Social evolution of hominids
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
Thoughts arisen from some threads in sci.bio.evolution:
I understand that the continuous sexual activity of human females
was not the original situation. This behaviour obviously appeared
after the times of the common ancestor of apes and us, since the
apes have restricted heat times, as do most mammals.
It is not clear to me, how predominant are the leading males
among chimpanzees and gorillas, but obviously this situation,
too, is different from ours, with greater sexual dimorphism?
Whatever degree of a 'dominant male' society there may
have existed among the hominid branch in the beginning, the
change to continuously sexually active females must have had a
dramatic effect on it. An organization with a single top male
was simply not possible any more and there must have been
greater equality between the males, which probably allowed
better cooperation and much greater efficiency.
Now there is the question, at what stage did the change of the
female behaviour occur. Did it appear somewhere along the way
to hominization, or did it hit the pre-hominid population out
of the blue, and initiate the whole process?
To be continuously active sexually, the hominid female had to
develop continuously excitable equipment for the non-heat times,
the most important part of it being the clitoris. So, did the
clitoris initiate our evolution and culture? <G>
--
Aila Korhonen in Finland ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
Frederick W Colbourne
Frederick W Colbourne
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
Frederick W Colbourne
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
Gee, I hope so!
>Thoughts arisen from some threads in sci.bio.evolution:
debra mckay
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
>
>Thoughts arisen from some threads in sci.bio.evolution:
>
>I understand that the continuous sexual activity of human females
>was not the original situation. This behaviour obviously appeared
>after the times of the common ancestor of apes and us, since the
>apes have restricted heat times, as do most mammals.
How do you know this?
>It is not clear to me, how predominant are the leading males
>among chimpanzees and gorillas, but obviously this situation,
>too, is different from ours, with greater sexual dimorphism?
Great among gorillas, smaller among chimps, not so much among
bonobos.
>
>To be continuously active sexually, the hominid female had to
>develop continuously excitable equipment for the non-heat times,
>the most important part of it being the clitoris. So, did the
>clitoris initiate our evolution and culture? <G>
Don't forget that bonobos (pygmy chimps) are continuously
sexually active as well, and in all combinations (except,
apparently, father-daughter combos). They seem to use it to
defuse social tension. There doesn't seem to be any indication
that the females don't enjoy it...,
Deb
Laurie Davison
Aila,
I think you're assuming that the clitoris is more important among
promiscuous breeders?
Although humans certainly do qualify as promiscuous breeders, sexual
activity is still largely governed by hormonal activity. Females are more
sexually active (though not exclusively) near and at the time of
ovulation than at other times. As in other animals, peak activity is
still governed by a peak in reproductive "readiness".
I currently work with mares. Mares are seasonal breeders and will only
allow a stallion to mount them during estrus. They are by no means
promiscuous. On the other hand, they have a very large (in fact, huge),
well innervated clitoris and are capable, presumably, of "enjoying" sex
as humans can.
Certainly I would say that the clitoris "helps" as you suggest, but I
would suggest that the evolution of sexual behavior may be found more in
the brain and ovaries than in the clitoris itself.
Laurie
Ian Pennington
> >I understand that the continuous sexual activity of human females
> >was not the original situation. This behaviour obviously appeared
> >after the times of the common ancestor of apes and us, since the
> >apes have restricted heat times, as do most mammals.
>
What survivability benefits accruee to h sapiens by having the female being
capable of continuous sexual activity? A few quesions come to mind:
1. humans take a long time to reach sexual maturity and the capacity to
generate another generation of offspring. Prior to that maturity, humans
consume a lot of resources, cannot offer much to survival of the community,
and face longer odds in surviving to adulthood (a reasonable assumption,
since they remain infants for so long). Combine that with a fairly long
gestation period, and its seems that continous sexual activity is necessary
to offset the span between successive genrations.
Of course, I no little whereof I speak, not being in this profession, but I
HAVE read a book about it! :)
Speaking of which, the book is "The time before history", by colin tudge.
What do folks think of this book?
Ian
Al Curtis
ia...@sweetmac.com (Ian Pennington) wrote:
>
>Of course, I no little whereof I speak, not being in this profession, but I
>HAVE read a book about it! :)
>
>Speaking of which, the book is "The time before history", by colin tudge.
>What do folks think of this book?
>
This is one of several books I spent a good deal of time perusing at
my local Barnes & Noble the other night. It looked to be a very good
capsule summary of recent discoveries and theories in the anthropology
field. Since my funds are limited, I opted for "The Runaway Brain" by
Christopher Wills. I haven't been able to put it down!
Susan S. Chin
Ian Pennington (ia...@sweetmac.com) wrote:
: > >I understand that the continuous sexual activity of human females
: > >was not the original situation. This behaviour obviously appeared
: > >after the times of the common ancestor of apes and us, since the
: > >apes have restricted heat times, as do most mammals.
: >
: What survivability benefits accruee to h sapiens by having the female being
: capable of continuous sexual activity? A few quesions come to mind:
: 1. humans take a long time to reach sexual maturity and the capacity to
: generate another generation of offspring. Prior to that maturity, humans
: consume a lot of resources, cannot offer much to survival of the community,
: and face longer odds in surviving to adulthood (a reasonable assumption,
: since they remain infants for so long). Combine that with a fairly long
: gestation period, and its seems that continous sexual activity is necessary
: to offset the span between successive genrations.
The loss of estrus, the period of sexual receptivity in non-human primates,
lead to continuous sexual activity in human females, who were now without
obvious "signs" of female fertility. The benefit of continuous sexual
receptivity in human females, according to Owen Lovejoy, is to ensure
that the male stays with the female, even during periods when she's not
fertile (ovulating). This was accomplished by hidden estrus, since
fertility is not evident...sexual activity is continuous. Well, that is
his theory anyway.
Susan
--
sus...@netcom.com
T&B Schmal
In article <eka.ant...@walrus.megabaud.fi>, ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
>
> The whole pair system of humans seems to me new and learned.
> Such deep, instinctive devotion to the selected mate which could be
> expected if this was a very old trait, and which is present in many
> birds, does occur for short periods only, in the beginning of pair
> life. After that, the pair is bound together mainly by social
> pressure, or economy, or decision, or good company, but the
> instinctive feeling of 'falling in love' seldom stays longer than
> two three years, if even that.
One of the researchers of this idea and lead proponent in the literature
is Helen Fisher at Rutgers' Anthropoloyy dept. She has studied many
societies and finds strong evidence of a four-year
attraction-attachment-dissatisfaction cycle in today's human lovers. Your
two years estimate would probably correspond to the "attraction" stage.
The chemicals and hormones that produce the cycle would be a vestige of a
pairing strategy that benefited ancient homo; the idea being to stick
together long enough to get the child born and weaned and then be free
(perhaps "driven") to select another, possibly better, mate.
Tom Schmal
Whatever we see or feel or do is the effect
of whatever we have seen or felt or done.
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
sus...@netcom.com wrote:
> The loss of estrus, the period of sexual receptivity in non-human prim
> lead to continuous sexual activity in human females, who were now with
> obvious "signs" of female fertility. The benefit of continuous sexual
> receptivity in human females, according to Owen Lovejoy, is to ensure
> that the male stays with the female, even during periods when she's no
> fertile (ovulating). This was accomplished by hidden estrus, since
> fertility is not evident...sexual activity is continuous. Well, that i
> his theory anyway.
I am nobody to disagree with an anthro prof, but I feel uncomfortable
with this theory. In which way would continuous receptivity (or
anything else) make the male stay with the female better than a
chimp male stays with a female in their permanent group? What would
be the difference in child care if the males and females of a chimp
group were permanently paired instead of having the way they do?
The orang has a social system with dominant males in their revirs and
the females and younger males wandering around. They are more
solitary than the African species. What would happen, if the orang
females became continuously receptive. Wouldn't *they* hang with the
males in the revirs, since the females prefer these big males? That
would lead to a system of sedentary pairs, or harems, if there were
continuously more males than available revirs?
The gorilla lives in groups with steep male hierarchy. If the gorilla
females turned continuously active, the big top gorilla would have
really hard times! He'd have to handle the whole bunch of eager
females, and fight with other males all time. The hierarchy should
become less steep, and quick, for the group to survive. But that
would lead to promiscuity, without additional modifications to create
pair bonds. The top male achieves his priority by fighting with the
other males, not by creating pair bonds with the females.
I believe that something like has happened in the chimp line.
Male chimps are less hierarchic and bonobo females are continuously
receptive with promiscuous sex. This does not tell which trait came
first, but we know that such solution does exist in the ape line.
Tight pairs, instead, do not appear before Homo s., if not some
monkeys have such organization?
If the bonobo strategy was chosen by the pre-hominids millions of
years ago is another thing, but then there are the !kung san.
That means, that this strategy does exist in the hominid line, too,
and the position of the !kung san in our species excites imagination.
There are relatively loose pair bonds in other primitive (and less
primitive :) cultures, where women earn considerable portions of
the living, and relatively free sex in south of Saharan African
cultures in general. Male polygamy is common throughout the human
kind, but women don't resist female polygamy where it occurs.
And a woman with a man and a lover is polygamous? Or promiscuous?
The whole pair system of humans seems to me new and learned.
Such deep, instinctive devotion to the selected mate which could be
expected if this was a very old trait, and which is present in many
birds, does occur for short periods only, in the beginning of pair
life. After that, the pair is bound together mainly by social
pressure, or economy, or decision, or good company, but the
instinctive feeling of 'falling in love' seldom stays longer than
two three years, if even that. Even jealousness is not a definitely
sex-linked sensation.
Lorenz's rooks and geese got paired for lifetime. They, too, live
in groups but need not care for their young for years. The alpha
female wolf has fought her way to the top and the alpha male accepts
what is available, and vice versa. They make a permanent pair as
far as they stay in command, but mate once a year. These tight pair
bonds have nothing to do with permanent sex.
I find it difficult to imagine, how the mere hanging around of a
certain man would specially enhance the care of the children. Since
the number of men and women is equal, there would always be a man
hanging around, anyway. And since other women are receptive, too,
continuous sex would be available for him anywhere.
I can think that permanent pairing would cool down continuous
competing for sex partners between men as well as women, and direct
the energy to other survival questions. It would lead to *less*
sexual activity, instead of luring the man with *more* sex. This, in
turn, could enhance the care of the children. I believe, that the
continuous receptivity of women had nothing to do with pairing. In
fact, the latter could be a step back to restricted mating times.
Any observations? ;)
> Susan
> --
Phillip Bigelow
Susan S. Chin wrote:
> The benefit of continuous sexual
> receptivity in human females, according to Owen Lovejoy, is to ensure
> fertile (ovulating).
As with many behavioral theories for hominids that have been put
forth, I always ask this question: Is the hypothesis testable?
The easiest way to test this is to look for extant analogs.
Are there any? Some rodents have a prodigious fertility rate....
Further, the hidden (and frequent) fertility in modern
human females really doesn't help to bolster the theory for earlier
hominid females. Since modern human behavior is nowhere near being
anything close to "monogamous", then how should this modern dataset
be extrapolated over to fossil hominids?
I don't mean to over-do my picking on Owen Lovejoy's hypothesis, but
I have to admit that I am somewhat stumped as to how one would go
about testing his idea.
The only "hard-data" possibility that comes to my mind
is to test adult female morphotype hominid fossils for bone
density, and compare this with adult female apes. If the
adult female hominid bone density (and associated osteoporosis,
if any) matches modern human female data, then there may be
a meaningful correlation on female fertility/steriod
fluctuations. At least we could find and date some early occurrences
of monthly fertility cycles in fossil hominids.
But it still doesn't address Lovejoy's hypothesis. Is it testable?
<pb>
Susan S. Chin
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
: I am nobody to disagree with an anthro prof, but I feel uncomfortable
: with this theory. In which way would continuous receptivity (or
: anything else) make the male stay with the female better than a
: chimp male stays with a female in their permanent group? What would
: be the difference in child care if the males and females of a chimp
: group were permanently paired instead of having the way they do?
I see no problem with disagreeing with Lovejoy's theory...many people in
Anthropology have a hard time with it. His theory goes way beyond the
loss of estrus in human females, the subsequent pair bonding as a result,
explained by the advantage for hominid females to have one male providing
for their offspring, this provisioning behavior...eventually led to
bipedalism, as it required that the males free up the hands for carrying
these provisions to the offspring.
There are alot of assumptions here... The advantage for the
males to stay with the one female...presumably is that monogamy ensures
the male that the offspring he is provisioning for are his own, thus
propagating his genes into the next generation....the evolutionary game
goes on, etc.
As for polygamy occurring in modern human cultures... I don't have the
information on this, but one would expect more polygamous bonds with one
male and multiple females...which is consistent with the one egg/millions
of sperm ratio we're working with. Typically in such an arrangement, the
one male is able to provide for all the females and their offspring. The
fact that polygamy exists in various human cultures today is consistent
with adaptive behavioral responses of the hominid lineage to a variable
environment.
Comparing orangs, gorillas, chimps and bonobos isn't particularly useful
since we have very little evidence of social behaviors of protohominids
and the common ancestor of humans and apes. The way human ancestors
differed from our closest living primate relatives, is in the expansion
of our habitat beyond a forrested environment. This is one significant
evolutionary change in behavior which likely had direct consequences on
how our ancestors adapted...both morphologically and behaviorally.
: The whole pair system of humans seems to me new and learned.
The degree of sexual dimorphism between a human male and a human female
would at least suggest that differences in size between the sexes nowhere
near approaches that of modern apes such as the orang and gorilla. What
would this suggest to you?
: I find it difficult to imagine, how the mere hanging around of a
: certain man would specially enhance the care of the children. Since
: the number of men and women is equal, there would always be a man
: hanging around, anyway. And since other women are receptive, too,
: continuous sex would be available for him anywhere.
Continuous sex *may* be available to the male, but the long term
viability of his offspring (if they are even his) decreases if this
protohominid doesn't stick around to do some provisioning. It's not
enough to reproduce as much as possible, that's a different strategy
which primates in general have gone away from (#'s vs heavy investment in
a few offspring)
There was never a claim in Lovejoy's Theory that humans have evolved to
accept monogamy as a rule, since that has obviously not happened. Our
social evolution has gone way way way beyond mere providing for our
offspring by securing that next meal (it is hoped anyway)...but when the
basics of life, death and food which your offspring needs... go figure
what the response would be.
: <.snipped>.. instead of luring the man with *more* sex. This, in
: turn, could enhance the care of the children. I believe, that the
: continuous receptivity of women had nothing to do with pairing. In
: fact, the latter could be a step back to restricted mating times.
: Any observations? ;)
Well, not being male, I can't comment on the disadvantage of more
sex...but perhaps your understanding of "continuous sexual activity" is a
bit more literal than its intended meaning. By not having obvious periods
of fertility (estrus) as do other living primates... the human female's
mating behavior is not restricted to that particular time when sex occurs
for the sole purpose of conception. Granted..there's alot more social and
psychological effects to account for as well, once sex was not restricted
to a specific time...hmmm...maybe that's when this pre-occupation with it
all started (jk).
Susan
--
sus...@netcom.com
debra mckay
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
>
[...]
>
>I believe that something like has happened in the chimp line.
>Male chimps are less hierarchic and bonobo females are continuously
>receptive with promiscuous sex. This does not tell which trait came
>first, but we know that such solution does exist in the ape line.
>Tight pairs, instead, do not appear before Homo s., if not some
>monkeys have such organization?
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "tight pairs". If you mean
monogamous, then gibbons are the *only* monogamous ape in the sense
of a lifelong pairbond between a male and a female.
>
>If the bonobo strategy was chosen by the pre-hominids millions of
>years ago is another thing, but then there are the !kung san.
>That means, that this strategy does exist in the hominid line, too,
>and the position of the !kung san in our species excites imagination.
>There are relatively loose pair bonds in other primitive (and less
>primitive :) cultures, where women earn considerable portions of
>the living, and relatively free sex in south of Saharan African
>cultures in general. Male polygamy is common throughout the human
>kind, but women don't resist female polygamy where it occurs.
>And a woman with a man and a lover is polygamous? Or promiscuous?
I'm a little uncomfortable with your comments on the !kung san and
sub-Saharan Africa in general. The !kung, we should keep in mind,
are *not* a representative of the behaviour or anything else of early
humankind; they are a group of modern people. We must be *extremely*
careful with our use of analogy. As to sub Saharan Africa, my husband and
in-laws would probably dispute your characterization of "free sex": while
I agree that polygamy is probably the normal condition of the human mating
system, sex in those cultures is probably less "free" than we Westerners
characterize ourselves. A woman with more than one husband is polyandry.
Rare, but known.
[...]
>I find it difficult to imagine, how the mere hanging around of a
>certain man would specially enhance the care of the children. Since
>the number of men and women is equal, there would always be a man
>hanging around, anyway. And since other women are receptive, too,
>continuous sex would be available for him anywhere.
Yeah, but if he doesn't think the kid is his, what would motivate
him to help look after it? If he thinks it *might* be his, he
may be more inclined to stick around.
Deb
Peter Crowley
sus...@netcom.com (Susan S. Chin) wrote:
>ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
>: . In which way would continuous receptivity (or
>: anything else) make the male stay with the female better than a
>: chimp male stays with a female in their permanent group?
In a chimp band only a few of the females will be in estrus
at any one time. Often it will be none at all. But when
they are, they will go around in a large excitable group
with most of the males. In consequence chimps, especially
males, develop gang behaviour. So continuous female
receptivity would destroy the basis of chimp society.
>: What would
>: be the difference in child care if the males and females of a chimp
>: group were permanently paired instead of having the way they do?
'
No *direct* effect on "child care" since the females do all
the work in any case. But you're missing the effect on the
dynamics of the group. The main achievement of chimpanzees
was the establishment of the multi-male co-operative group.
This gave them dominance in the forest. Promiscuous sex.
was an essential factor. Also a male will protect all
infants in the group since each one could be his progeny.
When a group expands to more than about a dozen mature
males, this probability goes down, the whole system gets
difficult to manage, and the group becomes liable to split.
The introduction of either excessive pairing or continuous
receptivity would destroy the genetic and behavioural bases
of chimp co-operation. Each pair would probably set up its
own territory. But since neighbouring multi-male groups
would be much stronger, such chimps would not survive.
>I see no problem with disagreeing with Lovejoy's theory...many people in
>Anthropology have a hard time with it. His theory goes way beyond the
>loss of estrus in human females, the subsequent pair bonding as a result,
>explained by the advantage for hominid females to have one male providing
>for their offspring, this provisioning behavior...eventually led to
>bipedalism, as it required that the males free up the hands for carrying
>these provisions to the offspring.
Lovejoy's is a fairly desperate attempt at explaining
bipedalism, (but no worse than most ). Since chimps
achieved strong multi-male groups with female exogamy and we
are *in_effect* descended from them and we have multi-male
groups with female exogamy, its most unlikely that we ever
went through another phase. Monogamy has to be seen as one
aspect of the development of co-operative multi-male groups
with more than a dozen adult males.
> The way human ancestors
>differed from our closest living primate relatives, is in the expansion
>of our habitat beyond a forrested environment. This is one significant
>evolutionary change in behavior which likely had direct consequences on
>how our ancestors adapted...both morphologically and behaviorally.
Agreed. Survival in the open would require much better
co-operation.
>The degree of sexual dimorphism between a human male and a human female
>would at least suggest that differences in size between the sexes nowhere
>near approaches that of modern apes such as the orang and gorilla. What
>would this suggest to you?
We do not have many species of large, terrestrial primates
which operate in open spaces in highly co-operative
multi-male groups -- on which to form observational rules
regarding dimorphism. Or are you happy to extend rules
based on small aboreal primates living in the high canopy?
>: I find it difficult to imagine, how the mere hanging around of a
>: certain man would specially enhance the care of the children. Since
>: the number of men and women is equal, there would always be a man
>: hanging around, anyway. And since other women are receptive, too,
>: continuous sex would be available for him anywhere.
This is an absurd picture. What world are you living in?
Sex results in babies and females only provide it as part of
a highly developed survival and reproductive strategy. The
females of promiscuous species, such as chimps, provide it
because they want all the males to protect them and their
infants. Protection is also an important reason in
monogamous species such as gibbons. For hominids, I'd rate
protection by a group of (sexually contented) co-operating
males as being much more important than provisioning. The
male instinct to provide for his (probable) offspring seems
much weaker than the female's; and the male combative one
is remarkably strong. (How many females are keen sports
fans?)
>There was never a claim in Lovejoy's Theory that humans have evolved to
>accept monogamy as a rule, since that has obviously not happened.
What? The vast bulk of humanity accepts monogamy as the
rule, and has done so throughout recorded history.
>Our
>social evolution has gone way way way beyond mere providing for our
>offspring by securing that next meal (it is hoped anyway)...but when the
>basics of life, death and food which your offspring needs... go figure
>what the response would be.
What do you mean by this? There are numerous recent
periods and locations when the "basics of life" got very
close to a lot of people. Are you saying that the social
and family structure normally broke down?
Apologies for mixing replies, but "ailak@walrus
.megabaud.fi's" posting did not reach me.
Paul.
Michael McBroom
In <32d0d498...@news.alterdial.uu.net>, a...@azotus.com (Al Curtis) writes:
>
>This is one of several books I spent a good deal of time perusing at
>my local Barnes & Noble the other night. It looked to be a very good
>capsule summary of recent discoveries and theories in the anthropology
>field. Since my funds are limited, I opted for "The Runaway Brain" by
>Christopher Wills. I haven't been able to put it down!
I read _The Runaway Brain_ a few months back, and found it to be quite
interesting, as well. I think he made some good points, but he missed
a few as well. Another book that deals with the origins of human cognition
from the perspective of language is Derek Bickerton's _Language and Species_
(1990), which I have mentioned here in other threads. Bickerton's views are
controversial but provocative. I'd be interested in hearing what you or others
think about it if you get the chance to read it.
Regards,
Michael McBroom
CSUF Linguistics
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
debra...@utoronto.ca wrote:
> I'm not sure I know what you mean by "tight pairs". If you mean
> monogamous, then gibbons are the *only* monogamous ape in the sense
> of a lifelong pairbond between a male and a female.
I apologize for my terminology. Yes, just lifelong pairbond is what
I mean, since there are some birds which pair in good time before
nesting and are definitely monogamous for this time. Next year they
may have a new partner.
Are gibbon females continuously receptive? Do the males feed the
young, or do something else for them?
> I'm a little uncomfortable with your comments on the !kung san and
> sub-Saharan Africa in general. The !kung, we should keep in mind,
> are *not* a representative of the behaviour or anything else of early
> humankind; they are a group of modern people. We must be *extremely*
> careful with our use of analogy.
Just because they *are* modern people, I think they may be
representative. Do you think, that if children from any other
people were raised in a !kung san society, they would seek
permanent or longer pair bonds than their step mothers? What I
see around, makes me think that !kung san differ mainly in having
retained an old-fashioned *culture*.
I'm not so much seeking an analogy, but trying to show, that the
'monogamy' which most cultures try to support, is not yet a basic
behaviour of modern man. It has been the most succesful strategy
for a length of time, and if practised long enough, will select
for personal traits which fix the behaviour at genetic level, too.
This has not really happened, so this strategy can't be old, in
the paleontological sense, I mean.
> As to sub Saharan Africa, my husband
> in-laws would probably dispute your characterization of "free sex": wh
> I agree that polygamy is probably the normal condition of the human ma
> system, sex in those cultures is probably less "free" than we Westerne
> characterize ourselves. A woman with more than one husband is polyand
> Rare, but known.
Just what I have read about AIDS spreading in African populations.
> >I find it difficult to imagine, how the mere hanging around of a
> >certain man would specially enhance the care of the children. Since
> >the number of men and women is equal, there would always be a man
> >hanging around, anyway. And since other women are receptive, too,
> >continuous sex would be available for him anywhere.
>
> Yeah, but if he doesn't think the kid is his, what would motivate
> him to help look after it? If he thinks it *might* be his, he
> may be more inclined to stick around.
Yes of course, and the more he invests in children in general, the
more interest he should show in their descent. What I opposed (and
not very succesfully indeed) was that continuous sex *alone* would
have initiated pair bonding in a group of hominids. Life long
monogamy may appear where sex is once a year, and promiscuity, where
sex is continuous, so these two do not follow directly from each
other.
Susan S. Chin
: debra...@utoronto.ca wrote:
: > I'm a little uncomfortable with your comments on the !kung san and
: > sub-Saharan Africa in general. The !kung, we should keep in mind,
: > are *not* a representative of the behaviour or anything else of early
: > humankind; they are a group of modern people. We must be *extremely*
: > careful with our use of analogy.
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
: Just because they *are* modern people, I think they may be
: representative. Do you think, that if children from any other
: people were raised in a !kung san society, they would seek
: permanent or longer pair bonds than their step mothers? What I
: see around, makes me think that !kung san differ mainly in having
: retained an old-fashioned *culture*.
: I'm not so much seeking an analogy, but trying to show, that the
: 'monogamy' which most cultures try to support, is not yet a basic
: behaviour of modern man. It has been the most succesful strategy
: for a length of time, and if practised long enough, will select
: for personal traits which fix the behaviour at genetic level, too.
: This has not really happened, so this strategy can't be old, in
: the paleontological sense, I mean.
Evolutionarily speaking, there's not a great incentive for males of the
species to mate with only one female for life. That's why monogamy in a
very strict sense (one mate for life, as in the gibbons) rarely happens
in humans. The reasoning behind this is fairly obvious for the
male, try to spread those genes around as far and for as long as he can.
Monogamy does make more sense for the female, since her reproductive
resources, unlike that of the male, is fixed. Promiscuity would not
produce more offspring, just confusion.
I don't know that this behavior pattern in human females could be termed
"fixed" genetically, aside from the fact that XX sex chromosome tends to
result in less promiscuous sexual behavior. Professor Vince Sarich used
the following example in his evolution of human behavior class, namely
"How many male prostitutes are out there, compared to female prostitutes?"
Again paleontologically, the decrease in sexual dimorphism represented in
the hominid lineage does suggest that changes occurred due to changes in social
behavior of hominids through time. And changes such as these rarely occur
in a very short amount of time as was suggested.
: > As to sub Saharan Africa, my husband
: > in-laws would probably dispute your characterization of "free sex": wh
: > I agree that polygamy is probably the normal condition of the human ma
: > system, sex in those cultures is probably less "free" than we Westerne
: > characterize ourselves. A woman with more than one husband is polyand
: > Rare, but known.
: Just what I have read about AIDS spreading in African populations.
I've read that it has more to do with a reluctance to use the proper
protective contraceptives, which doesn't necessarily imply promiscuity,
though it could. That, or the lack of said contraceptives in many parts
of Africa.
: > Yeah, but if he doesn't think the kid is his, what would motivate
: > him to help look after it? If he thinks it *might* be his, he
: > may be more inclined to stick around.
: Yes of course, and the more he invests in children in general, the
: more interest he should show in their descent. What I opposed (and
: not very succesfully indeed) was that continuous sex *alone* would
: have initiated pair bonding in a group of hominids. Life long
: monogamy may appear where sex is once a year, and promiscuity, where
: sex is continuous, so these two do not follow directly from each
: other.
Sex once a year... very doubtful any primate species would survive such a
reproductive cycle... non-conception, miscarriages, non-viable
offspring... when this occurs, the next reproductive opportunity is quite a
few long months away. Now why on earth (or anywhere else) would a male
stay around for this type of reproductive behavior? The whole concept
behind Lovejoy's theory is that since sex and the *possibility* of
conception, therefore offspring, is continuous, year round, throughout
the entire month, pair bonds become a better reproductive strategy out in
the "savanna"... there was likely competition among the males as
previously, but perhaps this hypothesized cooperation between the sexes
in rearing offspring was the difference. There are more unlikely
scenarios which seek to explain the same phenomena of our uprightness.
Susan
--
sus...@netcom.com
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
pcro...@indigo.ie wrote:
snip
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
> >: I find it difficult to imagine, how the mere hanging around of a
> >: certain man would specially enhance the care of the children. Since
> >: the number of men and women is equal, there would always be a man
> >: hanging around, anyway. And since other women are receptive, too,
> >: continuous sex would be available for him anywhere.
>
> This is an absurd picture. What world are you living in?
snip
Yes, it is really absurd compared with what I tried to say! <g> I
meant to say, that a man hanging around just for *sex*, alone, would
not make any difference. There must be other mechanisms to *cause* a
permanent pair bond. The *results* of permanent pair bonding may well
include better care of children. Monogamous cultures have been the
most successful.
> For hominids, I'd rate
> protection by a group of (sexually contented) co-operating
> males as being much more important than provisioning. The
> male instinct to provide for his (probable) offspring seems
> much weaker than the female's; and the male combative one
> is remarkably strong. (How many females are keen sports
> fans?)
snip
Agreed, in principle.
In arctic hunter-gatherer groups much of the food is provided by men.
This makes monogamy sound a better strategy than in tropics, where
women can provide food even when pregnant.
Did monogamy appear when new weapons made hunting more efficient,
so that it began to have importance in providing food for the group?
Men were more efficient in protecting, too, with this new power,
and the importance of the 'gang' behaviour diminished a bit. So it
allowed pairing?
Is the beginning of such efficient hunting seen in the stone tools?
In rapid spread of Homo s?
Did erectus hunt?
Were Neanderthals monogamous?
<g>
> Paul.
debra mckay
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
>
>Yes, it is really absurd compared with what I tried to say! <g> I
>meant to say, that a man hanging around just for *sex*, alone, would
>not make any difference. There must be other mechanisms to *cause* a
>permanent pair bond. The *results* of permanent pair bonding may well
>include better care of children. Monogamous cultures have been the
>most successful. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
??? Do you have some evidence to back this up? Off the top of
my head, I can't think of a single monogamous human culture in which
the monogamy wasn't *enforced* by religious and/or legal strictures, or
moderated by economic realities. That is, it is not "natural", but cultural.
>Did monogamy appear when new weapons made hunting more efficient,
>so that it began to have importance in providing food for the group?
>Men were more efficient in protecting, too, with this new power,
>and the importance of the 'gang' behaviour diminished a bit. So it
>allowed pairing?
>
>Is the beginning of such efficient hunting seen in the stone tools?
>In rapid spread of Homo s?
>Did erectus hunt?
>Were Neanderthals monogamous?
I'm confused. I got the impression in earlier posts that you didn't
think that monogamy was natural. Now it seems that you do. Could
you clarify your position, or have I missed some posts (which is entirely
possible--they seem to be falling off my newsfeed with startling rapidity,
these days)?
Deb
Paul Crowley
Phillip Bigelow <bh...@scn.org> wrote:
>Susan S. Chin wrote:
>> The benefit of continuous sexual
>> receptivity in human females, according to Owen Lovejoy, is to ensure
>> that the male stays with the female, even during periods when she's not
>> fertile (ovulating).
>As with many behavioral theories for hominids that have been put
>forth, I always ask this question: Is the hypothesis testable?
Phil, I think you should switch to Chemistry or some other
discipline that allows high standards of proof. It will
never be the case in PA. There will always be a lot of
uncertainty about events of many millions of years ago. Your
insistence on the wrong sort and degree of proof prevents
you from approaching the issues in the right frame of mind.
These events happened. We have to seek reasonable
explanations for them on the basis of what slender evidence
we have and try to present a coherent overall picture,
always trying to acknowledge the uncertainties. That is the
nature of the enterprise. It's not Engineering or Maths.
Take this issue. The approach should be to consider all the
possible explanations for it. There aren't many. Then
attempt to attach a probability to each, stating the degrees
of uncertainty, also saying how other aspects of hominid
evolution would link in.
The change was substantial and must IMO have happened at
least 500 kya. It would have probably have been associated
with other radical changes in social structure, lifestyle
and habitat, which would have been reflected in skeletal
changes. This would put it at the CA/hominid boundary or
the australo/homo one.
But the first stage is to consider possible explanations.
I'm not aware of any - other than the facilitation of
monogamy. Are you?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
sus...@netcom.com (Susan S. Chin) wrote:
>Evolutionarily speaking, there's not a great incentive for males of the
>species to mate with only one female for life.
IIf that's the best way to ensure that your progeny grow up
to be physically strong and of high status (thereby ensuring
a high probability of further reproductive success) then,
evolutionarily speaking, it will be the best possible
incentive.
Also remember that then (as now) it was the ones with high
social status that survived famines - and had more
"illegimate" offspring.
>Monogamy does make more sense for the female, since her reproductive
>resources, unlike that of the male, is fixed. Promiscuity would not
>produce more offspring, just confusion.
As a possible additional aspect, I heard several years ago,
that a study of mothers in India showed that those who had
children by several men had a much higher rate of
miscarriage and early infant death. It was suggested that
the woman's immune response found it easier to cope with
successive infants by the same man. An impregnation with a
different set of DNA meant starting again with the
equivalent of a first pregnancy.
Has anyone else heard this? Or know anything to confirm or
deny?
Paul.
Susan S. Chin
: sus...@netcom.com (Susan S. Chin) wrote:
: >Evolutionarily speaking, there's not a great incentive for males of the
: >species to mate with only one female for life.
Paul Crowley (pcro...@indigo.ie) wrote:
: IIf that's the best way to ensure that your progeny grow up
: to be physically strong and of high status (thereby ensuring
: a high probability of further reproductive success) then,
: evolutionarily speaking, it will be the best possible
: incentive.
It's the solution that many human societies have developed as part of its
social structure, which makes monogamy for males a compromise of sorts...
But a very necessary one as you pointed out.
Susan
--
sus...@netcom.com
Phil Nicholls
pcro...@indigo.ie (Paul Crowley) wrote:
>Phillip Bigelow <bh...@scn.org> wrote:
>
>>Susan S. Chin wrote:
>>> The benefit of continuous sexual
>>> receptivity in human females, according to Owen Lovejoy, is to ensure
>>> that the male stays with the female, even during periods when she's not
>>> fertile (ovulating).
>
>>As with many behavioral theories for hominids that have been put
>>forth, I always ask this question: Is the hypothesis testable?
>
>Phil, I think you should switch to Chemistry or some other
>discipline that allows high standards of proof. It will
>never be the case in PA. There will always be a lot of
>uncertainty about events of many millions of years ago. Your
>insistence on the wrong sort and degree of proof prevents
>you from approaching the issues in the right frame of mind.
>These events happened. We have to seek reasonable
>explanations for them on the basis of what slender evidence
>we have and try to present a coherent overall picture,
>always trying to acknowledge the uncertainties. That is the
>nature of the enterprise. It's not Engineering or Maths.
No, but IS science. No one is talking about proof or degree of proof
but a distinction needs to be made between speculations and
hypotheses. Speculation is not bad, speculation to something more
productive but there is a great deal more to physical anthropology
than the wild speculation and just-so stories. Unfortunately, this
aspect of physical anthropology is not as "sexy" and therefore of
less interest to the amateurs and dilatants. It is, however, the meat
and potatoes of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and the
Journal of Human Evolution. Speculations and "grand theories" are
the desserts.
>Take this issue. The approach should be to consider all the
>possible explanations for it. There aren't many. Then
>attempt to attach a probability to each, stating the degrees
>of uncertainty, also saying how other aspects of hominid
>evolution would link in.
This issue has been explored by numerous anthropologists. Some have
explored it with grand sweeping speculations and others have explored
it with careful labored analysis of primate behavioral data. Others
have explored it by careful analysis of archaeological data.
>The change was substantial
Why?
>and must IMO have happened at least 500 kya.
Why?
>It would have probably have been associated with other radical changes in social structure,
>lifestyle and habitat, which would have been reflected in skeletal
>changes.
"Probably" implies probability.
>This would put it at the CA/hominid boundary or
>the australo/homo one.
Why?
>But the first stage is to consider possible explanations.
>I'm not aware of any - other than the facilitation of
>monogamy. Are you?
I am aware of the fact that most human societies are not monogamous.
Are you?
Phil Nicholls
pn...@digiworldinc.com
"To ask a question, you must first know
most of the answer." Robert Sheckley
Susan S. Chin
: sus...@netcom.com wrote:
: > Evolutionarily speaking, there's not a great incentive for males of
: > the species to mate with only one female for life. That's why
: > monogamy in a very strict sense (one mate for life, as in the
: > gibbons) rarely happens in humans. The reasoning behind this is
: > fairly obvious for the male, try to spread those genes around as far
: > and for as long as he can. Monogamy does make more sense for the
: > female, since her reproductive resources, unlike that of the male,
: > is fixed. Promiscuity would not produce more offspring, just confusion.
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
: Let's make a rapid analyse of this! These men mate with several
: women, their genes spread in the population, and in due time, most
: men are promiscuous and mate with several women. For the women,
: monogamy is an evolutionary more sensible solution. This means that
: in due time, most women will be monogamous and mate with only one man.
: Evolutionary speaking, it somehow does not work... :)
The basic strategy of one male/one female despite what you care to call
it, seems rather prevalent today. It may not be "natural" but it is what
does work in many societies... imperfectly at times. There is nothing to
suggest that early hominids could not have adopted such a reproductive
strategy.
: What if both men and women were promiscuous, to a certain extent, as a
: remnant from a long, long promiscuous period in the prehistory of our
: species. We are only learning, how to be monogamous?
What is your basis for this recent acquisition of monogamous behavior?
: >I don't know that this behavior pattern in human females could be termed
: >"fixed" genetically, aside from the fact that XX sex chromosome tends to
: >result in less promiscuous sexual behavior. Professor Vince Sarich used
: >the following example in his evolution of human behavior class, namely
: >"How many male prostitutes are out there, compared to female prostitutes?"
: This behavior pattern in human females *can not* be termed as fixed.
: If it was, no woman, ever, could have sex but with one man in her
: life, as far as he lived. This is how it is with the gibbons?
Your interpretation of monogamy is much more literal and restrictive.
Human monogamy in no way approaches that of the gibbons... I don't think
anyone would argue with that. Monogamy when applied to humans should
refer only to "serial monogamy" one mate at a time...that works both
evolutionarily and is what we observe today in many human societies.
I would also hesitate to call any human behavior as "fixed" at any level
of genetics. What I said earlier, that the XX chromosome and correlation
to less promiscuous sexual behavior, is an empirical observation. There
are always the exceptions, it therefore isn't "fixed" but rather the
behavior does seemingly have a high correlation to individuals with the
XX chromosome.
: Prostitution in our society has historical grounds, and average women
: never could afford a prostitute, even if they would have wanted.
: Where women had power, like queens and the top class, they used any
: man who pleased them in their vicinity. It has also been stated, that
: XX results in less sexual desire... Depriving the cultural context, I
: don't think his argument holds.
Why don't you think the argument holds? Just because something is
culturally based and influences our behavior, does not mean that this
behavior doesn't also have a genetic or biological component to it.
Another example Sarich used was the comparison of mating behavior of
homosexuals, of gay men and lesbian relationships. Promiscuous sexual
activity (esp. pre-AIDS period) predominated in male homosexual
relationships. Monogamy on the whole largely predominated in lesbian
relationships. What does this suggest?
: >The whole concept behind Lovejoy's theory is that since sex and
: >the *possibility* of conception, therefore offspring, is continuous,
: >year round, throughout the entire month, pair bonds become a better
: >reproductive strategy out in the "savanna"...
: snip
: It is the length of
: pregnancy and lactating, not the interval of ovulations, which
: determines the birth rate.
Another consequence of pair bonding is that, with the help of the male
parent in providing for the care of his offspring, this enabled the
hominid female's reproductive cycle to become spaced closer
together... This is important since mortality rates during this
time... could not compare to infant mortality rates today in societies
with modern medicine and conveniences. The best strategy would therefore
be producing as many offspring as viably supportable...with the
expectation that infant mortality may be a rather frequent occurrence.
Susan
--
sus...@netcom.com
Thomas Clarke
In article <32dc88c7...@news.capital.net> pn...@capital.net (Phil
Nicholls) writes:
>Speculation is not bad, ... but there is a great deal more to physical
>anthropology than the wild speculation and just-so stories.
>Unfortunately, this aspect of physical anthropology is not as "sexy" and
>therefore of less interest to the amateurs and dilatants.
Don't forget, though, that it is the amateurs and dilletantes who
pay the bill in the form of taxes and foundation grants.
When I first got into science I had a real hard time reconciling
myself to the fact that science is a business. Without the money
there is no search for truth.
>It is, however, the meat and potatoes of the American Journal of
>Physical Anthropology and the Journal of Human Evolution.
>Speculations and "grand theories" are the desserts.
But those desserts pay the bills. So don't short change the
dessert. You don't have to eat it if you don't like to,
but if you don't serve it, the customers will stop coming to
your restaurant.
As Tom Wolf says: "No Buck Rogers, no bucks." and no bucks,
no research.
Tom Clarke
Phillip Bigelow
> >As with many behavioral theories for hominids that have been put
> >forth, I always ask this question: Is the hypothesis testable?
>
> Phil, I think you should switch to Chemistry or some other
> discipline that allows high standards of proof.
No thanks. Geology and paleontology are all based on hard evidence
and falsifiability. I don't need to switch over to another science.
But I *refuse* to get sucked into "interpretive-science" of untestable
speculation.
It's prevalent in the behavioral sciences, and I will have no part of
it.
> Take this issue. The approach should be to consider all the
> possible explanations for it. There aren't many.
I disagree. There are as many different explainations for any
given phenomenon as there are opinionated people on the earth.
Unfortunately, 5 billion "plausible hypotheses" by themselves
don't get us any further along the pathway of science.
Only the hypotheses that are backed-up with
reproducable evidence, or the ones that can be tested,
are worthy of serious consideration as a "working hypothesis".
>Then
> attempt to attach a probability to each,
I have never observed you attach a proability to any
speculations that you have put forth.
> stating the degrees
> of uncertainty, also saying how other aspects of hominid
> evolution would link in.
You mean like James Howard's suggestion that testosterone is
responsible for just about every evolved human character trait?
Hell, Paul, any yahoo can link something with something else.
(BTW: the keyword "James Howard" is now happily residing in my
newsreader's killfile).
>
> But the first stage is to consider possible explanations.
Well, I would emmend that by adding: possible explainations that
are either backed up by evidence, or possible explainations
that can be tested and falsified.
The "rest" are mindless speculations...which can be truely boring....
really, really boring.
> I'm not aware of any - other than the facilitation of
> monogamy. Are you?
Hell, there isn't even a consensus agreement that monogamy
(even in it's on-again off-again "facilitated" form) is
present in humans TODAY.
How on earth can we extrapolate this equivacality backward to
fossil forms and have any way of knowing that we are on
the right track?
One way of looking at this contentious issue, Paul, is to
consider the following. Should some standards be utilized
in determining the value of any speculation that is put forth?
If you answer "no" to the above, then what criteria do you
believe should be used to distinguish your ideas from that of
someone else's ideas that (coincidentally) you disagree with?
<pb>
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
debra...@utoronto.ca wrote:
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
> >include better care of children. Monogamous cultures have been the
> >most successful. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ??? Do you have some evidence to back this up? Off the top of
> my head, I can't think of a single monogamous human culture in which
> the monogamy wasn't *enforced* by religious and/or legal strictures, o
> moderated by economic realities. That is, it is not "natural", but cu
Well, I'm not well informed of the terminology. I mean by monogamous
cultures the equivalent of ceramic cultures, in other words, cultures
where monogamy is practiced. They have been succesful, since there
are but odds and ends of other types of cultures.
> >Did monogamy appear when new weapons made hunting more efficient,
> >so that it began to have importance in providing food for the group?
> >Men were more efficient in protecting, too, with this new power,
> >and the importance of the 'gang' behaviour diminished a bit. So it
> >allowed pairing?
> >
> >Is the beginning of such efficient hunting seen in the stone tools?
> >In rapid spread of Homo s?
> >Did erectus hunt?
> >Were Neanderthals monogamous?
>
> I'm confused. I got the impression in earlier posts that you didn't
> think that monogamy was natural. Now it seems that you do. Could
> you clarify your position,
I still believe that modern humans are not naturally monogamous - you
point the importance of culture in your post, and I agree. But what
was before these succesful monogamous cultures? We can not ever know
it, but there are not too many chances, either :
1. Prehuman non-cultural societies were already monogamous, and
developed to monogamous human cultures. (I don't know the terms, and
how the beginning of 'culture' is determined.) With this time table,
we would expect more genetic support - in gibbon style - for monogamy
than what we see. We also have to explain the origins of the
scattered promiscuous H. sapiens cultures.
2. The pre-cultural society was promiscuous, and the change to
cultural society meaned a change to monogamy. That might better
explain our difficulties in adaptating to monogamy (depending on when
we put the origin of 'culture') but not the existence of promiscuous
cultures of H. sapiens.
3. The pre-cultural societies were promiscuous, and developed to
promiscuous cultures. With the spread of H. sapiens and changes of
economy, the basic culture got different local forms. Such variations
we see when we look the existing native cultures. These cultural
forms included also monogamous types, and for one or other reason,
they proved to be the most successfull, as it is. Short time spent
in monogamous cultures would explain our difficulties, and the
existing promiscuous cultures would be relics from the original
state. This is the most logical scenario, to what I know (not much).
The point is, at which level we put the origin of culture and the
origin of monogamy. My scenario (no references) suggests, that
culture appeared before monogamy, and monogamy appeared at H.s
level and has always been a cultural phenomenon. And I believe, that
economy cause(s)d differences in sexual relations, and something
allowed - or demanded - some populations of H.s. to give up the
protection provided by the promiscuous group. I believe this happened
after the !kung san line had departed, not so long ago, and thought,
if some change was seen in the tool kit.
I am not aware, if monogamous cultures are 'monofyletic' or if
they appeared locally in many places. Maybe also before H.s.?
Monogamous Neanderthals, like the modern arctic people? :)
BTW, did erectus and neanderthals have 'culture'?
> or have I missed some posts (which is entirely
> possible--they seem to be falling off my newsfeed with startling rapid
> these days)?
No, you haven't but I have been locked away for server problems.
> Deb
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
pcro...@indigo.ie wrote:
> Orangs do not progress along the ground easily nor do they
> go outside forest. So it's unlikely that they "moved east".
Did they evolve in East Asia?
> What evidence is there on dolphins? Have you references?
Nooo.. I'm a bad paleontologist!
> Early hominid females were very small and probably could not
> run _at_all_. Even if they could, they were extremely bad
> at it. There was NO selection for running capability in
> females for the first two million years and probably none
> thereafter. Your scenario fits the prevailing paradigm, but
> it flies in the face of massive amounts of evidence dating
> from since the 1970's.
What separates an early hominid from the common ancestor?
> How many full adult males were in the group? Was warfare
> prevalent ? - as in chimps and known hominids (i.e. us).
> If so, would a larger group defeat a smaller one? What is
> the maximum number of males supportable in a group based on
> promiscuous sex? I.e. when does the likelihood of an infant
> sharing enough of your genes become so small that its
> survival is not worth your taking risks for its protection?
How could I know? How many males are in a bonobo group? Debra Mckay
said they are promiscuous and the females are continuously receptive.
How many men are in a !kung san group. They are said to be
promiscuous, too.
> You mustn't be a father -- to say this. Most men care
> passionately about their offspring. This is usually quite
> adequate to maintain pairing even after the "in-love" phase
> has passed. Being in-love consumes a lot of energy and is
> necessary only until the first infant(s) start to grow.
Hmm, this kid stuff makes sense. Maybe I fell in 'female-centrism'?
> The inborn mechanisms were designed to be *good_enough* for
> our paleolithic ancestors. Evolution rarely provides more
> mechanisms than are needed. "Fallling in love", the absence
> of any contraception, joint parental devotion to offspring,
> the harshness of the conditions and the social pressures
> within small groups almost certainly meant that monogamy was
> the rule. Generally only children with two good parents in
> a tightly structured society would prosper. They would then
> continue such a "culture". Call it that if you will, but
> don't knock it. It works -- or more precisely -- it worked.
> It's why we're all here.
>
> It's necessary that the sexes be very attractive to each
> other. So it is not surprising that the "cultural"
> mechanisms (that enabled the survival of the species) should
> break down in a radically different environment. That
> breakdown is unlikely to provide good evidence for earlier
> social structures.
I just wonder how promiscuity has worked for !kung san. Did their
environment change radically?
> The concealed estrus and continuous female receptiivity are
> unquestionably long-established features of hominid anatomy.
> What possible function could they have in promiscuous
> groups? It was an evolutionary development. The
> development of monogamy is one explanation for it.
> What's yours?
Let's model a little! Ten males and ten females make a chimp group.
A female comes in heat, and all males mate with her. Let's say
each male mates once a day during ten days. She comes pregnant, has
her baby and lactates, then has a heat again. I do not know how long
is a chimp pregnancy, but let's say the project takes some 6 months
(I think it's longer). So she is in heat twice a year, or less.
Then a mutation appears, and a female is still receptive after her
heat, when she already is pregnant. All males mate with her as
before, once a day, but maybe for a hundred days. Because all males
have mated with her many times, they prefer her very much and are
keen to first save her and her infants.
Her trait becomes prevalent in the group, and soon all females are
receptive throughout the pregnancy and lactating time, or most of
the year. This includes the few days of ovulation which follow in
due time after each pregnancy, twice a year as before. Each male
mates once a day throughout the year, but since there are now ten
receptive females, that's once a day for her, too.
If they are still promiscuous, each male has sex with one female
today and goes to another female tomorrow. They are continuously
interested in the females and stay much closer to them than before.
A male will also rush to save any female, since she is his frequent
sex partner. So all males appear at the stage together.
Evolutionally, each male has a ten percent probability to save his
own progeny as before, but the *chimp* does not think of that. What
makes him attack, is *his* sex mate in danger, and the support of the
'gang' with him. Nothing else has changed. They still live where a
single chimp without weapons has nothing to say, but ten adult male
chimps make a considerable power.
But you say this daily mating made them live as pairs.
I'm not very informed of this anthro stuff. How do the references
say daily mating prevented the males from having sex with the other
females? What prevents gibbon males from having sex with the other
females, if they mate only a few times a year between pregnancies?
Why should a male now rush to save a female who is not his sex mate
and whose progeny with 100% certainty is not his own? If he died
or even became crippled, that would be disastrous for his own
progeny, who were now dependent just on him. How would evolutionary
development explain this?
What possible function the female's continuous receptivity may have
for bonobos? Or dolphins? Or !kun san?
> There are two fundamental questions: 1) How many mature
> males can you have in a promiscuous group? -- I'd say not
> much more than a dozen. 2) When did hominids start having
> groups larger than this? -- I'd say very early on. Larger
> groups would eliminate smaller ones and there would be a
> very strong impulse towards language for the management of
> larger groups. Such an impulse would be virtually absent in
> smaller groups - of chimp size.
The mesolithic and neolithic people of Finland lived in groups
of about 20-25 persons, concluded from the size of their camps.
I have heard that the most efficient committees have 8 to 10 members,
and that this is the number of adult men which is most common in
modern hunter-gatherer groups. No references.
> Paul.
Phillip Bigelow
Thomas Clarke wrote:
>
> In article <32dc88c7...@news.capital.net> pn...@capital.net (Phil
> Nicholls) writes:
>
> >Speculation is not bad, ... but there is a great deal more to physical
> >anthropology than the wild speculation and just-so stories.
> >Unfortunately, this aspect of physical anthropology is not as "sexy" and
> >therefore of less interest to the amateurs and dilatants.
Tom Clarke wrote:
> Don't forget, though, that it is the amateurs and dilletantes who
> pay the bill in the form of taxes and foundation grants.
Yes, but the average amatuer or dilletante (fortunately) doesn't
have the expertise to control the *flow* of the research funds.
If the average amatuer or dilletante did have such control,
there would be a lot more waste than there is now.
Can you say "pseudo-science-funding"? Sure, I knew you could.
>
> >It is, however, the meat and potatoes of the American Journal of
> >Physical Anthropology and the Journal of Human Evolution.
> >Speculations and "grand theories" are the desserts.
> But those desserts pay the bills.
Then how do you explain the longevity of all of these boring and
stodgy professional societies? If they aren't "sexy"-enough to pique
the interest of the average non-scientist taxpayer, then how on
earth have these professional societies stayed solvent?
Why is the _American Journal of Physical Anthropology_ still
being published?
> So don't short change the
> dessert. You don't have to eat it if you don't like to,
> but if you don't serve it, the customers will stop coming to
> your restaurant.
The professional journals don't write for the average amatuer
(taxpayer) audience, so your point is somewhat irrelevant.
Fiscally, the average amateur is in the dark when it comes to
science funding. I am quite contented and am more than a little
relieved in knowing this. For instance, how many more
(amatuer-funded) trips to Mt. Ararat have to be made to
find Noah's Ark? I think we could have stopped after trip
number "0". I am just thankful that N.S.F. had nothing to
do with funding these pseudo-science vacation trips.
<pb>
Thomas Clarke
In article <32DDAE...@scn.org> Phillip Bigelow <bh...@scn.org> writes:
>Thomas Clarke wrote:
>> In article <32dc88c7...@news.capital.net> pn...@capital.net (Phil
>> Nicholls) writes:
>> >Speculation is not bad, ... but there is a great deal more to physical
>> >anthropology than the wild speculation and just-so stories.
>> >Unfortunately, this aspect of physical anthropology is not as "sexy" and
>> >therefore of less interest to the amateurs and dilatants.
>Tom Clarke wrote:
>> Don't forget, though, that it is the amateurs and dilletantes who
>> pay the bill in the form of taxes and foundation grants.
>Yes, but the average amatuer or dilletante (fortunately) doesn't
>have the expertise to control the *flow* of the research funds.
>If the average amatuer or dilletante did have such control,
>there would be a lot more waste than there is now.
>Can you say "pseudo-science-funding"? Sure, I knew you could.
Phil. Phil. I'm sure you knew that I was not suggesting that
amateurs and dilletantes control the flow of research funds.
My point was that a good paleoanthropologist has to be an entertainer,
a showman, in order to generate interest and enthusiasm among the
general population for his/her science so that the appropriators of
funding (lawyer's in Congress?) are sure to listen to their staffers
when they suggest that the amount given to NSF for PA be increased
(or maintained in today's climate).
>> >It is, however, the meat and potatoes of the American Journal of
>> >Physical Anthropology and the Journal of Human Evolution.
>> >Speculations and "grand theories" are the desserts.
>> But those desserts pay the bills.
>Then how do you explain the longevity of all of these boring and
>stodgy professional societies? If they aren't "sexy"-enough to pique
>the interest of the average non-scientist taxpayer, then how on
>earth have these professional societies stayed solvent?
>Why is the _American Journal of Physical Anthropology_ still
>being published?
Professional societies are maintained by the dues of members, conference
fees etc. Maybe some grants. Where do the dues etc come from?
The members salaries (maybe if they have a benevolent employer from
the employer). Why do the members have salaries? If they are
academic because students take their courses. If they are lucky
enough to be purely research because they succeed in convincing some
funder of the value of their science - value not just to the discipline
but to society as a whole. Why do student's take courses; why do
funders think PA is valuable to society? Because of the desserts.
Because it is sexy. Because it helps them understand, in a general
way, their place in the universe.
>> So don't short change the
>> dessert. You don't have to eat it if you don't like to,
>> but if you don't serve it, the customers will stop coming to
>> your restaurant.
>The professional journals don't write for the average amatuer
>(taxpayer) audience, so your point is somewhat irrelevant.
>Fiscally, the average amateur is in the dark when it comes to
>science funding. I am quite contented and am more than a little
>relieved in knowing this. For instance, how many more
>(amatuer-funded) trips to Mt. Ararat have to be made to
>find Noah's Ark? I think we could have stopped after trip
>number "0". I am just thankful that N.S.F. had nothing to
>do with funding these pseudo-science vacation trips.
If the average taxpayer decided that PA was irrelevant - perhaps
due to a resurgance in creationism (god forbid, pun intended),
then professional journals and NSF managers would not be relevant.
There would be no funds for them to control.
Ask the particle physicists. They lost the superconducting super
collider (SSC). They put in a valiant effort with books like
"The God Particle", but after the end of the cold war, the general
population and its representatives decided there was no benefit
in research that might, just might, result in some new weapon -
not when existing weapons were being destroyed and were overkill anyway.
What do you mean by being content about amateurs being "in the dark"?
Keep them in the dark and PA will drop off the radar screens of those
with the purse strings. Admittedly mount Ararat expiditions are bad
science, but they are good business - they do get funded. Might be
something to learn about funding from how the Ark seekers do it.
Like it or not you are part of show business. Just as a
director/producer must learn how to get his art funded by producing
something that the public will buy, you must learn to fund your
science by intriguing the public with the discoveries of PA.
Tom Clarke
debra mckay
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
>
>Well, I'm not well informed of the terminology. I mean by monogamous
>cultures the equivalent of ceramic cultures, in other words, cultures
>where monogamy is practiced. They have been succesful, since there
>are but odds and ends of other types of cultures.
>> I'm confused. I got the impression in earlier posts that you didn't
>> think that monogamy was natural. Now it seems that you do. Could
>> you clarify your position,
>
>I still believe that modern humans are not naturally monogamous - you
>point the importance of culture in your post, and I agree. But what
>was before these succesful monogamous cultures? We can not ever know
>it, but there are not too many chances, either :
I think (and you will correct me if I'm wrong, of course) that you
seem to be confusing *polygamy* with *promiscuity*. They are two
entirely different things. The term "promiscuous" is culturally-loaded
and really has no meaning in this kind of discussion. A person can
be considered promiscuous in either the monogamous or polygamous marriage
pattern, if this person breaks the socially-constituted, generally
understood rules of proper sexual activity. It depends upon how the
*culture* defines the concept. Therefore it also is meaningless when applied
to bonobos or any non-human creature.
In this sense, my own opinion is that (whatever a "ceramic" culture is--
lots of cultures made ceramics) because the dominant marriage pattern
in existence today is polygamy, it may well have been the dominant pattern
in the past. Monogamy wasn't common, and i don't know what you mean by
"successful". I don't think that the mating patterns of extant apes
can help us much in this reconstruction, because they all seem to do
something different.
But this is only my opinion, because there ain't a whole lot of hard
evidence for this kind of behaviour...(-:
[some good points snipped]
Deb
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
sus...@netcom.com wrote:
> What is your basis for this recent acquisition of monogamous behavior?
Without a weighed order:
- presence of separate promiscuous cultures.
- staggering performance of human monogamy in normal life throughout
the world.
- scarcity of genetically fixed traits to support monogamy. The
lasting for a year or more of 'fall in love' is definitely a tendency
towards genetically fixed monogamy. It just has not been finished.
- elaborate cultural network of taboos and customs which has been
raised in every culture to support monogamy.
- collapse of monogamy, where cultural demands weaken.
- economy-linked polarity of sexual relations in primitive cultures.
Where women provide much of living, promiscuity prevails, where most
food comes from men, monogamy, in general. This is logical: men
watching after their investments, but it could be as logical where
women earn the living. Why any promiscuity, then, if it was not a
relic from a time where it had other functions.
- obvious importance of economy in marriages in all world. Properties
marry, as did kingdoms.
> I would also hesitate to call any human behavior as "fixed" at any lev
> of genetics. What I said earlier, that the XX chromosome and correlati
> to less promiscuous sexual behavior, is an empirical observation. Ther
> are always the exceptions, it therefore isn't "fixed" but rather the
> behavior does seemingly have a high correlation to individuals with th
> XX chromosome.
>
> Why don't you think the argument holds? Just because something is
> culturally based and influences our behavior, does not mean that this
> behavior doesn't also have a genetic or biological component to it.
snippety
> Another example Sarich used was the comparison of mating behavior of
> homosexuals, of gay men and lesbian relationships. Promiscuous sexual
> activity (esp. pre-AIDS period) predominated in male homosexual
> relationships. Monogamy on the whole largely predominated in lesbian
> relationships. What does this suggest?
Let's go to the basics. A hundred adult men and a hundred adult
women make a population. The men are promiscuous, the women are not.
With whom do the men have that promiscuous sex? Where is the
evolutional advantage of them being promiscuous, when the trait
can never establish itself? What mind is in such a strategy and
what would support it in this kind of society? And how did it
spread into the male population?
For promiscuity to be the smarter strategy for a man, he has to have
more progeny than is his share. Promiscuous women are needed, for
only they can provide the extra progeny. Since these women mate more
often to promiscuous men, their progeny gets advantage of the male
trait (since it is smarter). This means, that male promiscuity tends
to increase female promiscuity and, when in balance, the whole
population will be promiscuous.
Now you say that promiscuity is a smarter strategy for a man in our
society. There must be promiscuous women to support this strategy.
You also say that there is an XX-linked monogamous tendency. That
means, that our population is not in balance, with both of these two
competing female traits present. You say that women probably gain
from monogamy. Then it is obviously the genetically determined
(XX-linked) monogamous tendency which is replacing promiscuity among
women, and our society as a whole drifts away from promiscuity.
This is exactly to be expected, if we have changed to monogamy during
the last whatever-ten kiloyears. I put this 'empirical observation'
as the eighth point in the above list to support my opinion of
monogamy being a relatively recent and half-finished aquisition of
H.sapiens. Greet your professor! <g>
> Another consequence of pair bonding is that, with the help of the male
> parent in providing for the care of his offspring, this enabled the
> hominid female's reproductive cycle to become spaced closer
> together... <snip>
A female chimp is in heat as soon as it is possible after her
pregnancy and lactation. She reproduces quite as often as it is
physiologically possible for her, as does any female of any species,
exept women of the western cultures. There is just heat, pregnancy
and lactation in her life. What period would you shorten to space
childbirths closer?
Did monogamy and help of the male shorten the reproductive cycle
of gibbons?
> Susan
> --
> sus...@netcom.com
--
Aila in Finland ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
Phillip Bigelow
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
>
> sus...@netcom.com wrote:
>
> > What is your basis for this recent acquisition of monogamous behavior?
> Without a weighed order:
> - presence of separate promiscuous cultures.
This could also be evidence for ANCIENT acquisition of one-one pair
bonding.
> - staggering performance of human monogamy in normal life throughout
> the world.
With a 50% divorce rate here in the States, I would prefer to use
the phrase "temporary pair bonding" in place of "monogamy".
Secondly, this evidence you give could just as easily be used for
ancient acquisition of this trait.
> - scarcity of genetically fixed traits to support monogamy.
How do you know this, and how scarce are these "monogamy"-genes?
> - elaborate cultural network of taboos and customs which has been
> raised in every culture to support monogamy.
Again, this could just as easily be used to suggest ancient acquisition,
and not recent acquisition.
> - collapse of monogamy, where cultural demands weaken.
This could also suggest that this trait could have arisen and then
went "extinct" many times in hominid evolution.
> - economy-linked polarity of sexual relations in primitive cultures.
> Where women provide much of living, promiscuity prevails, where most
> food comes from men, monogamy, in general.
Actually, history shows that in certain cultures, when men possess
most of the influence in a society, polygamy can also be socially-
accepted.
And when polygamy is practiced in human society, it is ?always one
man with multiple wives. I am not aware of any historical accounts
of the reverse being the case. Anyone?
<pb>
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
debra...@utoronto.ca wrote:
> I think (and you will correct me if I'm wrong, of course) that you
> seem to be confusing *polygamy* with *promiscuity*. They are two
> entirely different things. The term "promiscuous" is culturally-loade
> and really has no meaning in this kind of discussion. A person can
> be considered promiscuous in either the monogamous or polygamous marri
> pattern, if this person breaks the socially-constituted, generally
> understood rules of proper sexual activity. It depends upon how the
> *culture* defines the concept. Therefore it also is meaningless when
> to bonobos or any non-human creature.
I certainly get the terminology wrong. And in fact, it is difficult
to define 'monogamy', other than just the genetically fixed lifelong
behaviour of some birds and maybe gibbons. Among birds, there is that
pair forming which lasts about a year, from autumn to nesting to the
next autumn. What should these be called?
What I meant with 'promiscuous' societies, pre-cultural and later,
was the lack of lasting pairs, if genetically or culturally based.
When just occasional matings or more or less continuous 'love
affairs' without any other binding but just sexual, are the rule. If
I meant to do science, I'd gone through the material of modern
native cultures, but that would mean respective education.
There is, of course, no scientific interest in such speculations
(though a good speculation brightens the day :), but there are all
reasons to think over these things, as far as aliens and Atlantis
are left away. People often wait from their marriage something
which is not possible. They assume, that 'fall in love' will do
for whole life and save them from other 'falls in love'. They do
not beware, and they are in trouble. Or they think that because the
fall in love is over, it is the fault of their mate, and they must
seek for the 'right' mate, who will do better. They think there is
really something like eternal love, which falls on them, when they
find the right one. The 'know yourself' needs some interest in
questions like 'Why?'.
> In this sense, my own opinion is that (whatever a "ceramic" culture is
> lots of cultures made ceramics) because the dominant marriage pattern
> in existence today is polygamy, it may well have been the dominant pat
> in the past. Monogamy wasn't common, and i don't know what you mean b
> "successful".
Yes, you have right, of course. It is male polygamy which is the
most commonly accepted form - successful in that sense (or is it
monogamy today, when the chinese seem to profit it?). But what
happened to all those men, who were left without a wife? What part of
the male population had no progeny at all? Well, this is not the
right newsgroup for that.
Now I have to reconstruct my tree of social evolution.
The *common* ancestor of apes, uhhuh, *gibbons* are the most distant
apes, I think, and they are monogamous, and there's not even
great dimorphism between the genders! And *gorillas* are the next
distant, with considerable dimorphism and male dominance. Just find
a common ancestor for these *two*! Then come *chimps*, lesser
dimorphism again, less dominant males, and *bonobos*, which are
continuously receptive. (Wonder, what kinds of love affairs they may
have.)
Yep, apes are as variant as are humans, who may have more or less
free sex, male polygamy, female polygamy, and different trials of
monogamy. In the main line, we seem to have drifted to the gorilla
strategy again - not that men are that big, yet.
> I don't think that the mating patterns of extant apes
> can help us much in this reconstruction, because they all seem to do
> something different.
No help for the ways we have come here, but just by doing something
different, they show how many possibilites there are to do it. There
is not the only one way: *nature has never designed woman/man/human
to do this/that*. 'Nature' has done this and that, just after local
needs. Knowing this, it is much on our own consideration today, what
we want to do with our lives.
There is another aspect. Since the extant apes, which can be
considered kind of dead ends in intelligence compared to us, show
practically all forms of sexual relations, and we ourselves do the
same in all our smartness, we can not blame this or that form of
society for enhancing or stopping the increase of intelligence. It
is very difficult to find any direction, indeed. These social
relations seem to largely depend on local circumstances and economy,
and be changed with considerable ease.
We can not show, either, that there is one or other social structure
which is definitive better than some other, at some general level.
Here, of course, we must consider, what is 'better'.
The increase of intelligence is obvious from the monkey to the ape
level to us, in spite of the mating strategies. The monkeys, in
fact, are very intelligent animals already. So I would not recommend
this topic for a student of sociology... and at least leave the
dolphins away from the survey.
What else this discussion has taught: to find out the most basic
information, at least, if you are going to argue. But it just
began as my trial to turn upside down Gould's clitoris-argument,
by proving that this organ actually is responsible for us being so
cultural. <g>
> But this is only my opinion, because there ain't a whole lot of hard
> evidence for this kind of behaviour...(-:
What I would like to know, is how long the 'fall in love' lasts among
!kung san. But since that's rather soft evidence, I don't believe it
has been asked. :)
I have enjoyed the conversation.
Susan S. Chin
: sus...@netcom.com wrote:
: > What is your basis for this recent acquisition of monogamous behavior?
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
: Without a weighed order:
: - presence of separate promiscuous cultures.
Are you suggesting that these separate promiscuous (however you define
the term) cultures are evolutionarily behind those cultures where
monogamy is practiced? That is certainly the implication if this is your
basis for monogamy as a recent human behavioral phenomena.
: - staggering performance of human monogamy in normal life throughout
: the world.
Just because monogamy isn't as successful as one would idealize, does this
mean it is a recent behavior? Why did it ever develop at all if it's not
"successful" as a reproductive strategy? And if non-monogamy is so
successful, why didn't we just remain that way? In your scenario, those
are the implications in any case.
: - scarcity of genetically fixed traits to support monogamy. The
: lasting for a year or more of 'fall in love' is definitely a tendency
: towards genetically fixed monogamy. It just has not been finished.
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand where you get this idea of "fixed
monogamy." Nobody has ever said it is "natural" in an evolutionary sense
to have only one mate for life, THAT is why monogamy isn't always
successful. But it would allow for certain reporductive strategies which
were not adopted by the other apes, apparently.
Please explain what you mean by a "genetically fixed trait," citing
sources. I have never come across this idea of behavior=gene correlation.
: - elaborate cultural network of taboos and customs which has
been : raised in every culture to support monogamy.
: - collapse of monogamy, where cultural demands weaken.
see above for why these arguments don't hold...
: - economy-linked polarity of sexual relations in primitive cultures.
: Where women provide much of living, promiscuity prevails, where most
: food comes from men, monogamy, in general. This is logical: men
: watching after their investments, but it could be as logical where
: women earn the living. Why any promiscuity, then, if it was not a
: relic from a time where it had other functions.
Under Lovejoy's model, it is the male providing for both the female and
his offspring. Possible only through monogamous pair bonds. At what point
in human evolution do you think females controlled the sources of living?
and had the economic power that you mention?
: - obvious importance of economy in marriages in all world. Properties
: marry, as did kingdoms.
We are talking about the ORIGIN of monogamy, as you recall. Why would
marriage even enter into this? Australopithecine Marriages?
I wrote:
: > I would also hesitate to call any human behavior as "fixed" at any lev
: > of genetics. What I said earlier, that the XX chromosome and correlati
: > to less promiscuous sexual behavior, is an empirical observation. Ther
: > are always the exceptions, it therefore isn't "fixed" but rather the
: > behavior does seemingly have a high correlation to individuals with th
: > XX chromosome.
: >
: > Why don't you think the argument holds? Just because something is
: > culturally based and influences our behavior, does not mean that this
: > behavior doesn't also have a genetic or biological component to it.
: snippety
: > Another example Sarich used was the comparison of mating behavior of
: > homosexuals, of gay men and lesbian relationships. Promiscuous sexual
: > activity (esp. pre-AIDS period) predominated in male homosexual
: > relationships. Monogamy on the whole largely predominated in lesbian
: > relationships. What does this suggest?
your response:
: Let's go to the basics. A hundred adult men and a hundred adult
: women make a population. The men are promiscuous, the women are not.
: With whom do the men have that promiscuous sex? Where is the
: evolutional advantage of them being promiscuous, when the trait
: can never establish itself? What mind is in such a strategy and
: what would support it in this kind of society? And how did it
: spread into the male population?
I think you are confusing behavior with biology. Biologically there is a
definite evolutionary advantage for a male of any species to be
promiscuous. It is a very basic strategy for males, since the investment
in reproduction isn't anywhere near that of the female, who bear the
young and often cares for it long after the male has departed (this
relates to many animal species, not necessarily humans or our ancestors).
As far as actual promiscuity in human males, a distinction should also be
made between promiscuous *tendencies* versue actual promiscuous
*behavior.* What this translates into is: just because a human male wants
sex, doesn't mean he'll get it.
Also, in your example of 100 males, 100 females, the solution is fairly
simple. The 100 males mate with say, 5 or 6 promiscuous females. Or
rather, those 100 males attempt to mate with those.... females. Sexual
behavior isn't "fixed" so there is no reason why in a monogamous society
females cannot be promiscuous, nor any reason why males have to be.
: For promiscuity to be the smarter strategy for a man, he has to have
: more progeny than is his share. Promiscuous women are needed, for
: only they can provide the extra progeny. Since these women mate more
: often to promiscuous men, their progeny gets advantage of the male
: trait (since it is smarter). This means, that male promiscuity tends
: to increase female promiscuity and, when in balance, the whole
: population will be promiscuous.
If your position is that promiscuous behavior is the ancestral one, and
monogamy is a recent phenomena, why are you trying to justify or
establish the presence of such an ancient trait and it's evolutionary
advantage? If it works, why did humans change to monogamy only recently?
: Now you say that promiscuity is a smarter strategy for a man in our
: society. There must be promiscuous women to support this strategy.
: You also say that there is an XX-linked monogamous tendency. That
: means, that our population is not in balance, with both of these two
: competing female traits present. You say that women probably gain
: from monogamy. Then it is obviously the genetically determined
: (XX-linked) monogamous tendency which is replacing promiscuity among
: women, and our society as a whole drifts away from promiscuity.
I think there is a distinct difference between what is biologically the
present state in males versus what is a smarter strategy reproductively.
The natural tendency or the biologically driven tendency isn't toward
monogamy in males, IMO, but monogamy *is* the better reproductive
strategy, especially for early hominids...the cooperation between a male
and female in raising offspring could have been the advantage our
ancestors had over the apes.... I'm not saying it *is* but it is
*possible.*
Also you are misreading what I've said about the XX chromosome. The link
between the XX chromosome is NOT to a monogamous tendency, but rather toward
less promiscuous tendencies compared to XY. There is a difference
and I hope this distinction is
appreciated. There is no known biological link for monogamous behavior
that I know of... so please, don't assume that there is unless you can
show us where this genetic link is to be found.
: A female chimp is in heat as soon as it is possible after her
: pregnancy and lactation. She reproduces quite as often as it is
: physiologically possible for her, as does any female of any species,
: exept women of the western cultures. There is just heat, pregnancy
: and lactation in her life. What period would you shorten to space
: childbirths closer?
Childrearing of the chimp offspring without the aid of its biological
father ... which couldn't be determined without DNA testing in any case
given their mating behavior.
Susan
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
bh...@scn.org wrote:
[about list of negative evidence of monogamous behaviour]
> This could also suggest that this trait could have arisen and then
> went "extinct" many times in hominid evolution.
Yes, I had considered social - expecially sexual - structures to be
more stabile. It became clear to me while 'thinking aloud' that
they may change rapidly, expecially the culturally based forms. The
spectrum of forms among apes hint that they can change easily even if
they are based on inborn behaviour. The linkage to economy in humans
should have warned, bad economy is rapidly punished.
What comes to the 'monogamy-genes', just because I do not know
any inborn trait of humans which would confirm marriages stay for all
life, I think there does not exist any. Gibbons, instead, are hardly
pushed by religion to stay together.
> Actually, history shows that in certain cultures, when men possess
> most of the influence in a society, polygamy can also be socially-
> accepted.
Debra Mckay had to stick me in my eye before I realized, which I have
known all time, that male polygamy, not monogamy, has been the most
common strategy in historical times. I had dropped this solution
away, while getting mixed with the dimorphism of gorillas, for an
example.
The system has been a modification of that of gorillas in a bigger
group. A selection of men have had several women: wives, concubines
and slaves. The problem of extra men was solved in some places by
castrating them - the lists of the servants of old oriental kings
are impressive, with the groupings of 'bearded' and 'castrates'.
In this sense, my list for 'lacking evidence of monogamy' is quite
adequate. <g>
> And when polygamy is practiced in human society, it is ?always one
> man with multiple wives. I am not aware of any historical accounts
> of the reverse being the case. Anyone?
There are a few people in Himalaya, who usually are mentioned in this
connection. I just happened to see a document of one of them in TV a
few months ago. Among inuits, where population had to be controlled
by decreasing the number of women, a woman could have two men.
Economy, again!
> <pb>
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi
sus...@netcom.com wrote:
snip
>cultures are evolutionarily behind those cultures where <snip>
I see that we speak of different things. When speaking of evolution,
I usually mean biological evolution. Cultural evolution is a
separate thing.
snip
>I have never come across this idea of behavior=gene correlation
snip
>I think you are confusing behavior with biology. <snip>
There is inborn behaviour, which is gene-linked, and cultural
behaviour, which is learned, and combinations of the two, if I
understand it right.
>Under Lovejoy's model, it is the male providing for both the female and
>his offspring. Possible only through monogamous pair bonds. At what point
>in human evolution do you think females controlled the sources of living?
>and had the economic power that you mention?
Women provide most of the food in many hunter-gatherer groups, as well
as among many primitive plant-growers.
But since I originally left the most common social structure of
humans in historical times, the male polygamy, away from my
calculations, and I have realized how flexible the human cultural
status is, I think this thread has made all it could.
Thank you, for participating!
> Susan
>
> --
> sus...@netcom.com
Susan S. Chin
: sus...@netcom.com wrote:
: snip
: >cultures are evolutionarily behind those cultures where <snip>
ai...@walrus.megabaud.fi wrote:
: I see that we speak of different things. When speaking of evolution,
: I usually mean biological evolution. Cultural evolution is a
: separate thing.
That's funny. Most of your examples tend to come from culturally evolved
behaviors with little biological rationale behind them.
: >I have never come across this idea of behavior=gene correlation
: snip
: >I think you are confusing behavior with biology. <snip>
: There is inborn behaviour, which is gene-linked, and cultural
: behaviour, which is learned, and combinations of the two, if I
: understand it right.
And exactly where does "genetically fixed monogamy" fall into this?
: But since I originally left the most common social structure of
: humans in historical times, the male polygamy, away from my
: calculations, and I have realized how flexible the human cultural
: status is, I think this thread has made all it could.
: Thank you, for participating!
Well,there were alot of questions left unanswered. But perhaps there are
no answers, so we may have to end on this note. From clitoral evolution to
male castration.... it's been...interesting. Thanks for starting the thread.
Susan
--
sus...@netcom.com
Jim Foley
>Actually, history shows that in certain cultures, when men possess
>most of the influence in a society, polygamy can also be socially-
>accepted.
>And when polygamy is practiced in human society, it is ?always one
>man with multiple wives. I am not aware of any historical accounts
>of the reverse being the case. Anyone?
Check out "Man on Earth", by John Reader. He describes a polyandrous
society in India.
--
Jim (Chris) Foley, jim....@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest:
Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)
debra mckay
ji...@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley) wrote:
>In article <32E036...@scn.org>, Phillip Bigelow <bh...@scn.org> wrote:
>
>>Actually, history shows that in certain cultures, when men possess
>>most of the influence in a society, polygamy can also be socially-
>>accepted.
>>And when polygamy is practiced in human society, it is ?always one
>>man with multiple wives. I am not aware of any historical accounts
>>of the reverse being the case. Anyone?
>
>Check out "Man on Earth", by John Reader. He describes a polyandrous
>society in India.
>
(even the ones not born yet); this is known as "fraternal polyandry".
The economic aim seems to be to prevent the fragmentation of land among
many households where land is scarce. Some Sinhalese (Sri Lanka) practice
"associated polyandry" where one woman has two (rarely more) husbands who are
not related; it usually starts out monogamous and the second husband is a
later addition. The Indian example might be the Nayar, who practiced a
unique form of marriage around the end of the 18th century--"spouses" did
not live together and a woman might have several men who were considered
their spouse.
Source: Schultz and Lavenda, 1990, _Cultural Anthropology_. West
Publiching Co., pp300-303.
Deb