3 ms·
We know absolutely nothing about their social patterns outside of burial habits and bone structure, and now genetic relatedness. “Ran off“ is a bit of an exagge
by usrusr 7y ago
We know absolutely nothing about their social patterns outside of burial habits and bone structure, and now genetic relatedness. “Ran off“ is a bit of an exaggeration of course, because it implies resistance, but "sent away" is just as much a conclusion too far. Perhaps they were all taken by force by roaming young men, perhaps they were rejecting an entire parade of princely bachelors before eventually accepting "the one", perhaps they were expelled into the woods, we just don't know.
What the evidence does tell us is that land was inherited along the male line and that women did not marry down to the local lower class (necessitating a move when the upper class consists entirely of your close male relatives and their wives).
- duxup 7y agoI got the impression that the study ranged quite a large amount of time, it seems unlikely events such as "taken by roaming young men" would be as constant as the article implies their findings are. Rather a social construct would seem more likely to be consistent.
- usrusr 7y agoThe most plausible scenario (and the one that is consistent with later highly stratified societies) is that they just could not marry locally due to status differential to all local males outside of the family. That's all the social construct you need to match the observation. But the article paints that as an act of sending away, when a more passive approach is not only just as plausible, if not more, but also supported by the observation of males that did a significant amount of traveling before settling down back home.