The DOI matches its Crossref record.
11 Grounding the Net: Social Networks, Material Culture and Geography in the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic of the Near East (~21,000–6,000 cal bce)
Abstract
This chapter first briefly discusses the basis for empirically studying social change using social network analysis to analyse patterns of material culture distribution in order to infer social relations between and within groups in prehistory. It then reviews previous work in this area before focusing on this issue of the significance of geography for the structure of social networks by examining the interaction between material and social networks over the course of the Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic periods. In particular, it looks at one significant aspect of the scaling-up of social systems that may have occurred over this period — that of the increasing supplementing of relationships based largely on geographical proximity with largely, if not completely, a-spatial ‘weak ties’.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Combining path models with node-based network analysis is also feasible and gradually becoming more common (Coward 2013;Bevan and Wilson 2013;Groenhuijzen andVerhagen 2015, 2017;Paliou and Bevan 2016), but we are still a long way from a full integration of both approaches.”
From Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Coward 2013
In the citing paper
“Coward (2013, 256) notes that”
From Exploratory network reconstruction with sparse archaeological data and XTENT (2022) · cites this paper as Coward (2013, 256)
Citations
Cited by
Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation
Collar, A., Coward, F., Brughmans, T., & Mills, B. J. (2015) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9235-6 · Cited by 183
Self-citationModelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches
Verhagen, P., Nuninger, L., & Groenhuijzen, M. R. (2019) · Computational Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04576-0_11 · Cited by 117
Golitko, M., & Feinman, G. M. (2015) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-014-9211-1 · Cited by 109
Exploratory network reconstruction with sparse archaeological data and XTENT
Ducke, B., & Suchowska, P. (2022) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-021-09529-3 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Coward, F.
- Venue
- Network Analysis in Archaeology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2013-04-11
- Pages
- 246-280
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.