Hunter-Gatherer children's close-proximity networks: Similarities and differences with cooperative and communal breeding systems.

IF 2.2 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Evolutionary Human Sciences Pub Date : 2024-01-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/ehs.2024.1
Nikhil Chaudhary, Abigail E Page, Gul Deniz Salali, Mark Dyble, Daniel Major-Smith, Andrea B Migliano, Lucio Vinicius, James Thompson, Sylvain Viguier
{"title":"Hunter-Gatherer children's close-proximity networks: Similarities and differences with cooperative and communal breeding systems.","authors":"Nikhil Chaudhary, Abigail E Page, Gul Deniz Salali, Mark Dyble, Daniel Major-Smith, Andrea B Migliano, Lucio Vinicius, James Thompson, Sylvain Viguier","doi":"10.1017/ehs.2024.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among vertebrates, allomothering (non-maternal care) is classified as cooperative breeding (help from sexually mature non-breeders, usually close relatives) or communal breeding (shared care between multiple breeders who are not necessarily related). Humans have been described with both labels, most frequently as cooperative breeders. However, few studies have quantified the relative contributions of allomothers according to whether they are (a) sexually mature and reproductively active and (b) related or unrelated. We constructed close-proximity networks of Agta and BaYaka hunter-gatherers. We used portable remote-sensing devices to quantify the proportion of time children under the age of 4 spent in close proximity to different categories of potential allomother. Both related and unrelated, and reproductively active and inactive, campmates had substantial involvement in children's close-proximity networks. Unrelated campmates, siblings and subadults were the most involved in both populations, whereas the involvement of fathers and grandmothers was the most variable between the two populations. Finally, the involvement of sexually mature, reproductively inactive adults was low. Where possible, we compared our findings with studies of other hunter-gatherer societies, and observed numerous consistent trends. Based on our results we discuss why hunter-gatherer allomothering cannot be fully characterised as cooperative or communal breeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":36414,"journal":{"name":"Evolutionary Human Sciences","volume":"6 ","pages":"e11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10955362/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolutionary Human Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2024.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Among vertebrates, allomothering (non-maternal care) is classified as cooperative breeding (help from sexually mature non-breeders, usually close relatives) or communal breeding (shared care between multiple breeders who are not necessarily related). Humans have been described with both labels, most frequently as cooperative breeders. However, few studies have quantified the relative contributions of allomothers according to whether they are (a) sexually mature and reproductively active and (b) related or unrelated. We constructed close-proximity networks of Agta and BaYaka hunter-gatherers. We used portable remote-sensing devices to quantify the proportion of time children under the age of 4 spent in close proximity to different categories of potential allomother. Both related and unrelated, and reproductively active and inactive, campmates had substantial involvement in children's close-proximity networks. Unrelated campmates, siblings and subadults were the most involved in both populations, whereas the involvement of fathers and grandmothers was the most variable between the two populations. Finally, the involvement of sexually mature, reproductively inactive adults was low. Where possible, we compared our findings with studies of other hunter-gatherer societies, and observed numerous consistent trends. Based on our results we discuss why hunter-gatherer allomothering cannot be fully characterised as cooperative or communal breeding.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
狩猎-采集儿童的近距离网络:与合作繁殖系统和共同繁殖系统的异同。
在脊椎动物中,异体繁殖(非母性照料)可分为合作繁殖(由性成熟的非繁殖者(通常是近亲)提供帮助)和共同繁殖(由不一定有亲缘关系的多个繁殖者共同照料)。人类被描述为这两种标签,最常见的是合作繁殖者。然而,很少有研究根据异体是否(a)性成熟和繁殖活跃以及(b)有亲缘关系或无亲缘关系来量化异体的相对贡献。我们构建了 Agta 和 BaYaka 狩猎采集者的近距离网络。我们使用便携式遥感设备来量化 4 岁以下儿童与不同类别的潜在异体母亲接近的时间比例。有亲缘关系和无亲缘关系、生殖活跃和不活跃的营友都大量参与了儿童的近距离网络。在两个群体中,非亲缘营友、兄弟姐妹和未成年营友的参与度最高,而父亲和祖母的参与度在两个群体中的差异最大。最后,性成熟、无生殖能力的成年人的参与度较低。在可能的情况下,我们将我们的研究结果与其他狩猎-采集社会的研究结果进行了比较,发现了许多一致的趋势。基于我们的研究结果,我们讨论了为什么不能将狩猎采集者的异母育完全定性为合作或共同繁殖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evolutionary Human Sciences
Evolutionary Human Sciences Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
11.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Coevolution of norm psychology and cooperation through exapted conformity. Salience of infectious diseases did not increase xenophobia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing the expensive-tissue hypothesis' prediction of inter-tissue competition using causal modelling with latent variables. Kin selection as a modulator of human handedness: sex-specific, parental and parent-of-origin effects. The role of mating effort and co-residence history in step-grandparental investment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1