The evolution of female-biased kinship in humans and other mammals

Mattison, Siobhán M.; Shenk, Mary K.; Thompson, Melissa Emery; Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff; Fortunato, Laura

doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0007

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But despite these origins, human behavioral ecologist Eric Smith once observed that “beginning with a problem that seems to lack any profound social dimensions (e.g., prey‐choice, birth spacing, or group size), behavioral ecologists pursue what they hope will be simple answers, only to find that all roads lead to complex social interactions.” 26 In this sense, HBE is a field in which empirical evidence has led to the expansion of practice within the discipline. Compared to early research in the field, recent research on kinship, social support, and intergenerational resource transfers in HBE reflects a much more expansive view of the relevant “environment” that factors into decision‐making: one that includes existing cooperative ties, kinship systems and other social and cultural factors 68–74 …”

Section: The Relationship Between Hbe and Nctmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human behavioral ecology and niche construction

Ready

Price

2021

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the relationship between niche construction theory (NCT) and human behavioral ecology (HBE), two branches of evolutionary science that are important sources of theory in archeology. We distinguish between formal models of niche construction as an evolutionary process, and uses of niche construction to refer to a kind of human behavior. Formal models from NCT examine how environmental modification can change the selection pressures that organisms face. In contrast, formal models from HBE predict behavior assuming people behave adaptively in their local setting, and can be used to predict when and why people engage in niche construction. We emphasize that HBE as a field is much broader than foraging theory and can incorporate social and cultural influences on decision‐making. We demonstrate how these approaches can be formally incorporated in a multi‐inheritance framework for evolutionary research, and argue that archeologists can best contribute to evolutionary theory by building and testing models that flexibly incorporate HBE and NCT elements.

show abstract

Section: The Relationship Between Hbe and Nctmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human behavioral ecology and niche construction

Ready

Price

2021

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such lack of precision fuels the common misconception that it is not possible to define key terms and concepts unambiguously, and in a way that they apply across species (e.g. [18] and other articles in the theme issue). The example above and the preceding discussion show that this is clearly not the case.…”

Section: Lineal Kinship In Cross-specific Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Faced with multiple and ambiguous definitions, evolutionarily minded anthropologists have recently taken a pragmatic stance, replacing 'matrilineal kinship' with biologically inspired labels, such as 'female-biased/based/centred kinship' (e.g. [18] and other articles in the theme issue). Underlying this trend is the belief that, if we move past seemingly trivial debates about terminology, we can turn to hypotheses, data and analyses of ever-increasing sophistication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lineal kinship organization in cross-specific perspective

Fortunato

2019

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I draw on insights from anthropology to outline a framework for the study of kinship systems that applies across animal species with biparental sexual reproduction. In particular, I define lineal kinship organization as a social system that emphasizes interactions among lineally related kin—that is, individuals related through females only, if the emphasis is towards matrilineal kin, and individuals related through males only, if the emphasis is towards patrilineal kin. In a given population, the emphasis may be expressed in one or more social domains, corresponding to pathways for the transmission of different resources across generations (e.g. the allocation of food, the transfer of access to the natal territory or household). A lineal bias in any domain can be viewed as a bias in investment towards a particular set of kin—specifically, towards the offspring of daughters if the bias is matrilineal, and towards the offspring of sons if the bias is patrilineal. Effectively, investment is restricted to the offspring of the females in the population in one case, and to the offspring of the males in the other. This is distinct from a bias in investment towards daughters and towards sons, respectively. Overall, I propose a shift in focus—from viewing matrilineal and patrilineal kinship as unitary phenomena, to consideration of the different aspects of the social system featuring a bias towards lineally related kin. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The evolution of female-biased kinship in humans and other mammals’.

show abstract

“…Exact definitions of post-marital residence patterns vary considerably [12]. Some scholars use "patrilocality" as a general term for residence with or near the husband's family [e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying post-marital residence patterns in prehistory: A phylogenetic comparative analysis of dwelling size

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Post-marital residence patterns are an important aspect of human social organization. However, identifying such patterns in prehistoric societies is challenging since they leave almost no direct traces in archaeological records. Cross-cultural researchers have attempted to identify correlates of post-marital residence through the statistical analysis of ethnographic data. Several studies have demonstrated that, in agricultural societies, large dwellings (over ca. 65 m 2) are associated with matrilocality (spouse resides with or near the wife's family), whereas smaller dwellings are associated with patrilocality (spouse resides with or near the husband's family). In the present study, we tested the association between post-marital residence and dwelling size (average house floor area) using phylogenetic comparative methods and a global sample of 86 pre-industrial societies, 22 of which were matrilocal. Our analysis included the presence of agriculture, sedentism, and durability of house construction material as additional explanatory variables. The results confirm a strong association between matrilocality and dwelling size, although very large dwellings (over ca. 200 m 2) were found to be associated with all types of post-marital residence. The best model combined dwelling size, post-marital residence pattern, and sedentism, the latter being the single best predictor of house size. The effect of agriculture on dwelling size becomes insignificant once the fixity of settlement is taken into account. Our results indicate that postmarital residence and house size evolve in a correlated fashion, namely that matrilocality is a predictable response to an increase in dwelling size. As such, we suggest that reliable inferences about the social organization of prehistoric societies can be made from archaeological records.

show abstract

The evolution of female-biased kinship in humans and other mammals

Cited by 23 publications

References 49 publications

Human behavioral ecology and niche construction

Human behavioral ecology and niche construction

Lineal kinship organization in cross-specific perspective

Identifying post-marital residence patterns in prehistory: A phylogenetic comparative analysis of dwelling size

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About