Who was the first culture to make marriage an institution?

Great Debates
41

Yes, Latro, but if it’s “crackpot” you should be able to explain–civilly–why it’s so very unlikely. Written sources aren’t, of course, the relevant data here. But one can make inferences based on what is known.

And again Satyagrahi wasn’t being obnoxious about the lack of any definitive proof–he was showing signs of good-faith open-mindedness; while those who were hounding him were just knee-jerk feminist-bashing.

Don’t get me wrong, some of the other discussion in this thread has been interesting.

Instead of defending other people’s aggressive behavior, why don’t you try to explain why you, Latro, think it’s impossible for any preh-historic society to have been as Satya described it.

42

Kind of a come lately here. But has anybody read the Cecil article that was cited?
Cecil makes a good argument for agriculture spawning marriage by way of watching domesticating animals that mate infrequently. I don’t think it’s a wild assumption to think that humans, who don’t wait for estrus, were probably copulating as much as they could get away with (look at the Bonobo chimp). Thus the jump to equating childbirth to an everyday activity might not be so clear. Especially if people were going off and mating unbeknownst to others and the babies that sprung out from one female may or may not all resemble anyone in particular.

I don’t think it’s far fetched to imagine that human males with high status tried to control access to the females, but this probably doesn’t resemble what most of us consider to be marriage and human females probably aren’t as easy to control as the females of other species. The example of other male animals killing babies I think usually comes from animals where only one male is around females at a time (lions for instance). If humans lived together with many males I think it would be hard for some males to completely control the mating patterns especially since human females do not wait for a certain time of the year to mate.

As far as the women controlling the clan, this probably varied from clan to clan. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the women had more importance in some due to a new sort of feeling that apes didn’t have: religion.

43

Sorry but I do find remarks like ‘knee-jerk male reactions’ rather obnoxious.

What is known?
Not a whole lot and certainly not on social systems. Next to nothing is actually known. All we have is a few material remains.
We don’t even know what they called themselves.

Just picture us discovering only the flint remains of a h-g society we * do* know something about, like the Papua. Maybe a couple of hearths and a few discolourations in the ground, that indicate some wooden poles were there. Does that give us any clue to what these people were all about?
Could we ever imagine what they looked like, how they behaved, what their social structures were?

The only inferences we can make are on what we can see of human behaviour today and through recorded history.
Judged on what knowledge I have of that, the only matriarchal society would be the Amazons, if they really existed.

I am not saying it is totally, absolutely IMpossible for any society at all to have been like that at any time.
After all, pre-history does span quite a bit of time.
There is just nothing to infer that there * was*.

And why is it up to me to disprove little green men on mars or the existence of god?
I would say it is up to the guy who poses the theory to prove why this theory should be correct.

Hope that was civil enough;)

44

So, is your beef related to the presumed OP or to the idea that early societies were matriarchal?

As far as what we have observed on sex=babies, Cecil brought up certain Australian Aborigines who posited supernatural sources for babies wherein sex was not necessarily involved.

I think that the sex=babies connection, while not prerequisite, gives strong motivation for marriages. Now that we have effective means of birth control, women are not viewed as the property of men, we can see a profound shift away from marriages or at least a feeling that the pair bond can be severed at will anyway. This we can observe too.

While societies that pre-empted knowledge of the procreative powers of sex might not have been “matriarchal”, I think it’s not a unlikely assumption to presume that they may not have felt as strong a need to control the behavior of women. Women’s status may have also been lifted due to their obvious procreative power and humanity’s new found awareness of mortality.

45

Well, my reaction was mainly against the matriarchal society, espescially the way it was presented as fact by Satyagrahi.
But hey, it’s nice to speculate.

On women being regarded as the property of men. I am not too sure the sex=babies would be the necessary underlying reason for that situation.
I would rather think it would stem from having sex.(period)
Not with the goal to create babies but more to exclude other males from having sex with the one you want.

As Lemur stated this level of posessivness might indeed be a fairly recent development. While we know the ancient Greek and Near Eastern cultures were (are) very posessive there are numerous cultures where this social trait is missing.
With the Inuit and a certain Siberian tribe I can’t recollect it was polite to offer your wife to visitors. Even closer to home, the ancient Germans were commented on by Tacitus(?) to be very lax towards their women.

Sorry, can’t finish conclusion, must fly…

46

Excluding other males from having sex isn’t necessarily marriage, especially if the male takes no responsibility for the offspring. A male might have one favorite one week and a different one the next. On top of that, with an internalized control like a morality that says sex with those outside of a marriage is wrong, I think in the long run, it would have been very hard to keep a woman from eventually having sex with a mate that she prefers.

I also think that without the responsibility of parenthood weighing in, people naturally become much more promiscous and less likely to form permanent bonds.

47

Notice, though, that in Cecil’s account the father does have some role–he has to give the woman a fish that she has to roast etc. I expect that people noticed that women often have children who resemble the man she’s been hanging out with, so they may well have recognized that there was some sort of male contribution without pinning it down specifically to intercourse.

I don’t agree that a moral prohibition against adultery necessarily springs from the knowledge that sex=babies. In modern hunter-gatherer societies, there usually isn’t an “official” rule, but adultery does lead to jealousy and often to violence, on the part of both sexes. So people try to avoid it, or at least keep it secret, in order to keep the peace. I don’t know how much jealousy you’ve experienced, but it really has nothing to do with childbearing. It’s an irrational, primitive emotion, which implies to me that it’s innate.

I do agree that back in the Stone Age marriage was probably less stable and divorce more common. Again, that’s true in modern h-g societies, even though they know that sex=babies, because women aren’t as economically dependent on men as in most agrarian societies. But remember another thing about h-g societies: there weren’t a lot of potential mates to choose from, because people lived in such small, widely scattered groups. So the idea that someone could flip from one woman one week to another the next would have been impractical from the simple absence of available women. I expect many people stayed in long-term relationships simply by default.

48

Latro: “Sorry but I do find remarks like ‘knee-jerk male reactions’ rather obnoxious.”

Well then you must be very pleased to find that no one, except yourself, has actually used that term.

domina: “I do agree that back in the Stone Age marriage was probably less stable and divorce more common.”

I think terms such as “marriage” and “divorce” are anachronistic. Although I’m sure we would have found relationships and ended relationships that might allow us to draw parallels to what we know as marriage and divorce, the meanings that we attribute to these things are particular to relatively modern times.

It’s hard to imagine that there was any kind of monogamy in the Stone Age. So I’m guessing that whatever kind of “marriage” rituals there may have been, took place in a context of polygamy. And when there is polygamy, the need for “divorce,” as such, is unlike what it is in our own day.

Marriage as we know it is both a legal contract and, for many, a religious rite. Divorce is a legal concept that, in Western society, took a long time to develop for the great mass of people. It wasn’t until the late nineteenth century that average people in England, the most powerful country at that time, were able to get a divorce. And even then there was a double standard, with, IIRC, a man able to sue for divorce on grounds of adultery, but a woman having to show something in addition to adultery, such as abandonment or cruelty.

Monogamous marriage is, I would say generally, the product of monotheistic religious view in which each individual is seen as having a soul–including women–combined with the need to secure inheritance (of property and of political privileges) through stable genealogies.

Divorce, as we know it, is the product of an even more egalitarian view than the one that brought marriage into being. It’s purpose is to give men and women a degree of autonomy without trenching on the degree of legal equality that, in modern societies, women eventually gain with respect to men.

49

<raises eyebrow> How then do you explain monogamous marriage in polytheistic societies such as Greece, Rome and Egypt?

Control of property and bloodlines are good arguments for marriage; monotheism is not.

50

Maybe maybe not. I think that by the time of agriculture it begins to become universal, whereas without it they might come up with on their own or they might not.

I didn’t mean to imply that people were constantly switching favorites, but that they could at any point terminate a relationship. This could lead to problems, but sometimes the termination is agreeable to both sides. If children are not involved then I don’t see any advantage to making a “till death” kind of agreement.

For instance a woman might change her relationship to a man with more social status. If the children were seen as hers and not the previous man’s then there wouldn’t be as many complications arising from that. I imagine in that situation child raising would be more communal even though a particular woman would be more closely bonded with particular children.

There is another complication I’d like to bring up. That is that sex!=babies. A viable sperm and an egg in a viable womb make a baby. Thus, Thag might make the argument to Dag that sex=babies, but Dag could perhaps point out that," Og and Bog go at it like Bonobo chimps, but Og has no babies. There must be something besides sex."

51

Squish:
*"How then do you explain monogamous marriage in polytheistic societies such as Greece, Rome and Egypt?

Control of property and bloodlines are good arguments for marriage; monotheism is not."*

I can’t explain it for the simple reason that I know almost nothing about marriage in those societies ;).

I had assumed–perhaps entirely erroneously–that monogamy in such societies was of the order of one “official” wife + semi-official concubines. Am I wrong there?

Assuming for the moment that I’m not…

I was making a guess about the origins of the idea that a man should only have one wife–only one woman in his official household–and that any other sexual relations, however frequent they might be, are, strictly speaking, illegitimate.

I was guessing that this idea that took off fairly late in the game. In post-Christian times. And I was guessing that the reason was to do, not so much with monotheism itself, but with the value that Christianity in particular tends to put on the individual soul–which portends a kind of egalitarianism.

If this is total horsedung, I’m ready to stand corrected.

And yes, I absolutely believe that the main reason for marriage as a legalistic concept is property/genealogy.

52

Squish:
*"How then do you explain monogamous marriage in polytheistic societies such as Greece, Rome and Egypt?

Control of property and bloodlines are good arguments for marriage; monotheism is not."*

I can’t explain it for the simple reason that I know almost nothing about marriage in those societies ;).

I had assumed–perhaps entirely erroneously–that monogamy in such societies was of the order of one “official” wife + semi-official concubines. Am I wrong there?

Assuming for the moment that I’m not…

I was making a guess about the origins of the idea that a man should only have one wife–only one woman in his official household–and that any other sexual relations, however frequent they might be, are, strictly speaking, illegitimate.

I was guessing that this idea that took off fairly late in the game. In post-Christian times. And I was guessing that the reason was to do, not so much with monotheism itself, but with the value that Christianity in particular tends to put on the individual soul–which portends a kind of egalitarianism.

If this is total horsedung, I’m ready to stand corrected.

And yes, I absolutely believe that the main reason for marriage as a legalistic concept is property/genealogy.

53

'Fraid so. :slight_smile: I’m not going to go into a lengthly essay here, but Greece and Rome were monogamous societies, although in Greece married men did visit prostitutes (however, actually keeping a concubine would have been a grave insult to his wife’s family and not without consequences). In Rome, adultery was indulged in by both husband and wife, but keeping a concubine would have even worse consequences, as who you were related to was essential to your progress/status in society–piss off your wife and her family and watch your career go down the toilet! (Of course, it was just a short walk down to the slave quarters… :wink: )

In many periods in Rome, women owned property and were as free to divorce their husbands as men were to divorce their wives.

I’d provide cites, but I’m bogged down with email and hungover. There is a copious body of literature on ancient/classical Greek and Roman society on the web, and there is a site/search engine called Diotima which specifically examines “women’s” issues (although why sex, marriage and childrearing are considered specifically “women’s” issues is beyond me!).

I’m with you on that–and it’s my opinion that the reason marriage has lost much of its importance in contemporary society is simply that those things aren’t as important as they once were.

54

Squish, thanks for that. I’m glad you were able to put me straight.

And I’m glad the Greeks and Romans had such an advanced (relatively speaking) degree of equality between the sexes. Three cheers for republicanism (and I’m not talking Bob Dole here :wink: ).

I will certain check out Diotoma when I have a chance. High time to extend my knowledge of Greek/Roman social conditions beyond what Intro to Western Civ and the odd sword-and-sandal movie can provide.

55

If you want to ease into Roman history with a little fiction, try the Sub Rosa series by Steven Saylor. Heavier going, but well-researched are Colleen McCollough’s (sp?) Roman historical novels.

Personally, I love researching history. Have fun!

56

Sorry but Satyagrahi * did* use that term.
You even embelished on it with ‘knee-jerk feminist-bashing’

I would tend to agree on inheritance playing an important role.
Primarily the inheritance of land.
This would, initially, have more bearing on the children but would change views on the concept of’property’ as a whole.
Having a working prosperous farm plus livestock plus land, would radically change views on how to deal with property.

As it is now important that this is my land and this is my son (who will inherit this), so the meaning of my wife may also have changed.
In non-agricultural societies the concept of property and the raising of children tends to be much more of a communal thing.

Hmm, looking at that, could there be a correlation with today’s loosening of marital morals and the fact that western civilisation has been moving further and further away from being an agricultural society?

57

[Squish]
The impression I got from McCollough was far more bleak.

Yes they could own property and divorce but they themselves were the property of the pater familias.
He could beat them to death, if he wanted, no questions asked.
The Greek and Roman position/lifestyle for women would much closer resemble that of muslim society than western society.

58

The paterfamilias could also kill his own sons, and they belonged to him until he died–no divorce possible there! In fact, he could even deny the child by refusing to “raise” it; literally refusing to pick it up when it was presented to him after birth.

I won’t deny that Greek women had it worse than Roman women, but comparing either society with either contemporary Muslim or Western society seems to me to be an exercise in futility. There are similarities, there are differences.

59

** Latro **:

"Sorry but Satyagrahi * did use that term."*

No, Latro, what Satyagrahi said was this:

“Is it theorizing? Yes. Is it “woolly-headed?” I don’t think so. And I can’t see male, apparently knee-jerk reactions that it’s wrong, wrong, wrong as an valid indictment.”

I think he did his best to be reasonable as a new poster while under attack from several quarters.

“You even embelished on it with ‘knee-jerk feminist-bashing’”

What I saw was “knee-jerk feminist-bashing.” No embellishment required. But 'nuff said?
Squish, I’m a little suspect of the kind of historical context you get even from the most excellent historical novelists. Because I think it’s actually quite hard to get the psychology of an entirely different culture or epoch right.

Still, sounds like M’s novels are well worth reading just for the sake of a good read, so thanks for the recommendation.

I’m thinking about what you said, and what’s been added by Latro. And I’m wondering now if monogamy (as I defined it earlier) doesn’t come down to 1) the genealogical stability we’ve been emphasizing combined with 2) the need to maintain a certain level of prosperity in a society that is already sufficiently populated.

A polygamous society can do a reasonably good job of keeping genealogies straight. But it will, of course, produce more children.

If the people we’re talking about derive a great deal of status from their worldly goods, then they’re likely to want to limit their family size so they can do their best for the status of each child.

(This is what middle classes have done ever since middle classes first came into being.)

It’s also true that when talking about the status of women/wives (or children for that matter), it becomes more important than ever to make clear what rank you’re talking about–since rank tends to be the most important status marker in a pre-modern society.

(Here again, knowledge of Greek/Roman society is extremely weak for me; so I may be wrong to assume that in Athens the basic division was citizen/slave. Whereas in a more agricultural society with a feudal structure of some kind, hierarchies get more complicated.)

My point though is that aristocratic women tend to have many more social privileges than the women below them on the social ladder; and often more than the men below them on the social ladder. And this probably had some bearing on what kind of legal situation they would find themselves in a marriage.

For example, I mentioned above that it wasn’t until relatively modern times–the late nineteenth century–that average people could divorce in England.

But aristocrats could obtain a divorce by Act of Parliament. And, while there was no way for average married women to hold any property of their own prior to, IIRC, 1857, aristocratic women typically had money specially “settled” on them as part of the marriage contract by their fathers so that they’d have the liberty of having their own money.

60

I really like doing actual historic research, but I know that a lot of people don’t and in case you were one of them, I recommended those authors to “get your feet wet” as it were. :slight_smile:

Absolutely, and I agree with your point: the higher your status is, the more freedom you have in general. Of course, then you have to define “freedom”, lol! Lower class women in America and Europe often worked outside the home because they had to; a “right” that middle-class women fought for in the mid-20th century.