Hunter-Gatherers (Foragers)

In the quest to explain human culture, anthropologists have paid a great deal of attention to recent hunter-gatherer, or forager, societies. A major reason for this focus has been the widely held belief that knowledge of hunter-gatherer societies could open a window into understanding early human cultures. After all, it is argued that for the vast stretch of human history, people lived by foraging for wild plants and animals. Indeed, not until about 10 thousand years ago did societies in Southwest Asia (the famous Fertile Crescent) begin to cultivate and domesticate plants and animals. Food production took over to such an extent that, in the past few hundred years, only an estimated 5 million people have subsisted by foraging. But while the numbers of recent hunter-gatherers may be relatively small, that does not mean that food production inevitably becomes the dominant economic strategy. Many such societies continue to forage (Kramer and Greaves 2016, 15).

What can we infer about our distant ancestors by looking at a few well-known hunter-gatherer societies of recent times? To draw reliable inferences, we would need to believe that pockets of human society could exist unchanged over tens of thousands of years—that hunter-gatherers did not learn from experience, innovate, or adapt to changes in their natural and social environments. Even a cursory look at the ethnographic record, however, reveals that many foraging cultures have changed substantially over time. Both in the archaeological record and more recently, hunter-gatherers have not only interacted with food producers through trade and other exchanges, but many have also added cultivated crops to their economies that integrate well with foraging wild resources (Kramer and Greaves 2016, 16). Moreover, recent hunter-gatherer cultures share some traits but are also quite different from one another.

How can we draw better inferences about the past? Cross-cultural researchers ask how and why hunter-gatherer societies vary. By understanding what conditions predict variation and using the paleoanthropological record to make educated guesses about past conditions in a particular place, anthropologists may have a better chance of inferring what hunter-gatherers of the past were like (Hitchcock and Beisele 2000, 5; C. R. Ember 1978; Marlowe 2005).

Because cultures change through time, we cannot simply project ethnographic data from the present to the past

Below we summarize the cross-cultural literature in the last half century or so on hunter-gatherers. We generally restrict the discussion to statistically supported hypotheses based on samples of 10 or more cultures. We also discuss what is not yet known and questions that invite further research.

But before we turn to what we know from cross-cultural research, let us first talk briefly about “hunter-gatherers”. The term hunter-gatherers has become commonly used to reference societies that depend largely on food collection or foraging for wild resources. Foraged wild resources are obtained by a variety of methods including gathering plants, collecting shellfish or other small fauna, hunting, scavenging, and fishing. This contrasts with food producing societies, where people rely primarily on cultivating domesticated plants and breeding and raising domesticated animals for food. Unfortunately, the commonly used term hunter-gatherers overrates the importance of hunting, downplays gathering, and ignores fishing. Yet, in one cross-cultural sample of hunter-gatherers (foragers), fishing appeared to be the most important activity in 38 percent of the societies, gathering was next at 30 percent, and hunting was the least important at 25 percent (C. R. Ember 1978). So, if we were being fair, such societies should be called “fisher-gatherer-hunters” or, more simply, “foragers.” But because the term “hunter-gatherers” is so widely used, we will use it here.

We know about hunter-gatherers of recent times from anthropologists who have lived and worked with hunting and gathering groups. Some of the recent and frequently discussed cases are the Mbuti of the Ituri Forest (central Africa), the San of the Kalahari Desert (southern Africa) and the Copper Inuit of the Arctic (North America).

What Are Hunter-Gatherers of Recent Times Generally Like?

Based on the ethnographic data and cross-cultural comparisons, it is widely accepted (Textor 1967; Service 1979; Murdock and Provost 1973) that recent hunter-gatherer societies generally

• are fully or semi-nomadic.

• live in small communities.

• have low population densities.

• do not have specialized political officials.

• have little wealth differentiation.

• are economically specialized only by age and gender.

• usually divide labor by gender, with women usually gathering wild plants and men usually fishing and almost always doing the hunting.

• have animistic religions—that is, believe that all natural things have intentionality or a vital force that can affect humans (Peoples, Duda, and Marlowe 2016). 

