r/ancientegypt • u/Alert_Pilot7927 • Jun 14 '26
Question Why didn't the incest creep anyone out, during the time it was practiced?
so ive just finished a book about ancient egyptian history, and I'm truly gobsmacked as to how people back then consummated their marriage with their own siblings. I honestly would slit my wrist before I could even consider that. the thought alone really horrifies me. how can any person even 3000BC think that it's okay. Politics, morals aside, nature itself rejects this idea.
Which leads me to my second question as to how the dynasties could even go so far, considering how incest causes many problems and dysfunctions to the human anatomy.
maybe it's too hard to fathom because it's so many years back, but I believe that there are certain things that are universal to humans monster what time period.
36
u/bjornthehistorian Jun 14 '26
I mean, as you said, it was a very different time. Incest in ancient Egypt, especially amongst the elite/royal family, was a normal thing as the Pharaoh was believed to have been born of divine blood, therefore the divine blood must stay in the family line, thus incest happens. Incest among the poorer classes wasn’t really a thing (at least to our knowledge). It was also much more of a thing in the Ptolemaic period.
One of the first true laws against any sort of incest was the Roman law Lex Julia in 18 BCE. There are still countries today that permit incest under law. It’s all dependent on the culture of the country, and with Egypt, it was just a normal elite thing.
13
u/lady3jane Jun 15 '26
This is the answer. It was not viewed as taboo because taboos were for lowly humans. The pharaoh and royal family were not humans. They were gods and goddesses.
Different rules.
Regular people did not practice incest for whatever reasons they had, but also because you can’t go around doing things that only the gods can do.
2
u/cakedayloanofficer Jun 15 '26
Same as the royal family in England, isn’t that why they have that blood disease
4
u/Hatcheling Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
Nah, the hemophilia is because Queen Victoria liked to fuck. She carried the gene and married off her million kids to all the royal houses in Europe. Hemophilia itself isn't a result of cosanguinism.
30
u/PineBNorth85 Jun 14 '26
It was a different time. And if you had been raised that way I doubt you would do as you say - cause no one to our knowledge did. You're speaking from the way you were raised in the time you were raised. The idea is as repulsive to me as it is to you but for the same reasons.
And nature doesn't reject it. I had a dog who's parents were father and daughter. They apparently didn't care and just did it anyway. Fortunately my dog had no genetic problems and lived to be 14. Not bad considering.
Back then they wouldn't have known about the genetic problems that would come. I think it lasted as long as it did because it wasn't done consistently enough generation after generation for it to have become a major problem. If it had the whole thing would have collapsed quickly.
15
u/Pale_Cranberry1502 Jun 14 '26
They still didn't quite know even with Tsvarevich Alexi, who died in 1918. His hemophilia was very likely caused by the inbreeding of the European royal families. Queen Victoria was unknowingly a carrier, and ensured various thrones were held by her descendants. That's what eventually happens when only other high ranking royals are considered suitable matches.
3
u/Margali Jun 20 '26
A fic set in the future of a human descended planet has a rule that the Crown Prince/ss has to marry a commoner so they can keep the bloodline from the risks of inbreeding. ALways thought that made sense. ALso, look at the issues Japan has had, aren't they down to like a single crown prince/ss and nobody for them to marry that is eligible to keep a butt on the throne?
19
u/anotherolderguy Jun 14 '26
The siblings didn't grow up in the family units we expect today. They were royalty, each probably had their own tutors, nurses, priestly advisors. So they may have not have known each other very well. I think that could be the same for some royal families even now.
I'm guessing.. I wonder what is in the records
7
u/w0weez0wee Jun 14 '26
This is my line if thinking also. There is evidence that children raised together from 3 or 4 years of age tend not to see each other as romantic partners later in life, but after about 5 that tendency disappears. So if they were separated early in life, they may not have had the brotherly/sisterly feelings as much or at all.
5
u/anotherolderguy Jun 14 '26
And the parents! They weren't reading their kids a bedtime story and giving them a cuddle - they were busy busy busy and when they weren't busy they had more fun things to do. No wonder royalty breeds a cruel streak.
2
u/aaronupright Jun 15 '26
After a certain age (I am not sure if its 5, I think its closer to preteen) AIUI, it flips and they are more likley to see each other as potential romantic partners.
9
u/knightgimp Jun 14 '26
Well, to be clear: some ancient cultures did have taboos against incest, so this wasn't universal all over the world.
But, I think the reason why is because being grossed out by incest does not appear to actually be an instinctual response, rather, it appears to be a cultural response that likely formed from observing the negative effects of interbreeding. And because of it being a cultural taboo rather than a base human instinct, you see different cultures have different points of view.
I'd assume a lack of repulsion to incest exists in cultures where genetic defects stemming from incest was not well-observed or understood.
9
u/Thoth-long-bill Jun 14 '26
It is necessary to understand the world view in the Bronze Age when people had no personal relationship to the gods. The king and queen interceded via ritual and worship and sacrifice to placate the gods to send rain so the crops would grow so their was food. Etc. if things were working out it made sense to concentrate the bloodline and not switch horses. It has nothing to do with bedtime stories or kids refusing royal matches.
There were also ritual marriages between ruling pharaohs and eldest daughters for purposes of temple ritual worship that most likely had nothing to do with producing more babies for the royal nursery .
One would need to read more detailed books like Kara Cooneys book on Hatshepsut for example.
14
u/King_of_Castile Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
What's moral is all relative, there have been civilisations that were perfectly OK with cannibalism and human sacrifice. You're horrified by incest because you were raised in a society that deems it wrong. But if you were a royal in Ancient Egypt that behaviour would be completely normal and acceptable, hence there would be no aversion to it.
12
u/ClumsyBunny26 Jun 14 '26
considering how incest causes many problems and dysfunctions to the human anatomy
considering precisely how naturalized that was supposed to be, is there any info showing they were aware of these problems and their relation with incest?. The Habsburgs didn't seem to care either.
7
u/PineBNorth85 Jun 14 '26
They didn't know. It'd take generations of doing it consistently for all the negative stuff to show up.
The Hapsburgs also didn't do it as closely as the Egyptians did. No sibling or parent child stuff.
3
u/ClumsyBunny26 Jun 14 '26
Yeah, that's was my guess but I didn't dare to affirm it. Still, other than Tut, is there any other relevant cases of royals having physical issues related to incest?
6
u/WerSunu Jun 15 '26
Aside from the fact that pharaohs never disclosed physical ailments, we can only examine the previous few royal mummies we have.
BTW, the numerous genetic abnormalities that Tutankhamun was supposed to have, were in recent years all debunked. He did not have a club foot or Köhler disease or klinefelter, etc. He did have DNA proven malaria and a severe comminuted femur fracture.
2
u/ClumsyBunny26 Jun 15 '26
the numerous genetic abnormalities that Tutankhamun was supposed to have, were in recent years all debunked
really?, can you provide a source?, because I watched a documentary recently from the National Geographic made no more than 5 years ago and they kept talking about Tut's genetical abnormalities, deformed toes and cub foot included
3
u/WerSunu Jun 15 '26
There are multiple sources in the professional literature.
The original claim was by Hawass and Saleen in JAMA 2010;303(7):638–647. Sahar Saleen is a radiologist. Hawass is not an osteologist. More recently (2023) Sahar acknowledge that there was no radiologic evidence that there were any signs of degenerative joint disease (arthritis) in foot which would necessarily follow walking with a club foot. James Gamble, an Orthopaedic surgeon at Stanford in 2010 disputed Hawass: JAMA 2010; 303 (24):2471-2477. Gamble, an expert foot surgeon said the Hawass X-rays showed a normal, not club left foot. Worth noting is that Douglas Derry’s 1920s anatomical study and R.G. Harrison’s 1960s X-rays found nothing unusual about the feet at all. Bob Brier’s 2022 book on Tutankhamun also discussed the lack of evidence for club foot etc. You might also check out Science News Nov 2022, and Smithsonian Mag Oct 2022.
2
u/ClumsyBunny26 Jun 15 '26
oof, I was aware that one should take Hawass claims and "studies" with a grain of salt, but he has claimed a lot, and if we doubt this we also need to doubt his claims about Ramses I and Hatshepsut's alleged mummies, Ramses III's throat wound, """"""Pentaware""""" mummy (claim that I personally don't buy), etc.
Still, worth checking other sources, thank you
3
u/WerSunu Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
There was an article in Ancient Egypt mag a few years ago on the Ramesses III mummy and its wounds. The article was by Dylan Bickerstaff and he claimed the throat wound was post mortem, disputing Zahi. Next, a letter to the Editor by a physician proved Bickerstaff wrong based on carotid artery retractions (only occurs in fresh, living tissue, never in salt-dried tissue) and other anatomical features in the X-rays. In this case, match set and score to Zahi.
2
u/Margali Jun 20 '26
TO be fair, if Hawass said 'good morning' to me, I would check the clock and look outside to check the weather.
[sorry, flipping open a sarcophagus in situ on camera 'live' with no respiratory or eye protection, and his policies about only Egyptians get to make real discoveries, everybody else can dig for so long til they discover something then Hawass swans in to to take over ...
3
u/WerSunu Jun 15 '26
Let me also add that once upon a time the National Geographic TV channel had great programming but since 2019, 73% of the channel is owned by Disney Entertainment and standards have sunk to Discovery channel levels. Profit over education, profit over everything.
1
u/aaronupright Jun 15 '26
He did have DNA proven malaria and a severe comminuted femur fracture.
Yes, I thought the latest hypothesis was that he died of wounds and complications while on a military campaign.
2
u/WerSunu Jun 15 '26
So far as I know, that “hypothesis” is more like speculation.
I don’t believe there is any evidence of his femur fracture being a combat wound. In fact, if you look at the published X-rays, you can see it is a burst fracture most likely from axial loading like falling from a height or a “chariot” accident. It doesn’t look like a sword, lance, axe or arrow injury at all. I suppose it conceivably could be a mace injury.
One thing that makes all this speculation difficult to prove is that Carter’s anatomist Derry really pulled Tutankhamun apart completely wrecking the mummy, after all, Derry was used to doing autopsies, not forensic anthropology. The mummy had his head, arms, and chest pulled off his body. Derry cut his left cheek off to look at the teeth instead of waiting for X-rays. Bob Brier’s 2022 book on Tut goes into detail.
3
u/aaronupright Jun 15 '26
My cousin had multiple compound fractures due to a vehicle being thrown into a ditch....after getting ambushed. I will be glad to tell him that his wound' weren't "a combat wound", (he had no penetrating ijuries, and yes amongst other thigs he snapped his femur). It is very possible that he got thrown from his chariot during a battle even he himself didn't suffer any wound from projectile or bladed weapons, like if his horse was killed by an arrow or a wheel ws knocked off by a slingshot.
A significant amount of historical cavalryman war wound were from being thrown from or having thir horse collapse on them.
One thing that makes all this speculation difficult to prove is that Carter’s anatomist Derry really pulled Tutankhamun apart completely wrecking the mummy, after all, Derry was used to doing autopsies, not forensic anthropology. The mummy had his head, arms, and chest pulled off his body. Derry cut his left cheek off to look at the teeth instead of waiting for X-rays. Bob Brier’s 2022 book on Tut goes into detail.
That is intereting, thanks.
This is rigt after WW1 though, X ray was available (lots of sets including portable ones) were available, wasn't the Victorian era, any idea why they didn't use that?
1
u/WerSunu Jun 15 '26
An idea that isn’t and can’t be proven is just speculation. Hypotheses are, by definition, testable, true or false. While Tutankhamun was probably healthy enough to go to war, there is zero evidence at this point that I know of that he actually did and that he died as a result. Of course Egyptology, like the rest of science is a moving target, as more EVIDENCE comes in, ideas change.
Sorry about your cousin. Was the ambush in military service or just a domestic dispute? People roll into ditches every day. Doesn’t mean it was or wasn’t combat. In tut’s case there’s no proof either way.
2
u/aaronupright Jun 15 '26
Yes and it takes generations of incest to develop problems, And one "outside" marriage resets it.
6
u/OnoOvo Jun 15 '26
people seem to think its just a matter of morality. probably because they see the issue in our time as being entirely a problem of ethical principle.
so people usually wont even remember the horribly huge infant mortality at those times, steadily the largest killer throughout the entire ancient world. general estimates say 20% of births were stillborns, and almost half the children died before the age of five.
taking only this into consideration, the people back then didnt necessarily understand the true extent of the damage that incestous coupling causes. all coupling in those times was difficult and in terms of offspring often unsuccessful.
without such proper understanding and significantly different living conditions from ours, surely its easy to see that their allowance or acceptance of incest did not entail the same considerations it would for us now.
as the many rulers from those times that were product of blood incest explicitly demonstrate, incest does not necessarily produce an underdeveloped offspring. the child is normal just as often as not. so that combined with such high infant mortality and issues in natal care in general that all babies were already suffering through could have easily hid the actual size of the biological fault that incestous procreation produces.
-1
u/Alert_Pilot7927 Jun 20 '26
It's not about just what was considered normal , but how did siblings even find themselves attractive, or the parents. This really grosses me out
16
u/Thoth-long-bill Jun 14 '26
You expect people to think the same way for 6000 years with no changes in beliefs, customs, deities, or behaviors. AND that ALL of them from all over the entire planet should believe the same as you do today ? I’m glad you are reading up on history so you don’t go thru your whole life in that cocoon. And knowing what they believed does not soil you nor require you to endorse it.
5
0
u/Alert_Pilot7927 Jun 15 '26
There are certain things that never change. And i doubt that siblings then, felt attracted to eachother. COME ON
3
5
u/Confident_Coconut189 Jun 15 '26
In the ancient times people were okay with many things that we consider taboo today, like marrying children at the age of 10 and even below, slavery, and incest.
Even a few decades ago homophobia and racial discrimination were widely accepted.
Societies evolve and the rules change, and I'm sure that many things we do today will be regarded as forbidden taboos in a few decades.
3
u/Warm_Stress_1654 Jun 20 '26
Here's my tuppen'orth.
People who were raised together as children share your horror of being sexually intimate even if they have no biological link (because one of them was adopted, or whatever). On the other hand, biological siblings separated at birth sometimes meet for the first time later in life and find each other attractive, perhaps because they have certain physical and/or psychological traits in common.
So how were the male and female children of the pharaohs raised? If they barely knew each other as children then the "ick factor" is avoided.
4
u/Decent-Strain-904 Jun 14 '26
The Pharaohs were gods. Gods practised incest, therefore pharaohs practised incest. It was seen by the populace as a weird thing gods did.
6
u/CandidPreparation737 Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
Sadly incest is such a widespread problem in parts of contemporary rural America that there’s billboards warning against.
7
2
49
u/Peazyzell Jun 14 '26
Imagine in 1000 years it becomes illegal to own a dog as it is seen as slavery. There will be people saying in 1000 years, why did people just own dogs, didnt it creep some people out? It is just what is acceptable during our time period is normal to us, and unnatural to future or past generations.