Ancient Egypt For Perfecto

Sibling Incest in the Royal Families of Egypt, Peru, and Hawaii Author(s): Ray H. Bixler Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug., 1982), pp. 264-281 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812218 . Accessed: 13/07/2014 11:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Sex Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 264-281 August, 1982

Sibling Incest in the Royal Fanlilies of Egypt, Peru,

and Hawaii

RAY H. BIXLER

Abstract

Analysts of the incest taboo who believe that cultural determinants alone are a sufficient explanation of human incest avoidance frequently cite alleged sibling marriages in the royal families of Egypt, Hawaii, and Peru as supporting evidence. If full-sibling incest were common in intact families in several populous societies (where mates other than siblings were available) incest avoidance theories involving genetic components, and natural selection theory itself, would be seriously challenged because there would then exist successful societies which employ a relatively inefficient reproductive strategy. This review of historical sources regarding the actual practices of royal families reveals that full- sibling marriages were extremely rare, except during the Ptolemaic reign. Futhermore, succession to the throne was almost never by an off- spring of siblings. Brother-sister marriage was frequent among com- moners in Roman Egypt during the first two or three centuries after Christ. Because it is the only example, and because little is known about the marriages, this clear, but solitary, exception is an insufficient basis for rejecting the interactionist thesis.

For some time, social scientists have been engaged in debate regard- ing whether incest avoidance is a behavior determined largely by ex- perience and the inculcation of values or by these variables in some combination with genetic determinants. Early in this century Wester- marck 11922) contended that the sexual attraction of conspecifics for one another was reduced if they had associated intimately during in- fancy. The enrironmentalist position gained pre-eminence in midcen- tury, however, and Westermarck’s thesis was “all but laughed out of court” (Schneider, 1976, p. 150).

Ray H. Bixler, PhD, is a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Louisville. Marjorie Bixler read and criticized earlier drafts. Jerry Cooney, Robert Kebrick, John Rowe, and Norman Whitten, Jr. suggested source materials. I also thank Margaret Biegert, Carolyn Mask, Ruth Culpepper, and Janine Polifka for their assistance.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Ray H. Bixler, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292

264

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

265 ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST

For many years, generalizations about the sexual and marital strategies of the royal famllies of Egypt, the Inca empire, and Hawaii were introduced in innumerable polemics endorsing cultural inter- pretations of incest avoidance (Barnouw, 1971; Hoebel, 1966; Maisch, 1973; Murdock, 1949; Schneider, 1976; White, 1949). A number of analysts (Barnouw, 1971; Hoebel, 1966; Linton, 1936; Maisch, 1973; Ruffer, 1921) even reject the significance of inbreeding depression. They contend that evidence is lacking that inbreeding is deleterious or that, although it applies in some cases, in others inbreeding is advan- tageous because the stock is superior.1 Many commentators also leave the impression, or explicitly state, that full-sibling royal marriages were common (Cerny, 1954; Keesing & Keesing, 1971; Turney-High, 1968; van den Berghe & Mesher, 1980)2

I examine one form of the inbreeding avoidance hypothesis in order to determine if it is invalidated by the royal family sexual strategies. This theory assumes that almost every member of one sex has the potential for attracting most members of the opposite sex, given the proper set of circumstances. It also assumes that natural selection operates in favor of organisms which, in a normal environment (replete with alternative sex partners), prefer non-nuclear family mates. A “normal” environment also involves the offspring of a nuclear unit or family spending the earliest period of their sexual immaturity in in- timate association with one another. This explanation of inbreeding avoidance is based upon Westermarck’s (1922) recognition of the effect of intimate association in childhood. If full-sibling incest in intact families were common in several

vigorous societies, (where mates other than siblings were available) in- teractionist theories of incest avoidance and natural selection theory lMost of the offspring of incestuous unions will be “normal.” The crucial point is that a larger number of such offspring, than of offspring of non-consanguineous parents, will be aborted, will die in infancy and childhood, will be defective or will die in early adulthood. As a result natural selection will clearly favor any outbreeding mechanism that is partially determined by genetic factors. Arguments rejecting the inbreeding depression thesis are based upon assumptions which are not appropriate to a widely dispersed species which lives in variable environments and has developed outbreeding strategies (Livingstone, 1969). 2van den Berghe and Mesher (1980) developed a very imaginative sociobiological ex- planation for what they assumed was widespread full-sibling incest among royal families. I believe the sources upon which they based this assumption are questionable. Later, I discuss the short-comings of Ruffer (1921), their major Egyptian source, and of Malo (1951), their Hawaiian source.

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

266 RAY H. BIXLER

itself would be seriously undermined. Since inbreeding depression is an inevitable result of nuclear family incest, any society or subculture which practices sibling incest would, according to natural selection theory, be at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis cultures which practice outbreeding. Hence, establishing the evidence regarding royal sibling incest is of major significance to behavioral science theory. We are hampered in this task by the failure of historians to carefully distinguish between profession, based upon religious myths, and ac- tual behavior. Furthermore, even post Darwinian historians have failed to record and analyze with care the data vital to incest theory ABixler, Note 1) because they are seldom sensitive to natural selection theory, the complexities of genetic transmission, or behavioral science based upon the interaction of heredity and environment (Vale, 1980).

The mechanism of natural selection which operates to reduce sexual attraction is not some mystical or genetic means of transmitting knowledge of consanguineous relationships to one another. Rather, it prevents the development of sexual attraction between human or in- frahuman pairs who, irrespective of genetic relationships, were in- timately associated with each other when either or both were growing up. Free-ranging baboons (Packer, 1979) and chimpanzees Pusey, 1980) of both sexes lack interest in mating with those conspecifics with whom they were closely associated during immaturity. Human beings, related or unrelated, reared together (Wolf,1966,1970, 1980; Shepher, 1971), quail clutchmates ABateson, 1978), praire dog siblings and father and daughter (Hoogland,1982) and mice littermates Hill, 1964) are not sexually attracted to one another when alternative mates are available. Because human beings can develop rules and, unlike other animals, are able to recognize that a relationship exists between con- sanguineous mating and inbreeding depression we have been able to create rules Xtaboos) that extend to other relatives.3 It appears, however, that for most members of our species cultural determinants rarely overcome the lack of sexual attraction developed in childhood by intimate association, even when cultural pressures are intense. For example, efforts to encourage kibbutzniks from the same kevutza to

3″Reservations and speculations about the biological effects of consanguineous mar- riages were made long before the development of genetics and probably before the time of recorded history” (Morton, 1961, p. 261>. Preliterate peoples often relate defects in offspring to consanguineous marriages (Lindzey, 1967). This ability to recognize a rela- tionship between incest and inbreeding depression without any understanding of the genetic factors involved must have played some role in the elaboration of taboos.

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST 267

marry were unsuccessful (Shepher, 1971) and Taiwanese couples reared together from early childhood became, as adults, most unen- thusiastic marital partners (Wolf, 1966, 1970, 1980).

In any analysis of incest one is constantly confronted by the confu- sion of conjugal and sexual relationships. In general, historians have recorded whether a pair was married, not whether they desired and had intercourse with one another, but in the evaluation of incest avoidance theory only sexual behavior and attitudes are relevant. Another and particularly vexing problem derives from the practice in Egypt, Hawaii, and Peru of addressing one’s nonconsanguineous spouse as “sister” or “brother” and the use of terms which fail to distinguish siblings from cousins, affinal relatives, or even unrelated age mates. A similar practice still exists in the Christian church and some social and political groups.

The royalty of Egypt, Hawaii, and the Inca empire had much in com- mon. The kings ruled, not merely by divine right, but as gods (or their descendants).4 In each culture the ruling chief or king had many wives and very many children. Some of his wives were of royal blood but he usually had commoner wives and concubines as well as casual mates. Each wife probably had her own residence as was the case in modern Africa (Murdock, 1959). Half-siblings are not intimately associated if reared in separate domiciles; thus, as Westermarck (1923 Vol. 2, p. 199) points out, their sexual attraction for one another would not be af- fected.

One of the distressing problems is the simple fact that available history is far from adequate. For both the Incas and the Hawaiians, no adequate record was available because neither society had a written language and thus had not recorded the events of its history. Instead each had passed on a “history” from mouth to mouth that suffered ter- ribly from both mythological thinking and the vagaries of oral transmission.5 As will become clear, even the Egyptian record is scanty and plagued by conflicting accounts.

There was no division of socio-political and religious roles in these civilizations. Frankfort (1948) states that the kingship in the Near East was the very basis of civilization. “If we refer to kingship as a

4The belief in the divinity of the king was common in western Europe (Figgis, 1914) and in contemporary Africa (Murdock, 1959>.

5Rowe (1946), commenting on the unreliability of the oral history of the Incas, con- cludes: “Mythology is only static when people no longer believe in it” (p. 316).

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

268 RAY H. BIXLER

political institution, we assume a point of view which would have been incomprehensible to the ancients . . . The purely secular in so far as it could be granted to exist at all was the purely trivial” (p. 3). His statement regarding the divinity of the pharaoh is applicable as well to the kings of Hawaii and the Incas. “He was not mortal but a god . . . the Pharaoh was of divine essence a god incarnate…. His divinity was not proclaimed at a certain moment …. His coronation was not an apotheosis but an epiphany” (p. 5). These gods, as we shall see, made the most of their time on earth.

