# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  Bronze Age women travelled the world while men stayed at home

## bicicleur

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...led-world-men/

The research reveals that over a period of some 800 years, European women travelled between 300km and 500km from their home villages to start families, while men tended to stay near where they were born.


Maybe that is how Bell Beaker pots got from Iberia to Central Europe?

----------


## Promenade

The title of the actual study is:
"*Female mobility and exogamy as the main drivers of foreign admixture during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age shift in Central Europe*"

To me it seems like they're claiming that females were responsible for the genetic shift of the Bronze age with such a title. Of course we know that the y-dna of western europe shifted from I2a to R1b around this period while presumed steppe mtdna was not introduced on nearly such a massive scale.

Large scale female migration does make sense for the latter spread of farming into far western europe during the neolithic since we still see a dominance of I2a in these areas after the introduction of farming and EEF admixture coupled with a change in local mtdna, but the study here is focusing specifically on the bronze age. How would R1b make such a rapid progression if it was just the women moving around? 

Also why were the women moving so much? The Telegraph puts it a bit optimistically saying that it was the "independent women venturing out into the world...the practice was rooted in ancient times, when Bronze Age men stayed at home while adventurous women were the key to spreading culture and ideas", but surely knowing the violence of ancient times and seeing as these women were assimilated into the cultures they moved to(based off of the burial practices) there were probably less pleasant things occurring.

----------


## I1a3_Young

The tested time period coincides with the rapid expansion of I1 in Germany and Scandinavia. Their test area was Germany. The article fails to mention the number of women compared to the number of men. They say that goods traveled with the women.

The logical conclusion here that I would never expect some punk at the Telegraph to publicly guess is that the women were stolen or purchased. They were buried in the manner of the local patriarchal culture. There have been guesses before about how the rapid R1b and I1 expansions could have possibly occurred. We have posted stories about the groups of young men sent out of their town with the idea of eventually returning.

So, the culture was to grow pop by raiding women and presumably killing the men of those women. Then, bring the loot home and have lots of kids. Now you have rapid expansion of territory YDNA wise but diversity mtDNA wise.

OR this village was rich and people willingly sent their daughters off here to be taken care of.
It could have been completely based on economics but we know the dark history of humans....what seems most likely?




Sent from my XT1080 using Eupedia Forum mobile app

----------


## Promenade

> The tested time period coincides with the rapid expansion of I1 in Germany and Scandinavia. Their test area was Germany.


It probably won't reveal much about expansion of I1. The study was done only in the "Lech Valley, south of Augsburg", so the extreme south of Germany where they do not have much I1 and where Germans did not inhabit until recently.

I agree though, the Telegraph seems to care more about the political content they could spin with the study rather than the historical value offered. Unfortunately we can't read the actual study ourselves yet: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706355114

----------


## I1a3_Young

> It probably won't reveal much about expansion of I1. The study was done only in the "Lech Valley, south of Augsburg", so the extreme south of Germany where they do not have much I1 and where Germans did not inhabit until recently.
> 
> I agree though, the Telegraph seems to care more about the political content they could spin with the study rather than the historical value offered. Unfortunately we can't read the actual study ourselves yet: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706355114


Agreed, but this could help paint the picture of how the celtic expansion in western Europe and the British Isles occurred. On top of that, it's my theory (and certainly not only mine) that the I1 rapid expansion was after contact or assimilation with the U106 bearing IE/celts and the transmission method was similar.

----------


## Ygorbr

> The tested time period coincides with the rapid expansion of I1 in Germany and Scandinavia. Their test area was Germany. The article fails to mention the number of women compared to the number of men. They say that goods traveled with the women.


Apart from raiding and kidnapping women (perhaps in a relatively institutionalized and, thus, pretty much expected fashion, as it still happens in isolated parts of Kyrgyzstan), the exchange of women together with goods can also suggest the maintenance of good relations and military and/or economic alliances with other tribes, especially when the male-biased and increasingly powerful new settlements were surrounded by other more populous but decadent tribes. Marrying women off was historically and until very recently one of the best ways to foster connections and guarantee a better treatment under a new social situation. In 16th century Brazil, Neolithic tribes very often offered their daughters to Portuguese men (some early Portuguese settlers taking dozens of them as their spouses) as a sign of good will and political alliance with the strong newcomers, and they in exchange received better treatment and avoided annihilation by the Portuguese (and also often acquired many new goods and access to trade). What I mean is that there was a lot of extreme violence coupled with unnervingly "cold" diplomacy between tribes and villages in ancient times. People were at war in one day, and the other day they were trading and celebrating marriages.

