This article analyzes the configuration of biology, anthropology, and history over the last generation by taking the sub-field of the “history of sexuality” as a case study. The history of sexuality developed at a particularly important site of engagement with neighboring disciplines. I argue that the concepts of nature and culture that came to prevail among historians of sexuality were deeply influenced by the debate between a particular strand of evolutionary biology, namely sociobiology, and its critics, who were committed to cultural hermeneutics. This debate encouraged a formulation of nature and culture which is effectively dualist and which remains present within the sub-field. By focusing the analysis on the study of ancient (classical Mediterranean) sexuality, I seek detailed insights into the reception of this debate within a specific domain of historical investigation, one whose stakes have been particularly high because of the intervention of Michel Foucault. The article closes by arguing that biologists and anthropologists in the last two decades have advanced the study of culture as a part of nature, and that historians have much to gain by engaging with more recent models. The institution of monogamy is highlighted as an emerging theme of investigation that can only be approached with the unified insights of history, anthropology, and biology.
1 Foucault Michel, Histoire de la sexualité, vol. 2, L'usage des plaisirs (Paris, 1984); Foucault Michel, Histoire de la sexualité, vol. 3, Le souci de soi (Paris, 1984).
2 Foucault Michel, Histoire de la sexualité, vol. 1, La volonté de savoir (Paris, 1976).
3 Chapais Bernard, Primeval Kinship: How Pair-Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society (Cambridge, Mass., 2008), 54.
4 Parker Holt, “The Myth of the Heterosexual: Anthropology and Sexuality for Classicists,” Arethusa 34 (2001): 313–62, at 327–28; or Halperin David, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love (New York, 1990), 25. It would be easy, and gratuitous, to multiply virtually identical expressions.
5 Gleason Maud, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton, 1995), xiv.
6 Williams Craig A., Roman Homosexuality, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2010), 255.
7 Langlands Rebecca, Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, 2006), 43.
8 Darwin Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London, 1859).
9 Darwin Charles, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (London, 1871).
10 Laland Kevin and Brown Gillian, Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour (Oxford, 2002), 37–47.
11 Tinbergen Nikolaas, The Study of Instinct (Oxford, 1951).
12 Lorenz Karl, On Aggression (New York, 1966).
13 Bateman Angus John, “Intra-Sexual Selection in Drosophila,” Heredity 2 (1948): 349–68.
14 Williams George, Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought (Princeton, 1966).
15 Hamilton William, “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. I,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 (1964): 1–16; Hamilton William, “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. II,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 (1964): 17–32.
16 Trivers Robert, “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology 46 (1971): 35–57; “Parental Investment and Sexual Selection,” in Campbell Bernard, ed., Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971 (Chicago, 1972), 136–79; and “Parent-Offspring Conflict,” American Zoologist 14 (1974): 249–64.
17 Wilson Edward O., Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass., 1975).
18 Laland and Brown, Sense and Nonsense, 70.
19 Segerstråle Ullica, Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond (Oxford, 2000).
20 Others came from the philosophy of science: Kitcher Philip, Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature (Cambridge, Mass., 1985).
21 For example, Gould Stephen and Lewontin Richard, “The Spandrels of San Marcos and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205 (1979): 581–98; Gould Stephen and Vrba Elizabeth, “Exaptation: A Missing Term in the Science of Form,” Paleobiology 8 (1982): 4–15.
22 Allen Elizabeth, et al. , “Against ‘Sociobiology,’” New York Review of Books, 13 Nov. (1975): 184–86.
23 This is most clearly evident in Wilson Edward O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (New York, 1998); Wilson, Sociobiology, 4.
24 Tooby John and Cosmides Leda, “Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology,” in Buss David, ed., The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (Hoboken, 2005), 5–67; Symons Donald, The Evolution of Human Sexuality (New York, 1979). The most trenchant critic of evolutionary psychology usefully distinguishes between Evolutionary Psychology the paradigm (a strictly adaptationist one, committed to a modular brain) and evolutionary psychology as a field: Buller David, Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature (Cambridge, Mass., 2005), 12. See also Richardson Robert, Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology (Cambridge, Mass., 2007). For the positive possibilities of a psychology founded on evolution, outside the EP paradigm, see Scher Steven and Rauscher Frederick, Evolutionary Psychology: Alternative Approaches (Boston, 2003); Caporael Linnda, “Evolutionary Psychology: Toward a Unifying Theory and a Hybrid Science,” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (2001): 607–28.
25 Rose Hilary and Rose Steven, eds., Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology (New York, 2000).
26 Buss David, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, rev. ed. (New York, 2003): 125–31; Buunk Bram, et al. , “Sex Differences in Jealousy in Evolutionary and Cultural Perspective: Tests from The Netherlands, Germany, and the United States,” Psychological Science 7 (1996): 359–63.
27 Buss David, “Introduction: The Emergence of Evolutionary Psychology,” in Buss D., ed., Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, xxiv; Boyer Pascal and Barrett H. Clark, “Domain Specificity and Intuitive Ontology,” in Buss D., ed., Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, 96–118.
28 For example, Öhman Arne and Mineka Susan, “The Malicious Serpent: Snakes as a Prototypical Stimulus for an Evolved Module of Fear,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 12, 1 (2003): 5–9.
29 See Buller, Adapting Minds, 301–45, esp. 306, for a balanced assessment.
30 Buller's Adapting Minds is the most sustained critique.
31 For example, Buss David and Schmitt David, “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating,” Psychological Review 100 (1993): 204–32.
32 Tooby John and Cosmides Leda, “The Psychological Foundations of Culture,” in Barkow Jerome, Cosmides Leda, and Tooby John, eds., The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (New York, 1992), 19–136.
33 Smail Daniel Lord, On Deep History and the Brain (Berkeley, 2008), 12–73.
34 See, for example, Tylor E. B., Anthropology: An Introduction to the Study of Man and Civilization (London, 1881); Morgan Lewis Henry, Ancient Society: Or, Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilization (New York, 1877).
35 Bloch Maurice, “Where Did Anthropology Go?: Or the Need for ‘Human Nature,’” in Bloch Maurice, ed., Essays on Cultural Transmission (Oxford, 2005), 4.
36 Burrow J. W., Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (London, 1966); Kuper Adam, The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion (London, 1988).
37 Maine Henry, Ancient Law, Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas (London, 1861); Kuper, Invention of Primitive Society, 17–41.
38 Maine Henry, Dissertations on Early Law and Custom (London, 1883), 192.
39 Bachofen Johann, Das Mutterrecht. Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur (Stuttgart, 1861).
40 McLennan John, Primitive Marriage: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies (Edinburgh, 1865).
41 Morgan Lewis H., Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (Washington, D.C., 1871); and Ancient Society; or, Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilization (New York, 1877).
42 See esp. Trautmann Thomas, Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship, 2nd ed. (Lincoln, Neb., 2008).
43 The first edition appeared in 1891; in 1921. Westermarck published a much-expanded fifth and definitive edition: The History of Human Marriage, 3 vols. (London, 1921).
44 Ibid., vol. 1, vii–viii.
45 Ibid., 336.
46 Ibid., 166–206.
47 Ibid., 300.
48 Ibid., 22.
49 Though it always had adherents such as Leslie White, to a greater or lesser degree idiosyncratic, and interest may be reviving: for example, Allen Nicholas J., et al. , eds., Early Human Kinship: From Sex to Social Reproduction (Oxford, 2008).
50 Malinowski Bronisław, The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia… (New York, 1929).
51 Bloch, “Where Did Anthropology Go?,” 5.
52 Boas Franz, The Mind of Primitive Man… (New York, 1911).
53 Lewis Herbert S., “Boas, Darwin, Science, and Anthropology,” Current Anthropology 42, 3 (2001): 381–406.
54 As does Davidson James, The Greeks and Greek Love: A Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece (London, 2007), 135–66.
55 Kroeber Alfred L. and Kluckhohn Clyde, Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions (New York, 1952); Kroeber Alfred L. and Parsons Talcott, “The Concept of Culture and of Social System,” American Sociological Review 23, 5 (1958): 582–83; Kuper Adam, Culture: The Anthropologists' Account (Cambridge, Mass., 1999), 69.
56 Kuper, Culture, 75–121.
57 Geertz Clifford, “The Cerebral Savage: The Structural Anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss,” Encounter 28 (1967): 25–32: “Lévi-Strauss' search is not after all for men, whom he doesn't much care for, but for Man, with whom he is enthralled.”
58 Ryle Gilbert, “The Thinking of Thoughts: What Is ‘Le Penseur’ Doing?,” in Collected Papers, vol. 2 (London, 1971), 480–96.
59 Cf. Ricœur Paul, “The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text,” New Literary History 5 (1973): 91–117.
60 Geertz Clifford, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York, 1973), 27.
61 Ibid., 27.
62 Geertz Clifford, “The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man,” in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York, 1973), 44.
63 Cross-fertilization with literary studies, New Historicism in particular, was part of the landscape: Gallagher Catherine and Greenblatt Stephen, Practicing New Historicism (Chicago, 2000), 20–31.
64 Irons William and Cronk Lee, “Two Decades of a New Paradigm,” in Cronk Lee, Chagnon Napoleon, and Irons William, eds., Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (New York, 2000), 6–10; Sahlins Marshall, The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1976). The way had been partly prepared by reactions against Karl Lorenz: Alland Alexander, The Human Imperative (Columbia, N.Y., 1972); Montagu M. F. Ashley, ed., Man and Aggression (New York, 1968).
65 Rubin Gayle S., Deviations: A Gayle Rubin Reader (Durham, N.C., 2011), offers insightful reflections on the period.
66 Rubin Gayle, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,” in Reiter Rayna R., ed., Toward an Anthropology of Women (New York, 1975), 157–210.
67 Rubin Gayle, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” in Vance Carole, ed., Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality (Boston, Mass., 1984), 276.
68 Weeks Jeffrey, “Remembering Foucault,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 14 (2005): 186–201; and Sexuality and Its Discontents: Meanings, Myths, and Modern Sexualities (London, 1985); I thank one of the anonymous CSSH readers for also pointing me to Adam Barry D., “Structural Foundations of the Gay World,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 27 (1984): 658–71, and insisting on the formative influence of this somewhat forgotten statement.
69 Foucault, Histoire de la sexualité, vol. 1, 105.
70 Ibid., 106–7.
71 Karras Ruth Mazo, “Active/Passive, Acts/Passions: Greek and Roman Sexualities,” American Historical Review 105, 4 (2000): 1250–65, here 1250.
72 Pomeroy Sarah, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York, 1975); see Culham Phyllis, “Ten Years after Pomeroy: Studies of the Image and Reality of Women in Antiquity,” Helios 13 (1987): 9–30.
73 Dover Kenneth, Greek Homosexuality, rev. and updated ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1989 ). The best account of the early history of the field remains: Halperin David, Winkler John, and Zeitlin Froma, “Introduction,” in Halperin D., Winkler J., and Zeitlin F., eds., Before Sexuality, 7–16.
74 For an account, see Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love, 107–21, distilling Davidson James, “Dover, Foucault and Greek Homosexuality: Penetration and the Truth of Sex,” Past and Present 170 (2001): 3–51.
75 Dover, Greek Homosexuality, 1.
76 Ibid., 2.
77 Davidson, “Dover, Foucault, and Greek Homosexuality,” 9–11; Devereux George, “Greek Pseudo-Homosexuality and the ‘Greek Miracle,’” Symbolae Osloenses 42, 1 (1967): 69–92.
78 Dover, Greek Homosexuality, 2; West D. J., Homosexuality (Chicago, 1968).
79 Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love, 149.
80 Veyne Paul, “La famille et l'amour sous le haut-empire romain,” Annales: Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 33 (1978): 35–63.
81 Foucault, L'usage des plaisirs; and Le souci de soi. See Larmour David, Miller Paul Allen, and Platter Charles, eds., Rethinking Sexuality: Foucault and Classical Antiquity (Princeton, 1998). For the reception, see Skinner Marilyn B., “Zeus and Leda: The Sexuality Wars in Contemporary Classical Scholarship,” Thamyris 3 (1996): 103–23.
82 Davidson Arnold I., “Sex and the Emergence of Sexuality,” Critical Inquiry 14, 1 (1987): 16–48.
83 Foucault, L'usage des plaisirs, 5.
84 Foucault, Le souci de soi.
85 For his methodological premises, see Winkler John J., The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York, 1990), 8–10.
86 Ibid., 31, 33, 42.
87 Ibid., 17.
88 Ibid., 103.
89 Ibid., 17.
90 Ibid., 98.
91 Halperin, One Hundred Years, 7.
92 Ibid., 7.
93 Ibid., 42.
94 Halperin, Winkler, and Zeitlin, “Introduction,” 3.
95 For some critical thoughts, see, Cohen David, “Sex, Gender, and Sexuality in Ancient Greece,” Classical Philology 87 (1992): 145–60; Hexter Ralph, “Scholars and Their Pals,” Helios 18 (1991): 147–59.
