|
Who Invented Marriage?
by Jack Kittredge
A casual discussion a few days ago with a friend about how she and her husband make joint decisions devolved, as such talks can do, into some loose and feisty assertions about males, females and marriage. I thought perhaps a short trip into what is currently thought by anthropologists on the evolution of marriage might be interesting.
First off, as I am sure is no surprise, there are lots of conflicting theories and much educated guessing on this issue. But a common view is that for most of our history, when we were hunter-gatherers in Africa, we lived as many primates do in non pair-bonded tribal groupings. The females lived together, harvested growing food, and raised their children collectively, usually under the guidance of an elder woman. The males, who lived nearby, were led by a “big man” who ruled in battles with other tribes, bred with many of the fertile women, and organized the big hunts and their allotment. The younger male adults bred with females who were not receiving attention from the big man. Occasionally one would challenge him for dominance and perhaps become big man himself.
This arrangement served several purposes. For sustenance it generally relied on the strongest and wisest tribal male and female for leadership. For propagation it promoted children from the strongest and healthiest parents. For child-rearing it called upon the efforts of diverse “aunts and uncles” to pass along skills and lore.
There are at least two ways in which it may not have done so well, however.
First, since parenting was uncertain, incest — with its steep genetic price — was more likely to happen. Some suggest this was commonly avoided by the young leaving and joining other tribes, or at least breeding with individuals from them. Another interesting idea was that smells, which it is generally acknowledged were more important then, had genetic attributes and diminished one’s ardor for a close relative.
Second, as the environment changed over time, new skills needed to be learned and passed to the young for success. But this would involve a big change, perhaps threaatening to the status quo. Such a potential large ultimate benefit at an immediate cost is called, in evolutionary biology, a “fitness valley”. It has strong survival high ground on each side, but requires a period of tearing down the social order and traveling blind away from your old strengths to reach the new, better condition.
What caused the transition for humans was agriculture. This new source of sustenance provided more nutrients and supported a larger tribe — which could dominate smaller ones. You adopted it or were forced out of the best locations near water and rich soil. It also freed individuals from so much dependence upon the larger group. Agriculture rewards individual effort in improving soil, digging wells, building fences and corrals, inventing useful tools. All of a sudden you have property and skills to develop, worry about and pass on. A society based on the family, this theory goes, rather than on the big man, is better suited to conduct agriculture. Thus farming, and the family it established, ferried us across that fitness valley.
We have lived successfully with pair-bonding (at least in public) for some twelve thousand years now. It still delivers many satisfactions. But it is not genetically based in us and has been our practice for only a small part of our history. At a time when most of us work for large institutions, and our divorce rate is 50%, it may be wise to understand how fragile that relationship can be, and how careful we need to be to maintain it
|
