Conceptual Ethnography

1. Integrative concepts: e.g., how ‘cognition’ uses networks in mental operations (‘memory’)

2. How to learn from behavior: network approaches

3. Simulation: baselines and relational biases

4. How people ‘count’ on each other - examplesa) Slovene Farmers of Feistritz, Austria – How class is counted

b) Dukuh Hamlet and Javanese Muslim Village Elites – Are we different?

c) Pul Eliyan Kinship in Sri Lanka – What ‘side’ are you on?

d) Aydĭnlĭ Turkish Nomad Clan – What is our ‘group’? Are we from the same ‘root’?

Thinking Relationally

1. Categorical thinking: e.g., groups as a classificatory partition or hierarchy of mutually exclusive classes

2. Relational thinking: e.g., who is linked to whom? What is linked to what? On whom do people ‘count’?

3. Simulation: baselines and relational biases

a) Slovene Farmers of Feistritz, Austria – How class is counted?

b) Dukuh Hamlet and Javanese Muslim Village Elites – Are we different?

c) Pul Eliyan Kinship in Sri Lanka – What ‘side’ are you on?

d) Aydĭnlĭ Turkish Nomad Clan – What is our ‘group’? Are we from the same ‘root’?

Thinking Relationallya. Relational Representation

Showing how couples are related, e.g., by sex and rank, makes it easier to see patterns of relations. Conventional genealogical diagrams emphasize the categorical treatment of sibling sets.

Douglas R. White and Paul Jorion. 1992 “Representing and Analyzing Kinship: A Network Approach.” Current

Anthropology 33:454-462. 1996 “Kinship Networks and Discrete Structure Theory: Applications and

Implications.” Social Networks 18:267-314.Douglas R. White, Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar.1999. “Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with Pgraph and Pajek,”

Social Science Computer Review 17(3):245-274.

1

23

44

2

1

3

a parental graph

genealogies become

• parental graphs identify relinkings as cycles maximal blocks of cycles define limits of structural endogamy (bicomponents: sets of nodes where every pair is linked by two ore more node-independent paths). These are relational patterns that people recognize intuitively.

b. Defining endogamy relationally• Categorical attributes for endogamy:

– suffer from problems of specification error

• Structural endogamy is relational: – It consists of blocks of relinkings:

• blocks of blood marriage as same-family relinking• blocks of k-family relinkings, with depth g generations

– network cohesion is the more general concept 4

2

1

3male lines female lines

c. Relationally cohesive blocks in social networks have predictable consequences

• sociological uses of this approach are discussed in– White, Douglas R. and Frank Harary. 2001. "The Cohesiveness of Blocks

in Social Networks: Connectivity and Conditional Density." To appear in Sociological Methodology 2001.

– Moody, James, and Douglas R. White. 2001. “, Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups.” American Sociological Review 68(1).

– Powell, Walter W., Douglas R. White, Kenneth W. Koput and Jason Owen-Smith. 2005. “The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences.” American Journal of Sociology 110(4)

d. Identifying marriage rules and strategies relationally: controlled demographic simulation

in a science of social structure and dynamics that includes marriage and kinship, how to

define and evaluate marriage strategies against random baselines? separate ‘randomizing’ strategy from ‘preferential’ strategy? detect atomistic strategies (partial, selective) as well as global or

“elementary” marriage-rules or strategies? detect changes in marriage rules or strategies?

D. White. 1997. Structural Endogamy and the graphe de parenté. Mathématique, informatique et sciences humaines 137:107-125. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales

D. White. 1999. “Controlled Simulation of Marriage Systems.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 3(2). http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/3/5/JASSS.html

See: http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite

the simulation technique is simple:In each generation of marriages in an actual p-graph –

• number the set K of marriages 1 to k

• Reassign each person married into the generation to a random marriage in K, allowing additional rules to prevent incest as defined culturally

• But don’t change the parents: that keeps each sibling set intact

(all this is done automatically by the Pgraph software)

This gives a simulated dataset that has the same numbers of people and of marriages, the same distribution of sibling sets, hence the same sex ratio in each generation, etc.

applications of the simulation method to study structural endogamy pertain to:

• Social class,

• Elite structural endogamy,

• Wealth consolidation,

• Community/ethnic integration,

• Testing alliance, descent, and proscriptive theories and models

… in the examples to follow

4. How people ‘count’ on each other - Case Study examples

Social class and structural endogamy in the Austrian village of Feistritz: Strategic ‘counting’ of relinked kin (w/ Lilyan Brudner)

Status endogamy in a Javanese village (Dukuh hamlet and Muslim) elites (w/ Thomas Schweizer): ‘discounting’ differences in marriage frequencies (they are governed by demographic constraints, not by different consanguineal marriage preferences)

Dual organization in Sri Lanka: Preferred marriages and sidedness in Pul Eliya: ‘counting’ sides (w/ Michael Houseman)

Clan Organization among Nomadic Herders: ‘counting’ on shifting and groups with sliding scales of integration (w/ Ulla Johansen 2001)

Example 1: Carinthian Farmers – How is class counted?

• Graphic technique: showed households as a macro-unit of analysis, containing successive nuclear or stem families as nodes in the graph.

• Key concepts: marital relinking, parental graph (where nodes are marriages and lines are filiation), structural endogamy, bicomponent of the p-graph defines endogamous boundary (in those case, of social class).

• Predicted social class and heirship among farmers from the cohesive set of marriages in the farming valley (non heirs did not enter in the kinship bicomponent)

1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and Douglas White. http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/T&S/T&Spage1.htm

SOCIAL CLASS in Feistritz: Comparison of Relinking Frequencies for Actual and Simulated Data

(*=actual frequencies greater than chance as determined by simulation)

257 318

0 0 32 183 273 335

Magnitude of Structural Endogamy with ancestors back 1, 2, ..., g generations

1 2 3 4 5 6

Starting from:

Present generation

Actual 8* 16* 70* 179

Simulated

Back one generation

Actual 8* 58* 168 246 308 339

Simulated 0 18 168 255 320 347

Back two generations

Actual 26* 115* 178 243 278 292

Simulated 0 98 194 262 291 310

from Brudner and White, 1997 ‘Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,’ Theory and Society 26:161-208.

Statistical conclusion: conscious relinking among families creates structural endogamy

Pgraph software; p-graph representation: these are the heirs and families that are relinked

The social class of farmstead inheritors, 1510-1980

Here the relinking couples are correlated with the social class of farmstead heirs (r=.54, p=.000000001); if adjusted for types of missing data, the correlation is much higher

Example 2: Rural Javanese Elites - Are we different than others?

• Graphic technique: nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis, additional arrows for property flows (used in the publication) showed extended family rules for partitioning of mercantile resources and property of groups constituted by relinking.

• Key concepts: blood marriage as a form of marital relinking, p-graph, structural endogamy, bicomponent of the p-graph, the social biography of things (property flows).

• Showed (1) apparent differences in marriage patterns of elites and commoners were due to a common cultural practice of status endogamy, which for elites implied a set of potential mates whose smaller size implied marriage among blood relatives within a few generations, (2) given a common rule of division of inheritance, closer marital relinkings among elites facilitated the reconsolid-ation of wealth within extended families, and (3) extended families so constituted operated with a definite set of rules for the division of productive resources so as to distribute access to mercantile as well as landed resources.

Douglas White and Thomas Schweizer, 1998 “Kinship, Property and Stratification in Rural Java: A Network Analysis” pp. 36-58 in Schweizer and White, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. Cambridge Univ. Press.

key: A = frequency of actual marriages with a given type of relative

B = frequency of simulated random marriages with a given type of relative

TA = total of actual relatives of this type

TS = total of simulated relatives of this type

Javanese elites Dukuh Hamlet 3-Way Test

A S TA TS p= type A S TA TS p= type

1: 1 0 4 3 .625 FBD 0 1 9 12 .591 FBD p=1.0

2: 1 2 2 3 .714 MBD 1 0 11 16 .429 MBD p=1.0

3: 2 1 3 2 .714 FZDD 0 0 11 0 FZDD p=1.0

4: 0 1 6 7 .571 ZD 0 0 18 24 ZD p=1.0

0 0 11 11 Z 0 0 36 43 Z

0 0 4 4 BD 0 0 22 27 BD

0 0 2 2 ZSD

0 0 3 3 BDD 0 0 8 8 BDD

0 0 3 3 ZDD

0 0 4 4 FZ 0 0 21 27 FZ

0 0 1 1 FZSD

0 0 3 3 FZD 0 0 13 14 FZD

0 0 3 3 FBDD 0 0 3 2 FBDD

0 0 5 4 MZ 0 0 18 23 MZ

0 0 2 2 MZSD

0 0 4 4 MZD 0 0 13 14 MZD

0 0 1 2 MBDD 0 0 6 5 MBDD

0 0 2 3 MZDD

Statistical conclusion: there are no preferred marriages among elites beyond status endogamy, although blood marriages are common

STATUS ENDOGAMY in a Javanese Village (Dukuh Hamlet, Muslim Elites), Test of Actual versus Simulated Marriage among Consanguineal Kin

Hence: the same system of marriage rules operates for elites as for commoners

Example 3: Kandyan Irrigation Farmers in Sri Lanka – What ‘side’ are you on?

• Graphic technique: nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis, analysis of blood marriages, sibling sets and of inheritance or bequests revealed an underlying logic of marital sidedness.

• Key concepts: bipartite graph and sidedness (empirical bipartition of a matrimonial network, reiterated from one generation to another following a sexual criterion).

• “This remarkable work, among other merits, has that of reconstituting the near-totality of the data of Leach’s study of Pul Eliya, reexamined by means of the PGRAPH program. It reveals that Leach had not seen, and could not for lack of requisite tools of analysis, that marriages were organized in response to a logic that the authors call dividedness and in another form sidedness: invisible to the untrained eye, the matrimonial network is bipartite, the marriages of the parents and those of the children divide themselves into two distinct ensembles (which have nothing to do with moieties)” (review by Georg Augustins, L’Homme 2000)

Michael Houseman and Douglas White. 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka” pp. 59-89 in Schweizer and White, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Type Actual Simul Total Total Fisher|-----Blood Marriage------| (2)Patri-Sided? of Mar. Freq. Freq. Actual Simul Exact type P-graph notation Actual Simul

12: 5 0 40 38 p=.042 MBD(1)GF=FG yes 2: 3 1 39 40 .317 FZD GG=FF yes 1: 0 1 56 57 .508 FZ GG=F no 3: 0 1 6 6 .538 FFFZDSD GGGG=FGFF no 4: 1 0 3 1 .800 FFMZDSSD GGGF=FGGFF yes 5: 0 1 5 3 .444 FFMBDSDD GGGF=FFGFG no 6: 1 0 18 15 .558 FMBSD GGF=FGG yes 7: 0 1 17 12 .433 FMBDD GGF=FFG no 8: 2 1 18 12 .661 FMZDD GGF=FFF yes 9: 0 1 9 5 .399 FMMBSSD GGFF=FGGG no 10: 0 1 4 5 .600 FMMFZSSD GGFFG=FGGF yes 11: 0 1 6 3 .400 FMMFZDSD GGFFG=FGFF yes 13: 0 1 25 27 .528 MBSD GF=FGG yes 14: 1 0 14 10 .600 MFZDD GFG=FFF yes 15: 1 0 7 3 .727 MFFZDSSD GFGG=FGGFF yes 16: 1 0 8 4 .692 MFFZDSD GFGG=FGFF yes 17: 1 0 8 2 .818 MFMBDSSD GFGF=FGGFG yes 18: 1 0 9 3 .769 MFMBDD GFGF=FFG yes 19: 1 0 3 0 1.000 MFMBDDDD GFGF=FFFFG yes 20: 1 0 8 2 .818 MFMFZSSD GFGFG=FGGF yes 21: 1 0 3 0 1.000 MFMFZDDD GFGFG=FFFF yes 22: 1 0 13 8 .636 MMZSSD GFF=FGGF yes 23: 1 0 15 13 .551 MMBDD GFF=FFG yes 24: 0 1 11 5 .352 MMZSDD GFF=FFGF no 25: 0 1 11 5 .352 MMBDDD GFF=FFFG no 26: 1 0 11 4 .749 MMZDDD GFF=FFFF yes

conclusions:

(1) MBD is a preferred marriage

(2) All blood marriages are patri-sided

Frequencies of Actual versus Simulated Consanguineal Marriages for Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka,

Correlating Actual versus Simulated non-MBD marriages for Pul Eliya, showing tendency towards a Patri-Sided (Dravidian) Marriage Rule

Patri-Sided Unsided

Actual 18 0

Simulated 5 7 p=.0004

p=.000004 using the binomial test of an expected 50:50 split)

Marriage sides in Pul Eliya, with compound IDs for males,

red lines for females

(this slide was made with Pajek, output for web viewing)

Correlating Balanced vs. Unbalanced cycles in Actual versus Simulated marriage networks for Pul Eliya, showing a perfectly Sided (Dravidian) Marriage Rule

A. Viri-sidedness

Actual Expected

Balanced Cycles (Even length) 25 17.5

Unbalanced Cycles (Odd Length) 10 17.5

p=.008

(all exceptions involve relinkings between nonconsanguineal relatives)

B. Amblilateral-sidedness (women‘s sidedness adjusted by inheritance rules) - not shown in figure but shown in final publication (Houseman and White 1997)

Actual Expected

Balanced Cycles (Even length) 35 17.5

Unbalanced Cycles (Odd Length) 0 17.5

p=.00000000003

Example 4: Social Dynamics of a Nomadic Clan – Are we from the same ‘root’? What is our ‘group’?

We numbered each person and gave one line for each marriage with number of ego, ego’s mother, father and spouse.

Using Pgraph and Pajek, this gave a graph for the nomadic clan, ready for analysis

2004 Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process Models of a Turkish Nomad Clan. Douglas R. White and Ulla C. Johansen. 2004. Boston: Lexington Press.

1

23

44

2

1

3

Johansen’s genealogical scroll

to p-graph for entire society

p-graph of the conical nomad clan

Relational answers to Johansen’s ethnographic questions 1 “Was there a single root to the nomadic clan?” 2 “How are kinship units formed and why do units of different scale bear the same name (such as aile for family, minimal lineages, and larger joint families; kabile for tribes or smaller lineages). Are such kinship groupings the result of marriages?”

• To the extent that marriages relink different families into socially cohesive sets or bicomponents (in which each node is connected by at least two independent paths to other nodes), patterns of “structural endogamy” defined by relinking reinforce and redefine the effective units and subunits formed by consanguineal kinship links among families.

• The index of relinking of a kinship graph is measure of the extent to which marriages take place among descendents of a limited set of ancestors. For the nomad clan genealogies index of relinking is 75%, which is extremely high by world standards.

• Here is a picture of the structurally endogamous or relinked marriages within the nomad clan (nearly 75% or all marriages):

1. An apical ancestor of the 90% of those down to today’s nomad clan members

2: The polysemy of aile and kabile as embedded units of shifting scale

• It is through selection by relinking that a single “root” ancestor emerges as a statistical tendency, although there are original seven independent lineage founders.

• By the same token, smaller subsets of kinsmen come to have cohesive units defined by the intersection of blood kinship (often patrilineal) plus intramarriage.

• This is also the key to how preferences for “close” marriages (FaBrDa or FaFaBrSoDa) and “distant” marriages coexist: families establish cohesive relations at all levels, from the minimal lineage to the other lineages of the clan, as will also be seen in questions of support for leadership.

2. Structural endogamy of the nomad clan

Each marriage is contained in a cycle of previously linked marriages

Question 2: to what extent is staying together as a clan a result of marital cohesion?

Testing the Hypothesis of Relinking and Kinship Cohesion:

Relinked Non-Relinking

Marriages Marriages Totals villagers who became clan members 2** 1** 3

clan Husband and Wife 148 0 148

“ Hu married to tribes with reciprocal exchange 12 14 26

“ Hu left for village life 13 23 36

“ Hu married to village wife (34) or husband (1) 11 24 35

“ Hu married to tribes w/out reciprocal exchange 2 12 5

“ members who left for another tribe 0 8 8

villagers not joined to clan 1 3** 4

* tribes **non-clan by origin

Totals 189 85 274

Pearson’s coefficient r=.95 without middle cells

Legend: Each marriage is classified as to whether or not it is part of the giant bicomponent of relinked marriages, and then by clan or various types of non-clan membership of the couple. Cells in which the relinked vs. non-relinked marriages are predicted are shown in bold, and are segregated by the four larger cells in the table. The correlation (Pearson’s coefficient) between couples in relinked marriages and residence with the clan is .95.

Conclusion

• It is possible to construct a field of conceptual ethnography where cognition, social structure, and culture are integrated.

• Cognition ‘counts upon’ the social network, relationally

• Culture and cohesive integration can be defined relationally, utilizing networks.

END

Summary: Random Baseline Models for the Study of Social Rules

1999 “Controlled Simulation of Marriage Systems.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 2(3). Douglas R. White. http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/3/5/JASSS.html software and statistical methodology for comparing systems of marriage-rules to random baseline models with controls for demographic variability.

1. For the Austrian study, random baseline models established the preference for relinking with relatives within 3 generations.

2. For the Javanese study, the lack of difference between commoner and elite marriages is supported, in spite of differences in frequency of different marriage types.

3. For the Pul Eliya study, random baseline models established the patri-sided marriage rule for blood marriages, and the absence of a genealogical rule for determining the marriageability of distant affines.

A single root to a nomadic clan with 10 lineages?

• The number of descendants of each ancestor is a simple genealogical calculation from the p-graph.

• It turns out that there is one single apical ancestor for 90% of clan between generations 3 and today’s clan members.

• This occurs because descendants of the “root” ancestor relink with others, so nearly everyone becomes a descendant of the root, and because those who do not relink tend to leave the clan.

• The “root” ancestor occurs at the generation where a single effective “matchmaker” effectively relinks all the sibling sets in the clan through the marriages of his children, one of them becomes the “root.”

The Social Dynamics of a Nomadic Clan• In sum:

– 1 Who stays and who returns to village life is predicted from kinship bicomponent membership (structural endogamy).

– 2 Bicomponent relinking also plays a role in the emergence of a root ancestor, and of more localized root ancestors for different levels of kinship groupings.

– Dynamic reconfigurations of political factions and their leaders are predicted from ensembles with different levels of edge-independent connectivity.

– An index of the decline of cohesion of the clan is the fragmentation of cohesive components in later generations...

• Key concepts: bicomponent, edge-independent paths, connectivity. • Graphic technique: nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis.

Ulla Johansen and Douglas R. White. 2001. “Collaborative Long-Term Ethnography and Longitudinal Social Analysis of a Nomadic Clan in Southeastern Turkey.” In press, Chronicling Cultures: Long-Term Field Research in Anthropology, edited by Robert V. Kemper and Anya Royce. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

SUMMARYAnalyzing cohesive groups in genealogical and kinship networks

• Bicomponents have special application to kinship networks when genealogies are represented as p-graphs. They are trivially easy to compute for large graphs (even to 1,000,000 nuclear families in Pajek, which converts GED files to p-graph format).

• When Pajek analyzes bicomponents, it ignores the orientation of arcs, and finds the maximal cohesive subgraphs of a genealogical network. A giant maximal cohesive subgraph is the unique subgraph (if any) that encompasses a number of nodes in the graph many times greater than any other bicomponent.

• Analytically, the giant bicomponent of a kinship graph contains the information necessary to analyze the cohesive marriage structure of a social group. (White and Jorion 1992, White 1997, 1999)

• a p-graph is an asymmetric and acyclic digraph in which each node has a maximum of two parental nodes, one in a paternal line of filiation and the other in a maternal line.

• The giant maximal cohesive subgraph of a kinship network identifies families who are relinked, a social group with potentially important substantive properties in terms of those who might

– constitute a social class;

– be more likely to participate in community activities and officeholding;

– recognize kinship/affinity connections;

– be less likely to emigrate from the community, etc.

Question 4: How did leaders emerge out of the background of followers in their lineage and their clan?

• Tanidik kisiler (=known persons) emerge as leaders partly by force of their personality, but also by the extent of their support network not only from their lineage, but in support that is distributed across lineages.

• Hence the hypothesis that “distributed cohesion” is a basis for sets of people who are the support group for competing leaders has two aspects:

– such groups overlap, cross-cross, and may contain structural “holes,” but are stronger to the extent that the span larger segments of the entire clan, and do not consist of just a localized and partial faction

– the level of cohesion can be measured by the number of edge-independent paths between pairs within the group, including the leader. This is equivalent to the maximum flow capacity for between each pair, where a single parent-child link is considered to have a capacity of unity. This measure can be computed in UCINet.

Hierarchical Clustering of Maximum Flow Values When maxflow is computed for the 243 couples in the bicomponent of the

kinship graph, a strong centralized pattern is evident.

atemporal perspective: six groups and their leaders (index of relinking=.74)

Group Cohesion

I 5

II 4

III 6

IV 7

V 8

VI 3

Statics and dynamics of leadership groups

e c a b d f

Clan center leadership cam

Example 5: The “Invisible State” in Tlaxcala

• In Press. Douglas White, Michael Schnegg, Lilyan Brudner, and Hugo Nutini. Conectividad Múltiple y sus Fronteras de Integración: Parentesco y Compadrazgo en Tlaxcala Rural. In, Jorge Gil and Samuel Schmidt, eds., Redes Sociales: Teoría y Aplicaciones. México, DF: UNAM Press.

• In contrast to the Austrian study, the Mexican case established a network basis for the observed cross-village egalitarian class structure.

• The structurally cohesive group defined by marital ties of Mexican villagers was restricted to a core that included families with several generations of residence and excluded recent immigrants and families in adjacent villages. The structurally cohesive group defined by compadrazgo (ritual kinship established between parents and godparents), on the other hand, crosscut this village nucleus and integrated recent immigrants.

• As a test of the hypothesis that bicomponent and connectivity structures are cohesive, we used bicomponent membership to predict participation in civil and religious organizations and activities

• Graphic technique: nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis and of the compadrazgo network, i.e., multiple networks.

Bicomponent predictions of political and religious participation

Belén Ancestors‘ (N=252 generations 2-4) Core/Periphery Positions in kinship and marriage

Relinked Giant component Small Components Born OutsidersAyuntamiento Civil/Religioso 55 13 3 1Non-Ayuntamiento 43 31 20 86

Kinship Relinking Predicting Ayuntamiento Civil/Religioso (r=.53, p<.0001)

Belén Compadrazgos (N=1458) Core/Periphery Positions

Relinked Giant component Small Components Born OutsidersAyuntamiento Civil/Religioso 65 2 0 0Non-Ayuntamiento 49 16 10 1316

Compadrazgo Relinking Predicting Ayuntamiento Civil/Religioso (r=.39, p<.0001 excluding outsiders; with outsiders r=.72, p<.0001)

Dual Organization and Balance (Duality and Clustering) in kinship networks: Bipartite and k-Partitite Graphs

.• The “Glossaire de la Parenté” (Barry et al., 2000

L’Homme 154-55) includes two definitions that exemplify contributions of network and p-graph analysis to the study of dual organization:

• Pratique matrimonial - refers to effectively realized unions (see also “alliance”) as contrasted with the idea of matrimonial norms.