96 Marilyn Skinner, “Ego mulier: The Construction of Male Sexuality in Catullus,” 132; and Holt Parker, “The Teratogenic Grid,” 47–48, both in Hallett Judith and Skinner Marilyn, eds., Roman Sexualities (Princeton, 1997).
97 Clarke John, Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art, 100 B.C.–A.D. 250 (Berkeley, 1998), 275.
98 Nussbaum Martha and Sihvola Juha, eds., The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome (Chicago, 2002), 12.
99 Williams, Roman Homosexuality.
100 Ibid., 254–55.
101 Ibid., 3.
102 Larmour David, Miller Paul Allen, and Platter Charles, “Introduction: Situating The History of Sexuality,” in Larmour David, Miller Paul Allen, and Platter Charles, eds., Rethinking Sexuality: Foucault and Classical Antiquity (Princeton, 1998), 17–22; duBois, “Subject in Antiquity”; Foxhall Lin, “Pandora Unbound: A Feminist Critique of Foucault's History of Sexuality,” in Larmour David, Miller Paul Allen, and Platter Charles, eds., Rethinking Sexuality: Foucault and Classical Antiquity (Princeton, 1998), 122–37.
103 Richlin Amy, “Zeus and Metis: Foucault, Feminism, and Classics,” Helios 18 (1991): 160–80.
104 Richlin Amy, “Not Before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the Cinaedus and the Roman Law Against Love between Men,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 3 (1993): 523–73; Richlin Amy, The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor, rev. ed. (Oxford, 1992). For Foucault's reliance on a masculine paradigm, see Greene Ellen, “Sappho, Foucault, and Women's Erotics,” Arethusa 29 (1996): 1–14. On Foucault's abstraction from social context, see Cohen David and Saller Richard, “Foucault on Sexuality in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” in Goldstein Jan, ed., Foucault and the Writing of History (Cambridge, Mass., 1994), 35–59. On Foucault's shallow use of literary sources, see Goldhill Simon, Foucault's Virginity: Ancient Erotic Fiction and the History of Sexuality (Cambridge, 1995).
105 Richlin, Garden of Priapus, xx.
106 Richlin Amy, “The Ethnographer's Dilemma and the Dream of a Lost Golden Age,” in Rabinowitz Nancy Sorkin and Richlin Amy, eds., Feminist Theory and the Classics (New York, 1993), 276; see also Clark Elizabeth A., “The Lady Vanishes: Dilemmas of a Feminist Historian after the ‘Linguistic Turn,’” Church History 67 (1998): 1–31.
107 Richlin, “The Ethnographer's Dilemma,” 291.
108 Skinner, “Zeus and Leda,” 118.
109 Ibid.: Skinner endorses “undermining the sociobiological doctrine of genetically programmed female behavior.”
110 Lerner Gerda, The Creation of Patriarchy (New York, 1986), 6.
111 Especially Smuts Barbara, “The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy,” Human Nature 6 (1995): 1–32. Vandermassen Griet, “Can Darwinian Feminism Save Female Autonomy and Leadership in Egalitarian Society?” Sex Roles 59 (2008): 482–91; Hrdy Sarah Blaffer, “Raising Darwin's Consciousness: Female Sexuality and the Prehominid Origins of Patriarchy,” Human Nature 8, 1 (1997): 1–49, here 28; Gowaty Patricia, “Sexual Natures: How Feminism Changed Evolutionary Biology,” Signs 28 (2003): 901–21; Buss David and Malamuth Neil, eds., Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives (New York, 1996).
112 See, for example, Skinner, Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture, 8–10. “Essentialism” and “constructionism” are labels that everyone recognizes as problematic, yet because they identify a broad distinction, they refuse to die. Stein Edward, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (Oxford, 1999), 93–116; Stein Edward, “Introduction,” in Stein E., ed., Forms of Desire: Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy (New York, 1990), 4. On the fate of “social construction” in the 1990s, see Halperin David, How to Do the History of Homosexuality (Chicago, 2002), 10–11. Weeks Jeffrey, Against Nature: Essays on History, Sexuality, and Identity (London, 1991); Boswell John, “Categories, Experience, and Sexuality,” in Stein Edward, ed., Forms of Desire: Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy (New York, 1990), 133–73.
113 Taylor Rabun, “Two Pathic Subcultures in Ancient Rome,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 7 (1997): 319–71; Boswell John, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (New York, 1994); Boswell John, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago, 1980); Richlin, “Not Before Homosexuality”; Thorp John, “The Social Construction of Homosexuality,” Phoenix 46 (1992): 54–61.
114 Halperin David, “Forgetting Foucault: Acts, Identities, and the History of Sexuality,” in Nussbaum Martha and Sihvola Juha, eds., The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome (Chicago, 2002), 21–54; Parker, “Myth of the Heterosexual.”
115 See Parker, “Teratogenic Grid,” 60, for a clear formulation.
116 Williams, Roman Homosexuality.
117 Ibid., 193, 232; Halperin, “Forgetting Foucault,” 34, emphasizes the differences. Richlin, “Not Before Homosexuality”; Gleason, Making Men, 396–98.
118 Taylor, “Two Pathic Subcultures”; Richlin, “Not Before Homosexuality.”
119 Skinner, Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture, 9; Parker, “Teratogenic Grid,” 60.
120 Halperin, “Forgetting Foucault,” 26–28; Parker, “Teratogenic Grid,” 60.
121 Boswell, Same-Sex Unions; Boswell, “Categories, Experience, and Sexuality”; Boswell, Christianity; Taylor, “Two Pathic Subcultures”; Richlin, “Not Before Homosexuality.”
122 See Brooten Bernadette J., Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago, 1996), 3, for orientation. Brooten Bernadette J., “Lesbian Historiography before the Name? Response,” GLQ 4 (1998): 623–24. For pointed criticism of much evolutionary speculation on same-sex sexuality, see Roughgarden Joan, Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People (Berkeley, 2004).
123 For example, see Davidson James, Courtesans & Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (London, 1997), 309–13, who poetically conjures and gives agency to “natural appetites.”
124 See Karras, “Active/Passive, Acts/Passions,” 1251; Thorp, “Social Construction,” 56, on the distinction between strong and weak constructionism.
125 Gilhuly Kate, The Feminine Matrix of Sex and Gender in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2009), 10–11; Omitowoju Rosanna, Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2002), 9; Mauritsch Peter, Sexualität im frühen Griechenland: Untersuchungen zu Norm und Abweichung in den homerischen Epen (Vienna, 1992), 7.
126 Brown Peter, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, 20th anniversary ed. (New York, 2008 ), xxxvii.
127 Nelson Randy, An Introduction to Behavioral Endocrinology, 3d ed. (Sunderland, 2005); Ellison Peter and Gray Peter, eds., Endocrinology of Social Relationships (Cambridge, Mass., 2009); Anne Fausto-Sterling explores the potential implications for students of sexuality and gender in Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World (New York, 2012).
128 Wallen Kim and Hassett Janice, “Neuroendocrine Mechanisms Underlying Social Relationships,” in Ellison P. and Gray P., eds., Endocrinology of Social Relationships (Cambridge, Mass., 2009), 32–53.
129 Crews David, “Epigenetics and Its Implications for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology,” Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 29 (2008): 344–57. For an overview, see Francis Richard, Epigenetics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance (New York, 2011).
130 Francis Darlene, Diorio Josie, Liu Dong, and Meaney Michael J., “Nongenomic Transmission across Generations of Maternal Behavior and Stress Responses in the Rat,” Science 286 (1999): 1155–58.
131 Champagne Danielle, et al. , “Maternal Care and Hippocampal Plasticity: Evidence for Experience-Dependent Structural Plasticity, Altered Synaptic Functioning, and Differential Responsiveness to Glucocorticoids and Stress,” Journal of Neuroscience 28 (2008): 6037–45.
132 Nisbett Richard and Cohen Dov, Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South (Boulder, 1996).
133 Richerson Peter and Boyd Robert, Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (Chicago, 2005), 4.
134 Winterhalder Bruce and Smith Eric Alden, “Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-Five,” Evolutionary Anthropology 9 (2000): 51–72.
135 Gangestad Steven and Simpson Jeffry, “An Introduction to The Evolution of Mind: Why We Developed This Book,” in Gangestad S. and Simpson J., eds., The Evolution of Mind: Fundamental Questions and Controversies (New York, 2007), 10–13; Laland and Brown, Sense and Nonsense, 132–39.
136 For example, the papers in Cronk, Chagnon, and Irons, eds., Adaptation and Human Behavior; Irons William and Chagnon Napoleon, eds., Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (North Scituate, Mass., 1979).