The Egyptian Pharaoh The divinity of the queen was fundamental to Egyptian

religiopolitical rule. All inheritance descended in the female line, “no man could become king unless he were married to a princess of the blood royal” (Kaster, 1968, p. 117). Hohenwart-Gerlachstein (1952) concluded that it is above all the woman of royal blood who is the con- necting link between dynasties. Middleton disagrees, “The bulk of the evidence for Egypt suggests that kingship was not inherited primarily through the female line but through the male line” (1962, p. 609). Both analyses have merit. It was the divine status of the queen which legitimized the king’s right to the throne. The male who assumed the throne was frequently related to his predecessor but was not a son of the queen. He consolidated his power often by murdering other con- tenders and certainly by marrying a daughter of the principal wife of the previous king or of some neighboring divine queen (e.g., Budge, 1902, Vol. 5, pp. 19-20). Wilson (1951) points out that the queen was “the daughter of a god, the wife of a god and the mother of a god . . . the legitimacy for rule was conditioned both by the royal descent of the mother and by that of the father…. This was the reason for brother-sister marriages by some of the pharaohs” (pp. 96-97). Most authorities have contended that the marriage with a high royal

female was to establish succession (Middleton, 1962, p. 603), but suc- cession was often by an offspring of the pharaoh and a woman who was neither a high queen nor related to the king. Middleton states, “Some authorities maintain that there are no well established cases among the pharaohs of the marriage of full brothers and sisters; no more than a half-sibling relationship can be proved” (p. 604). The problems of how to interpret data are best exemplified by what is known and suspected regarding the 18th dynasty. Ruffer (1921)

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST 269

classifies a number of kings, who were products of nonconsanguineous mates, as of incestuous origin (e.g., Table VI., p. 334) and then marvels at the vigor, longevity, ability, and character of these offspring of “consanguineous” matings! Middleton (1962) contends that “the greatest concentration of cases of marriage of sisters or half-sisters ap- pears to be in the 18th and l9th dynasties” (p. 604). However, Wente (1976), referring to the 18th dynasty, writes “an attempt had been made to continue the practice of having a young pharaoh marry his sister, a marriage that had theological implications …. In the course of the dynasty this practice was modified; a number of kings who had been born of minor wives of kings were married to the most legitimate royal heiress to validate their own position in the succession” (p. 21). Kaster (1968) seems to confirm the position of Wente in the following excerpt:

“Most of the evidence indicates that (a) Hatsheput was the daughter of Thothmes

I She was married to Thothmes II …………………… who was the son of Thothmes I. by a con-

cubine; and (b) the boy who later became Thothmes III. was the son of Thothmes II. by one of his concubines. This can get rather complicated” (pp. 117-118). Wilson (1951) carried on where Kaster left off-and the complications vanish: “Thut-mose III. had been of inferior birth and had felt obliged to strengthen his position by mar- rying at least three princesses of full legitimacy. His son was thus of full blood and right. But the grandson, Thut-mose IV., was again the son of a subordinate queen, and now, with the Empire two generations under way, did not feel the old compulsion to strengthen his position. On the contrary, he took to wife the daughter of Ar- tatama, the King of Mitanni, and she became the mother of the future Amen-Hotep III. The latter was certainly not of the purest royal line, with such a father and such a mother-he was half-Mitannian. He showed no concern about the purity of his royal blood. He made an Egyptian commoner his Great King’s Wife, the girl Tiy, whose parents bore no titles of any consequence” (pp. 201-202).

Actually, this pattern of succession by an offspring of a non- consanguineous mate of the pharaoh was very common before the 18th dynasty. I surveyed the succession patterns in Baikie (1929), Budge (1902), and Weigall (1925). Usually there was no evidence provided as to whom the pharaoh was married and who was the mother of his suc- cessor but, in the vast majority of cases in which the mother was iden- tified, the successor was not the product of a consanguineous mating. Hohenwart-Gerlachstein (1952) bluntly states, “Neither in the Old Kingdom, nor in the Middle (or) New Kingdom has a single in- disputable example of full-sibling marriage been cited” (p. 239).

Another illustration of the complexity of interpretation is provided by Akhenaten (Amentohep IV) who was married to Nafertiti. Baikie

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

270 RAY H. BIXLER

(1929) contends, based upon unusual physical features as portrayed in paintings and sculpture, that they were siblings. Wente (1976) points out, however, that “certain peculiar features of Amentohep IV’s ap- pearance . . . were accentuated in the new art, and were carried out into representations of his queen, the beautiful Nafertiti, their children, and even commoners” (p. 23). The art of this period is known as the Amarna style.

The Ptolemies

Regarding the Ptolemaic period Middleton (1962) states “the evidence is conclusive that many of the kings married their sisters or half-sisters” (p. 608). It is important to remember that he is discussing marriage not sexual behavior. For example, he cites as one illustration the marriages of Cleopatra VI to Ptolemy XII and to Ptolemy XIII which, as we shall see, were almost certainly not consummated. That there was incest, broadly defined, among the Ptolemies, however, can scarcely be doubted. I found little disagreement with either the ac- count of Budge (1902, Vol. VII and VIII) or that of Bevan (1968). I use Bevan’s data in Table 1. When one sought the throne, marriage to a sibling, aunt, or cousin was one option, but, as seems to have been true among monarchs the world over, murdering them and other relatives seems to have been the preferred means. I chose three rulers to il- lustrate Ptolemaic efforts to consolidate power. The first King, Ptolemy I, was born neither of high royalty nor of incest. His divine status and that of his successors’ was assured when quite some time after his ascendancy it was revealed that his mother was a descendant of Herakles and Bacchus! Ptolemy IV (Philopator) “brought down Egypt . . . to a condition of feebleness and humiliation” (Bevan, 1968, p. 220). He and his advisors murdered his brother, his uncle, and his mother. Nine years after he assumed the throne he married his sister, Arsinoe III. He was clearly more enamored of his mistress, Agathocleia, with whom he consorted both before and after his mar- riage. She claimed to have served as the prince’s (Ptolemy V) wet nurse. Bevan (1968) describes the mistreatment of Arsinoe III by Philopator’s advisors at some length and contends that they arranged the sibling marriage “in order that an heir to the throne of the re- quisite royal blood might be bred from her” (p. 233). I think it much more likely that they arranged the marriage to strengthen the king’s position and theirs. Shortly after Philopator’s death his advisors

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

murdered Arsinoe III.

Table 1

Ptolemaic Regime

Parents of King Wivesa of King Parents of King Wivesa of King

I. NCb NC VIII. Uncle-Niece Two Sisters II. NC NC; Sister IX. Uncle-Niece Niece

III. NC Half-Cousin X. NC Cousin IV. Half Cousins Sister XI. NC Sister?; NC V. Siblings NC XI I. NC Sister

VI . NC Sister XI I I . NC Sister VII. NC Sister; Niece

Note. Derived from Bevan, 1968. aMost of those who reigned for some time had numerous wives. bNC = Non-Consanguineous.

Cleopatra VI, immortalized by Shakespeare, Shaw, and Elizabeth Taylor, and her two brothers were the offspring of a “lady with unknown . . . antecedents” (Budge, 1902, Vol. VIII, p. 79). Cleopatra’s father “was not a full-blooded descendant of the Ptolemies (and) of her mother we know nothing, but it is probable that she had Semitic blood in her veins” (Budge, Vol. VIII, 1902, p. 116). Nevertheless, Ruffer (1921), in one of his many naive critiques of the effects of inbreeding states, “Certainly, the audacity, cleverness, and resources of this Egyptian queen, the last offspring of many incestuous marriages, com- pel our admiration . . .” (p. 352, emphasis added).6 This statement was made in spite of his awareness that Cleopatra was the offspring of non-

6The absence of anything approaching continuity of succession based upon full- sibling incest has often escaped the attention of students of the history of sexual customs. For example, Lewinsohn (1958) writes, “the Ptolemies (a Greek dynasty) prac- ticed marriage between brother and sister for three hundred years without noticeably bad physical effects (p. 20-21}.” Bullough (1976, p. 61) appears to accept Ruffer’s im- pression that starting with Ptolemy V. the kings were the offspring of sibling incest and, nevertheless, suffered no significant effects.

In 1892 Galton recognized the absence of intense inbreeding among the Ptolemies: “(T)here are no less than nine cases of close intermarriages distributed among the thir- teen Ptolemys. However, . . . we shall. . . see that the main line of descent was un- touched by these intermarriages, except in … two cases …. The personal beauty and vigour of Cleopatra, the last of the race, cannot therefore be justly quoted in disproof of the evil effects of close breeding. On the contrary, the result of Ptolemaic experience was distinctly to show that intermarriages are followed by sterility” (pp. 198-199).

ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST 271

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

272 RAY H. BIXLER

consanguineous parents (p. 351). Her “audacity, etc.” appear to have been a function of hybrid vigor.

Cleopatra’s marriages to her brothers have been widely cited as evidence of Ptolemaic incest. Both Budge’s and Bevan’s accounts reveal such contentions as absurd. Cleopatra was 17 or 18 years old when she assumed the throne with her husband-brother Ptolemy XII who was 9 or 10. She was driven from Alexandria when her brother was 12 or 13 years old. Cohabitation, if it occurred, took place between a boy who was probably sexually immature and a sophisticated young woman. Ptolemy XII disappeared after a battle against Caesar’s forces. Cleopatra married her remaining brother, Ptolemy XIII, who was about 11 or 12 and he died, probably by her hand, 2 years later because she “wished to make way for her son, Ptolemy (XIV), who was surnamed Caesar” (Budge, 1902, Vol. VIII., p. 87). Cleopatra and her brothers were, at best, estranged bedfellows!

So, there were seven or eight Ptolemies who married sisters, one of whom (VIII) married two sisters. At least two marriages, those of Cleopatra with XII and XIII were not consummated, and these plus the marriages of II, IV, and VII were politically arranged and lacking any evidence of sexual attraction between the siblings involved. Ptolemy VII appears to have been sexually attracted to his niece but the hypothesis under evaluation predicts no reduction of sexual attrac- tion between uncle and niece. Only one Ptolemy was the product of a full-sibling union. For only two of the sibling marriages (VI and VIII’s first marriage) is evidence lacking that the marriages were purely for- mal and devoid of sexual attraction between the partners.

Commoner Sibling Marriages

Cerny (1954) who quite uncritically accepts royal sibling marriage in Pharaonic Egypt [“enough evidence seems to have been adduced to ac- cept the custom (sibling marriage) as proven within the royal families” (p. 23)] nevertheless, provides the most careful data regarding com- moner sibling marriages in Pharaonic Egypt. Inspection of records from the First Intermediate Period to the Eighteenth Dynasty leads him to conclude, “We have no certain instance of a marriage between full-brother and sister. This is a disappointing result, and I am the first to regret it” p. 29). Of 101 marriages, he found only two in which the name of the mother of the husband and wife is the same. He was unable to determine the father’s name in 97 marriages so that half-

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST 273

sibling marriages, which do not challenge the hypothesis being tested, could have been common.

Roman Egypt is quite another matter because evidence that com- moner siblings frequently married during the first two centuries A.D. is overwhelming. A papyrus, which “contains the most important document yet discovered in Roman Egypt” (Johnson, 1959, p. 711) prohibited siblingincest. Winter’s (1933, p. 30) translationvaries only in minor details from Johnson’s (1959): “Romans are not permitted to marry their sisters or their aunts, but marriage with their brothers’ daughters has been conceded. Pardalas, indeed, when a brother mar- ried a sister, confiscated the property” (p. 712). Egyptians, however, were not subject to this law until 212 A.D. Both Egyptians and Romans announced weddings that appear to have been between full- siblings (Hopkins, 1980; Johnson, 1959; Middleton, 1962; Winter, 1933) and the incidence of sibling marriages until 212 A.D. is sufficient to seek an explanation. Because they were commoners, little is re- corded beyond wedding invitations, marriage contracts and a few let- ters which reveal almost nothing regarding sexual attraction. Hopkins (1980) ponders the motivation behind sibling marriages and tentative- ly concludes that “Egyptian brothers and sisters married each other because they themselves wanted to” (p. 353).

In light of the massive evidence pointing to lack of sexual attraction between mature littermates, clutchmates, human siblings, and peer kibbutzniks, one has no reason to believe that Egyptian and Roman siblings reared in intimate association with one another were sexually attracted to each other. Nevertheless, these sibling marriages do pose a challenge which I, like Cerny, but for diametrically opposed motives, regret! Full-sibling marriages for two or three hundred years in one culture, if indeed these marriages were between siblings who grew up together and found each other sexually attractive, would not, in and of itself, prove disastrous to the theory I am defending. If such behavior could be found in several vigorous cultures it would seriously weaken my hypothesis and threaten the theory of natural selection. However, “Brother-sister marriage is not known to have been common among ordinary people in any other human society” Hopkins, 1980, p. 303).

Hawaiian Royalty

Any historical account of the period prior to the arrival of Westerners in 1778 is of dubious validity, not only because the

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

274 RAY H. BIXLER

Hawaiians had no written language, but because they were attuned neither to natural causes nor reliable reporting. The missionaries who arrived in 1820 created an alphabet and initiated formal education. There can be no doubt that the pre-1778 history was filtered and elaborated over centuries and then further warped by 40 years of Western influence before being recorded. And, the recording itself was by, or under the influence of, Christian missionaries, not historians.

The islands were not united under any one ruler until well into the l9th century. Wars between groups loyal to local chiefs were apparent- ly very common and, as had probably been true at one time everywhere else in the world, these chiefs were sacred or divine (Daws, 1968; Joesting, 1972; Kuykendall & Day, 1948). The lore related to the sex- ual practices of the Alfi (ruling class) is presented in the works of Malo (1951) and Kamakau (1961). Malo was born late in the 18th century and sometime after the first Westerners arrived. He converted to Christianity and became very critical of his cultural origins. He was an ordained minister. It is his account which van den Berghe and Mesher (1980) accept as evidence that full-sibling incest was common. Kamakau, born in 1815, was educated in a seminary and became in- terested as a young man in his own culture.

Malo (1951) provides a list of the first 59 kings of Kauai but he acknowledges that “nothing very definite” (p. 238) is known about these kings. His editor adds, with what seems to be something of an understatement, that the chapter is “almost wholely mythical” (notes on chapter 59, p. 241). Malo concludes his review of the early chiefs with the mythical story of Umi’s youth. He was the most outstanding of the early chiefs. Kamakau (1961) begins his history with Umi and stops with the death of Kamehameha III in 1854. Thus the two authors provide us with a continuous “history” from the original mythical pair of Wakea and Papa to a period well after the Westerners had arrived and were recording their own version. Obviously, little faith can be placed in their accounts of Hawaii prior to the arrival of the missionaries.

Malo (1951) explains in great detail the role of incest in insuring the highest possible rank for chiefs. I quote very briefly from him. “A suitable partner for a chief of the highest rank was his own sister, begotten by the same father and mother as himself . . . and if the union bore fruit, the child would be a chief of the highest rank^’ (p. 54).

The Hawaiian legend relates that Liloa, the father of the most

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST 275

famous of Hawaiian kings, Umi, encountered and seduced a beautiful commoner as she was completing her post menstrual bath. Umi was born of this union. Liloa was already married to his aunt and by her had fathered a son, Hakau, whom he selected as his successor. Hakau, a cruel leader, was eliminated by Umi with the collaboration of the priests. Umi married his half-sister, a daughter of Liloa, markedly enhancing his rank.

Umi had already accumulated a number of wives and now because he was a religious chief and just “the rulers of other kingdoms brought their favorite daughters to him for wives. Umi had many wives of chiefly blood and he became an ancestor for the people. There is not a commoner on Hawaii who can say, ‘Umi-a-Liloa was not our ancestor’ . . .” (Kamakau, 1961, p. 19). “Umi was a real and famous man who ruled as king of the island of Hawaii. His story was retold over generations and became embellished just as the tales of King Ar- thur. . . were embellished” (Joesting, 1972, p. 23).

The story of two brothers appears again in the kingdom of the island of Maui, with the younger, once again wresting the throne from his older and wicked brother. This younger brother had a non- consanguineous wife, however. “(S)he was his companion in his trials and tribulations, even in those that might mean death. He made a sister of his wife” (Kamakau, 1961, p. 25). The same theme appears with the death of Umi, this time involving two of his sons; the elder and cruel king was killed and the younger became “ruler of the whole of Hawaii …. He had many sons and daughters because he had many wives …. He took his nieces and the daughters of his cousins to be his wives. . ., and from his many wives were born sons and daughters. They became the ancestors of chiefs and commoners” (Kamakau, 1961,p. 36andp. 45).

In Kamakau’s narrative, intrigue is piled upon intrigue. Chiefs, often have among their many wives a half-sister. At no point, however, is there mention of a marriage to a full-sister.

Shortly after the arrival of the first Westerners, Kamehameha I rose to power. He was a favorite of the chief, Kalaniopuu. Kalaniopuu died in 1782 and by the summer of the same year Kamehameha had man- aged to dispose of Kalaniopuu’s son and successor. Joesting (1972) notes that Kamehameha’s paternity is not known but that he was a high ranking chief; Kuykendall (1968, Vol. I., p.30) refers to him as the king’s nephew. I have not been able to determine how many wives

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

276 RAY H. BIXLER

Kamehameha I had, but there were several, and, apparently, none was a close relative of his. His favorite wife was Kaahumanu who bore him no children.

History was now being recorded and is probably reliable, especially as it relates to the number of wives each chief had and the degree to which they were related. Nevertheless, terminology may pose a prob- lem. Handy and Pukui (1972) point out that “(i)n the context of family relationships the words for son and daughter will be applied to nephews and nieces throughout the range of blood, adoptive, fostering and in-law connections” (p. 66).

Kamehameha I was succeeded by Liholiho (Kamehameha II), one of his sons. Liholiho had five wives, the favorite being Kamamalu, his half-sister. Christianity made very rapid strides during his reign, and, although he expressed support for the religion, he did not go so far as to divest himself of his multiple wives.

Liholiho was succeeded by Kamehameha III (Kaukieaoulii), his brother. Kamehameha III did not marry but he deeply loved his half- sister, Nahienaena, and although the protest of the missionaries prevented him from marrying her he did have a child by her. From this point on, multiple wives and incestuous unions were rather effectively proscribed by the awesome power of the Christian church.

The mother of Kamehameha II and III, Keopuolani, was herself the child of a royal chief from the island of Hawaii and a royal chiefess from the island of Maui, obviously neither an issue of incest nor a close relative of her husband. She was ‘4formally united” with Kamehameha I but was not his favorite companion. ‘(H)e slept with her only from time to time in order to perpetuate the high-chiefly blood of the kingdom” Kamakau, 1961, p. 260).

Hawaiian mating strategies do not conflict with the predictions based upon inbreeding avoidance theory. In spite of the fact that the religio-political Hawaiian system supported the importance of full- sibling marriage to achieve the highest ranking offspring, there were, after the original pair of Wakea and Papa, no full-sibling marriages or sexual activity reported in lore or fact.

Incas Metraux (1969) finds strong agreement among chroniclers regarding

the names of the emperors and the order of their succession, but, he warns, such precision unfortunately does not justify a belief in the ac-

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST 277

curacy of the accounts. Some events were “told in almost the same manner about two separate reigns…. Few historians treat as entirely historical any accounts of reigns before that of Pachacuti (1438-1471>” (p. 42). Rowe (1946) points out that the only eyewitness accounts are by soldiers who accompanied Pizzarro. Spanish translations of Indian reports provide what is known of most aspects of the culture and Rowe believes their veracity is difficult to judge. “In addition, 16th- and 17th-Century writers copied liberally from one another, often without giving credit, so that many… ‘sources’ and ‘documents’ are only third- or fourth-hand restatements of the original testimony, marred by carelessness and by personal or political prejudice” (p. 193-194). He believes, however, that “we are probably safe in accepting the tradi- tional list of rulers as accurate” (p. 202).

As was the case with Egyptians and Hawaiians, kinship and con- jugal terminology failed to draw the clear cut distinctions desired in an analysis of incest, e.g., first cousins, were called “brother” and “sister,” the father’s brother was called “father” and the mother’s sister, “mother.” Conjugal terminology was very complex. Although all cousins called each other brother and sister, marriage between them was sanctioned if the female cousin were to become the principal wife. Full-siblings were prohibited from marrying, but nobles could marry their half-sisters. (Rowe, 1946, pp. 249-252).

“The Inca Emperors were absolute rulers …. They not only ruled by divine right, but claimed lineal descent from the Sun Xa major god) and were worshipped as divine during their life times” (Rowe, 1946, p. 257). In their myth of origin, four brothers and their four sisters emerged from a cave. Three of the brothers were eliminated leaving on- ly Ayar Manco (Monco Capac), the first emperor, and his four sisters to establish the Inca lineage. “Each emperor kept a large harem of secondary wives in addition to his principal wife QOYA), who was in earlier times the daughter of some neighboring ruler…” (Rowe, 1946, p. 257).

Cobo, who, according to Rowe, provides “the best and most com- plete description of Inca culture…,” tells the history of the in- cestuous tenth and eleventh emperors, Tupa Inca and Guayna Capac. “This king Tupa Inca) broke the inviolable custom that existed among the Incas, strengthened by a general and very ancient prohibi- tion of marriage within the closest degree of blood relationship. In spite of the aforesaid custom and prohibition that had lasted without

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

278 RAY H. BIXLER

being questioned up to his time, he took as his wife Mama Ocllo, his sister on both the paternal and maternal sides …. Tupa Inca made a law to the effect that only the kings could marry their full sisters by the father and the mother, as he did” (Cobo, 1979, p. 142).

Among the women of this Inca there was one . . . of great beauty, whom the Inca loved and favored more than his legitimate wife; and he had by her a son whom he loved as much as the boy’s mother (Cobo, 1979, p. 148). Rostworowski (1960) believes that “neither primogeniture nor the

European notions of bastardy prevailed in the Inca state” (p. 419). She states that the son who overcame his brothers “with weapons or by at- tracting greater support” p. 419) won the kingship. “Eventually, and still in an effort to eliminate succession squabbles and civil wars, at the peak of the empire’s glory, Tupa Yupanqui introduced royal incest as a way of legitimizing succession by the coya’s son” (p. 426).

Quayna Capac, the eleventh emperor, “was married to his own sister, called Mama Cusirimay …. He had only one son by his sister; this son, named Ninan Cuyuchi, died before his father. He had numerous sons by his other wives; the two most important were Huascar, on the one hand, . . . and Atauhualpa, on the other” (Cobo, 1979, p. 161). These sons were the last emperors. They fought each other for control of the empire and, with the help of Pizzarro, destroyed it in the process.

Cobo 1956, p. 99) states that Huascar married his sister, uniden- tified as to degree of consanguinity (hermana suya).7 John Rowe (Note 2) points out, “The record we have. . . is one of three generations of brother-sister marriage in the Inca royal family before the arrival of the Spanish and of attempts to continue the practice thereafter.” As in the case of the Ptolemies, however, only one Inca, Guayna Capac, was an offspring of full- or half-siblings. Thus all of those many references to Inca incest boil down to the

myth of origin and the marriage of but three emperors to their sisters. The first of these preferred another wife, the second had by his sister but one son, who did not survive and Huascar was succeeded by a half- brother.

Conclusion The available data from these three cultures provide no challenge to (or support for) a natural selection theory of incest avoidance which 7John Rowe called my attention to this marriage and provided other assistance. He is not, in any way, responsible for my conclusions, however.

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

279 ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST

assumes that a genetic mechanism markedly reduces the sexual at- traction between conspecifics who were intimately associated with one another during infancy and early childhood. Natural selection appears to have resulted in the development of mechanisms which reduce the sexual attraction of consanguineous nuclear family members for one another. Apparently no dispensation was granted to resident gods.

References Notes

1. Bixler, R. A note on the multiple meanings of incest. Unpublished manuscript. 2. Rowe, J. Personal communication.

References

BAIKIE, J. A history of Egypt (Vol. 1 & 2). New York: Macmillan, 1929. BARNOUW, V. An introduction to ethnologyJ Vol. II. Ethnology. Homewood,

Illinois: Dorsey, 1971. BATESON, P. Sexual imprinting and optimal outbreeding. Nature, 1978, 273,

669-660. BEVAN, E. The house of Ptolemy. Chicago: Argonaut, 1968. BUDGE, E. A. T. A history of Egypt, (Vol. 7 & 8) New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1902. BULLOUGH, V. Sexual vanance in society and history. New York: Wiley, 1976. CERNY, J. Consanguineous marriages in pharaonic Egypt. Journal of Egyptian

Archaeology, 1954, 40, 23-29. COBO, B. Historia del nuevo mundo. In Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles (Vol. 92).

Madrid: Atlas, 1956. COBO, B. History of the Inca empire (translated and edited by R. Hamilton).

Austin: University of Texas, 1979. DAWS, G. Shoal of time. New York: Macmillan, 1968. FIGGIS, J. The divine rights of kings (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge University

Press, 1914. FRANKFORT, H. Kingship and the gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. GALTON, F. Hereditary genius, Cleveland: World, 1892. HANDY, E. S. C., & PUKUI, M. K. The Polynesian family system in KA’U,

HAWAI’I. Rutland, Vermont: Charles Tuttle Company, 1972. HILL, J. L. Peromyscus: effect of early pairing on reproduction. Science, 1974, 186,

1042-1044. HOEBEL, E. Anthropology: the study of man (3rd ed.>. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966 HOHENWART-GERLACHSTEIN, A. Zur Geschwisterehe im Alten Agypten und in Afrika,

Wiener Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistzk, 1952, 9, 234-243. HOOGLAND, J. L. Prairie dogs avoid extreme inbreeding. Science, 1982, 215,

1639-1641. HOPKINS, K. BrotherFsister marriage in Roman Egypt. Comparatlve Studies in

Society and History, 1980, 22, 303-354. JOESTING, E. Hawaii. New York: Norton, 1972.

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

280 RAY H. BIXLER

JOHNSON, A. Roman Egypt: to the reign of Diocletian (Vol. 2). Paterson, New Jersey: Pageant, 1959. KAMAKAU, S. Ruling chiefs of Hawaii. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press, 1961. KASTER, J. Wings of the falcon. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. KEESING, R., & KEESING, F. New perspectives in cultural anthropology. New York: Holt, 1971. KUYKENDALL, R. S. The Hawaiian kingdom (Vol. 1). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1968. KUYKENDALL, R. S., & DAY, A. G. Hawaii: A history. New York: Prentice Hall, 1948. LEWINSOHN, R. A history of sexual customs. New York: Harper, 1958. LINDZEY, G. Some remarks concerning incest, the incest taboo, and psychoanalytic theory. American Psychologist, 1967, 22, 1051-1059. LINTON, R. The study of man. New York: Appleton-Century, 1936. LIVINGSTONE, F. B. Genetics, ecology and the origins of incest and exogamy. Current Anthropology, 1969,10, 45-49. MAISCH, H. Incest. London: Andre Deutsch, 1973. MALO, D. Hawaiian antiquit7es (2nd ed.). Honolulu: Bishop Museum. Special Publica- tions, 1951. METRAUX, A. The history of the Incas. New York: Pantheon, 1969. MIDDLETON, R. Brother-sister and father-daughter marriage in ancient Egypt. American Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 603-611 . MORTON, N. E. Morbidity of children from consanguineous marriages. Progress in Medical Genetics, 1961, 1, 261-291. MURDOCK, G. P. Social structure. New York: Macmillan, 1949. MURDOCK, G. AJrzea, its peoples and their culture history. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1959. PACKER, C. Inter-troop transfer and inbreeding avoidance in Papio anubis. Animal Behaviour, 1979, 27, 1-36. PUSEY, A. E. Inbreeding avoidance in chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 1980, 28, 543-552. ROSTWOROWSKI de DIEZ CANSECO, M. Succession, cooption to kingship and royal incest among the Inca. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 1960, 16, 417-427. ROWE, J. Inca culture at the time of the Spanish Conquest. In J. Steward (Ed.), The Andean civilizations (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1946. RUFFER, M. On the physical effects of consanguineous marriages in the royal families of ancient Egypt. In, R. Moodie (Ed.), Studies in the paleopathology of Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1921. SCHNIEDER, D. M. The meaning of incest. Journal Polynesian Society Wellington Jour- nal, 1976, 85, 149-169. SHEPHER, J. Mate selection among second generation kibbutz adolescents and adults: Incest avoidance and negative imprinting. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1971, 1, 293-307. TURNEY-HIGH, H. Man and system: Foundations for the study of human relations. New York: Appleton, 1968. VALE, J. Genes, environment, and behavior. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. van den BERGHE, P., & MESHER, G. Royal incest and inclusive fitness. American Ethnologist, 1980, 7, 300-317. WEIGALL, A. A history of the Pharaohs (2 Vols). New York: Dutton, 1925. WENTE, E. Tutankhamun and his world. In K. Gibert (Ed.), Treasures of Tutankhamun. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976.

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROYAL FAMILY SIBLING INCEST 281

WESTERMARCK, E. The history of human marriage (Vol. 2). New York: Allerton, 1922. WHITE, L. A. The science of culture. New York: Grove, 1949. WILSON, J. The burden of Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. WINTER, J. Life and letters in the Papyri. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1933. WOLF, A. P. Childhood association, sexual attraction, and the incest taboo: a Chinese

case. American Anthropologist, 1966, 68, 883-898. WOLF, A. P. Childhood association and sexual attraction: a further test on the Wester-

marck hypothesis. American Anthropologist, 1970, 72, 503-515. WOLF, A., & HUANG, C. Marriage and adoption in China. Stanford: Stanford University,

1980.

Accepted for publication March 31, 1982

This content downloaded from 158.121.247.60 on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:41:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions