Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Global phylogenetic analysis reveals multiple origins and correlates of genital mutilation/cutting

Nature Human Behaviour volume 6, pages 635–645 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Genital mutilation/cutting is costly in terms of health, survival and reproduction, and the long-term maintenance of these practices is an evolutionary conundrum. Previous studies have suggested a mate-guarding function or various signalling functions of genital mutilation/cutting. Here we use phylogenetic comparative methods and two global ethnographic samples to study the origins and socio-ecological correlates of major types of female and male genital mutilation/cutting. Male genital mutilation/cutting probably originated in polygynous societies with separate residence of co-wives, supporting a mate-guarding function. Female genital mutilation/cutting originated subsequently and almost exclusively in societies already practising male genital mutilation/cutting, where it may have become a signal of chastity. Both have originated multiple times, some as early as in the mid-Holocene (5,000–7,000 years ago), considerably predating the earliest archaeological evidence and written records. Genital mutilation/cutting co-evolves with and may help maintain fundamental social structures, hindering efforts to change these cultural practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Geographic distribution of the major types of FGM/C and MGM/C in the EA sample.
Fig. 2: Geographic distribution and phylogenetic reconstruction of ancestral states of FGM/C and MGM/C for the EA sample.
Fig. 3: Coefficient plots with parameter estimates from the PLR models for the EA sample.
Fig. 4: Flow diagrams depicting CE between GM/C and PLR predictors in the EA.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data for all analyses are available at https://github.com/gabrielsaffa/genital-mutilation-cutting.

Code availability

The code for all analyses is available at https://github.com/gabrielsaffa/genital-mutilation-cutting.

References

  1. WHO Guidelines on the Management of Health Complications from Female Genital Mutilation (WHO, 2016).

  2. Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol Text) (African Union, 2003); https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/violenceagainstwomen/publications/protocol-african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights-rights-women-0

  3. Muthumbi, J., Svanemyr, J., Scolaro, E., Temmerman, M. & Say, L. Female genital mutilation: a literature review of the current status of legislation and policies in 27 African countries and Yemen. Afr. J. Reprod. Health 19, 32–40 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Efferson, C., Vogt, S. & Fehr, E. The promise and the peril of using social influence to reverse harmful traditions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 55–68 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell, K. Genital cutting and Western discourses on sexuality. Med. Anthropol. Q. 19, 125–148 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Darby, R. & Svoboda, J. S. A rose by any other name? Rethinking the similarities and differences between male and female genital cutting. Med. Anthropol. Q. 21, 301–323 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mackie, G. Ending footbinding and infibulation: a convention account. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61, 999–1017 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ross, C. T., Strimling, P., Ericksen, K. P., Lindenfors, P. & Mulder, M. B. The origins and maintenance of female genital modification across Africa: Bayesian phylogenetic modeling of cultural evolution under the influence of selection. Hum. Nat. 27, 173–200 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kouba, L. J. & Muasher, J. Female circumcision in Africa: an overview. Afr. Stud. Rev. 28, 95–110 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Doyle, D. Ritual male circumcision: a brief history. J. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 35, 279–285 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Megahed, M. & Vymazalová, H. Ancient Egyptian royal circumcision from the pyramid complex of Djedkare. Anthropologie 49, 155–164 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cox, G. & Morris, B. J. in Surgical Guide to Circumcision (eds Bolnick, D. et al.) 243–259 (Springer, 2012); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2858-8_21

  13. Assaad, M. B. Female circumcision in Egypt: social implications, current research, and prospects for change. Stud. Fam. Plann. 11, 3–16 (1980).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Howard, J. A. & Gibson, M. A. Is there a link between paternity concern and female genital cutting in West Africa? Evol. Hum. Behav. 40, 1–11 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shell-Duncan, B., Obungu, O. W. & Auko, M. L. in Female “Circumcision” in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change (eds Shell-Duncan, B. & Hernlund, Y.) 109–128 (Lynne Rienner, 2001).

  16. Murdock, G. P. Ethnographic Atlas: a summary. Ethnology 6, 109–236 (1967).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilson, C. G. Male genital mutilation: an adaptation to sexual conflict. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 149–164 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Paige, K. & Paige, J. M. The Politics of Reproductive Ritual (Univ. California Press, 1981).

  19. Sosis, R., Kress, H. C. & Boster, J. S. Scars for war: evaluating alternative signaling explanations for cross-cultural variance in ritual costs. Evol. Hum. Behav. 28, 234–247 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ludvico, L. R. & Kurland, J. A. Symbolic or not-so-symbolic wounds: the behavioral ecology of human scarification. Ethol. Sociobiol. 16, 155–172 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Feillard, A. & Marcoes, L. Female circumcision in Indonesia: to “Islamize” in ceremony or secrecy. Archipel 56, 337–367 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cory, H. Jando. Part I: the constitution and organization of the Jando. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 77, 159–168 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Clarence-Smith, W. G. Islam and female genital cutting in Southeast Asia: the weight of the past. J. Ethn. Migr. 3, 14–22 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ericksen, K. P. Female genital mutilations in Africa. Cross Cult. Res. 23, 182–204 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Basedow, H. Subincision and kindred rites of the Australian Aboriginal. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 57, 123–156 (1927).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Santos-Granero, F. Vital Enemies: Slavery, Predation, and the Amerindian Political Economy of Life (Univ. Texas Press, 2009).

  27. Montagu, M. A. Infibulation and defibulation in the Old and New Worlds. Am. Anthropol. 47, 464–467 (1945).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ashley‐Montagu, M. F. The origin of subincision in Australia. Oceania 8, 193–207 (1937).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dow, M. M. & Eff, E. A. Multiple imputation of missing data in cross-cultural samples. Cross Cult. Res. 43, 206–229 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Duda, P. & Zrzavý, J. Human population history revealed by a supertree approach. Sci. Rep. 6, 29890 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Duda, P. & Zrzavy, J. in Modern Human Origins and Dispersal (eds Sahle, Y. et al.) 331–359 (Kerns Verlag, 2019).

  32. Minocher, R., Duda, P. & Jaeggi, A. V. Explaining marriage patterns in a globally representative sample through socio-ecology and population history: a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis using a new supertree. Evol. Hum. Behav. 40, 176–187 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. von Rueden, C. R. & Jaeggi, A. V. Men’s status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 10824–10829 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Martin, J. S., Ringen, E. J., Duda, P. & Jaeggi, A. V. Harsh environments promote alloparental care across human societies. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20200758 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Grollemund, R. et al. Bantu expansion shows that habitat alters the route and pace of human dispersals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13296–13301 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bouckaert, R. et al. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337, 957–960 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gray, R. D., Drummond, A. J. & Greenhill, S. J. Language phylogenies reveal expansion pulses and pauses in Pacific settlement. Science 323, 479–483 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Murdock, G. P. & White, D. R. Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology 8, 329–369 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bloch, M. & Bloch, M. From Blessing to Violence: History and Ideology in the Circumcision Ritual of the Merina (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986).

  40. Kaptein, N. in Pluralism and Identity: Studies in Ritual Behaviour (eds Platvoet, J. G. & Van Der Toorn, K) 285–302 (Brill, 1995).

  41. Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Nunn, C. L. & Towner, M. C. Cultural macroevolution and the transmission of traits. Evol. Anthropol. 15, 52–64 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ives, A. R. & Garland, T. Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Syst. Biol. 59, 9–26 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Practical use of the information-theoretic approach. In Model Selection and Inference 75–117 (Springer, 1998); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7_3

  44. Pagel, M. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255, 37–45 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bentley, R. A., Moritz, W. R., Ruck, D. J. & O’Brien, M. J. Evolution of initiation rites during the Austronesian dispersal. Sci. Prog. 104, 003685042110313 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Buss, D. M. & Schmitt, D. P. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100, 204–232 (1993).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Onyishi, I. E., Prokop, P., Okafor, C. O. & Pham, M. N. Female genital cutting restricts sociosexuality among the Igbo people of southeast Nigeria. Evol. Psychol. 14, 1–7 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Marlowe, F. Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behav. Process. 51, 45–61 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Scelza, B. A. et al. High rate of extrapair paternity in a human population demonstrates diversity in human reproductive strategies. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay6195 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Pankhurst, A. ‘Caste’ in Africa: the evidence from south-western Ethiopia reconsidered. Africa 69, 485–509 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Tamari, T. The development of caste systems in West Africa. J. Afr. Hist. 32, 221–250 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Swantz, M. Ritual and Symbol in Transitional Zaramo Society with Special Reference to Women (Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1986).

  53. Basava, K., Zhang, H. & Mace, R. A phylogenetic analysis of revolution and afterlife beliefs. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 604–611 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Birket-Smith, K. An Ethnological Sketch of Rennell Island: A Polynesian Outlier in Melanesia (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 1956).

  55. Shakirat, G. O., Alshibshoubi, M. A., Delia, E., Hamayon, A. & Rutkofsky, I. H. An overview of female genital mutilation in Africa: are the women beneficiaries or victims? Cureus 12, e10250 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Shell-Duncan, B., Wander, K., Hernlund, Y. & Moreau, A. Dynamics of change in the practice of female genital cutting in Senegambia: testing predictions of social convention theory. Soc. Sci. Med. 73, 1275–1283 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Howard, J. A. & Gibson, M. A. Frequency-dependent female genital cutting behaviour confers evolutionary fitness benefits. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0049 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. World Health Organization and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS Male Circumcision: Global Trends of Prevalence, Safety, and Acceptability (WHO Press, 2008).

  59. Ferreira, U., Netto, N. R., Esteves, S. C., Rivero, M. A. & Schirren, C. Comparative study of the fertility potential of men with only one testis. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 25, 255–259 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Guma, S. M. Some aspects of circumcision in Basutoland. Afr. Stud. 24, 241–250 (1965).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Bahrami-Rad, D., Becker, A. & Henrich, J. Tabulated nonsense? Testing the validity of the Ethnographic Atlas. Econ. Lett. 204, 109880 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ringen, E. J., Duda, P. & Jaeggi, A. V. The evolution of daily food sharing: a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis. Evol. Hum. Behav. 40, 375–384 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Marlowe, F. The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania (Univ. California Press, 2010).

  64. Cronk, L. From Mukogodo to Maasai: Ethnicity and Cultural Change in Kenya (Taylor and Francis, 2018); https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500343

  65. Waldeck, S. E. Social norm theory and male circumcision: why parents circumcise. Am. J. Bioeth. 3, 55–57 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Pashaei, T., Ponnet, K., Moeeni, M., Khazaee-Pool, M. & Majlessi, F. Daughters at risk of female genital mutilation: examining the determinants of mothers’ intentions to allow their daughters to undergo female genital mutilation. PLoS ONE 11, e0151630 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Boyle, E. H. & Svec, J. Intergenerational transmission of female genital cutting: community and marriage dynamics. J. Marriage Fam. 81, 631–647 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Akweongo, P., Jackson, E. F., Appiah-Yeboah, S., Sakeah, E. & Phillips, J. F. It’s a woman’s thing: gender roles sustaining the practice of female genital mutilation among the Kassena-Nankana of northern Ghana. Reprod. Health 18, 52 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Timæus, I. M. & Reynar, A. Polygynists and their wives in sub-Saharan Africa: an analysis of five demographic and health surveys. Popul. Stud. 52, 145–162 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Religion and Living Arrangements Around the World (Pew Research Center, 2019).

  71. Oh, S. Y., Bowles, S. & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. The Decline of Polygyny: An Interpretation Working Paper No. 1. (Santa Fe Institute, 2017).

  72. Whitehouse, B. in International Handbook on Gender and Demographic Processes (eds Riley, N. & Brunson, J.) 299–313 (Springer, 2018); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1290-1_20

  73. Merli, C. Male and female genital cutting among southern Thailand’s Muslims: rituals, biomedical practice and local discourses. Cult. Health Sex. 12, 725–738 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Prazak, M. Making the Mark: Gender, Identity, and Genital Cutting (Ohio Univ. Press, 2016).

  75. Lunde, I. B., Hauge, M. I., Johansen, R. E. B. & Sagbakken, M. ‘Why did I circumcise him?’ Unexpected comparisons to male circumcision in a qualitative study on female genital cutting among Kurdish–Norwegians. Ethnicities 20, 1003–1024 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kirby, K. R. et al. D-PLACE: a global database of cultural, linguistic and environmental diversity. PLoS ONE 11, e0158391 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. South, A. rworldmap: a new R package for mapping global data. R J. 3, 35–43 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Fox, J., Friendly, M. & Weisberg, S. Hypothesis tests for multivariate linear models using the car package. R J. 5, 39–52 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lê, S., Josse, J. & Husson, F. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 25, 1–18 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Stekhoven, D. J. & Bühlmann, P. MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics 28, 112–118 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Fritz, S. A. & Purvis, A. Selectivity in mammalian extinction risk and threat types: a new measure of phylogenetic signal strength in binary traits. Conserv. Biol. 24, 1042–1051 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Orme, D. et al. Caper: comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version 0.5.2/r121 (2014).

  84. Bollback, J. P. SIMMAP: stochastic character mapping of discrete traits on phylogenies. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 88 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Huelsenbeck, J. P., Nielsen, R. & Bollback, J. P. Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Syst. Biol. 52, 131–158 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Revell, L. J. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Schluter, D., Price, T., Mooers, A. O. & Ludwig, D. Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51, 1699–1711 (1997).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Ho, L., Ane, C., Lachlan, R., Tarpinian, K. & Feldman, R. Package ‘phylolm’. R package version 2.6.2 (2020).

  89. Ives, A. R. R2s for correlated data: phylogenetic models, LMMs, and GLMMs. Syst. Biol. 68, 234–251 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Czech Science Foundation grant no. 18-23889S and Grant Agency of University of South Bohemia grant no. 048/2019/P (G.Š.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We thank L. S. T. Ho for advice on the regression analyses, M. Lang for helpful comments on the manuscript and E. Nelson for English proofreading.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czechia

    Gabriel Šaffa, Jan Zrzavý & Pavel Duda

Authors
  1. Gabriel Šaffa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Zrzavý
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pavel Duda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.Z. and P.D. conceived the study. G.Š. and P.D. collected, curated and analysed the data. All authors contributed to developing the methods, interpreting the results and writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavel Duda.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Mhairi Gibson, Ruth Mace and Simon Greenhill for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Geographic distribution of the major types of FGC and MGC in the SCCS sample.

a) clitoridectomy; b) excision; c) infibulation; d) male circumcision; e) superincision.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Geographic distribution and cultural evolution of FGC and MGC in the EA sample.

Left: geographic distribution of FGC in the EA sample and reconstruction of ancestral states using stochastic character mapping. Right: geographic distribution of MGC in the EA sample and reconstruction of ancestral states using stochastic character mapping.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Coefficient plots with parameter estimates from the phylogenetic logistic regression models for the SCCS sample.

a) FGC; b) clitoridectomy; c) excision; d) infibulation; e) MGC; f) male circumcision; g) superincision. Each plot includes best-fitting models for a given practice as indicated by different symbols. The point estimates represent bootstrapped mean parameter estimates, and the error bars represent bootstrapped 95% CIs based on 2,000 simulations. The parameter values are on the log odds scale.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–8, Figs. 1–18 and Methods.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Šaffa, G., Zrzavý, J. & Duda, P. Global phylogenetic analysis reveals multiple origins and correlates of genital mutilation/cutting. Nat Hum Behav 6, 635–645 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01321-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01321-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing