posted
Many African societies have a tradition of polygamy, but I have heard it claimed several times that while the pharaohs in Egypt were polygamous, most Egyptian commoners were monogamous in their marrying habits. Was this a matter of choice on the part of the Egyptian common people (i.e. were they fundamentally a monogamous culture), or was it economic? My own suspicion is that most Egyptian men simply couldn't afford to support multiple wives, but rich men could, hence the difference.
If instead it was culturally desirable to have only one partner, what would have motivated Egyptian peasants towards monogamy?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spousal relationships vary in Africa; some of these have been also influenced by traditions brought in from outside; like say, in societies that have adopted Christianity, those communities usually adopt a monogamous custom, whereas those that have adopted like say Islam, one finds a noticeable tendency to adopt a polygamous custom. Where have you heard about the monogamous orientation of the general ancient Egyptian populace, and based on what tangible indicators?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Explorateur: Spousal relationships vary in Africa; some of these have been also influenced by traditions brought in from outside; like say, in societies that have adopted Christianity, those communities usually adopt a monogamous custom, whereas those that have adopted like say Islam, one finds a noticeable tendency to adopt a polygamous custom. Where have you heard about the monogamous orientation of the general ancient Egyptian populace, and based on what tangible indicators?
quote:Among common people, polygamy may very well have existed as it obviously did in the royal class, but if so it was rare. We known from excavations such as Deir El Medina that the housing of common people conformed more to monogamy rather then polygamy.
They don't specify how.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Right, right, Explora and Takruri are both correct. Polygamy takes time and resources to provide for multiple wives so of course most if not all common men could only afford to be monogamous. Although I do believe monogamy to be the preferred trend based on the simple fact that all the elite men (that I know of) were monogamous with the pharaoh being the exception of course. Unless anyone can provide evidence of a polygamous nobleman?...
Oh and polygamy means one person with many spouses in general of either sex. The specific term for a man with many spouses is polygyny.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a topic that is very dear to my heart and close to home for me.
Since the beginning of time, Yoruba societies have been polygamous. My grandfather had 8 or so wives and many concubines he did not marry. It is true that the taking of a second wife (and more) has to do with resources. My grandad took on more wives and he literally built a new house for each one of them along with a farm to tend that provided the new wife and her children with all that they needed.
My father was the 1st (and only) child of the 1st wife and as a consequence looks back on polygamy as a negative state of affairs. He was never close to his father since his father was very busy indeed. But he had *everything* he needed as a young man because the family was made richer by the many successful wives who were very productive and gave my grandfather (a trader) much to barter with.
The polygamous system was so successful for my grandfather that to this day, my father still lives off assets that were made in that time. He inherited a multitude of properties, land and farms that employs local farmers. He also inherited a host of German cars (old model mercedes benzes) that his father was selling just before he passed away. The produce from these farms have fed my household (extended family) since before I was born and still does to this very day. Though my father was/is a professional (civil) architect, he never needed to pay for "food, clothing & shelter" out of his own pocket. Even I have benefited from the system since I have inherited some land and property that was passed on to me via my father's inheritance.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
This brings me back to a point I made on another thread in which I stated that polygyny correlates strongly to agrarian societies where resources in the environment are plenty but many hands are needed to use the resources to create produce. The opposite tradition--polyandry (one woman married to multiple husbands) correlates with pastoral societies where resources in the environment are scarce and so more children means more competition either between families or within families, so polyandrous marriages produce less children. Monogamy of course has an intermediate effect of producing offspring at a rate not as high as polygyny but not as low as polyandry.
Getting back to your example of polygyny, I remember reading a book about the peoples Nigeria and remember a passage where the British tried to outlaw polygamous unions in general. When that happened many families suffered because not enough children were produced to work the farms and many families were even reduced to poverty and starvation because of it!
In the case of Egypt, since most of the populace was agrarian one might wonder why polygyny was not a common practice. But then you have to remember that resources were scarce since practically all of the productive land was limited to the banks of the Nile with everywhere else being desert, and even then there was always the chance of famine. This perhaps the best reason why monogamy was favored and most Egyptian families commoners and nobles alike prefer monogamous marriages and families that are not too large nor too small.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem with polygyny is probably as old as the practice itself and that is the ol' harem feud, that is women either competing for the husband's affection or for their offsprings welfare. Of course the first wife and her children get pre-eminence but down onward in the hierarchy it could be rough. When I read about 'harem conspiracies' concerning ancient Egyptian dynasties, I am automatically reminded of strkingly similar situations of ancient or Medieval West African dynasties as recalled in the folk traditions. Among such ruthless palacewives, even the first wife and her children may not be safe! Obamaboy, have you heard of any situations like that? From what I've heard, the problem isn't that serious among commoners as for royals where the stakes are much higher.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: One problem with polygyny is probably as old as the practice itself and that is the ol' harem feud, that is women either competing for the husband's affection or for their offsprings welfare...
Yep. This was a common problem and my grandfather died (probably of stress related causes) before he turned 70 as a consequence. He left the distribution of wealth to his first son [my dad] who by the time of his father's passing away was the only one with enough "western education" to be trusted with such responsibility. In hindsight, I think the old man was wrong.
To this day his siblings are still fighting him over land and mis-management mistakes he made. Many of his siblings were so greedy that some of them have never worked a day in their life - choosing instead to stay back home and live off inherited resources. The youngest siblings (who were just being born when the old man died) received much smaller shares of the wealth.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Traditional Fulani inheritance passed onto married sons who held any unmarried sons' shares. Were all sons unmarried then the man's brother(s) inherited with the responsibility to marry off his nephews. And so it went down through brothers' sons, uncles (same father's father), and their sons until an eligible heir (i.e. married head of household)was found.
Hebrew law sought to prevent grossly unequal apportionaing of inheritance. It recognized the man's firstborn as number one son even if he hated the mother. After establishing who's number one the inheritance was split like this: - portions = number of son's plus one - firstborn = two portions - others = one portion each
Of course any system can be misused and quite often the firstborn isn't the son with the best of wisdom knowledge and understanding. Anyway, nothing can stop an emporer's most ambitious son from forcibly seizing it all even if it means slaying his siblings.
posted
^ Interesting. Yorubas do have a lot in common with Fulanis/Hausas despite the language barrier.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I believe such an inheritance custom is not only due to a shared West African commonality but also to the simple fact that it makes sense for the inheritance to pass to a married man so that the inhertance has a future. In other words, married sons of the deceased father can or do have sons of their own to pass the inhertance to than the sons of the deceased man who are not married yet so there is no garauntee if they could pass it on.
In the case of ancient Egyptians, land and household property was usually passed to daughters while livestock and other wealth earned from the father's career was passed to the sons.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic