Rethinking the role of Agent-Based Modeling in archaeology

Abstract

Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) represents a methodology with significant potential for altering archaeological analytical practice. The tripling of publications within the last 7 years that use ABM provides evidence for the significance of this emerging approach. However, the scope of the research topics investigated has not increased accordingly. A consensus exists among ABM practitioners, that once generally accepted by the field, ABM can make revolutionary advances within the overall archaeological research paradigm. Unresolved concerns within the archaeological community center on whether ABMs are sufficiently grounded in empirical data, are aligned with theoretical trajectories, and on the difficult task of mastering the computational systems. It is worth exploring these aspects of the disjuncture between the mainstream and ABM practitioners for two reasons-to frame a discussion of qualities of ABM that make it transformative and to provide guidelines for broadening ABM's applicability. With capacity-building in mind, offered here is a practical reference for the nonpractitioner archaeologist considering ABM. A glossary is included of key terms used in the text to describe ABM methods and theory.

Between Monoculture and Cultural Polarization: Agent-based Models of the Interplay of Social Influence and Cultural Diversity

“…There are no easy and general answers for how to move from highly abstract models that yield a Bproof of principle^towards tools that can generate empirically testable explanations of archeological data. However, the promise ABCM holds for linking microassumptions to macro-outcomes in complex social dynamics has motivated many archeologists to start searching for possible solutions (Cegielski and Rogers 2016;Wurzer et al 2015). This has already generated promising examples of applications of ABCM in search for explanations of persistent cultural diversity as well as other archeological phenomena.…”

“…ABCM does not offer general analytical results for models comprising these complexities, but it provides a formal apparatus that allows to nevertheless rigorously deduce model outcomes with systematic computational experiments, even when analytical solutions cannot be obtained or have not yet been found. Scholars in a range of disciplines are therefore increasingly interested in ABCM as tool to elaborate the link between micro-processes and macro-outcomes in explanations of social phenomena, a development that has left its mark also in the increasing interest of archeologists in ABCM as a tool of research (Cegielski and Rogers 2016;Wurzer et al 2015).…”

Formal Modelling Approaches to Complexity Science in Roman Studies: A Manifesto

“…Formal modelling approaches such as scaling studies (e.g. settlement scaling theory; Ortman et al 2014;Hanson et al in press), agent-based modelling (Lake 2014;Cegielski and Rogers 2016;Davies and Romanowska 2018) and network science (Brughmans 2013;Knappett 2013) allow archaeologists to represent their theories, explore the implications of aggregating individuals' behaviours, and identify and interpret emergent phenomena in a new way. However, for the majority of Roman archaeologists and historians, these approaches remain elusive as they have only been applied sporadically in Roman research contexts or using Roman archaeological data.…”

Building a better past with the help of agent-based modeling

“…In the 1960s and 1970s mainframes were exploited not only to facilitate multivariate statistics but also to create simulations (4). Aside from these early studies, the real explosion in published research occurred after 2000 and even more so after 2007 (5,6). Recent studies generally incorporate one or more overlapping themes, including historical, social complexity, complexity science, formation processes, human ecology, and evolutionary processes.…”