However, the ways in which hunter-gatherers differentiate labor has recently become a topic of greater discussion. In a recent cross-cultural study, Anderson et al. (2023) challenged the view that men are almost always the hunters. After examining a sample of 63 foraging societies that had clear descriptions of hunting, Anderson et al. claimed that 79 percent showed evidence of female hunting. More broadly, they questioned the gendered division of labor. In response, a group of hunter-gatherer experts (Venkataraman et al. 2024), puzzled by the finding, decided to re-examine the evidence. The group reported methodological problems, including insufficient information to replicate the procedures, inconsistent coding, inclusion of some non-hunter-gatherers, and perhaps most important, the lack of distinction between an occasional woman or women hunting, and broader involvement. Although they decline to give a revised number of societies where women do substantial hunting, they believe that the Anderson et al. (2023) numbers are inflated. In a study by Koster et al. (2020), only 3 of 40 (or 7.5 percent) of societies showed evidence of women’s hunting, while Hoffman, Farquharson, and Venkataraman (2023) found 15.5 percent. The Hoffman et al. study also looked at the type of hunting women engaged in and found that a considerable portion involved hunting small game in larger groups near camp, often assisted by dogs.

Complex Hunter-Gatherer Societies

Not all hunter-gatherers conform to the classic list of traits bulleted above. In fact, ethnographers of many societies in the Pacific Coast of North America (largely northwestern U.S. and southwestern Canada) have given us a very different picture. These hunting-gathering societies, many of whom depended largely on fishing in their traditional economies, had larger communities, stationary villages, and social inequality. For a long time, many scholars thought of them as anomalous hunter-gatherers. But the picture is rapidly changing, largely because of archaeological research on the Upper Paleolithic period, prior to the emergence of agriculture. During this period, hunter-gatherers in many areas of the globe appear to have developed inequality. Such complex hunter-gatherer societies were found in North America in the Interior Northwest Plateau, the Canadian Arctic, and the American Southeast, as well as in South America, the Caribbean, Japan, parts of Australia, northern Eurasia, and the Middle East (Sassaman 2004, 228). Archaeologists infer inequality from the presence of prestige items such as ornamental jewelry or major differences in burials indicative of “rich” and “poor” individuals (Hayden and Villeneuve 2011, 124–26).

Complex hunter-gatherer societies, in contrast to simpler hunter-gatherers generally have the following traits (Hayden and Villeneuve 2011, 334–35):

• higher population densities (.2 to 10 people per square kilometer).

• fully sedentary or seasonally sedentary communities.

• more complex sociopolitical organization primarily based on economic production.

• significant socioeconomic differences.

• some private ownership of resources and individual storage.

• competitive displays and feasts.

• elites try to control access to the supernatural.

• some solstice observation or calendars. (Note that almost all hunter-gatherers have some kind of astronomical system.)

Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods

Childhood in hunter-gatherer societies appears to be generally more relaxed and easy-going compared with most food-producers. Parents tend to be more permissive, give children more autonomy, and rarely use corporal punishment (Roman 2023). And, hunter-gatherer children appear to receive more warmth and affection from parents (Rohner 1975, 97–105; Roman 2023).

Why are hunter-gatherer parents generally more affectionate? Rohner’s (1975, 97–105) research suggests that warmth toward children is more likely when a mother has help in childcare. In the case of hunter-gatherers, fathers are generally much more engaged in infant care compared to food-producing fathers (Marlowe 2000; Hewlett and Macfarlan 2010). If fathers or other caretakers provide help, mothers may be less stressed (Rohner 1975). Fathers providing help is consistent with the fact that hunter-gatherer husbands and wives are more likely to engage in all kinds of activities together—eating together, working together, and sleeping together (Hewlett and Macfarlan 2010). Also, some time-allocation studies suggest that hunter-gatherers may have more leisure time than food producers. When parents have little leisure time, they may be more irritable and short-tempered (C. R. Ember and Ember 2019, 60).

Compared to food producers, hunter-gatherers tend to emphasize independence, self-reliance, and achievement over obedience and responsibility in child training (Barry, Child, and Bacon 1959). Hendrix (1985) further found that high hunting frequency is particularly associated with a strong emphasis on achievement. Why the difference in child training values? Barry, Child, and Bacon suggest that different values are adaptive for different forms of subsistence. Food producers depend on long-term food accumulation, so making mistakes in subsistence practices is especially risky. In contrast, if hunter-getherers make mistakes, the effects are short-lived. Moreover, innovation among hunter-gatherers can yield lasting benefits. In both contexts, adults seek to inculcate values in children that they believe will increase their well-being within their respective subsistence contexts.

Sharing with others is widely agreed to be an important value amongst many hunter-gatherers, and parents often begin to instill this value as early as infancy; later this teaching is taken up by older children. In some groups, teaching to share begins as early as 6 weeks to 6 months (Lew-Levy et al. 2018).

Children in hunting and gathering societies generally have fewer chores assigned to them, such as subsistence work and baby-tending, compared with other societies (C. R. Ember and Cunnar 2015). This means that kids have more time to play and explore their environment. But play does not mean that children are not learning about subsistence. In fact, much of their play involves playing at doing what adults do—children in many hunter-gatherer societies often “hunt” with miniature bows and arrows, as well as “gathering” and “cooking” food among themselves. Such play tends to follow adults’ division of labor by gender (C. R. Ember and Cunnar 2015). In practice, this means that play is often a main pathway for learning, with “toys” (in the sense of non-instrumental, non-practical objects) being used well into adolescence across many hunter-gatherer societies worldwide (Riede et al. 2023).

In some hunter-gatherer groups, a lot of real work goes on with these activities. For example, Crittenden et al. (2013) report that among the Hadza of Tanzania, children 5 years of age and younger may be getting half their food on their own and by 6 years of age, 75 percent of their food. At 3, boys receive their first small bow and arrow and hunt for little animals. Perhaps to the amazement of many parents across contemporary, sedentary societies, children as young as 4 can build fires and cook meals on their own in their childhood groups. Kids in many hunter-gatherer groups do not do as much as the Hadza though, perhaps because other environments in other places are more dangerous. Dangers may include the presence of large predators, little water, or few recognizable features to help children find their way back home (see also Lew-Levy et al. 2022).

Of course, the fact that hunter-gatherer children have more time to play does not mean that parents and other adults are not active teachers. In a study of hunter-gatherer social learning, Garfield, Garfield, and Hewlett (2016) report that teaching by parents, or the older generation, is the main form of learning about subsistence. Parents do more teaching in early childhood; other elders do more in later childhood. Children also learn more directly from parents when they accompany them on trips—watching, participating when they can, and receiving explicit instruction. Hunting is one of the most difficult skills to learn and usually requires more direct instruction (Lew-Levy et al. 2017). One estimate is that by the age of 18, the average hunting skill is at 89% and peaks at 33 years of age. However, skill decreases slowly, with a hunter back to 89% only after age 56 (Koster et al. 2020). Like hunting, gathering tubers is also considered a difficult skill to master early. It requires recognizing appropriate plants that might have hidden tubers and difficulty retrieving them from hard-packed earth. On the other hand, fruit-gathering (which often involves climbing trees) is a skill that children can master earlier (Pretelli, Ringen, and Lew-Levy 2022).

Although teaching plays a role in learning practical skills along with children’s observation and play, learning the more abstract aspects of culture (such as cultural values) appears to rely more on explicit teaching by adults. This was the research finding of a cross-cultural study of hunter-gatherers by Garfield and Lew-Levy (2025). Many subsistence tasks, such as weeding or harvesting, are practical skills, whereas behaviors informed by cultural values (e.g. the intricacies of how certain foods are to be shared, or certain religious practices), are more abstract. Garfield and Lew-Levy found that community leaders were particularly important for transmitting abstract cultural concepts. Additionally, abstract concepts are more likely to be taught later from middle childhood onwards.

While teaching from parents and others appears to be of fundamental importance for hunter-gatherer children, formal schooling appears to present a particular challenge. Aside from the many challenges presented by being a minority population often following a mobile subsistence strategy, the values expected of children in school (obedience, acceptance of hierarchy, and a high degree of regimentation) are often diametrically opposed to values that hunter-gatherer parents have for their children. For example, hunter-gatherer parents are apt to let children decide for themselves whether they want to go to school or not (Ninkova et al. 2024).

Are Hunter-Gatherers More Peaceful Than Food Producers?

It is widely agreed that, compared to food producers, hunter-gatherers fight less (C. R. Ember and Ember 1997). But why? Perhaps it is because in contrast to food producers, hunter-gatherers are less prone to resource unpredictability, famines, and food shortages (Textor 1967; C. R. Ember and Ember 1997, 10; Berbesque et al. 2014). And resource unpredictability is a major predictor of increased warfare in the ethnographic record (C. R. Ember and Ember 1992, 1997).

But fighting less than food producers does not necessarily mean that hunter-gatherers are typically peaceful or lacking in war. For example, C. R. Ember (1978) reported that most hunter-gatherers engaged in warfare at least every two years. But another study found that warfare was rare or absent among most hunter-gatherers (Lenski and Lenski 1978; reported in Nolan 2003).

Why are there these contradictory answers to the question about the peacefulness of hunter-gatherers?

How we define terms will affect the outcome of a cross-cultural study. When asking if hunter-gatherers are typically peaceful, for example, researchers will get different results depending upon what they mean by war, how they define hunter-gatherers, and whether they have excluded societies from their analyses where the lack of conflict arises due to occupation by a foreign power, pacification by colonial authorities, or the subsequent development of a multiethnic postcolonial nation-state government.

Most researchers contrast war and peace. If the researcher views peace as the absence of war, then the answer to whether hunter-gatherers are more peaceful than food producers depends on how war is defined. Most anthropologists agree that war in smaller-scale societies needs to be defined differently from war in nation-states that have armed forces and large numbers of casualties. And most also agree that within-community or purely individual acts of violence need to be distinguished from warfare. However, beyond that there is controversy about what to call different types of socially organized violence between communities (Hames 2019). For example, Fry (2006) p. 88, p. 172-74 does not consider feuding between communities to be warfare, but C. R. Ember and Ember (1992) do count feuding as warfare if it involves “socially organized armed combat between members of different territorial units (communities or aggregates of communities).” Having different definitions can result in markedly different estimates of the prevalence of warfare.

In a later warfare section, we discuss predictors of variation in warfare amongst hunter-gatherer societies.

Other Hunter-Gatherer Commonalities

• On average, mobile hunter-gatherer camps have four families with families averaging about 4.5 people per family. This means that camps usually average about 20 people (Hamilton et al. 2007).

• Marriages amongst hunter-gatherers are much more likely to be with unrelated individuals or distantly related kin compared with food producers (horticulturalists and agro-pastoralists) who more frequently marry closely related individuals (Walker 2014; Walker and Bailey 2014). In general, hunter-gatherer groups have low levels of relatedness (Hill et al. 2011).

  Why? It is theorized that nomadic populations may need a wider network of kin who might be able to provide residential options in times of fluctuating resources (Hill et al. 2011).

• The songs of hunter-gatherers are less wordy and characterized by more nonwords, repetition, and relaxed enunciation (Lomax 1968, 117–28).

  Why? As discussed further in the Arts module, Lomax theorizes that songs reflect the way people in a society work. In less complex societies people learn by observation and gradual instruction, and therefore explicit verbal instruction is not needed.

• Hunter-gatherer languages rarely have the sounds “F” and “V” in their languages contrasted with agriculturalists (Blasi et al. 2019).

  Why? The researchers find evidence supporting the theory that “F” and “V” sounds emerged with the transition to agriculture, probably because of dietary changes to softer foods. Softer foods lead to the teeth formation most of us are used to—the top front teeth come down in front of the bottom front teeth when the mouth is closed. However, harder foods that hunter-gatherers traditionally ate prevented this overbite; the edge of the top teeth simply met with the edge of the bottom teeth. The “F” and “V” sounds are hard to produce without an overbite.

• Hunter-gatherers often establish communities near trees, with their importance amplified in both arid and tropical environments.

  Why? Trees provide immovable benefits such as shade, temperature regulation, and raw materials for construction, making them focal points for habitation. For example, among the San of the Kalahari Desert, mongongo or baobab trees function as vital hubs. They offer shade, shelter, and spaces for social gatherings. Similarly, in tropical environments, such as the Amazon, groups like the Warao and Nukak strategically settle near palm groves, which provide construction materials, staple foods, and spaces for ritual activity (Ugalde and Kuhn 2024).

How and Why do Hunter-Gatherers Vary?

As we discussed above, hunter-gatherers have many commonalities, but they also display considerable variation. In this section we discuss cross-cultural differences related to variation in the environment and type of subsistence, contributions to the diet by gender, marital residence, warfare, territoriality, home range, and community demography.

Variation in Environment and Subsistence Practices

• The closer to the equator, the higher the effective temperature, or the more plant biomass, the more hunter-gatherers depend upon gathering rather than hunting or fishing (Lee and DeVore 1968, 42–43; R. L. Kelly 1995, 70; Binford 1990, 132).

  • Relatedly, Pontzer and Wood (2021) find that at higher latitudes, hunter-gatherer diets are more dependent on meat and fish than on plants.

  • However, in regions closer to the equator, the relationship between annual mean temperature and reliance on plant-based or animal-based food is reversed, with cooler temperatures being associated with more reliance on plant-based subsistence (Lieberman et al. 2023). The authors speculate that hunting of animals may be easier in open, typically hotter environments such as savannahs.

• The lower the effective temperature, the more hunter-gatherers rely on fishing (Binford 1990, 134).

• As the growing season lengthens, hunter-gatherers are more likely to be fully nomadic (Binford 1990, 131).

• In New Guinea, foragers with a high dependence on fishing tend to have higher population density and large settlements. Some of these foraging populations have densities of 40 or more people/square km and settlements of over 1,000 people (Roscoe 2006).

Division Of Labor By Gender

• Men contribute more to the overall diet at lower effective temperature or the higher the latitude (R. L. Kelly 1995, 262;   Marlowe 2005, 56).

  Why? As seen above in the environment section, gathering is more important closer to the equator, while hunter-gatherers at higher latitudes rely more on meat and fish. As explained in the module on Gender, gathering is usually done more by women, fishing is usually done more by men, and hunting is almost always done by men. Putting this information together may account for why men contribute more to the diet at higher latitudes.

• In higher environments with more plant growth, men are more likely to share gathering tasks with women. Greater division of labor by gender occurs in environments with less plant growth (Marlowe 2007).

Marital Residence

• Amongst hunter-gatherers, how much males and females contribute to primary production predicts rules of marital residence—more specifically, when male contribution is high, patrilocal residence is likely; when not that high, matrilocal residence is likely. 

  • Not surprisingly, the more a foraging society depends upon gathering, the more likely the society is to be matrilocal. The more dependent upon fishing, the more likely a society is to be patrilocal. However, degree of dependence on hunting does not predict marital residence (C. R. Ember 1975).

  • The finding that men and women’s contribution to subsistence predicts residence is contrary to the general worldwide trend when all types of subsistence economies are considered—gender contribution to subsistence does not generally predict marital residence (M. Ember and Ember 1971; Divale 1974; C. R. Ember 1975). Why hunter-gathering societies are different is not clear.

• Bilocal residence, where couples can live with either set of relatives (in contrast to matrilocal or patrilocal residence), is predicted by small (under 50) community size, high rainfall variability, and recent drastic population loss (C. R. Ember 1975).

  Why? The finding regarding population loss is consistent with previous findings from a broader study by C. R. Ember and Ember (1972) which tested Service’s (1962, 137) theory that drastic loss from introduced diseases made it necessary for couples to live with whomever was alive (C. R. Ember and Ember 1972). And high rainfall variability is an indicator of resource unpredictability. Therefore, theory suggests that residential movement is a way to flexibly adapt to variability of resources over time—couples can move to places that have more abundance (C. R. Ember 1975). Finally, when communities are very small, the ratio of marriageable males to marriageable females can fluctuate greatly. Following a unilocal residence rule might mean that all marriageable men have to leave if residence were matrilocal, or all marriageable women would have to leave if residence were patrilocal. Under these circumstances, small communities would not be able to maintain a consistent size. Bilocality, by contrast, offers greater flexibility, allowing couples to choose where to settle and helping communities maintain consistency in size during times of resource uncertainty.

Warfare

• Hunter-gatherers with higher population densities have more warfare than those with lower population densities. Similarly, more complex hunter-gatherer societies have more warfare than simpler hunter-gatherers societies (Nolan 2003, 26; R. C. Kelly 2000, 51–52; Fry 2006, 106).

• Hunter-gatherers with a high dependence on fishing are more likely to have internal warfare than external warfare (C. R. Ember 1975).

• Amongst prehistoric hunter-gatherers in central California, resource scarcity predicts more violence as indicated by sharp force skeletal trauma in burial sites (Allen et al. 2016). This finding parallels worldwide research across all subsistence types, where unpredictable food-destroying disasters strongly predict higher rates of warfare (C. R. Ember and Ember 1992).

• Among foragers, as in other societies, patrilocal residence is predicted by internal (within society) warfare or a high male contribution to subsistence; matrilocality is predicted by a combination of purely external warfare and a high female contribution to subsistence (C. R. Ember 1975).

