The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The complex structure of hunter–gatherer social networks
Open accessAbstract
In nature, many different types of complex system form hierarchical, self-similar or fractal-like structures that have evolved to maximize internal efficiency. In this paper, we ask whether hunter-gatherer societies show similar structural properties. We use fractal network theory to analyse the statistical structure of 1189 social groups in 339 hunter-gatherer societies from a published compilation of ethnographies. We show that population structure is indeed self-similar or fractal-like with the number of individuals or groups belonging to each successively higher level of organization exhibiting a constant ratio close to 4. Further, despite the wide ecological, cultural and historical diversity of hunter-gatherer societies, this remarkable self-similarity holds both within and across cultures and continents. We show that the branching ratio is related to density-dependent reproduction in complex environments and hypothesize that the general pattern of hierarchical organization reflects the self-similar properties of the networks and the underlying cohesive and disruptive forces that govern the flow of material resources, genes and non-genetic information within and between social groups. Our results offer insight into the energetics of human sociality and suggest that human social networks self-organize in response to similar optimization principles found behind the formation of many complex systems in nature.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Structure and Function of Complex Networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2003) · SIAM Review · doi:10.1137/s003614450342480 · Cited by 18,719
TOWARD A METABOLIC THEORY OF ECOLOGY
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M., & West, G. B. (2004) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/03-9000 · Cited by 7,779
Self-citationA General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology
West, G. B., Brown, J. H., & Enquist, B. J. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.276.5309.122 · Cited by 5,016
Self-citationCoevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00032325 · Cited by 2,365
Hierarchical organization in complex networks
Ravasz, E., & Barabási, A.-L. (2003) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.67.026112 · Cited by 2,160
Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration
Newman, M. E. J. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0307545100 · Cited by 1,931
The Fourth Dimension of Life: Fractal Geometry and Allometric Scaling of Organisms
West, G. B., Brown, J. H., & Enquist, B. J. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5420.1677 · Cited by 1,718 · cited 4×
“In hierarchical systems, it has been shown theoretically and empirically that these optimal networks are self-similar and fractal-like ( West et al. 1997, 1999; Ravasz & Baraba ´si 2003; West & Brown 2005; Rinaldo et al. 2006).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe foraging spectrum: diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-4591 · Cited by 1,599
Self-similar community structure in a network of human interactions
Guimerà, R., Danon, L., Díaz-Guilera, A., Giralt, F., & Arenas, A. (2003) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.68.065103 · Cited by 1,515
Fractal River Basins: Chance and Self-Organization
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Rinaldo, A., & Levy, O. (1998) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.882305 · Cited by 949
Cited by
Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers.
Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10736 · Cited by 698
The “online brain”: How the Internet may be changing our cognition
Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., Firth, J. A., Steiner, G. Z., Smith, L., Alvarez‐Jimenez, M., Gleeson, J., Vancampfort, D., Armitage, C. J., et al. (2019) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20617 · Cited by 694
Relationships and the social brain: Integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives
Sutcliffe, A., Dunbar, R., Binder, J., & Arrow, H. (2012) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02061.x · Cited by 415
Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks?
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.150292 · Cited by 404
The human socio-cognitive niche and its evolutionary origins
Whiten, A., & Erdal, D. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0114 · Cited by 325
Metadata
- Authors
- Hamilton, M. J., Milne, B. T., Walker, R. S., Burger, O., & Brown, J. H.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2007-07-03
- Volume
- 274
- Issue
- 1622
- Pages
- 2195-2203
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- OpenAlex
- W2138866912
- Cited by
- 386
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 178.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The complex structure of hunter–gatherer social networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2007.0564
- The paper
- Hamilton, M. J., Milne, B. T., Walker, R. S., Burger, O., & Brown, J. H. (2007). The complex structure of hunter–gatherer social networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0564
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.