Advertisement

New Methods of Mapping

The Application of Social Network Analysis to the Study of the Illegal Trade in Antiquities
  • Michelle D’Ippolito
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8393)

Abstract

This study examines the application of a human-agent based network to the illegal trade in antiquities. Specifically, this study tests whether the hierarchical pyramidal structure proposed by law enforcement in the case of Giacomo Medici’s trafficking ring is accurate. The results of the analysis reveal discrepancies in perceptions of how antiquities trafficking networks are organized, how they operate, and how cultural patterns and representation of criminal activity influence the perception of such network structures.

Keywords

Illegal Antiquities Market Social Network Analysis Network Theory Ucinet Anthropology Economics Criminology Law 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Williams, P.: Networks, Markets, and Hierarchies. In: Williams, P., Vlassis, D. (eds.) Combatting Transnational Crime: Concepts, Activities, and Responses, pp. 57–87. Frank Cass, London (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell, P.: The Illicit Antiquities Trade as a Transnational Criminal Network: Characterizing and Anticipating Trafficking in Cultural Heritage. International Journal of Cultural Property 20, 113–151 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C.: Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Polk, K.: Whither Criminology in the Study of the Traffic in Illicit Antiquities? In: Green, S.M.A.P. (ed.) Criminology and Archaeology: Studies in Looted Antiquities. Oñati International Series in Law and Society. Hart Publishing, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruinsma, G., Bernasco, W.: Criminal Groups and Transnational Illegal Markets: A More Detailed Examination on the Basis of Social Network Theory. Crime Law & Social Change 41, 79–94 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burnkrant, R.E., Cousineau, A.: Information and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research 2, 206–215 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawes, P.L., Lee, D.Y., Dowling, G.R.: Information Control and Influence in Emergent Buying Centers. Journal of Marketing 62, 55–68 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freeman, L.: A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness. Sociometry 40, 35–41 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freeman, L.C.: Centrality in Networks: I. Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks 1, 215–239 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabidussi, G.: The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika 31, 581–603 (1966)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anthonisse, J.M.: The Rush in a Graph. Mathematische Centrum, Amsterdam (1971)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stephenson, K., Zelen, M.: Rethinking Centrality: Methods and Applications. Social Networks 11, 1–37 (1989)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watson, P., Todeschini, C.: The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities from Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museums, pp. 16–18. Public Affairs, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felch, J.: ‘Quick takes’, Los Angeles Times (January 20, 2012), http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/20/entertainment/la-et-quick-20120120 (accessed November 15, 2013)

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle D’Ippolito
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Maryland College ParkCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations