!"#$%&'(')$*+$,"#$-.

/'01
23,"*&4567$8.,"0##)$9*3("
:*3&;#7$<*3&).0$*+$=.&&'.(#$.)>$-./'01?$@*0A$BB?$C*A$D?$:E#;'.0$F*3G0#$H553#7$@'*0#);#$.)>$,"#
-./'01$.)>$:#I'5/$')$-./'01$:,3>'#5?$J.&,$K$4C*LA?$MNOM6?$EEA$OPQROOM
J3G0'5"#>$G17$C.,'*).0$S*3);'0$*)$-./'01$T#0.,'*)5
:,.G0#$UTV7$http://www.jstor.org/stable/349449
2;;#55#>7$BQWMKWKQQN$MD7KQ

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org
 The Origin of the Family
KATHLEENGOUGH
Institute of Asian and SlavonicStudies, Universityof BritishColumbia

The trouble with the originof the family is that hold. Some are extended families containing
no one really knows. Since Engels wrote The three generationsof marriedbrothersor sisters.
Originof the Family. PrivateProperty and the Some are "grandfamilies"descended from a
State in 1884, a great deal of new evidencehas single pair of grandparents.Some are matri-
come in. Yet the gaps are still enormous. It is lineage households, in which brothers and
not known when the family originated, al- sisters share a house with the sisters' children,
though it was probably between two million and men merely visit their wives in other
and 100,000 years ago. It is not known whether homes. Some are compound families, in which
it developed once or in separate times and one man has several wives, or one woman,
places. It is not known whether some kind of several husbands. Others are nuclear families
embryonic family came before, with, or after composed of a father,mother and children.
the origin of language. Since language is the Some kind of family exists in all known
accepted criterion of humanness, this means human societies, although it is not found in
that we do not even know whether our every segment or class of all stratified, state
ancestors acquired the basics of family life societies. Greek and American slaves, for
before or after they were human. The chances example, were prevented from forming legal
are that language and the family developed families, and their social families were often
together over a long period, but the evidenceis disrupted by sale, forced labor, or sexual
sketchy. exploitation. Even so, the family was an ideal
Although the origin of the family is specula- which all classesand most people attainedwhen
tive, it is better to speculate with than without they could.
evidence. The evidence comes from three The family implies several other universals.
sources. One is the social and physical lives of (1) Rules forbid sexual relations and marriage
non-human primates-especially the New and between close relatives. Which relatives are
Old Worldmonkeys and, still more, the great forbidden varies, but all societies forbid
apes, humanity's closest relatives. The second mother-son mating, and most, father-daughter
source is the tools and home sites of prehistoric and brother-sister. Some societies allow sex
humans and proto-humans. The third is the relations, but forbid marriage,between certain
family lives of hunters and gatherersof wild degrees of kin. (2) The men and women of a
provender who have been studied in modern family cooperate through a division of labor
times. based on gender. Again, the sexual division of
Each of these sources is imperfect:monkeys labor varies in rigidity and in the tasks
and apes, because they are not pre-human performed. But in no human society to date is
ancestors, although they are our cousins; fossil it wholly absent. Child-care,household tasks
hominids, because they left so little vestige of and crafts closely connected with the house-
their social life; hunters and gatherers,because hold, tend to be done by women; war, hunting,
none of them has, in historic times, possesseda and government,by men. (3) Marriageexists as
technology and society as primitiveas those of a socially recognized, durable, although not
early humans. All show the results of long necessarilylifelong relationshipbetween indivi-
endeavorin specialized,marginalenvironments. dual men and women. From it springs social
But together, these sources give valuableclues. fatherhood, some kind of specialbond between
a man and the child of his wife, whether or not
DEFININGTHE FAMILY they are his own childrenphysiologically.Even
To discuss the origin of something we must in polyandrous societies, where women have
first decide what it is. I shall define the family several husbands, or in matrilineal societies,
as "a marriedcouple or other group of adult where group membership and property pass
kinsfolk who cooperate economically and in through women, each child has one or more
the upbringingof children, and all or most of designated "fathers" with whom he has a
whom sharea common dwelling." special social, and often religious,relationship.
This includes all forms of kin-basedhouse- This bond of social fatherhood is recognized

760 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1971

 amongpeople who do not know about the male that women and men have never had relations
role in procreation, or where, for various that were dignified and creative for both sexes,
reasons, it is not clear who the physiological appropriateto the knowledge, skills and tech-
father of a particularinfant is. Social father- nology of their times. Nor does it mean that the
hood seems to come from the division and sexes cannot be equal in the future, or that the
interdependence of male and female tasks, sexual division of labor cannot be abolished. I
especially in relation to children, rather than believe that it can and must be. But it is not
directly from physiological fatherhood, al- necessaryto believe myths of a feminist Golden
though in most societies, the social father of a Age in orderto plan for parityin the future.
child is usuallypresumedto be its physiological
father as well. Contraryto the beliefs of some
feminists, however, I think that in no human PRIMATESOCIETIES
society do men, as a whole category,have only Within the primate order, humans are most
the role of insemination, and no other social or closely related to the anthropoid apes (the
economic role, in relation to women and African chimpanzeeand gorilla and the South-
children. (4) Men in generalhave higher status east Asian orang-utan and gibbon), and of
and authority over the women of their families, these, to the chimpanzeeand the gorilla. More
although older women may have influence, distantly related are the Old, and then the New
even some authority, over junior men. The World, monkeys, and finally, the lemurs,
omnipresence of male authority, too, goes tarsiersand tree-shrews.
contraryto the belief of some feministsthat in All primates share characteristics without
"matriarchal" societies, women were either which the family could not have developed.
completely equal to, or had paramountauthor- The young are born relatively helpless. They
ity over, men, either in the home or in society suckle for several months or years and need
at large. prolonged care afterwards.Childhoodis longer,
It is true that in some matrilinealsocieties, the closer the species is to humans. Most
such as the Hopi of Arizona or the Ashanti of monkeys reach puberty at about four to five
Ghana, men exert little authority over their and maturesocially between about five and ten.
wives. In some, such as the Nayars of South Chimpanzees, by contrast, suckle for up to
Indiaor the Minangkabauof Sumatra,men may three years. Females reach puberty at seven to
even live separately from their wives and ten; males enter mature social and sexual
children, that is, in different families. In such relations as late as thirteen. The long childhood
societies, however, the fact is that women and and maternal care produce close relations
children fall under greater or lesser authority between childrenof the same mother, who play
from the women's kinsmen-their eldest broth- together and help tend their juniors until they
ers, mothers' brothers, or even their grown up grow up.
sons. Monkeys and apes, like humans, mate in all
In matrilineal societies, where property, months of the year instead of in a rutting
rank, office and group membershipare inher- season. Unlike humans, however, female apes
ited through the female line, it is true that experience unusually strong sexual desire for a
women tend to have greaterindependencethan few days shortly before and during ovulation
in patrilinealsocieties. This is especially so in (the oestrus period), and have intensive sexual
matrilinealtribal societies where the state has relations at that time. The males are attracted
not yet developed,and especiallyin those tribal to the females by their scent or by brightly
societies where residence is matrilocal-that is, colored swellings in the sexual region. Oestrus-
men come to live in the homes or villages of mating appears to be especially pronounced in
their wives. Even so, in all matrilinealsocieties primate species more remote from humans.The
for which adequate descriptions are available, apes and some monkeys carryon less intensive,
the ultimate headship of households, lineages month-round sexuality in addition to oestrus-
and local groupsis usuallywith men.1
There is in fact no true "matriarchal,"as absence of equality between the sexes" and notes that
women were subordinate to men, ate after men, and
distinct from "matrilineal,"society in existence that women (not men) were publicly whipped as
or known from literature,and the chances are punishment for adultery. Warleaders,tribal chiefs, and
sachems (heads of matrilineal lineages) were men.
that there never has been.2 This does not mean Women did, however, have a large say in the govern-
1. See David M. Schneider and Kathleen Gough, ment of the long-house or home of the matrilocal
eds., Matrilineal Kinship, Berkeley, 1961, for common extended family, and women figured as tribal coun-
and variant features of matrilineal systems. sellors and religious officials, as well as arranging
2. The Iroquois are often quoted as a "matriarchal." marriages. (Lewis H. Morgan: The League of the
Ho-de-ne Sau-nee or Iroquois, Human Relations Area
society, but in fact Morgan himself refers to "the Files, 1954).

November 1971 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY 761

mating,approachinghumanpatternsmore close- male, or a male-femalepair, or severaljuvenile
ly. In humans, sexual desires and relations males, may traveltogether.
are regulated less by hormonal changes and Among mountain gorillas of Uganda, South
more by mental images, emotions, cultural Indian langurs, and hamadryas baboons of
rulesand individualpreferences. Ethiopia, a single, fully maturemale mates with
Year-round (if not always month-round) several females, especially in their oestrus
sexuality means that males and females social- periods. If younger adult males are present,the
ize more continuously among primates than females may have occasional relations with
among most other mammals.All primatesform them if the leaderis tired or not looking.
bans or troops composed of both sexes plus Among East and South African baboons,
children. The numbers and proportionsof the rhesus macaques, and South American woolly
sexes vary, and in some species an individual,a monkeys, the troop is bigger, numberingup to
mother with her young, or a subsidiarytroop of two hundred. It contains a number of adult
male juveniles may travel temporarily alone. males and a much larger number of females.
But in general, males and females socialize The males are strictly ranked in terms of
continually through mutual grooming3 and dominancebased on both physicalstrengthand
playing as well through frequent sex relations. intelligence.The more dominantmales copulate
Keeping close to the females, primate males intensively with the females during the latters
play with their children and tend to protect oestrus periods. Toward the end of oestrus a
both females and young from predators. A female may briefly attach herself to a single
"division of labor" based on gender is thus dominant male. At other times she may have
already found in primate society between a relations with any male of higheror lower rank
female role of prolonged child care and a male providedthat those of higherrankpermitit.
role of defense. Males may also carry or take Among some baboons and macaques the
care of childrenbriefly,and non-nursingfemales young males travel on the outskirts of the
may fight. But a kind of generalized "father- group and have little access to females. Some
liness" appearsin the protective role of adult macaquesexpel from the troop a proportionof
males towardsyoung, even in species where the the young males, who then form "bachelor
sexes do not form long-termindividualattach- troops." Bachelorsmay later form new troops
ments. with young females.
Other primatesare more thoroughly promis-
SEXUALBONDSAMONGPRIMATES cuous, or rather indiscriminate, in mating.
Some non-humanprimatesdo have enduring Chimpanzees,and also South Americanhowler
sexual bonds and restrictions, superficially monkeys, live in loosely structuregroups,again
similar to those in some human societies. (as in most monkey and ape societies) with a
Among gibbons a single male and female live preponderance of females. The mother-child
together with their young. The male drivesoff unit is the only stable group. The sexes
other males and the female, other females. copulate almost at random, and most inten-
Whena juvenile reachespubertyit is thought to sively and indiscriminatelyduringoestrus.
leave or be expelled by the parent of the same A number of well known anthropologists
sex, and he eventually finds a mate elsewhere. have arguedthat variousattitudes and customs
Similarde facto, rudimentary"incest prohibi- often found in human societies are instinctual
tions" may have been passed on to humans rather than culturally learned, and come from
from their prehumanancestors and later codi- our primate heritage. They include hierarchies
fied and elaborated through language, moral of ranking among men, male political power
custom and law. Whetherthis is so may become over women, and the greatertendency of men to
clearer when we know more about the mating form friendshipswith one another, as opposed
patterns of the other great apes, especially of to women's tendenciesto cling to a man.4
our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. Present I cannot accept these conclusions and think
evidence suggeststhat male chimpanzeesdo not that they stem from the male chauvinismof our
mate with their mothers. own society. A "scientific" argument which
Orang-utans live in small, tree-dwelling. states that all such featuresof female inferiority
groups like gibbons, but their forms are less are instinctive is obviously a powerful weapon
regular.One or two mothersmay wanderalone in maintainingthe traditionalfamily with male
with their young, mating at intervals with a dominance. But in fact, these features are not
4. See, for example, Desmond Morris, The Naked
3. Combing the hair and removing parasites with Ape, Jonathon Cape, 1967; Robin Fox, Kinship and
hands or teeth. Marriage, Pelican Books, 1967.

762 JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1971

 universalamongnon-humanprimates,including HUMAN EVOLUTION
some of those most closely related to humans.
Chimpanzees have a low degree of male Judgingfrom the fossil record,apes ancestral
dominanceand male hierarchyand are sexually to humans, gorillas and chimpanzees roamed
virtuallyindiscriminate.Gibbonshave a kind of widely in Asia, Europe and Africa some twelve
fidelity for both sexes and almost no male to twenty-eight million years ago. Towardthe
dominance or hierarchy. Howler monkeys are end of that period (the Miocene)one appearsin
sexually indiscriminate and lack male hierar- North India and East Africa, Ramapithecus,
chies or dominance. who may be ancestral both to later hominids
The fact is that among non-humanprimates and to modern humans. His species were small
male dominance and male hierarchiesseem to like gibbons, walked upright on two feet, had
be adaptations to particular environments, human ratherthan ape corner-teeth,and there-
some of which did become genetically estab- fore probably used hands ratherthan teeth to
lished through natural selection. Among hu- tear their food. From that time evolution
toward humanness must have proceeded
mans, however, these features are present in
variable degrees and are almost certainly through various phases until the emergenceof
modern homo sapiens, about 70,000 years ago.
learned, not inheritedat all. Amongnon-human
primates there are fairly general differences In the Miocene period before Ramapithecus
between those that live mainly in trees and appeared, there were several time-spans in
those that live largely on the ground. The tree which, over large areas, the climate became
dwellers (for example gibbons, orang-utans, dryer and sub-tropical forests dwindled or
South Americanhowler and woolly monkeys) disappeared. A standard reconstruction of
tend to have to defend themselvesless against events, which I accept, is that groups of apes,
predatorsthan do the ground-dwellers(such as probably in Africa,had to come down from the
baboons, macaques or gorillas). Wheredefense trees and adapt to terrestrial life. Through
is important, males are much larger and natural selection, probably over millions of
stronger than females, exert dominance over years, they developed specialized feet for
females, and are strictly hierarchized and walking. Thus freed, the hands came to be used
organized in relation to one another. Where not only (as among apes) for grasping and
defense is less important there is much less tearing,but for regularcarryingof objects such
sexual dimorphism(difference in size between as weapons (which had hitherto been sporadic)
male and female), less or no male dominance,a or of infants (which had hitherto clung to their
less pronounced male hierarchy, and greater mothersbody hair).
sexual indiscriminancy. The spread of indigestible grasses on the
Comparatively speaking, humans have a open savannahsmay have encouraged,if it did
rather small degree of sexual dimorphism, not compel, the early ground dwellers to
similarto chimpanzees.Chimpanzeeslive much become active hunters rather than simply to
in trees but also partly on the ground,in forest forage for small, sick or dead animalsthat came
or semi-forest habitats. They build individual their way. Collective hunting and tool use
nests to sleep in, sometimes on the groundbut involved group cooperation and helped foster
usually in trees. They flee into trees from the growth of languageout of the call-systems
danger. Chimpanzeesgo mainly on all fours, of apes. Languagemeant the use of symbols to
but sometimes on two feet, and can use and refer to events not present. It allowed greatly
make simple tools. Malesare dominant,but not increased foresight, memory, planning and
very dominant, over females. The rank hier- division of tasks-in short, the capacity for
archy among males is unstable,and males often human thought.
move between groups, which vary in size from With the change to hunting, group territories
two to fifty individuals. Food is vegetarian, became much larger. Apes range only a few
supplemented with worms, grubs or occasional thousand feet daily; hunters, severalmiles. But
small animals. A mother and her young form because their infants were helpless, nursing
the only stable unit. Sexual ielations are largely women could hunt only small game close to
indiscriminate,but nearby males defend young home. This then produced the sexual division
animals from danger.The chances are that our of labor on which the human family has since
pre-humanancestors had a similar social life. been founded. Women elaborated upon ape
Morgan and Engels were probably right in methods of child care, and greatly expanded
concluding that we came from a state of foraging, which in most areas remained the
"original promiscuity" before we were fully primary and most stable source of food. Men
human. improved upon ape methods of fighting off

November1971 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY 763

other animals, and of group protection in for wider cooperation in the struggle for
general. They adapted these methods to hunt- livelihoodand the expansionof knowledge.
ing, using weapons which for millennia re- It is not clear when all these changes took
mained the same for the chase as for human place. Climatic change with increased drought
warfare. began regionally up to 28 million years ago.
Out of the sexual division of labor came, for The divergencebetween pre-humanand gorilla-
the first time, home life as well as group chimpanzee stems had occurredin both Africa
cooperation. Femaleapes nest with and provide and India at least 12 million years ago. The
foraged food for their infants. But adult apes pre-humanstem led to the Australopithecenes
do not cooperate in food getting or nest of East and South Africa, about 1,750,000
building. They build new nests each night years ago. These were pygmy-like, two footed,
wherever'they may happen to be. With the upright hominids with larger than ape brains,
developmentof a hunting-gatheringcomplex, it who made tools and probably hunted in
became necessary to have a G.H.Q., or home. savannahregions. It is unlikely that they knew
Men could bring meat to this place for several the use of fire.
days supply. Women and children could meet The first known use of fire is that of
men there after the day's hunting, and could cave-dwellinghominids (Sinanthropus,a branch
bring their vegetable produce for general con- of the Pithecanthropines)at Choukoutiennear
sumption. Men, women and children could Peking, some half a million years ago duringthe
build joint shelters, butcher meat, and treat second ice age. Fire was used regularly in
skins for clothing. hearths, suggestingcookery, by the time of the
Later, fire came into use for protection Acheuleanand Mousterianculturesof Neander-
against wild animals, for lighting, and eventu- thal man in Europe, Africa and Asia before,
ally for cooking. The hearth then providedthe during and after the third ice age, some
focus and symbol of home. With the develop- 150,000 to 100,000 years ago. These people,
ment of cookery, some humans-chiefly too, were often cave dwellers, and buried their
women, and perhaps some children and old dead ceremonially in caves. Cave dwelling by
men--came to spend more time preparing night as well as by day was probably, in fact,
nutrition so that all people need spend less time not safe for humans until fire came into use to
in chewing and tearing their food. Meals- driveaway predators.
alreadyless frequentbecauseof the changeto a Most anthropologists conclude that home
carnivorous diet-now became brief, periodic life, the family and languagehad developed by
events instead of the long feeding sessions of the time of Neanderthalman, who was closely
apes. similarand may have been ancestralto modern
The change to humanness brought two homo sapiens. At least two anthropologists,
bodily changes that affected birth and child however, believe that the Australopithecenes
care. These were head-size and width of the already had languagenearly two million years
pelvis. Walking upright produced a narrower ago, while another thinks that language and
pelvis to hold the guts in position. Yet as incest prohibitionsdid not evolve until the time
language developed, brains and hence heads of homo sapiens some 70,000 to 50,000 years
grew much bigger relative to body size. To ago.5 I am myself inclined to think that family
compensate,humansare born at an earlierstage life built around tool use, the use of language,
of growth than apes. They are helpless longer cookery, and a sexual division of labor, must
and requirelonger and more'total care. This in have been establishedsometime between about
turn caused early women to concentrate more 500,000 and 200,000 years ago.
on child care and less on defense than do
female apes. HUNTERSAND GATHERERS
Languagemade possible not only a division Most of the hunting and gatheringsocieties
and cooperation in labor but also all forms of studied in the eighteenthto twentieth centuries
tradition, rules, morality and culturallearning. had technologies similar to those that were
Rules banningsex relationsamong close kinfolk wide-spread in the Mesolithic period, which
must have come very early. Precisely how or occurred about 15,000 to 10,000 years ago,
why they developed is unknown, but they had
at least two useful functions. They helped to 5. For the former view, see Charles F. Hockett and
Robert Ascher, "The Human Revolution," in Man in
preserve order in the family as a cooperative Adaptation: The Biosocial Background, edited by
unit, by outlawingcompetition for mates. They Yehudi A. Cohen, Aldine, 1968; for the latter, Frank
also created bonds between families, or even B. Livingstone, "Genetics, Ecology and the Origin of
Incest and Exogamy," Current Anthropologgy, Feb-
between separatebands,and so provideda basis ruary 1969.

764 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1971

 after the ice ages ended but before cultivation more advancedhunting societies, pottery. (Con-
was inventedand animalsdomesticated. sidering that women probably invented all of
Modern hunters live' in marginal forest, these crafts, in addition to cookery, food
mountain, arctic or desert environmentswhere storage and preservation,agriculture,spinning,
cultivation is impracticable. Although by no weaving, and perhapseven house construction,
means "primeval,"the hunters of recent times it is clear that women played quite as important
do offer clues to the types of family found roles as men in early cultural development.)
duringthat 99 percent of humanhistory before Building dwellings and makingtools and orna-
the agricultural revolution. They include the ments are variouslydivided between the sexes,
Eskimo, many Canadianand South American while boat-building is largely done by men.
Indian groups, the forest BaMbuti (pygmies) Girlshelp the women, and boys play at hunting
and the desert Bushmenof SouthernAfrica, the or hunt small game until they reach puberty,
Kadar of South India, the Veddah of Ceylon, when both take on the roles of adults. Where
and the Andaman Islanders of the Indian the environmentmakes it desirable,the men of
Ocean. About 175 hunting and gathering a whole band or of some smaller cluster of
cultures in Oceania, Asia, Africa and America households cooperate in hunting or fishingand
have been describedin fair detail. divide their spoils. Women of nearby families
In spite of their variedenvironments,hunters often go gatheringtogether.
share certain features of social life. They live in Family composition varies among hunters as
bands of about 20 to 200 people, the majority it does in other kinds of societies. About half or
of bands having fewer than 50. Bands are more of known hunting societies have nuclear
dividedinto families,which may foragealone in families (father, mother and children), with
some seasons. Hunters have simple but ingen- polygynous households (a man, two or more
ious technologies. Bows and arrows, spears, wives, and children) as occasional variants.
needles, skin clothing, and temporary leaf or Clearly, nuclear families are the most common
wood shelters are common. Most hunters do among hunters,althoughhuntershave a slightly
some fishing. The band foragesand hunts in a higher proportion of polygynous families than
large territory and usually moves camp often. do non-huntingsocieties.
Social life is egalitarian.Thereis of course no About a third of hunting societies contain
state, no organized government. Apart from some "stem-family"households-that is, older
religious shamans or magicians,the division of parentslive together with one marriedchild and
labor is based only on sex and age. Resources grandchildren,while the other marriedchildren
are owned communally; tools and personal live in independent dwellings. A still smaller
possessions are freely exchanged. Everyone proportion live in large extended families
works who can. Band leadership goes to containing several marriedbrothers (or several
whicheverman has the intelligence,courageand married sisters), their spouses, and children.6
foresight to command the respect of his Huntershave fewer extended and stem families
fellows. Intelligentolder women are also looked than do non-hunting societies. These larger
up to. households become common with the rise of
The household is the main unit of economic agriculture.They are especially found in large,
cooperation, with the men, women and chil- pre-industrialagrarian states such as ancient
dren dividing the labor and pooling their Greece, Rome, India, the Islamic empires,
produce. In 97 percent of the 175 societies China,etc.
classifiedby G. P. Murdock,huntingis confined Hunting societies also have few households
to men; in the other three percentit is chiefly a composed of a widow or divorcee and her
male pursuit. Gathering of wild plants, fruits children. This is understandable, for neither
and nuts is women's work. In 60 percent of men nor women can survive long without the
societies, only women gather, while in another work and produce of the other sex, and
32 percent gatheringis mainly feminine. Fish- marriageis the way to obtain them. That is why
ing is solely or mainly men's work in 93 percent so often young men must show proof of
of the hunting societies where it occurs.
For the rest, men monopolize fighting,
6. For exact figures, see G. P. Murdock, World
although interbandwarfareis rare.Womentend Ethnographic Sample, American Anthropologist,
childrenand sheltersand usuallydo most of the 1957; Allan D. Coult, Cross Tabulations of Murdock's
World Ethnographic Sample, University of Missouri,
cooking, processing, and storage of food. 1965; and G. P. Murdock, Ethnographic Atlas, Uni-
Women tend also, to be foremost in the early versity of Pittsburgh, 1967. In the last-named survey,
household crafts such as basketry,leatherwork, out of 175 hunting societies, 47 percent had nuclear
family households, 38 percent had stem-families, and
the making of skin or bark clothing, and in the 14 percent had extended families.

November 1971 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY 765

hunting prowess, and girls of cooking, before close kinsmen from another. They thought that
they are allowed to marry. only later still, and especiallywith the domesti-
The family, together with territorialgroup- cation of plants and animals, did the "pairing
ing, provides the frameworkof society among family" develop in which each man was married
hunters. Indeed, as Morganand Engels clearly to one or two women individually.
saw, kinship and territory are the foundations These writers drew their conclusions not
of all societies before the rise of the state. Not from evidence of actual group-marriageamong
only hunting and gathering bands, but the primitive peoples but from the kinship terms
larger and more complex tribes and chiefdoms found today in certain tribal and chiefly
of primitive cultivators and herders organize societies. Some of these equate all kin of the
people through descent from common ances- same sex in the parents'generation,suggesting
tors or through marriageties between groups. brother-sister marriage. Others equate the
Among hunters,things are simple. Thereis only father's brothers with the father, and the
the family, and beyond it the band. With the mother's sisters with the mother, suggestingthe
domestication of plants and animals,the econ- marriageof a group of brotherswith a groupof
omy becomes more productive. More people sisters.
can live together. Tribes form, containing Modern evidence does not bear out these
several thousand people loosely organizedinto conclusions about early society. All known
large kin-groupssuch as clansand lineages,each hunters and gatherers live in families, not in
composed of a numberof relatedfamilies.With communal sexual arrangements.Most hunters
still further development of the productive even live in nuclear familiesratherthan in large
forces the society throws up a central political extended kin groups. Mating is individualized,
leadership, together with craft specialization although one man may occasionally have two
and trade, and so the chiefdom emerges. But wives, or (very rarely) a woman may have two
this, too, is structured through ranked alle- husbands. Economic life is built primarily
giances and marriageties between kin groups. around the division of labor and partnership
Only with the rise of the state does class, between individual men and women. The
independently of kinship, provide the basis for hearths, caves and other remains of Upper
relationsof production,distributionand power. Palaeolithic hunters suggest that this was
Even then, kin groups remain large in the probably an early arrangement.We cannot say
agrarianstate and kinship persistsas the prime that Engels' sequencesare completely ruled out
organizingprinciple within each class until the for very early hominids-the evidence is simply
rise of capitalism.The reductionin significance not available. But it is hard to see what
of the family that we see today is the economic arrangementsamong hunters would
outgrowth of a decline in the importance of give rise to group, rather than individual or
"familism" relative to other institutions, that "pairing"marriagearrangements,and this En-
began with the rise of the state, but became gels does not explain.
speeded up with the developmentof capitalism Soviet anthropologists continued to believe
and machine industry. In most modernsocialist in Morgan and Engels' early "stages" longer
societies, the family is even less significantas an than did anthropologists in the West. Today,
organizingprinciple. It is reasonableto suppose most Russiananthropologistsadmit the lack of
that in the future it will become minimal or evidence for "consanguineal"and "punaluan"
may disappearat least as a legally constituted arrangements, but some still believe that a
unit for exclusive forms of sexual and economic different kind of group marriage intervened
cooperationand of child-care. between indiscriminatemating and the pairing
Morganand Engels(1942) thought that from family. Semyonov, for example, arguesthat in
a state of originalpromiscuity,earlyhumansat the stage of group marriage, mating was
first banned sex relations between the genera- forbiddenwithin the huntingband, but that the
tions of parents and children,but continued to men of two neighboring bands had multiple,
allow them indiscriminatelybetween brothers, visiting sex relations with women of the
sisters and all kinds of cousins within the band. opposite band.7
They called this the "consanguinealfamily." While such an arrangementcannot be ruled
They thought that later, all mating within the out, it seems unlikely because many of the
family or some larger kin group became
forbidden, but that there was a stage (the 7. Y. I. Semyonov, "Group Marriage, its Nature
"punaluan") in which a group of sisters or and Role in the Evolution of Marriage and Family
Seventh- International
other close kinswomen from one band were Relations," Congress of An-
thropological and Ethnological Sciences, Volume IV,
marriedjointly to a group of brothers or other Moscow 1967.

766 JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1971

customs which Semyonov regardsas "survivals" to serve economic and survivalneeds. In these
of such group marriage(for example, visiting societies, some kind of ratherstable pairingbest
husbands, matrilineage dwelling groups, wide- accomplishesthe division of labor and coopera-
spread clans, multiple spouses for both sexes, tion of men and women and the care of
men's and women's communal houses, and children.Beyond the immediatefamily, either a
prohibitions of sexual intercourse inside the larger family group or the whole band has
huts of the village) are actually found not so other, less intensive but important, kinds of
much among hunters as among horticultural cooperative activities. Therefore, the husbands
tribes, and even, quite complex agricultural and wives of individualswithin that group can
states. Whetheror not such a stage of group- be summoned to stand in for each other if need
marriageoccurredin the earliestsocieties, there arises. In the case of Eskimo wife-lending,the
seems little doubt that pairing marriage(in- extreme climate and the need for lone wander-
volvingfamily households) came'aboutwith the ing in search of game dictate high standardsof
development of elaborate methods of hunting, hospitality. This evidently becomes extended to
cooking, and the preparationof clothing and sexual sharing.
shelters-that is, with a fully-fledgeddivision of In the case of sororalpolygyny or marriage
labor. to the dead wife's sister,it is naturalthan when
Even so, there are some senses in which two women fill the same role-either together
mating among hunters has more of a group or in sequence-they should be sisters, for
character than in archaic agrarianstates or in sisters are more alike than other women. They
capitalist society. Murdock'ssampleshows that are likely to care more for each others'
sex relations before marriageare strictly pro- children. The replacementof a dead spouse by
hibited in only 26 percent of hunting societies. a sister or a brother also preserves existing
In the rest, marriageis either arrangedso early intergroup relations. For the rest, where the
that pre-marital sex is unlikely, or (more economic and survival bonds of marriageare
usually) sex relationsare permittedmore or less not at stake, people can afford to be freely
freely before marriage. companionate and tolerant. Hence pre-marital
With marriage, monogamy is the normal sexual freedom, seasonal group-license, and a
practice at any given time for most hunters,but pragmaticapproachto adultery.
it is not the normal rule. Only 19 percent in Marriagesamonghuntersare usuallyarranged
Murdock'ssurvey prohibitpluralunions. Where by elders when a young couple are ready for
polygyny is found (79 percent) the most adult responsibilities.But the couple know each
common type is for a man to marrytwo sisters other and usually have some choice. If the first
or other closely related women of the same kin marriagedoes not work, the second mate will
group-for example, the daughters of two almost certainly be self selected. Both sexual
sisters or of two brothers. Whena woman dies and companionatelove between individualmen
it is common for a sister to replace her in the and women are known and are deeply experi-
marriage,and when a man dies, for a brotherto enced. With comparative freedom of mating,
replacehim. love is less often separatedfrom or opposed to
Similarly, many hunting societies hold that marriagethan in archaicstates or even than in
the wives of brothersor other close kinsmenare some modernnations.
in some senses wives of the group. They can be
called on in emergenciesor if one of them is ill. THE POSITIONOF WOMEN
Again, many hunting societies have special Even in hunting societies it seems that
times for sexual license between men and women are always in some sense the "second
women of a local groupwho are not marriedto sex," with greateror less subordinationto men.
each other, such as the "lights out" games of This varies. Eskimo and Australianaboriginal
Eskimo sharing a communal snow-house. In women are far more subordinate than women
other situations, an Eskimo wife will spend the among the Kadar, the Andamanese or the
night with a chance guest of her husband's.All Congo Pygmies-all forest people.
parties expect this as normal hospitality. Fi- I suggest that women have greaterpower and
nally, adultery, although often punished, tends independence among hunters when they are
to be common in hunting societies, and few if important food-obtainers than when they are
any of them forbid divorceor the remarriageof mainly processors of meat or other supplies
divorceesand widows. provided by men. The former situation is
The reason for all this seems to be that likelier to exist in societies where hunting is
marriage and sexual restrictions are practical small-scale and intensive than where it is
arrangementsamong hunters designed mainly extensive over a large terrain, and in societies

November 1971 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY 767

where gathering is important by comparison use weapons against women, they possess them
with hunting. (or possess superior weapons) in addition to
In general in hunting societies, however, their physical strength. This does give men an
women are less subordinatedin certain crucial ultimate control of force. When old people or
respects as they are in most, if not all, of the babies must be killed to ensure band or family
archaicstates, or even in some capitalistnations. survival, it is usually men who kill them.
These respects include men's ability to deny Infanticide-rather common among hunters,
women sexuality or to force it upon them; to who must limit the mouths to feed-is more
command or exploit their labor or to control often female infanticidethan male.
their produce; to control or rob them of their The hunting of men seems more often to
children; to confine them physically and pre- require them to organize in groups than does
vent their movement;to use them as objects in the work of women. Perhapsbecause of this,
male transactions;to cramp their creativeness; about 60 percent of hunting societies have
or to withhold from them large areas of the predominantlyvirilocalresidence. That is, men
society's knowledge and cultural attainments. choose which band to live in (often, their
Especially lacking in hunting societies is the fathers'), and women move with their hus-
kind of male possessivenessand exclusiveness bands. This gives a man advantagesover his wife
regardingwomen that leads to such institutions in terms of familiarity and loyalties, for the
as savage punishments or death for female wife is often a stranger.Sixteen to 17 percent
adultery, the jealous guardingof female chas- of hunting societies are, however, uxorilocal,
tity and virginity, the denial of divorce to with men moving to the households of their
women, or the ban on a woman's remarriage wives, while 15 to 17 percent are bilocal-that
after her husband'sdeath. is, either sex may move in with the other on
For these reasons, I do not think we can marriage.
speak, as some writers do, of a class-division Probaby because of male cooperation in
between men and women in hunting societies. defense and hunting, men are more prominent
True, men are more mobile than women and in band councils and leadership, in medicine
they lead in public affairs. But class society and magic, and in public rituals designed to
requires that one class control the means of increase game, to ward off sickness, or to
production, dictate its use by the other classes, initiate boys into manhood. Women do, how-
and expropriate the surplus. These conditions ever, often take part in band councils;they are
do not exist among hunters. Land and other not excluded from law and government as in
resources are held communally, although many agrarian states. Some women are re-
women may monopolize certain gathering spected as wise leaders,story tellers, doctors, or
areas,and men, their hunting grounds.Thereis magicians, or are feared as witches. Women
rank difference, role difference, and some have their own ceremonies of fertility, birth
difference respecting degrees of authority, and healing, from which men are often ex-
between the sexes, but there is reciprocity cluded.
ratherthan dominationor exploitation. In some societies, although men control the
As Engels saw, the power of men to exploit most sacred objects, women are believed to
women systematically springs from the exis- have discovered them. Among the Congo
tence of surplus wealth, and more directly, Pygmies, religion centers about a beneficent
from the state, social stratification, and the spirit, the Animal of the Forest. It is repre-
control of property by men. With the rise of sented by wooden trumpetsthat are owned and
the state, because of their monopoly over played by men. Their possession and use are
weapons, and because freedom from child care hidden from the women and they are played at
allows them to enter specializedeconomic and night when hunting is bad, someone falls ill, or
political roles, some men-especially rulingclass death occurs. During the playing men dance in
men-acquire power over other men and over the public campfire, which is sacred and is
women. Almost all men acquireit over women associated with the forest. Yet the men believe
of their own or lower classes, especially within that women originallyowned the trumpet and
their own kinship groups. These kinds of male that it was a woman who stole fire from the
power are shadowy amonghunters. chimpanzeesor from the forest spirit. Whena
To the extent that men have power over woman has failed to bear children for several
women in hunting societies, this seems to spring years, a special ceremony is held. Womenlead
from the male monopoly of heavy weapons, in the songs that usually accompany the
from the particulardivision of labor between trumpets, and an old woman kicks apart the
the sexes, or from both. Although men seldom campfire. Temporaryfemale dominance seems

768 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1971

 to be thought necessaryto restorefertility. development of horticulture (which was prob-
In some hunting societies women are ex- ably invented and is mainly carried out by
changed between local groups, which are thus women), those tribes in which horticulture
knit together through marriages. Sometimes, predominated over stock raising were most
men of different bands directly exchange their likely to be or to remain matrilocal and to
sisters. More often there is a generalized develop matrilineal descent groups with a
exchange of women between two or more relatively high status of women. But where
groups, or a one-way movement of women extensive hunting of large animals,or later, the
within a circle of groups. Sometimes the herding of large domesticates, predominated,
husband's family pays weapons, tools or orna- patrilocalresidenceflourishedand women were
ments to the wife's in return for the wife's used to form alliances between male-centered
servicesand later, her children. groups. Withthe invention of metallurgyand of
In such societies, although they may be well agricultureas distinct from horticulture after
treated and their consent sought, women are 4000 B.C., men came to control agricultureand
clearlythe moveablepartnersin an arrangement many crafts, and most of the great agrarian
controlled by men. Male anthropologistshave states had patrilocalresidence with patriarchal,
seized on this as evidence of original male male-dominantfamilies.
dominance and patrilocal residence. Fox and
others, for example, have argued that until CONCLUSIONS
recently, all hunting societies formed out- The family is a humaninstitution, not found
marryingpatrilocalbands, linked together poli- in its totality in any pre-human species. It
tically by the exchange of women. The fact required language, planning, cooperation, self-
that fewer than two-thirds of hunting societies control, foresight and cultural learning, and
are patrilocal today, and only 41 percent have probablydevelopedalong with these.
band-exogamy,is explainedin terms of modern The family was made desirableby the early
conquest, economic change and depopulation. human combination of prolonged child care
I cannot accept this formula. It is true that with the need for hunting with weapons over
modern hunting societies have been severely large terrains. The sexual division of labor on
changed, de-culturated,and often depopulated, which it was based grew out of a rudimentary
by capitalist imperialism. I can see little pre-humandivision between male defense and
evidence, however, that the ones that are female child care. But among humans this
patrilocal today have undergone less change sexual division of functions for the first time
than those that are not. It is hard to believe became crucial for food production and so laid
that in spite of enormous environmentaldiver- the basis for future economic specializationand
sity and the passage of thousands, perhaps cooperation.
millions, of years,huntingsocieties all had band Morgan and Engels were probably right in
exogamy with patrilocal residence until they thinking that the human family was preceded
were disturbed by western imperialism. It is by sexual indiscriminacy.They were also right
more likely that early band societies, like later in seeing an egalitarian group-quality about
agriculturaltribes, developed variety in family early economic and marriage arrangements.
life and the status of women as they spread They were without evidence, however, in
over the earth. believing that the earliest matingand economic
There is also some likelihood that the earliest patternswere entirely grouprelations.
hunters had matrilocal rather than patrilocal Together with tool use and language, the
families. Among apes and monkeys, it is almost family was no doubt the most significant
always males who leave the troop or are driven invention of the human revolution. All three
out. Females stay closer to their mothers and required reflective thought, which above all
their originalsite; males move about, attaching accounts for the vast superiorityin conscious-
themselves to females where availability and ness that separateshumansfrom apes.
competition permit. Removalof the wife to the The family provided the framework for all
husband's home or band may have been a
relatively late development in societies where found in some patrilineal as well as matrilineal
male cooperation in hunting assumed over- societies, but they tend to be more prominent in the
whelming importance.8 Conversely, after the latter. It is thus possible that in many areas even late
Stone Age hunters had matrilocal residence and
perhaps matrilineal descent, and that in some regions
8. Upper Palaeolithic hunters produced female fig- this pattern continued through the age of horticulture
urines that were obvious emblems of fertility. The cult and even-as in the case of the Nayars of Kerola and
continued through the Mesolithic and into the Neo- the Minangkabau of Sumatra-into the age of plow
lithic period. Goddesses and spirits of fertility are agriculture, of writing, and of the small-scale state.

November 1971 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY 769

pre-state society and the fount of its creative- that in "matriarchal"societies women were
ness. In groping for survivaland for knowledge, completely equal with or were even dominant
human beings learned to control their sexual over men. For this, too, there seems to be no
desires and to suppresstheir individualselfish- basis in evidence.
ness, aggression and competition. The other The past of the family does not limit its
side of this self control was an increased future. Although the family probably emerged
capacity for love-not only the love of a mother with humanity, neither the family itself nor
for her child, which is seen among apes, but of particular family forms are genetically deter-
male for female in enduringrelationships,and mined. The sexual division of labor-until
of each sex for ever widening groups of recently, universal-need not, and in my opin-
humans. Civilization would have been impos- ion should not, survive in industrial society.
sible without this initial self-control, seen in Prolonged child care ceases to be a basis for
incest prohibitions and in the generosity and female subordinationwhen artificialbirth con-
moral orderlinessof primitivefamily life. trol, spaced births, small families, patent feed-
From the start, women have been subordi- ing and communal nurseries allow it to be
nate to men in certain key areas of status, shared by men. Automation and cybernation
mobility and public leadership.But before the remove most of the heavy work for which
agricultural revolution, and even for several women are less well equipped than men. The
thousands of years thereafter, the inequality exploitation of women that came with the rise
was based chiefly on the unalterable fact of of the state and of class society will presumably
long child care combinedwith the exigencies of disappear in post-state, classless society-for
primitive technology. The extent of inequality which the technological and scientific basis
varied according to the ecology and the alreadyexists.
resulting sexual division of tasks. But in any The family was essential to the dawn of
case it was largely a matter of survivalrather civilization, allowing a vast qualitative leap
than of man-madeculturalimpositions. Hence forward in cooperation, purposive knowledge,
the impressionswe receive of dignity, freedom love, and creativeness.But today, rather than
and mutualrespectbetween men and women in enhancingthem, the confinement of women in
primitive hunting and horticultural societies. homes and small families-like their subordi-
This is true whether these societies are patri- nation in work-artificially limits these human
local, bilocal or matrilocal,although matrilocal capacities. It may be that the human gift for
societies, with matrilineal inheritance, offer personal love will make some form of volun-
greater freedom to women than do patrilocal tary, long-term mating and of individualdevo-
and patrilineal societies of the same level of tion between parents and children continue
productivityand political development. indefinitely, side by side with public responsi-
A distinct change occurredwith the growth bility for domestic tasks and for the care and
of individual and family property in herds, in upbringing of children. There is no need to
durable craft objects and trade objects, and in legislate personalrelationsout of existence. But
stable, irrigated farm-sites or other forms of neither need we fear a social life in which the
heritable wealth. This crystallizedin the rise of family is no more.
the state, about 4,000 B.C. With the growth of
class society and of male dominance in the REFERENCES
ruling class of the state, women's subordination Coult, Allan D.
increased, and eventually reached its depths-in 1965 Cross Tabulations of Murdock's World
the patriarchal families of the great agrarian Ethnographic Sample. University of Mis-
states. souri.
Knowledge of how the family arose is Fox, Robin
interestingto women becauseit tells us how we 1967 Kinship and Marriage. London: Pelican
differ from pre-humans, what our past has Books.
been, and what have been the biological and Hockett, Charles F. and Robert Ascher
cultural limitations from which we are emerg- 1968 The Human Revolution. In Man in Adapta-
tion: The Biosocial Background, Yehudi A.
ing. It shows us how generations of male Cohen (ed.). Chicago: Aldine.
scholars have distorted or over-interpretedthe
Livingstone, Frank B.
evidence to bolster beliefs in the inferiority of 1969 "Genetics, ecology and the origin of incest
women's mental processes-for which there is and exogamy." Current Anthropology
no foundation in fact. Knowing about early (February).
families is also important to correct a reverse Morris, Desmond
bias among some feminist writers, who hold 1967 The Naked Ape. Jonathon Cape.

770 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1971

 Murdock, G. P.
1957 World Ethnographic Sample, American
Anthropologist.
1967 Ethnographic Atlas. University of Pittsburgh
Schneider, David M. and Kathleen Gough
1961 Matrilineal Kinship. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Semyonov, Y. I.
1967 "Group marriage, its nature and role in the MARRIAGE HAPPINESS:
evolution of marriage and family relations." A Behavioral Approach to Counseling
I n Seventh International Congress of
by Dr.DavidKnox,EastCarolinaUniversity
Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Most couples start out expecting
Vol. IV. Moscow.
the very best from their marriage but
court records attest to the fact that
many couples fail. They fail for many
reasons-but they fail chiefly because
they do not know how to handle the
many inevitable behavioral problems
which arise. Marriage Happiness pre-
sents the methods by which couples
can work out these problems. The the-
oretical base is behavioral psychology
with its great power to help in the
control or management of trouble-
some behaviors. Built into the manual
are hundreds of behaviorally based,
practical techniques for use in the
marriage. As marriage happiness oc-
curs under certain conditions, the
counselor helps his clients to consider
what behaviors, performed by whom,
and when, enhance or impede a desir-
able relationship. Areas covered are
sex, children, alcohol, in-laws, reli-
gion, money, and many more. This is
a manual for all counselors and help-
ing professionals as well as students in
training.
176 pages - paper cover - $4.00
FAMILIES: Applications of
Social Learning to Family Life
by Dr.GeraldR. Patterson
OregonResearchInstitute,Eugene,Oregon
The finest coverage of family in-
tervention techniques available to the
reader. Based on years of on-site fam-
ily research, this book shows how the
conditions of family interaction can
be arranged so that problem behaviors
can be located and mediated before
they become permanently harmful.
Areas covered range from children and
adolescents to marriage, parents, and
the elderly family members.
144 pages - paper cover - $3.00
U* Research Press Company, Dept. GS
CFS Box 3177, Champaign, Illinois 61820

November 1971 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY 771