Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Matrilocal Tribe

An Organization of Demic Expansion

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article integrates (1) research in the historical dynamics of state societies relating group solidarity and group expansion to cultural frontiers, (2) comparative research in anthropology relating matrilocality to a particular variety of internal politics and a particular form of warfare, and (3) interdisciplinary reconstructions of large-scale “demic expansions” and associated kinship systems in prehistory. The argument is that “metaethnic frontiers,” where very different cultures clash, are centers for the formation of larger, more enduring, and more militarily effective groups. In small-scale non-state societies, the major path toward the formation of such groups is the establishment of cross-cutting ties among men. This often involves the adoption of matrilocal norms. The current distribution of matrilocality and matrilineality around the world may be partly a residue of major demic expansions in prehistory involving matrilocal tribes. This hypothesis is evaluated with a range of evidence, including information regarding the spread of two language families, Bantu and Austronesian.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A note on terminology: I am concerned here with a cluster of institutions: matrilineal descent groups (groups based on descent through the female line), matrilocal residence (a man moves from his natal household to reside with his wife and her kin), and avunculocal residence (a man and his wife reside with his mother’s brother). Here I define a “matricentric” society as a matrilineal, matrilocal, or avunculocal society (Burton et al. 1996) and subsume “uxorilocality” under “matrilocality” and “virilocality” under “patrilocality.”

  2. Murdock (1968) on sibling terminology implicitly contradicts his earlier hypothesis (1949) that ancestral Austronesian kinship was non-unilineal.

  3. Low population density can also weaken group solidarity. Societies with scattered populations—many hunters and gatherers, for example—have a difficult time maintaining internal peace even when their numbers are small (Ember 1974).

References

  • Aberle, D. F. (1961). Matrilineal descent in cross-cultural perspective. In D. Schneider & K. Gough (Eds.), Matrilineal kinship (pp. 655–727). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, H., III, & Yoder, B. L. (2002). Multiple predictors of contribution by women to agriculture. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellwood, P. (1997). Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian archipelago (revisedth ed.). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellwood, P. (2005). First farmers: The origins of agricultural societies. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blust, R. (1976). Austronesian culture history: some linguistic inferences and their relations to the archaeological record. World Archaeology, 8, 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blust, R. (1980a). Early Austronesian social-organization—the evidence of language. Current Anthropology, 21, 205–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blust, R. (1980b). Notes on proto-Malayo-Polynesian phratry dualism. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 136, 215–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blust, R. (1993). Austronesian sibling terms and culture history. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 149, 22–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blust, R. (1996). Austronesian culture history: the window of language. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society (n.s.), 86, 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. K. (1970). Subsistence variables: a comparison of Textor and Sauer. Ethnology, 9, 160–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, M. L., Moore, C. C., Whiting, J. W. M., & Romney, A. K. (1996). Regions based on social structure. Current Anthropology, 37, 87–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J., & Bellwood, P. (2003). Farmers and their languages: the first expansions. Science, 300, 597–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divale, W. T. (1974a). Migration, external warfare, and matrilocal residence. Cross-Cultural Research, 9, 75–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divale, W. (1974b). The causes of matrilocal residence: A cross-ethnohistorical survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Microfilms. No. 75–7742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Divale, W. T. (1984). Matrilocal residence in pre-literate society. Ann Arbor: UMI Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Divale, W. T., Chamberis, F., & Gangloff, D. (1976). War, peace, and marital residence in pre-industrial societies. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20, 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1964). Matriliny and pawnship in Central Africa. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 34, 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1969). Is matriliny doomed in Africa? In M. Douglas & P. Kaberry (Eds.), Man in Africa (pp. 121–135). London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham, W. H. (1976). Resource competition and human aggression, part I: a review of primitive war. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 51, 385–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehret, C. (1998). An African classical age: Eastern and southern Africa in world history, 1000 B.C. to A.D. 400. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ember, C. (1974). An evaluation of alternative theories of matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. Behavior Science Research, 9, 135–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ember, M., & Ember, C. (1971). The conditions favoring matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. American Anthropologist, 73, 571–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinn, M. V. (1981). Uterine vs. agnatic kinship variability and associated cousin marriage preferences: An evolutionary biological analysis. In M. V. Flinn, R. D. Alexander, & D. W. Tinkle (Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior (pp. 439–475). New York: Chiron.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, W. (1955). A problem in Malayo-Polynesian social organization. American Anthropologist, 57, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, K. (1961). Variation in residence. In D. Schneider & K. Gough (Eds.), Matrilineal kinship (pp. 545–576). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. D., Drummond, A. J., & Greenhill, S. J. (2009). Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science, 323, 479–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, P. (1978). Promiscuity, paternity, and culture. American Ethnologist, 5, 151–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage, P. (1998a). Proto-Polynesian kin terms and descent groups. Oceanic Linguistics, 37, 189–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage, P. (1998b). Was Proto-Oceanic society matrilineal? Journal of the Polynesian Society, 107, 365–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, P. (1999). Reconstructing ancestral Oceanic society. Asian Perspectives, 38, 200–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, P., & Marck, J. (2003). Matrilineality and the Melanesian origin of Polynesian Y chromosomes. Current Anthropology, 44, s121–s127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage, P., & Marck, J. (2010). Proto-Bantu descent groups. In D. Jones & B. Milicic (Eds.), Kinship, language, and prehistory: Per Hage and the renaissance in kinship studies (pp. 75–78). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartung, J. (1981). Paternity and inheritance of wealth. Nature, 291, 652–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartung, J. (1985). Matrilineal inheritance: new theory and analysis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 661–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. J. (2002). Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan Africa: a maximum-parsimony analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 269, 793–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. J., & Mace, R. (2003). Spread of cattle led to the loss of matrilineal descent in Africa: a coevolutionary analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Landon, Series B, 270, 2425–2433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. J., & Mace, R. (2005). The cow is the enemy of matriliny: Using phylogenetic methods to investigate cultural evolution in Africa. In R. Mace, C. J. Holden & S. Shennan (Eds.), The evolution of cultural diversity: A phylogenetic approach (pp. 217–234). University College London Institute of Archaeology Publications. Walnut Creek: Left Coast.

  • Holden, C. J., Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2003). Matriliny as daughter-biased investment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurles, M. E., Matisoo-Smith, E., Gray, R. D., & Penny, D. (2003). Untangling Oceanic settlement: the edge of the knowable. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (2000). Group nepotism and human kinship. Current Anthropology, 41, 779–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (2003). Kinship and deep history: exploring connections between culture areas, genes, and languages. American Anthropologist, 105, 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, F. M., Gray, R. D., Greenhill, S. J., & Mace, R. (2009). Matrilocal residence is ancestral in Austronesian societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, 276, 1957–1964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, G. E. (1976). Conflicting loyalties theory: a cross-cultural test. Ethnology, 15, 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, G. E. (1979). Exogamy and peace relations of social units: a cross-cultural test. Ethnology, 18, 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. H. (1996). War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirch, P. V., & Green, R. C. (2001). Hawaiki, ancestral Polynesia: An essay in historical anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Korotayev, A. (2001). An apologia of George Peter Murdock. Division of labor by gender and postmarital residence in cross-cultural perspective: a reconsideration. World Cultures, 12, 179–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korotayev, A. (2003). Form of marriage, sexual division of labor, and postmarital residence in cross-cultural perspective: a reconsideration. Journal of Anthropological Research, 59, 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, K., & Greaves, R. (2011). Postmarital residence and bilateral kin associations among hunter-gatherers: Pumé foragers living in the best of both worlds. Human Nature, 22 (1&2). doi:10.1007/s12110-011-9115-7.

  • Lancaster, C. S. (1976). Women, horticulture, and society in sub-Saharan Africa. American Anthropologist, 78, 539–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York: Appleton-Century.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, B. S. (1988). Measures of human polygyny. Current Anthropology, 29, 189–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace, R., & Holden, C. (1999). Evolutionary ecology and cross-cultural comparison: The case of matrilineal descent in sub-Saharan Africa. In P. C. Lee (Ed.), Comparative primate socioecology (pp. 387–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marck, J. (2008). Proto-Oceanic society was matrilineal. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 1176, 345–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marck, J., & Boeston, K. (2010). Proto oceanic (Austronesian) and Proto East Bantu (Niger-Congo) kin terms ca. 1000 BC. In D. Jones & B. Milicic (Eds.), Kinship, language, and prehistory: Per Hage and the renaissance in kinship studies (pp. 83–91). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marck, J., Hage, P., Bostoen, K., & Muzenga, J.-G. K. (2010). Kin terms in the East Bantu proto languages: Initial findings. In D. Jones & B. Milicic (Eds.), Kinship, language, and prehistory: Per Hage and the renaissance in kinship studies (pp. 79–82). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattison, S. M. (2011). Evolutionary contributions to solving the “matrilineal puzzle”: a test of Holden, Sear, and Mace’s model. Human Nature, 22 (1&2). doi:10.1007/s12110-011-9107-7.

  • Morgan, L. H. (1985). Ancient society. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Originally published in 1877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P. (1968). Patterns of sibling terminology. Ethnology, 7, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. F. (1956). Matrilocality and patrilineality in Mundurucu society. American Anthropologist, 58, 414–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. F. (1957). Intergroup hostility and social cohesion. American Anthropologist, 59, 1018–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. F. (1960). Headhunter’s heritage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Y., & Murphy, R. F. (1974). Women of the forest. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurse, D., & Philippson, G. (2003). Towards a historical classification of the Bantu languages. In D. Nurse & G. Philippson (Eds.), The Bantu languages (pp. 164–181). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otterbein, K. F. (1968). Internal war: a cross-cultural study. American Anthropologist, 70, 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otterbein, K. F. (1970). The evolution of war. New Haven: HRAF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otterbein, K. F., & Otterbein, C. S. (1965). An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: a cross-cultural study of feuding. American Anthropologist, 67, 1470–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paige, J. M. (1974). Kinship and polity in stateless societies. The American Journal of Sociology, 80, 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawley, A. (2002). The Austronesian dispersal: Languages, technologies and people. In P. Bellwood & C. Renfrew (Eds.), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis (pp. 251–274). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawley, A., & Ross, M. (1993). Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 425–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, D. W. (1993). African archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renfrew, C. (1990). Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rexová, K., Bastin, Y., & Frynta, D. (2006). Cladistic analysis of Bantu languages: a new tree based on combined lexical and grammatical data. Die Naturwissenschaften, 93, 189–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, A. I. (1950). Some types of family structure among the Central Bantu. In A. R. Radcliffe-Brown & Daryll Forde (Eds.), African systems of kinship and marriage (pp. 207–251). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivers, W. H. R. (1914). The history of Melanesian society, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. D. (1961). The segmentary lineage: an organization of predatory expansion. American Anthropologist, 63, 322–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlegel, A., & Barry, H., III. (1986). The cultural consequences of female contribution to subsistence. American Ethnologist, 88, 142–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Service, E. R. (1962). Primitive social organization. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenk, M. K., & Mattison, S. M. (2011). The rebirth of kinship: Evolutionary and quantitative approaches in the revitalization of a dying field. Human Nature, 22 (1&2). doi:10.1007/s12110-011-9105-9.

  • Swanson, G. E. (1969). Rules of descent: Studies in the sociology of parentage. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Anthropological Paper 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tefft, S. R., & Reinhardt, D. (1974). Warfare regulation: a cross-cultural test of hypotheses among tribal peoples. Behavior Science Research, 9, 151–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turchin, P. (2003). Historical dynamics: Why states rise and fall. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turchin, P. (2006). War and peace and war: The life cycles of imperial nations. New York: Pi Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turchin, P. (2009). A theory for formation of large empires. Journal of Global History, 4, 191–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tylor, E. (1888). On a method of investigating the development of institutions; applied to laws of marriage and descent. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 18, 245–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vansina, J. (1984). Western Bantu expansion. Journal of African History, 25, 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansina, J. (1990). Paths in the rainforest: Towards a history of political tradition in Equatorial Africa. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Velzen, T., & van Vetering, W. (1960). Residence, power groups and intra-societal aggression. International Archives of Ethnography, 49, 169–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, D. R., & Burton, M. L. (1988). Causes of polygyny: ecology, economy, kinship and warfare. American Anthropologist, 90, 871–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Mary Shenk and Siobhan Mattison for their role in organizing the seminar at which an earlier version of this paper was presented, and to the Department of Anthropology and the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Utah for support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 102 Stewart Building, Salt Lake City, UT, 84102, USA

    Doug Jones

Authors
  1. Doug Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doug Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, D. The Matrilocal Tribe. Hum Nat 22, 177–200 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-011-9108-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-011-9108-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation