18
   

What to Make of polygamy?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 05:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Am I the only one who wonders if the 16 non breeders were alive or not? slaves or not? Where they killed at birth or not?

I am hoping that someone wants to talk about possible power and control mechanisms that would have keep this going for even a few generations.

I propose a sustained process of territorial and demographic expansion of a population A, through warfare and other means, at the expense of another population B. All the males from B die and their civilization collapses (they lose) but many females from B are captured by population A and given as wives to, or raped by, a small number of A warriors.

Pop A= various waves of technologically superior people, eg for Europe the LBK people and the proto Indo-Europeans in the Kurgan hypothesis.

Pop B: various population technologically inferior eg mesolithic people, who vanished from (pre)history.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 04:11 am
@Olivier5,
No, Oli, I am not a racist I just dont like you . As for disagreeing/agreeing with what you said, a native English speaker would see the difference .

Oli owes me an apology .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 05:12 am
@Olivier5,
Do the recognized haplogroups hold up with "Kurganizing"??
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 06:33 am
@Ionus,
You owe the world an apology for being a xenophobic asshole.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 06:40 am
@farmerman,
From what I gathered, the Kurgan hypothesis is currently favored by most scientists (often in a revised form of a demic invasion), due to certain word roots common to all indo-european languages and pertaining to horses, wheel, plough, chariot, axis, etc., all things implying domestication of the horse. I am unaware of genetic studies but they must exist.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 07:19 am
@Olivier5,
exchanging mates is "gene flow"
expansion or migration is "invasion"
a combination of the two above is "demic diffusion"

so...what is
Quote:
a revised form of a demic invasion


Quote:
the Kurgan hypothesis
From 5,000-2,500 BC...what does that have to do with 8,000 BC ?

Orifice 5 fingers owes me an apology
Olivier5
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 07:22 am
@Ionus,
Go to hell, ioio. Hope you like it there.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 07:24 am
@Olivier5,
the genetic stuff relates to the specific haplogroups on the Y and X . From what Id seen in the maps, mot of these haplogroups appear to be divided up based upon migrations from the Levant and through Asia
The British Isles have a series of these same groups but they seem to be arrnged through the presence and (later absence) of the glacial low stand known as Doggerlnd.

I dont know enough to have any educated guesses.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 08:04 am
@farmerman,
Did you check what I posted above?

A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages
http://able2know.org/topic/272862-9#post-5931464

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 12:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
BS, Polygamy is one man being in UNION with more than one female, marriage is but one of a great many forms that this could take. I am surprised at you Thomas, I never had you pegged as an old fart with old ideas.

Whether I'm an old fart or not, words have meanings, and they are defined by general usage and documented by dictionaries. If you want to invent your own language just to avoid being an old fart, that's your choice. Meanwhile, my own choice is to stick to standard American English. And in standard American English, "polygamy" means "the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time". Like it or not.

Quote:
What did these 1 of 17 have that others did not and passed it on to me? [...] I'd kinda like to know.

The I recommend you study some animal species where harems are common today. I understand that the standard specimen for investigating the evolutionary genetics of harems are sea lions, seals, and family.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 12:53 pm
@Thomas,
Considering that we are not in a position to know the mating contractual arrangements then we need to assume the we are using the social biology defintion, which defines polygamy as one man mating with more than one woman.

Btw this is increasingly also the modern definition as our society is rapidly discarding marriage. Like I said, you are behind the times.
Thomas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 02:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Like I said, you are behind the times.

I don't care. Arguments from identity politics mean nothing to me. Moving on . . . .
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 02:41 pm
@Thomas,
Apparently you dont understand what the word " politics" means either....
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 02:53 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
polygyny is the correct spelling of having more than one wife at the same time.

Polygamy is a broader term which includes any multiple union including polyandry, which is a woman having more than one husband.


http://wordinfo.info/unit/3322?letter=P&spage=10

I found this interesting since polyandry is the term de jour here - and most people seem to have confused it with polyamory.

http://www.torontolife.com/informer/features/2013/01/23/sex-without-borders/

perhaps that's why some people just refer to their relationships as poly - easier than figuring out which one they really mean


Quote:
Polyamorists (who should probably just go ahead and start their own dictionary) believe in “compersion,” which refers to the vicarious joy they feel when the person they love experiences emotional fulfillment.


language is fun


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 03:10 pm
@ehBeth,
And I have known quite a few people who consider themselves poly even though they are only married to only one of their partners, or none. Marriage still means something to most people, but less and less all of the time, and so definitions that depend upon marriage are getting out of date.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 03:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
By definition, none of the poly terms have anything to do with marriage in a formal sense. They are about sexual partnerships of various combinations.

Polygamy is the term which encompasses others that refer to particular gender combos.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 04:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I picture each mating male killing on average 16 males to get the right to enjoy sex, a lot. Picture Hunger Games if you will.

What say you?

Definitions aside, I picture a society much like the harems of elephant seals or gorillas. Dominant males fend off low-status males when they catch them trying to lure females out of the harem, hence they father most of the children. But not all. While females prefer dominant males, they don't mind the occasional quicky with the gorilla gardener or the seal plumber, so the low-status male gets to sneak one in from time to time. I don't envision a lot of killing --- too expensive for the evolutionary payoff in offspring. As long as a high-status male chases low-status tresspassers off his property, i.e., his females, that's good enough for him.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Apr, 2015 06:13 am
@ehBeth,
Polyamory is the future, me think.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

For How Long Have We Been Human? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
The winner takes all for the right to reproduce. - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
Why did people start farming? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
Hey, Neanderthal! - Discussion by littlek
Nodding and Shaking and India - Discussion by Craven de Kere
Koreans Don't Stink! - Discussion by TomTomBinks
Paleo Diet - Discussion by edgarblythe
The Major Importance of "Minor" Elements - Discussion by DannyBorkowski003
GETTING INTO THE HOBBIT . . . - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 08:08:34