----------


## Angela

> Apart from raiding and kidnapping women (perhaps in a relatively institutionalized and, thus, pretty much expected fashion, as it still happens in isolated parts of Kyrgyzstan), the exchange of women together with goods can also suggest the maintenance of good relations and military and/or economic alliances with other tribes, especially when the male-biased and increasingly powerful new settlements were surrounded by other more populous but decadent tribes. Marrying women off was historically and until very recently one of the best ways to foster connections and guarantee a better treatment under a new social situation. In 16th century Brazil, Neolithic tribes very often offered their daughters to Portuguese men (some early Portuguese settlers taking dozens of them as their spouses) as a sign of good will and political alliance with the strong newcomers, and they in exchange received better treatment and avoided annihilation by the Portuguese (and also often acquired many new goods and access to trade). What I mean is that there was a lot of extreme violence coupled with unnervingly "cold" diplomacy between tribes and villages in ancient times. People were at war in one day, and the other day they were trading and celebrating marriages.


I think this is more likely to be the case. The men are staying put, and individual women are traveling, so I don't see how this changes the "y". What the authors were emphasizing was the spread of culture, artifacts, techniques, etc., through bride exchange, which was common in many locations and cultures. What it may well have done is totally scramble the mt dna lineages, and bring about autosomal similarity and homogenization, although within manageable distances.

----------


## Promenade

Here is a quote from an abstract on the study

"*The DNA analysis enables us to understand family relations within the burial sites as well as the transformation of the genomic patterns from the Corded Ware to the Bell Beaker Complex and further on to the Early Bronze Age. In the end, we are able to present a new narrative for the genesis as well as the end of the Bell Beaker Complex at least for the Lech Valley south of Augsburg.*"

So is this how Steppe ancestry entered Western Europe, through the exchange of women with the Corded Ware?

Its a very rough hypothesis, but I can see western European R1b originating with the hunter gatherers of Romania(Which I was surprised generated so little discussion, not just here but across the web) and Iron Gates, these hunter gatherers mixing with incoming Neolithic populations and then moving north to central Europe. In central Europe they would have gained steppe ancestry by exchange with Corded Ware groups and then spread further west after genetic, cultural and linguistic impact from the Corded Ware.

The major problem with this theory of course is the lack of steppe mtdna in western Europe. I know fire haired has been working with European mtdna, maybe he has some insight on this.

----------


## Sile

The scenario can easily be 
..
The women had children, once the children where old enough, the women and children moved to a new area, the next generation of daughters got pregnant, and then these women moved with their children............and so on..............the men stayed behind, there was no marriage at that time.
..
The male children can expand their ydna following their mothers.

----------


## Angela

> The scenario can easily be 
> ..
> The women had children, once the children where old enough, the women and children moved to a new area, the next generation of daughters got pregnant, and then these women moved with their children............and so on..............the men stayed behind, there was no marriage at that time.
> ..
> The male children can expand their ydna following their mothers.


In which ancient, patrilocal culture have women had the power and the means to suddenly decide, on their own, to move to a new area with their children?

----------


## Sile

> In which ancient, patrilocal culture have women had the power and the means to suddenly decide, on their own, to move to a new area with their children?


in all societies prior to the Babylonian rules of 4000 years ago
you need to stop being a gendered racist and treat women equal to men
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPMocsqHnDo

----------


## Promenade

I'll read it tmrw, but here it is:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1KMUic3POHIR2pBbzlhS1FaYlU/view?usp=sharing
15.png

----------


## Sile

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1K...lhS1FaYlU/view

part of the link

----------


## Angela

> in all societies prior to the Babylonian rules of 4000 years ago
> you need to stop being a gendered racist and treat women equal to men
> ..
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPMocsqHnDo


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. The paper is discussing Bell Beaker and Corded Ware in Germany, which means we're talking about STEPPE CULTURES by definition. In addition, the authors specifically state they're talking about a PATRILOCAL society, i.e. PATRIARCHIES. Everybody clear?

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.

Facts are facts and are not to be confused with personal preferences, but the people who are part of the arising fascism of the left don't seem to be able to grasp this fundamental concept.

Personally, I'm all for matriarchies, especially because it would mean that abjectly stupid men who can't think their way out of a paper bag would be kept away from all decision making.

----------


## davef

Stupid people in general should be kept away from decision making.

But that's likely never going to happen.

----------


## bicicleur

> 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. The paper is discussing Bell Beaker and Corded Ware in Germany, which means we're talking about STEPPE CULTURES by definition. In addition, the authors specifically state they're talking about a PATRILOCAL society, i.e. PATRIARCHIES. Everybody clear?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Facts are facts and are not to be confused with personal preferences, but the people who are part of the arising fascism of the left don't seem to be able to grasp this fundamental concept.
> 
> Personally, I'm all for matriarchies, especially because it would mean that abjectly stupid men who can't think their way out of a paper bag would be kept away from all decision making.


what does matrilocal and patrilocal, matriarchal and patriarchal actually mean?
it is not the same

I was in South Africa
I learned the lions are matriarchal
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

----------


## bicicleur

> Stupid people in general should be kept away from decision making.
> 
> But that's likely never going to happen.


how will you decide who that is?

in a democracy, it is not the most intelligent or most capable who rules, it is Mr Popular
in other systems, we get even worse people on top

----------


## davef

> how will you decide who that is?
> 
> in a democracy, it is not the most intelligent or most capable who rules, it is Mr Popular
> in other systems, we get even worse people on top


I know! Absolutely! These days, intellect is less needed than it should be.

----------


## MOESAN

The exogamy and females mobility question :
Since some time I read papers or abstracts about this. It seems to me the perspective is somehow wrung in readers heads.
1° I doubt that the most of distances between their birthplaces and new living places would have exceded 70/80 km a sa rule.
2° I doubt these females would have been the whole culture transmettors in these patrilocal and viril warlike societies even if we may suppose some of the household usages came with them.
3° I rather think the cultural changes could have been the results of contacts between differents groups, involving exchanges of skills and political-economical alliances where females were part of the deal, not only as « stuff » but also as honour hostages and guarantee of peace, at least for the high classes ones. It seems it was not so seldom in Antiquity.
4° I’m afraid we are far from the reality if we believe males quietly stayed on place and sent their wives and daughters as ambassadors. We have more than _one_ mobility : collective moves for new lands involving men and wives but surely decided by prominent males as a rule ; marriages all around with females taken outside too closely related villages (low statute) or outside the region for political/economical purposes (high statute) ; young (male) warriors searching adventure and glory with raids, taking foreign females « on the road », sometimes returning home with them, even if the first aim was not chasing wives.
What I think I’m guessing in the BBC ‘s multi-aspects question is that males moves sometimes very far and fast, with or without return. Females moved on shortest distances and withouth this romantic « freedom » of female pioneers alleged by someones. So, long distances moves towards limited numbers of directions for males (and some of their previous females) with often changes of country and times of stability over several générations (migration) opposed to permanent moves for females at each generation and on every direction. Evidently some specific groups of men moves more constantly and on every direction for precise purposes (metal ores, trade etc...)
We could see too differences between Strontium variations and auDN variations because the females, spite coming from far enough place, could have had more and more similar DNA as time passed.

