied in archaeology. The anthology Histories of
Archaeological Practices takes its point of departure
in a recent movement among historians of archae-
ology to move away from biographies of ‘great men’
towards recognising the necessity for a critical exam-
ination of archaeology as a politically and socially
constructed labour. I, for one, welcome this move.
The book, an outcome of a session at the
2006 EAA Annual Meeting, is structured chronolo-
gically, with 11 chapters dealing with the
Renaissance up to the 1960s. It achieves a good
gender balance, with six female and five male con-
tributors. In the introduction, Ola W. Jensen dis-
cusses the theoretical backdrop for analysing past
archaeological practice, drawing inspiration from
Actor-Network Theory, phenomenology, archaeo-
logical ethnography and gender studies. Practice is,
in the context of this volume, ‘restricted to activities
performed in the field, i.e. the art of surveying, exca-
vating and documenting’ (p. 27). However, several
of the articles discuss other types of practices not
commonly included in histories of archaeology, such
as the use of models for visually displaying archae-
ological knowledge at museums (Nordbladh) and
the community outreach performed by Swedish
archaeologists in India in the 1950s (Arwill-
Nordbladh). While the focal point of the book is
set on fieldwork, the archetypical archaeological
practice, it reaches beyond its own scope.
The first article, ‘For the sake of memory.
Practicing archaeology in early modern Silesia’
by Dietrich Hakelberg, discusses the motivations
behind the excavation and display of prehistoric
urn burials in Silesia (a part of present-day
Poland) from the 16th to the 18th century.
Hakelberg’s conclusion, that the urns served a
function of memento mori and objects of memory
in the Early Modern period might be an interest-
ing point of departure for present-day scholars
who are interested in the links between memory
and archaeology in the post-modern world.
C. Stephen Briggs discusses in his article,
‘From Aubrey to Pitt-Rivers. Establishing an
archaeological survey standard for the British
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2014.960447
Copyright of Norwegian Archaeological Review is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.