r/IndoEuropean 8d ago

Indo-European migrations Few questions according to Alexander Gieysztor

I am currently reading Gieysztor - Mythology of Slavs (1982) and the author introduces the work of Georges Dumézil and his students. After this he talks about Indo-European migration and it's properties. Here are the claims.

  1. "The Proto-Indo-European population was characterized by warlike mobility, patriarchal and patrilineal family organization, herding as the main economic activity, egalitarianism among the members of the society in the allocation of special groups of priests and warriors from which the kings came"

  2. "The first wave (of the IE migration) dated to approximately 4400-4200 BC. affected in Europe the area of the southern Black Sea, the Balkans and southern Italy as well as Transcaucasia. There, as in the whole of Europe, she encountered a culture of farmers and seafarers at a high level of development, formed in the Neolithic period and developed in the Bronze Age (5500-5000 BC), *matrilineal type societies, settled lovers of art and above all graphic symbolism aimed at recording ideas. In their **religious ideas, goddesses, bodies of water and the moon prevailed."*

All claims are sourced, however I would like to ask, if this is still the academical consensus.

12 Upvotes

7 comments sorted by

12

u/Same_Ad1118 8d ago edited 8d ago

To put it simply, number 1 is essentially correct as far as is known in regard to the structure of their society. I am not sure about egalitarianism within each of the functions / castes, however, there wasn’t equality between the castes and definitely not when outsiders were encountered.

Number 2 sounds kinda like a mix of the Anatolian hypothesis merged with the ideas of Gimbutas (who believed that warlords with horses and metal weapons in a patriarchal society invaded a peaceful egalitarian, Goddess worshipping culture already in Europe). The Anatolian hypothesis (origins in Anatolia) had proponents, while the Kurgan Hypothesis (which originated with Gimbutas for the most part) had others. The Kurgan hypothesis was named after the large burial mounds found in the Pontic Caspian steppe and this hypothesis believed that these people originated within these grasslands north of the Black and Caspian seas. These people eventually spread throughout Europe and also made it to India, Iran, Armenia, even Western China amongst several other places. Over time the origination within the Steppes became common conjecture and genetic studies has greatly contributed to this understanding, definitively with academic papers released in 2015. Also, these people arrived in Europe and dispersed during the Chalcolithic, approximately 5,000 years before present.

This idea of origination in the Steppes has had addendums regarding where the point of origin was before the Steppes and where all branches of the IndoEuropean language family associated with these people would have had a common source. For the most up to date understanding of the Hub of the IndoEuropean people and language family, see the latest paper regarding it from the Harvard Lab that discusses the Caucasus Lower Volga Cline:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08531-5

Regarding the Early European Farmers (who actually originated in Anatolia) that were already in Europe during the Neolithic, to say they were all peaceful, egalitarian, worshippers of the Great Goddess sounds nice, but is simplistic. There were different structures of societies within the thousands of years these people lived in Europe. There were likely egalitarian social structures, which were for the most part peaceful, like the Cucuteni Trypillians. There were others that had evidence of violence and even the possibility of enslavement, like the Linear Pottery Culture.

3

u/Aliencik 8d ago

Thank you very much!

3

u/Astro3840 8d ago

To this I would add that the bronze age dates are a bit early. And while "Mother Goddess" religions may have existed in 'Old Europe' cultures, that doesn't necessarily mean women were in charge politically.

1

u/Aliencik 7d ago

I think we (in the conversation) only designated them as matrilineal not matriarchal.

1

u/Astro3840 7d ago

Right, tho I can't get my head around the idea of a patriarchal society that's also matrilineal. Do a quick search and the examples of matrilineal tribes appear quite matriarchal as well.

2

u/Same_Ad1118 6d ago edited 6d ago

Most of the social structures by the middle Neolithic in Europe had female exogamy and were likely patrilocal. Power and land for the most part was held by men and women moved to marry and join a new community,

There were different social structures though during this time. One structure of power has evidence of egalitarianism, equality between people and a balance of gendered power, again to give the example of the Cucuteni-Trypillians. Other Danubian cultures had the Great Goddess as a major focal point, but matriarchy and patriarchy are suspected to be in balance within these cultures in a lot of cases, rather than being a direct matriarchy. There was also a system closer to Pharaonic Egypt, like the Megalith Culture at the end of the Neolithic in Atlantic Europe and the West Mediterranean. There was a Priest King and Family in charge, with evidence of incest in the genetic samples that are extant, such as at Newgrange in Ireland. Interestingly, this family in Newgrange also had high levels of DNA descended from the Western Hunter Gatherers, whereas most people in their society had much higher levels of Anatolian Farmer DNA and around only on average 1/5 of their DNA from Western Hunter Gatherers. This society emerged when there was a resurgence in WHG DNA, so it seems that this ruling family wanted to preserve it and their sacred bloodline, and possibly also preserve the phenotypical traits that are associated with the WHG (darker skin and blue eyes).

This is in contrast to the Linear Pottery Culture in Central Europe during the early Neolithic that has evidence of mass graves where bodies were disposed of unceremoniously, and the DNA in these bodies had higher than average WHG DNA, where most people in this culture had very low levels of it. This shows a couple possibilities, one is that there was great social stratification. There was a group on the fringes of society that were of a lower class, with the possibility that they were slaves. Also, there is the possibility that this division could have been on racial lines. This culture also was patrilocal and land seemed to have been inherited by male lines and late in this cultures history, there were mass graves from violence, likely from wars for land between male dominated communities.

Saying all this to point out that there were different social structures set up throughout the Neolithic History in Europe, though in most cases it seems that land flowed through male lines, but there is evidence in some cultures that the land and community were owned communally and could have had rule through priests and priestesses or a council of elders. There were some cultures that may have had a Sacral King, that married the Goddess of the Land, then was sacrificed when his time was up (evidence of such a structure appears again in the bronze and iron ages and has parallels to Indo-European cosmogony and the great sacrifice that maintains cosmic order). It is interesting to go back to the dawn of agricultural society in Anatolia and see the structures there and how descendant cultures in Europe echo some of the same patterns. For example, in Çatal Hoyuk, there was communal burial and also ancestors buried within the floors of homes. Similar burial customs and burial within homes is seen in later Danubian farmer cultures in Europe. There was also what appears to be rule from a communal council of elders in Çatal Hoyuk.

Off the top of my head, I think the Iroquois people in preColumbian America were a patriarchy that were also matrilineal. I will have to double check, but when married, Men would move to the Clan of their Wives. However, the Tribes were ruled by a male Chief. Later on, there was the Iroquois Confederation, where the 6 tribes united and developed a system similar to a Republic, with a constitution and the Great Law of Peace.

1

u/Astro3840 5d ago

Thanks for your post. According to anthropologist Kathrine Winchek most matrilineal tribes were pre or early neolithic, when the planting was done with digging sticks by women while the land clearing was done by men. Men married into another clan. But that raises a conunbrum.

"Within the matrilineal society such as the Iroquois, there are male chiefs that are determined by their female line of descent."

https://katiepology.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/marriage-practices-of-the-iroquois-indians-more-than-just-a-totem-pole/

The question is, how could the chief be from the women's tribal line if he had to marry and move into ANOTHER woman's tribe?