The ways of the ancestors

The British Psychology Society research blog is reporting on an ace little piece of research about the psychological benefits of thinking about your ancestors, which I’m going to henceforth assume you’ve read. Off you go. (The original paper, referenced at the bottom, is short and also well worth reading if you have an institution log-in.) One of the reasons I liked it is because I have consciously used this “mechanism” myself – usually, it must be said, when situations of physical bravery are required, because I’m such an utter physical coward (teeth! falling over on the ice! hnnnnnnng!), and the study is concentrating on improved intellectual expectations and performance.  But still.

It’s just a preliminary study. I think there could be some two-way trade here with historically and archaeologically attested instances of ancestor worship. That is, future findings could enlarge our understanding of past societies as well as our own. And also, attested cases of historical ancestor worship could suggest directions for the follow-up research, which will attempt to isolate underlying “processes of social identity, family cohesion, self-regulation or norm activation elicited by increased ancestor salience.”

Rome immediately springs to mind as a culture engaged in formal – and quite explicitly performance-related – ancestor worship. The study’s findings of the increased perception of control and the improved promotion orientation (inclination to tackle problems) associated with ancestor salience are certainly quite handy concepts to bring to Roman history. I’m particularly struck by the finding that ancestor salience is just as marked when a subject considers fifteenth-century ancestors as when he or she considers immediate or living forbears. This rules out the possibility that it’s really the fact that individuals are relatively close in time or even known to one that produces the boost to confidence and performance. It made me think of the processions of ancestor masks, stretching into the past, that were carried at Roman funerals even under the Republic – the more venerable, the better.

We tend, I suppose, to conceive of these displays in the received terms of modern aristocracies – “blue blood”, class, noble birth and so on. But it makes perfect sense if these are the outward justifications and defences for what is essentially a beneficial psychological practice – to which everyone, apparently, has access, whether or not they knew who their ancestors actually were. The study suggests that part of the mechanism of ancestor salience is to “increase the cognitive accessibility of things [the study’s subjects] learned from [their ancestors] via intergenerational socialization processes” (p2). If this really is how the mechanism works, then a longer line of death masks at a Roman funeral really would be  better – more generations, more useful knowledge.

Mind you, I think the first experiment in the study assumes one of these received terms itself. In measuring the impact of thinking about 15th century ancestors, it instructed subjects as follows (from the paper, p2):

Please imagine your ancestors in the 15th century, that is, your great-great-great-great-great-. . . grandparents. Please imagine what they did at that time, how they lived, what their profession was and how many children they had, etc. Please also imagine what your ancestors from that time would tell you today, if you were still able to meet them.

This is a pre-circumscribed thought experiment because it encourages subjects to believe that they have only one line of ancestors – a “family-sized” line, simplified exactly as aristocracies and patronymic/matronymic systems in general do, and exactly as the Romans were doing with their successive line of masks. Of course, we all have several millions of direct ancestors living in the fifteenth century even allowing for the many duplicates (reckoning on four generations per century. Anyone know the precise way of calculating the number of duplicates? I”m sure there must be one).

It would be difficult to design an experiment to tease out why this simplification down to a single “line” is apparently necessary to ancestor salience (if it is). Is it just because a family-sized unit, or succession of them, can be more comfortably accommodated by our social conditioning? Or is it something more complex and specific to do with the linear nature of an ancestral line itself. Consider this part of the researchers’ hypothesis:

when we think about [our ancestors], we are reminded that humans who are genetically similar to us can successfully overcome a multitude of problems and adversities. In other words, because we are the successors of our ancestors and thus their genetic heritage, we tend to attribute successful problem-solving of our ancestors to our own problem-solving abilities

In other words, survival is being invoked, and by implication survival of the fittest, and that leads one to conceive of ancestry in terms of series of refinements leading down to a “perfect” result in the present (well, we’re here, aren’t we?) Half the population of England died of plague in 1348-9; one big tick against “some natural plague resistance” for the rest – and that “rest” is us. One of the many occasions on which we’ve been collectively winnowed for chaff, and disease resistance is just the most obvious example. Success of the “bloodline” is what I think the researchers are really getting at here.

Separating out the impact of notional lines of ancestry from familial warmth is one nudge Rome’s example could provide to future research. Another is the double-edged sword effect of formal ancestor worship – sure, ancestors may strengthen a sense of confidence and entitlement, but they can also provide an explicit set of targets to meet, and be used as a stick with which to beat errant descendents. So is this ancestral equivalent of parental expectation also operating in modern subjects? Or is it unique to Rome and other societies whose elites consciously emulate ancestors’ activities? Perhaps it cuts both ways, and we seek or imagine parallels between our own lives and ancestral lives – I remember being pleased to discover signs that some of my Mortimer/ore ancestors were nonconformists and part of a fairly radicalised trade (brushmaking, would you believe. Stiff with early radicalism, apparently). I wonder what attributes the study’s subjects imputed to their imagined 15th century ancestors.

One last thing about Rome as compared to the present; everyone alive today in the western world could probably say with confidence that they have it easier than most of their ancestors. Technological and scientific progress virtually guarantee it. So there’s going to be an innate widespread acceptance of the notion that our ancestors survived greater difficulties than we’ll ever have to face (five minutes thinking about the First World War and suddenly that exam or dental appointment doesn’t look so bad).

