New DNA study suggests women held central roles in Iron Age Britain

[Clusterfuckular]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2584364-dna-reveals-a-society-organised-around-women-in-pre-roman-britain/

https://archive.ph/zJTx0

'The DNA of more than 500 individuals who were buried in the north-east of England over a period of several centuries before the Roman invasion of Britain in AD 43 has been sequenced. It reveals a society organised around women, with large clans for which descent could be traced down the female line for up to nine generations, but where fathers were often absent from burial sites.
The study also reveals that some women had multiple male partners and shows a pattern of repeated unions between two maternal clans. “It’s revolutionary, and will totally change the way we think about the Iron Age,” says Rachel Pope at the University of Liverpool in the UK, who wasn’t involved in the study.'
...
'when the DNA evidence is combined with other evidence, it does point to societies where women could rule. “For Britain, the archaeological evidence supports a more equitable Iron Age than scholars had previously imagined, and some powerful women were certainly part of that,” says Pope. “From [bone injuries], we can even see now that some women were in combat with Rome.”
“Powerful Iron Age women abound in the texts: Onomaris, Boudica, Cartimandua, Celts with their women as judges,” she says. “Historians of the 1860s and 1870s believed in a largely matriarchal Iron Age until 1880s English anthropology asserted a patriarchal norm.”'

Bumping past the visitor’s 2010 zombie threads…

This is ringing a faint bell with me. Something to do with Picts being matrilineal (rather than matriarchal) and the importance of sisters' sons. But I can't remember where it came from, so it could be something in a novel rather than real history. Or possibly both?

Thanks for posting this. I saw the story and then couldn't find it again.

But this link looks a bit more detailed than the news web site one I saw.

Archive link https://archive.is/zJTx0

Recommend reading a book called Why The Middle Ages Matter...Ian something or other. Full of facts like this and essentially how 1066 fundamentally changed everything for the worse if you're female.

I thought it was the Romans who ended matrilineal customs, laws in Britain. Well in the south, not further north.

Edited to add: isn't this why Boudica was important to be conquered and her daughters shamed by rape.

Sisters’ sons rings a faint bell with me too.

Just Googled "Pictish succession" and I hadn't dreamed it, it was apparently the Venerable Bede who started this particular hare. So Pictish matrilineal succession was the orthodoxy among historians for a while, then it was challenged; and later some DNA evidence seemed to contradict the matrilineal hypothesis also.

Which is quite interesting, because the new "matrilineal" evidence comes from Bede's own patch, the northeast of England. It's almost as if he was right, but about the wrong people at the wrong time. I wonder if there were garbled folk memories of what used to be the custom locally?

Not sure about the Romans but pre 1066 women could own/inherit/manage property and land etc, they had more legal rights, marriage was consensual and equal. The Normans changed a lot. Perhaps the Romans did too, but must have changed back at some point (I guess when they left? The book does say they took a lot with them, like sanitisation, mirrors, etc) as 1066 and the next 500 years or so (ie the middle ages) seems to be the introduction of most of the laws and norms we currently live by.

The article says it varied over different parts of England.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.04.28.721361v1

Another relevant DNA study

Really interesting article, thank you OP.

It's not surprising that 'women held central roles in Iron Age Britain' given that until the Roman invasion, what is now the UK was part of the widespread Celtic civilisation [which included the Picts, BTW], where women had different roles and could hold high status - within limits, though.

“Powerful Iron Age women abound in the texts: Onomaris, Boudica, Cartimandua, Celts with their women as judges,”
is confusing, because Onomaris, Boudica and Cartimandua are probably the best known Celtic women in history, but then tagging on 'Celts with their women as judges' implies that they were not part of the group that had their women as judges, i.e. the Celts.

I wonder why they used the phrase 'Iron Age Britain' instead of 'Celtic Britain', which would have been much clearer and more useful. 'Ancient Britons' is used a lot too in these context, which is even less useful because it suggests a direct link to modern day Britons. 'Romano-British' is another example.

It would be much clearer to refer to pre-Roman Britain as Celtic, because it helpfully signposts the reader to sources on the Celtic civilisation, culture, lifestyle, art, etc. which flourished on these islands for many centuries.

In societies where life is nasty brutish and short - especially for men - it shouldn't be a surprise that the female line held great sway.

Didn't the Celts travel westward, into Britain ?. Meaning they either displaced or integrated with whoever was here. Which from memory would be the age of the beaker people ?

It would be much clearer to refer to pre-Roman Britain as Celtic, because it helpfully signposts the reader to sources on the Celtic civilisation, culture, lifestyle, art, etc. which flourished on these islands for many centuries.

Well that would be too subtle for the men who write (create) history.

So even saying "Iron Age" is about saying this is significant rather than the reality that (I am sure) women were primarily maintaining of agriculture and other ways of living of the land whilst providing a working framework for society through matrilineal links.

And why Roman Britain. Why not Britain under occupation by aliens!

The DNA evidence of maternal lines at burial sites with fathers often’ absent from the burial site surely only reflects the lack of mobility of women to travel away from their place of birth compared to a high mobility of men to travel away from their place of birth?

You can’t really deduce any kind of matriarchy from that data.

Many societies are patriarchal with women staying home, never leaving their birth village and the men go off to war, seek their fortune, sow their seeds,..

You would only need 1% of fathers not absent in the burial sites to have a ruling patriarch and sons staying home to rule.

It would be interesting to see the status of fathers not absent in the burial sites.

Also, a several men sharing one woman isn’t usually polygyny of a powerful woman with many consorts.

It’s usually some sort of slavery for the woman.

They’d need a lot more evidence than what they have to show matriarchy.

Most human societies only tracked matrilineal lines to avoid inbreeding, not for status.

My first thought was how do they know that the women had multiple relationships they were in control of and had agency in rather than were simply raped and had children so sought out support from other women out of need and communal support?

It seems a bit of a leap to suggest that there was a female empowerment going on here.

Can anyone explain to me the difference between matrilineal and matriarchal, please? (as it applies to power structures in society) Can a society be matriarchal if it isn't matrilineal?

Same same and the fact that a few women could hold high status is true in even the most patriarchal societies.

Yes a society can be matriarchal with patrilineal descent.

Matrilineal means descent is tracked through the maternal line. Extremely common because in human history there’s not really been any doubt as to who the mother is.

Patrilineal means descent is tracked through the paternal line- our surnames being traditionally the fathers is an example of patrilineal descent.

Lineality along the female line (matrilineal) is usually related to preventing (rarely encouraging - bit existed see Egyptian royalty) intermarriage that causes inbreeding rather than power structures.

archy quite literally means rule, that is what is related to power structures.

Thanks for that. Yes, I understand about the "lineal" terminology, and about the power structures, that's why I am wondering if you can have one without the other. I don't think you have explained how a matriarchal society develops from a patrilineal society. Or if it can.

Maybe it's a nonsense question, but it just occurred to me as I was reading the thread.

That's where referring to Celts rather than 'Iron Age people' would be useful, because it would put these discoveries into a context of existing scholarship.

The status of women in Celtic society was significantly different/distinctive - it positively outraged the Romans! - and it would be useful to map these latest archaeological findings onto what is already known about the peoples and culture who were around at the time.

That would fill some gaps, answer some questions, suggest some explanations - not all of course but interpretation of the findings wouldn't be starting from a blank sheet headed 'Some Bunch Of People About Whom We Only Know They Were Around In The Iron Age..'
[catchy title for an archaeological paper, isn't it?]

Something to do with Picts being matrilineal (rather than matriarchal)

I think it was this from @Heggettypeg that got me wondering.

The status of women in Celtic society was significantly different/distinctive - it positively outraged the Romans!

It didn’t really outrage the Romans. It was no different than a lot of other peoples they had conquered and subjugated. The fact the Romans did not treat Celtic kings and queens as royalty but as petty chiefs/cheiftesses with delusions of grandeur is what outraged the Celts.

But to the Romans, the Celts were a bunch of backward barbarians/savages. A “king” living in wood and mud hut with a ‘kingdom” of a dozen muddy villages was laughable to them compared to the centres of ancient civilisations. The practices of the druids were considered abhorrent, which is why the Romans set about wiping the entire Celtic religion from the face of the Earth.

I suppose what I'm really trying to figure out is, if a patrilineal society is important because they record the line through the males, because the MEN are the important ones, how can a society develop that is powered by the FEMALES, if it's the MALES who are important enough to take notice of their lineage?

Or maybe it can't?

(I'm not going to keel over and die if no one explains this, so no worries, it was just an idea. Thanks!)

In societies where life is nasty brutish and short - especially for men - it shouldn't be a surprise that the female line held great sway.

That's a really good point, hadn't thought of that.