Darwin on ‘primitive’ society: jealousy, marriage, and deep time

TL;DR

• In print, Darwin is skeptical that early humans were promiscuous; jealousy and ape analogies push him toward small groups with one or a few wives “jealously guarded” (Descent, ch. XX: Wikisource).
• He acknowledges matrilineal descent occurs where paternity is uncertain, but treats it as a derivative adaptation of “loose” unions—not an original matriarchal order (Descent, ch. XX: Wikisource).
• Privately, Darwin sketched a sequence (as paraphrased by J. F. McLennan): polygyny/monogamy → polyandry → promiscuity → a recurrence of polygyny/monogamy; but in print he remains cautious (letter summarized by McLennan, 3 Feb 1874: Darwin Online).
• Time depth: he gives no years; instead “a very remote epoch,” noting that by the earliest historical record, races already differed nearly as much as today (Descent, ch. XX: Wikisource).
• Gene–culture feedback: Darwin explicitly says language “reacted on the brain and produced an inherited effect,” and moral sentiments spread via instruction and public opinion—proto gene–culture coevolution (Descent, ch. XXI & ch. IV: ch. XXI; ch. IV).
• On Greeks: he uses classical sources (e.g., Diodorus; Venus Erycina) for ethnographic/sexual-selection points and for moral contrast (Romans), not to claim a Greek vestige of “primordial matriarchy” (Descent, ch. XIX–XX & ch. IV: ch. XIX; ch. XX; ch. IV).

“A great stride in the development of the intellect will have followed, as soon as the half‑art and half‑instinct of language came into use; for the continued use of language will have reacted on the brain and produced an inherited effect; and this again will have reacted on the improvement of language.”
— Darwin, Descent (1871), ch. XXI (Wikisource)

What, exactly, was Darwin’s model?#

Darwin’s on-the-page view starts from an ape-analogy plus male jealousy. Looking “far enough back,” he writes, “the most probable view is that [man] aboriginally lived in small communities, each with a single wife, or if powerful with several, whom he jealously guarded against all other men.” (Descent, ch. XX: Wikisource). He adds that while “communal marriages” may have occurred, “more evidence is requisite” before we credit true promiscuity.

He’s explicit about the logic: jealousy is pervasive in mammals; several primates are monogamous, others polygynous; “promiscuous intercourse in a state of nature is extremely improbable.” (ch. XX: Wikisource).

Communal marriage vs. matriliny (and how Darwin links them)#

Darwin engages the Victorian debate (Lubbock, McLennan, Morgan). He uses “communal marriage” (Lubbock’s term) but says the core evidence is kinship terminology implying weak paternity certainty; from that, “in many cases the lines of descent are traced through the mother alone.” This is recognizably matriliny, but for Darwin it’s an effect of loosened unions—not a primeval Mutterrecht. (ch. XX: Wikisource).

• Direct quote: “The indirect evidence in favour of the former prevalence of communal marriages is strong… [but] more evidence is requisite” (and he still doubts absolute promiscuity). (ch. XX: Wikisource).

The private sketch (Darwin → McLennan)#

Off-page, Darwin floated a sequence to McLennan: (1) polygyny/monogamy → (2) polyandry → (3) promiscuity → (4) return to polygyny/monogamy, with jealousy, infanticide, and property norms as drivers (McLennan to Darwin, 3 Feb 1874 summarizing “your scheme”: Darwin Online). Treat this as exploratory correspondence; in Descent he stays tentative.

Did he give any sense of time?#

Short answer: no calendar dates. Darwin leans on phrases like “a very remote epoch” and argues that by the earliest historical period the visible differences among human groups were already large—so many key changes must predate written history:

• “Hence we may infer that the races of men were differentiated… at a very remote epoch… at the most ancient period of which we have any record, the races of man had already come to differ nearly or quite as much as at the present day.” (Descent, ch. XX: Wikisource).

He also prefaces Descent by citing the “high antiquity of man” established archaeologically “beginning with Boucher de Perthes,” and repeatedly footnotes Sir John Lubbock’s syntheses (Pre‑Historic Times, 2nd ed. 1869; Origin of Civilisation, 1870) for prehistory. (Descent, vol. 1 intro: Darwin Online; see also chs. II–V notes to Lubbock.)

Minimal timeline (Darwin’s own markers)#

Bottom line: for Darwin it’s thousands++ of years, but he doesn’t quantify; he defers to contemporary prehistory syntheses (Lubbock) for the deep-time scaffolding.

Was this gene–culture interaction?#

Very much in spirit, yes (though he uses 19th‑c. mechanisms):

1. Language ↔ brain feedback (heritable): “the continued use of language will have reacted on the brain and produced an inherited effect… and this again on the improvement of language.” (Descent, ch. XXI: Wikisource — ch. XXI; ch. IV echoes the “half‑art, half‑instinct” formula.)

2. Tribal selection for prosocial traits: “When two tribes of primeval man… came into competition… the tribe with more courageous, sympathetic, and faithful members… would succeed best and conquer the other.” That’s group‑structured selection plus cultural coordination (discipline, obedience). (Descent, ch. V: Darwin Online — vol. 1).

3. Cultural transmission of morals: “Sympathy beyond the confines of man… spreads through instruction and example to the young, and becomes incorporated in public opinion.” (Descent, ch. IV: Wikisource — ch. IV.

He also admits inheritance of habit/use as a (secondary) mechanism—Lamarckish by modern lights (Descent, ch. IV: “increased use and disuse of parts”). This is Darwin doing culture→biology feedback with 1871 tools. (Darwin Online — vol. 1). ¹

What about the Greeks (and other “vestiges”)?#

Darwin mines classical authors, but not to allege a Greek survival of primordial matriarchy. He uses them to:

• illustrate sexual selection claims (e.g., Venus Erycina priestesses and aesthetic selection), and
• contrast moral sentiment (Romans lacking humanity toward animals).

See Descent ch. XX (on beauty and selection; the Sicily/Greece anecdote via Quatrefages) and ch. IV on “sympathy beyond the confines of man,” with the dig at Roman gladiatorial exhibitions. Links: ch. XX; ch. IV.

So: Bachofen’s Mutterrecht is not Darwin’s starting point. Darwin treats matriliny as a contingent kinship solution under paternity uncertainty, not the primordial constitution of human society. (Descent, ch. XX: Wikisource).

Quick comparison table#

(Table offered for orientation; the present post sticks to Darwin’s text.) ¹

FAQ#

Q1. Did Darwin think “primordial matriarchy” was real?
A. No. He recognized matrilineal descent patterns but theorized them as consequences of loose unions and uncertain paternity, not original mother‑rule. See Descent ch. XX: Wikisource.

Q2. Did he put dates on any of this?
A. He avoided numbers; instead “very remote epoch,” with races already distinct by the “most ancient period” of written history—so prehistoric in his framing. Descent ch. XX: Wikisource.

Q3. Is his view compatible with gene–culture coevolution?
A. Functionally yes. He posits cultural practices (language, norms) that change brains (via inheritance of habit) and group selection among tribes, plus diffusion via instruction/public opinion. Descent ch. XXI, ch. V, ch. IV. ch. XXI; Darwin Online; ch. IV.

Q4. Where does polyandry fit for Darwin?
A. He cites cases (Tibet/Toda, etc.) as ethnographic variants; in the 2nd ed. he even says early semi‑humans would not have practised polyandry (jealousy constraint). 1874 ed., ch. II: YorkU PsychClassics.

Footnotes#

Sources#

1. Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray, 1871. Vol. 1 text: Darwin Online — vol. 1 ; Vol. 2 text (chapters individually at Wikisource): Wikisource — index. Key chapters quoted: ch. IV ; ch. V (tribal selection) Darwin Online — vol. 1 ; ch. XIX ; ch. XX ; ch. XXI. ¹
2. Darwin (1874, 2nd ed.). Descent, ch. II (on early semi-human progenitors, jealousy, polyandry): https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Darwin/Descent/descent2.htm. ²
3. McLennan → Darwin (3 Feb 1874), in The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online (ed. van Wyhe): summary of Darwin’s private “scheme” of marriage systems. https://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/Ancillary/1897_Mclennan-Darwin_A2966.html.
4. Lubbock, John. Pre-historic Times, 2nd ed. (1869). Catalog entry with OA copies: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008676853 ; see also The Origin of Civilisation (1870) OA PDF: https://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1870_Lubbock_primitive_CUL-DAR.LIB.377.pdf.
5. Diodorus Siculus (via Darwin’s citations) and Quatrefages references as discussed in Descent chs. XIX–XX; for the moral contrast, see Darwin on Roman spectacles in ch. IV: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man_(Darwin/Chapter_IV.