When and where did marriage first become an institution of society?

I've been pondering this question lately and have always concluded that it was a natural product of social evolution. Yet I'm not certain where it took root. Even Wiki is no help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We cannot know for certain. It pre-dates recorded history according to wiki.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's probably been around since before the wheel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wheel:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maybe marriage (in some recognizable form) predates society. It seems possible to me that the organization of committed matings constructed and defined early human society, that society began as an institution created by marriage, rather than the other way around.

 

You could try reading the suggested material from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Human_Marriage

Here's a few more.

http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/the-origin-of-marriage-and-the-evolution-of-divorce

Public Vows by Harvard historian, Nancy Cott

Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz’s

 

That seems probable to me.

 

informal or unofficial marriages probably existed before humans were humans. Even animals have marriage so to speak. Some ducks mate for life. There is no reason this can't be considered a marriage. Lions lay claim to their lionesses. It may not be monogamous but the commitment to those lionesses is there. And they are committed to him, expressing it by remaining in his territory and not straying off to be impregnated by a strange male.

Marriage, in my opinion, is a instinctual thing deeply engrained in our evolutionary programming. If you are asking when it was first made into a legal issue that should be able to be determined by figuring out what the oldest human culture is and that would likely be the first one to make it a legal issue.

 

That's not marriage by any definition. Animals that mate for life do so because it happens to be optimal for reproduction that particular species. It has nothing whatsoever to do with commitment. I can't tell if you're suggesting that lionesses are monogamous, but let me clear it up by saying they are not. They can and do mate with multiple male partners.

Again, you're not talking about marriage. You're talking about sexual pairing, which is instinctual for all of the same reasons it's instinctual in other species. Marriage, on the other hand, is a man-made institution that formalizes social unions, and may or may not be monogamous, and may or not even be sexual in nature. Given the arbitrary definition of what we call marriage today, not to mention the societal pressures required to keep them that way, I would suggest that there's nothing instinctual about it. Marriage, at least it seems to me, is simply man's clumsy attempt at making sense of the reproduction process. Society could get along just fine without the paperwork, without the need for sexually-compatible but socially-incompatible people pretending they need to stay together forever.

 

Evidence and natural biological studies to support your claim?
Let me fairly give you mine:
http://www.naturenplanet.com/articles/3013/20120926/urbanized-coyotes-committed-mates-monogamous.htm
Look at them puppies go!
The list of commitment in animal relations is quite long, actually...
Including Wolves, prairie voles, gibbons and many species of birds including our famed bald eagle, albatrosses and black vultures...

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/11-animals-that-mate-for-life/old-faithful

Balerion, we humans don't even have a solid standard definition of "marriage." How you can declare that something doesn't meet any definition is absurd, considering that it's just been met quite well by most any modern definition.
Add to this the insult to injury that many human couples don't hold up to it so well.

That is because when she said this:

it was left unclear, right?

You have no idea, do you?
Actually, most of these animals preserve and protect and mark territory together, hunt or supply food, exchange food, build nests, and meet the demands of survival with and for eachother. This includes the lioness hunting and bringing the meal to the sleeping lion, the Albatross males guarding the eggs for the female, protecting her from others, it includes wolves protecting mates, bringing them supplies and gibbons- man gibbons go pretty far out. Buying her affections with stones, trinkets, food etc.

Whether you can list a Specific and rather Outdated example of a definition of marriage is also irrelevant considering that the behavior trends match most modern marriage trends. This is very suggestive that 'marriage' still requires these things. In the far back days of old, certainly the poor and peasants weren't so "oft guilded" to be handed a blushing bride. They worked out commitments as they could- to meet their needs and they vastly outnumbered the nobles. The legal institution was already covered, in that post. Was it not? This is, like many man made concepts- just another example of our instincts being described with human language- but still acted out in the same ways they have for thousands and thousands of years.
Considering that she compared these trends with the wording: "so to speak"-- not only did you fail in your claims of animal behavior (Someone who knows a bit about evolution really should have known better), you failed in applying a specific institutional definition that disregards marital trends, you also failed to read her post- as usual.


Chest thumping complete.

 

Of course.

Read more

I'm not sure how this is supposed to refute what I've said. I clearly did not deny that some animals mate for life, or long periods of time. What I said was that these are not examples of marriage. I also do not agree with your use of the term "commitment."

Again, fascinating stuff, I just don't see its relevance. Unless you're suggesting that black vultures intellectually preserve monogamy for philosophical reasons?

Your wife just defined marriage as any long-term sexual pairing in the animal kingdom, yet you don't seem to mind that absurdly-broad brush. Meanwhile, I point out the difference between animal sexual pairings and any definition of marriage, and you attack a straw man. Shocking.

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of where you're going with this.

She actually said this:

The comment, in its proper context, is about the male lion, not the female lion. The comment about the female lion was as follows:

As I said, I don't know if she meant that the female lion was monogamous or not, so I just cleared it up by saying that the female is not. Whether that is a correction or a clarification, I don't know, because I'm not 100% sure what she was implying.

In the case of lions, the females in the pride will share in the responsibility of feeding and raising the cubs. The pairings of black vultures or policed by relatives. The things you mention are societal responsibilities, and done for the purpose of optimising the conditions for successful mating as well as self-preservation. These things aren't done out of commitment to one another, or because those two birds just really happen to dig each other.

The fact that marriage is a fluid thing that has changed considerably over time, and has no one universal definition is proof enough that it isn't an instinctual thing but a societal thing, with roles depending on outside social criteria, such as the standing of women in a given culture. What you're seeing in animals that is familiar is the pairing of mates (in some cases). The idea of a lioness bringing her mate a kill while he sleeps is reminiscent of a wife bringing her husband breakfast in bed. But it's also reminiscent of a girlfriend doing that for her boyfriend, or the girl I just met last night doing that for me this morning. In other words, there's nothing about the habits of animals that can be said to be exclusive to the western concept of marriage.

In what way?

I'm sorry, this is gibberish.

Not at all. Marriage as you practice it with your wife is not how it has been practiced for thousands and thousands of years, nor is it how any sexual pairing is practiced anywhere else in the animal kingdom. Sexual pairing between humans has always happened, but the concept of marriage--the social contract between two or more parties--is a man-made construct that has served various purposes over time.

Utter nonsense, as usual. "So to speak" does not mean, as you seem to be suggesting, "Don't hold me accountable." She means that some animal pairings can be called, more or less, marriages. Furthermore, she claims that marriage is instinctual in humans. These are two claims she does not support, except in her erroneous accounting of the "relationship" between a lion and lioness. I have explained that the familiar rituals and habits she equates to marriage are not exclusive to marriage but of society in some cases, and sexual pairings in others. Just as I have explained to you. Marriage, as I've said a few times now, is a social construct, not an instinctual one.

Hardly. One or two more posts and you'll be writing in ALL CAPS about how you "damn right I protect my wummin!"

 

Good deal. Thanks for this opposing view...
Now- reading that opposing view answer this: Can that also apply to humans?
I say, "YES!"

You just answered where the disconnect is.
The definition of "Marriage." Although, her wording was, "So to speak."
Considering that it meets the basic trends and behaviors of human marriages, that the wording is not used for animal relationships doesn't impress me at all.

Even the most amateur evolutionary biologist understands and accepts that the vast majority of our behaviors did not magically appear with us. We inherited them from those that came before us.

Your straw man comment is easily refuted by your claimed ignorance of relevance which I've already covered.

Human animals aren't so great with commitment. Or long lasting relationships. We follow instincts and programmed behavior, heavily. A person will be monogamous or be a philanderer and not even be able to conceive WHY they act as they do. They even may claim they "can't help it."
It's our nature, you see.

Your failure to read again...
She clarified the difference between monogamous and commitment. One does not need to be monogamous to be committed.
I am committed to many ideals in life. One can be committed to many children. Politicians are committed to lying. On rare occasions, they are monogamous.
She also pointed out the part about the "Legal" aspect... did you read that? Oh... stupid question. Nevermind.

You actually have no real way of knowing if they dig eachother or not.
Peacocks don't have them tails to not "get dug" by the females. They dig them tails.
Human males dig tail too. Attraction. How does initial attraction relate to mating? In humans? In animals?

You've almost gone religious here, as if the idea we're just animals offends you. Are you saying we are not animals? That our behaviors are divinely inspired within us?

Fact is, none of what you're saying excludes humans in any way. You first used "Mutual beneficial needs; business-like" to define marriage and now it's about whether they "dig eachother."
Really?
Keep it straight, will ya? As I said, you can't even define what you're trying to define.

Marriages... As humans go about our high and mighty semantics- we protect our young, provide food, support, sleep together, mate, get rid of young when they are too big for the nest-- all the same things these animals do.
Ok, animals don't make wedding rings- ya got me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, it wasn't. You're in a typical case of denial.

Social contracts have evolved in a lot of ways- but base pairing and partnerships have not. If you have proof that humans have existed thousands and thousands of years without it- and we've suddenly, out of the blue, started this weird relationships thing only recently- feel free to present it.
If you're going to go off some definition of a noblemans marriage- the vast minority of any population in history- I don't give a damn because it's not relevant to the topic. That was not what was compared, here.

Yes- most all of those purposes seen also in GIBBONS and BONOBOS.
All caps are fun.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It means, "it matches the trends." I've clarified how that fits and if you're going to go on one of your usual and typical semantics wars- don't bother.
Unless you can provide evidence that humans are not animals, that really do behave by your personal criteria and none other and that marriage has a very specific definition that does not deal in personal relationships, protection, sharing of goods and home, yadda yadda- no one cares. It will just be one of your constant nitpicking over boneheaded dumb shit arguments. These few posts are long enough and I see no reason to take over the thread with your bullshit. Seriously- I find you the most annoying poster on the forum because of how often you pull this crap. It's as if you have no self control whatsoever- you just gotta browbeat some dumbass detail. You're not even an ape. You're doing it wrong. You're more like a chihuahua. Except you're not even yipping right. You're doing wrong all wrong even.

So... You're saying that the pairing up for survival, supply, support and mating is purely a Human Construct and has no roots in instinct? How contradictory. And unsurprising.

It was for that post. But you missed the point.

The behavior I took part in just then IS the same impetus as ape chest thumping.
We evolved from them, you see. And we carry the behavior on.
Your almost religious denial of our roots is... Surprising.

 

Of course, but what does that have to do with marriage? You don't seem to be able (or willing, more likely) to grasp this.

What meets the "basic trends and behaviors of human marriages?" And what exactly are the "basic trends and behaviors of human marriages?" You get awfully vague when you're ducking an argument.

Again, no clue where you think you're going with this.

Another big "WTF" right here...

Animals do not "commit" in the sense that we do. A lion does not commit to its mate. Commitment, in this context, is a human construct.

I should have avoided slang, knowing how you and your roommate have a tendency for twisting words to suit your own purposes. I should have said "like" as opposed to "dig." The point was that these things are instinctual, rather than intellectual or emotional.

Obviously not. Though you seem to think that we are literally on par with lower animals, and that we are not more sophisticated.

And the immature rhetoric begins.

I never said it excluded humans. I said that marriage is not found in the animal kingdom beyond humans. I also said that marriage is not instinctual, but societal, social. Keep it straight, will ya?

And humans have done the same thing before marriage was ever a thing, and when it was entirely unrecognizable from what it looks like in the west today. So these things that you make synonymous with marriage are actually not synonymous with it at all.

Hey, if you'd rather be insecure than get your point across, I'm not going to stop you. Just know that you're the one who is missing out on making a point.

Really? I mean, really? So the dynamic between man and woman has never changed? Really?

I'm going to have to see some evidence of this. By all means, support your claim.

Straw man. Never said that, and don't need it in order to make the point that marriage as it exists today is not how it has always existed. Hell, it was fundamentally different even fifty years ago.

What marriage was compared to, exactly? Oh, right, the western one that has existed for this brief window of human existence, yet is supposed to be "engrained" in us.

Marriage is a social contract that exists solely in humans, whereas sexual pairing is an instinctual directive. Relationships can be had, children can be raised, and homes can be maintained all without entering into a marriage. In other words, marriage does not serve the purpose you think it serves. It is no more an instinct than talking on a cell phone is instinct. Both marriage and cellphones are a byproduct of our intelligence, but neither are necessary for our survival.

[qute]All caps are fun.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[/quote]

You tend to use them as a replacement for your failed arguments, so I doubt you actually enjoy using them.

No, you "clarified" only your ignorance of the subject matter. I actually explained to you why she was wrong. You choose to ignore this for obvious reasons.

And here come the insults (and straw men). It took you all of two posts to arrive at the land of the grunts. Congrats.

Not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that marriage is not necessary for pairing up for those reasons. It isn't required.

Your ability to comprehend is not at issue here. What is at issue is your insistence upon arguing in your wife's stead. You're clearly wrong here, which is why you've been reduced to straw man arguments and insults (again, not new territory for you, as everyone is keenly aware), but you refuse to relent because it's your wife that I"m disagreeing with. I'm sure if you ever decide she's competent enough to debate for herself, maybe your stay at Sciforums will be a less stressful one. Until then, however, you're only going to continue down this ugly path.

 

No one is clearly, "wrong" here Balerion excepting your insistence to nitpick trivial crap and stubborn refusal to get a grip. Thread derailment is a pasttime...
She pointed out the similarities (They match) I showed the evidence that they match- you nitpick over trivial details about how marital contracts are designed in our society...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

She also pointed out the difference between the "legal definition we use today" as opposed to the "behaviors we exhibit and their base animal similarities."
Here ya go:

Humans and animals engage in mating behaviors. There are great similarities in behaviors- spanning many species.
However, no animals besides humans write out and print Contracts with rings, seals and prenups and what have you.

Agreed?

The rest of what Balerion said can be found here.

 

When and where did marriage first become an institution of society?

The answer to your question really depends upon how one defines 'marriage'.
Are you speaking of commitment to a relationship or are you talking contractual law for in my opinion, the written contract of law is where society starts getting involved in the recognition and disposition of property ownership. Prior to that, monogamous and polygamous commitments would be at the discretion of those within those relationships and their tribal or social groups.

Found In Maresha in 1993, this marriage contract is the earliest known in Israel.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_Oldest_Marriage_Contract,_176_BCE

 

Random question about this topic, what is the difference (if any) between Hand fasting and just a normal marriage?

 

Here is another document of marriage, written on papyrus from Assiut, Egypt, which even mentions provision for the wife in the event of separation.
Divorce, apparently, is not new.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explor...cts/aes/p/papyrus_marriage_contract_betw.aspx

 

You call it nitpicking because the facts are against you. This is typical you (or typical the both of you), where you constantly ad hom and misrepresent because you don't have a goddamn leg to stand on. She called animal relationships marriages. I disagreed. She said marriage is "engrained," in us. I disagreed again. Act like a damn adult for once in your life and just accept it without feeling the need to sacrifice your dignity so that your wife can feel protected from big bad people on the internet who might dare to disagree with her.

Jesus Christ.

Also, you're trying to reduce marriage to simply paperwork. It is more than that. It is a social, societal construct that simply has no analog in the animal kingdom, because no other species is capable of conceptualizing it. It's not just rings and certificates.

 

Big Daddy B: Whatever you say, supertroop.

scheherazade: Nice find!

 

So you have studied every possible definition of marriage?

Well let me clarify what I meant for you.
" Lions lay claim to their lionesses. It may not be monogamous,..."
I was referring to males not being monogamous because they clearly claim several mates at a time. I said females are monogamous because they are loyal so long as the male has legitimate claim to them. And legitimate claim is determined by the customs of their species. They will be his until a bigger stronger male defeats him in a challenge. They will then become the mates of the victorious male. Monogamous does not necessarily mean life long monogamy and I did not suggest that lions mate for life. Humans don't mate for life either.

Also, marriage does not require monogamy to be marriage. You said so yourself.

emphasis mine

I am committed to the man I am currently married to. It hardly means he is the only man I have ever slept with. And if for any reason our marriage should end, he will not be the last. But I am still considered monogamous in my relationship because I do not stray from it so long as our commitment is understood to be in tact.



The males have many female partners but it is not common for females to stray from the patriarch of their pride. They usually will only do so if the patriarch of the pride is killed or at least defeated by another male who takes over the pride and kills the cubs of the previous male.

Lionesses are no less at capable at exercising commitment than humans are. What percentage of humans marry or mate for life?

Are you aware that some people will pair and consider themselves married without a legal contract. Many gay couples do it now. You will hear them referring to each other as husband and/or wife even if the state they live in does not recognize gay marriage. Marriage is not necessarily defined by a piece of paper that says you are married. Marriage is many different things to different people. But some aspects of marriage are nearly universal across cultures. With few exceptions, the behaviors that indicate marriage are cohabitation, sexual relations, sharing of resources, and commitment to the protecting what is perceived as the family unit, and raising children (or a surrogate of a child, some childless couples refer to pets as their children and treat them as such.) Many pagans do not require a legal contract to assume the label of being married. Some do not even require a ritual. Many people, though they believe in marriage as they define it for themselves do not believe in marriage as defined by the state. YOU do not get to dictate the definition of marriage.

People do not always get married for love either. Marriage for survival is common. How often do you hear of someone who is struggling financially hoping to find a rich person to marry? That is marriage for the sake of survival. How often do you hear of couples getting married because the woman became pregnant and they marry for the sake of raising the child together? This is very common. How often do you hear of political marriages between sovereignties in order to create alliances between nations? This is a marriage to gain resources and/or territorial rights. They are all possible benefits of long term pairing/marriage and can be observed in the wild among animals as being benefits of their pairing choices.

And what is that arbitrary definition you are using anyway? Care to clarify?

emphasis mine

Yes, the reproduction process. Something the animals of the world also partake in and have methods that are consistent across their species to ensure the success rate of this reproduction process. So for all your blathering you agree with me on the base definition of marriage.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Agreed.


Reread my post. I put extreme emphasis (so that you don't miss it this time)on a few things that may help you better understand it since it seems you overlooked anything that removes justification for attacking my post and flaming me, again, you know, that thing you were banned for last week.

My post mentioning the primitive notions of marriage is relevant to the OP because of the things in the op, below, that I have put emphasis on.

This led me to believe he was not strictly referring to the legal aspect of it. But I wasn't certain so I addressed his question from both points of view.