Bronze Age women travelled the world while men stayed at home

Excellent post. I think all of this is right on the mark.

The paper itself, copies of which are circulating, is very confusing in my opinion. One of the things they found is that these "foreign" wives didn't seem to have offspring, because they found no samples with that same mtDna. That makes no sense to me. Why would they go to the bother of exchanging brides or goods for a bride, and then she isn't mated to one of the elite men? Something is wrong with this.
Wow, this changes a lot. They could have been slaves.
Just a wild guess, because I didn't have time tread the paper.
 
Wow, this changes a lot. They could have been slaves.
Just a wild guess, because I didn't have time tread the paper.

Or we just found out why bell beakers were so successful in their expansion.... their children not allowed to remain in the tribe? all youngster (both boys and girls) born from foreigners had to form a new pride and leave? like wolves?
 
there is however no species where the male is so lazy and so well-fed compared to the lionesses
the main concern for the male lion is to obstruct other nomadic males from entering the group
for some reason which is not clear to me the lionesses accept the male lion for the role he is playing
Maybe they haven't heard of the progressive benefits that women's studies and 3rd wave feminism has to offer to the oppressed sex? I would encourage all western academic feminists to travel to Africa and teach these lionesses firsthand of the suffrage and fight for female rights.
 
The abject stupidity of this post should speak for itself, but just in case...

The closest things to a matriarchy Europe ever saw were the Neolithic societies prior to the arrival of steppe peoples. Even those were not actually total matriarchies, but certainly different from the patriarchies which succeeded them.
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 such a society, to suggest that a woman could independently decide to pack up her daughters and move elsewhere is the height of ABSURDITY
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Right, in short 500 years, and still process is not fully finished.
 
Right, in short 500 years, and still process is not fully finished.
I would even say the last 100 years. But even what was before, it does not go to any comparison with the descendants states of old Neolithic societies of the Middle East those times.
 
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.

There's no need for this type of hostility. Dial it back, or expect no further dialogue.

Your diatribe against the Middle East, including the Christian religion, is not proof.

I don't think we need to quote Gimbutas, but for more obscure ideas I'd like to see the academic source for assertions, i.e.

Please document that the position of women was "better" in Indo-European society than in, say, MN Europe. I want specific academic studies.

I'd also like a link to the studies finding "warrior" women in Yamnaya, in order to gauge the frequency, and yes, I'm aware of the "Viking" one.

Like other societies, people who were their version of "transgender" may have been accommodated, shall we say. One example is the "two spirit" people of aboriginal Amerindians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

This is perhaps more likely given that Indo-European cultures seem to have had a form of institutionalized pederasty in the context of their warrior culture, so gender roles were to some extent fluid.

See:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...omosexuality in indo-european culture&f=false

I also don't quite understand why you think the recognition that the societies of "Old Europe" were different in their rituals and mythologies is something that is not supported today. It is all rather controversial, but by no means settled.
https://books.google.com/books?id=l...t about Old Europe being a matriarchy&f=false
 
I would even say the last 100 years. But even what was before, it does not go to any comparison with the descendants states of old Neolithic societies of the Middle East those times.
True that major changes came after WW1 and collapse of monarchies, however the ideas of equality were born long before that, in or after Renaissance. The last country in Europe to allow women voting was Switzerland in 70s, IIRC. Shocking but true. And this is by way of law, because traditional treating women as "lower class", unequal to man, is still there in Europe in many countries.
I was thinking, that we should give Middle East 100 years of their economic and social development before drawing conclusions of their inability to change and equality for women.
 
There's no need for this type of hostility. Dial it back, or expect no further dialogue.

Your diatribe against the Middle East, including the Christian religion, is not proof.

I don't think we need to quote Gimbutas, but for more obscure ideas I'd like to see the academic source for assertions, i.e.

Please document that the position of women was "better" in Indo-European society than in, say, MN Europe. I want specific academic studies.

I'd also like a link to the studies finding "warrior" women in Yamnaya, in order to gauge the frequency, and yes, I'm aware of the "Viking" one.

Like other societies, people who were their version of "transgender" may have been accommodated, shall we say. One example is the "two spirit" people of aboriginal Amerindians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

This is perhaps more likely given that Indo-European cultures seem to have had a form of institutionalized pederasty in the context of their warrior culture, so gender roles were to some extent fluid.

See:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...omosexuality in indo-european culture&f=false

I also don't quite understand why you think the recognition that the societies of "Old Europe" were different in their rituals and mythologies is something that is not supported today. It is all rather controversial, but by no means settled.
https://books.google.com/books?id=l...t about Old Europe being a matriarchy&f=false

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.

Why the Neolitchic Europeans suddenly became matriarchal - a question for unscrupulous studies Gimbutas, who saw a political sub-background, in her works. Gimbutas, expressed the view that Europe was a matriarchal, destroyed by patriarchal Indo-Europeans from Sredniy Stog (thesis that "riders" from Sredniy Stog was IE she seeing from Telegin, who studied this culture).

