Table 1.
Ethnic group, religion, and marriage patterns by region among women, 1998 and 2001 MLSFH
| Characteristic | North | South | Central |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnic Group (dominant)a | Tumbuka (90%) | Yao (67%) | Chewa (79%) |
| Religiona | |||
| Catholic | 12% | 13% | 25% |
| Protestant | 86% | 18% | 71% |
| Muslim | 0% | 69% | 0% |
| Other | 2% | 0% | 3% |
| Polygynous husband (1st marriage)b | 41% | 23% | 28% |
| Type of Lineagec | |||
| Matrilineal | 0% | 85% | - |
| Patrilineal | 100% | 6% | - |
| Bi-lateral/Chief | 0% | 9% | - |
| Virilocal residence after 1st marriage b | 73% | 24% | 83% |
| Marriage Customs | |||
| Level of formality | Formal | Informal | Formal or informal |
| Bridewealth paid | Yes | No | In some cases |
| Ended in divorce (1st marriage) b | |||
| After 5 years | 14% | 33% | 20% |
| After 25 years | 40% | 65% | 43% |
a
Author’s own calculations using data from the 2001 MLSFH.
b
Reniers (2003) calculated statistics using data from the 2001 MLSFH.
c
Schatz (2002) calculated statistics using data from the 1998 MLSFH. Schatz did not provide statistics for type of lineage in the central region.