Female cooperative labour networks in hunter–gatherers and horticulturalists

Abstract

Cooperation in food acquisition is a hallmark of the human species. Given that costs and benefits of cooperation vary among production regimes and work activities, the transition from hunting-and-gathering to agriculture is likely to have reshaped the structure of cooperative subsistence networks. Hunter–gatherers often forage in groups and are generally more interdependent and experience higher short-term food acquisition risk than horticulturalists, suggesting that cooperative labour should be more widespread and frequent for hunter–gatherers. Here we compare female cooperative labour networks of Batek hunter–gatherers of Peninsular Malaysia and Tsimane forager–horticulturalists of Bolivia. We find that Batek foraging results in high daily variation in labour partnerships, facilitating frequent cooperation in diffuse networks comprised of kin and non-kin. By contrast, Tsimane horticulture involves more restricted giving and receiving of labour, confined mostly to spouses and primary or distant kin. Tsimane women also interact with few individuals in the context of hunting/fishing activities and forage mainly with spouses and primary kin. These differences give rise to camp- or village-level networks that are more modular (have more substructure when partitioned) among Tsimane horticulturalists. Our findings suggest that subsistence activities shape the formation and extent of female social networks, particularly with respect to connections with other women and non-kin. We discuss the implications of restricted female labour networks in the context of gender relations, power dynamics and the adoption of farming in humans. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Cooperation among women: evolutionary and cross-cultural perspectives’.

Sedentarization and maternal childcare networks: role of risk, gender and demography

“…This suggests that's Hrdy's [ 84 ] assertion was well founded, that mothers require large, flexible networks to ensure they receive the help required. Therefore, in line with other contributions to this special issue, women are not constrained to small, dyadic networks [ 1 , 10 , 85 ]. Interestingly, the low-investment networks were large, comprising of, on average, 25 different allomothers over the course of the 3 days of observations.…”

“…Overall, while the ‘settled’ and ‘mobile’ Agta communities are part of the same population with a continuous gradient of livelihood change, the flexibility of human childcare is noteworthy, as the identity of the carers did vary. This highlights the flexibility of women's social networks documented here and elsewhere, and demonstrates them as the outcome of demographic trends, gender roles, post-martial residence norms [ 85 ] and different modes of subsistence [ 1 , 10 , 56 ], rather than being constrained. Future research should keep probing the structure of this flexibility to help us better understand the functions of women's social networks and allomothering and how they are expected to change within transitioning populations.…”

New perspectives on the evolution of women's cooperation

“…However, they did not find this to be the case for Agta women (Philippine foragers); rather, mothers had large and diverse childcare networks across both mobile and sedentary communities. In a cross-cultural study, Kraft and colleagues ([ 115 ], in this issue) found support for the prediction that the size and composition of cooperative food networks vary with the risks associated with food acquisition strategies. Their comparison of Batek (Malaysian hunter–gatherers) and Tsimane (Bolivian horticulturalists) showed that Batak women, who experienced greater variability in daily foraging success, had more diffuse and diverse networks in contrast to Tsimane women, who relied on fewer, dependable cooperative partners, who were most often close kin, for horticultural labour.…”

Women’s subsistence networks scaffold cultural transmission among BaYaka foragers in the Congo Basin

“…Thus far, to understand such cooperative subsistence practices in humans, extant research has focused on the ways in which men solve the challenges presented during and after collaborative hunting (7,10,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18). Although women's cooperation in subsistence activities-beyond alloparenting and food sharing-has received attention (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27), the network structure of women's subsistence groups remains largely understudied [but see (28) for emerging work].…”