The Rebirth of Kinship: Evolutionary and Quantitative Approaches in the Revitalization of a Dying Field By Mary K. Shenk and Siobhán M. Mattison Abstract Kinship was one of the key areas of research interest among anthropologists in the 19th century, one of the most hotly debated areas of theory in the early and mid-­‐20th century, and yet an area of waning interest by the end of the 20th century. Since then, the study of kinship has experienced a revitalization, with concomitant disputes in how best to proceed. This special issue brings together recent studies of kinship by scientific anthropologists employing evolutionary theory and quantitative methods. We argue that the melding of this theoretical perspective with quantitative and ethnographic methodologies has strengthened and reinvigorated the study of kinship by synthesizing and extending existing research on kinship via rigorous analyses of evidence. 1. Introduction This special issue results from a session organized for the December 2009 meetings of the American Anthropological Association, whose theme was “The End/s of Anthropology”. Intended to address the objectives of anthropology as well as the tenacity of anthropology’s position as a field of contemporary study, the meeting asked participants to examine the goals of anthropological research and whether the methods employed by anthropologists were sufficient to meet those goals. In responding to this challenge, we realized that the topic of kinship was uniquely suited to addressing these questions. Kinship is one of the foundational areas of anthropological study. From Morgan’s seminal work on the Iroquois to the well-­‐known debate between alliance and descent theorists, the study of kinship has provoked intense interest among anthropologists. In attempting to unravel variation, anthropologists have focused on kinship systems as collaborative networks and on the decisions of individuals acting within those networks. The methodologies employed in examining human kinship systems run the gamut from emic interpretations of symbolism and behavior through cross-­‐cultural comparisons of kinship systems considered as individual entities. The study of kinship has also spanned disciplinary 1 boundaries, engaging linguists, sociologists, psychologists and various other professions in the pursuit of understanding this universal but highly variable characteristic of human societies. In a field of study that seems saturated by existing theoretical and methodological perspectives, what do evolutionary and quantitative approaches add? Following a spate of debates focused on family research in the 1970s and 1980s, interest in kinship dwindled during the latter part of the 20th century. Recently, however, anthropologists armed with an evolutionary theoretical perspective as well as quantitative techniques, have charted new territory in a field that once seemed to be dying. Used in conjunction with traditional ethnographic methods, evolutionary and quantitative approaches have led to unique insights, elaborating with elegant models the complex ways in which individuals behave and interact in cooperation with, or opposition to, their kin. Such models have been powerful aids to traditional conceptualizations, often suggesting hypotheses that would not have arisen from strict intuition, while still accounting for significant variability in local socioecology. These two issues of Human Nature, Volume 22 Numbers 1 & 2, incorporate articles that address how the use of evolutionary theory and quantitative methods together with ethnographic techniques have revolutionized the study of kinship in anthropology, enabled us to expand research into novel questions and settings, and averted an “end” to the anthropology of kinship that might have resulted from persistent use of stagnant methodology. Papers in this special double issue discuss kinship in contexts as diverse as hunter-­‐gatherers and transitional or postindustrial societies, and incorporate ethnographic, mathematical, statistical, and reconstructive techniques. The papers explore both traditional and modern topics in the study of kinship including marriage alliances, affinal ties, matrilocality, family life cycles, cooperative child rearing, patrlineages, matrilineages, kin dispersion, the role of kin in arranging marriages, genealogy, and both genetic and social aspects of kinship. In this introductory article, we give a brief overview of the history of the study of kinship in anthropology and demonstrate how evolutionary and quantitative approaches have been instrumental to the revival of its study. The articles in this special volume give readers a sense of the breadth and depth of these new approaches to kinship and should stimulate further research on one of the oldest topics of anthropological inquiry. 2. A brief history of the study of kinship in anthropology “Kinship is to anthropology what logic is to philosophy or the nude is to art; it is the basic discipline of the subject” (Fox 1967:10). 2 Kinship is a foundational area of anthropological study with a long and varied history, and the contributions made by evolutionary and quantitative anthropologists need to be understood in the context of the major historical trends in anthropological kinship inquiry. In outlining this history, we hope to provide the reader with a sense of how modern evolutionary anthropology differs from unilineal evolutionism (see also Mattison, this issue), with which it is sometimes conflated, and a sense of the unique contributions evolutionary and quantitative perspectives make to a relatively mature area of study. Kinship has been a central and distinctive theme in anthropological research since the 1850s, well before the first academic anthropology programs were established in the United States or elsewhere. Early on, anthropologists saw kinship as a universal feature of human culture that served as the major organizing principle in human societies. Drawing on the philosophical insights of Hobbes (1909[1651]), who believed it was kinship that allowed humans to escape from a brutish life in a state of nature, unilineal cultural evolutionists argued about the form of the original human family and the sequence over which it evolved toward contemporary civilized society. Early theorists such as Sir Henry Maine (1960[1861]) favored the idea that patriarchy preceded matriarchy, while others, such as Johann J. Bachofen (1897[1861]), John Ferguson McLennan (1865), and Lewis Henry Morgan (1997[1871], 1964[1877]) favored evolutionary sequences in which promiscuity was the original condition of human societies, followed by descent through females and then descent through males. Such progressions usually culminated in the European norm of monogamy and bilateral inheritance. Among the unilineal evolutionists, Lewis Henry Morgan deserves special mention. Sometimes considered the father of kinship studies in anthropology, Morgan was also one of the first systematic cross-­‐cultural researchers, comparing his own research to data from missionaries and colonial administrators in other parts of the world to draw his conclusions. Like McLennan and Bachofen, Morgan (1997[1871], 1964[1877]), argued that human societies progressed through a series of stages (savagery to barbarism to civilization), and from an original state of promiscuity through a series of more complex systems culminating in civilized monogamy. Unlike some of his predecessors, however, Morgan’s research was based explicitly on fieldwork and empirical data. Through analysis of kinship terminologies, Morgan inspired generations of debate on the symbolic versus genealogical understandings of categories of kin. His work was also famously influential to both Marx and Engels, as reflected in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (Engels 1942[1884]), which was based on Morgan’s work and Marx’s annotations thereof. Subscribing to a unilineal evolutionist 3 perspective, Engels extended Morgan’s arguments to encompass the origin and evolution of social inequality. In what would be foundational to later feminist and Marxist anthropologists, Engels linked familial control of property to male control over marriages and the consequent subjugation of women. Thus, the unilineal evolutionists together set the stage for future anthropological studies of kinship, addressing among other topics, universalism, hierarchical and internal structure, terminology, symbolism, genealogy, and inequality, and helping to move anthropology from the arm-­‐chair to the field. In the early 20th century anthropologists rejected unilineal evolutionism (e.g. Radcliffe-­‐Brown 1941). Anthropologists in Britain turned to conceptualizing kinship in terms of its functions and structural features while American anthropologists following Franz Boas opted for understanding kinship systems in terms of the framework of cultural relativism. All parties dismissed the idea of universal, progressive stages of evolution: Malinowski (1913, 1930) and his followers, following Westermarck (1903[1891]), emphasized the functional nature of the nuclear family as the foundation of social systems while Boas’s followers, e.g., Kroeber (1909) and Lowie (1919), questioned the nature of kinship universals. The perspective of structural-­‐functionalism pioneered by A.R. Radcliffe-­‐Brown came to dominate kinship studies in the mid 20th century. Rejecting both unilineal evolutionism and the cultural diffusionism of the Boasian school, the structural-­‐functionalists advocated instead for the use of the comparative method to find patterns within and across human societies. In this paradigm, cultural practices were interpreted in light of their contributions to social structure and kinship systems were seen as integral to its form and maintenance. E.E. Evans-­‐Pritchard and Meyer Fortes championed this perspective, arguing that the primary form of social structure in stateless societies was their organization into unilineal descent groups by the principle of descent from a common ancestor; this principle generated corporate kinship groups with non-­‐overlapping membership, clarifying rules of inheritance and aiding organization of the defense of property. The structural-­‐functionalist “obsession with descent” (Parkin and Stone, 2004, p. 15) was eventually called into question by advocates of structural alliance theory headed by Claude Lévi-­‐
Strauss (1967[1949]). In this view, the function of kinship was to generate systems of reciprocity based on the affinal exchange of women. Both perspectives would eventually be subsumed by the structural-­‐
functional rubric, as kinship theorists realized that families acted simultaneously in the realms of descent and alliance. This perspective also received ample attention from scholars such as Murdock (1949), Goody (1976), and the Embers (1983) pursuing cross-­‐cultural studies (see also Section 4). 4 The field of kinship was thrown into upheaval by David Schneider (1968, 1972, 1984) who, in a fashion analogous to Boasian criticisms of unilineal evolutionism, rejected the field of kinship studies as inappropriately rooted in a genealogical (and ultimately biological) way of thinking. Suggesting that this emphasis on biological relationships reflected a Euro-­‐American folk model, Schneider argued that the comparative study of kinship was an intellectually bankrupt enterprise (1972, 1984). Schneider’s influence contributed to a decline in the study of kinship in the 1970s and 1980s and also inspired much of the more recent kinship literature that has cast kinship in particularistic or emic terms, arguing that kinship cannot be understood as an organizing principle or even as an overarching topic of study (e.g., Yanagisako and Collier 1987, Carsten and Hugh-­‐Jones 1995). These perspectives have in turn motivated new emphases in modern kinship studies, including a focus on gender (e.g., Yanagisako & Collier 1987, Stone 2010), power and inequality (e.g., Han 2004), and new types of kin relationships emerging in modern societies with the advent of new reproductive technologies (e.g., Ragoné 1994, Khan 2000), high rates of divorce and remarriage, and increasing acceptance of homosexuality (e.g., Hayden 1995). The study of kinship in modern social anthropology is a much smaller and more marginal field than it once was, and has gone from de rigeur to passé. While kinship has been subject to numerous theoretical, empirical, scientific and humanistic treatments, many of the questions asked by earlier anthropologists remain unresolved. Here we advocate for a revitalized, coherent approach to the study of kinship based on Darwinian evolutionary theory and pursued using modern quantitative methods. This approach expresses structural and functional aspects of kinship in terms of a common currency, yet remains rooted in ethnographic inquiry, underlining the need to gather and evaluate empirical evidence within the context of social and environmental factors affecting individual behavior. It is to this perspective that we now turn. 3. Evolutionary Approaches to Kinship Evolutionary perspectives have not been used widely in the study of kinship since the very early 20th century. In the last 35 years, however, and especially since the mid-­‐1980s, a different, powerful and yet relatively unknown body of kinship studies has emerged in light of Darwinian (i.e., as opposed to unilineal) evolutionary theory. In contrast to more mainstream, culturally deterministic perspectives on kinship, evolutionary perspectives foreground the contributions of evolutionary biology to the explanation of variation in human kinship systems. We briefly review some of the major trends within this body of literature and highlight the unique ability of evolutionary studies to synthesize previously 5 disparate views on kinship systems by providing a unitary theoretical framework that nonetheless accounts for significant variation in local customs. Recent trends in the mainstream kinship literature have trivialized the extent to which biological processes contribute to variation in kinship systems. In their introduction to Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader, one of the more comprehensive recent compendia of the history of kinship in anthropology, Parkin and Stone (2004, p.3) write that “for the social anthropologist the biological aspects [of kinship] cannot be denied; but, being uniform, they cannot explain cultural variation and are therefore uninformative in relation to the issues that concern social anthropologists the most.” The authors’ implication that biological perspectives predict uniformity across people, and thus cannot account for the variation in kinship behavior, rests on a misunderstanding—or at least a narrow understanding—of the nature of the relationship between human biology and behavior. An evolutionary perspective suggests that, just as bodies and biological processes vary predictably given local socio-­‐
ecological circumstances, so, too, does human behavior. To explain how evolutionary theory has contributed to kinship studies, it is necessary to decouple the processes of evolution from evolutionary historicism. Unilineal evolutionism of the Morganian and Spencerian variety appealed to evolutionary historicism to explain the passage of societies through “evolutionary” sequences. This perspective incorporated “evolution” in the broadest sense – i.e., in the sense that societies had evolved or changed over time – but incorrectly identified the processes underlying evolution as progressive in nature (see also Currie and Mace, in press). In contrast, contemporary Darwinian evolutionary theory views evolution as an outcome of undirected (i.e., non-­‐
directional) processes associated with fitness (i.e., reproductive success), which, in turn, is affected by variation in individual opportunities and constraints in the local social and ecological context in which an individual is embedded. As opposed to unilineal evolutionism with which it is sometimes conflated, Darwinian evolutionism explicitly predicts variation in behavioral (and biological) outcomes, explaining such variation in terms of a unified currency interacting with variable ecological circumstances. Darwinian evolutionary perspectives provide explanations that synthesize findings from previous kinship studies, allowing unification of many traditional kinship topics, including inheritance, descent, residence and marriage, under a single theoretical rubric. For instance, whereas previous studies have associated post-­‐marital residence with certain features of the socio-­‐ecological environment (see summaries in Murdock and White 1969 and Naroll 1970), evolutionary theory provides a rationale for such associations and updates outdated empirical associations. Several recent papers (e.g., Kramer & Greaves 6 this issue, Marlowe 2004, Wood & Marlowe this issue) have questioned the association between foraging subsistence and unilocal post-­‐marital residence, positing instead flexibility in residence in order to capitalize on help from kin. Similarly, evolutionary anthropologists (e.g. Holden et al. 2003; Holden and Mace 2003; Leonetti et al 2004, 2007; Mattison this issue) have explored the causes and consequences of lineality in inheritance or descent in terms of investment in children and other social outcomes, and linking inheritance patterns to gender differences in fitness optimization. Marriage has received recent attention by evolutionary anthropologists considering the costs and benefits of arranged marriage for both parents and children (e.g., Apostolou 2007; Shenk 2004, next issue), and also has been discussed in terms of the fitness consequences of polygyny (e.g., Borgerhoff Mulder 1990), polyandry (e.g., Smith 1998), and women’s status within the household (e.g., Leonetti et al. 2004, 2007). Finally, old considerations of the importance of corporate descent groups in human kinship have been revived in terms of understanding what advantages unilineal groups might offer over other systems of organizing kinship, subsistence, or property ownership (e.g. Alvard 2003, 2009, and this issue; Chapais 2008). Evolutionary anthropology not only provides insights into traditional realms of kinship inquiry, but also facilitates resolution of some of its more tenacious debates. Two of the most intransigent – the importance of alliance versus descent in creating kin groups and the nature versus culture debate – have both been tackled by evolutionary anthropologists. The former case has been settled partially by way of comparison to our primate ancestors: both Fox (1983[1967], 1975) and Chapais (2008) have noted that our kinship systems are more complex than those of primates, positing that the human emphasis on alliance and descent is what sets us apart. Indeed, comparisons of human kinship systems to those of other animals have the potential to provide insights into what aspects of human kinship truly are unique (e.g., Chapais 2008; van den Berghe 1979). Such comparisons have also facilitated mending of the false dichotomization of nature versus culture as separate processes in kinship systems. Evolutionary anthropologists not only recognize the importance of culture in shaping kinship systems, they also emphasize that most behavior is determined by a complex interaction between genes and variable social and ecological environments (e.g., van den Berghe 1979). The confluence of these processes in shaping behavior in general has become an important new area of theory (e.g., Boyd and Richerson 1985; Cavalli-­‐Svorza and Feldman 1981; Durham 1991; Richerson and Boyd 2005) and has also enriched our understanding of kinship per se by discussing explicitly how culture and material factors interact to affect kinship (e.g., Lipatov et al. in press; Leonetti and Chabot-­‐Hanowell, this issue; Mattison 2010). 7 Finally, evolutionary theory provides insights into areas of inquiry not commonly or systematically addressed by mainstream kinship theory. In particular, topics of traditional interest to evolutionary researchers such as subsistence strategies, group formation, mating and reproduction, parental investment, cooperation and conflict have been subject to empirical tests or theoretical elaboration in terms of kinship (e.g., Alexander 1974; Chagnon and Irons 1979; Hughes 1988; Wilson 1978). Major advances have been made in our understanding of both the causes and consequences of the provision of care to offspring by mothers (e.g. Fox 1983[1967], 1975; Hrdy 2009; Sear and Mace 2008, Scelza this issue), fathers (Kaplan et al. 2000; Marlowe 2000; Flinn et al. 2007; Hrdy 2009), and others (e.g., Hawkes et al. 1997, Hrdy 2009; Sear and Mace 2008). Indeed, how certain caretakers have contributed to the unique human life history is a major topic of interest within contemporary human behavioral ecology (e.g., Hawkes and Paine 2006; Kaplan 1996; Kramer 2005; Lee and DeVore 1968; Voland et al. 2005). The study of life history theory also has informed research on topics as diverse as sex-­‐biased parental investment (e.g., Seiff 1990), adoption (e.g., Silk 1980; Turke 1988), and infanticide (e.g., Daly and Wilson 1984; Dickemann 1979; Hrdy 1992), while kin selection and cooperation theories have informed discussion of varied topics including inheritance and kin conflict (e.g., see overviews in Barrett et al. 2002, Shenk in press. Given the bearing of such research on the underpinnings of human kinship, these topics should be of widespread interest, both within the field of anthropological kinship studies and beyond. Whether tackling traditional areas of kinship research or venturing into areas that are relatively new, the study of kinship from an evolutionary perspective has become a thriving area of research. The insights provided by these studies not only link numerous themes of research under a common rubric but also expand the scope of previous research. We turn now to the use of quantitative techniques in kinship studies, some of the key methods by which evolutionary research is able to achieve its gains. 4. Quantitative Approaches to Kinship One of the strengths of evolutionary studies of kinship is their frequent deployment of quantitative means of analysis. Whereas strict reliance on qualitative methods can lead to ambiguity in the statement and evaluation of research questions, quantitative methods can generate explicit tests of hypotheses. Quantitative studies naturally complement the hypothetico-­‐deductive method employed by evolutionary anthropologists (Winterhalder and Smith 1992) in at least three ways: they generate new, often unintuitive, hypotheses through use of formal models; they provide rigorous, repeatable and 8 comparable tests of hypotheses; and they may suggest new avenues of research based on observed interrelationships among variables that are otherwise unapparent. All of the articles in this double issue contribute to one or more of these ends. The contributions made by quantitative evolutionary anthropologists to the study of kinship must be understood within the context of existing studies, as the use of quantitative techniques to study kinship is by no means new. Indeed, kinship may have been one of the first areas of anthropological study in which such techniques were elaborated (e.g., Tylor 1889), particularly within the context of cross-­‐
cultural analysis inspired by Tylor’s work (Naroll 1970; e.g., Aberle 1961; Divale 1974; Driver and Scheussler 1967; Ember and Ember 1971; Murdock 1949, 1967; Murdock and White 1969; Otterbein and Otterbein 1965; Otterbein 1969). Other scientific anthropologists have also relied on quantitative methods in studies of kinship behavior (e.g., Wolf and Huang 1980) and many contemporary anthropological studies of kinship use some form of quantitative methodology in their research, even if just to tabulate outcomes. While laudable in terms of relative precision and comparability, quantitative methods in general, and cross-­‐cultural comparative methods in particular, have been criticized on a number of grounds (e.g., Barnes 1971; Köbben 1952). More sophisticated methods employed by many evolutionary anthropologists today have the potential to resolve or circumvent many of these criticisms. For example, while simple quantitative methods have been criticized as reductionist, evolutionary models and tests of kinship behavior are