2 ms·

I agree with you. In small, genetically insular groups mixed / confused parentage would be the norm. I doubt this rules out marriage or monogamy, though. Con

• shiroiushi 3y ago
  I don't think it rules out monogamy, but I think our current assumption of it is flawed. Just because modern humans largely practice it, doesn't mean humans always have, or that Neanderthals did. Bonobo monkeys, for instance, are infamous for being very promiscuous. And today, lots of people are experimenting with "open relationships". I think there's a good argument that monogamy was invented mainly after the rise of agricultural and larger human societies (rather than small tribes) as a way of providing social stability. In a village/tribe of 50-100 people where there's no real concept of money, private property, or land ownership (and probably no/rare STDs since the group is isolated), there isn't much need for it if promiscuity is socially accepted: why bother chaining yourself down to one partner permanently if you don't have to? People might temporarily concentrate on one partner for emotional reasons, but this doesn't equate to a lifelong commitment with the threat of becoming a social outcast if you have sex with someone else.
  • jgilias 3y ago
    Or they might as well have had social structures similar to chimps, or lions. With an alpha male on top of the hierarchy enforcing social cohesion through violence and having near-exclusive mating rights. Again, something we just don’t know.
    • shiroiushi 3y ago
      Yeah, exactly. There's no telling what their mating norms were, unless we can figure it out with genetic analysis somehow (which is unlikely I think).