137 Nowak Martin, Tarnita Corina, and Wilson Edward O., “The Evolution of Eusociality,” Nature 466 (2010): 1057–62; with numerous responses in Nature 471 (2011).
138 For example, see Bowles Samuel and Gintis Herbert, A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution (Princeton, 2011).
139 Richerson and Boyd, Not by Genes Alone, 199.
140 Ibid., 11.
141 Durham William, Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity (Stanford, 1991); Cavalli-Sforza L. L. and Feldman M., Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach (Princeton, 1981).
142 See especially Sober Elliott and Wilson David Sloan, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (Cambridge, Mass., 1998).
143 Richerson and Boyd, Not by Genes Alone, 151.
144 Ibid., 196–97.
145 Most important are Scheidel's Walter “A Peculiar Institution? Greco-Roman Monogamy in Global Context,” History of the Family 14, 3 (2009): 280–91; and his, “Sex and Empire: A Darwinian Perspective,” in Morris Ian and Scheidel Walter, eds., The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium (Oxford, 2009), 255–324. See also Kanazawa Satoshi and Still Mary, “Why Monogamy?” Social Forces 78 (1999): 25–50; MacDonald Kevin, “The Establishment and Maintenance of Socially Imposed Monogamy in Western Europe,” Politics and the Life Sciences 14 (1995): 3–23; MacDonald Kevin B., “Mechanisms of Sexual Egalitarianism in Western Europe,” Ethology and Sociobiology 11 (1990): 195– 238; Herlihy David, “Biology and History: The Triumph of Monogamy,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 25 (1995): 571–83; Betzig Laura, Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History (New York, 1986). More generally, see Reichard Ulrich and Boesch Christophe, eds., Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans, and Other Mammals (Cambridge, 2003).
146 Chapais, Primeval Kinship, 162.
147 Alexander Richard, et al. , “Sexual Dimorphisms and Breeding Systems in Pinnipeds, Ungulates, Primates, and Humans,” in Irons William and Chagnon Napoleon, eds., Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (North Scituate, Mass., 1979), 402–35.
148 Ibid., 418–19.
149 Low, “Complexities in Human Monogamy,” 165.
150 Quinlan Robert, “Human Pair-Bonds: Evolutionary Functions, Ecological Variation, and Adaptive Development,” Evolutionary Anthropology 17 (2008): 227–38; Low Bobbi, “Ecological and Socio-Cultural Impacts on Mating and Marriage Systems,” in Dunbar Robin and Barrett Louise, eds., Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (Oxford, 2007), 449–62; Gangestad Steven W. and Simpson Jeffry A., “The Evolution of Human Mating: Trade-Offs and Strategic Pluralism,” Behavior and Brain Sciences 23 (2000): 573–87.
151 MacDonald, “Establishment and Maintenance.”
152 Scheidel, “A Peculiar Institution?,” 282–83.
153 Scheidel, “Sex and Empire.”
154 Fortunato Laura and Archetti Marco, “Evolution of Monogamous Marriage by Maximization of Inclusive Fitness,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23 (2010): 149–56. Especially Fortunato Laura, “Reconstructing the History of Marriage Strategies in Indo-European-Speaking Societies: Monogamy and Polygyny,” Human Biology 83 (2011): 87–105.
155 Betzig, Despotism.
156 Henrich Joseph, Boyd Robert, and Richerson Peter, “The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 367 (2012): 657–69.
157 On Islamic polygamy, see Ali Kecia, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam (Cambridge, Mass., 2010).
158 Harper Kyle, “The Family in Late Antiquity,” in Johnson Scott, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2012).
159 Harper Kyle, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass., 2013).
160 Brown, Body and Society, from an enormous bibliography.
161 Smail, On Deep History; Roth Randolph, “Biology and the Deep History of Homicide,” British Journal of Criminology 51 (2011): 535–55; see also the provocative essays in Shryock Andrew and Smail Daniel Lord, eds., Deep History: The Architecture of Past and Present (Berkeley, 2011); and Russell Edmund, Evolutionary History: Uniting History and Biology to Understand Life on Earth (Cambridge, 2011).
162 David Sloan Wilson, “Evolution, Morality, and Human Potential,” Scher Steven and Rauscher Frederick, Evolutionary Psychology: Alternative Approaches (Boston, 2003), 56.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 16th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.