----------


## Angela

> The exogamy and females mobility question :
> Since some time I read papers or abstracts about this. It seems to me the perspective is somehow wrung in readers heads.
> 1° I doubt that the most of distances between their birthplaces and new living places would have exceded 70/80 km a sa rule.
> 2° I doubt these females would have been the whole culture transmettors in these patrilocal and viril warlike societies even if we may suppose some of the household usages came with them.
> 3° I rather think the cultural changes could have been the results of contacts between differents groups, involving exchanges of skills and political-economical alliances where females were part of the deal, not only as « stuff » but also as honour hostages and guarantee of peace, at least for the high classes ones. It seems it was not so seldom in Antiquity.
> 4° I’m afraid we are far from the reality if we believe males quietly stayed on place and sent their wives and daughters as ambassadors. We have more than _one_ mobility : collective moves for new lands involving men and wives but surely decided by prominent males as a rule ; marriages all around with females taken outside too closely related villages (low statute) or outside the region for political/economical purposes (high statute) ; young (male) warriors searching adventure and glory with raids, taking foreign females « on the road », sometimes returning home with them, even if the first aim was not chasing wives.
> What I think I’m guessing in the BBC ‘s multi-aspects question is that males moves sometimes very far and fast, with or without return. Females moved on shortest distances and withouth this romantic « freedom » of female pioneers alleged by someones. So, long distances moves towards limited numbers of directions for males (and some of their previous females) with often changes of country and times of stability over several générations (migration) opposed to permanent moves for females at each generation and on every direction. Evidently some specific groups of men moves more constantly and on every direction for precise purposes (metal ores, trade etc...)
> We could see too differences between Strontium variations and auDN variations because the females, spite coming from far enough place, could have had more and more similar DNA as time passed.


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.

----------


## LeBrok

> 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.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> 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?

----------


## homunculus

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## LeBrok

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Angela

> 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=2p...ulture&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=lT...iarchy&f=false

----------


## LeBrok

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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. 
> ...


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.

----------


## Angela

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.

----------


## Dov

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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Jovialis

> 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

----------


## Angela

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]

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Bergin

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.

----------


## zanipolo

> 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

----------


## Jovialis

> 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/B...oenicians/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.
> ...





> *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

----------


## Ygorbr

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Dov

*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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Ygorbr

> 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.

----------


## bicicleur

> 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 ?

----------


## Ygorbr

> 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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Jovialis

> 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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Expredel

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## Wheal

And maybe....

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...warrior-women/

----------


## Sile

> 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/...armatians.html
or this one
http://www.zmescience.com/science/ar...tomb-18082015/


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ttoo-cannabis/

----------


## Dov

> And maybe....
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...warrior-women/


Some errors of sex attribution occur in archeology, but not in this case. We are talking about a mass phenomenon.




> are you referring to these russian finds?
> http://archive.archaeology.org/9701/...armatians.html
> or this one
> http://www.zmescience.com/science/ar...tomb-18082015/
> 
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ttoo-cannabis/


Yes, including this. There's a lot of that.

----------


## Ygorbr

> 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".

----------


## Ygorbr

> 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.

----------


## Angela

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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Angela

^^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 ********.

----------


## Dov

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".

----------


## Ygorbr

> 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.

----------


## Ygorbr

> 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)

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Dov

> 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.

----------


## Wheal

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.

----------


## LeBrok

> 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.

----------


## Angela

It depends to some extent on the effective population size.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...on-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/inbr...ladens-family/

----------


## berun

> 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
> ...


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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.

----------


## berun

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?

----------


## MOESAN

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.

----------


## markod

> 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.

----------


## berun

I guess maths work the same now than in the Bronze Age, from 70 to 20 in 2000 years, how?

----------


## halfalp

I mean sounds very easy. If we put the center of Steppe MLBA in Eastern Europe, without influx of that center into the ones who migrate out of it, they gonna loss their steppe component with mixing with local populations over the times. You can be R1b, look physically like yamnaya reconstructions and have strictly 0 dna linking with the Bronze Age Steppe. Like Markoz, i also think that in mountaneous regions like Alps and Pyrennées, metallurgic culture taking a lot culturally by IE's weren't linguistically and genetically that much Steppe. And also like Moesan said, it could be likely that in metallurgic ages, Anatolian - Balkans contribute more in Central Europe than Eastern Europe.

----------


## MOESAN

> I guess maths work the same now than in the Bronze Age, from 70 to 20 in 2000 years, how?


Aside :
this thread begun by questions about an overinterpretation of the females mobility between Chalco (not Neolithic) and Bronze, based upon a survey concerning about 80 skeletons ; study of mt-DNA and strontium to evaluate mobility, without studying autosomal DNA : first error : auDNA can often give reliable results even without a numerous sample ; haplos need bigger samples to take sense statistically - 
as others, I think females in these times were sometimes either picked here and there by free young warriors and by male elites on their way to new places, even if some previous wives were kept along; when some tribe was stabilised (at least for some generations), some surrounding autochtonous females were added to the others ; then they were not obliged to came from too distant places, even if they could show some differences in places markers like strontium  only the males elite could contract alliances and take wives of foreign tribes for political purpose, sometimes far enough places  the cultural input of these new females was not too high I suppose and they did not play a big political role neither beside their position of guest and peace link,with some exceptions  I dont see personally women deciding independently to take the road to cross lands and lands like globe-trotters to settle freely in new places, in those times at least - 
BBs male showed big mobility too : strontium and Cy are not always sufficient tools to tell us the very place of origin of somebody  seemingly it shows very well differences of geology at a local level but its power of precise geographic identification is somewhat limited in most of the cases, I think after some readings  well, so, BBs males moved, that is the point ; but the big network of their culture in Western Europe is surely not based upon a continual migratory advance, but after some time upon an exchanges territories where someones went and came (go an return), and this could have given rise by time to moving females too, at least one time in their life before new stabilisation, and rise to an homogeneization of the mt- pool in the final stages, on the way to the current distribution at least in places of Western Europe -
Y-R1b-L23 and downstream SNPs are not autochtonous in Western Europe and seem having moved from Eastern places, relatively quickly at the history scale, on a very large territory and at first in some form which evocates migration or expansion before partial stabilisation and coming backs  I suppose the females (and their mtDNA) who moved/integrated from foreign cultures did this in a very different way and at a smaller geographic scale ;


- concerning the supposed Y-R1b-steppes auDNA association, the overwhelming dominance of this haplo in Western Europe could not concern only the elite and it is rather the result of monopolisation of autochtonous  females (BBs surely did not kill all the males, and evidently less the females, they apparently took the monopole on these last ones) -
the BBs of Germany when placed on PCAs show a large geographic spectrum in despite of their Y-haplogroups global homogeneity  even if they are not all of them of the same generation this proves that they continued taking females in diverse populations formed with relatively different % of admixture  if they had taken foreign females at the origin or on their way and kept them later after settling without more crossings, their auDNA would have become more similar at last what has not been the case so it suggests they kept on taking new females still a long time - 
& : to take an example : a clan with 60 % steppes ancestry taking foreign wives (here, keeping their previous wives) on the road  aisle  :
every generation, 20 % of new wives :
children generations : 1: 54 % - 2: ~49 % - 3: ~44 % - 4: ~39 % - 5: 35 % - 6: 32 %
every generation, 40 % of new wives :
children generations : 1: 48 % - 2: ~34 % - 3: ~27 % - 4: ~22 % - 5: 18 % - 6: 14 %
We can that about 6 generations of crossings, its to say 150 to 200 years, we arrive far enough from the previous 60 % of steppe - of course it depends on the % of new females ; here I have taken a constant % of foreign wives  surely it has not been like this everywhere for every generation, its just stubborn maths  and the old admixture components dont not evolve so quickly because they were shared in diverse proportions by different ethnies ; here I considered only the well identified steppe autosomal component  but we can understand that, when it was matter of young warriors  swarmings  (ver sacrum or not) or little sets of prospectors without wives, the first generation could pass from 60 % to a dry 30 % -

----------


## Angela

> Aside :
> this thread begun by questions about an overinterpretation of the females mobility between Chalco (not Neolithic) and Bronze, based upon a survey concerning about 80 skeletons ; study of mt-DNA and strontium to evaluate mobility, without studying autosomal DNA : first error : auDNA can often give reliable results even without a numerous sample ; haplo�s need bigger samples to take sense statistically - 
> as others, I think females in these times were sometimes either picked here and there by free young warriors and by male elites on their way to new places, even if some previous wives were kept along; when some tribe was stabilised (at least for some generations), some surrounding autochtonous females were added to the others ; then they were not obliged to came from too distant places, even if they could show some differences in places markers like strontium � only the males elite could contract alliances and take wives of foreign tribes for political purpose, sometimes far enough places � the cultural input of these new females was not too high I suppose and they did not play a big political role neither beside their position of �guest� and peace link,with some exceptions � I don�t see personally women deciding independently to take the road to cross lands and lands like globe-trotters to settle freely in new places, in those times at least - 
> BB�s male showed big mobility too : strontium and Cy are not always sufficient tools to tell us the very place of origin of somebody � seemingly it shows very well differences of geology at a local level but its power of precise geographic identification is somewhat limited in most of the cases, I think after some readings � well, so, BB�s males moved, that is the point ; but the big network of their culture in Western Europe is surely not based upon a continual migratory advance, but after some time upon an exchanges territories where someones went and came (go an return), and this could have given rise by time to moving females too, at least one time in their life before new stabilisation, and rise to an homogeneization of the mt- pool in the final stages, on the way to the current distribution at least in places of Western Europe -
> Y-R1b-L23 and downstream SNP�s are not autochtonous in Western Europe and seem having moved from Eastern places, relatively quickly at the history scale, on a very large territory and at first in some form which evocates migration or expansion before partial stabilisation and coming backs � I suppose the females (and their mtDNA) who moved/integrated from foreign cultures did this in a very different way and at a smaller geographic scale ;
> 
> 
> - concerning the supposed Y-R1b-steppes auDNA association, the overwhelming dominance of this haplo in Western Europe could not concern only the elite and it is rather the result of monopolisation of �autochtonous � females (BB�s surely did not kill all the males, and evidently less the females, they apparently took the monopole on these last ones) -
> the BB�s of Germany when placed on PCA�s show a large geographic spectrum in despite of their Y-haplogroups global homogeneity � even if they are not all of them of the same generation this proves that they continued taking females in diverse populations formed with relatively different % of admixture � if they had taken foreign females at the origin or on their way and kept them later after settling without more crossings, their auDNA would have become more similar at last what has not been the case so it suggests they kept on taking new females still a long time - 
> ...


Excellent, Moesan. Thanks.

----------


## halfalp

So, in Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Earyl BA, Eastern Europe and mostly Pontic Steppe was a reservoir of R1b diversity and EHG cluster. We associate those two with the propagation of IE languages, but the thing is, we have a gap from those people and the Bell Beaker, Vucedol, and later Unetice... this gap is Balkans. We need to see this like a progressive ver sacrum, first, some steppic people came in actual romania, into the danubian plain and eastern hungary. At this point, whether steppe women were in large number or not with steppe men is very important, steppe men keep moving progressively, probably because of demographic pressure into more territory, but what about the steppe women? How Steppic Men and Steppic Women migrated is very important, it can change a lot of things into our perception. If we take the Basque language exemple into account, we basically conclude this. IE men + Pre-IE Women = Non-IE Language, but what if the countrary was actually a thing? What if in Balkans, IE men were replaced by non-IE men and non-IE men + IE women = IE language? This could be an exemple of dilution of the steppe component with distinct genetic groups, but without a big change into linguistic. So, basically what i want to demonstrate with my exemple is that, genetic = / = linguistic obviously, but that the genetic and linguistic interrelationship taking into account IE languages and Steppe component ( wich is what we are interested of ) can be very different into the context. It's interesting that the two big hotspots of R1b in modern times are Britain / Irlande - Western France - Western Iberia. It's like, those guys roamed like crazy into west without looking backward until achieve its goal. But the real question is, what do they left behind, and how did it evolved.

For me, it looks pretty certain that, Steppe Women were in the Balkans before Steppe Men and that because of exogamic marital exchange. Can we imagine a transitional culture like Cucuteni Men + Steppe Women = Pre-Anatolian Languages?

----------


## MOESAN

I spoke of 'steppe' auDNA dilution, not seriously about 'steppe'-IE relation because the problematic here is far more complex I think.
Ancient antrhopology show a EHG or maybe already 'EHG'>'steppe' females introgression into Cucuteni/Tripolje, but I doubt it gave way to indoeuropeanisation of Cucuteni/Tr. culture concerning language. To me, to pass language, females in these societies needed a strong percentage domination to become effective... Only my way to see, because serious surveys about the cases of language shift are still very scarce, or I'm not aware of them.

----------


## halfalp

> I spoke of 'steppe' auDNA dilution, not seriously about 'steppe'-IE relation because the problematic here is far more complex I think.
> Ancient antrhopology show a EHG or maybe already 'EHG'>'steppe' females introgression into Cucuteni/Tripolje, but I doubt it gave way to indoeuropeanisation of Cucuteni/Tr. culture concerning language. To me, to pass language, females in these societies needed a strong percentage domination to become effective... Only my way to see, because serious surveys about the cases of language shift are still very scarce, or I'm not aware of them.


I have an idea for a long time, but i dont know how to formulate it because i dont know enough of historical and actual ethnology to know if this is a real thing but...
Basically, my guess is that in Old Europe Society, some kind of pre-hierarchisation and mercantilia was born with the neigboring of such population like the steppe ones. The result of that kind of new society, did old europe father in a sort of pre-patriarchy giving their daughter to steppe men instead of local and related men because of an highest wealthfare of the latter and steppe women were given into son of those pre-patriarch old europe people. Very fast, common old europe men where completely put aside of the society and pontic steppe playing the role of a big reservoir of men, very fast became dominant in neighboring places, this demographic explosion made the disappearance of most of the old europe men, the dominance of the steppe ones, the dominance of the old europe women and a certain minority of steppe women. I see the Steppe people movement more like a capitalist result than a conquering one, like in our modern times, some people feel entitled to replace local people with some cheaper migrant for economical reasons just to be wealthier, i see the major reason of the propagation of steppe and ie languages because of social evolution like this.

----------


## berun

> children generations : 1�: 48 % - 2�: ~34 % - 3�: ~27 % - 4�: ~22 % - 5�: 18 % - 6�: 14 %
> We can that about 6 generations of crossings, it�s to say 150 to 200 years, we arrive far enough from the previous 60 % of �steppe� - of course it depends on the % of new females ; here I have taken a constant % of foreign wives � surely it has not been like this everywhere for every generation, it�s just stubborn maths


In 200 years? but the worst is to explain the 2000 years gap, as Alpine reservoirs of EEF is more like a bucolich picture.

----------


## markod

> In 200 years? but the worst is to explain the 2000 years gap, as Alpine reservoirs of EEF is more like a bucolich picture.


You're not taking into account the possibility that an EEF-enriched population could have experienced unequal growth during that time. If such an expansive population mixed with the previous inhabitants they might at that point already have been so numerous that this mingling didn't change their autosomal DNA much. Much like the inhabitants USA aren't a 1:1 mixture of European settlers and indigenous Americans, so rather a colonisation of sorts. 

If something like this caused the subsequent southern shift I think it must have to do with whatever happened leading up to the Urnfield complex. It's noteworthy that this didn't happen in places that were isolated from mainland Europe - the populations of Great Britain and Ireland were pretty much set after the late Bronze Age.

BTW do you have a link to the autosomal/Y-DNA analysis?

----------


## Pajonk

Hm, pretty interesting

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

This is all just equality-fuelled rubbish by the way, women never migrated on their own. I hate stuff like this, it reminds me of when they "discovered" that supposed female Viking warrior... give me a break! The absolute worst was that supposed transgender Corded Ware male, but thankfully even the scientifically inbred, self-serving cesspit of political correctness that is modern archaeology largely rejected that, but not without hesitation...  :Petrified: 

We're doomed for the next generation.

----------


## halfalp

> This is all just equality-fuelled rubbish by the way, women never migrated on their own. I hate stuff like this, it reminds me of when they "discovered" that supposed female Viking warrior... give me a break! The absolute worst was that supposed transgender Corded Ware male, but thankfully even the scientifically inbred, self-serving cesspit of political correctness that is modern archaeology largely rejected that, but not without hesitation... 
> 
> We're doomed for the next generation.


But you know that nobody can force you to believe to their conclusions right? Becoming a Doomer because of how some people project or believe, is a straight path for depression or more.

----------


## Wanderer

Sounds like human trafficking

----------