That isn’t the case with Rome, is it. Of course, plenty of similar mood music seems to surround how Romans thought about ancestors – they were simpler, cleaner, more virtuous, “good honest Romans”, and so on, and this is why they overcame various odds – but their life chances were in many respects the same as those of the descendents invoking them. Indeed, that is what made Roman ancestors such effective weapons of chastisement. We don’t have the same relationship of equals with our ancestors – our life chances are unimaginably better than theirs were. It’s possible that one of the factors future research needs to isolate is whether we’re really being reminded of our ancestors’ “problem-solving abilities” and capacity to overcome odds, or whether they simply cause us to reflect on our own technological and economic good fortune. My First World War/dentist example points that up rather nicely.

So we would have to take care in applying the lessons of modern psychological research in history or archaeology. An interesting way to use this research direction, it  strikes me, would be to identify elements of historical ancestor worship that fit modern findings – and then look at what is left inexplicable. Whatever that is, it may constitute the essence of a relationship that ancient societies had with their ancestors that we can no longer access.


  1. “reckoning on four generations per century. Anyone know the precise way of calculating the number of duplicates? I”m sure there must be one”

    According to this website there is a simple formula for calculating the number of parental relations a given number of generations back in time.

    So five centuries ago it would have been 4×5 = 20 generations.

    NPR = 2^20 = 1,048,576. So that means there were 1,048,576 people who I am directly descended from living 500 years ago.

    1. Ah, I was wondering if there was a way of calculating the likely average number of duplicates within those. The population of 15th C England was I think no more than 3ish million, and the pops of Wales/Scotland/Ireland were tiny. So even if some of your ancestry is from elsewhere, it’s quite likely that there are duplicate pairs within your 1.048m notional “ancestors”, especially given a reduced level of mobility.

      I’ve certainly seen eighteenth-century intermarriage happen, and among people who must have known they were related. So immediately that’s a hefty chunk of your 1.048m ancestors of c1500 doubled-up.

      1. Cool, so via the Wikipedia article on pedigree collapse we have the straight dope article:

        “Demographer Kenneth Wachtel estimates that the typical English child born in 1947 would have had around 60,000 theoretical ancestors at the time of the discovery of America. Of this number, 95 percent would have been different individuals and 5 percent duplicates. (Sounds like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but you know what I mean.) Twenty generations back the kid would have 600,000 ancestors, one-third of which would be duplicates. At the time of the Black Death, he’d have had 3.5 million — 30 percent real, 70 percent duplicates. The maximum number of “real” ancestors occurs around 1200 AD — 2 million, some 80 percent of the population of England.”


    The potential figures for a young adult of today are set out below, but the actual will be less. At any stage an intermarriage within a family group will reduce the total for the earlier generations. The effect will be to slow the rate of increase, but only in enclosed or isolated population groups will there be any substantial reduction. The history of human interaction, whether in peace or war, suggests that there are few groups that maintain these limitations over a long period. Going back in time there is an increasing gap between dating of the lives of the oldest and youngest in each generation, this can amount to up to 250 years by the 15th Century. The difference will increase in the preceding generations. Consequently, the Event Date item should be taken as only a very approximate guide.

    The population of Britain and Ireland was estimated at about three to four million at the time of King Henry VIII, and had grown slowly but with sharp variations for climatic and disease reasons e.g. The Black Death of the 14th Century, from a figure of about two million at the time of the Norman Conquest. So there is a time at which the number of an individual’s female forebears is greater than the number of females of child bearing age in that population. The implications are that at least by Generation 10, and probably before, there will be a spread of social class, geographical location, religion, and area of family origin. By Generation 23 the great majority of persons of largely British and Irish origin will have a common blood ancestry as well as having ancestry from elsewhere in Europe and the World.

    Generation Potential Total Event Date
    Reduce For Actual

    Parents (1) 2 Moon Landings
    Grandparents (2) 4 World War Two Begins
    Great Grandparents (3) 8 World War One Begins
    4 16 Football League founded
    5 32 Suez Canal Opened
    6 64 William Nott defeats Afghans
    7 128 Battle of Waterloo
    8 256 French Revolting
    9 512 Watt patents steam engine
    10 1,024 Pompeii rediscovered
    11 2,048 South Sea Company founded
    12 4,096 Newton’s “Principia” published
    13 8,192 The Post Office established
    14 16,384 Virginia becomes Crown Colony
    15 32,768 Shakespeare is busy
    16 65,536 Queen Mary I burns John Rogers
    17 131,072 King Henry VIII is busy
    18 262,144 Columbus Lands in Wrong Place
    19 524,288 Nicolo Machiavelli born
    20 1,048,576 Eton College established
    21 2,097,152 William Nott at Battle of Agincourt
    22 4,194,304 Wat Tyler’s Peasant Rising
    23 8,388,608 The Black Death appears
    24 16,777,216 King Edward III is busy
    25 33,554,432 Coals first dug at Newcastle

    By Generations 20 to 22 the rate of increase in Actual numbers will reduce, and the curve on the graph flattens. Before then the total world population varied in size. In the ancient world epidemics, climatic variations, and geo-physical events, e.g. those of 1815, circa 530-540 AD and circa 1613 BC, as well as human conflict resulted in both general and localised reductions in population. There will be a time when the smaller world population in the preceding generations resulted in personal ancestry merging into the whole of mankind.

  3. Look here, have you stopped blogging? Why so, if so? If not, where is 2012? Your ma and I were at school together and I see a distinct genetic inheritance here…. keep it up, as I say to my own progeniture who also has a regrettably intermittent presence on WordPress. Greetings, FK.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s