?>


Social anthropology hypothesis
Posted: Posted June 27th by chiarizio
View Source Report Thread Views


I hypothesize that no real-life culture simultaneously allows any two of the following four marriage-types:
A. Half-brother to half-sister
B. Uncle to niece
C. Aunt to nephew
D. Double-first-cousins

Does anyone know of a counterexample or exception in real-life?



There are 15 Replies
Load all posts On page: 1 2
  settingsSettings

In the Heian period of Japan, anything except parent-child or full siblings were allowed from what I've read. Not that they were common pairings, but they were allowable.

I also think I remember reading that the Piraha have very relaxed incest taboos as well, but I don't remember what exactly was or was not allowable.

Posted June 27th by linguistcat
View Source Quote Report

Avunculate marrige (nos B & C) are apparently quite the rage in several cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage

Edited June 27th by elemtilas
View Source Quote Report

@linguistcat:

In the Heian period of Japan, anything except parent-child or full siblings were allowed from what I've read. Not that they were common pairings, but they were allowable. I also think I remember reading that the Piraha have very relaxed incest taboos as well, but I don't remember what exactly was or was not allowable.


Thank you 😊! I’ll look into those.



Edited June 27th by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report



@elemtilas:

Avunculate marrige (nos B & C) are apparently quite the rage in several cultures.



Yes; each one of those types has been not only allowed, but actually encouraged, in some past (and sometimes present) cultures.
My hypothesis is that no single culture simultaneously allows/allowed any two of them. Linguistcat’s examples might force me to modify my hypothesis—— or abandon it entirely.

————

Some region within some Southern US state actively encourages first-cousin marriages; and at the same time encourages affine marriages, such as to one’s sibling’s spouse’s sibling.
Thing is, the latter fact means that first-cousins are often double-cousins; each parent of either party is a full-sibling of some parent of the other party.
But some Southern US state —— perhaps this one? —— permits first-cousins to marry, but prohibits double-cousins marrying.

————

@linguistcat:

If my mother and your mother are full-sisters, and my father and your father are half-brothers, does that make us sesqui-cousins? Cousins-and-a-half?
I wonder if the state in question prohibits those marriages?
What’s the limit for the consanguinity index? Is 3/16 too consanguineous, if 1/8 is not but 1/4 is?


Posted June 27th by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

If my father and your father are agnate half-brothers, that contributes 1/16 to our consanguinity index. We share a grandparent (fathers’ father). We are half-cousins.
If also my mother and your mother are agnate half-sisters, that contributes an additional 1/16 to our consanguinity index. We are double-half cousins; we share two grandparents (both grandfathers).
Now if, above and beyond all that, my father and your mother are uterine half-siblings, we share a third grandparent; my father’s mother is your mother’s mother. We are triple-half-cousins and our consanguinity index is 3/16.

My parents must have been each others’ step-siblings, since they share a half-sister (ie your mother); your parents must also have been step-siblings, since they share a half-brother (ie my father).
If there’s no prohibition against step-siblings with no blood in common marrying each other, this isn’t incestuous so far; neither my parents nor yours married anyone within the bounds of consanguinity. (Although I would bet someone would still think this was “icky”.)

But suppose I were to propose marriage to you.
Leaving aside the problems that elemtilas and I are both dudes, and linguistcat already has a husband, is this too consanguineous? And if so, according to whom? We’re more “distant in blood” than double-cousins or half-siblings or auncles and niblings; but “closer in blood” than ordinary first-cousins.

Do any real-world or built-world legal systems handle this kind of problem?

How about your concultures in your builtworlds?

Edited June 27th by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

If my father and your father are agnate half-brothers, that contributes 1/16 to our consanguinity index. We share a grandparent (fathers’ father). We are half-cousins.

If also my mother and your mother are agnate half-sisters, that contributes an additional 1/16 to our consanguinity index. We are double-half cousins; we share two grandparents (both grandfathers).



Daine don't really consider male ancestry as of any relevance, so I think two people whose fathers are "half" brothers wouldn't have a problem courting. Two people whose mothers are "half" sisters will. Most likely...

Also, Daine don't have "half" siblings. You're either a sibling or not. If you share the same mother(s), but different fathers, then you're siblings; if you share the same father but have entirely different mother(s), you're not siblings. Such folks generally consider each other "cousins" in a sort of broad sense of the word.

NB: by (s) I mean that it is not uncommon for one male to be married to two females. Mostly these are twins, some of which both females are fertile. It's also not uncommon in a M+F for the female to seek out a "second", another female. Children born to both are siblings.



Now if, above and beyond all that, my father and your mother are uterine half-siblings, we share a third grandparent; my father’s mother is your mother’s mother. We are triple-half-cousins and our consanguinity index is 3/16.



These would be considered siblings, sharing the same mother(s).


My parents must have been each others’ step-siblings, since they share a half-sister (ie your mother); your parents must also have been step-siblings, since they share a half-brother (ie my father).



There are no "step siblings". Generally speaking, grown children or nearly grown children of a mixed union would most likely not consider the "foreigner" to be a parent. Perhaps a mentor or friend. These children would almost certainly not consider each other to be siblings. But some might develop such attachments to each other. It's entirely possible that a couple may end up courting...

Very young children (babies and very young youths) are more likely to simply grow into sibling relationships with each other and with any new children made within the union.


If there’s no prohibition against step-siblings with no blood in common marrying each other, this isn’t incestuous so far; neither my parents nor yours married anyone within the bounds of consanguinity. (Although I would bet someone would still think this was “icky”.)



It can get "icky" if a couple of those very young children who have behaved as brother and sister their whole lives suddenly develop the warmies for each other. That kind of ickiness will probably not pass, in time, even by the parents and other siblings.

Technically, they aren't related, but in actuality, they have developed the relationship of being related. That's what counts. Even the two in question will likely experience some level of disconnect when they think about where they're heading in their new relationship.


But suppose I were to propose marriage to you.

Leaving aside the problems that elemtilas and I are both dudes, and linguistcat already has a husband, is this too consanguineous? And if so, according to whom? We’re more “distant in blood” than double-cousins or half-siblings or auncles and niblings; but “closer in blood” than ordinary first-cousins.



Daine consider siblings (horizontal relation) and the mother(s)'s bloodline(s) (vertical relation) to be too sanguineous. Being long-lived and somewhat mobile, this can cause some interesting relationships to blossom. It's possible that a young son leaves home soon after coming of age; it's possible that his parents have a child a couple centuries later; it's possible that they might meet in some distant place and experience that "chemistry of the familiar", develop a serious case of the warmies for each other, because they fit together so well and, you know, may not discover the truth until a few years later when she wants to bring the little ones to meet Mama and Dada....


An instance where consanguinity is generally thrown out is the matter of twins (or triplets (rare) or double twins (exceedingly rare)). Due to the wiring and super strong affinity twins have for one another, it's really almost impossible for keep a set of F+M twins away from each other as they mature. Brothers and sisters are close, but these are extra-close!

M+M twins (uncommon) will almost invariably marry either F+F twins or at least F+F siblings. F+F twins (quite common) will generally marry a single M or at least male siblings.




Posted June 28th by elemtilas
View Source Quote Report

@elemtilas:
Thanks for all the detail about your builtworld!

————

It can get "icky" if a couple of those very young children who have behaved as brother and sister their whole lives suddenly develop the warmies for each other. That kind of ickiness will probably not pass, in time, even by the parents and other siblings. —— Technically, they aren't related, but in actuality, they have developed the relationship of being related. That's what counts. Even the two in question will likely experience some level of disconnect when they think about where they're heading in their new relationship.


I think that’s how it works in real life amongst us humans. There used to be a kind of marriage in Taiwan, IIANM, where if the couple were betrothed while still in single-digits agewise, the young bride-to-be would be sent to live with her fiance’s family. Then when they came of age they would be married. Their families often had to post guards outside the marital chambers during the wedding night to prevent the couple escaping. And these marriages had a much higher rate of infidelity and abandonment or divorce, and much lower fertility, than marriages where the couple were kept apart until puberty or adolescence or adulthood. —— It’s being raised in the same household during childhood that makes them feel like siblings, apparently. Actual siblings who never meet until adulthood supposedly sometimes feel an irresistible attraction to each other.
I’m so glad that’s all hearsay coming from me! I wouldn’t want to know first-hand whether or not it were true.


Edited June 28th by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

I’m so glad that’s all hearsay coming from me! I wouldn’t want to know first-hand whether or not it were true.


Perhaps, but it makes for great narrative!



Posted June 28th by elemtilas
View Source Quote Report

@linguistcat:
In the Heian period of Japan, anything except parent-child or full siblings were allowed from what I've read. Not that they were common pairings, but they were allowable.


Google gave me two relevant hits on JSTOR, but JSTOR wouldn’t let me see past the first page.

It seems half-siblings were prohibited each other.
I couldn’t find anything about double-cousins or piblings (auncles) or niblings. If they were both permitted, Heian Nihon would be a counterexample to my hypothesis.

This:
https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/63/docs/2013_Yoshie_Paper-Translation.pdf
was the first relevant hit I could read the relevant part of.
You might like it!


Edited June 29th by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

@linguistcat:


Google gave me two relevant hits on JSTOR, but JSTOR wouldn’t let me see past the first page.


It seems half-sibling’s were prohibited each other.


The Emperors at the time were encouraged to marry a paternal half sister, usually one who was the daughter of a Fujiwara woman. Tho, throughout history, what was considered fine for royals and nobles might be taboo for a commoner...

Thank you for the text, I haven't been able to read it yet but should this weekend.

Posted June 29th by linguistcat
View Source Quote Report
Next page Load rest of pages On page: /
Reply to: Social anthropology hypothesis
Enter your message here

Rules | Report Issue | Request Feature | Roadmap Facebook Page | Discord Group
GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett