This article explores the relationships between habitat and social organization among humans and other species. Diet, technology, group size, home range, mobility, kinship, marital residence, sexual division of labor, mating system, central places, food sharing, and egalitarianism are all considered.

This article examines variation in polygyny among foragers. Empirical analysis suggests that the level of male provisioning influences mating systems: higher male contribution to subsistence is associated with monogamy. The influences of pathogen stress, male-male competition, and male coercion are also considered.

This article explores the sexual division of labor among foragers, focusing on resource availability and constraints on women’s foraging activities. The authors conclude that “there is a greater division of foraging labor in more seasonal habitats where less gathering is possible and more extractive, tool-based foraging is required” (191).

The present study aims to evaluate correlations of private property from two of Murdock's datasets, one of 147 societies (1981) and the other of 312 societies (1967). Altogether the author tested 146 variables coded by Murdock against variables regarding the ownership of land and of movables drawn from Murdock (1967), Simmons (1937), and Swanson (1960). In total, there were 51 statistically significant correlations between private property ownership and other variables. Additionally, the author summarizes the results from this article and the two that preceded it stating that throughout all of the correlations he ran, the practice of agriculture, the use of cereal grains, and the presence of castes and classes were the only variables that predicted private property in all of the datasets that were utilized.

This paper investigates five different economic types of foragers: classic, transitional system, politically oriented, economically oriented, and intangibles-oriented. The author asserts that these economic types “are not mere epiphenomena of the oft-discussed social structural or political forces but, rather, are special characteristics that must be independently taken into account” (418). A myriad of environmental, subsistence, political, and social variables are examined: some differed significantly across the five economic types of foragers, but others such as famine threat, conflict, locational fixity, marital form, and postmarital residence did not differ between types.

This article examines socialization for cooperation as a function of economic production. The author theorizes that in societies where large amounts of food production labor must be accomplished quickly, there is a higher cultural value placed on cooperation.

This book discusses the role of women cross-culturally. The authors use a cross-cultural sample to examine the differences between men and women in contribution to subsistence as well as the social juxtaposition of the sexes in foraging, horticultural, agricultural, pastoral, and industrial societies.

This article explores the interrelated roles of male parental investment (males' infant/child care and resource provisioning) and male-male competition (variation in male status) on the degree of monogamy or polygyny in a society. Marlowe argues that Degree of parental investment affects females' interest in resource-shopping versus gene-shopping. Also discussed is the idea that male-male competition affects males' inclination toward harem-defense or coercive polygyny. Particular attention is paid to variation in parental investment and male stratification across subsistence types.

This study challenges an earlier paper's claim that matrilocal residence predicts the development of girls' puberty rites. The author suggests that girls' puberty rites may in fact predate matrilocality in some locations.

This book investigates a broad hypothesis linking social solidarity and initiation ceremonies. The author proposes that “the degree of solidarity of a given social system determines the degree to which status transitions within it will be dramatized” (1). A variety of operational hypotheses are supported for both male and female initiation ceremonies.