• Réseau matrimonial / matrimonial network - the set of marital links or alliances developed around ego (egocentric network) or a given (residential, social, etc.) dataset (sociocentric network); the formal properties derived from this set of relations.

• Sidedness - Structure “à cotés” (Houseman and White 1996) - Empirical bipartition of a matrimonial network, reiterated from one generation to another following a sexual criterion, as for example where the network takes the form of intermarriages between opposing two sets of lineages.

• Dividedness - Structure “en partage” (Houseman and White 1996) - Empirical bipartition of a matrimonial network, not reiterated from one generation to the next, where the network takes the form of inter-marriages between two ensembles of sibling groups.

• References: • Laurent S. Barry et al. 2000, “Glossaire de la

Parenté,” L’Homme 154-55 (Question de Parenté): 721-732, Postface by Lévi-Strauss.

• Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1996 «Structures réticulaires de la pratique matrimoniale» L'Homme 139:59-85.

• Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka.” pp. 59-89, In, Thomas Schweizer and drw, eds.. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. Cambridge University Press.

• Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1998. “Taking Sides: Marriage Networks and Dravidian Kinship in Lowland South America” Pp. 214-243, In, Maurice Godelier, Thomas Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, eds., Transform-ations of Kinship, Smithsonian Institution Press.

• Hage, P., and F. Harary. 1983. Structural Models in Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), and other books.

References

• see 1999 Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with Pgraph and Pajek Social Science Computer Review 17(3):245-274. Douglas R. White, Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar. Contains a manual for p-graph kinship analysis, where nodes are marriages and lines are filiation (parentage), and discussions of software programs up to 1999 (others available from Michael Schnegg). http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek.

• 1997 Structural Endogamy and the graphe de parenté. Mathématique, Informatique et sciences humaines 137:107-125. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.

• See also: 1983 Hage, P., and F. Harary. Structural Models in Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), and other books by Hage and Harary.

• 1996. Schweizer, Thomas. Muster sozialer Ordnung. Berlin: Deitrich Reimer Verlag.

II. Analyzing genealogical and kinship networks, Review of Order 2: Networks and Balance (Duality and Clustering), Bipartite Graphs

• The “Glossaire de la Parenté” (Barry et al., 2000) includes two definitions that exemplify contributions of network and p-graph analysis to the study of dual organization:

• Pratique matrimonial - refers to effectively realized unions (see also “alliance”) as contrasted with the idea of matrimonial norms.

• Réseau matrimonial / matrimonial network - the set of marital links or alliances developed around ego (egocentric network) or a given (residential, social, etc.) dataset (sociocentric network); the formal properties derived from this set of relations.

• Sidedness - Structure “à cotés” (Houseman and White 1996) - Empirical bipartition of a matrimonial network, reiterated from one generation to another following a sexual criterion, as for example where the network takes the form of intermarriages between opposing two sets of lineages.

• Dividedness - Structure “en partage” (Houseman and White 1996) - Empirical bipartition of a matrimonial network, not reiterated from one generation to the next, where the network takes the form of inter-marriages between two ensembles of sibling groups.

• References: • Laurent S. Barry et al. 2000, “Glossaire de la

Parenté,” L’Homme, 721-732. special issue on Question de Parenté, Postface by Lévi-Strauss.

• Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1996 Structures réticulaires de la pratique matrimoniale L'Homme 139:59-85.

• Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1998 Network Mediation of Exchange Structures: Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka. pp. 59-89, In, Thomas Schweizer and drw, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. Cambridge University Press.

• Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1998. Taking Sides: Marriage Networks and Dravidian Kinship in Lowland South America Pp. 214-243 in Transformations of Kinship, Maurice Godelier, Thomas Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, eds. Smithsonian Institution Press.

• Hage, P., and F. Harary. 1983. Structural Models in Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), and other books.

p-graph of the conical nomad clan

Structural endogamy of the nomad clan

Each marriage is contained in a cycle of previously linked marriages