Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 22, Issue 1–2, pp 128–138 | Cite as

Dynamics of Postmarital Residence among the Hadza

A Kin Investment Model
  • Brian M. Wood
  • Frank W. Marlowe
Article

Abstract

When we have asked Hadza whether married couples should live with the family of the wife (uxorilocally) or the family of the husband (virilocally), we are often told that young couples should spend the first years of a marriage living with the wife’s family, and then later, after a few children have been born, the couple has more freedom—they can continue to reside with the wife’s kin, or else they could join the husband’s kin, or perhaps live in a camp where there are no close kin. In this paper, we address why shifts in kin coresidence patterns may arise in the later years of a marriage, after the birth of children. To do so, we model the inclusive fitness costs that wives might experience from leaving their own kin and joining their husband’s kin as a function of the number of children in their nuclear family. Our model suggests that such shifts should become less costly to wives as their families grow. This simple model may help explain some of the dynamics of postmarital residence among the Hadza and offer insight into the dynamics of multilocal residence, the most prevalent form of postmarital residence among foragers.

Keywords

Kinship Hadza Hunter-gatherers Postmarital residence Inclusive fitness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Hadza people for their hospitality, and the National Science Foundation, the Leakey Foundation, and the Wenner Gren Foundation for research funding. We thank the Tanzanian Commission for Science and Technology for permitting us to conduct research with the Hadza and Professor Audax Mabulla for his assistance. Thank you Mary Shenk and Siobhán Mattison for organizing the kinship symposium at the 2009 AAA meetings. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of an earlier version of this article for their comments and helpful suggestions.

References

  1. Bahuchet, S. (1991). Spatial mobility and access to resources among the African pygmies. In M. Casimir & A. Rao (Eds.), Mobility and territoriality: Social and spatial boundaries among foragers, fishers, pastoralists and peripatetics (pp. 205–255). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  2. Blurton Jones, N., Hawkes, K., & O’Connell, J. (2005). Older Hadza men and women as helpers: Residence data. In B. Hewlett & M. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods (pp. 214–236). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  3. Boesch, C., & Boesch-Achermann, H. (2000). The chimpanzees of the Tai forest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chapais, B. (2008). Primeval kinship: How pair-bonding gave birth to human society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Collier, J. (1993). Marriage and inequality in classless societies. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Divale, W. (1974). Migration, external warfare, and matrilocal residence. Cross-Cultural Research, 9, 75–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ember, M., & Ember, C. (1971). The conditions favoring matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. American Anthropologist, 73, 571–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fouts, H., Hewlett, B., & Lamb, M. (2001). Weaning and the nature of early childhood interactions among Bofi foragers of Central Africa. Human Nature, 12, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Furuichi, T., & Ihobe, H. (1994). Variation in male relationships in bonobos and chimpanzees. Behaviour, 7, 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior, I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1–16), 17–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hames, R., & Draper, P. (2004). Women's work, child care, and helpers-at-the-nest in a hunter-gatherer society. Human Nature, 15, 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawkes, K., O'Connell, J., & Blurton Jones, N. (1989). Hardworking Hadza grandmothers. In V. Standen & R. Foley (Eds.), Comparative socioecology: The behavioural ecology of humans and other mammals (pp. 341–366). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J., Blurton Jones, N., Charnov, E., & Alvarez, H. (1998). Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U.S.A., 95, 1336–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (1999). Life history traits in humans: theory and empirical studies. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill, K., Walker, R., Božičevic, M., Eder, J., Headland, T., Hewlett, B., Hurtado, A. M., Marlowe, F., Wiessner, P., & Wood, B. (2011). Co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique human social structure. Science, 331, 1286–1289.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. (2000). A theory of human life history evolution: diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9, 156–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Korotayev, A. (2003). Division of labor by gender and postmarital residence in cross-cultural perspective: a reconsideration. Cross-Cultural Research, 37, 335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kramer, K., & Ellison, P. (2010). Pooled energy budgets: resituating human energy allocation trade-offs. Evolutionary Anthropology, 19, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, R., & DeVore, I. (1968). Problems in the study of hunters and gatherers. In R. Lee & I. DeVore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 3–12). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, R. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Marlowe, F. (2004). Marital residence among foragers. Current Anthropology, 45, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Naroll, R. (1970). What have we learned from cross-cultural surveys? American Anthropologist, 72, 1227–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Otterbein, K. (1968). Internal war: A cross-cultural study. American Anthropologist, 70, 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodseth, L., Wrangham, R., Harrigan, A., & Smuts, B. (1991). The human community as a primate society. Current Anthropology, 32, 429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scelza, B., & Bliege Bird, R. (2008). Group structure and female cooperative networks in Australia’s Western Desert. Human Nature, 19, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Winking, J., Kaplan, H., Gurven, M., & Rucas, S. (2007). Why do men marry and why do they stray? Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 274, 1643–1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Woodburn, J. (1968). Stability and flexibility in Hadza residential groupings. In R. Lee & I. DeVore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 103–117). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyDurham UniversityDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations