note to self:

pay more attention to ideologies.

bruce charlton suggests that i underestimate the power of ideology, and he’s probably right. i’m not a very ideological creature myself, so i think overlook what different ideologies mean to different people and the role it plays in their lives.

i mean, i know they’re there — ideologies, that is. most of the time, tho, i just think of them as neat, abstract ideas to discuss after dinner — like you might discuss an interesting chess opening, for instance.

the thing is, it’s hard to put yourself in other people’s shoes sometimes. i’ve operated most of my life without thinking much at all about any religious belief or political ideology. i forget that other people have a different experience in life.

anyway, i should pay more attention to them because i’ve even written (or commented) here on the ol’ blog about two different ideologies that have either profoundly affected the genetic relatedness in a population, or affected a population’s historical trajectory — and in both cases ideology affected the success of the populations — so obviously ideologies are important!

the first is what we’ve been discussing recently: that the spread of christianity in europe directly altered the degree of genetic relatedness within european populations when the roman catholic church (as well as the political powers of the day) imposed mating restrictions on the population.

the other is islam: that the spread of islam throughout the arab peninsula enabled mohammed’s tribe to unite the arabs and conquer large parts of the middle east and north africa.

HUGE effects on history by ideologies! not to be ignored. definitely not.

it’s interesting to compare the outcomes of the effects of these two ideologies on the populations in question. in the arab world, islam managed to unite the otherwise warring tribes (of course, the promise of a share in war booty also helped), but did not do away with the tribal system which still exists today and remains a cause for problems in the same old ways. in europe, christianity managed to (i think) do away with tribes (or, at least, it had a hand in it) which enabled broader cooperation amongst the peoples of europe. this worked pretty good (overlooking a couple of world wars here and there) for quite some time.

an interesting point to note: both ideologies replaced polytheistic religious systems with monotheism, but only one of them actually did away with tribes.

(note: comments do not require an email. nor do you have to be a card-carrying member of any ideology whatsoever.)

26 Comments

  1. Ideology isn’t just someone else’s shoe, I think for people who tend to think and question themselves they are more likely to be convinced with others’ ideology if it follows certain logic pathway and feels making sense with reasoning. Then what happened next is that those people usually absorb the ideas selectively to their reasoning logic and build their own thoughts based on that.

    Meanwhile, for the majority of the population (percentage varies according to different ethnic/class group) lack of independent thinking capability or simply do not fully develop their reasoning logic. Therefore they tend to believe in whatever makes the most sense to others (social pressure, populism, or born in a Muslim family) and their sentimental values (resonant of their emotions, e.g. confused youth turned Jihadist in Western countries).

    This is just some of my preliminary thoughts about ideology, to me, ideology does make sense and every smart person should develop his/her own coherent worldview, that is of course somewhat based on other people’s thoughts and ideology. For the majority of the population ideology tends to equal to populism or obscurantism.

    As for the difference between Islam and Christianity, I do think the fact that Muslims inbreed with cousins result in their lower IQ in general, plus Islam has a whole regulation on all aspects of a Muslim’s life, it has a more coherent worldview than Christianity, and keeps their society stable. that’s probably why their clannish tradition persist until today.

    Reply

  2. It seems some ideologies are better at “detribalizing” than others. Or perhaps, some ideologies seem to attract, and increase the fitness of, those people with a tendency to “detribalize”.
    Other ideologies are orthogonal to tribalism or even thrive upon it.

    Reply

  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity

    I think for the most part idealogies were originally a reinforcement of blood-ties.

    If co-operation at a particular scale (clan/small tribe/large tribe/nation) requires a minimum amount of unity and that unity is the sum of (blood-ties + idealogy) then as you make the leap from a smaller scale to the next larger scale the component of the total unity that can come from blood-ties is neccessarily reduced and idealogy becomes neccessary to make up the difference.

    For example, including just the indigenous French, if you calculated the average relatedness of one extended French family in a town in Brittany it would be higher than the average inter-relatedness of all the French in that one town in Brittany which would be higher then the average relatedness of all the French in Brittany which would be higher than the average relatedness of all the French in France.

    You don’t need idealogy at the bottom level but need increasing amounts at the higher levels to make up for the gradual weakening of blood-ties as the scale of political organization increases.

    I think the terriotorial success of Christianity and Islam obscures the much earlier first steps in this process which illustrate it better. If you imagine a group of clans who were inter-married enough to make the jump to tribal level co-operation they’d still need something to provide that single sense of identity, that sense of unifying us-ness. One option would be something like a meta family tree that sits on top of each clan’s actual family trees. This is precisely what a lot of early idealogies/religions provide whether it’s Adam and Eve or Romulus and Remus.

    It seems to me exogamy wouldn’t create co-operativeness on its own it would create the conditions where a larger scale polity became possible through a combination of those blood-ties that did exist and a suitable unifying idealogy.

    At the highest levels of political organization where direct blood-ties were at their weakest then unifying idealogy might become the dominant unifying force. If so those peoples would be liable to fight civil wars over points of principle unless they had robust mechanisms for deciding what those unifying principles should be.

    A polity of a scale where unifying idealogy was dominant would run the risk of adopting a harmful unifying idealogy unless at least part of its unifying idealogy explicitly made up in ideal form for the relatively weak blood-ties at that level i.e. some form of nationalism.

    Reply

  4. Thanks.

    As a modern example of the power of ‘ideology’ there is the Mormon Church.

    Mormons are more-educated-than-average, higher-IQ-than average, wealthier-than-average, integrated, and contraceptive using.

    Yet they exhibit:

    1. Above replacement fertility, and

    2. Higher fertility among the wealthier and more educated than among the poor and less educated.

    This was well known from US studies (e.g. by Rodney Stark), but I have found the same pattern in a couple of internet samples of British Mormons; which strongly suggests that it is the religion (‘ideology’) that affects fertility, rather than national or genetic factors.

    Recall that this is *chosen* fertility – achieved among a contraceptive-using population.

    Nothing like this is seen in any other group, nor has there ever been anything like this in world history! (so far as I know)

    That is the specific power of a specific ideology!

    Reply

  5. (Re original post)

    I agree, it’s interesting that the two religions have had such different effects on people and on the development of civilization. It’s almost as if there were a God behind one of them…

    Reply

  6. Also…

    the point i make about Christianity and Islam is that i think religions and other idealogies would generally have come about initially as ethnic unity reinforcers. Judaism would be a perfect example of this. Islam initially would be a perfect example if initially it was basically a copy of Judaism but for Arabs instead of Jews.

    It seems to me Christianity is the odd one out if early religons and idealogies were designed for the mostly endogamous taking their first steps to a larger-scaled polity. Christianity initially would seem more likely to appeal to the already highly exogamous. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in principle but it’s out of sequence imo. If most people at the time were at the stage where they were only loyal to their clan, tribe or city-state where would you find masses of people exogamous enough to go for a universalist religion?

    Slaves.

    So i guess it does makes sense after all that Christianity could spread as a unifier idealogy for all the people who’d lost all original their tribal unifiers, both genetic and cultural.

    Reply

  7. @theslittyeye – “Meanwhile, for the majority of the population (percentage varies according to different ethnic/class group) lack of independent thinking capability or simply do not fully develop their reasoning logic. Therefore they tend to believe in whatever makes the most sense to others (social pressure, populism, or born in a Muslim family) and their sentimental values (resonant of their emotions, e.g. confused youth turned Jihadist in Western countries).”

    yup! most people (at least in my experience) do not base their decisions on reason. and even those of us who try — well, we’re still all burdened with our cognitive biases. (~_^)

    Reply

  8. @g.w. – “I think for the most part idealogies were originally a reinforcement of blood-ties.”

    absolutely. i think a good example is the oriental system of ancestor “worship” or veneration. way to reinforce the blood ties! such a system would definitely keep the family/clan/lineage uppermost in everybody’s minds.

    i was thinking yesterday evening when i wrote this how both the european tribes and the arab tribes had polytheistic religions before they then adopted a monotheistic system (for whatever reasons). that’s quite a transition. in the polytheistic system, you could have your local god(s) which were tailor-suited to your clan (must be like this in india) and that would reinforce the ol’ blood ties again. polytheism, seems to me, to be a sort-of ideological system that would develop organically within the tribal system. it seems perfectly suited to the situation.

    having one god for everybody, tho? whew — that’s quite a shift in mentality! and, then, interestingly, europeans quit being tribal with this new system, but arabs did not. i don’t know what that tells us — if anything.

    Reply

  9. @g.w. – “It seems to me exogamy wouldn’t create co-operativeness on its own it would create the conditions where a larger scale polity became possible through a combination of those blood-ties that did exist and a suitable unifying idealogy.”

    yes!

    Reply

  10. @chillingworth – “I agree, it’s interesting that the two religions have had such different effects on people and on the development of civilization. It’s almost as if there were a God behind one of them….”

    heh. maybe! (~_^)

    Reply

  11. @bruce – “This was well known from US studies (e.g. by Rodney Stark), but I have found the same pattern in a couple of internet samples of British Mormons; which strongly suggests that it is the religion (‘ideology’) that affects fertility, rather than national or genetic factors.”

    hmmmm. yes, perhaps. but aren’t a lot of u.s. mormons of anglo (and irish) stock?

    Reply

  12. @g.w. – “It seems to me Christianity is the odd one out if early religons and idealogies were designed for the mostly endogamous taking their first steps to a larger-scaled polity. Christianity initially would seem more likely to appeal to the already highly exogamous. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in principle but it’s out of sequence imo.”

    yes. it does seem like the odd one out which makes me wonder, were europeans — or the germanic tribes, anyway — already outbred enough to be happy to accept christianity? maybe. but, that doesn’t seem to match what i’ve been reading about the church’s imposition of all these mating regulations on european populations. the church leaders (and kings and princes who supported any methods to reduce the power of tribes) really had to struggle at first to impose these new marriage practices. people just balked at them. what do you mean i can’t have a concubine?! (~_^)

    but, the germanic tribes did seem to capitulate first, especially the visigoths who had close contact with roman society. the franks — took longer for them to accept the new regulations (not until charlemange’s time, really) — and further to the northwest, the irish didn’t give in to the new regulations until well into the norman period.

    i’ve been reading jack goody’s works on the family and marriage in europe, and the other way that christianity was the odd one out — or at least odd — is that there isn’t any basis for these new marriage regulations in the roots of christianity (the old testament) or even roman society where christianity “grew up” (the romans married their cousins). where on earth did the early christian fathers come up with their ideas for all these restrictive mating regulations? and why?

    goody makes a very good argument that the early church apparatus was trying to limit the number of heirs a man could produce so that the church would inherit more legacies — i.e. no more cousin marriage so the wealth doesn’t stay in the extended family; no more concubinage so you can’t make an heir for yourself that way if your wife doesn’t give you one; no more adoption; no marrying your brother’s widow (levriate marriage); even no more remarriage of widows (again so she would leave any wealth she had to the church and not to her new husband). and, again, many princes and kings liked the new system ’cause it broke the power of the tribes, although in many cases they didn’t like it when the new regulations were applied to themselves.

    also, though, we saw the other day thomas aquinas’ reason related to making people more neighborly and less clannish. so, there seems to be several reasons for the push for this new system. all very much imposed from the outside, though.

    Reply

  13. Greying wanderer Buddism lacks a main ethnic group(excluding tibetan and some others)

    ps. There was a hellenised variat of buddism practised by the greco-bactirians

    Reply

  14. “hmmmm. yes, perhaps. but aren’t a lot of u.s. mormons of anglo (and irish) stock?”

    Yes. Mormons (US and UK) are the only European population with biologically desirable fertility patterns.

    So it’s obviously not the European-ness.

    What I was trying to eliminate were founder effects – that modern Mormons are descendants of the highly selected founder population early polygamous US Mormons.

    Since founder effects wouldn’t apply to the current UK Mormons (early UK Momrons having emigrated to Utah – but current ones being mostly post-migration converts I believe), yet they apparently have the same kind of fertility as US Mormons, then the simplest single explanation for this fertility pattern would be the religion.

    Reply

  15. hbdchick
    “i was thinking yesterday evening when i wrote this how both the european tribes and the arab tribes had polytheistic religions before they then adopted a monotheistic system (for whatever reasons). that’s quite a transition. in the polytheistic system, you could have your local god(s) which were tailor-suited to your clan (must be like this in india) and that would reinforce the ol’ blood ties again. polytheism, seems to me, to be a sort-of ideological system that would develop organically within the tribal system. it seems perfectly suited to the situation.”

