Bronze Age women travelled the world while men stayed at home

Also from the ancient authors is known about Sparta (a typical Indo-European military democracy) and Spartan women who were trained in sports, military skill, music and culture on a par with boys. And they were freed from domestic affairs, which were performed for them by slaves. Sometimes they went on hikes, they could also suppress the helot revolts.
Also Spartan women were the only Greek women to participate in the Olympic Games.

That some Indo-European tribes of the Iron Age (a mere 2,000-3,000 years away from Proto-Indo-European Yamna, but let's forget about this huge chronological gap for now) had women warriors is not disputed. That this means necessarily that women in general were regarded as equal or nearly equal to men in the social and family structure is an entirely different matter, and if general Indo-European ancient societies and Indo-European mythology is to be believed as a possible indication of how things were back then it is clear that women may have had some freedoms, but were clearly secondary to men. The case of Sparta is actually very enlightening about this. Women had freedoms and were trained to be physically and mentally fit mainly to give many healthy and able children to become good warriors and sustain the inherently unstable nature of the Spartan society, in which a tiny minority had the monopoly of power over an increasing popultion of subjected helots. There aren't evidences that those were independent and emancipated women. They had certainly much more freedom to act, to move and to expose themselves than women in other - equally Indo-European - neighboring societies, but they were far from liberated women in positions of equal status. Rather, they were to be "productive and strong child-makers".
 
This suggests that the status of women in Europe was still relatively high, when compared with other societies. (in absolute terms, this was already low)
Also after this, some of the greatest rulers of Europe such as Queen Victoria and Catherine the Great were still possible. What is difficult to imagine in many other societies of those times.

Granted, but certainly not that difficult to imagine in the ancient history of Egypt, Semitic societies in the Levant and even Arabia (Khadija, Muhammad's first wife and counsellor, was clearly an independent businesswoman and trader), or in many Native American societies, and certainly not that difficult to imagine, too, in non-Indo-European Europe if the apparent depictions of women's status in Minoan culture are really truthful. That is not to say that they were very free and stuff, no, but I'm not sure the existence of women warriors among some Indo-Europeans demonstrates that Neolithic Near Easterners were substantially more patriarchal than Indo-Europeans.
 
What I think has not been discussed is that the current social structure in the Middle East results from the patriarchal nature of Semitic society, which was a pastoralist society, like that of the Indo-Europeans.

Farming cultures do seem to have been a bit different.
 
Women had freedoms and were trained to be physically and mentally fit mainly to give many healthy and able children to become good warriors and sustain the inherently unstable nature of the Spartan society, in which a tiny minority had the monopoly of power over an increasing popultion of subjected helots. There aren't evidences that those were independent and emancipated women. They had certainly much more freedom to act, to move and to expose themselves than women in other - equally Indo-European - neighboring societies, but they were far from liberated women in positions of equal status. Rather, they were to be "productive and strong child-makers".
I asked to refrain from intuition. Ancient authors assert the opposite things. Sometimes even accusing Lycurgus and his law, call it "matriarchy." Spartan women even had the right to inherit the land, did not do household activities. According to Aristotle, women owned 2/5 of the state land.
Plutarch noted that: "The riches of Laconia were for the most part in the women hands" (land)
This is a colossal women's wealth even by modern standards.
Regarding other women in Greece and the rest of the other societies, they were incredibly emancipated.

And no where there was no talk about the fullness of equal rights, it is not worth debunking this empty thesis.
 
Last edited:
Granted, but certainly not that difficult to imagine in the ancient history of Egypt, Semitic societies in the Levant and even Arabia (Khadija, Muhammad's first wife and counsellor, was clearly an independent businesswoman and trader), or in many Native American societies, and certainly not that difficult to imagine, too, in non-Indo-European Europe if the apparent depictions of women's status in Minoan culture are really truthful. That is not to say that they were very free and stuff, no, but I'm not sure the existence of women warriors among some Indo-Europeans demonstrates that Neolithic Near Easterners were substantially more patriarchal than Indo-Europeans.

That is, as the analog of Catherine and Victoria, women supreme rulers of large countries, you point to usual wife of the future polygamous man in society with "harems".
Such metodology can prove any thesis.

In fact, all these your examples are not analogous. Except ancient Egypt. But I talk about other times.
 
^^Yes, you talk about almost modern times, after thousands of years of cultural development, and ignore the effect of different religions among other cultural variables.

Give it a rest. Pastoral societies like the Indo-Europeans and the Semites were more patriarchal, farming societies not as much so.
End of story.

Everything else is just your agenda and ********.
 
There is such an opinion, but it is not always correct.
Above was the material that the phenomenon of the Amazons appeared precisely in the pastoral Sarmatians and Scythians. While in Athens, women were in "harems".
 
I asked to refrain from intuition. Ancient authors assert the opposite things.
This is not "intuition". This is the opinion of modern, critical historiography, trying to keep things objective and scientific, and based on a much wider set of evidences and sources, something that almost all ancient authors lacked as they wrote from their partial and personal points of view, and also often according to some personal or political agenda under the constraints of their societies' relations with other peoples. Ancient authors are very important, but not only was Sparta's system a sometimes shockingly different political and social regime in Greece, those authors often tended to exaggerate things a lot. I'll always take them with (many) grains of salt.
 
That is, as the analog of Catherine and Victoria, women supreme rulers of large countries, you point to usual wife of the future polygamous man in society with "harems".
Such metodology can prove any thesis.
I could've mentioned Zenobia of Palmyrene Empire, a Semitic kingdom under a powerful supreme ruler,, or even the mythical and probably South Arabian Queen of Sheba. But of course that wouldn't be useful to your manichaean depiction of freedom in IE societies versus oppressive Near Eastern societies regardless of specific circumstances and historic period (not even considering that the IE and Semitic expansions in the Bronze Age completely changed the ethnic and cultural makeup of that region compared to Neolithic times, when it was really dominated by farmer cultures)
 
This is not "intuition". This is the opinion of modern, critical historiography, trying to keep things objective and scientific, and based on a much wider set of evidences and sources, something that almost all ancient authors lacked as they wrote from their partial and personal points of view, and also often according to some personal or political agenda under the constraints of their societies' relations with other peoples. Ancient authors are very important, but not only was Sparta's system a sometimes shockingly different political and social regime in Greece, those authors often tended to exaggerate things a lot. I'll always take them with (many) grains of salt.
If you read modern authors who studied Spartan and ancient societies, such as Y.V. Andreev, then you would know that they refer almost exclusively to ancient authors. We simply do not have other knowledge. Societies not described by ancient authors are absolutely unknown. While the Sparta were studied is pretty good, the benefit was in enriching written civilization. I suggest you still read the material, and not act by intuition. Then you will know that Spartan women owned about 40% of the economy of Sparta (land). It's as if modern women were in 40% of the Forbes list. They were much more economically emancipated and freer than modern women.
Then you would not write your unsupported intuitive guesses like this:
There aren't evidences that those were independent and emancipated women. They had certainly much more freedom to act, to move and to expose themselves than women in other - equally Indo-European - neighboring societies, but they were far from liberated women in positions of equal status.
 
Last edited:
I could've mentioned Zenobia of Palmyrene Empire, a Semitic kingdom under a powerful supreme ruler,, or even the mythical and probably South Arabian Queen of Sheba. But of course that wouldn't be useful to your manichaean depiction of freedom in IE societies versus oppressive Near Eastern societies regardless of specific circumstances and historic period (not even considering that the IE and Semitic expansions in the Bronze Age completely changed the ethnic and cultural makeup of that region compared to Neolithic times, when it was really dominated by farmer cultures)
The mythical queen is certainly an analogue of Queen Victoria of modern times. As and Muhamed's wifes.
Outside of Europe, the women rulers of New Age are few.
 
I think this is an excellent post also. Imagine a group of people with declining population (from interbreeding), coming across another group, who had women that were exotic, compared to their own. Of course they would think they were prized possessions and offer techniques and knowledge and/or peace in exchange.
 
I think this is an excellent post also. Imagine a group of people with declining population (from interbreeding), coming across another group, who had women that were exotic, compared to their own. Of course they would think they were prized possessions and offer techniques and knowledge and/or peace in exchange.
I think the inbreeding problem happens in first few generations. Later the bad genetic combinations are weeded away and all gets back to normal. After all the healthiest and long living populations come from small secluded communities like islands or mountainous areas. Likewise, Amazon jungle tribes have inbred for thousands of years and yet exist till today fine. It doesn't look like they are dying off and need "fresh" blood.
 
It depends to some extent on the effective population size.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-drift-and-effective-population-size-772523

Some groups who practice very high within group marriage do indeed have a lot of genetic load leading to a high incidence of genetic disease, as, for example, Askenazi Jews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews

While some Sardinians are very long lived, they also carry a high genetic load. There's been a lot of work done on identifying these diseases.

The same thing has plagued populations like the Druze, and is indeed implicated in the high incidence of genetic disease in some areas of the Middle East. Osama Bin Ladin's family is only one example.
https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/09/11/inbreeding-causing-issues-in-osama-bin-ladens-family/
 
A HIGH-RESOLUTION TIME TRANSECT THROUGH THE LECH VALLEY, BAVARIA: POPULATIONS –
FAMILIES – INDIVIDUALS
Author(s): Mittnik, Alissa (Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena; Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University
of Tübingen) - Knipper, Corina (Curt-Engelhorn-Centre Archaeometry gGmbH, Mannheim) - Massy, Ken (LMU Munich) - Stockhammer,
Philipp W. (LMU Munich; Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena) - Krause, Johannes (Max Planck Institute for the
Science of Human History, Jena; Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University of Tübingen)
Presentation Format: Oral
While palaeogenomic research used to be contingent on the discovery of the rare sample with exceptional DNA preservation, targeted
enrichment and subsequent high-throughput sequencing of selected informative genetic markers has made possible the cost- and time-effective analysis and comparison of large numbers of ancient samples. As a result, high-resolution studies on a microregional
level that address social dynamics and local and individual variations in ancestry and mobility become a feasible pursuit. Here, we present the genomic analysis of over 120 individuals from the Lech valley in southern Bavaria, Germany, which offers ideal conditions for such a study. Several burial sites containing rich archaeological material were directly dated to the second half of the 3rd and first half of the 2nd millennium BCE and associated with the Final Neolithic Bell Beaker Complex and the Early and Middle Bronze Age.
Utilising relatedness inference methods developed for low-coverage modern DNA we are able to reconstruct multigenerational pedigrees that likely represent core families within the communities that buried their dead at each cemetery. Joint analysis with several hundred published ancient genomes allows us to estimate proportions of distinct ancestries in each individual to evaluate sex biased migration and admixture. Within an interdisciplinary framework, comprehensive archaeological assessment and stable isotope analyses were an integral part of this project. Thus, we gain additional insights into distribution of wealth and individual mobility, providing us with a more holistic view of the social structure of these prehistoric societies and the modes of cultural transition.

The autosomal findings are quite interesting, from 70% steppe among CWC, drowning to 50% with BB, drowning more and more till Late Bronze with 20% steppe; I can't understand how, a permenent flux of southerners or westerners? a long-standing apartheid between local pops?

For Y-DNA some 85% R1b being the remainder G and I, it's a good starting point to know what would be the first Celtic speakers as the area is in the core of the Hallstatt culture. About the R1b BB all were coming from abroad as the molar isotopes are not local, half of the BB women also came from afar.
 
The autosomal findings are quite interesting, from 70% steppe among CWC, drowning to 50% with BB, drowning more and more till Late Bronze with 20% steppe; I can't understand how, a permenent flux of southerners or westerners? a long-standing apartheid between local pops?

For Y-DNA some 85% R1b being the remainder G and I, it's a good starting point to know what would be the first Celtic speakers as the area is in the core of the Hallstatt culture. About the R1b BB all were coming from abroad as the molar isotopes are not local, half of the BB women also came from afar.

They intermarried with locals.
 
And how was this process? take into account that from 70% steppe in 3000 BC the percent drwons to 20% by 1000 BC, which "local" reservoir is that?
 
the populations densities, climatic conditions and the cultural level of the preceding people were diverse in Europe and I believe that in South-East some flux went from Anatolia after the first farmers rush, so densifying the local people pre-Steppes
beside but not without logic connexions: if tested Mycenians were all from Creta (it would be logical), their proximity to Minoans could be explained by the process of 'true first Hellens' from the continent mixing with Minoans? Just a thought - but we need more sample and more Y-haplo's.
 
And how was this process? take into account that from 70% steppe in 3000 BC the percent drwons to 20% by 1000 BC, which "local" reservoir is that?

The demographic developments in the metal ages weren't always so straightfoward. Just like CW rapidly declined when BB moved in, so did many other cultures and populations after that. Perhaps less steppe-admixed populations got lucky as the Bronze Age progressed. If you look at Urnfield culture for example it looks as though the most populous and wealthy regions were located around the Alps, in Tyrol and vicinity, where steppe admixture might have been a bit smaller.

As an example, if I had to guess I'd bet that the Proto-Germanics of Jastorf came from some type of mixture between Urnfield men and Nordic Bronze Age women, which is why contemporary Germanics don't have as much steppe admixture as CW/Battle Axe.
 

This thread has been viewed 51786 times.

Back
Top