0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Thumbs Up |
Received: 650 Given: 864 |
Thats impossible. Maybe in rare cultures, but generally in a natural tribe and enviroment, no man would ever let 1 man take 17 women. In an natural enviroment the men would automatically kill the man if he took all the women. Humans are jealous beings, thats why.
This sort of thing is only possible in cities and states with law and order, otherwise the 1 man for 17 women is impossible. Wealth means nothing in nature, only in modern enviroments. No one cares about money in nature, because it doesnt exist.
Another possibility is genocide or some kind of artificially created power structure. But it would never be the womans own will. Humans naturally speaking are monogamous. Only some retard would agree to be with same partner with 17 other women. I dont know how you people are so gullible.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7,118 Given: 6,440 |
These were basic forms of societies, without the modern concept of family. I assume instinct played a big rol, to mate with the top protector/provider made sense.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 10,451 Given: 12,912 |
This is from 45,000 years ago: "the number of mothers may have outnumbered fathers by around 100 to 30" https://www.theguardian.com/science/...uman-gene-pool
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,993 Given: 1,370 |
So let’s revive some ancient haplogroups![]()
Thumbs Up |
Received: 10,009 Given: 6,081 |
The average ratio throughout history is 2 to 1 men, or 80% of females reproduced against 40% for men but that's not what is discussed here. As usual with demographic change of that magnitude between ages, the newcomers were taking people's lunch money and their wemen while they were at it, a lot of them for not so many men when almost everybody else was left to die (R1b style). Some were probably doing it willingly too. Having grains would have been the equivalent of bitcoins, while riding a horse, like a red italian supercar. Had they been riding bulls...no nothing.
Dude has never heard about polygamy which is was very common in most cultures, not just tribes in Africa like it's still the case and a few other places but evidences of it in China and everywhere else too. The currency was not money thanks for the breaking news, just ressources or the ability to gather ressources, which was way more crucial at this time as it was a truely a matter of life and death.
Then we invented church marriage because women wanted it. So confusing.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7 Given: 2 |
It would require a convergence of circumstances, like dire poverty, lots of men lost in battle, and a few wealthy manorial lords deciding to have lots of wives.
This could have a positive eugenic effect if and only if those manorial lords then raised those children in luxury.
My guess is that what our thientists are seeing is that prosperous men had more children than the impoverished in the days before income taxation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks