Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 5, December 2001 ᭧ 2001 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-2304/2001/4205-0004$3.00 Among most ethnographically known hunter-gatherers, Hunting and Nuclear hunting is men’s work, women marry hunters, and spouses establish households in which, among other things, all sometimes eat meat. This constellation of fea- Families tures is widely assumed to show that nuclear families are units of common economic interest, with labor di- vided by sex to serve familial welfare (Murdock 1949, Some Lessons from the Hadza Sahlins 1972). Meat sharing beyond the household is viewed as exchange, successful hunters insuring against 1 about Men’s Work the unpredictability of hunting to provision dependents by trading surplus meat when they are successful for shares to be repaid when fortunes are reversed. This by K. Hawkes, J. F. O’Connell, model underpins the most influential scenario of human evolution, in which an array of distinctively human fea- and N. G. Blurton Jones tures is presumed to evolve as a consequence of males’ hunting and sharing meat to support their mates and offspring (Washburn and DeVore 1961; Washburn and Lancaster 1968; Isaac 1978; Hill 1982; Lancaster and Lan- caster 1983, 1987; Ridley 1996; Pinker 1997; Kaplan et Hadza hunter-gatherers display economic and social features usu- al. 2000). ally assumed to indicate the dependence of wives and children on provisioning husbands and fathers. The wives and children of Hadza foragers, living in the tropical savanna along the better Hadza hunters have been found to be better-nourished, East African Rift, face many of the ecological constraints consistent with the assumption that men hunt to provision their assumed to favor reliance on hunters for household pro- families. Yet, as is common among foragers, the Hadza share meat widely. Analyses of meat-sharing data confirm that little of visioning. They exemplify aspects of social and eco- the meat from large prey went to the hunter’s own household. nomic organization widely attributed to domestic or fa- These analyses also show that neither a man’s hunting success milial production (Sahlins 1972). Nuclear families are nor the time he spent hunting made any difference in how much socially distinct, occupying separate household struc- meat his family got from the kills of others. Here we address questions posed by this set of observations. What explains the tures. Women gather plant foods. Men hunt. Meat is a better nutrition of the children of better hunters if they did not highly valued component of everyone’s diet. In the clas- get differential rations of meat? If better hunters got no more sic Man the Hunter volume, Woodburn (1968:52) un- meat for their effort and poorer hunters were not punished with derlined the importance that Hadza attach to meat. less, what incentive could account for the continuing dispropor- tionate contribution that some men made to the group’s nutri- While “vegetable food makes up the bulk” of the Hadza tion? If women were not dependent on their husband’s hunting diet, people “think of themselves and describe them- success for meat, an obvious incentive for women to marry selves as hunters. From informants’ assertions, one hunters disappears. We briefly consider the implications of these would gather that little but meat is eaten....Moreover patterns for the evolution of marriage and nuclear families. the Hadza place such emphasis on meat as proper food kristen hawkes is Professor and currently Chair of Anthro- . that they are apt to describe themselves as suffering pology at the University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, from hunger when they have less meat than they would U.S.A. [[email protected]]). like.” Here we explore some of the payoffs to Hadza hunters james f. o’connell is Professor of Anthropology and Direc- tor of the Archaeological Center at the University of Utah. for their work, testing hypotheses drawn from the prop- osition that men hunt to provision their families. We use nicholas g. blurton jones is Professor Emeritus of An- data on meat sharing reported elsewhere (Hawkes, thropology at the University of California at Los Angeles. O’Connell, and Blurton Jones 2001) to estimate the mar- Their joint publications include “Hadza Children’s Foraging: Ju- ginal nutritional gain a hunter could expect to earn for venile Dependency, Social Arrangements, and Mobility among his own household from big-game hunting and compare Hunter-Gatherers” (current anthropology 34:688–700) and it with incomes from alternative foraging choices. We “Hadza Women’s Time Allocation, Offspring Production, and the Evolution of Long Postmenopausal Life Spans” (current an- investigate whether differential meat consumption can thropology 38:551–77). explain why, as reported earlier (Hawkes 1993b), the chil- dren of better hunters are generally better nourished and The present paper was submitted 17 vii 00 and accepted 16 iii find that, within the limits of our data, it cannot. Instead, 01. the link is through mothers. Better Hadza hunters are married to women who are more successful at solving 1. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Swan Fund, B. Bancroft, the University of Utah, and the Uni- their own nutritional problems and those of their chil- versity of California at Los Angeles. We thank Utafiti (Tanzanian National Research Council) for permission to pursue fieldwork, C. support. We thank H. Alvarez, R. Bliege Bird, D. Bird, K. Hill, M. Kamazora for guidance, D. Bygott and J. Hanby for continued vital Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. Wiessner for useful criticism of earlier assistance, and the Hadza themselves for tolerance, advice, and drafts. 681 682 F current anthropology Volume 42, Number 5, December 2001 table 1 Seasonal Conditions, Number of Days Observed, Number of Camp Scans, and Number of Large Animals Taken by Members of the Focal Camp during 1985–86 Time-Allocation Sample Period Number of Days Number of Camp Number of Large Season Condition Observed Scans Animals Taken 1. September/October Late dry 47 195 30 2. November/December Early wet 18 173 2 3. December Early wet 9853 4. January Early wet 5520 5. March/April Late wet 14 383 1 6. May/June Late wet 21 359 2 7. July/August Early dry 30 460 5 [144][1,707][43] dren (Blurton Jones, Hawkes, and O’Connell 1997, Haw- which women enlist provisioning husbands. After pre- kes, O’Connell, and Blurton Jones 1997). senting our findings, we consider alternative explana- Most of the meat that women and children eat comes tions for pairing and link status-rivalry incentives for big- from hunters other than their husbands and fathers. In game hunting to hypotheses about the evolution of light of a similar pattern among Ache foragers in the nuclear families. forests of eastern Paraguay, Hawkes (1990) hypothesized that the pressures of sexual selection might play an im- portant role in the evolution of human hunting and de- Research among the Hadza veloped a model emphasizing female choice. The model assumed that, when game was widely shared, women A population of about 750 hunter-gatherers, the Hadza concerned to feed their children would prefer that men live in savanna woodland southeast of Lake Eyasi in other than their own husbands supply it. A preference northern Tanzania (Woodburn 1968, Blurton Jones et al. among women for better hunters as extramarital sexual 1992). The data reported here were obtained in the course partners was then an incentive for hunters. This is an of several periods of fieldwork beginning in the mid/late- alternative to propositions about hunting to provision 1980s among the 200–300 Hadza commonly found in the families, but it shares with the traditional view an as- 600–800 km2 district known locally as Tli’ika.2 sumption that hunting is fundamentally about “meat for sex” exchanges. When meat is widely shared and the hunter does not control the distribution of meat, this collecting time-allocation data assumption is wrong. A hunter cannot direct differential shares to lovers any more than to his wife. If women get During 1985–86, Hawkes and O’Connell followed a sin- as much meat whether or not they favor the hunter, they gle group of roughly constant size (generally about 35–50 have no subsistence incentive for preferring better hunt- people) but changing composition through a series of five ers as sexual partners. sequentially occupied camps, collecting data on time al- In the Hadza case the members of the successful location and foraging (see Hawkes, O’Connell, and Blur- hunter’s household (his wife and resident children) do ton Jones 1997 for details). The study period can be di- sometimes get a larger share than other men’s house- vided into seven “seasons” defined on the basis of holds, but most of the time they do not (Hawkes, changes in camp location and diet (table 1). Men hunted O’Connell, and Blurton Jones 2001). Consequently daily, usually alone or in pairs. In addition to encounter women gain little extra meat for themselves and their hunting and scavenging, they also used blinds to ambush children by marrying better hunters. Nor, as long as meat game near waterholes at night during the late dry (season is shared in this way, could women gain larger portions 1). Women and children gathered plant food. They usu- of meat by favoring better hunters as lovers. To the ex- ally traveled in large groups, often accompanied by a man tent that meat distribution is not controlled by hunters, or older boys who provided protection, especially from expectations of meat-for-sex exchanges (within marriage local pastoralists. Tubers in all seasons, berries through- or without) are unlikely incentives for either hunting out the wet (seasons 2–6), and baobab most often in the men or hungry women.