    Yes looking at it as a sequence of the scale of voluntary organisation
    – clan
    – small tribe
    – large tribe or city-state (depending on environment)
    – nation

    It reminds me a bit of physics where you have particles at various discrete energy that don’t smoothly transition they make specific jumps from one state to the next and a bit of rockets escaping a gravity well. Endogamy at the lower level acts as a negative force, as gravity, exogamy (at the clan level*) combined with idealogy acts as the rockets to get the society to the next level.

    *Critical here that increasing exogamy at the clan level automatically increases endogamy at the tribe level so exogamy both reduces the pull of the clan while increasing the pull of the tribe.

    If the rocket forces are the sum of blood-ties at the next higher level plus idealogy then the idealogy doesn’t have to be exclusive, or local or attempt to leverage blood-ties but it would seem on the face of it to be more efficient. The more particular it is the stronger the unifying effect.

    So if ancestor worship develops as the human default at the clan level then a simple jump (in terms of unifying religious idealogy) if those clans later merge into small tribes would be to create a meta family tree out of those ancestors either by making the main ones into your pantheon or creating a pantheon and having your ancestors descended from the same set of gods*.

    *IIRC there’s supposed to be some hint of this in Norse mythology where there’s a theory some of the gods are thought to be the result of a merger between Norse and Baltic pantheons.

    Assuming you could run a speeded-up isolated island scenario with multiple initially separated clans then i wouldn’t be surprised if this was a consistent result.

    Would there be a benefit from switching to just one god? Maybe but if neccessity is the mother of evolution i’d have thought it would have happened more often around the world and it’s effectively only twice (as far as i know) Zoroastrians and Judaism.

    Most pantheons have their big daddy god so you could see a polytheism gradually evolving to one main god or another possibility is the clan merger scenario described above taking more the form of a hostile take-over where one clan brings their chief god into a tribal merger but then refuses to share nicely, takes over as a priestly elite and says everyone must now worship our guy.

    But then again, that seems plausible enough to have happened more often also.

    Reply

  16. Didn’t the chinese use to be monotheistic with heavan worship whichturned plytheistic over time.

    Reply

  17. hbdchick
    “having one god for everybody, tho? whew — that’s quite a shift in mentality! and, then, interestingly, europeans quit being tribal with this new system, but arabs did not. i don’t know what that tells us — if anything.”

    Well the thing is originally it wasn’t for everybody. It was one god for one particular tribe*. That makes a lot more sense. It’s that aspect which i think makes the Arab example reasonably clear-cut.

    *not sure about zoroastrians

    If this stuff was originally about unifying idealogies and human tribes developed their own unifying tribal religons they wouldn’t need to be explicitly tied to the blood. If the Cheyenne are on their side of the river and the Apache on the other and they don’t meet except to fight then each tribe’s religion would be particular to them by default. The religion would map directly onto the blood-ties without explicitly saying so.

    Now what if some big empire takes over a whole patchwork of tribes and city-states each with their own local pantheon? Traders and soldiers and governors come into your terriotory bringing their gods with them and before you know it some of your people start worshipping Astarte or Mithras and your tribal pantheon which used to map directly onto your tribal blood-ties no longer does so.

    You can imagine a situation where a tribe makes it explicit. Their god(s) are for their tribe and no-one else and their tribe is for their god(s) and no others. The aim being to strengthen the unifying effect of the tribal religon by making it map explicitly onto blood-ties. It’s effectively a religious form of nationalism.

    So far so good. You can see the logic of why a tribe might make their religion unique to their tribe. Whether that requires one god or could still work with a pantheon i don’t know. I guess if the one god idea had come first then the impetus for this would be greater. If a tribe had a pantheon and was conquered by an empire then they could (and mostly did) map their gods onto the gods of the other tribes they then came in contact with – their fertility god was mapped onto Astarte and their war god was mapped onto Mithras etc. However if your tribe had made the jump to one god then you couldn’t make those compromises.

    So stepping back a bit. A patchwork of tribes and city-states with their own tribal pantheons which are particular to the tribe simply by default. One of those tribes for whatever reason (to avoid arguments this reason could include an actual God) develops a one god religion. It is still just for them though. It’s not concieved as a god for everybody. It’s a tribal pantheon of one. Along comes a big empire and all these tribal pantheons are thrown into the mix. Most of the tribes and city-states can go with the flow by mapping their local gods onto foreign gods. The people with one god can’t do that and in reaction make their tribal religion explicity follow blood lines.

    In the process of doing this they invent an early, religious form of nationalism where the explict mapping of religion and blood creates a particularly strong unfiying force.

