*****  To join INSNA, visit  *****


The first article that comes to mind is Apicella et al. 2012. They write:

"The Hadza represent possibly one of the most extreme departures from life in 
industrialized societies, and they remain relatively isolated from modern cultural 
influences. Yet all the examined properties of social networks seen in modernized 
societies also appear in the Hadza. Compared with random networks, Hadza networks, 
like modernized networks, exhibit a characteristic degree distribution, greater degree 
assortativity, transitivity, reciprocity and homophily than would be expected from chance, 
and a decay with geographic distance." (Apicella et al. 2012:500)

We reached a similar conclusion about Alaskan Inuit ten years earlier, before I knew that 
much about SNA. We differ from Apicella in that our population was much more 
integrated into the modern world. Yet -- this is the nut -- modern Inuit social organization 
was very similar to precontact Inuit social organization. We wrote:

"Two methods used to identify subsistence networks — hand-sorting instances of 
production and distribution, and clustering a matrix of Kendall’s Tau-B values – produced 
similar results. Multi-household subsistence networks resembled traditional Iñupiaq “local 
family” groups described by Burch for the mid-19th century." (Magdanz et al. 2002:i)

See also Figure 7.3, 7.4, 8.4, and 8.5 (Magdanz et al. 2002).


Apicella, Coren L., Frank W. Marlowe, James H. Fowler, and Nicholas A. Christakis. 2012. 
Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. Nature 481 (7382):497-501.

Magdanz, James S., Charles J. Utermohle, and Robert J. Wolfe. 2002. The Production and 
Distribution of Wild Food in Wales and Deering, Alaska. Juneau, Alaska: ADF&G Division 
of Subsistence.

SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers ( To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.