Ancestral gals roamed, guys stayed home

Full story HERE

Adult females in both hominid lineages often moved from the places where they were born to distant locations, presumably to find mates among unrelated males, say anthropologist Sandi Copeland of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Most males in both hominid species spent their entire lives in a home region that covered no more than about 28 square kilometers, or about half the area of Manhattan, Copeland’s team proposes in the June 2 Nature.

I thought this was pretty interesting. The article talks about how this behavior is common in other primate species, goes to show you that we are pretty similar despite our obvious differences.

I do question the method in which they came to this conclusion though. Isn't it possible that perhaps female children just ate differently than the adults, or male children of the group? Or maybe just a few instances of this female migration taking place? I wonder why they thing it's right to jump to the conclusion that this was common during that time, they find a few instances where it happens and suddenly everybody then did it?

If true, I am still curious of the exact way in which the females traveled. Did they just go out by themselves to try and find a new group? Seems like a bad idea considering the danger of predators and what not. Maybe different groups would get together and "trade" females? Kind of reminds me of how many tribal groups will organize marriages between women and men from different clans. Although I don't think these species were that advanced back then, but it does make you wonder.

Female lions go out and do the hunting. Male lions stay with the family to protect the territory.

Originally posted by Jepic
Female lions go out and do the hunting. Male lions stay with the family to protect the territory.

True, although I don't think that's what they are trying to say in this article.

Compared to lions, it would be like young female lions leaving the pride, and joining another pride after they have grown. Not sure if they do that or not (I think they do?) but I'm pretty sure the article is more about the permanent relocation of females, not just females going out and hunting/gathering/

Female chimpanzees do the same.

And though I’m open to correction on this, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Sapiens-Neanderthal interbreeding seems to have been a case of the former females breeding with the latter males – the opposite pattern to what you’d expect to see if we wiped them out – as is often theorized here on ATS – and took their women for sex slaves.

Anyway, never mind ancestral gals, what about modern ones? Traditionally, a woman leaves her home and goes to her husband’s house, whether it is next door or in another country.

I think this is normal for humans and most hominids. Even gorillas form harems.

My pc doesn't seem to want to open the full article atm unfortunately.
But just to grasp at straws, I'm less inclined to think any trading females took place, but perhaps each generation where a specific amount of females were born perhaps they were all sent out together as some very basic right of passage and there would be some safety in numbers.
It could be a good way to stop the core group from becoming overpopulated & a good way to spread the gene pool wider maybe.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Female chimpanzees do the same.

As do the closely related bonobo.

At seven to nine years old, females emigrate from their natal groups to another group where they spend much time trying to initiate social interactions with dominant older adult females (Furuichi 1989). It is important for young, immigrant females to develop relationships with other females in their new groups because this is one of the strongest relationships in bonobo society. Unlike chimpanzees, females tend to have more cohesion with other females than with males, though there is evidence that as group size increases, cohesion between males and females increases (White 1988; 1996). Females obtain rank as they age and have offspring, especially males. Their sons often have corroborating rank as they mature and as the adult female becomes more central to the group (White 1996).

Because females within the community are unlikely to be related, it is unusual that female bonobos show such strong affiliation with one another in parties and within communities. Paradoxically, males in bonobo communities are related to one another and show little affiliative behavior (White 1996).

That's interesting that the "strangers" seem to form closer bonds than the "relatives", not necessarily what you'd expect but then nature is full of surprises.

And though I’m open to correction on this, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Sapiens-Neanderthal interbreeding seems to have been a case of the former females breeding with the latter males – the opposite pattern to what you’d expect to see if we wiped them out – as is often theorized here on ATS – and took their women for sex slaves.

The only thing I can confirm is that I read articles stating that the idea we wiped them out is probably wrong and the idea that it was interbreeding that caused a loss of distinction might be right, but I've never seen an article about it being the females who left their local group, but there's certainly plenty of precedence with other primates to make that guess.

Anyway, never mind ancestral gals, what about modern ones? Traditionally, a woman leaves her home and goes to her husband’s house, whether it is next door or in another country.

My thought on that relates to a show I saw on the public education channel, you know the one that has to broadcast a minimim amount of educational material that nobody watches to get their funding? Well I actually watched it!

The show covered the diversity of human behavior in various cultures. It made me realize that my western-centric view of the world had probably given me tunnel-vision, when I saw how widely family practices vary in tribal cultures remote enough to not have been overly influenced by modern society. And my take-away from the show is that even among modern humans, there's no one way all cultures or tribes do everything, there's quite a variety of cultural norms.

Yes, it seems that the woman is usually the one who relocates in Western society, but that's not necessarily a universal cultural norm, for example: Genetic variation in Northern Thailand Hill Tribes

Ethnic minorities in Northern Thailand, often referred to as Hill Tribes, are considered an ideal model to study the different genetic impact of sex-specific migration rates expected in matrilocal (women remain in their natal villages after the marriage and men move to their wife's village) and patrilocal societies (the opposite is true)....
Results
Genetic variation within population at mtDNA is lower in matrilocal, compared to patrilocal, tribes.

I find it interesting that both the matrilocal and patrilocal type tribes are found in northern Thailand, so even today we can't say there's only one method, even in that one geographic area.

So this makes me wonder, if there's not only one method today, if we should be trying to make any assumptions about there only being one method in the past. That's an assumption I don't feel comfortable making.

On the other hand, to the extent that genetic diversity is a measure of success, it is interesting that study seemed to find more genetic diversity when the females were the ones to leave, so perhaps that's a more successful strategy for some reason, though I don't pretend to know why. I haven't read the whole paper and they stated it needs further research.

Originally posted by Jepic
Female lions go out and do the hunting. Male lions stay with the family to protect the territory.

This story is about genetic diversity, not hunting. If the female goes out and hunts and then comes back and mates with the same group that does nothing for generic diversity.

Originally posted by James1982
I'm pretty sure the article is more about the permanent relocation of females, not just females going out and hunting/gathering/

Yes, I'm glad to see you got the point.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I find it interesting that both the matrilocal and patrilocal type tribes are found in northern Thailand, so even today we can't say there's only one method, even in that one geographic area.

Northern Thailand is quite mountainous, I believe.

Traditionally, one tends to find matrilineage in areas where available land for cultivation is limited; by letting women inherit, subdivision of family lands from generation to generation is avoided without some of the social consequences of having unlanded younger sons around. When coupled, as it often is, with polyandry, it’s very effective. Some of my ancestors (my father’s father’s people, some generations back) lived in a polyandrous highland society with matrilineage. All this ended soon after the British conquest of my country, long before my grandfather was born.

Matrilocality is, for obvious reasons, invariably combined with matrilineage in traditional societies. But, like polyandry, it is something of an outlier among human social models. In Asia – including both India/Pakistan and China with their billions – patrilocality is the norm. Actually, Western society is far more flexible in these matters.