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.”'

It’s not a good point. Life was nasty brutish and short for everyone then and guess what? Patriarchy was the norm.

Ok, well, I thought it was a good point. We'll have to agree to disagree.
(And, I wasn't responding to you, BTW)

I haven’t explained how “a matriarchal society develops from a patrilineal society” because that’s not how societies develop.

Lineage is independent from archy. You can mix and match all day long. Societies can even be both patrilineal and matrilineal + matriarchy or patriarchy. And we can’t forget the egalitarian societies that can be patrilineal, matrilineal or both.

We live in a patriarchal and patrilineal society so we have certain assumptions that the two go together, that you can’t have one without the other.

You like their point so much even though you likely did not think of it yourself because it isn’t a good point at all that you’re going to go with it?

Ok, then. Tell me please how the female line held sway for a thousand years of medieval serfs all because life was nasty, brutish, and short?

You like their point so much even though you likely did not think of it yourself because it isn’t a good point at all that you’re going to go with it?

This "sentence" needs more punctuation in it somewhere.

Ok, then. Tell me please how the female line held sway for a thousand years of medieval serfs all because life was nasty, brutish, and short?

Um, no. You're just bored and looking for an argument. You can go irritate someone else now, as you already have been on other threads this evening.

ps. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. It was a random question I threw in to bump up the thread over the 2010 Brigade.

The Romans got is spectacularly wrong about Celtic civilisation, didn't they?

The modern archaeological discoveries of sophisticated Celtic urban centres such as Heuneburg, Glauberg and Manching showed that they were thriving commercial, industrial, political, religious and artistic communities with the equivalent of streets, shops, workshops, public spaces etc.

Actually, now that I re-read 'modern archaeological discoveries' it occurs to me that it was the Romans who gave these places the name of 'oppida', so they were familiar with them, and must have known that the Celts were not the savages that they liked to portray them as..

I suppose that's what empires do: 'civilising the savages' has been the excuse for colonisation throughout the centuries, and the colonised have to be portrayed as savages to justify imperialism.

There have been quite a few threads about this. And without saying it is true, one theory (as mentioned up thread) is that you can always identify the mother. But if being monogamous was not common how else but through the mother would you trace family, who is related to who.

And if through family relationships you have access to power, or better fields, or whatever this is important.

It is quite a common theory that once men realised their part in creating children, that they then sought to enforce monogamy because through that they could say these are my children, they will inherit. Some say it is not just the start of patriarchy but also of capitalism. (Engels*) As opposed to a communal or tribal structure of shared access to resources etc..

There are similar theories about early Greek communities (Minoan Crete) which vanished or diminished under Athenian patriarchy. (eg novel The King Must Die)

But all of these theories are of course viewed through the lens of the culture of the time of those doing the discoveries, writings.

(*) the shift from early communal societies to private property required strict, patriarchal monogamy to guarantee definite male paternity for passing down accumulated wealth.

So the claim that the patriarchy has dominated for thousands of years probs isn't actually true?

Well not just the patriarchy, but the "prison" of the nuclear family.

Must admit haven't really thought about it, but wonder how the construction of modern Christianity isn't part of this men's rights movement!

To sling another bit of terminology into the mix: some societies are matrilocal. The husband and wife settle with the wife's family group, rather than the wife going to live with the husband's people.

Again, this doesn't require matriarchy, but it probably effects sex-related power dynamics to some extent, because in the event of a dispute, she is surrounded by her own kin and he is not, instead of the other way round.

If you lived past 30 you were doing well.

Life expectancy at 15 (so taking out infant mortality) was life expectancy 28 - 36 years old.

This means that you perhaps would expect women to have multiple partners and to live with other women out of necessity to look after the children for logistical and practical reasons over and above any cultural ones. If you were a woman who survived your first childbirth, you were almost 'proven' as good mating material. I don't know that ideals about virginity would be sought after for this reason as there's little practical value to it in a society which has such a short lifespan. If you were a man and wanted an heir, you'd want a woman who had demonstrated she was successful as a mother (this firmly would fit with goddesses of fertility existing).

If you had such high death rates already, any period of conflict would likely create entire communities of women without men. Women are valuable commodities in this type of society too. You wouldn't want to kill them without good reason. You would want as many heirs as possible instead too. The value of just having one woman just isn't there.

It all speaks of a highly volatile period in history where conflict is common, perhaps not with other cultures but much more localised over land particularly if there's a growing population. This wouldn't necessarily pick up on DNA tests too if you have such localised society. Practical considerations of raising children within a female community would simply make sense

This idea of it being cultural just seems like one of those viewed through the lens of modern thinking rather than one which acknowledges that so many women might have lost partners or been raped as part of conflict or a tribal dispute and you simply had to be pragmatic.

You would have women sharing child care and even children - breastfeeding someone else's child is likely to have been really common with that short lifespan.

I may be confusing this with something else but I'm sure I've read a similar thread where it was mentioned that the man was supposed to become the protector of the entire family. This kind of makes sense as any male children would've left to live with their spouse's family.

"The study also reveals that some women had multiple male partners and shows a pattern of repeated unions between two maternal clans"

By choice?

I get men would have been in short supply in graves.. similar happened around 1914-1918.

Presumably what isn't visible is the chronology of partnerships, i.e. we don't know if a particular woman was running her relationships serially (i.e. one husband/partner at a time) or in parallel (polyandry).
Serial partners could be different scenarios, e.g. high male mortality (lots of fighting), or an expectation of fidelity while partnered but a high tolerance of divorce if things didn't work out.
And polyandry could be a result of choice, or a sign of abuse.

Not sure what point you are making.

The inference is that women were able, if they so chose, to have relationships with any number of men.

Separately, given earlier postings about families (clans) providing a framework to social organising, the implication is that for whatever reasons 2 clans had forged some sort of relationship, it resulted in women having male partners from the partner clan.

And nothing to do with shortage of men. According to one source ironically (not sure that is the right word) the number of deaths of men from fighting, not always wars but personal vendettas, were about equal to the number of women who died in childbirth.

Surprisingly this source also said that those who survived early adulthood could live to 40 or 50.

I get men would have been in short supply in graves.. similar happened around 1914-1918.

In fact the shortage of men post WWI led to an increase in women becoming part of the work force. Not necessarily replacing men in "male jobs" but encouraged to take up new skills (type writing) to become independent as so many had little change of marrying.

Many of the early women's associations that still existed into the 60s were formed during this period.

Quote:

Housing and Cooperative Living

• Specialized Trusts: Groups like Women's Pioneer Housing were established in 1920 by pioneering women like E. Winifred Burnet to acquire and convert urban properties into affordable flats for single working women. 1]
• Residential Clubs: Hostels and residential clubs multiplied in cities like London, offering safe, respectable, and communal living arrangements for independent female clerks, typists, and professionals.

Professional and Economic Networks

• Career Associations: The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 legally opened professions like law, accountancy, and banking to women, prompting trade and professional associations to formally admit and advocate for female members. [, 2]
• Support Services: Organizations like the Over-Seas Nursing Association saw a surge in applicants as single women sought organized pathways to employment and relocation across the British Empire. 1]

Social and Welfare Organizations

• Companionship & Self-Help: Informal and formal groups, from travel syndicates like "Universal Aunts" to religious and social societies (e.g., the Christian Alliance of Women and Girls), thrived by offering collective safety nets, social calendars, and mutual support. 1]
• Child and Maternal Advocacy: Organizations focusing on the welfare of unmarried mothers and children, such as the forerunner to Gingerbread, were founded to protect single mothers navigating a heavily stigmatized post-war society. 1]

Exactly the opposite of what happened post WWII that led to huge social pressure for women to return to the kitchen having been used to working and living independently. (There was a huge increase in women having nervous breakdowns.)

This is one of the reasons that Betty Friedan's book the Feminine Mystique (the problem that has no name) had so much impact and is credited with starting Women's Liberation.

Extract from the book in pdf format https://englishiva1011.pbworks.com/f/PROBNONM.PDF

Two comments in that article that made me go hmm? - that the archaeologists refused to talk to the journalist (why?), and that injuries to the bones suggested that the women went into battle with the Romans. Really? Even scars that were inflicted on living bodies by metal weapons of identifiable shape could have been come by in a variety of ways other than open warfare with the Romans.

The sister's son special relationship is quite widespread and is usually 'explained' as being a man's closest provable genetic relative in the next generation - a man's son could be anyone's, but his sister shares DNA with him, and her children carry that. Tolkien used it as the basis for the special relationship between King Théoden and his sister's offspring Éomer and Éowyn in LotR.

You can never "know". But you can infer. Especially if you don't project our sensibilities onto the age.

At what point does the consideration as to whether a relationship is built on mutual respect and appreciation between two equal people bleed into a relationship where the weaker member selects the best bastard she can find in the hope they will fend off the other bastards in a tribe ?

Personally - and with little real evidence (not that it's a bar) I've always felt that the "hunter" bit in hunter-gatherer was the male energy, and the "gatherer" female. And it's the "gathering" that is the parent of farming, which led to what we dubbed "civilisation". The only thing separating me from a real historian being an X account 😀

I wonder why they used the phrase 'Iron Age Britain' instead of 'Celtic Britain', which would have been much clearer and more useful

In short, Americans

It's part of a general trend started by the replacing of the term "Anglo-Saxon" with "old English". There was a good reason for this because while British historians tended to use the term Anglo-Saxon in a neutral way that referred to the time period, coins, language, predominant tribal groups, predominant culture etc Americans were using it in a weird, un-historically accurate way so it became a politically charged term. So then everyone had to stop using it including perfectly reasonable British Historians which is kind of annoying but understandable-ish.

Celtic also has lots of meanings. It refers broadly to tribes like the Iceni or the older Britons but they were very varied and not a single unified "tribe". It's also refers to the time period and location (Ie ancient Britain in Iron age times) and the predominant culture, political and legal systems etc. It doesn't mean every single person operating in that period was pure "Celt" in the same way not everyone operating in old England was pure "Anglo-Saxon". So "the Celts" is sort of an ethnic thing but it's not as simple as just that.
But especially over the pond, people talk about their "Celtic roots" if they have red hair** or like potatoes. I've heard Americans talk about the bonds between Ireland and Scotland because both have "Celtic heritage" (they do but ironically the Celts who contribute most to Scottish DNA turn out to be a completely different group of Celts to the Celts who contributed most to Irish DNA). Plus while those places (and Wales) have more Celtic heritage than England due to later movements of people it really isn't as simple as Scots are Celts and the English are Anglo-Saxons. It's a smallish island with much general movement of people and repeated invasions/migrations from different directions.
This also creates further confusion because to a lot of people "Celtic"= Scottish or Irish but Boudicca was an Essex girl really. So some might assume if they are talking about "Celtic tribes" they mean somewhere in Ireland or Scotland not Britain as a whole.

So my theory is, while the romanticisation of "Celtic blood" attracts less iffy people than the types who bang on about "Anglo-Saxon" heritage, it still muddies the waters. So maybe that's why they use iron age instead.

** (not all the ancient Celts had red hair anyway, some Vikings had red hair, not all Anglo-Saxons were blue eyed and blonde. It can be fascinating to see where you originally came from. But trying to do it by hair colour is just....)

I don't know the full details of the research there but there is some quite sophisticated science that goes into looking at bone injuries and what caused it. It's not as simple as an axe-wound means someone was fighting.
There are specific defensive injuries that are associated with being hurt in a fight that looks different to say being attacked while unarmed or being hurt in some sort of farming accident. Fighting in particular has movements and injuries that are harder to explain from other causes (think of the injuries that would happen to your arms or heads while your arms are raised holding a sword/shield for example.) it's an ever evolving field and nothings 100% so maybe in 20 years someone will come along with proof the injuries were cause dby something else. But for the time being I would be inclined to believe the archeologists. They will have solid grounds for suggesting it.

That doesn't mean that societies were equal or feminist paradises. (In the same vein I'm always suspicious when people talk about ancient societies worshipping female goddesses as proof women held a high status their. The ancient Egyptians considered cats avatars of their gods but the temples still sacrificed hundreds every year.)

Farming I can tell two stories about. On the one hand hunting is more associated with "masculine energies" while gathering and then farming associated with feminine energies and nurturing/growing. On the other hand "farming is associated with the masculine need to bring order and control to chaotic nature and to build. Women are associated with that chaotic nature and the wild hence the Greek myths that put Diana as the goddess of hunters, Anglo-Norman myths that the first women on Albion hunted there rather than set up civilisations.
It's all narrative at the end of the day. Neither set of stories has a real basis. Quite probably like most things hunting, gathering and farming were by necessity a joint effort.

The system of called periods of time by Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age were originated in Europe and continue to be used by those who says periods of time as being significant by new discoveries, ie "progress".

And why up thread I said it is a masculine view of the world.

These are totally different to culture that existed as any time.

And as the British Isles were never at any time wholly Celtic its hard to imagine how anyone could say there was a Celtic Age.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/classics/warwickclassicsnetwork/romancoventry/resources/prehistoricbritain/ironage/tribes/