Territoriality, Home Range and Community Demography

• Hunter-gatherers vary considerably in the way they recognize land ownership, ranging from having clear band territories to having a concept of open access. Although it is theorized that foraging societies in richer and more predictable environments would be more likely to make territorial claims over land (Dyson‐Hudson and Smith 1978), the evidence is not clearly supportive. Baker (2003) claims support for this theory, but Moritz et al. (2020) in a larger sample, does not find support.

• However, Moritz et al. (2020) find that territoriality is predicted by higher population density, tentatively suggesting that higher density may indicate more resource competition.

• The home range of terrestrial hunter-gatherers (those that depend mostly on gathering and hunting) tends to be larger than that of groups whose diets depend on 40% or more of aquatic resources (Hamilton et al. 2007).

• Amongst mobile hunter-gatherers, the higher the number of people living in a camp, the lower the density of the camp; that is, families tend to live further apart from each other when there are more people (Hamilton, Buchanan, and Walker 2018; Lobo et al. 2022).

  Why? Lobo et al. (2022) suggest that lower density may serve as a way of promoting more interaction among closer relations, while also providing some privacy from more distant relations–without the need for costly infrastructure such as fences or more substantial housing. Notably, this pattern is the opposite of what you’d expect to find among more sedentary societies, where greater community size predicts higher settlement density.

What We Do Not Know

• Why do some foraging societies share more than others? Is meat consistently shared more than plants? Does sharing differ by gender?

• Why should division of labor predict residence amongst hunter-gatherers, but not among food-producing cultures? (See C. R. Ember 1975)

• Do foragers with a high dependence on fishing tend to have higher population density and large settlements, as is the case in New Guinea? (See Roscoe 2006)

• How do foragers who practice some agriculture differ from those who rely exclusively on foraging and hunting?

• Are foragers with horses more like pastoralists than foragers lacking horses?

• How do complex hunter-gatherer societies differ from simpler hunter-gatherer societies in the ways we have discussed here—child-rearing values, marital residence, subsistence strategies, division of labor, etc.

• What predicts the emergence of hunter-gatherer societal complexity?

Exercises Using eHRAF World Cultures

Explore some texts in eHRAF World Cultures individually or as part of classroom assignments. See the Teaching eHRAF Exercise 1.22 for suggestions.

Citation

The summary should be cited as: Ember, Carol R; Heitmann, Jacqueline; Wang Gaouette, Sebastian. 2025. “Hunter-Gatherers (Foragers)” in C. R. Ember, ed. Explaining Human Culture. Human Relations Area Files, https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/hunter-gatherers, accessed [give date].

Photo Credits

• San firestarters. 2005.
  Photograph by Ian Sewell, distributed under a CC BY-SA 2.5 license.
  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BushmenSan.jpg

• Copper Inuit spearfishing. 1916.
  Photograph by Diamond Jenness, distributed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copper_Inuit_spearing_salmon_at_Nulahugyuk_Creek_(37079).jpg

• Tlingit Chief. c. 1907.
  Held by University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections Division, used with permission.
  https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/loc/id/2034

• Hadza children cooking. 2019.
  Photograph by Alyssa Crittenden, used with permission.

• San gathered together. 2014.
  Photograph by AinoTuominen, distributed under a Pixabay license.
  https://pixabay.com/photos/bushman-indigenous-people-509239/

• Hadza with bow and arrow. 2019.
  Photograph by Alexander Strachan, distributed under a Pixabay license.
  https://pixabay.com/photos/hadzabe-africa-hunter-village-4265604/

Glossary

Bilocal residence

A pattern in which married couples live with or near the wife’s or the husband’s parents with about equal frequency 

Ethnographic record 

What is known from descriptions written by observers, usually anthropologists, who have lived in and carried out fieldwork on a culture in the present and recent past

Matrilocal residence

A pattern in which couples typically live with or near the wife’s parents

Multilocal residence

A pattern in which married couples may be bilocal or unilocal with a frequent alternative 

Patrilocal residence

A pattern in which married couples typically live with or near the husband’s parents

Unilocal residence

A pattern in which married couples live with or near one specified set of relatives (patrilocal, matrilocal, or avunculocal)

Additional Cross-Cultural Studies of Hunter-Gatherers