Spatializing Social Network Analysis in the Late Precontact U.S. Southwest

Abstract

In this article we explore the relationship between spatial proximity and indices of social connectivity during the A.D. 1200–1450 interval in the United States (U.S.) Southwest. Using geographic information systems (GIS), we develop indices of spatial proximity based on the terrain-adjusted cost distance between sites in a regional settlement and material cultural database focused on the western U.S. Southwest. We evaluate the hypothesis that social interaction is a function of proximity and that interactions will be most intense among near neighbors. We find that this hypothesis is supported in some instances but that the correlation between proximity and interaction is highly variable in the context of late precontact social upheaval. Furthermore, we show important discrepancies between the Puebloan north and the Hohokam south that help to explain differences in community sustainability in the two regions.

Nation Building and Social Signaling in Southern Ontario: A.D. 1350–1650

“…Members of such a group may have been socially distant from one another, but their new shared affiliation was expressed through “stylistic messages” (see [ 47 ]). As communities migrate into new areas, it is likely that signaling networks change, perhaps as the need to maintain old networks diminishes [ 48 ]. Of particular note is the concept of meta-identities [ 49 ].…”

Plainware and Polychrome: Quantifying Perceptual Differences in Ceramic Classification Between Diverse Groups to Further a Strong Objectivity

“…In the following, we describe geosocial methods (i.e. joint geospatial and social networks sensu Borck 2016;Borck et al 2015;Borck and Mills 2017;Hill et al 2015;Leidwanger et al 2014) that can be used to analyse the spatial arrangements and distance matrices obtained from the methods described above.…”

Dynamic Communities on the Mesa Verde Cuesta

“…Varien (1999) examined the spatial relationship of contemporaneous large, aggregated community centers and defined three cost km catchments: (1) a 2 cost km radius to capture “intensive cultivation and regular interaction among community members” (155), (2) a 7 cost km radius used to procure wild food and nonfood resources, and (3) an 18 cost km radius identifying the maximum extent of regular round trip travel by a household to a community center for religious and economic activity. Recent literature has primarily focused on the 2 cost km extent to assess social relationships in the upland U.S. Southwest (Bernardini and Peeples 2015; Coffey 2010; Crabtree 2015; Hill et al 2015; Lipe and Ortman 2000; Mahoney et al 2000; Murrell and Unruh 2016; Varien and Potter 2008). This catchment size is useful for understanding potential social relationships that existed between clusters of households, but the measurement is a necessarily static number representing what was inevitably a dynamic process (Schachner 2015).…”