This you need to bring a modern research that Neolithic Europe was a closer to matriarchal one.
According to current ideas, many human cultures with some exceptions were Patriarchal.
A short essay by two historians Kotovskaya and Shalygina:
http://womenation.org/the-matriarchy-myth/ (google translate)
(Also there interesting mentioning that Andreev is about the Minoan civilization)

About the status (ruler, warrior) of women in the Yamnaya - Ivanova S.V. Social structure of the Yamnaya culture population of the North-Western Black Sea Region. - Odessa, 2001

Initiation was in almost all human societies, and still exist in primitive ones. This does not say anything.

Also the goddess mother does not show evidence of matriarchy. Previously, it was believed that the matriarchy was in the Palaeolithic, since a famous Venus figures were found. But it is not.
 
As I suspected, no studies whatsoever, just more blah, blah agenda driven rhetoric.

Just for a simple fact, you can't assume that attitudes in modern countries are a direct continuation of social structures 9,000 years ago. Surely, that should be axiomatic.

I'll be happy to discuss it when you have proof to proffer that the position of women in steppe cultures was "better" than in MN Europe.
 
Of course, if you believe that old Europe was a close to matriarchy, the scientific essay presented above
will not convince you. But the question of faith is not to me.
 
Of course, if you believe that old Europe was a close to matriarchy, the scientific essay presented above
will not convince you. But the question of faith is not to me.

I read your link. It says absolutely nothing as to whether steppe women were better off than MN women in Europe. That was your main point. Stop obfuscating.

As I said, if you can provide academic proof for that I'd be happy to discuss it.

I had already posted a link to papers on both sides of this debate. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have read it, or you wouldn't post basically the same thing.

It is indisputable that the Indo-Europeans had an extreme form of patriarchy. The data about "Old Europe" is less clear, but it certainly wasn't like the steppe cultures. Cultures exist on a continuum.
 
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.

Women in ancient Egypt were the equals of men in every area except occupations. Historians Bob Brier and Hoyt Hobbs note how women were equal to men in almost every area except for jobs: "Men fought, ran the government, and managed the farm; women cooked, sewed, and managed the house" (89). Men held positions of authority such as king, governor, general, and a man was considered the head of the household but, within that patriarchy, women exercised considerable power and independence. Egyptologist Barbara Watterson writes:
In ancient Egypt a woman enjoyed the same rights under the law as a man. What her de jure [rightful entitlement] rights were depended upon her social class not her sex. All landed property descended in the female line, from mother to daughter, on the assumption, perhaps, that maternity is a matter of fact, paternity a matter of opinion. A woman was entitled to administer her own property and dispose of it as she wished. She could buy, sell, be a partner in legal contracts, be executor in wills and witness to legal documents, bring an action at court, and adopt children in her own name. An ancient Egyptian woman was legally capax [competent, capable]. In contrast, an ancient Greek woman was supervised by a kyrios [male guardian] and many Greek women who lived in Egypt during the Ptolemaic Period, observing Egyptian women acting without kyrioi, were encouraged to do so themselves. In short, an ancient Egyptian woman enjoyed greater social standing than many women of other societies, both ancient and modern. (16)


The respect accorded to women in ancient Egypt is evident in almost every aspect of the civilization from the religious beliefs to social customs. The gods were both male and female, and each had their own equally important areas of expertise. Women could marry who they wanted and divorce those who no longer suited them, could hold what jobs they liked - within limits - and travel at their whim. The earliest creation myths of the culture all emphasize, to greater or lesser degrees, the value of the feminine principle.


http://www.ancient.eu/article/623/

Women in ancient Egypt were much better off than those living in Greece at the time. However Egypt has radically changed becoming one of the worst places for women.


The role of women in Egypt has changed throughout history, from ancient to modern times. From the earliest preserved archaeological records, Egyptian women have been thought to be considered nearly equal to men in Egyptian society, regardless of marital status. Currently, the state of women's rights in Egypt is extremely poor, with female genital mutilation, honor killings and sexual harassment remaining serious issues faced by Egyptian women. In 2013, Egypt was ranked as the worst country in the Arab World for women.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Egypt
 
Here is an example of a society where women had a more respected position, although it is not a matriarchy strictly speaking, which I actually don't think ever existed. The article also discusses the Hopi.

"The Iroquois Confederacy or League, combining 5–6 Native American Haudenosaunee nations or tribes before the U.S. became a nation, operated by The Great Binding Law of Peace, a constitution by which women participated in the League's political decision-making, including deciding whether to proceed to war,[94] through what may have been a matriarchy[95] or gyneocracy.[96] According to Doug George-Kanentiio, in this society, mothers exercise central moral and political roles.[97] The dates of this constitution's operation are unknown; the League was formed in approximately 1000–1450, but the constitution was oral until written in about 1880.[98] The League still exists.George-Kanentiio explains:
In our society, women are the center of all things. Nature, we believe, has given women the ability to create; therefore it is only natural that women be in positions of power to protect this function....We traced our clans through women; a child born into the world assumed the clan membership of its mother. Our young women were expected to be physically strong....The young women received formal instruction in traditional planting....Since the Iroquois were absolutely dependent upon the crops they grew, whoever controlled this vital activity wielded great power within our communities. It was our belief that since women were the givers of life they naturally regulated the feeding of our people....In all countries, real wealth stems from the control of land and its resources. Our Iroquois philosophers knew this as well as we knew natural law. To us it made sense for women to control the land since they were far more sensitive to the rhythms of the Mother Earth. We did not own the land but were custodians of it. Our women decided any and all issues involving territory, including where a community was to be built and how land was to be used....In our political system, we mandated full equality. Our leaders were selected by a caucus of women before the appointments were subject to popular review....Our traditional governments are composed of an equal number of men and women. The men are chiefs and the women clan-mothers....As leaders, the women closely monitor the actions of the men and retain the right to veto any law they deem inappropriate....Our women not only hold the reigns of political and economic power, they also have the right to determine all issues involving the taking of human life. Declarations of war had to be approved by the women, while treaties of peace were subject to their deliberations.[97]



 
Women in ancient Egypt were much better off than those living in Greece at the time. However Egypt has radically changed becoming one of the worst places for women.

Very true. There's lots of interesting detail in that article.

Bottom line, each society was different, but we can't deny the patriarchy of Indo-European society, and, to return to the topic of the paper, there is no indication that women in Beaker/Corded Ware society had the ability to decide to move away on their own to other parts of Europe. These movements reflect either bride exchange or bride "sale" for goods.
 
I read your link. It says absolutely nothing as to whether steppe women were better off than MN women in Europe. That was your main point. Stop obfuscating.

As I said, if you can provide academic proof for that I'd be happy to discuss it.

I had already posted a link to papers on both sides of this debate. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have read it, or you wouldn't post basically the same thing.

It is indisputable that the Indo-Europeans had an extreme form of patriarchy. The data about "Old Europe" is less clear, but it certainly wasn't like the steppe cultures. Cultures exist on a continuum.

No, I did not write that. It's just not true. Or give a quote where I said this.

My thesis was:
1) Neolithic Europe was not matriarchal.
2) Women in Indo-European societies were not as disenfranchised as some consider.
3) The Middle Eastern Neolithic societies were more harsh towards women than Indo-European, as seen in European and Middle Eastern cultures. For example, Abrahimic religions.

And if you think that extreme form of patriarchy of IE societies is "indisputably" you have already decided everything for yourself, and you can not see any arguments.

But still:
(all qotes google translate)
Herodotus wrote about the Sarmatian tribes (IV, 116–117):

Sauromat women retain their ancient customs: together with their husbands and even without them, they ride out on the hunt, go on a hike and wear the same clothes with men ... As for the marriage customs, they are what: the girl does not get married until she kills the enemy. Some die by the old women, and they never marry, because they are not able to fulfill the custom. " That is, most of these women married, having successfully solved the problem of "killing an enemy


Tacitus about the Germanics (Germ. 18)

Dowry offers not a wife to her husband, but a husband to his wife. At the same time, her relatives and relatives are present and inspect his gifts; and it is unacceptable that these gifts consist of women's ornaments and bridal gowns, but then there must be bulls, a bridled horse and shield with a spear and a sword. For these gifts, he gets a wife, and she in return gives her husband some weapon; in their eyes these are the most enduring bonds, these are sacred ordinances, these are the gods of marriage. And that a woman does not consider herself uncommitted to the thoughts of valorous exploits, not involved in the vicissitudes of wars, all that marks her marriage, recalls that from now on she is called upon to share the labors and dangers of her husband both in peacetime and in the battle, to undergo that and dare to do as he does; this announces to her the harness of the bulls, this is the horse at the ready, this is the weapon handed to it. So it is fitting to live, it is so fitting to perish; she gets what she intends to give to her sons, in integrity and safety, what her daughters-in-law will receive later, and what will in turn be given to her grandchildren


It is also known about the Celts women enjoyed many civil rights, and actively participated in all men's affairs, even in war. An example of such a warrior is the powerful and cruel Queen Medb. And Only in 697, at the insistence of the abbot Adamnan, a law was passed that freed women from military service.

All this is very far from an extreme form of patriarchy.
 
Dov: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.

First your type inundates the internet talking about murdering all the men in Europe and forcibly raping/ and or otherwise forcibly taking all the women to put into harems, and now you want to say that these cultures had respected roles for women. Make up your minds.

You know what, forget it, you're a *****; I'm done talking to you.
 
First your type inundates the internet talking about murdering all the men in Europe and forcibly raping/ and or otherwise forcibly taking all the women to put into harems, and now you want to say that these cultures had respected roles for women. Make up your minds.

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.
 
Women in ancient Egypt were much better off than those living in Greece at the time. However Egypt has radically changed becoming one of the worst places for women.
There is nothing surprising. At some period, women in Greece were like things for the continuation of the family and were stay at home. For everything else there were mens.
 
Don't we get our antibodies from our mothers?

In David Reich's talk, during the questions he is asked : how come indo-europeans took over the farmers so efficiently?
His answer pointed to a tooth found from that period with a possible plague.
 

This thread has been viewed 51776 times.

Back
Top