Skip to main content

Allomaternal Care among the Hadza of Tanzania

Abstract

Cooperative child care among humans, where individuals other than the biological mother (allomothers) provide care, may increase a mother’s fertility and the survivorship of her children. Although the potential benefits to the mother are clear, the motivations for allomothers to provide care are less clear. Here, we evaluate the kin selection allomothering hypothesis using observations on Hadza hunter-gatherers collected in ten camps over 17 months. Our results indicate that related allomothers spend the largest percentage of time holding children. The higher the degree of relatedness among kin, the more time they spend holding, supporting the hypothesis of nepotism as the strongest motivation for providing allomaternal care. Unrelated helpers of all ages also provide a substantial amount of investment, which may be motivated by learning to mother, reciprocity, or coercion.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Asa, C. S. (1997). Hormonal and experiential factors in the expression of social and parental behavior in canids. In N. G. Solomon, & J. A. French (Eds.), Cooperative breeding in mammals (pp. 129–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bereczkei, T. (1998). Kinship network, direct childcare, and fertility among Hungarians and Gypsies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bereczkei, T., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1997). Female-biased reproductive strategies in a Hungarian Gypsy population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 264, 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bereczkei, T., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2002). Helping-at-the-nest and sex-biased parental investment in a Hungarian Gypsy population. Current Anthropology, 43, 804–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blurton Jones, N. G. (1993). The lives of hunter-gatherer children: effects of parental behavior and parental reproductive strategy. In M. E. Pereira, & L. A. Fairbanks (Eds.), Juvenile primates: life history, development, and behavior (pp. 309–326). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blurton Jones, N. G., Hawkes, K., & O’Connell, J. F. (1989). Modeling and measuring costs of children in two foraging societies. In V. Standen, & R. A. Foley (Eds.), Comparative socioecology (pp. 367–390). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blurton Jones, N. G., Marlowe, F. W., Hawkes, K., & O’Connell, J. (2000). Paternal investment and hunter-gatherer divorce rates. In L. Cronk, N. Chagnon, & W. Irons (Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: an anthropological perspective (pp. 69–90). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blurton Jones, N. G., Hawkes, K., & O’Connell, J. F. (2005). Older Hadza men and women as helpers: residence data. In B. S. Hewlett, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods (pp. 214–236). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bove, R. B., Valeggia, C. R., & Ellison, P. T. (2002). Girl helpers and time allocation of nursing women among the Toba of Argentina. Human Nature, 13, 457–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2002). Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science, 296, 69–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cockburn, A. (1998). Evolution of helping behavior in cooperatively breeding birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 141–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crognier, E., Baali, A., & Hilali, M. K. (2001). Do “helpers at the nest” increase their parents’ reproductive success? American Journal of Human Biology, 13, 365–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crognier, E., Villena, M., & Vargas, E. (2002). Helping patterns and reproductive success in Aymara communities. American Journal of Human Biology, 14, 372–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Davies, N. (1992). Dunnock behaviour and social evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Denham, W. (1974). Infant transport among the Alyawara tribe, Central Australia. Oceania, 64, 253–277.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Emlen, S. T. (1991). Evolution of cooperative breeding in birds and mammals. In J. R. Krebs, & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach (pp. 301–337). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Emlen, S. T. (1994). Benefits, constraints, and the evolution of the family. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 282–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Emlen, S. T., & Wrege, P. H. (1989). A test of alternate hypotheses for helping behavior in white-fronted bee-eaters of Kenya. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 25, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Euler, H. A., & Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 7, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Flinn, M. V. (1989). Household composition and female reproductive strategies in a Trinidadian village. In A. E. Rasa, C. Vogel, & E. Voland (Eds.), The sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies (pp. 206–233). London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Foster, K. R., Wenseleers, T., & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2006). Kin selection is the key to altruism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. French, J. A. (1997). Proximate regulation of singular bleeding in callitrichid primates. In N. G. Solomon, & J. A. French (Eds.), Cooperative breeding in mammals (pp. 34–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Garber, P. A., & Leigh, S. R. (1997). Ontogenetic variation in small-bodied New World primates: implications for patterns of reproduction and infant care. Folia Primatologica, 68, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Griffin, A. S., & West, S. A. (2002). Kin selection: fact and fiction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17, 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hames, R. (1988). The allocation of parental care among the Ye’kawana. In L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff-Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behavior (pp. 237–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hawkes, K. (1997). Hadza women’s time allocation, offspring production, and the evolution of long postmenopausal life spans. Current Anthropology, 38, 551–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., & Blurton Jones, N. G. (1989). Hardworking Hadza grandmothers. In V. Standen, & R.A. Foley (Eds.), Comparative socioecology of humans and other mammals (pp. 341–366). London: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., & Blurton Jones, N. G. (1997). Hadza women’s time allocation, offspring provisioning, and the evolution of long postmenopausal life spans. Current Anthropology, 38, 551–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., Blurton Jones, N. G., Charnov, E. L., & Alvarez, H. (1998). Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 9, 1336–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heinsohn, R., & Double, M. C. (2004). Cooperate or speciate: new theory for the distribution of passerine birds. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 55–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: a history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hrdy, S. B. (2005a). Comes the child before the man: how cooperative breeding and prolonged post-weaning dependence shaped human potentials. In B. S. Hewlett, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods (pp. 65–91). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hrdy, S. B. (2005b). Evolutionary context of human development: the cooperative breeding model. In C. S. Carter, L. Ahnert, et al. (Eds.), Attachment and bonding: a new synthesis (pp. 9–32). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ivey, P. K. (2000). Cooperative reproduction in the Ituri forest hunter-gatherers: who cares for Efe infants? Current Anthropology, 41, 856–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jarvis, J. U. M., O’Riain, J., Bennet, N. C., & Sherman, P. W. (1994). Mammalian eusociality: a family affair. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Konner, M. J. (2005). Hunter-gatherer infancy and childhood: the !Kung and others. In B. S. Hewlett, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods (pp. 19–64). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kramer, K. L. (2005). Children’s help and the pace of reproduction: cooperative breeding in humans. Evolutionary Anthropology, 14, 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kramer, P. A. (1998). The costs of human locomotion: maternal investment in child transport. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 107, 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lancaster, J. B. (1971). Play-mothering: the relations between juvenile females and young infants among free-ranging vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). Folia Primatologica, 15, 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Leonetti, D., Nath, D. C., Hemam, N. S. & Neill, D. B. (2002),. Cooperative breeding effects of among the matrilineal Khasi of Northeast India. Paper presented at Human Behavior and Evolution Society Meetings, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey.

  42. Leonetti, D., Nath, D. C., Hemam, N. S., & Neill, D. B. (2005). Kinship organization and grandmother’s impact on reproductive success among the matrilineal Khasi and patrilineal Bengali of N.E. India. In E. Voland, A. Chasiotis, & W. Schiefenhoevel (Eds.), Grandmotherhood: the evolutionary significance of the second half of female life (pp. 194–214). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ligon, J. D., & Ligon, S. H. (1978). Communal breeding in green woodhoopoes as a case for reciprocity. Nature, 276, 496–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mace, R., & Sear, R. (2005). Are humans cooperative breeders? In E. Voland, A. Chasiotis, & W. Schiefenhoevel (Eds.), Grandmotherhood: the evolutionary significance of the second half of female life (pp. 194–214). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Marlowe, F. W. (1999). Male care and mating effort among Hadza foragers. Behavioral Ecology and Socioecology, 46, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Marlowe, F. W. (2003). A critical period for provisioning by Hadza men: implications for pair bonding. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Martial residence among foragers. Current Anthropology, 45, 277–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Marlowe, F. W. (2005). Who tends Hadza children? In B. S. Hewlett, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods (pp. 177–190). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  49. McKenna, J. J. (1987). Parental supplements and surrogates among primates: cross-species and cross-cultural comparisons. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. Rossi, & L. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: biosocial dimensions (pp. 143–186). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Meehan, C. L. (2005). The effects of residential locality on parental and alloparental investment among the Aka foragers of the Central African Republic. Human Nature, 16, 58–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mitani, J., & Watts, D. (1997). The evolution of non-maternal caretaking among anthropoid primates: do helpers help? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 40, 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Reyer, H. U. (1984). Investment and relatedness: a cost/benefit analysis of breeding and helping in the pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis). Animal Behaviour, 32, 1163–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Russell, A. F., & Hatchwell, B. J. (2001). Experimental evidence for kin-biased helping in a cooperatively breeding vertebrate. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, 268, 2169–2174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sear, R., Mace, R., & McGregor, I. A. (2000). Maternal grandmothers improve nutritional status and survival of children in rural Gambia. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Series B, 267, 1641–1647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sear, R., Steel, F., Mc Gregor, I., & Mace, R. (2002). The effects of kin on child mortality in rural Gambia. Demography, 39, 43–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Skutch, A. F. (1987). Helpers at birds’ nests: a worldwide survey of cooperative breeding and related behavior. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Turke, P. (1988). “Helpers at the nest”: child care networks on the Ifaulk. In L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff-Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behaviour: a Darwinian perspective (pp. 173–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wall-Scheffler, C. M., Geiger, K., & Steudel-Numbers, K. L. (2007). Infant carrying: the role of increased locomotory costs in early tool development. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 133, 841–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wilson, E. O. (1971). The insect societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Woodburn, J. (1968). Stability and flexibility in Hadza residential groupings. In R. B. Lee, & I. DeVore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 103–110). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wright, J. (1997). Helping-at-the-nest in Arabian babblers: signaling social status or sensible investment in chicks? Animal Behaviour, 54, 1439–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by NSF grants #9529278 and #0544751 (to FWM) and grants from the University of California, San Diego (to ANC). We would like to thank Dave Zes (UCLA) for the assistance with the statistical program R, and Donna Leonetti, Shirley Strum, Pat Draper, and the five anonymous reviewers who provided helpful comments and suggestions that greatly improved this manuscript. We are grateful to Lene and Johannes Kleppe for their generous hospitality, to our Tanzanian research assistants for their dedication, and to COSTECH for research permission. We are greatly indebted to the Hadza families who welcomed us into their lives.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alyssa N. Crittenden.

Appendix

Appendix

In addition to analyzing proportions (percent of scans in which people were holding), we also analyzed counts of holding using non-parametric tests in which instances of holding were weighted by number of observations, giving greater weight to those individuals who appeared in more scans. Because we used counts of observations and included every instance of holding, our sample sizes were larger than the sample sizes used in the proportional data analysis. Nearly all of the results were replicated using the non-parametric analyses. The only result that differed was the amount of time female and male allomothers spent holding children. Using counts of holding, female allomothers spent significantly more time holding children than male allomothers (Wilcoxon rank sum W = 1,952, p = 0.02). The difference in results may be explained by the difference in sample sizes.

All of the following tests yielded the same results as when proportional data were used. The sex of a child was not associated with the amount of time a child was held (Wilcoxon rank sum W = 808, p = 0.90) and younger children were held significantly more often than older children (R 2 = 0.55, p < 0.0005; the dependent variable is the log frequency of being held). Children were held by related allomothers significantly more often than by unrelated allomothers (Wilcoxon sign rank V = 1,089, p = 0.02, n 1 = 42 related, n 2 = 39 unrelated; from the point of view of the child) and more frequently by maternal relatives than paternal relatives (Wilcoxon sign rank V = 386, p < 0.05, n = 75 children <4 years). When controlling for residency in camp, maternal grandmothers did not hold significantly more than paternal grandmothers (Wilcoxon rank sum W = 165, p = 0.64). For the child, the presence of maternal grandmothers and fathers in camp was not independent (Pearson’s χ2 1, 75 = 13.07, p < 0.05).

Two separate analyses were performed in order to determine whether holding was a product of kin selection. First, we used pooled proportions (all counts of allomaternal holding; mother excluded) to perform a logistic fit over the three levels of relatedness (0.5, 0.25, and 0.125 as predictors). Under the assumption of logistic relationship, degree of relatedness is a significant predictor (p < 0.0005) of holding. The second analysis is a difference-of-proportions test involving two separate comparisons across the three levels of degree of relatedness. Individuals who are 0.5 degrees of relatedness are holding significantly more than individuals who are 0.25 degrees of relatedness (χ2 = 6.65, p < 0.0005). Individuals who are 0.25 degrees of relatedness are holding more than individuals who are 0.125 degrees of relatedness (χ2 = 94.21, p < 0.0005). In order to control for age of the child, we used regression to determine if the inclusion of age was lessening the effect that the degree of relatedness had on the frequency of being held. In both cases it did not.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crittenden, A.N., Marlowe, F.W. Allomaternal Care among the Hadza of Tanzania. Hum Nat 19, 249 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-008-9043-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Allomothers
  • Child care
  • Cooperative breeding
  • Hadza
  • Hunter-gatherers
  • Kin selection