increasingly complex, allowing for nuanced interactions and feedback in the understanding of kinship systems. In this issue, Leonetti and Chabot-­‐Hanowell provide a quantitative model that explores how sex-­‐ and age-­‐based divisions of labor impact the formation of households, suggesting that subtle differences in metabolic expenditures may lie at the root of one of the defining characteristics of human kinship. Wood and Marlowe advance a new quantitative model of post-­‐marital residence that explains how a woman’s number of children relates to the costs and benefits of residing near patrilateral versus matrilateral kin. These models may generate new substantive insights into our understanding of kinship behavior. They retain the precision invaluable to modeling scientific hypotheses (Levins 1966) while at the same time allowing for generalization and avoiding particularism inherent to ethnographic case studies by stating model terms generally and designing them to incorporate local variation. The use of multivariate statistics in testing hypotheses also represents an important improvement to more commonly used, more general quantitative evaluations of kinship behavior (e.g., cross-­‐tabulations 9 and correlations common to cross-­‐cultural analyses). Importantly, while multivariate statistics cannot address causality when used in conjunction with cross-­‐sectional data, they can nonetheless yield insights into the relative importance of independent and interacting covariates in determining outcomes. They can also discriminate between alternative causal hypotheses via incorporation of confounding variables. Thus, Mattison (this issue) explores the explanatory value of a simple quantitative model of matriliny (Holden et al. 2003), emphasizing that the forms of wealth affecting reproduction may be more important in determining whether inheritance or wealth transmission will be daughter-­‐biased than is paternity certainty on its own. Scelza (this issue) shows that geographic proximity may not always be a good indicator of maternal support in studies of collaborative childrearing, highlighting the dynamics between proximity and reported direct support in determining outcomes of child well-­‐being. Both of these studies elucidate theoretical causality in kinship behavior by contemporaneously weighting two or more putative causes through multivariate analysis. Finally, the papers in this issue advance our understanding of kinship by incorporating new and robust forms of data that allow for analysis of issues that are not possible using more traditional methods. Kramer and Greaves revisit post-­‐marital residence patterns among the Pumé using longitudinal data, showing that where a couple resides is not only more flexible than previously imagined, but also adapted to variable subsistence practices. Alvard uses relational data to analyze the structure of cooperative whaling networks in Lamalera, Indonesia, yielding insights into a question that has long been the topic of kinship inquiry: why are lineages used over other structural forms to organize labor? If current quantitative methods represent an improvement over methods previously employed, this does not indicate that quantitative or evolutionary analysis of kinship serves as a panacea. Rather, we suggest that quantitative analysis, complemented by ethnographic methods, provides a distinctive set of advantages with respect to previous methods. There is no doubt that current quantitative studies in some cases are subject to the criticisms that have been leveled at quantitative research more generally. For example, current studies do not always adjust for dependence in samples, often fail to elucidate cause and effect, and are subject to classification and coding errors. Nonetheless, we feel that evolutionary theory in conjunction with quantitative methods and ethnographic grounding offer decisive advantages over less comprehensive methods in providing scientific, generalizable, precise and yet realistic views of kinship. They do so by adjusting general theoretical models stated in quantitative terms to fit the ethnographic specifics of each population under study and by providing at least a theoretical rationale for underlying causality, which can be partially validated or rejected with appropriate 10 quantitative techniques. The sheer breadth of quantitative methods now employed or under development – including computational, mathematical, statistical and relational – suggests that this approach will be increasingly able to validate theories from several theoretical and methodological perspectives, a long-­‐held objective of proponents of holistic anthropology. 5. Conclusions and Future Directions The influence of the strongly particularistic, antipositivist perspective of Schneider (1972, 1984) is often credited with ending the era in which kinship was central to anthropology (e.g., Carsten 2004, Chapais 2008, Parkin and Stone 2004, van den Berghe 1979). Yet since that time a revitalization of research on kinship has been occurring in two different spheres. One revitalization movement followed Schneider in a poststructuralist direction but with a more moderate form; authors following this tradition have focused on indigenous conceptions of kinship and gender, gender and power in kin relationships, kinship ramifications of new reproductive technologies, and emerging types of kinship in postindustrial nations (e.g., Carsten 2000; Stone 2001). The second revitalization movement has taken an entirely different direction: emphasizing the incorporation of evolutionary theory to look for the ultimate motivations behind human kinship patterns, and utilizing formal mathematical models and/or statistical analyses as its primary tools. The first movement emphasizes the perspective that kinship is cultural and non-­‐biological, while the second has as its primary tenet a renewal of emphasis on the biological nature of kinship, out of favor in anthropology since Boas and even more deeply since Schneider. Modern evolutionary approaches rest on the key tenet that an understanding of biology can deepen our understanding of human kinship by linking it to our primate heritage as well as behavioral ecology theory and cultural transmission theory explaining the origins of behavioral diversity. By linking ultimate evolutionary motivations to their expression in and interactions with complex socio-­‐ecologies, evolutionary approaches to kinship remain deeply anthropological. They maintain the understanding that many aspects of human kinship systems are cultural as well as biological in nature, and argue that individual kinship systems result from uniquely human patterns of behavioral flexibility that allow the formulation and modification of complex social rules as a primary means of adaptation. Moreover, ethnographic methods remain central to this approach. In fact, the combination of evolutionary theory with quantification allows for generalizability across cultures while still taking into account the particulars of each culture under study. Whereas other types of cross-­‐cultural studies must obscure within-­‐culture differences in order to provide generalizable 11 results, modern evolutionary studies generalize via theory allowing researchers to distinguish between the trends predicted by theory and the details of local cultural customs or norms. Finally, we hope that this introduction and the two related special issues serve to explicate not only some of the common misunderstandings of the use of evolution in kinship studies, but also the benefits provided by a more holistic approach to the study of kinship. We contend that the combination of evolutionary theory and quantitative techniques with ethnographic methods forms a holistic pattern for research rooted simultaneously in theory and empiricism, biology and culture, and integrating ethnographic particulars with cross-­‐cultural research. The combination of methods and the emphasis on holism connects this method to both the ethnographic approach advocated by Boas and Malinowski, as well as the comparative approach of interest to 20th century structural-­‐functionalist anthropologists, while avoiding the problems inherent in the work of the early unilineal evolutionists. Despite the increasing number of studies taking this approach in the last few decades, evolutionary and quantitative approaches are neither widely known nor accepted in mainstream sociocultural anthropology. A common perception is expressed by Holý, who argues that since Schneider “The new insights into kinship have so far been partial and fragmented, and they certainly have not resulted in a clear and concise formulation of a new theory” (Holý 1996 p.6-­‐7). Commonly used undergraduate textbooks in kinship either do not discuss evolutionary perspectives at all, or discuss them in limited ways (e.g., Stone 2010). Yet evolutionary theory, in combination with quantitative methods of analysis, does indeed give us a clear and concise theoretical perspective on many aspects of human kinship systems. And while most sociocultural anthropologists remain unaware of—or resistant to—this approach, it is nonetheless a fast-­‐growing field that has consistently and increasingly offered unique and useful perspectives on human kinship systems. In closing, we would like to suggest two related avenues that we think will be particularly fruitful in reestablishing the centrality of kinship within anthropology (or the social sciences more generally) as well as in reexamining important unanswered questions. First, we would like to see more attention to topics of interest to earlier anthropologists, including the cross-­‐cultural examination of systems of descent, inheritance patterns, and marriage patterns. Work by Chapais (2008) is an interesting start in this direction, and researchers might find it useful to follow his advice by building on the work of functionalist and structuralist anthropologists (see also Hughes 1988). Such work would also help to advance the second avenue of endeavor, namely the dissemination of evolutionary and quantitative work on kinship into more mainstream anthropological venues journals and textbooks. While some of 12 this has begun to occur (e.g., Leonetti et al. 2007; Marlowe 2004; Quinlan 2006), there is a long way to go before this kind of approach has the influence it should on our understanding of kinship in anthropology and beyond. Given the inherent links between kinship and many other topics of interest to anthropologists and others, including the transmission of social inequality, modernization, demography, linguistics, social structure, political economy, medical anthropology and so on, we believe efforts to disseminate such research are likely to be worthwhile and well-­‐received. 6. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the participants in “The End/s of Kinship”, our December 2009 session at the American Anthropological Association meetings, the Evolutionary Anthropology Society for sponsoring it, the audience for their enthusiasm in attending, and Jane Lancaster for inviting us to turn it into two special issues of Human Nature. We would also like to thank the authors of the articles in these volumes for their cooperation through the sometimes tortured process of reviews and revisions. 7. References Cited Aberle, D. (1961). Matrilineal descent in cross-­‐cultural perspective. In D. M. Schneider & K. Gough (Eds.), Matrilineal Kinship (pp. 655-­‐727). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Alexander, R. D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5, 325-­‐383. Alvard, M. (2003). Kinship, lineage idenity, and an evolutionary perspective on the structure of cooperative big game hunting groups in Indonesia. Human Nature, 14, 129-­‐163. Alvard, M. (2009). Kinship and cooperation: The axe fight revisited. Human Nature, 20, 394-­‐416. Apostolou, M. (2007). Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of parents in the evolution of human mating. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 403-­‐409. Barrett, L., Dunbar, R. & Lycett, J. (2002). Human Evolutionary Psychology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bachofen, J. J. (1897[1861]). Das Mutterrecht: Eine Untersuchung über Die Gynaikokratie Der Alten Welt Nach Ihrer Religiösen Und Rechtlichen Natur. Unveränderte Aufl. Basel: B. Schwabe. Barnes, J. A. (1971). Three styles in the study of kinship. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Boone, J. L. (1986). Parental investment and elite family structure in preindustrial states: A case study of late medieval-­‐early modern Portugese genealogies. American Anthropologist, 88, 859-­‐878. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1990). Kipsigis women's preferences for wealthy men: Evidence for female choice in mammals? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 27(4), 255-­‐264. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carsten, J. (2000). Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship (edited). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Carsten, J. (2004). After kinship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 13 Carsten, J. & Hugh-­‐Jones, S. (1995). About the house: Lévi-­‐Strauss and beyond. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cavalli-­‐Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chagnon, N. A., & Irons, W. (1979). Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. Chapais, B. (2008). Primeval kinship: How pair-­‐bonding gave birth to human society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Currie, T. E., & Mace, R. (In press). Mode and tempo in the evolution of socio-­‐political organization: Reconciling "Darwinian" and "Spencerian" evolutionary approaches in anthropology. Philosophical transactions of the royal society, series B. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1984). A sociobiological analysis of human infanticide. In G. Hausfater & S. B. Hrdy (Eds.), Infanticide: Comparative and evolutionary perspectives (pp. 487-­‐501). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Dickemann, M. (1979). Female infanticide, reproductive strategies, and social stratification: A preliminary model. In N. A. Chagnon & W. Irons (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social behavior (pp. 321-­‐367). North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. Divale, W. T. (1974). Migration, external warfare and matrilocal residence. . Behavior Science Research, 9(2), 75-­‐133. Driver, H. E., & Schuessler, K. F. (1967). Correlational analysis of Murdock's 1957 Ethnographic Sample. American Anthropologist, 69(3/4), 332-­‐352. Durham, W. H. (1991). Coevolution: Genes, culture, and human diversity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ember, M., & Ember, C. E. (1971). The conditions favoring matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. American Anthropologist, 73(3), 571-­‐594. Ember, M., & Ember, C. R. (1983). Marriage, family, and kinship: Comparative studies of social organization. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press. Engels, F. (1942[1882]). The origin of the family, private property and the state. New York: International publishers. Flinn M, Quinlan RL, Ward CV, & Coe MK. (2007). Evolution of the human family: Cooperative males, long social childhoods, smart mothers, and extended kin networks. In Salmon C, Shackelford T (eds) Family Relationships. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fox, R. (1975). Primate kin and human kinship. In R. Fox (Ed.), Biosocial anthropology (pp. 9-­‐35). New York: John Wiley. Fox, R. (1983[1967]). Kinship and marriage: an anthropological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 55-­‐77. Goody, J. (1976). Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain: Cambridge University Press.Han, H. (2004). Kinship, gender, and mode of production in post-­‐
Mao China: Variations in two Northern villages. In Kinship and Family: An anthropological reader, Parkin, R. & Stone, L. (eds). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Hawkes, K., O'Connell, J. F., & Jones, N. G. B. (1997). Hadza women's time allocation, offspring provisioning, and the evolution of long postmenopausal life spans. Current Anthropology, 38(4), 551-­‐577. Hawkes, K. and Paine, R. (2006). The Evolution of Human Life History. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. 14 Hayden, C. P. (1995). Gender, genetics and generation: Reformulating biology in lesbian kinship. Cultural anthropology, 10, 41-­‐61. Hobbes, T. W. (1909[1651]). Leviathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Holden, C., Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2003). Matriliny as daughter-­‐biased investment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(2), 99-­‐112. Holden, C. J., & Mace, R. (2003). Spread of cattle led to the loss of matrilineal descent in Africa: a coevolutionary analysis. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, Series B, biological sciences, 270(1532), 2425-­‐2433. Holy, L. (1996). Anthropological perspectives on kinship. London: Pluto Press. Hrdy, S. B. (1992). Fitness tradeoffs in the history and evolution of delegated mothering with special reference to wet-­‐nursing, abandonment, and infanticide. Ethology and sociobiology, 13(5-­‐6), 409-­‐442. Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Hughes, A. L. (1988). Evolution and human kinship. New York: Oxford University Press. Kahn, S. M. (2000). Reproducing Jews: A cultural account of assisted conception in Israel. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kaplan, H. (1996). A theory of fertility and parental investment in traditional and modern human societies. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 39, 91-­‐135. Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory of human life history evolution: diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9, 156-­‐185. Köbben, A. J. (1952). New ways of presenting an old idea: The statistical method in social anthropology. The journal of the royal anthropological institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 82(2), 129-­‐146. Kramer, K. (2005). Children's help and the pace of reproduction: Cooperative breeding in humans. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 14(6), 224-­‐237. Kroeber, A. L. (1909). Classificatory systems of relationship. The journal of the royal anthropological institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 39, 77-­‐84. Lee, R., & DeVore, I. (Eds.). (1968). Man the Hunter. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Leonetti, D. L., Nath, D. C., & Hemam, N. S. (2007). In-­‐law conflict: women's reproductive lives and the roles of their mothers and husbands among the matrilineal Khasi. Current Anthropology, 48(6), 861-­‐890. Leonetti, D. L., Nath, D. C., Hemam, N. S., & Neill, D. B. (2004). Do women really need marital partners for support of their reproductive success? The case of the matrilineal Khasi of N.E. India. Research in Economic Anthropology, 23, 151-­‐174. Levins, R. (1966). The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist, 54(4), 421-­‐
431. Lévi-­‐Strauss, C. (1967[1949]). Les structures élémentaires de la parenté. Paris, La Haye: Mouton et Co. Lipatov, M., Brown, M. J., & Feldman, M. W. (In press). Human social and cultural niche construction in Taiwan: Modeling changes in belief and marriage form. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, Series B, biological sciences. Lowie, R. H. (1919). Family and Sib. American Anthropologist, 21(1), 28-­‐40. Maine, H. S. (1960[1861]). Ancient Law. London: J.M. Dent. Malinowski, B. (1913). The family among the Australian aborigines: A sociological study. London: University of London Press. Malinowski, B. (1930). Kinship. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 30, 19-­‐29. Marlowe, F. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioral Processes, 51, 45-­‐61. Marlowe, F. (2004). Marital residence among foragers. Current Anthropology, 45(2), 277-­‐288. 15 Mattison, S. M. (2010). The economic impacts of tourism and erosion of the visiting system among the Mosuo of Lugu Lake. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, TBD. McLennan, J. F. (1865). Primitive marriage: An inquiry into the origin of the form of capture in marriage ceremonies. Edinburgh: A. and C. Black. Morgan, L. H. (1964[1877]). Ancient society. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Morgan, L. H. (1997[1871]). Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure. New York: Macmillian Company. Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic Atlas: University of Pittsburg Press. Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard Cross-­‐Cultural Sample. Ethnology, 8(4), 329-­‐369. Naroll, R. (1970). What have we learned from cross-­‐cultural surveys? American Anthropologist, 72(6), 1227-­‐1288. Otterbein, K. F. (1969). Basic steps in conducting a cross-­‐cultural study. Cross-­‐cultural research, 4, 221-­‐
236. Otterbein, K. F., & Otterbein, C. S. (1965). An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: A cross-­‐cultural study of feuding. American Anthropologist, 67(6), 1470-­‐1482. Parkin, R., & Stone, L. (Eds.). (2004). Kinship and family: An anthropological reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Quinlan, R. J. (2006). Gender and risk in a matrifocal Caribbean community: A view from Behavioral Ecology. American Anthropologist, 108(3), 464-­‐479. Radcliffe-­‐Brown, A. R. (1941). The study of kinship systems. The journal of the royal anthropological institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 71(1/2), 1-­‐18. Ragoné, H. (1994). Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Richerson, P., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schneider, D. M. (1968). American kinship: a cultural account. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schneider, D. M. (1972). What is kinship all about? In Reining (Ed.), Kinship studies in the Morgan centennial year. Washington, DC: Anthropological society of Washington. Schneider, D. M. (1984). A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(1), 1-­‐18. Shenk, M. K. (2004). Embodied capital and heritable wealth in complex cultures: A class-­‐based analysis of parental investment in urban South India. Research in Economic Anthropology 23:307-­‐333. Shenk, M.K. (In press). Evolutionary approaches to parental decisions—How much to invest in your offspring. In Ulrich Frey (Ed.) Essential Building Blocks of Human Nature. Berlin: Springer. Sieff, D. F. (1990). Explaining biased sex ratios in human populations: a critique of recent studies. Current Anthropology, 31(1), 25-­‐48. Silk, J. B. (1980). Adoption and kinship in Oceania. American Anthropologist, 82, 799-­‐820. Smith, E. A. (1998). Is Tibetan polyandry adaptive? Methodological and metatheoretical analyses. Human Nature, 9(3), 225-­‐261. Stone, L. (2001). New directions in anthropological kinship. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Stone, L. (2010). Kinship and gender. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Turke P. (1988). Helpers at the nest: Childcare networks on Ifaluk. In Betzig LL, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Turke P (eds) Human Reproductive Behavior: A Darwinian Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 16 Tylor, E. B. (1889). On a method of investigating the development of institutions: Applied to laws of marriage and descent. The journal of the royal anthropological institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 18, 245-­‐272. van den Berghe, P. L. (1979). Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View. New York: Elsevier. Voland E, Chasiotis A, and Schiefenhovel W. (2005). Grandmotherhood: The Evolutionary Significance of the Second Half of Female Life. Rutgers University Press: Rutgers, NJ. Westermarck, E. (1903[1891]). The history of human marriage. London: Macmillian & Co., ltd. Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wolf, A. P., & Huang, J. (1980). Marriage and adoption in China, 1854-­‐1945. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Yanagisako, S. J., & Collier, J. F. (1987). Toward a unified analysis of gender and kinship Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis (pp. 14-­‐50). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 17