Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/28510
Title: Hunter-Gatherer Children’s Close-Proximity Networks: Similarities and differences with cooperative and communal breeding systems.
Authors: Chaudhary, N
Page, AE
Salali, GD
Dyble, M
Major-Smith, D
Migliano, AB
Vinicius, L
Thompson, J
Viguier, S
Keywords: hunter–gatherers;cooperative breeding;allomothering;childcare;cooperation
Issue Date: 31-Jan-2024
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Citation: Chaudhary, N. et al. (2024) 'Hunter-Gatherer Children’s Close-Proximity Networks: Similarities and differences with cooperative and communal breeding systems.', Evolutionary Human Sciences, 6, e11, pp. 1 - 27. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2024.1.
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.
Description: Research transparency and reproducibility: Processed data that support the findings of this study are available here: https://osf.io/n4b9e/
Supplementary material: The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2024.1 .
URI: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/28510
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2024.1
Other Identifiers: ORCiD: Nikhil Chaudhary https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7528-8529
ORCiD: Abigail E. Page https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0973-1569
ORCiD: Gul Deniz Salali https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9538-3064
ORCiD: Mark Dyble https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-1631
ORCiD: Daniel Major-Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6467-2023
ORCiD: Andrea B. Migliano https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4364-2735
ORCiD: Lucio Vinicius https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9396-3249
e11
Appears in Collections:Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.388.44 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons