4 ms·

> However, another finding was completely unexpected: on Crete and the other Greek islands, as well as on the mainland, it was very common to marry one's first

> However, another finding was completely unexpected: on Crete and the other Greek islands, as well as on the mainland, it was very common to marry one's first cousin 4,000 years ago. I guess this is revealing is modern, western biases. Throughout much of history and through large parts of the world, it was very common for cousins to marry. Even in the Bible, Jacob marries his first cousins.

mjh2539 4y ago
In Muslim countries a large plurality of marriages are to first cousins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East#/media/File:Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_...
- throwaway2202 4y ago
  There was also the economic aspect. Inheritance to daughters and widows was developed and enforced by muslims, and I hear in turn families became motivated to marry among their own to keep the wealth in the family.
ipaddr 4y ago
It was common to marry relations in America and Europe when the church mattered more. It's more of a recent taboo and not illegal in most places. I wonder if studies have been done to show better outcomes when genes are similiar vs very different
- scotty79 4y ago
  The more difference, the better outcomes. I think that's why so many people have this unreasonable urge to travel. If you didn't have that in the past very little genetic diversity was available for your offspring.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "I think that's why so many people have this unreasonable urge to travel." It might also be, because most of human history, we have been (half) nomads and settling in one place for life, came much later. People went, were the food was, usually herds of animals. And women stealing seem to have been quite common, until recently (when encountering other tribes). "The more difference, the better outcomes." And I don't think one can generalize that, otherwise it might makes sense to try it with apes .. I have the (maybe romantic) theory, that attractivness is no universal scale, but a sign of individual fitting (filtered out deep inside, mainly via biochemical processing aka smell). Meaning a person you fell in love on first sight, is probably a good match.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      > I have the (maybe romantic) theory, that attractivness is no universal scale, but a sign of individual fitting (filtered out deep inside, mainly via biochemical processing aka smell). Meaning a person you fell in love on first sight, is probably a good match. This seems like it must be at least partly true, but it's probably a complicated mix. We are genetically programmed (via evolution) to find certain things attractive. This could easily mean that somewhere in that genetic programming something "knows" that offspring with that person would do well (or it could mean that the genetic programming is broken because it was trained in a different environment than currently exists--we now have a larger pool of potential mates than previous generations did, for instance). There's also the possibility of green-beard type effects (eg a gene causes a perceptable trait and also a propensity to be attracted to that trait). That would mean that there's no real benefit to the organism to mating with someone attractive for that reason, there's only benefit to the gene that causes that. But yeah, if I were hypothetically looking for someone to procreate with, I'd certainly look for someone who looks and smells attractive to me (though that's also just going to make the process more fun). A lot of attractiveness is societal as well though, of course. We base what's attractive on what we see others attracted to, and on what we're sold. A lot of that is visual, so if you really want to trust your genes, smell might be the way to go.
      - 4y ago
- roywiggins 4y ago
  It depends on what era of the Catholic church we're talking about. The medieval church got very expansive about which relations were illegal to marry, including in-laws. > until the 13th century, the church forbade marriages with consanguinity or affinity (kinship by marriage) to the seventh degree— a rule which covered a very large percentage of marriages. https://www.thoughtco.com/consanguinity-and-medieval-marriages-3529573 https://www.thoughtco.com/consanguinity-and-medieval-marriag... So it would forbid you marrying your brother-in-law's first cousin, for example, even if you have no consanguinity with them. Even not counting affinity, you'd still be forbidden to marry third cousins, which nobody has had problems with for centuries.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    How exactly did so much of mainland Europe wind up with royalty that suffered from genetic illness due to their limited genetic diversity?
    - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
      Politics
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      The rules could be waived with a papal dispensation. Probably a big motivation for creating the rules, since that would mean that they would always have a significant number of royals who needed a favor.
jdmtheNth 4y ago
Yes, the west often believes that Greek-adjacent cultures were as advanced and civilized as the west is now.

mjh2539 4y ago

In Muslim countries a large plurality of marriages are to first cousins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East#/media/File:Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_...

throwaway2202 4y ago
There was also the economic aspect. Inheritance to daughters and widows was developed and enforced by muslims, and I hear in turn families became motivated to marry among their own to keep the wealth in the family.

ipaddr 4y ago

It was common to marry relations in America and Europe when the church mattered more. It's more of a recent taboo and not illegal in most places. I wonder if studies have been done to show better outcomes when genes are similiar vs very different

scotty79 4y ago
The more difference, the better outcomes. I think that's why so many people have this unreasonable urge to travel. If you didn't have that in the past very little genetic diversity was available for your offspring.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "I think that's why so many people have this unreasonable urge to travel." It might also be, because most of human history, we have been (half) nomads and settling in one place for life, came much later. People went, were the food was, usually herds of animals. And women stealing seem to have been quite common, until recently (when encountering other tribes). "The more difference, the better outcomes." And I don't think one can generalize that, otherwise it might makes sense to try it with apes .. I have the (maybe romantic) theory, that attractivness is no universal scale, but a sign of individual fitting (filtered out deep inside, mainly via biochemical processing aka smell). Meaning a person you fell in love on first sight, is probably a good match.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    > I have the (maybe romantic) theory, that attractivness is no universal scale, but a sign of individual fitting (filtered out deep inside, mainly via biochemical processing aka smell). Meaning a person you fell in love on first sight, is probably a good match. This seems like it must be at least partly true, but it's probably a complicated mix. We are genetically programmed (via evolution) to find certain things attractive. This could easily mean that somewhere in that genetic programming something "knows" that offspring with that person would do well (or it could mean that the genetic programming is broken because it was trained in a different environment than currently exists--we now have a larger pool of potential mates than previous generations did, for instance). There's also the possibility of green-beard type effects (eg a gene causes a perceptable trait and also a propensity to be attracted to that trait). That would mean that there's no real benefit to the organism to mating with someone attractive for that reason, there's only benefit to the gene that causes that. But yeah, if I were hypothetically looking for someone to procreate with, I'd certainly look for someone who looks and smells attractive to me (though that's also just going to make the process more fun). A lot of attractiveness is societal as well though, of course. We base what's attractive on what we see others attracted to, and on what we're sold. A lot of that is visual, so if you really want to trust your genes, smell might be the way to go.
    - 4y ago
roywiggins 4y ago
It depends on what era of the Catholic church we're talking about. The medieval church got very expansive about which relations were illegal to marry, including in-laws. > until the 13th century, the church forbade marriages with consanguinity or affinity (kinship by marriage) to the seventh degree— a rule which covered a very large percentage of marriages. https://www.thoughtco.com/consanguinity-and-medieval-marriages-3529573 https://www.thoughtco.com/consanguinity-and-medieval-marriag... So it would forbid you marrying your brother-in-law's first cousin, for example, even if you have no consanguinity with them. Even not counting affinity, you'd still be forbidden to marry third cousins, which nobody has had problems with for centuries.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  How exactly did so much of mainland Europe wind up with royalty that suffered from genetic illness due to their limited genetic diversity?
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    Politics
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    The rules could be waived with a papal dispensation. Probably a big motivation for creating the rules, since that would mean that they would always have a significant number of royals who needed a favor.

jdmtheNth 4y ago

Yes, the west often believes that Greek-adjacent cultures were as advanced and civilized as the west is now.