posted
It's been my recent observation that a woman is far more willing/likely to share her husband if the "other" woman is her actual sister.
Is this a common pattern and is there a natural explanation for it? Also, when I imagine it, if I were to check out of my current existence and I got to pick who gets to "inherit" my wife, I'd be far more comfortable if it were one of my "blood" brothers. It probably has something to do with genetic competition.
-------------------- Are we going somewhere or are you going to keep annoying me with your boring lectures professor-warrior?? Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a really excellent post, and goes some way into clearing up why some pharaohs would be married to their sister's, cousins, and other close relatives as their great Royal Wives. From my observation, a pharaoh would only have a direct relative as his great royal wife, but this apparently did not extend into his harem, which seemed to be more politically organised. The ceremonial marriage to close relatives ensured the royal bloodline was sustained through the woman, who would (probably) give birth via marriage to another Kemetic husband, as opposed to the pharaoh (her brother cousin). Good thread!
quote: Power in Ancient Egypt descended through the mother's side of the royal family. The queenship was a mortal manifestation of female power and the feminine prototype, while the pharaoh represented the power of the male and the masculine prototype. The roles of the male pharaoh and the female queen were interpreted as one element in a system of complementary dualities. Many Egyptian stories and folktales revolve around the need to reconcile opposites. It was seen as necessary to maintain a balance between the male and the female. Men are more visible in the historical record because they served as the public manifestation of the power of the (female) throne and as the administrative head of the kingdom.
An heiress-queen may, or may not, be married to the pharaoh. If she was closely related by blood, her "marriage" to the pharaoh was ceremonial. Occasionally, however, she would "marry" and establish as the new pharaoh a man from outside the royal family, which brought about the founding of a new dynasty and introduced new blood into the royal bloodline. Men in the royal family, though, had certain claims to the throne by right of birth and kinship to the heiress-queen who may be their mother, step-mother, sister, half-sister, or niece. But none of the pharaoh's own children would automatically be his "heir." Inheritance resided in the female progeny of the heiress-queen. http://witcombe.sbc.edu/menkaure/menkaurequeen.html
quote:Originally posted by Kaizen: It's been my recent observation that a woman is far more willing/likely to share her husband if the "other" woman is her actual sister.
LOL I don't know. I guess that would depend on the culture. The practice where a man is married to women who are sisters is known as sororal polygyny.
quote:Is this a common pattern and is there a natural explanation for it? Also, when I imagine it, if I were to check out of my current existence and I got to pick who gets to "inherit" my wife, I'd be far more comfortable if it were one of my "blood" brothers. It probably has something to do with genetic competition.
The converse is fraternal polyandry when a woman is married to brothers. This was once a not uncommon practice by Iranian and Indian peoples. Even in India while the custom of outright polyandry is largely banned, they still preserve the custom in some places for a widow to marry her dead husband's brother.
Getting back to sororal polygyny, I don't know if it was practiced in particular by any of the pharoahs. It would be interesting if it was.
Posts: 26444 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: This is a really excellent post, and goes some way into clearing up why some pharaohs would be married to their sister's, cousins, and other close relatives as their great Royal Wives. From my observation, a pharaoh would only have a direct relative as his great royal wife, but this apparently did not extend into his harem, which seemed to be more politically organised. The ceremonial marriage to close relatives ensured the royal bloodline was sustained through the woman, who would (probably) give birth via marriage to another Kemetic husband, as opposed to the pharaoh (her brother cousin). Good thread!
Power in Ancient Egypt descended through the mother's side of the royal family. The queenship was a mortal manifestation of female power and the feminine prototype, while the pharaoh represented the power of the male and the masculine prototype. The roles of the male pharaoh and the female queen were interpreted as one element in a system of complementary dualities. Many Egyptian stories and folktales revolve around the need to reconcile opposites. It was seen as necessary to maintain a balance between the male and the female. Men are more visible in the historical record because they served as the public manifestation of the power of the (female) throne and as the administrative head of the kingdom.
An heiress-queen may, or may not, be married to the pharaoh. If she was closely related by blood, her "marriage" to the pharaoh was ceremonial. Occasionally, however, she would "marry" and establish as the new pharaoh a man from outside the royal family, which brought about the founding of a new dynasty and introduced new blood into the royal bloodline. Men in the royal family, though, had certain claims to the throne by right of birth and kinship to the heiress-queen who may be their mother, step-mother, sister, half-sister, or niece. But none of the pharaoh's own children would automatically be his "heir." Inheritance resided in the female progeny of the heiress-queen. http://witcombe.sbc.edu/menkaure/menkaurequeen.html
Indeed, male power is more public and overt while female power is more private and subtle; however in the Western male view of thinking this means female power was second rate or subservient in some way when that couldn't be farther from the truth.
By the way, the practice of incest among royalty may have to do with the conception of divine royalty more so than 'keeping it (power) within the family', so to say. In a book on African monarchs, I read that incest was traditionally more common than thought and that such incestuous unions were done to mimic the gods and/or just as an outright expression that royalty are different from mere non-royals.
Posts: 26444 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty Inbreeding or incest doesn't cause disability per say but it does cause a higher frequency of recessive traits in a family including genetic disorders. For example, Akhenaton is presumed to have Marfan's syndrome where the risks of passing to children is usually low, but since his son Tut (by Kiya) married his daughter Ankhesa (by Nefertiti) all his grandchildren through them inherited the disorder if we are to conclude through genetic tests of the still born fetuses in Tut's tomb.
I've heard about that, and I've also heard about certain ''knowledgeable sources'' thinking of royal prognathism as facial deformation caused by incest. Unless they have some serious evidence of Akhenatons presumed condition, I would look at some of their claims with a good healthy dosis of skepticism.
posted
Also, another important detail of the Matrilineal (sometimes Matriarchal) aspects of Kemetic society is found in the artwork. Note the following: [img] http://enks.net/articles/who%27s_who/AH/Resources/Black-Ahmose-Nefertari.jpg [/img]
Although it appears as though Nefertari is seated behind Ahmose in this relief, in fact she is seated as his right hand. The symbolic significance of being seated at the right hand is actually a display of authority of decision making. She is actually sitting in a position of leadership.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Confirming that she was indeed ''jet black'' in her casual depictions, and that it had nothing to do with stylistic conventions (Hammer et al). If that was the case, why would her husband be depicted in the average southern ancient Egyptian color and she not, even though women were usually depicted with lighter complexions in pre 18th dy depictions?
One could argue that this actually is a color atributed to him beause of the stylistic conventions Hammer mentioned, since it was found near Tutankhamun's coffin. How this relates to how Nefertari and other ''jet black'' ancient Egyptians are depicted in non funeral associated murals/statues, has yet to be thouroughly explained by Hammer. Don't worry, I'll wait (Kat Williams voice) LOL. Of course we shouldn't expect a similar objectivity of Hammer, who is about as objective as his Afrocentric counterparts he hates so much.
posted
Sometimes Kolonji we have to be careful with that brother sister thing in ancient kemet,sometimes it is just a term of endearment..like say in modern AAs comunities,and not actual siblings.. although real brother sister marriage could have taken place..
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I've heard about that, and I've also heard about certain ''knowledgeable sources'' thinking of royal prognathism as facial deformation caused by incest. Unless they have some serious evidence of Akhenatons presumed condition, I would look at some of their claims with a good healthy dosis of skepticism.
Kalonji
LOL This sounds like typical racist b.s. used to explain away African features; however, in the case of Akhenaton, marfan syndrome was used as an explanation for his elongated face. That could possibly be so, but it could just be that such an elongated face is normal and not caused by any disease since there are many northeast Africans that have elongated faces.
Posts: 26444 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ True, "brother" and "sister" were used as terms of indearment for universal kinship, but brother-sister and even father-daughter incestual unions did take place among royalty. As I said, such incestuous unions were practiced only by royalty due as part of a tradition associated with divine royalty seen in other parts of Africa.
Confirming that she was indeed ''jet black'' in her casual depictions, and that it had nothing to do with stylistic conventions (Hammer et al). If that was the case, why would her husband be depicted in the average southern ancient Egyptian color and she not, even though women were usually depicted with lighter complexions in pre 18th dy depictions?
One could argue that this actually is a color atributed to him beause of the stylistic conventions Hammer mentioned, since it was found near Tutankhamun's coffin. How this relates to how Nefertari and other ''jet black'' ancient Egyptians are depicted in non funeral associated murals/statues, has yet to be thouroughly explained by Hammer. Don't worry, I'll wait (Kat Williams voice) LOL. Of course we shouldn't expect a similar objectivity of Hammer, who is about as objective as his Afrocentric counterparts he hates so much.
Kalonji
LOL This was pointed out many times that because black is considered a sacred color of the divine, because Ahmose Nefertari is deified and made a great goddess and divine matriarch she was naturally painted in black as opposed to her half-brother also husband Ahmose I who as pharaoh is also divine but apparently not in the same 'holy' status as his wife. The Egyptians believed that when a person dies his sprits example are also divine hence the guardian statues of Tut in black, which I thought depicted the ba but rather another spirit aspect.
Posts: 26444 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty: LOL This sounds like typical racist b.s. used to explain away African features; however, in the case of Akhenaton, marfan syndrome was used as an explanation for his elongated face. That could possibly be so, but it could just be that such an elongated face is normal and not caused by any disease since there are many northeast Africans that have elongated faces.
The first time I heard his name they said he was ''ugly'' and ''groteske''. I think that is just stupid, like I've said before, outsiders coming in to draw conclusions based on their already distorted view about ancient Egypt can lead to even more distorted conclusions. The prognathism example and the speculation about the ''low status'' pose both demonstrate this. The non typical way he was depicted, his ''outsider'' status and their pre conceived notions about how athletic and toned the average ancient Egyptian was (mural depictions) compared to him surely played a part when they singled him out with those descriptions. I don't think he was any more ugly than Cleopatra was on the coins with her face on it.
posted
It's funny how you guys talk and talk just to try to convince yourselves about certain opinions you already hold.
Why don't you just realise that opinions are like arseholes; everyone is entitled to one by birthright.
If you want to engage in polygamy, do it, if you want to cheat on your wives/husbands, just do it, if incest is your thing (as grotesque as it is) and your sibling is into it, just do it! Posts: 368 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man people, always respect the sanctity of marriage.
It's not about Just do it. Doing the right thing is important.
A Sexual immoral world will destroy us like sodom and gomorrah. The world is already a messed up place as it is. It would decay even faster if people live by the just do it nonsense.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: It's funny how you guys talk and talk just to try to convince yourselves about certain opinions you already hold.
I wouldn't call it ''convincing ourselves of position we already hold''. More like: affirming facts that need to be affirmed to set the record straight. If that means a bunch of co-signs in every post and the response to that posters post, yes, I'm all for it.
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: If you want to engage in polygamy, do it, if you want to cheat on your wives/husbands, just do it, if incest is your thing (as grotesque as it is) and your sibling is into it, just do it! [Big Grin]
My thoughts exactly, that's why I didn't understand why you said:
quote: Originally posted by Kaizen: ^ Disgusting idea. The woman is no longer your wife if other men are piping her lol she's just everybody's girl at that point let's not fool ourselves
I always try to be as non-judgemental as I can be when talking about cultural practices, because ''normal'' is a social construct.
posted
If you are willing to/have the money to buy them..?
I'll let you list me as a source, that should give you extra credibility Posts: 8805 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to agree with Kaizen on these matters. He is making the most sense among anyone here.
Nobody owns anybody, but I think there is either an implicit or explicit contract when people enter into marriage. Often times "implicit" contracts are subtle and can turn out to be unfair for one or some of the participants.
This is why I'm all for explicit contracts to prevent ambiguity that could lead to tears in the future. Where I differ from Kaizen, is that I lean more towards the feminist side of things. I think the explicit contracts are there to protect women more so than men.
Other than clear implicit and explicit contracts I think people need to just mind their business and not stick their uninvited noses into other peoples marriage. Agreeements between two consenting adults are their own and their families business.
So if you ain't marrying off your son or daugther (or relative/family-friend you are guardian to), stay out of it!!!
Posts: 9 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can all you masters of disruption pack it back up to Ancient Egypt forum.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Which african societies practise incest? Or were you referring to 'divine royalty' exclusively when you made this statement?
quote: As I said, such incestuous unions were practiced only by royalty due as part of a tradition associated with divine royalty seen in other parts of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Djehuti, Which african societies practise incest? Or were you referring to 'divine royalty' exclusively when you made this statement?
My statement about incest in African societies pertained to royalty only and whether the reason due to their alleged 'divinity' and thus mimicking deities and/or just a practice to separate them from ordinary peoples I don't know. All I know is that I read a book on African monarchs which mentioned this. I believe I have an excerpt of that book and will cite it in this forum soon enough along with other books.
Posts: 26444 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In another thread I discussed ancient Egyptian marriage. This subtopic on the other hand deserves a thread of its own which it already has here.
As I explained before, the mating rites of humans are essentially no different from animals except in that they are formalized or regulated in more complex social or institutional ways. It is the primal sexual impulse of males to fertilize or have sex with as many females as he can so his genes may dominate the gene pool. At the same time it is the primal sexual impulse of females to be fertilized by or have sex with different (though not necessarily many) males so her offspring are genetically diverse and better fitted to survive. In humans, the female impulse is easily tempered through social dynamics primarily in the form of long term attention and provision of a male or males. The male impulse, not so much tempered by anything, which is why males regardless of species tend to be more promiscuous than females. Again, sexual expression in human society tends to be regulated in certain institutions like marriage or religion, which are obviously not mutually exclusive of each other. I will address the religious aspects in another thread, but for now I am speaking of marriage.
It was already discussed on this thread the issue of 'jealousy'. Again, sexual jealousy on the part of the male is to not have other males fertilize females he himself has access to sexually. In more male dominant societies this issue is solved simply through the enforcement of strict sexual codes to control women and ensure women or girls' virginity before marriage. We see this practice in the Greco-Roman world with laws reflecting male honor through female shame and these laws were also in place in ancient Southwest Asia as they are enforced today. Egyptian society though was not male dominated but more gender egalitarian since women were free in Egyptian society and to have sexual relations with anyone as long as they were single. And even though adultery was frowned upon there didn't seem to be as heavy punishments for it as it were in the 'Near East'. It should be known that even though a pharaoh had his harem of wives these wives were not viewed as his property but on the contrary were free women who chose to marry the pharaoh and were equally free to leave him as well, though it was seen as an honor as well as a blessing to be married to him who was a living god. In the future I will even post evidence that women of the harem were not even sexually exclusive to the pharaoh but may even have relations with other men!
As explained in this thread polygamy was quite rare in large part due to the financial stress of the husband to support more than one wife and was only practiced by the elite. Even most noblemen had one wife at a time though some were bigamists where a nobleman was married to two wives though in rarer cases three. It's interesting because in Egyptian mythology although most gods were monogamist, there were some who practiced bigamy like the god Min who was married to the goddesses Iabet and Repit or the god Montu who was married to Djenenyet and Iunit. The pharaoh on the other hand had the largest harem consisting of dozens even hundreds of wives including his chief wife who establishes his legitimacy to rule.
Posts: 26444 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I explained above, it is a curious thing that despite the pharaoh have a large harem of wives there is no evidence to indicate sexual jealousy. For example, in Asia kings who usually had large harems had these harems guarded by eunuchs. Eunuchs as we all know are castrated males so the eunuchs themselves cannot engage the women sexually. There is no evidence of pharaohs using eunuchs to guard their harems.
What's even more curious is that Egyptian texts would speak of children born to the great wife though not of the pharaoh's body, meaning they were not the pharaoh's biological children though they were his main wife's children. Some scholars speculate these were stepchildren born before the marriage but in many instances like the 18th dynasty princes Kamose and Ahmose, these were born during the marriage. Kamose and Ahmose are perhaps the most well known cases in Egyptology but certainly not the only. One may presume adultery, yet the wife is not charged as such. Is it possible that just as the pharaoh has a sexual privilege to be married to multiple wives at a time, his main wive or 'queen' has some sort of similar privilege? Could the same hold true for his other wives?
The matrilineal descent of the pharaohs seems to support this: Records show that pharaohs had several "wives" of different standing within the royal bloodline. It would appear to be also the case that an heiress-queen could both be "married" to the pharaoh and also be married and have children with another man, a consort-king. The children of the pharaoh and his wives, and the children of heiress-queen and her consort-king, would all refer to the pharaoh as "father" and the heiress-queen as "mother." Evidence of this is the way that the pharaoh is always the "son" of his predecessor, even though there may be no physical link.
I believe the evidence in support of the "heiress" theory outweighs that against it. Once adopted, it can be used to clarify much of the present confusion surrounding royal relationships, inheritance, and pharaonic succession, especially during the period of the Old Kingdom when the great pyramids were built at Giza, and when the statue of Menkaure and his queen was carved.
Power in Ancient Egypt descended through the mother's side of the royal family. The queenship was a mortal manifestation of female power and the feminine prototype, while the pharaoh represented the power of the male and the masculine prototype. The roles of the male pharaoh and the female queen were interpreted as one element in a system of complementary dualities. Many Egyptian stories and folktales revolve around the need to reconcile opposites. It was seen as necessary to maintain a balance between the male and the female. Men are more visible in the historical record because they served as the public manifestation of the power of the (female) throne and as the administrative head of the kingdom.
An heiress-queen may, or may not, be married to the pharaoh. If she was closely related by blood, her "marriage" to the pharaoh was ceremonial. Occasionally, however, she would "marry" and establish as the new pharaoh a man from outside the royal family, which brought about the founding of a new dynasty and introduced new blood into the royal bloodline. Men in the royal family, though, had certain claims to the throne by right of birth and kinship to the heiress-queen who may be their mother, step-mother, sister, half-sister, or niece. But none of the pharaoh's own children would automatically be his "heir." Inheritance resided in the female progeny of the heiress-queen.
This seems to be the reason why there are some sources which suggest that Egyptian royal women practiced polyandry--being married to more than one husband at the same time-- or at least cicisbeism-- the male counterpart of concubinage where a man is sexually attached to a woman but has a status inferior to true husband.
Kamose and Ahmose were sons born to Ahhotep I but were not sons of the king's (Sekenenra's) body. So far no records are found to indicate who the biological father of Kamose and Ahmose were. Kamose was the first to declare war against the Hyksos and after his death, his younger brother Ahmose took over as pharaoh when he wed his half sister Ahmose-Nefertari biological daughter of his mother Ahhotep I and Sekenenra II.
The implications of the practice are heavy indeed when it comes to the study of royal genealogies and makes such studies more complicated than it already is!
Posts: 26444 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic