16 Oct '12 16:26>1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe naturalistic hypothesis I propose for consideration is that when the tribes that had the precursor of Genesis in their mythology came to explain the origin of people physically unlike themselves in some basic way, an explanation that fit rather neatly into the "mark of Cain" myth was developed. There could be a chicken/egg question -- it would be hard to pin down whether the mark of Cain myth came about before, or because of, the observation that there were peoples whose different appearance needed explanation.
I am not particularly familiar with 'the mark of Cain'. People in this thread seem to be implying that it was an inherited trait (from Cain onwards). Is this the case? Or are they speculating?
If the above is accurate, then I would say the trait called the mark of Cain was heritable (genetic), such as skin color and associated morphological features, otherwise the mark of Cain myth would not have been developed -- the trait would be like the occasional albino or epileptic or other infrequent biological deviation, which came to be treated as possessions or the like.
Certainly white Protestants in the US are known to have accepted the skin color association, helping justify exploitation, so this explanation "worked for them" and it might have worked for ancient tribes, too.