Walter Scheidel
Background
‘Incest’, in the sense of proscribed and abhorred sexual behaviour, is a cultural construct; its boundaries vary according to definitions that are specific to individual cultures (e.g., Willner 1983). However, most cultures agree on the core of what constitutes incest: sexual relations within the nuclear family. This perception corresponds to the biological fact that on average, parents and children on the one hand and brothers and sisters on the other share fifty per cent of their genes by common descent, and are therefore much more closely related than other potential mates. Over the last century, the ubiquity of the incest taboo for the nuclear family and resultant avoidance behaviour have been explained in several different and sometimes conflicting ways. Freudian theory has it that although by nature, children harbour incestuous longings, in the absence of legitimate expression these desires are suppressed into the subconscious, triggering abhorrence in adult life; the ‘family-socialization theory’ explains the incest taboo in terms of its functions in maintaining the social structure of the human family and in facilitating the process of socialization (e.g., Malinowski, Murdock, Parsons); anthropologists have argued that the need of families to exchange wives and resources in order to forge alliances militates against incestuous unions (e.g., Tylor, White, Lévi-Strauss); the ‘demographic theory’ predicts that under high mortality, siblings were compelled to find mates outside their own families. Critiques of existing views and further alternative theories continue to be published (e.g., Ember 1983; Roscoe 1994). According to the ‘indifference theory’, early childhood association results in sexual indifference and aversion between siblings and between parents and offspring; conversely, incestuous behaviour is often caused by the lack or insufficient intensity of early contacts (first propounded by Westermarck 1891; see now Shepher 1983 and Wolf 1995 for the fullest expositions). As a consequence, sexually mature family members of one sex migrate, i.e., marry, outside the nuclear family. Animal dispersal can be explained in the same fashion (e.g., Pusey 1990). From a Darwinian perspective, natural selection favoured the evolution of this instinctive preference in the first instance because of the negative genetic effects of close inbreeding, and also because of the evolutionary benefits of genetic variation (e.g., van den Berghe 1983; Thornhill, ed. 1993). By way of a gene-culture co-evolutionary process, cultural precepts tend to reinforce this behavioural pattern (Durham 1991). In spite of some criticism (Leavitt 1990), this model seems more plausible than its competitors, especially since the dangers of close inbreeding have now been amply documented and analysed with respect to both human and animal populations (e.g., Bittles & Neel 1994; Ralls, Ballou & Templeton 1988).
In reality, of course, tensions between this (supposedly innate) principle and extraneous exigencies impel compromises between inbreeding and outbreeding. With certain types of inbreeding, such as marriage of first cousins or of uncles and nieces, moderate health losses may be offset by social and economic gains (eg., Khlat 1989; Reddy 1993). Even in societies that condone close-kin unions at these levels, however, the taboo against marital relations within the nuclear family sex is usually upheld (Thornhill 1991; Bonte, ed. 1994), in keeping with the fact that the latter cause much greater damage to offspring than less close unions (esp. Seemanová 1971). This has led some distinguished researchers to declare this type of incest taboo a universal cultural constant (Murdock 1949) or to assume that it lay at the heart of human social evolution and civilization (Levi-Strauss 1969).
Evidence
The spread and force of incest avoidance make cases of socially and legally condoned marital and/or sexual relations within the nuclear family all the more intriguing. Paradoxically, they have been given short shrift in global surveys of incest (Fox 1980; Arens 1983; Héritier 1994). In a number of pre-modern societies, relations of this kind were the exclusive prerogative of kings and remained forbidden to commoners. ‘Royal incest’ (Bixler 1982), which serves to emphasize the supernatural qualities of the rulers (strongly associated with mythological traditions of divine incest) and insulates ruling families against intrusions, can be found around the globe, from the Pharaohs and Ptolemies of ancient Egypt (e.g., Cerny 1954; Carney 1987) and ancient Near Eastern rulers (e.g., Elam, Persia, Phoenicia, etc.) (Kornemann 1923) to kings in Central Africa (de Heusch 1958), the Inca of Peru and the Mixtec aristocracy of Mexico (Christensen 1998), and the chiefs of pre-contact Hawaii (Davenport 1994). In other cases, mostly in tribal societies, incestuous behaviour could be imagined to confer magical powers. By contrast, habitual nuclear-family incest outside ruling families was exceedingly rare. The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD (Thierfelder 1960; Sidler 1971; Hopkins 1980; Shaw 1992; Scheidel 1996a). At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters (Bagnall and Frier 1994). The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family. At that level, this custom must have assumed the function of a cultural norm (Scheidel 1995). Mazdaean (‘Zoroastrian’) religious doctrine, originating from Iran, not only legitimized but encouraged and extolled sexual relations between parents and children and between siblings. The very substantial corpus of pertinent evidence combines prescriptive Zoroastrian texts (mostly from the early Middle Ages) and descriptive accounts by outsiders, ranging from the 5th century BC to the Middle Ages and from western Europe to Tibet and China (West 1882; Spooner 1966; Sidler 1971; Bucci 1978; Frye 1985; Herrenschmidt 1994; Mitterauer 1994; Frandsen 2009). Half-sibling unions are also attested for a number of other societies but have so far eluded systematic investigation (Modrzejewski 1964; Goggin & Sturtevant 1964).
Objectives
The phenomenon of marriage within the nuclear family has never received comprehensive treatment. Studies of sibling marriage in Roman Egypt have failed to provide a compelling explanation of this custom (Hopkins 1980; Shaw 1992) and have usually considered this subject in separation from the cross-cultural record. Moreover, the (biologically) incestuous nature of Roman Egyptian sibling marriage has recently been called into question (Hübner 2007, with Remijsen and Clarysse 2008). This alone shows the need for comprehensive reconsideration. The evidence of Zoroastrian incest has never even been collected in an exhaustive manner, let alone properly analysed (Sidler 1971 and now Frandsen 2009 are the best efforts). Comparative evaluations – between Egypt and Iran, between incest among commoners and among kings, or between incest and less extreme forms of endogamy – simply do not exist. It is my aim to provide the first book-length study of all aspects of this subject. It will contain a cross-cultural, comparative assessment of ‘royal incest’ across the world, with due attention to religious and mythological parallels. Although folk traditions of incestuous behaviour have repeatedly been surveyed (most recently by Johnson & Price-Williams 1996), I am not aware of a complete collection of the incest motif in mythological contexts. In a second step, the Zoroastrian evidence will be gathered and discussed in full detail. My collection of pertinent evidence – in its present scope the first of its kind – covers some fifty pages. I will then return to Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, building on my own previous research which, again for the first time, put this evidence into an interdisciplinary perspective by establishing levels of inbreeding and likely levels of inbreeding defects (Scheidel 1995, 1996a,b, 1997). Existing research on cousin marriage and similar customs (Holy 1989; Khlat 1989; Reddy 1993; cf. in general Goody 1990) offers interpretations that mutatis mutandis may also be applied to incest and thus further our understanding of this phenomenon. Furthermore, my work will draw on scientific research on the biological and psychological dimensions of close inbreeding in an attempt to embed the historical record within a broader, multidisciplinary framework.
Relevance
Albeit primarily designed as an historical study, my project does not address an exotic and marginal phenomenon. As indicated above, nuclear-family incest has played a crucial rôle in influential theories of human behaviour and development throughout this century, such as psychoanalysis, structuralism, and sociobiology. Incest and its avoidance occupy prominent positions in competing approaches to the understanding of human social behaviour, for instance in nature/nurture debates. As a consequence, the phenomenon of historical incest is of interest to scholars in a wide range of different disciplines. This project offers a rare opportunity to advertise ancient history to a wider academic audience, and to meet the twofold objective of contributing to historical scholarship and of bridging institutional boundaries between different disciplines.
References
Arens, W. (1986) The original sin: incest and its meaning. New York
Bagnall, R. S. & Frier, B. W. (1994) The demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge
Bittles, A. H. & Neel, J. V. (1994) ‘The costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variations at the DNA level’, Nature Genetics 8: 117-121
Bixler, R. H. (1982) ‘Sibling incest in the royal families of Egypt, Peru, and Hawaii’, Journal of Sex Research 18: 264-281
Bonte, P., ed. (1994) Epouser au plus proche: inceste, prohibitions et stratégies matrimoniales autour de la Méditerranée. Paris
Bucci, O. (1978) ‘Il matrimonio fra consanguinei (khvetukdas) nella tradizione giuridica delle genti iraniche’, Apollinaris 51: 291-319
Carney, E. D. (1987) ‘The reappearance of royal sibling marriage in Ptolemaic Egypt’, La Parola del Passato 237: 420-39
Cerny, J. (1954) ‘Consanguineous marriage in pharaonic Egypt’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 40: 23-29
Christiansen, A. F. (1998) ‘Ethnoarchaeological evidence for inbreeding among the pre-Hispanic Mixtec royal caste’, Human Biology 70: 563-577
Davenport, W. H. (1994) Pi’o: an enquiry into the marriage of brothers and sisters and other close relatives in Old Hawai’i. Lanham
de Heusch, L. (1958) Essais sur le symbolisme de l’inceste royal en Afrique. Brussels
Durham, W. H. (1991) Coevolution: genes, culture, and human diversity. Stanford
Ember, M. (1983) ‘On the origin and extension of the incest taboo’, in M. & C. R. Ember, eds., Marriage, family, and kinship: comparative studies of social organization. n.p.: 65-108
Fox, R. (1980) The red lamp of incest. London
Frandsen, P. J. (2009) Incestuous and close-kin marriage in ancient Egypt and Persia: an examination of the evidence. Copenhagen
Frye, R. N. (1985) ‘Zoroastrian incest’, in Orientalia I. Tucci memoriae dicata. Rome: 445-455
Goggin, J. M. & Sturtevant, W. C. (1964) ‘The Calusa: a stratified, nonagricultural society (with notes on sibling marriage)’, in W. H. Goodenough, ed., Explorations in cultural anthropology. New York: 179-219
Goody, J. (1990) The oriental, the ancient and the primitive: systems of marriage and the family in pre-industrial societies of Eurasia. Cambridge
Héritier, F. (1994) Les deux soeurs et leur mère: anthropologie de l’inceste. Paris
Herrenschmidt, C. (1994) ‘Le xwetodas ou mariage ‘incestueux’ en Iran ancien’, in Bonte, ed. 1994: 113-125
Holy, L. (1989) Kinship, honour and solidarity: cousin marriage in the Middle East. Manchester
Hopkins, K. (1980) ‘Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 22: 303-354
Hübner, S. R. (2007) ‘“Brother-sister marriage” in Roman Egypt: a curiosity of mankind or a widespread family strategy?’, Journal of Roman Studies 97: 21-49
Johnson, A. W. & Price-Williams, D. (1996) Oedipus ubiquitous: the family complex in world folk literature. Stanford
Khlat, M. (1989) Les mariages consanguines à Beyrouth: traditions matrimoniales et santé publique. Paris
Kornemann, E. (1923) ‘Die Geschwisterehe im Altertum’, Mitteilungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 24: 17-45
Leavitt, G. C. (1990) ‘Sociobiological explanations of incest avoidance: a critical claim of evidential claims’, American Anthropologist 92: 971-993
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969) The elementary structures of kinship. London
Mitterauer, M. (1994) ‘The customs of the Magians: the problem of incest in historical societies’, in Porter, R. & Teich, M., eds., Sexual knowledge, sexual science: the history of attitudes to sexuality. Cambridge: 231-250
Modrzejewski, J. (1964) ‘Die Geschwisterehe in der hellenistischen Praxis und nach römischem Recht’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Rom. Abt. 81: 52-82
Murdock, G. P. (1949) Social structure. New York
Pusey, A. E. (1990) ‘Mechanisms of inbreeding avoidance in nonhuman primates’, in Feierman, J. R., ed., Pedophilia: biosocial dimensions. New York: 201-220
Ralls, K., Ballou, J. D. & Templeton, A. (1988) ‘Estimates of lethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in mammals’, Conservation Biology 2: 185-193
Reddy, P. G. (1993) Marriage practices in South India: social and biological aspects of consanguineous unions. Madras
Remijsen, S. and Clarysse, W. (2008) ‘Incest or adoption? Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt revisited’, Journal of Roman Studies 98: 53-61
Roscoe, P. B. (1994) ‘Amity and aggression: a symbolic theory of incest’, Man 29: 49-76
Scheidel, W. (1995) ‘Incest revisited: three notes on the demography of sibling marriage in Roman Egypt’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 32: 143-155
Scheidel, W. (1996a) Measuring sex, age and death in the Roman empire: explorations in ancient demography. Ann Arbor
Scheidel, W. (1996b) ‘Brother-sister and parent child marriage outside royal families in ancient Egypt and Iran: a challenge to the sociobiological view of incest avoidance?’, Ethology and Sociobiology 17: 319-340
Scheidel, W. (1997) ‘Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt’, Journal of Biosocial Science 29: 361-371
Scheidel, W. (2004) ‘Ancient Egyptian sibling marriage and the Westermarck effect’, in Wolf, A. P. & Durham, W. H., eds., Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo. Stanford: 93-108
Seemanová, E. (1971) ‘A study of children of incestuous matings’, Human Heredity 21: 108-128
Shaw, B. D. (1992) ‘Explaining incest: brother-sister marriage in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, Man 27: 267-299
Shepher, J. (1983) Incest: a biosocial view. New York
Sidler, N. (1971) Zur Universalität des Inzesttabu: eine kritische Untersuchung der These und der Einwände. Stuttgart
Spooner, B. (1966) ‘Iranian kinship and marriage’, Iran 4: 51-59
Thierfelder, H. (1960) Die Geschwisterehe im hellenistisch-römischen Ägypten. Münster
Thornhill, N. W. (1991) ‘An evolutionary analysis of rules regulating human inbreeding and marriage’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 247-293
Thornhill, N. W., ed. (1993) The natural history of inbreeding and outbreeding: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Chicago
van den Berghe, P. L. (1983) ‘Human inbreeding avoidance: culture in nature’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6: 91-123
West, E. W. (1882) ‘The meaning of khvetuk-das or khvetudad’, in Pahlavi texts II. Oxford: 389-430
Westermarck, E. (1891) The history of human marriage (5th ed. 1921). London
Willner, D. (1983) ‘Definition and violation: incest and the incest taboos’, Man 18: 134-159
Wolf, A. P. (1995) Sexual attraction and childhood association: a Chinese brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford
BROTHER-SISTER AND PARENT-CHILD MARRIAGE IN PRE-MODERN SOCIETIES
10:32 PM | BY ZeroDivide
EDIT
Concubin
2:37 PM | BY ZeroDivide
EDIT
| Relationships |
|---|
Concubinage is an interpersonal relationship in which a person engages in an ongoing sexual relationship with another person to whom they are not or cannot be married. The inability to marry may be due to a multiplicity of factors, such as differences in social rank status, an extant marriage, religious prohibitions, professional ones (for example Roman soldiers) or a lack of recognition by appropriate authorities. The woman in such a relationship is referred to as a concubine. Historically, concubinage was frequently voluntary by the woman or her family, as it provided a measure of economic security for the woman involved.
While long-term sexual relationships instead of marriage have become increasingly common in the Western world over the last few decades, these are generally not termed concubinage.
Contents
[hide]Ancient Greece[edit]
In Ancient Greece, the practice of keeping a slave concubine (Greek pallakis) was little recorded but appears throughout Athenian history. The law prescribed that a man could kill another man caught attempting a relationship with his concubine for the production of free children, which suggests that a concubine's children were not granted citizenship.[1] While references to the sexual exploitation of maidservants appear in literature, it was considered disgraceful for a man to keep such women under the same roof as his wife.[2] Some interpretations of hetaera have held they were concubines when one had a permanent relationship with a single man.[3]
Ancient Roman concubinae and concubini[edit]
For more details on this topic, see Marriage in ancient Rome § Concubinage.
Concubinage was an institution practiced in ancient Rome that allowed a man to enter into an informal but recognized relationship with a woman (concubina, plural concubinae) who was not his wife, most often a woman whose lower social status was an obstacle to marriage. Concubinage was "tolerated to the degree that it did not threaten the religious and legal integrity of the family".[4] It was not considered derogatory to be called aconcubina, as the title was often inscribed on tombstones.[5]
A concubinus was a young male slave sexually exploited by his master as a sexual partner. See homosexuality in ancient Rome. The sexual abuse of a slave boy by an adult abuser was permitted. These relations, however, were expected to play a secondary role to marriage, within which institution an adult male demonstrated his masculine authority as head of the household (paterfamilias). In one of his epithalamiums, Catullus (fl. mid-1st century BC) assumes that the young bridegroom has a concubinus who considers himself elevated above the other slaves, but who will be set aside as his master turns his attention to marriage and family life.[6]
In the Bible[edit]
Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives.[7]
The concubine may not have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. In the Levitical rules on sexual relations, the Hebrew word that is commonly translated as "wife" is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". However, on at least one other occasion the term is used to refer to a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaiden of Jacob's wife.[8] In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved.[9][10] Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, wives often gave their maids to their husbands if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, and Rachel and Bilhah. The children of the concubine often had equal rights with those of the wife;[7] for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine.[11] Later biblical figures such as Gideon, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings say that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.[12]
The account of the unnamed Levite [13][14] shows that the taking of concubines was not the exclusive preserve of Kings or patriarchs in Israel during the time of the Judges and that the rape of a concubine was completely unacceptable to the Israelite nation and led to a civil war. In the story, the Levite appears to be an ordinary member of the tribe dedicated to the worship of God, who was undoubtedly dishonoured both by the unfaithfulness of his concubine and her abandonment of him. However, after four months, he decides to follow her back to her family home to persuade her to return to him. Her father seeks to delay his return and he does not leave early enough to make the return journey in a single day. The hospitality he is offered at Gibeah, the way in which his host's daughter is offered to the townsmen and the circumstances of his concubine's death at their hands describe a lawless time where visitors are both welcomed and threatened in equal measure. The most disturbing aspect of this account is that both the Levite and his (male) host seek to protect themselves by offering their womenfolk to their aggressors for sex, in exchange for their own safety. The Levite acts in a way that indicates that he believes that the multiple rape of his unfaithful concubine is preferable to the violation of the virginity of his host's daughter or a sexual assault on his own person. In the morning, the Levite appears to be quite indifferent to the condition of his concubine and expects her to resume the journey but she is dead. He dismembers her body and distributes her (body parts) throughout the nation of Israel as a terrible message. This outrages and revolts the Israelite tribesmen who then wreak total retribution on the men of Gibeah and the surrounding tribe of Benjamin when they support them, killing them without mercy and burning all their towns. The inhabitants of (the town of) Jabesh Gilead are then slaughtered as a punishment for not joining the eleven tribes in their war against the Benjamites and their four hundred unmarried daughters given in forced marriage to the six hundred Benjamite survivors. Finally, the two hundred Benjamite survivors who still have no wives are granted a mass marriage by abduction by the other tribes.
There are no concubines in the New Testament. Paul, the apostle, emphasises that church leaders should be in monogamous marriages,[15][16] that believers should not have sexual relationships outside marriage.[17] and that unmarried believers should be celibate.[18] Marriage is to reflect the exclusive relationship between the husband (Christ) and wife (his church),[19] described as a "mystery".
In Judaism[edit]
In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pillegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword derived from the Greek word,pallakis, Greek παλλακίς,[20][21][22] meaning "a mistress staying in house".
According to the Babylonian Talmud,[7] the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubbah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin). Neither was the case for a concubine. One opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without a clause specifying a divorce settlement.[7]
Certain Jewish thinkers, such as Maimonides, believed that concubines were strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine. Indeed, such thinkers argued that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage.
Maimonides was not the first Jewish thinker to criticise concubinage. For example, Leviticus Rabbah severely condemns the custom.[23] Other Jewish thinkers, such as Nahmanides, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Jacob Emden, strongly objected to the idea that concubines should be forbidden.
In the Hebrew of the contemporary State of Israel, the word pillegesh is often used as the equivalent of the English word mistress—i.e., the female partner in extramarital relations—regardless of legal recognition. Attempts have been initiated to popularise pillegesh as a form of premarital, non-marital or extramarital relationship (which, according to the perspective of the enacting person(s), is permitted by Jewish law).[24][25][26]