Cross-cousin marriage among the Yanomamö shows evidence of parent-offspring conflict and mate competition between brothers

Marriage in many traditional societies often concerns the institutionalized exchange of reproductive partners among groups of kin. Such exchanges most often involve cross-cousins-marriage with the child of a parent's opposite-sex sibling-but it is unclear who benefits from these exchanges. Here we analyze the fitness consequences of marrying relatives among the Yanomamö from the Amazon. When individuals marry close kin, we find that (i) both husbands and wives have slightly lower fertility; (ii) offspring suffer from inbreeding depression; (iii) parents have more grandchildren; and (iv) siblings, especially brothers, benefit when their opposite-sex siblings marry relatives but not when their same-sex siblings do. Therefore, individuals seem to benefit when their children or opposite-sex siblings marry relatives but suffer costs when they, their parents, or same-sex siblings do. These asymmetric fitness outcomes suggest conflicts between parents and offspring and among siblings over optimal mating strategies. Parental control of marriages is reinforced by cultural norms prescribing cross-cousin marriage. We posit that local mate competition combined with parental control over marriages may escalate conflict between same-sex siblings who compete over mates, while simultaneously forging alliances between opposite-sex siblings. If these relationships are carried forward to subsequent generations, they may drive bilateral cross-cousin marriage rules. This study provides insights into the evolutionary importance of how kinship and reciprocity underlie conflicts over who controls mate choice and the origins of cross-cousin marriage prescriptions.

Lethal coalitionary aggression and long-term alliance formation among Yanomamö men

Some cross-cultural evidence suggests lethal coalitionary aggression in humans is the product of residence and descent rules that promote fraternal interest groups, i.e., power groups of coresident males bonded by kinship. As such, human lethal coalitions are hypothesized to be homologous to chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) border patrols. However, humans demonstrate a unique metagroup social structure in which strategic alliances allow individuals to form coalitions transcending local community boundaries. We test predictions derived from the fraternal interest group and strategic alliance models using lethal coalition data from a lowland South American population, the Yanomamö. Yanomamö men who kill an enemy acquire a special status, termed unokai. We examine the social characteristics of co-unokais or men who jointly kill others. Analyses indicate co-unokais generally are (i) from the same population but from different villages and patrilines, (ii) close age mates, and (iii) maternal half-first cousins. Furthermore, the incident rate for co-unokai killings increases if men are similar in age, from the same population, and from different natal communities. Co-unokais who have killed more times in the past and who are more genetically related to each other have a higher probability of coresidence in adulthood. Last, a relationship exists between lethal coalition formation and marriage exchange. In this population, internal warfare unites multiple communities, and co-unokais strategically form new residential groups and marriage alliances. These results support the strategic alliance model of coalitionary aggression, demonstrate the complexities of human alliance formation, and illuminate key differences in social structure distinguishing humans from other primates.