DOI chapter:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI chapter:Gebauer, Anne Birgitte; Sørensen, Lasse: Supra-regional contacts and the earliest metallurgy in southern Scandinavia during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0329
328
Supra-regional contacts and the earliest metallurgy in southern Scandinavia during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
Random
High global efficiency
Low local efficiency
High global efficiency
High local efficiency
Lattice
Low global efficiency
High local efficiency
Fig. 1 A small world network
(shown in the middle) processes
connections between both remote
localities and neighbouring com-
munities, thus contributing to high
global as well as local network effi-
ciencies. Properties of small world
networks are intermediate be-
tween those of the lattice and the
random network as they are highly
clustered like the former yet have
small path lenghts like the latter,
(after Zhao et al. 2015, fig. 2. Open
access available by license CC BY
4.0).
connections, depending on the different relations and
contexts (Latour 1996). As a result, knowledge and
ideas can be transmitted by both humans and, more
importantly, non-human agents. The Actor Network
Theory operates with two different types of concepts
regarding the exchange of information. Intermediaries
are entities which transport information to another
entity without any transformation. Mediators on the
other hand are entities which multiply differences or
imitations such as material objects that may be in-
vestigated in the archaeological material. Behind the
exchange of mediators lies a whole range of traditions,
routinized practices, or obligations connected with
social interactions between human beings. Mediators
may be exchanged directly between people as gifts.
If, however, a mediator changes hands several times
ending up in more marginal areas of a network, the
original meaning and ideas associated with this object
may change to something different or a hybrid of infor-
mation depending on the context (Wobst 1977). The
hybrids of objects, ideas, and knowledge can in turn
create new networks and result in the disappearance
of other networks. Using the Actor Network Theory
in archaeological research makes sense, as cultures,
styles, depositional practices, and technologies can be
associated with networks of contact expressed through
objects, burials, and structures.
Documentation of networks in
archaeological context?
Beyond the scale of networks as a phenomenon,
the character of their operation has been widely dis-
cussed within cultural historical contexts. The model
of ‘down-the-line exchange’ is based on reciprocity
between regularly interconnected sites each playing
the same role in the network. This wealth produces
a pattern of even fall-off in the amount of exchanged
goods depending on the distance from the production
centre. ‘Directional trade’ on the other hand refers to
a redistribution at central places and an allocation of
commodities by authorities in control of those central
places (Renfrew 1975). The fall-off pattern of the
exchanged goods would then be irregular, with com-
modities concentrating at sites with preferential access
to materials being exchanged. A systemic relationship
between the two models of exchange and social forms
has been proposed, with Neolithic egalitarian societies
being associated with the down-the-line exchange and
more advanced ranked societies with directional ex-
change (Renfrew et al. 1966; 1968; Renfrew / Dixon
1976). However, the simple transfer of goods between
neighbouring sites implied in the down-the-line model
has been questioned based on both archaeological and
ethnographic data (Hodder 1974; Wiessner 1982;
Ibanez et al. 2015, 10).
On the contrary, Ibanez et al. (2016, 23) suggest
that complex networks can emerge without any spe-
cific agents controlling the interaction - mentioning
Wikipedia as a modern example. Such ‘small-world
networks’ are characterised by a combination of regu-
lar and short interaction links joining neighbouring
agents, in addition to some sporadic links between
distant agents. The model has been used in a recent
analysis of obsidian exchange (Watts / Strogatz
1998; Ortega et al. 2014; 2016; Ibanez 2016, 19;
see Fig. 1). In practical terms, sporadic but substantial
and distant exchange may have taken place through
visiting trade expeditions as well as exchange associ-
ated with feasting at various occasions or seasonal
movement related to subsistence. Also, several tribes
might have met and bartered at designated sites or
middlemen may have mediated in exchange affairs
(Ibanez et al. 2016, 20).
Exchange objects and their role?
Considerable efforts were invested by prehistoric com-
munities in exchanging certain objects within large
Supra-regional contacts and the earliest metallurgy in southern Scandinavia during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
Random
High global efficiency
Low local efficiency
High global efficiency
High local efficiency
Lattice
Low global efficiency
High local efficiency
Fig. 1 A small world network
(shown in the middle) processes
connections between both remote
localities and neighbouring com-
munities, thus contributing to high
global as well as local network effi-
ciencies. Properties of small world
networks are intermediate be-
tween those of the lattice and the
random network as they are highly
clustered like the former yet have
small path lenghts like the latter,
(after Zhao et al. 2015, fig. 2. Open
access available by license CC BY
4.0).
connections, depending on the different relations and
contexts (Latour 1996). As a result, knowledge and
ideas can be transmitted by both humans and, more
importantly, non-human agents. The Actor Network
Theory operates with two different types of concepts
regarding the exchange of information. Intermediaries
are entities which transport information to another
entity without any transformation. Mediators on the
other hand are entities which multiply differences or
imitations such as material objects that may be in-
vestigated in the archaeological material. Behind the
exchange of mediators lies a whole range of traditions,
routinized practices, or obligations connected with
social interactions between human beings. Mediators
may be exchanged directly between people as gifts.
If, however, a mediator changes hands several times
ending up in more marginal areas of a network, the
original meaning and ideas associated with this object
may change to something different or a hybrid of infor-
mation depending on the context (Wobst 1977). The
hybrids of objects, ideas, and knowledge can in turn
create new networks and result in the disappearance
of other networks. Using the Actor Network Theory
in archaeological research makes sense, as cultures,
styles, depositional practices, and technologies can be
associated with networks of contact expressed through
objects, burials, and structures.
Documentation of networks in
archaeological context?
Beyond the scale of networks as a phenomenon,
the character of their operation has been widely dis-
cussed within cultural historical contexts. The model
of ‘down-the-line exchange’ is based on reciprocity
between regularly interconnected sites each playing
the same role in the network. This wealth produces
a pattern of even fall-off in the amount of exchanged
goods depending on the distance from the production
centre. ‘Directional trade’ on the other hand refers to
a redistribution at central places and an allocation of
commodities by authorities in control of those central
places (Renfrew 1975). The fall-off pattern of the
exchanged goods would then be irregular, with com-
modities concentrating at sites with preferential access
to materials being exchanged. A systemic relationship
between the two models of exchange and social forms
has been proposed, with Neolithic egalitarian societies
being associated with the down-the-line exchange and
more advanced ranked societies with directional ex-
change (Renfrew et al. 1966; 1968; Renfrew / Dixon
1976). However, the simple transfer of goods between
neighbouring sites implied in the down-the-line model
has been questioned based on both archaeological and
ethnographic data (Hodder 1974; Wiessner 1982;
Ibanez et al. 2015, 10).
On the contrary, Ibanez et al. (2016, 23) suggest
that complex networks can emerge without any spe-
cific agents controlling the interaction - mentioning
Wikipedia as a modern example. Such ‘small-world
networks’ are characterised by a combination of regu-
lar and short interaction links joining neighbouring
agents, in addition to some sporadic links between
distant agents. The model has been used in a recent
analysis of obsidian exchange (Watts / Strogatz
1998; Ortega et al. 2014; 2016; Ibanez 2016, 19;
see Fig. 1). In practical terms, sporadic but substantial
and distant exchange may have taken place through
visiting trade expeditions as well as exchange associ-
ated with feasting at various occasions or seasonal
movement related to subsistence. Also, several tribes
might have met and bartered at designated sites or
middlemen may have mediated in exchange affairs
(Ibanez et al. 2016, 20).
Exchange objects and their role?
Considerable efforts were invested by prehistoric com-
munities in exchanging certain objects within large