Polahi tribe and some historical commentary

This Indonesian tribe, might be the most interesting place to look at from a genetic point of view,

This tribe, actually have their sons and mothers, daughters and fathers, and half-siblings too, marry each other and breed, for generations, so long they forgot. Could be 100 years, probably more.

They're Buddhist, maybe eat some rice, most probably some vegetables and local tubercles. I wish I knew. They look a lot like this (another Polahi tribe):

What's more ? They're apparently, quite healthy !

No two-headed babies or mutants of any kind.

The question of how this taboo happened is not quite clear, but it's a structural, non accidental process, seeing how it happened independently, God knows how many times over.

I would tend to think it's part and parcel of patriarchal societies, women becoming an object of exchange between tribes, a token of power, as in having the most fertile girls would give the most workers and fighters. Though like everything humans, there are exceptions, and I have no problems imagining a society where men are the most politically adept, yet women would do as they please. Best example of the best of the two worlds : Spartans.

But, in a context where chiefs would be power stupid and hungry (clearly not the case for Spartans and Egyptians), women sticking to their own blood would not go along with their desire for supremacy or intent to profit off their "reproductive value" for services, goods, or even keep them for himself. In that particular way, incest is a pretty good natural equalizer between commoners and the upper class, when it comes to the sexual market, even-though I don't like this notion.

In a more "meta" way, the Marquis de Sade (Divin Marquis !) said, that regulation actually came from the masses, weak people using the power of the laws to wanting to suppress the power of a single House, who would naturally build on their wealth (avoiding dilapidating it) as well as natural, genetic qualities (the actual nobility), increasing the gap even more.

He didn't say it, but I would presume it would take place when the masses already the lost the sense of what is sacred and holy, otherwise just about everyone would do just that, and power or wealth would even out quickly.

Though quite "meta" this idea certainly fit well with Church regulations starting to kick in the 8-9e century (if memory serves me well), while until then keeping it in the clan was the (documented) way to strengthen a House's local power, and avoid dilapidating wealth. Mostly cousins marriages. While exogamy would form alliances and extend this influence, though weakening it as well. Hence, even before Christianism, there was indeed an appeal to exogamy too, look no further thant at Romans.

But I means I'm pretty sure than the further you go back in time, the closer family bounds would be, as the appeal of extending your social circle would be less important, in a much less "complicated" social, civilizational setting, where power would be given to the best and not necessarily the most wealthy or having the most "relations" as of today.

And most likely "fresh" blood would be felt necessary only once in a few generations only, though, once your "group" grew big enough, you would have quite the choice to pick from anyway.

 

Of course, royals would still do that despite regulations, through recurring criss-crossed weirder cousin marriages, leading to some aberrations everyone think of when hearing "incest". But then, it was only for "political power" and didn't filter at all the products of these (forced !) unions. They would not remove the failures from the genepool.

While in the people, most of consanguinamory cases would be kept secret, maybe not so much by guilt, as much by a common agreement that such things are more beautiful and wholesome, when unsullied by popular or religious condemnation. But I guess, it's a matter of perspective.

And there is, of course, the most important reason why any and all taboos appear in the first place: a people that fell out of grace (lacking the sensibility to see greatness and holiness where it lies), in the end, can not tolerate those who still manage to keep even a splinter of light as that would illuminate their own failures as human beings, own sadness and disgrace. All the other explanations, are just side-effects of this fundamentally, or rotten, degenerate attitude.
If you have to grow and have a state, something "modern", or more or less so, what forces you to sell your daughter ? What forces you to use any possible means to heighten your power ?
Why, instead of bribing with women other potentates of power into supporting you, can't you rely on your own natural charisma and abilities ?
What forces you to not do the good thing, in any situation whatsoever ?
Wickedness and weakness. A Spartan king didn't have to force his subject to abide by his rule, nor needed to marry outside to consolidate his power. Nor would Spartan males bind their women in fear they would overthrow them or whatnot. Their virility would not care for any of that, as it was solid and genuine, not unsecure and in constant need of reasserting.

Hence, all taboos and all evil came from weakness, which came from cooking and then, all the shitty systems were built upon to justify evil.