"For the analysis, several networks were created that can all be traced back to the same basic configuration: a two-mode network consisting of graves and the features associated with it, be it grave goods or architectural elements (Fig. 2). This model abstracts the materialised “lived experience” (Knappett, 2011) of the burial process—the finds and the physical features in which identities were represented and negotiated—by concentrating it in the interaction of the edge. This relation signifies the act of selecting these features to construct the grave, and consequently, the social persona of the deceased as detailed above. On a technical level, it is undirected and unweighted; the last due to the imbalance between the different amounts of specific objects deposited. For example, in the grave of Blaubeuren-Asch (3), one sword would otherwise be counted against 30 arrowheads, while for other finds such as rings of a belt no number is given at all."

"Two-mode networks are of particular importance to the approach taken in this paper. Also known as bimodal or affiliation networks, they are commonly used in the study of funeral assemblages (cf. Donnellan, 2016a, 2016b; Sosna, 2023; Sosna et al., 2012). In general, their analysis is met with a number of challenges, as algorithms have to be adapted to their particular structure. However, they enable the integration of an additional layer of information into the graph (Blair, 2023; Borgatti & Everett, 1997; Everett & Borgatti, 2013, see also the discussion of bimodal clustering below). This is especially relevant if both modes contribute important information to the research question at hand, as is the case here: while the mode of features facilitates a deeper understanding of the patterns of identity representation, the mode of graves helps to map this understanding to specific geographical and cultural contexts. Following Breiger (1974), the bimodal network allows us to explore the duality of social persona and collective identity, to switch between these two perspectives, and to closely relate them to each other.

In addition to the construction of the network model, the interpretation of this duality requires us to consider two further questions: firstly, what precisely flows through the network (Borgatti, 2005), and secondly, what is the meaning of the network structure that emerges from the entanglement of dyads (Brandes et al., 2013). As already established, the individual edges symbolize steps of a selection process to construct social identity/identities in the grave; consequently, in its entirety, the network structure indicates to which degree burial communities shared conceptions of the funerary representation of status and identity, and if these conceptions may reasonably be assumed to have been standardised or normative. This understanding of nodes, edges, and structure of the network draws on the work of Mizoguchi (2013)."