↓ Skip to main content

Using obsidian transfer distances to explore social network maintenance in late Pleistocene hunter–gatherers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using obsidian transfer distances to explore social network maintenance in late Pleistocene hunter–gatherers
Published in
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, December 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jaa.2014.07.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eiluned Pearce, Theodora Moutsiou

Abstract

Social behaviour is notoriously difficult to study archaeologically and it is unclear how large the networks of prehistoric humans were, or how they remained connected. Maintaining social cohesion was crucial for early humans because social networks facilitate cooperation and are imperative for survival and reproduction. Recent hunter-gatherer social organisation typically comprises a number of nested layers, ranging from the nuclear family through to the ~1500-strong ethnolinguistic tribe. Here we compare maximum obsidian transfer distances from the late Pleistocene with ethnographic data on the size of the geographic areas associated with each of these social grouping layers in recent hunter-gatherers. The closest match between the two is taken to indicate the maximum social layer within which contact could be sustained by Pleistocene hominins. Within both the (sub)tropical African and Subarctic biomes, the maximum obsidian transfer distances for Pleistocene modern humans (~200km and ~400km respectively) correspond to the geographic ranges of the outermost tribal layer in recent hunter-gatherers. This suggests that modern humans could potentially sustain the cohesion of their entire tribe at all latitudes, even though networks are more dispersed nearer the poles. Neanderthal obsidian transfer distances (300km) indicate that although Neanderthal home ranges are larger than those of low latitude hominins, Neanderthals travelled shorter distances than modern humans living at the same high latitudes. We argue that, like modern humans, Neanderthals could have maintained tribal cohesion, but that their tribes were substantially smaller than those of contemporary modern humans living in similar environments. The greater time taken to traverse the larger modern human tribal ranges may have limited the frequency of their face-to-face interactions and thus necessitated additional mechanisms to ensure network connectivity, such as the exchange of symbolic artefacts including ornaments and figurines. Such cultural supports may not have been required to the same extent by the Neanderthals due to their smaller tribes and home ranges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 19%
Student > Master 8 9%
Professor 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 29 34%
Social Sciences 20 24%
Psychology 3 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 15 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,349,933
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
#57
of 637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,674
of 369,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.