Abstract
The Central European Magdalenian has been shown to exhibit different properties on different scales of observation. A pan-Magdalenian distribution of certain concepts contrasts with signals that allow for the identification of regional groups. In Chap. 9, the question is asked as to how a social system must be organized for being able to generate regionally discernible groups on the one hand, while allowing for large-scale intergroup similarities on the other in a hunter-gatherer context. Based on the results found in the previous chapters, the idea is put forward that the Magdalenian society might have resembled a small-world network and a model of its potential structure is proposed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bentley, R. A., & Maschner, H. D. G. (2008). Complexity theory. In R. A. Bentley, H. D. G. Maschner, & C. Chippindale (Eds.), Handbook of archaeological theories (pp. 245–270). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Binford, L. R. (1972). Contemporary model building: Paradigms and the current state of Palaeolithic research. In D. L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in archaeology (pp. 109–166). London: Methuen.
Binford, L. R. (1983b). Working at archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
Binford, L. R., & Sabloff, J. A. (1982). Paradigms, systematics and archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research, 38, 137–153.
Bosinski, G., D’errico, F., & Schiller, P. (2001). Die gravierten Frauendarstellungen von Gönnersdorf. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen.
Gamble, C. S. (1999). The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hahn, J. (1977e). Aurignacian. Das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Köln: Böhlau.
Hill, J. N. (1972). The methodological debate in contemporary archaeology: A model. In D. L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in archaeology (pp. 61–107). London: Methuen.
Jochim, M., Herhahn, C., & Starr, H. (1999). The Magdalenian colonization of Southern Germany. American Anthropologist, 101(1), 129–142.
Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 1(1), 61–67.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist aproach. London: Routledge.
Stiles, D., Ammerman, A. J., Benzécri, J.-P., Bhattacharya, D. K., Bordes, F., Bricker, H. M., et al. (1979). Paleolithic culture and culture change: Experiment in theory and method [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 20(1), 1–21.
Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art and custom. London: Murray.
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.
Wotzka, H. P. (1993). Zum traditionellen Kulturbegriff in der prähistorischen Archäologie. Paideuma, 39, 25–43.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maier, A. (2015). Small-World Networks: Backbone of the Magdalenian Society?. In: The Central European Magdalenian. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7206-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7206-8_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7205-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7206-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)