This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]On: 03 October 2014, At: 06:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Biodemography and Social BiologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hsbi20

Decline of consanguineousmarriages in France from 1926 to1958Jean Sutter a & Jean‐Michel Goux a

a Institut national d'études démographiques , Paris, FrancePublished online: 23 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Jean Sutter & Jean‐Michel Goux (1964) Decline of consanguineousmarriages in France from 1926 to 1958, Biodemography and Social Biology, 11:3, 127-140, DOI:10.1080/19485565.1964.9987584

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1964.9987584

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DECLINE OF CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGESIN FRANCE FROM 1926 TO 1958*

JEAN SUTTER AND JEAN-MICHEL GOUXInstitut national d'études démographiques

Paris, France

INTRODUCTION

For almost fifteen years, studies ofconsanguineous marriages and of con-sanguinity in general have increased.Freire-Maia (1957) and then Serra andSoini (1959) have compiled an exhaus-tive bibliography on the subject. Theprogress made possible in the humansciences by advances in quantitativetechniques has been responsible for theheightened interest in the subject ofconsanguinity. Actually consanguinitydata have pertinence for many of thebiological sciences. In demography, inorder to study marriage patterns, it iscertainly important to determine thenumber of consanguineous marriages ina population. Structural anthropology,as demonstrated so ably by Lévi-Strauss,is concerned with the influence of cumu-lative heredity (consanguinity) upon hu-man society. These studies are of theutmost importance because they haveserved as patterns for the introductionof quantitative theories in a field whereprecision and foresight were unknown.If ethnology and structural anthropologycan be enriched by consanguinity data,then contemporary sociology and otherinvestigations of occidental populationsalso may benefit from a study of thedecline in the frequency of consanguin-eous marriages.

* Excerpt from Population (October-Decem-ber, 1962). Quarterly publication of the Na-tional Institute of Demographic Studies, 23,Franklin D. Roosevelt Avenue, Paris 8e.

Physical anthropology also can bestrengthened by the acquisition of factsbrought to light by consanguinity studies.By formulating the concept of isolation,population genetics has clearly presentedthe possibilities for the evolution of hu-man societies toward the normal or thepathologic. If physical anthropology isto emerge from its present crisis, it canbe only through the application ofMendelian genetics to human popula-tions. It has been established that thequestions raised by morphological dif-ferences among bones (although studiedthrough the ages and classically asso-ciated with paleontology) can only beinterpreted or even solved in this sense.Ferembach (1961) has stated clearly whatthe impact of the isolation theory maybe upon paleontologists and upon otherswho study primitive populations on thehistorical level. Anthropology devotesmore and more time to these problems;and it seems that the fate of this sciencerests, on the one hand, on the evolutionof biométrie techniques and, on theother hand, on the constant progressrealized by quantitative genetics andpopulation genetics.

The findings of consanguinity studiesalso bear upon sanitary and medicalprojects. When, in our time, in responseto a variety of pressures both internaland external, the isolates dispersed, theyfounded a number of partial popula-tions in larger units. This phenomenonhas been reflected favorably in the im-

127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

128 Sutter and Goux Eugen. Quart.

proved physical well-being of our occi-dental populations. The day will comewhen we will be able to measure thesetransformations and appreciate the con-ditions that gave rise to them. The pre-vailing exogamy has contributed greatlyto a reduction in the frequency of tuber-culosis and a number of recessive ill-nesses, such as illnesses of the nervoussystem. The heterosis phenomenon, vir-tually triggered by the new modality ofthe couple's choice, has also contributedto a change in the physiognomy of popu-lations, as shown, for example, by theincreased height that seems to be therule in occidental populations.

This research has been fruitful in stillanother area: migrations. Whether mi-grations are studied by geographers,demographers, or sociologists, it is nec-essary to find some means to determineand compare genotypes (in order toevaluate the effect of distance). Measure-ments of the effects of human displace-ments, essential for the geneticist's stud-ies, are equally as interesting to thosestudying migrations in an historical orcontemporary context. The researches ofthe Swedish Geography School on thissubject parallel those of the biologists,as we have stated elsewhere (Sutter,1960).

From this rapid survey we may con-clude that population genetics—andmore precisely consanguinity studies—deal with human phenomena fromwhich no student of the human sciencesmay remain aloof. All these studiesreveal how necessary it is to establish aclose collaboration between these vari-ous fields. It is obvious, for instance,that sociology alone could solve theproblem of the split of isolates, since itis demonstrated that it is in the psy-chology of individuals of marriageableage that lies the explanation of the social

phenomenon studied here. The mar-riageable individuals are those who, bytheir behavior, are responsible for thenew situation; it is at this point of thesocial evolution that we should try toexplain the phenomenon described here.

PRESENT RESEARCH

Method Used

The method used here to estimate theconsanguineous marriages of all theFrench departments between 1946 and1958 is the one used in a previous studycovering 1926-1945. (Sutter and Tabah,1948). We used the dispensations re-quired by the Roman Catholic Churchto solemnize marriages between the fol-lowing degrees of relationships: the thirddegree, which we shall indicate as 3D(uncle-niece, aunt-nephew); the fourthdegree, 4D (first cousins); the fifth degree,5D (first cousins once removed); thesixth degree, 6D (second cousins); and,finally cases where we deal with doublecousins. The first work on consanguinity—by Orel, 1932—used a similar methodin the diocese of Vienna, Austria.

In practice, the Church gives all dis-pensations requested except for the thirddegree, which since 1935 has been givenonly in exceptional cases. Actually, thenumber of such marriages has alwaysbeen extremely small (see Sutter andLevy, 1959). On the other hand, theFrench archdioceses and dioceses—some87 of them—comply with the laws oftheir corresponding civil districts. Insome rare cases, where the religious anddepartmental jurisdictions do not agreecompletely, the township or the districtprevails. For instance, the district ofVouziers in the Ardennes belongs to theReims episcopate (Marne); the city ofVilleurbanne (Rhône), to the Grenoblediocese (Isère). There is always the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

Vol. 11, No. 3 Consanguineous Marriages 129

possibility that the population may re-vert to endogamy, depending upon thedegree of ecclesiastic or civil control.

The annual figures for consanguin-eous marriages, degree by degree, weresupplied to us by the religious adminis-trations. The percentage of marriagesthat are consanguineous in the degreesspecified was derived from the numberof religious marriages annually. Herethere is a problem we pointed out in1948, at the time of our first publication:some dioceses, although they keep theparish registry records, do not convertthem into annual statistics. A thoroughstudy has shown that the percentage ofreligious marriages by department is, likeall demographic phenomenon, ratherrigid, remaining very steady through thecourse of time. Strictly civil marriages,marriages among persons of other faiths,and also remarriages of divorcees main-tain the same frequency.

Yearly variations in Catholic mar-riages seldom exceed 5%. It is, there-fore, sufficient to gather, for instance,records of two or three years of religiousmarriages and compare them with thenumber of civil marriages to obtain theproportion of religious marriages in thearea.

The statistics on consanguineous mar-riages presented in Table 1, for 1946—1958, cover about 3,450,000 Catholic mar-riages. In each department, for the pe-riods 1946-1950, 1951-1955, and 1956-1958, we have reported the number ofmarriages involving each of the degreesof relationship specified above and thepercentages of such marriages with ref-erence to the total number of Catholicmarriages solemnized in the area.

Table 1 shows the extent to whichthe disappearance of consanguineousmarriages has become a generalized fact.This holds true not only for each degree

of consanguinity but also for its percent-age of the total number of marriages.In any case, this percentage has de-creased in all but seven departmentswhere it has been stationary: Alpes-Maritimes, 0.66; Charente, 0.68; Eure-et-Loir, 0.54; Haute-Marne, 0.59; Deux-Sèvres and Vienne, 0.50; Tarn-et-Ga-ronne, 0.68. This may be explained,however, by pointing out that the per-centages for these departments are ex-tremely low; in other words, they havereached a new (lower) equilibrium.

The dispersion of the isolates, uponwhich (on the matrimonial level) par-tial populations are founded in largerunities has consequently continued ac-tively in recent years.

We restrict our observations on thispoint, reserving our right to study later,precisely, degree by degree, this decreasein the frequency of consanguineous mar-riages. One day it will be necessary tostudy the social aspects of this verydefinite phenomenon: the disappear-ance of endogamy. For the time being,it is simpler to view this evolution onthe biological level alone, since any met-rical appraisal must of necessity involvegenetics and accordingly provide exactinformation on individual biologicalstructures.

Values for the Average Coefficient ,of Consanguinity •'

For each department the averagecoefficient of consanguinity expressesclearly, by itself, the probable incidenceof homozygosis. This coefficient, calleda de Bernstein or F de Wright, repre-sents the probability that two similarloci, in a person picked at random fromthe population under study, are identi-cal. It enables us to evaluate, a priori,this probability for any individual inthe population. Using our previous and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

130 Sutter and Goux Eugen. Quart.

TABLE 1

NUMBER OF CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGES, GROUPED ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF RELATIONSHIP,BY DEPARTMENT. THEIR PERCENTAGE IS GIVEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL

NUMBER OF CATHOLIC MARRIAGES. FRANCE ( 1 9 4 6 - 1 9 5 8 ) .

Departments YearsDegree of Relationship3D

1

111

11

41..

24

111

i33

il

il0l

4D

27139693022

18206

125623113

5338327220104143182311214912

2318116837253518949189

49189

1065

432417

5D

79218174

71024531061

1799

2910

30179112132

6

43822963511831183

171271

6D •

443810

633115202010984431510343817174953974472734205

2211448348

1757361241811644923644923534127

2

il36

2

i41

61

il

2

21

210

' /o

0.650.640.38

0.820.610.510.390.580.37

0.920.851.832.91.61.20.660.590.673.101.851.29

0.470.450.40

1.330.910.380.460.340.430.740.720572.421.591.940.690.500.53

1.771.361.60

1.761.361.190.680.610.70

0.290.180.23

f1946-50Ain { 1951-55

[1956-58f1946-50

Aisne ..< 1951-551,1956-58f1946-50

Allier J. 1951-551.1956-58f1946-50

Alpes (Basses-) ^ 1951-551.1956-58[-1946-50

Alpes (Hautes-) < 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Alpes-maritimes < 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Ardèche 1 1951-55[1951-58n946-50

Ardennes-Marne < 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Ariège < 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Aube •{ 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Aude < 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Aveyron <. 1951-55[1956-58r1946-50

Bouches-du-Rhône < 1951-55[1956-58(-1946-50

Calvados < 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Cantal < 1951-55[1956-58r1946-50

Charente < 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Charente-maritime < 1951-55[1956-58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

Vol. 11, No. 3 Consanguineous Marriages

TABLE 1 (continued)

131

Departments YearsDegree of Relationship3D

1

1

231

11

22

1

2

"s4

31

1

i7

2

i

i3

3

i1

22

121

••

4D

381916

48211

58452232116

12054375814153417768532325141341211326124

733822312111

46441524117443920

393110

1568333

5D

2763

30223

512211

137743276

26123

176931206

124216826.725029141377138686

20134185

3518C

6D

564917684411

151865426169

28618674

88251856328

1488459

403613

17176

221415298265107603112543320301510655914543519

291164100

2

..

1

43

596

341

1

..

..

3121

2

11

3

i2285

' 7o

0.630.520.41

1.591.310.44

4.363.203.08

0.470.280.29

1.901.481.15

1.030.440.590.690.570.44

1.070.840.75

0.890.770.690.590.430.350.530.460.541.301.170.910.900.700.54

0.610.560.470.870.600.58

0.420.460.27

0.710.600.42

1.881.311.16

f1946-50Cher et Indre i 1951-55

(.1956-58f1946-50

Corrèze i 1951-551.1956-58f1946-50

Corsica < 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Côte-d'Or 1 1951-55(.1956-58f1946-50

Côtes-du-Nord J. 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Creuse et Haute-Vienne -{1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Dordogne •{ 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Doubs, Haute-Saône, Belfort < 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Drôme J. 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Eure -l 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Eure-et-Loir < 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Finistère i 1951-55[1956-58fl945-50

Gard 11951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Garonne (Haute-) •{ 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Gers 1 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Gironde ^ 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Hérault 11951-55[1956-58

f1946-50Ille-et-Villaine ^ 1951-55

[1956-58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

132 Sutter and Goux

TABLE 1 (continued)

Eugen. Quart.

Departments Years Degree o£3D

3

331

..

"i21

1

1

'2

121

1

*31

1]1

12

4D

30143

73482419101

21146

33128

149874643135

16276392315519123

271310

49205694915643414151613

442319

814330

32178

Relationship5D

1013424172763

125

2242

1473

25971733867731

84

271442414565214910

25143

1443

6D

442011905924503019

67272032196

272165731025526

32721893472110

39168

1753

81512915978631177036

28228

743827916627352314

Doubles

11

211.'2

i

% t

O

355811

i33

12211

^

0.630.440.28

0.890.690.48

0.870.690.59

1.020.670.620.850.480.310.840.620.501.941.250.951.741.290.91

0.880.540.40

1.210.850.78

0.520.300.314.202.902.50

1.220.720.89

1.020.700.61

0.600.710.59

1.160.891.120.790.610.49

1.070.700.63

f1946-50Indre-et-Loire J 1951-55

[1956-58fl946-50

Isère J 1951-551.1956-58f1946-50

Jura 11951-551.1956-58fl946-50

Landes { 1951-55(.1956-58(-1946-50

Loir-et-Cher J 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Loire et Rhône 11951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Loire (Haute-) 11951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Loire-Atlantique i 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Loiret { 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Lot 11951-55[1956-58f 1946-50

Lot-et-Garonne •{ 1951-55[1956-58(-1946-50

Lozère 11951-55[1956-58("1946-50

Maine-et-Loire •{ 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Manche J 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Marne (Haute-) 11951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Mayenne J 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Meurthe-et-Moselle J. 1951-55[1956-58

("1946-50Meuse J 1951-55

[1956-58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

Vol. 11, No. 3 Consanguineous Marriages 133

TABLE 1 (continued)

Departments YearsDegree of

3D

1

2

11

541

il

464

i..851

000

31

211

i

4D

220100459970321659

20712050312513

371615

19710638

i411

6028202014520188

127752621257573513

19931161

237

Relationship5D

532516482915

623382957441452773714

io5

261971143115

553410

19125

1576

27216521151985

6D

35324189

255189993481023520351

24227403014318172110

3827111793467371628157

36429999

86482660212130219

32391741206

1006937

Doubles

11166

5123

36224

1

543

2

2

1100

2

5

3

5

'3

of/o

2.812.201.471.411.121.22

0.670.240.51

0.490.470.26

0.370.430.32

0.760.570.60

0.920.720.67

0.470.53

1.461.200.90

1.330.870.65

0.720.650.422.121.931.74

0.620.550.44

0.760.470.49

0.760.420.18

1.220.900.95

f1946-50Morbihan J 1951-55

(.1956-58f1946-50

Moselle -I 1951-55(.1956-58f1946-50

Nièvre J 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Nord J 1951-55[1956-58|"1946-50

Oise •{ 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Orne J 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Pas-de-Calais 11951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Puy-de-Dôme J. 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Pyrénées (Basses-) -i 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Pyrénées (Hautes) -i 1951-55[1956-58("1946-50

Pyrénées-Orientales J 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Rhin (Bas-) et Rhin (Haut-) 11951-55[1956-58("1946-50

Saône-et-Loire -i 1951-55[1956-58("1946-50

Sarthe J 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Savoie (Chambéry) J 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Savoie (Moutiers) J 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Savoie (Saint-Tean-de-Maurienne).. < 1951—55[1956-58("1946-50

Savoie (Haute-) J. 1951-55[1956-58

* These figures include the whole department.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

134 Sutter and Goux Eugen. Quart.

TABLE 1 (continued)

Departments, . Degree of Relationship _, ,Years — ̂ °—T=- — -^- Doubles

3D

1184

321

535

521

1

7

121

5

1..1..11..#>

4D

561435205

1499044

24266

15911757

35207522523

392314

1949

411724

1983

64159

48232014121

5D

1379373

363222

572

38278

1475

234424155

64..

1185

2129

211371021

6D

405316173

927436

29135

1197238

716845

513111793415

20159

342310

16134

21113364

877225

1754

4U1L

121

121

1

.

i

l

i5

i

i.2

.

523

223

• /o

0.820.720.68

0.730.660.60

0.410.410.25

0.630.510.40

0.490.500.52

0.730.470.56

1.420.950.71

0.680.530.68

0.600.410.53

0.520.340.21

1.561.201.03

0.980.860.750.410.270.15

(-1946-50Seine 1 1951-55

[1956-58r1946-50

Seine-Maritime •} 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Seine-et-Marne -11951-55[1956-58("1946-50

Seine-et-Oise -11951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Deux-Sèvres, Vienne J. 1951-55[1956-58(-1946-50

Somme { 1951-55[1956-58fl946-50

Tarn •! 1951-55[1956-58("1946-50

Tarn-et-Garonne -I 1951-55[1956-58

(-1946-50Var •{ 1951-55

[1956-58

f1949-50Vaucluse 11951-55

[1956-58H946-50

Vendée 11951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Vosges •{ 1951-55[1956-58f1946-50

Yonne < 1951-55[1956-58

more recent data, we have compiledTable 2, departmental values for thiscoefficient for six quinquennial periodsfrom 1926-1930 to 1951-1955 and, fi-nally, for the three-year period 1956—1958.1 This table discloses how much

1 Because of a lack of precision in the defini-tion of marriages between double cousins, wedid not take them into consideration in calcu-lating the α coefficient; however, they are sorare that their influence on consanguinity isnegligible.

the values of this coefficient have de-creased regularly in each departmentduring the thirty-two years studied. Thisphenomenon is illustrated with threemaps of France, giving the evolution,department by department, for threeperiods: 1926-1930 (Fig. 1); 1936-1940(Fig. 2); 1956-1958 (Fig. 3).

At the time of the initial period (Fig.1) the coefficient is greatest in the islandof Corsica, the mountain districts, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

Vol. 11, No. 3 Consanguineous Marriages 135

TABLE 2

DEPARTMENTAL VALUES FOR AVERAGE COEFFICIENT OF CONSANGUINITY DURING SEVEN TERIODS.(COEFFICIENT a DE BERNSTEIN OR F DE WRIGHT X 105)

1926-30 1931-35 1936-40 1941-45 1946-50 1951-55 1956-58

1 Ain 502 Aisne 563 Allier 214 Alpes (Basses-) 1305 Alpes (Hautes-) 1816 Alpes-Maritimes 677 Ardèche 1568 Ardennes et Marne 429 Ariège 123

10 Aube 3011 Aude 7612 Aveyron 18213 Bouches-du Rhône 7114 Calvados 5915 Cantal 18016 Charente 5517 Charente-Maritime 3518 Cher et Indre 6119 Corrèze 15020 Corse 27421 Côte-d'Or22 Côtes-du-Nord 18523 Creuse et Haute-Vienne 7824 Dordogne 9525 Doubs, Haute-Saône, Belfort... 6126 Drôme 8627 Eure28 Eure-et-Loir29 Finistère 11230 Gard 9631 Garonne (Haute-) 5432 Gers 4633 Gironde 1634 Hérault 7435 Ille-et Vilaine36 Indre (see Cher)37 Indre-et-Loire 5538 Isère 6539 Jura 5640 Landes41 Loir-et-Cher 6542 Loire et Rhône 5443 Loire (Haute-) 15444 Loire-Atlantique 12545 Loiret 2346 Lot 9747 Lot-et-Garonne 3748 Lozère 17249 Maine-et-Loire 8850 Manche 8851 Marne (see Ardennes)52 Marne (Haute-) 4353 Mayenne 14854 Meurthe-et-Moselle55 Meuse 8156 Morbihan 18857 Moselle 7758 Nièvre 5059 Nord60 Oise61 Orne 6362 Pas-de-Calais 76

39892778131511543611137721467151129463644115239.144576757626837986446371555••

2960684936511091193385251569477

31123

ci1787434

5062

32462170106351432572363912143271072332327318824123344941404951794136291055104

303736413246948936701814711958

269938401425634..

4051

3236

4276301183035325212436379826183659245219740554445493472423035094580

37303541344371632976191296451

458445281191201934575251

35321537942992144515237221296317172155128195527233330282138292332152465

23332328322858552838221383332

2638303892412129242931

18212328552350172912235329253814111541105103811252822171628252321162440

1526182118203336183216843022

243421276332921171825

1423124430293014152222562722371715150994103418212129191422201820111431

0819121714172329132316582218

2646212044312216142420

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

136 Sutter and Goux Eugen. Quart.

TABLE 2 (continued)

1926-30 1931-35 1936-40 1941-45 1946-50 1951-55 1956-58

63 Puy-de-Dôme 10764 Pyrénées (Basses-) 8865 Pyrénées (Hautes-) 10366 Pyrénées-Orientales 5967 Rhin (Bas-)68 Rhin (Haut-) 7569 Rhône (see Loire)70 Saône (Haute-) (see Doubs)71 Saône-et-Loire 4572 Sarthe 6173 Savoie 15674 Savoie (Haute-) 8875 Seine G276 Seine-Maritime 8577 Seine-et-Marne 5078 Seine-et-Oise 4579 Sèvres (Deux-) et Vienne 5680 Somme 2781 Tarn 10482 Tam-et-Garonne 5883 Var84 Vaucluse 6885 Vendée 9586 Vienne (see Deux-Sèvres)87 Vienne (Haute-) (see Creuse)...88 Vosges89 Yonne 2890 Territoire de Belfort (see Doubs)

Total 85.6

117787265

112655667

75544564

533225

14252526

16301817

67 61 50 28

384398565267464153257645. .4870

15

7Ö5

263295653061412640176138, .4164

27

56.7

2229755142613229

266532

5244

24

52.7

092854203432162715286025252741

3215

132137173127192213173914161226

2413

26.3

071621212724161712263027260922

2504

23.4

1926-1930

I I 34 and less

I.'v/M 35 to 54

fTTTm 55 to 74

75 to 104

105 to 140

150 and more

Figure 1. Departmental values for the average coefficient of consanguinity (F deWright, a de Bernstein multiplied by 105) for the period 1926-1930.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

Vol. 11, No. 3 Consanguineous Marriages 137

1936 -1940

I I 34 and less

|:-:-:-;| 35 to 54

fflïïTl 55 to 74

I | 75 to 104

I 105 to 149

I 150 and more

Figure 2. Departmental values for the average coefficient of consanguinity (F deWright, a de Bernstein multiplied by 105) for the period 1936-1940.

1956 -1958

I I 34 and 1

|Xv ' . | 35 to 54

m r m 35 to 74

E m 75 to 104

Eggggj 105 to 149

1G0 and more

Figure 3. Departmental values for the average coefficient of consanguinity (F deWright, a de Bernstein multiplied by 103) for the period 1956-1958.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

138 Sutter and Goux Eugen. Quart.

the rural departments having no impor-tant city areas.

From 1926 to 1930 the following de-partments had the highest values:

In the Alps: Hautes-Alpes, Basses-Alpes, Haute-Savoie, Savoie.

In the Pyrénées: Ariège, Hautes-Pyré-nées, Basses-Pyrénées.

In the Massif central: Ardèche, Lo-zère, Aveyron, Haute-Loire, Cantal, Cor-rèze, Puy-de-Dome.

In the Massif armoricain and the bor-dering departments: Morbihan, Côtes-du-Nord, Finistère, then Loire-Atlan-tique, Vendée, Maine-et-Loire, Mayenne,et Manche.

In the East: Meuse, Moselle, Haut-Rhin, and Bas-Rhin were the centers o£endogamy, though to a lesser degree.

From 1936 to 1940 (Fig. 2), as fre-quently pointed out, dispersion of theisolates quickened, and we witnessed thedisappearance of endogamy. The agri-cultural districts from the Massif armo-ricain to the East border, on the onehand, from the north to the Pyreneesand from Burgundy to the Mediterra-nean shores, on the other hand, wereaffected most by the phenomenon andbecame homogeneous little by little. TheAlps and the Pyrénées, the Massif cen-tral, the Massif armoricain, and the Eastwere also affected but, nonetheless, man-aged to retain their previous aspect.

Finally, in the latest period (1956-1958) endogamy has almost completelydisappeared. (Fig. 3). Only seven de-partments are left to weigh with thescale used in 1926-1930: Corsica, Basses-Alpes, the three departments of theMassif central, where a strong endoga-mous tradition remains—the Aveyron,the Cantal, and Lozère—and, in theWest, the Morbihan and the Mayenne.

We must emphasize that if, insteado£ giving our results department by de-

partment, we were to give them com-munity by community, we would see atonce that the incidence of consanguinityrests solely upon a few communities thathave kept their endogamic character in-tact. The dispersion of the isolates is aphenomenon that depends on the "allor nothing" principle, as shown pre-viously in the results cited for two de-partments (Sutter and Tabah, 1955). Bethat as it may, this tendency towardhomogeneity in the population becomesevident when we compare the distribu-tion of consanguinity coefficients withinthe various departments over a periodof time: the average and the variance ofthis distribution have decreased simulta-neously. (See Table 3.)

From 1926-1930 to 1956-1958, thetrue average has gone from 85.6 to 22.4and the variance from 2,216 to 164.Note the peculiarity of the World WarII period (1941-1945): although the av-erage is lower than during the previousperiod, the variance is higher, 1,191against 991. This can be explained bya fact pointed out previously: a returnto endogamy caused by the war. Thisrevival of consanguineous marriage that

TABLE 3CHANCES IN THE DISTRIBUTION BY DEPARTMENT OFAVERAGE COEFFICIENTS OF CONSANGUINITY ( o X l O 5 )

DURING THE SEVEN PERIODS STUDIED.

X CltUU)

1926-19301931-19351936-19401941-19451946-19501951-19551956-1958

TrueAverage

85.670.556.752.736.526.322.4

Parameter ofdistribution olthe coefficient *

Well-balanced Varianceaverage

86.1 221667.5 178260.2 99152.8 119136.4 48926.6 26823.2 164

• The values of a X105, which served to calcu-late the parameters, have been groups in classes,as follows: 0-19, 20-39, 40-59, etc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

Vol. 11, No. 3 Consanguineous Marriages 139

90 100 110 270 280

Figure 4. Distribution of departmental values for average coefficients of consan-linity in France for two periods: 1926-1930 and 1956-1958.guinity in France for two per«*

seemed to be generalized does not havethe same importance from one depart-ment to another, thus explaining theincrease in variance during this sameperiod.

The homogeneity of the departmentsappears again clearly in Figure 4 wherewe have figured the coefficients' quantityby order of value: 0-09, 10-19, 20-29,etc., for the two extreme periods 1926-1930 and 1956-1958.

PERSPECTIVES OF APPLICATION

As indicated in the introduction,knowledge of the average coefficient of

consanguinity for a population may beuseful not only to characterize certainaspects of marriage patterns, but also toassess infant mortality rates, the possiblestructural repercussions of consanguin-eous marriages upon the population,and the probable influence of consan-guinity upon characteristics that affecthuman pathology, morphology, and an-thropology.

Already some interesting correlationshave been brought to light between, forinstance, these coefficients and endog-enous and perinatal mortality. Wehave found that between departmental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4

140 Sutter and Goux Eugen. Quart.

values for average coefficients of con-sanguinity and perinatal mortality, thereis a coefficient of correlation of 0.74 -±0.08 (Sutter and Tabah, 1948, 1951); andwith the number of deaf-mutes countedat home by the 1946 census, there is acoefficient of 0.57 (Sutter and Tabah,1952). From the same data Lamy andFrésal (1958) have found a correlationequal to 0.57 with twin births as awhole; in fact, it exists only in the caseof dizygotic twins. Aubenque (personalcommunication) has found some inter-esting correlations with certain causes ofdeath, such as congenital cardiac mal-formations.

Indeed, we cannot accept these resultswithout further investigation; so manyfactors are involved in the precedingphenomena that new inquiries are neces-sary to affirm the genetic aspects. Inour case, we propose to analyze the studyof relationships between the various fac-tors, among them genetic aspects andperinatal mortality. Lamy and Frésal(1958) have shown the existence of ahigh correlation between consanguinityand the mother's age at the time of twinbirths. The two factors may operatesimultaneously.

Be that as it may, in many countriesresearch is under way to confirm the role

of genetic structures on demographicphenomena, especially mortality: Serraand Soini (Italy), Freire-Maia (Brazil),Goldschmidt and collaborators (Israel),Neel (United States and Japan). Neel ispreparing an exhaustive study of thequestion.

REFERENCES

FEREMBACH, D., 1961. Quelques facteurs de for-mation et de développement d'un isolat.Population, 16: 71-80.

FREIRE-MAIA, N., 1957. Inbreeding level in dif-ferent countries. Eugenics Quarterly, 4:127-138.

LAMY, M., and J. FRESAL, 1958. Études surl'étiologie de la gémellité chez l'homme.C.R.X Congrès int. de gén. University ofToronto Press, 1959, p. 90-99.

SERRA, A., and A. SOINI, 1959. La consanguinitéd'une population. Rappel de notions etde résultats. Application à trois provincesde l'Italie du Nord. Population, 14: 47-72.

SUTTER, J., and L. TABAH, 1948. Fréquence etrépartition des mariages consanguins enFrance. Population, 3: 607-630.

, 1951. La mesure de l'endogamie etses applications démographiques. J. Soc.Stat. (Paris), 92: 243-267.

, 1952. Génétique de population etlétalité. Semaine Hôp., 28: 1848-1851.

, 1955. L'Évolution des isolats de deuxdépartements français: Loir-et-Cher, Finis-tere. Population, 10: 645-674.

SUTTER, J., and C. LÉVY, 1959. Les dispensesciviles au mariage en France depuis 1800.Population, 14: 285-304.

SUTTER, J., 1960. L'apport de la génétique depopulation à l'analyse de l'évolution sociale.Colloque national de démographie. Stras-bourg, 5-7 mai, 1960, Paris, C.N.R.S., 1961,p. 53-66.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alga

ry]

at 0

6:14

03

Oct

ober

201

4