Relatedness, Co-residence, and Shared Fatherhood among Ache Foragers of Paraguay

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Beyond the nuclear family: an evolutionary perspective on parenting

“…While a simplistic assumption might be that men reduce investment in children in societies where paternity is relatively uncertain, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps counterintuitively, partible paternity societies may be found where the ecology requires particularly high levels of investment from men to provision children: partible paternity may be a strategy by which women gain investment for their children from multiple males [52]. In this case, alloparents are men other than the child's biological father [53] and 'paternal' investment may be directed at children not fathered by the man investing in them.…”

Performance analysis of deciduous morphology for detecting biological siblings

“…Kinship is an essential facet of personhood and is an important unit of social, political, economic, and ideological organization (MacCormack and Strathern, 1980;McKinnon, 2000;Faubion, 2001;Franklin and McKinnon, 2001;Carsten, 2004). Kinship also figures prominently in studies of the behavioral and cultural evolution of the human species as an important determinant of group composition, with much recent work based on ethnographic studies of modern hunter-gatherer/forager bands (e.g., Hill and Dunbar, 2003;Sear and Mace, 2008;Hill et al, 2011;Walker et al, 2013;Ellsworth et al, 2014;Hill et al, 2014). However, directly studying the dynamics of kinship and group composition in the past must rely on bioarchaeological analyses of human skeletal remains and, in particular, reconstruction of cemetery structure and the identification of groups of biological kin (Stojanowski and Schillaci, 2006).…”

Bioarchaeology and Kinship: Integrating Theory, Social Relatedness, and Biology in Ancient Family Research

“…Information on postmarital residence and social group composition in modern hunter-gatherer societies (e.g., Bailey et al 2014;Hill et al 2011;Walker et al 2013) might inform expectations of intracemetery analyses, where the proportion of co-residing (and co-interred) kin is otherwise indeterminable. These studies also might shed light on complex kin dynamics of which archaeologists must be cognizant while reconstructing past social relationships; for example, co-parenting and partible paternity, in which more than one male is thought to be essential to offspring conception (see Ellsworth et al 2014).…”

“…Kin co-residence, for example, has been found to have strong impacts on reproductive success and/or parenting investment (Ellsworth et al 2014;Sear and Mace 2008), marriage practices (Walker et al 2013), social inequality or distribution of material wealth , and cooperative foraging and group size (Smith 1985). Additional developments within evolutionary and/or biological anthropological approaches to kinship include kin recognition (e.g., Langergraber et al 2007b;Lieberman et al 2007;Pfefferle et al 2014), the origins of human and non-human primate kin formations and the social and environmental landscapes in which they emerged (e.g., Chapais 2008Chapais , 2013Chapais , 2014Hill et al 2014;Jones 2003Jones , 2011Wood and Marlowe 2011), and relationships between kin-based social organization and other adaptive collective behaviors (e.g., altruism, cooperation, and the evolution of language) (e.g., Boyd et al 2014;Langergraber et al 2007aLangergraber et al , 2011Milicic 2013;Shenk and Mattison 2011).…”