    Roll on to Arabia where Jews dominated the trade along the coast and Mohamed was living in one of those towns.

    Going back to the previous post, the more clannish a population the harder it is to unify them and the harder it is to unify them the stronger a unifying idealogical force would need to be. If we combine this with the idea that explicit religious nationalism is a particularly strong idealogical force then that might lead to the conclusion that the Arab conquest was only possible through Islam being like an Arab version of Judaism – particularist religious nationalism for Arabs.

    If so then that might explain how it panned out. You have a basically extremely clannish population only held together by an extremely strong form of unifying religion. This leads to the conquest part.

    However as soon as the Arab conquerors begin to inter-marry with the locals and some of the conquered locals become muslims the unifying force no longer has the double strength form it had originally. There is still the religious nationalism idealogy component but the specifically Arab blood-ties component gradually weakens. Once those large-scale unifying bonds are loosened the basic underlying pattern of clannish pastoralists re-asserts itself.

    So in a nutshell i think you can see Islam as a particularist Arab version of Judaism without the injunction on looking for converts. In Arabia that didn’t matter so much but after the conquests the conversions turned a particularist religon into a universal one by accident.

    Or another way
    – particularist (endogamous) people with a particularist religion (default)
    – universalist people (exogamous) with a particularist religion (from default)
    – particularist people with a universal religion (accident of conquest)
    – universalist people with a universalist religion (waiting for godot)

    Reply

  18. hbdchick
    “yes. it does seem like the odd one out which makes me wonder, were europeans — or the germanic tribes, anyway — already outbred enough to be happy to accept christianity?”

    Well that was my first thought. I had the idea that the big germanic tribes (and earlier celtic incursions) were at the third stage of my spectrum
    – clan
    – small tribe
    – large tribe or city state
    – nation
    but their environment or technology wasn’t suitable for the city-state option so they had big tribes instead. Given that i think your endogamy-exogamy thing and its various permutations seems like it might be the main driver for this (with idealogy originally as co-pilot ) then it would follow. But your recent posts about germanic tribes make me wonder.

    Slaves definitely would be exogamous enough so you can see how Christianity might have spread first among slaves and freed slaves which given their numbers would eventually mean Christianity would make a good choice on balance for a single unifying state religion.

    There would be other factors of course. When the germanic tribes invaded they would have all been together but when they settled down over the conquered terriotory they would have split up and over time some of them would have married locals so the process of conquest would make them temporarily more exogamous. Over time each region of mixed germanics and ex-romans would then have become more endogamous within that region again – similar to the arab example. Maybe Christianity flew into that exogamous window of opportunity?

    Dunno.

    I think the main distinction though is Christianity was universalist from the beginning almost as an opposite reaction to Judaic particularism whereas i think Islam may have been more about wanting the benefits of an Arab form of that particularism.

    Reply

  19. With the thoughts you’d be thinkin,

    “Greying wanderer Buddism lacks a main ethnic group(excluding tibetan and some others)”

    Yes i was wondering about that. If Christianity started as a reaction to Judaism then maybe Buddhism started as a reaction to the caste system?

    I think the thing about idealogy is it may have its roots in purely practical methods of trying to solidify uniyy within ethnic groups but once people reach the point where their groups require some idealogy to stay cohesive then idealogy can take on a life of its own.

    .
    “Didn’t the chinese use to be monotheistic with heavan worship whichturned plytheistic over time.”

    Dunno. I thought it was a kind of polytheism of past Emperors but i think you make a good point. Comparisons need to be made across different populations at the same stage i.e. how they made the jumps from one scale of organisation to the next. I think taking the development of Christianity as the default muddies things because i think it’s a bit unusual.

    Reply

  20. bruce charlton

    “Yes. Mormons (US and UK) are the only European population with biologically desirable fertility patterns. So it’s obviously not the European-ness.”

    Well unless it is but indirectly. If European-ness means being exogamous to the point of needing a unifying idealogy to act as a cohesive group then with both nationalism and traditional religion pushed onto the back foot by left-liberal idealogical warfare that pretty much leaves those idealogies or religions that have managed to slip under the radar.

    Reply

  21. @bruce – “Since founder effects wouldn’t apply to the current UK Mormons (early UK Momrons having emigrated to Utah – but current ones being mostly post-migration converts I believe)….”

    i’d be concerned that i was still looking at — more or less — the same, biological sub-group of people here — american mormons being of puritan english (plus some irish, i think) stock and today’s uk mormons — both groups being british, that is.

    Reply

  22. @g.w. – “Endogamy at the lower level acts as a negative force, as gravity, exogamy (at the clan level*) combined with idealogy acts as the rockets to get the society to the next level.

    “*Critical here that increasing exogamy at the clan level automatically increases endogamy at the tribe level so exogamy both reduces the pull of the clan while increasing the pull of the tribe.”

    so now you’re telling me i have to become a rocket scientist?! but i thought this wasn’t rocket science! (~_^)

    that is a really good way of looking at it, though — that this is sort-of a push-me-pull-you situation between degrees of relatedness within populations.

    Reply

  23. @g.w. – “Well the thing is originally it wasn’t for everybody. It was one god for one particular tribe*.”

    of course! duh. it’s not, necessarily, a shift from many gods to one god, but a shift from your clan’s one god to all clans’ one god. good point!

    @g.w. – “universalist people with a universalist religion (waiting for godot)”

    heh. (^_^)

    Reply

  24. @g.w. – “Well that was my first thought. I had the idea that the big germanic tribes (and earlier celtic incursions) were at the third stage of my spectrum
    – clan
    – small tribe
    large tribe or city state
    – nation
    but their environment or technology wasn’t suitable for the city-state option so they had big tribes instead. Given that i think your endogamy-exogamy thing and its various permutations seems like it might be the main driver for this (with idealogy originally as co-pilot ) then it would follow. But your recent posts about germanic tribes make me wonder.”

    well, i wouldn’t give up on this idea — that the classical/early medieval germanic tribes were “large tribes” in your spectrum.

    i don’t think all tribes are created equal, because inbreeding systems are different.

    the arab tribes are very quarrelsome between each other because (i think) they have this fbd marriage system which results in clans and sub-clans of bands-of-brothers.

    all the other systems of inbreeding create greater alliances between different family groups since, to a certain extent, you do marry outside your extended family — more than in the arab system. (for example, matrilateral cross cousin marriage, or mother’s brother’s daughter marriage.) yes, you marry a cousin in your extended family, but it’s more like you marry a cousin in your extended extended family with all the other systems, whereas in fbd marriage you marry a cousin in just your (more immediate) extended family. it’s a closer marriage system.

    so, germanic tribes, not practicing fbd marriage as much as arab tribes, prolly did have bigger, broader tribal tribes.

    Reply

  25. @g.w. – “When the germanic tribes invaded they would have all been together but when they settled down over the conquered terriotory they would have split up and over time some of them would have married locals so the process of conquest would make them temporarily more exogamous.”

    yeah, this exogamy must’ve clearly been important, but i wonder how quickly the inter-breeding happened? with the visigoths, for example, there were separate laws for the germans and the population(s) they had conquered. the conquered peoples, at least for a while, got to follow the old roman laws. at least for a while — i dunno how long this situation lasted.

    Reply

  26. hbdchick

    “so now you’re telling me i have to become a rocket scientist?! but i thought this wasn’t rocket science! (~_^)”

    Yes. Biological-ideological rockets ;)

    .
    “that is a really good way of looking at it, though — that this is sort-of a push-me-pull-you situation between degrees of relatedness within populations.”

    This is the thing. I can picture the interplay clearly in my mind but it’s like trying to describe 3D in 2D. The bit that is hard to describe is the push me, pull you effect. Exogamy at a lower level automatically creates endogamy at the next higher levels but the maximum at a higher level must always be less than the maximum at a lower level (i think) hence the need for exogamy combined with a bit of idealogy to act as a booster rocket to make it to the next level. The higher the level of co-operation the more combined exogamy / ideology you need to attain that level. However if a highly endogamous group comes into contact with a particularly strong *pre-existing* ideological package it might be able to leap-frog to a higher level of group co-operation than its endogamy would normally allow.

    .
    “so, germanic tribes, not practicing fbd marriage as much as arab tribes, prolly did have bigger, broader tribal tribes.”

    Yes, i was forgetting the Arab system is towards the extreme end.

    However i also had a pet theory the Roman cousin-ban thing had come from my pet cucuteni people via the Dorians/Celtics/Germanics but your posts seem pretty conclusive on that. Never mind :)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s