Pre-human male hominids, we infer from observing bonobos and chimpanzees, were dominated by one alpha male per group, who got the best food and most of the females.
Um. Bonobos don’t work that way. They’re “dominated”, if you can use the term, by less-vertical coalitions of comparitively high-status females. Food is shared widely, paternity certainty is a nonissue.
We’re equidistant from them and chimps, talking divergence from common ancestors, so it’s really less clear-cut than you think how well chimp analogies suffice to model proto-hominids—both are equally-close relations, but their lifestyles and social strategies differ tremendously.
What I mean by the former is that the status hierarchy for females is more diffuse and has fewer strata; there are coalitions of females, and typically eldest females occupy a de facto “alpha” position.
As to paternity certainty—yeah, bonobos don’t form any sort of exclusive or permanent sexual connection. Male/male, male/female, female/female and group sex are all standard behaviors (they’re also the only nonhuman primate species seen engaged in mouth/tongue kissing and oral sex). Instead of “securing access” to desirable mates, you pretty much don’t know who’s going to be the parent of your future children, and it doesn’t matter; both males and females will socialize, care for and protect children.
Why the downvote? I’m expressing gratitude that goes beyond the anonymity and single point karma increase of merely clicking thumbs up, and clarifying that the answer was acceptable to me.
My reasoning is that by stating this publicly I make it more likely people will respond in detail to such requests in future, as they see that (some) such requesters do read the responses and do appreciate them. I am also making clear that the original request was earnest and not rhetorical.
Bonobos still have alpha females and alpha males, and, according to the article, though they have less violent conflict than chimpanzees, they are still more hierarchical than human foragers. This is not a binary distinction, but the review article definitely supports the “less egalitarian—more egalitarian—less egalitarian” progression.
There are males with greater status, but the typical associations of “alpha male” don’t really cover it. They’re simply males with higher-status mothers, and their relative status only really holds leverage among the other males; they’re still subordinate to the dominant coalition of females.
Um. Bonobos don’t work that way. They’re “dominated”, if you can use the term, by less-vertical coalitions of comparitively high-status females. Food is shared widely, paternity certainty is a nonissue.
We’re equidistant from them and chimps, talking divergence from common ancestors, so it’s really less clear-cut than you think how well chimp analogies suffice to model proto-hominids—both are equally-close relations, but their lifestyles and social strategies differ tremendously.
Could you elaborate on “less-vertical coalitions of comparitively high-status females” and “paternity certainty is a nonissue” please?
What I mean by the former is that the status hierarchy for females is more diffuse and has fewer strata; there are coalitions of females, and typically eldest females occupy a de facto “alpha” position.
As to paternity certainty—yeah, bonobos don’t form any sort of exclusive or permanent sexual connection. Male/male, male/female, female/female and group sex are all standard behaviors (they’re also the only nonhuman primate species seen engaged in mouth/tongue kissing and oral sex). Instead of “securing access” to desirable mates, you pretty much don’t know who’s going to be the parent of your future children, and it doesn’t matter; both males and females will socialize, care for and protect children.
Thanks for that, really good!
Why the downvote? I’m expressing gratitude that goes beyond the anonymity and single point karma increase of merely clicking thumbs up, and clarifying that the answer was acceptable to me.
My reasoning is that by stating this publicly I make it more likely people will respond in detail to such requests in future, as they see that (some) such requesters do read the responses and do appreciate them. I am also making clear that the original request was earnest and not rhetorical.
Bonobos still have alpha females and alpha males, and, according to the article, though they have less violent conflict than chimpanzees, they are still more hierarchical than human foragers. This is not a binary distinction, but the review article definitely supports the “less egalitarian—more egalitarian—less egalitarian” progression.
There are males with greater status, but the typical associations of “alpha male” don’t really cover it. They’re simply males with higher-status mothers, and their relative status only really holds leverage among the other males; they’re still subordinate to the dominant coalition of females.
(The basic progression I don’t take issue with.)