Bronze Age women travelled the world while men stayed at home

Who said that these societies were closer to matriarchy? Gimbutas, who saw in them the cult of the goddess-mother in opposition to the male deities of Indo-Europeans? This is the level of knowledge of the 1970s. In fact, the old Neolithic Middle Eastern societies were much tougher in their attitude towards women. All the chronicling European gain opressing of women came from the Middle East. Whether it is the period of Greece's orientalisation or adoption of Abrahamic religion in Europe. This of course does not say that the Indo-European societies were equitable, nevertheless the role of the woman there was different. Therefore, it is not surprising that Europe has fairly easily accepted gender equality, while on the territories of ancient Neolithic societies there is still insanity about women's rights.
In some Yamnaya's burials there are skeletons of women with stone steles, a wagon and knife. That is, they were women rulers and even women warriors. Yes, such graves are found several times less than men's, but the fact is that they were. This indicates the role of women in Indo-European society, contrary to myths.
We see now of women warrior burials in the steppe, once thought to be men
 
You got me mixed up with someone? I never wrote anything like that.

The chronicle I mean to the written period.
Orientalization of Greece from the Phoenician and the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet is a fact. This quote is about common late writing period, not prehistoric times.

The Phoenicians would have advanced the role of women, had they influenced that part of Greek society.

http://www.phoenicianblueprint.com/Blog/Womens-Equality--Lessons-Learned-from-the-Phoenicians/223/

During the last two decades, new historical facts and information and archeological digs have been discovered that have shown a beacon of light on the Phoenicians. This ancient society lived by Seven Principles which were prominent in their daily lives. These Seven Principles—the Phoenician Blueprint—were the glue that held their society together.

They worked as a collective unit with an impassioned purpose whether they lived in Lebanon and in various cities and colonies throughout the Eastern and Western Mediterranean. Their legacy was earthshaking: they survived, thrived and flourished because they were capable of avoiding and resolving conflicts and living in peace, unlike any other society during ancient times.

The Phoenicians were masterful in creating a common purpose and common identity where everyone in their society operated on the same wavelength; thereby, creating a coherent heart energy field that connected them to each other and their trading partners. The coherent heart energy field operated as a gigantic social network where all Phoenicians were hard wired together and linked thorough the Blueprint. This coherency allowed their international maritime trading venture to expand one century after another.

The Phoenicians traded metals, produce, fabrics, jewels, and other precious goods. They developed the first Democracy which spread to Greece; invented the Alphabet and introduced it to the Greeks and other trading cultures. They influenced the development of modern civilization through culture, trade, navigation of the seas, finances (money), art, and worship. The Phoenicians' success impacted all of the cultures they encountered and strengthened their and other cultures ability to flourish.

Three principles are highlighted in this article to demonstrate their relevance in contemporary society; and how they have the capability to resolve modern day crises and restore balance and well-being to all people’s lives.

International Trade: Become masterful at developing rapport: understand others, learn about others’ cultures, and accept the differences. Cultivate emotional intelligence skills which would lead to creating lasting relationships in all activities.

Respect for Women: Women are as valued as men in leadership positions and the decision-making process. Women voted in this ancient culture. Women are equal partners in business, civic and community affairs and in extra-curricular activities like sports.

Equality: Economy is inclusive and works for everyone and not a select few. No one can profit at the expense of the community as a whole. Everyone profits from business and their contribution in organizations. Everyone is valued, acknowledged and rewarded.

The Phoenicians developed very innovative policies to encourage gender neutral cultural relationships that encouraged 1) income and gender equality and 2) sharing of their wealth through their joint economic ventures.

Women were treated as equal partners and contributors regardless of their marital or child bearing status. They were encouraged to participate fully in every aspect of society and were not penalized for being a mother. Motherhood was highly respected along with family, freedom and faith. Women and men besides families were compensated equitably for their contribution to the trade venture. If you contributed ‘more’, your compensation was higher. Valuing women’s role in Phoenicia was a cultural norm.

...

It has been demonstrated in international studies that the intersection of culture and politics is affecting economic outcomes for women. Countries with more egalitarian attitudes have stronger positive associations between wages and policies. The deployment of the Phoenician Blueprint principles in our modern day societies can help strengthen and develop human capital and family structure as well as gender and economic equality.

The Phoenicians’ (endowed with extraordinary powers of assimilation and adaptability), shared their knowledge with their trading partners while enriching their own vision of the world. For example, they successfully created a peaceful and prosperous society for all of their citizens.

The Phoenician Blueprint is the platform that can open the door: 1) to transform any culture, 2) to reconcile inequality, 3) to treat women as equal partners and 4) to expand trade through forming alliances and partnerships.

Ann Watkins is a 'cultural' Phoenician, a member of the Phoenician Blueprint.org board of directors and a leader in the field of non-profit management and change.

Freedom enjoyed by Phoenician women
Women in Phoenicia seem to have enjoyed considerable freedom. They are represented as banqueting in the company of men, sometimes sitting with them on the same couch, sometimes reclining with them at the same table.60 Occasionally they delight their male companion by playing upon the lyre or the double pipe,61 while in certain instances they are associated in bands of three, who perform on the lyre, the double pipe, and the tambourine.62 They take part in religious processions, and present offerings to the deities.63The positions occupied in history by Jezebel and Elissar (Dido) fall in with these indications, and imply a greater approach to equality between the sexes in Phoenicia than in Oriental communities generally.

http://phoenicia.org/dress.html


Source

GcnSHf5.png


lMNaqPc.jpg
 
Middle Eastern societies and religions are more oppressive towards women than Europe as a whole, it's just a fact.
They are descendants of the old neolithic societies and states. At that time, almost all of Europe is a descendant of Indo-European societies.
You can try to compare these two facts.

Do you really think there has been a continuity of values and gender roles in Europe between Bell Beaker and 20th century liberal and secular Europe? That's an extremely overstretching argument. If anything, the Indo-European cultures of Europe also absorbed elements of the Neolithic societies, especially in Southern Europe but also possibly in parts of Northern Europe (if we consider the heavy cultural substrate in Proto-Germanic), and it's not necessary to be reminded that there was a 2,000 year long period of huge cultural transformation after Christianity. If such comparisons were possible, we could make a much more plausible connection between the consolidation of European Christianity, the "Neolithic Middle Eastern" religion, and the development of humanist thought and industrial processes that eventually led to secularization and to the liberation of women. In chronological terms, there's a whole lot more connection between those events. But if you do not believe that, then please don't expect us to believe there was something inherently Indo-European, with roots 5,000 years ago, that made Europe more open to women's rights.
 
Do you really think there has been a continuity of values and gender roles in Europe between Bell Beaker and 20th century liberal and secular Europe? That's an extremely overstretching argument. If anything, the Indo-European cultures of Europe also absorbed elements of the Neolithic societies, especially in Southern Europe but also possibly in parts of Northern Europe (if we consider the heavy cultural substrate in Proto-Germanic), and it's not necessary to be reminded that there was a 2,000 year long period of huge cultural transformation after Christianity. If such comparisons were possible, we could make a much more plausible connection between the consolidation of European Christianity, the "Neolithic Middle Eastern" religion, and the development of humanist thought and industrial processes that eventually led to secularization and to the liberation of women. In chronological terms, there's a whole lot more connection between those events. But if you do not believe that, then please don't expect us to believe there was something inherently Indo-European, with roots 5,000 years ago, that made Europe more open to women's rights.

The problem is that before Christianity, women of Celts and Germanics did not need liberation. They needed only equal rights.
And the process of secularization of Europe correlates with the acquisition of rights by women, and not vice versa.

Also a modern Hollywood filmmaking with strong women warriors, such as "Edge of Tomorrow" is an analogy of Sarmatian and Celtic women, in pre-Christian Indo-European societies. That is, modern mass culture has only returned to what already was more than 2000 years ago and what lost for a long time.
 
Jovialis
Thank you for the material. Need to understand why there was such a different attitude towards Ionians womens in Athens and the Dorian womens in Sparta.
The Ioinites were influenced by the Phoenicians. And in Sparta there were typical Indo-European women-warriors, almost on a equal with men. (What was considered very madness, by the standards of the rest of Greece) In the Phoenician, however, it can be seen that this is far not an IE role for women.
 
Do you really think there has been a continuity of values and gender roles in Europe between Bell Beaker and 20th century liberal and secular Europe? That's an extremely overstretching argument. If anything, the Indo-European cultures of Europe also absorbed elements of the Neolithic societies, especially in Southern Europe but also possibly in parts of Northern Europe (if we consider the heavy cultural substrate in Proto-Germanic), and it's not necessary to be reminded that there was a 2,000 year long period of huge cultural transformation after Christianity. If such comparisons were possible, we could make a much more plausible connection between the consolidation of European Christianity, the "Neolithic Middle Eastern" religion, and the development of humanist thought and industrial processes that eventually led to secularization and to the liberation of women. In chronological terms, there's a whole lot more connection between those events. But if you do not believe that, then please don't expect us to believe there was something inherently Indo-European, with roots 5,000 years ago, that made Europe more open to women's rights.

You make perfect sense, but when people are agenda driven it doesn't matter. Everything becomes grist for the mill.
 
The problem is that before Christianity, women of Celts and Germanics did not need liberation. They needed only equal rights.
And the process of secularization of Europe correlates with the acquisition of rights by women, and not vice versa.
Also a modern Hollywood filmmaking with strong women warriors, such as "Edge of Tomorrow" is an analogy of Sarmatian and Celtic women, in pre-Christian Indo-European societies. That is, modern mass culture has only returned to what already was more than 2000 years ago and what lost for a long time.

We have no solid proof that Celtic and Sarmatian women were as free and equal to men as Hollywood movies of "barbarian women warriors" depict them. It's not the first time that Hollywood is extremely anachronistic and impresses contemporary values and practices into ancient history. The fact that some women participated in war is no guarantee that the average woman, who of course were mothers and housewives, had a high status and high personal freedom in their villages. We don't even know if those women warriors were regarded as "common women" just like the spouses and daughters of all those strong men. If what we know about more developed and literate Indo-European societies, like Greeks, Romans, Persians and North Indians, is to be believed, that was definitely not the case.

Also, you need to analyze things through the context and conditions of that time. For instance, a practice like the prohibition of divorce by early Christianity, which eventually became a burden to women, was quite possibly a huge improvement for many women who previously felt extremely insecure as they aged and when they ceased to be pleasant companions to their husbands. That's just an example of how "equality" and "oppression" aren't as black and white as you seem to think. The fact that Indo-European tribes had a few women warriors tell us little about how they were in fact treated in everyday life when they were not part of a tiny military elite.
 
We have no solid proof that Celtic and Sarmatian women were as free and equal to men as Hollywood movies of "barbarian women warriors" depict them. It's not the first time that Hollywood is extremely anachronistic and impresses contemporary values and practices into ancient history. The fact that some women participated in war is no guarantee that the average woman, who of course were mothers and housewives, had a high status and high personal freedom in their villages. We don't even know if those women warriors were regarded as "common women" just like the spouses and daughters of all those strong men. If what we know about more developed and literate Indo-European societies, like Greeks, Romans, Persians and North Indians, is to be believed, that was definitely not the case.

we know of some powerfull and very wealthy Celtic lady : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vix_Grave

Also, you need to analyze things through the context and conditions of that time. For instance, a practice like the prohibition of divorce by early Christianity, which eventually became a burden to women, was quite possibly a huge improvement for many women who previously felt extremely insecure as they aged and when they ceased to be pleasant companions to their husbands.

why do you think so ?
 
we know of some powerfull and very wealthy Celtic lady : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vix_Grave

Yes, but then we also know of some very powerful, intellectually independent and very wealthy Catholic medieval women in Europe, like, for example, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Amalasuntha. We also know of influent intellectuals like Catherine of Siena and Theresa of Avila, even warriors like Joan of Arc. Does that mean that the general status of average women in the medieval Christian world was confidently represented by that elite minority of independent women? I don't think so. It is always too easy to romanticize and glorify the long gone past for which we have much less evidences than we have for more recent and literate times, but I definitely don't buy the theory that Celtic and Germanic women were in general much more free than women in other ancient cultures. Probably they had less strictly defined social roles, but they were far from equal and powerful except for a minority of especially talented or noble women.

why do you think so ?

I don't affirm it was a definite advantage because we don't have enough proofs to establish that, but I do think we must at least ponder about the fact that in the first centuries of Christianity women were among the most enthusiastic converts and very often the vehicles through which their husbands and children eventually converted as well, and the fact that in many ancient Mediterranean societies the husband (but not, in general, the woman) had the right to reject her wife and had even, as was the case with the "manus" of the Roman "pater familias", the right to beat her and kill her if he thought necessary. A husband could simply get tired of his wife, reject her and get her out of his household. He was the patriarch, the owner of the household, the family wealth and even the children and grandchildren.

For the average women, who had few personal possessions and was mostly a wife caring for little children and managing the domestic issues of the household, divorce meant not "liberation" nor "independence", but rather total destitution, social disgrace and lack of economic means and social networks to be able to survive in the community. An average divorced woman wouldn't go and farm the land for herself (the land wasn't hers), or find work in the city (most available works were exclusively male), or marry again with another spouse (she was already "too used" and "too old" for most men, and more often than not with children of another man). We definitely can't judge social conditions and customs of the past based on the economic and social opportunities of the present.
 
Yes, but then we also know of some very powerful, intellectually independent and very wealthy Catholic medieval women in Europe, like, for example, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Amalasuntha. We also know of influent intellectuals like Catherine of Siena and Theresa of Avila, even warriors like Joan of Arc. Does that mean that the general status of average women in the medieval Christian world was confidently represented by that elite minority of independent women? I don't think so. It is always too easy to romanticize and glorify the long gone past for which we have much less evidences than we have for more recent and literate times, but I definitely don't buy the theory that Celtic and Germanic women were in general much more free than women in other ancient cultures. Probably they had less strictly defined social roles, but they were far from equal and powerful except for a minority of especially talented or noble women.I don't affirm it was a definite advantage because we don't have enough proofs to establish that, but I do think we must at least ponder about the fact that in the first centuries of Christianity women were among the most enthusiastic converts and very often the vehicles through which their husbands and children eventually converted as well, and the fact that in many ancient Mediterranean societies the husband (but not, in general, the woman) had the right to reject her wife and had even, as was the case with the "manus" of the Roman "pater familias", the right to beat her and kill her if he thought necessary. A husband could simply get tired of his wife, reject her and get her out of his household. He was the patriarch, the owner of the household, the family wealth and even the children and grandchildren.For the average women, who had few personal possessions and was mostly a wife caring for little children and managing the domestic issues of the household, divorce meant not "liberation" nor "independence", but rather total destitution, social disgrace and lack of economic means and social networks to be able to survive in the community. An average divorced woman wouldn't go and farm the land for herself (the land wasn't hers), or find work in the city (most available works were exclusively male), or marry again with another spouse (she was already "too used" and "too old" for most men, and more often than not with children of another man). We definitely can't judge social conditions and customs of the past based on the economic and social opportunities of the present.
All of that is very true.I would just re-iterate what was said above about certain cultures in the Near East giving women some modicum of independence, such as the Egyptians and the Phoenicians. They also, like the Celts, had powerful women leaders in a minority of situations, such as Hatshepsut ruling as Pharaoh in Egypt, and some powerful Phoenician Queens. That doesn't mean, in either case, that women in general had a lot of power.You can't make these blanket generalizations, at least not, at least, if you know anything about the cultures of the Near East in antiquity.
 
All of that is very true.I would just re-iterate what was said above about certain cultures in the Near East giving women some modicum of independence, such as the Egyptians and the Phoenicians. They also, like the Celts, had powerful women leaders in a minority of situations, such as Hatshepsut ruling as Pharaoh in Egypt, and some powerful Phoenician Queens. That doesn't mean, in either case, that women in general had a lot of power.You can't make these blanket generalizations, at least not, at least, if you know anything about the cultures of the Near East in antiquity.
There certainly wasn't, but the purpose of what I said was to give examples that the ancient near east didn't influence Greece to subordinate women as Dov asserted.
You got me mixed up with someone? I never wrote anything like that.The chronicle I mean to the written period.Orientalization of Greece from the Phoenician and the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet is a fact. This quote is about common late writing period, not prehistoric times.
 
There certainly wasn't, but the purpose of what I said was to give examples that the ancient near east didn't influence Greece to subordinate women as Dov asserted.

Yes, I understood you, and you were correct.
 
These movements reflect either bride exchange or bride "sale" for goods.
It makes sense in societies where land ownership is passed from father to son. Young girls would be sold to the highest bidder, they're an extremely valuable commodity after all, and a man who is willing to pay a good price is more likely to take good care of the commodity. It's a win win for all parties involved.
 
We have no solid proof that Celtic and Sarmatian women were as free and equal to men as Hollywood movies of "barbarian women warriors" depict them. It's not the first time that Hollywood is extremely anachronistic and impresses contemporary values and practices into ancient history. The fact that some women participated in war is no guarantee that the average woman, who of course were mothers and housewives, had a high status and high personal freedom in their villages. We don't even know if those women warriors were regarded as "common women" just like the spouses and daughters of all those strong men. If what we know about more developed and literate Indo-European societies, like Greeks, Romans, Persians and North Indians, is to be believed, that was definitely not the case.

Also, you need to analyze things through the context and conditions of that time. For instance, a practice like the prohibition of divorce by early Christianity, which eventually became a burden to women, was quite possibly a huge improvement for many women who previously felt extremely insecure as they aged and when they ceased to be pleasant companions to their husbands. That's just an example of how "equality" and "oppression" aren't as black and white as you seem to think. The fact that Indo-European tribes had a few women warriors tell us little about how they were in fact treated in everyday life when they were not part of a tiny military elite.


The archeology of the steppe of the Bronze Age and Iron Age gives an answer to this question. We have strong evidence of this. In addition to the stories of ancient authors like Herodotus and others, now in the south of Russia and in Ukraine (Nikopol burial mounds) many women's graves are found in the part of Scythian and Sarmatian women, which are prototypes of mythological Amazons. Which are buried in full arms, with quivers of arrows, as well as traces of wounds, which indicates that they participated in the battles, and the weapons were not ritual. For example, a 14 year old girl, with a wound from an arrow and with weapons, found in Ukraine. The Greek colonists on the Black Sea told of the women of the warriors, which was the beginning of the Indo-European myth about the Amazons.

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.

Women emancipation and women warriors did not exist in all Indo-European societies, but it was inherent in many of them. This is one of their specific detail.

I propose to rely on scientific historical and archeologichal facts, and not on own internal inspiration.


The fact that Indo-European tribes had a few women warriors tell us little about how they were in fact treated in everyday life when they were not part of a tiny military elite.
We have the data of ancient authors above about societie structure of Celts, Germanics, Sarmatians and Spartans. This is roughly speaking about their towards women. We walk in circle of the discussion.
 
The archeology of the steppe of the Bronze Age and Iron Age gives an answer to this question. We have strong evidence of this. In addition to the stories of ancient authors like Herodotus and others, now in the south of Russia and in Ukraine (Nikopol burial mounds) many women's graves are found in the part of Scythian and Sarmatian women, which are prototypes of mythological Amazons. Which are buried in full arms, with quivers of arrows, as well as traces of wounds, which indicates that they participated in the battles, and the weapons were ritual. For example, a 14 year old girl, with a wound from an arrow and with weapons, found in Ukraine. The Greek colonists on the Black Sea told of the women of the warriors, which was the beginning of the Indo-European myth about the Amazons.

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.

Women emancipation and women warriors did not exist in all Indo-European societies, but it was inherent in many of them. This is one of their specific detail.

I propose to rely on scientific historical and archeologichal facts, and not on own internal inspiration.

So, you've said twice already. You've been heard and answered. Stop spamming. It's boring.
 
So, you've said twice already. You've been heard and answered. Stop spamming. It's boring.
No, I wrote nothing about the prototypes of the Amazons found in the Iron age steppe before, and also did not tell some details about the Spartan women. This may be of interest to someone.
 
Yes, but then we also know of some very powerful, intellectually independent and very wealthy Catholic medieval women in Europe, like, for example, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Amalasuntha. We also know of influent intellectuals like Catherine of Siena and Theresa of Avila, even warriors like Joan of Arc. Does that mean that the general status of average women in the medieval Christian world was confidently represented by that elite minority of independent women? I don't think so. It is always too easy to romanticize and glorify the long gone past for which we have much less evidences than we have for more recent and literate times, but I definitely don't buy the theory that Celtic and Germanic women were in general much more free than women in other ancient cultures. Probably they had less strictly defined social roles, but they were far from equal and powerful except for a minority of especially talented or noble women.
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.
 
No, I wrote nothing about the prototypes of the Amazons found in the Iron age steppe before, and also did not tell some details about the Spartan women. This may be of interest to someone.

Keep spamming and you're going to get an infraction. We've heard your opinion, loud and clear. Some of us just aren't buying it.
 
No, I wrote nothing about the prototypes of the Amazons found in the Iron age steppe before, and also did not tell some details about the Spartan women. This may be of interest to someone.
are you referring to these russian finds?
http://archive.archaeology.org/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html
or this one
http://www.zmescience.com/science/archaeology/sarmatian-warrior-tomb-18082015/


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...games-herodotus-ice-princess-tattoo-cannabis/
 

This thread has been viewed 51795 times.

Back
Top