By chance, when I was trying to find this blog on the internet, I ran into a review that Chris Knight wrote about my book. Needless to say, as I have met him and seen his arrogance (perhaps the arrogance is deserved - I am merely commenting on his behavior) he makes it "painfully obvious" (his words) that the book, basically, is foolish, poorly conceptualized. His dismissal of my book, however. was based on his misunderstanding of my argument.
As social relationships evolved around a mother, I argue she could have been the one to have originated culture, perhaps by braiding her child's hair (as braids are seen in the so called Venus figurines) or perhaps she could have provided some other form of decoration. Art, in other words. Over time, the decoration, if replicated by the next generations, would come to identify those who are kin due to shared descent from a common ancestor. The mother, also would have been the one to establish rules of behavior, as having more than one child makes it necessary to influence the behavior of siblings. Her life would be hell if she didn't establish rules. Those rules were taught by modeling behavior - acting like what she wanted to see - and through stories or myths.
I don't say that art and rules of behavior (behavior codes as they came to be called) were always the province of females. I only say that is how it could have started. Over time if her children copied what she had done, and her children's children copied what she had done, on down through time, what we would end up with would be large numbers of individuals dressed similarly - we used to call this tribal and clan decoration.
Kin selection theory implies that we need to identify those with whom we cooperate. Without that identification there is no reason to suspect we will differentially cooperate. Kin selection, however, only can account for a small number of kin, those with whom we predictably share genes. What I am arguing, is that humans cooperate with those they identify as kin, often through body decoration or through kin names. Knight ignores those points
His argument, which differs from mine, can help explain his disdain for my argument - To begin, I didn't cite him. For an arrogant person, that is unforgivable and I actually thought about him and what he would say as I wrote the book.
According to a review written by Bradden, E. (2017). Chris Knight's theory of human origins: an abridged account. https://libcom.org/library/chris-knight%E2%80%99s-theory-human-origins-abridged-account
Knight locates the origins of culture in the female solidarity that emerges to regulate sexual and marital relations. Women resist male domination by subordinating short-term sexual goals to longer-term economic goals. It is this female strategy (with help from male kin) that explains the origins of the ‘own-kill’ rule, the incest taboo and the elementary structures of kinship.
In explaining the origins of female solidarity, Knight places particular significances on women’s ability to synchronise their menstrual cycles. Menstrual bleeding poses a major problem for females in that males will seek to bond with females who show visible signs of their fertility. According to Knight females and their male relatives bond together to resist predatory males. Females adopt a strategy in which they in effect ‘cheat’ by all appearing to menstruate at the same time. This can be achieved by painting themselves with surrogate ‘menstrual’ blood.
Non-human primates signal ‘no’ to sex by displaying lack of arousal or interest. However, if females are to signal ‘no’ to sex, deliberate measures must be taken: human females must reverse the normal body-language displays indicating ‘yes’. Thus instead of signalling ‘right species, right sex, right time’ the human female must signal ‘wrong species, wrong sex, wrong time’. In signalling ‘no’ to sex females set up a communal counter-reality. According to Knight the origins of culture are to be located in this female strategy of saying ‘no’ to sex.
Knight argues that this account of the origins of culture is reflected in myth and ritual, illustrating this with reference to numerous myths and ritual practises in traditional societies. One example is male initiaton ritual in Aboriginal Australia, which is associated with the myth of the ‘rainbow snake’. Knight argues that such initiation rites reflect and perpetuate a situation in which women have become subordinated to men, men having appropriated the ritual power that originally belonged to women. In these rites, boys had to have their flesh cut to allow the blood to flow. Where ‘male menstruation’ became the rule, women’s menstruation became feared as a threat to male supremacy. Female menstruation became seen as polluting while male menstruation was seen as positive, magical and conducive to good hunting luck.
Here are several criticisms: First, the evidence on menstrual synchronization is still under debate as methodological flaws were identified in the initial studies. It is now often argued that synchronization actually does not occur. That said, he seems to be saying that males recognize that menstruating females cannot be impregnated and leave them alone. So, females paint themselves red (or parts of their bodies red) to keep males away - menstrual blood signaling no sex, wrong species, wrong time. It is not clear how that decoration would communicate wrong species or wrong sex. It would seem to clearly indicate right sex but wrong time. Ignoring that, his argument seems like a fairy tale that presents a non-testable hypothesis. He is to be commended, however, for raising some important points. First, females in other species communicate when they are ovulating - through behavior, smell or body changes. Human females hide their ovulation. Females in ten primate species, several bat species, the elephant shrew and one mouse species menstruate. Other females do not. It would be very interesting to understand the behavior of those females during menstruation.
Another interesting point he raises is how ovulating human females might have discouraged males who did not interest them, given male superior strength. That is a good question. I would argue that rules of behavior specified who could marry whom - marriages were probably arranged fairly early in human history based on genetic analyses. Another rule would have told family members to protect reproductive age females. I remember one of my anthro professors telling the class that if a female were alone she would be raped. She knew it and would just lie down. Perhaps that is apocryphal, but I sure can remember talking to females who spoke about the importance of self-protection.
It also is true that in my book I don't confront the question of how males came to dominate culture. I did argue that males were influenced by their mothers. Even warriors dying on the battle field cry out for their mothers. Mothers have a lifelong influence. The influence a potential mate has may end with copulation. My assumption, which is not in the book is that females develop and cooperatively share things like art, weaving, dyeing cloth, gardening and males adopt those things and as they are more competitive, turn them into grandiose schemes. To end this, my main argument - art is used to identify kin or those cooperating as if they were kin - is testable and I can think of some interesting scenarios that would threaten my proposal. That is the way science is supposed to be.
