3 ms·

You, and many, have argued the point about the tribes and whatnot, but I've found that this frequently seems to be just applying one's current day culture to a

You, and many, have argued the point about the tribes and whatnot, but I've found that this frequently seems to be just applying one's current day culture to a speculation of what things might have been like. One counter point that immediately jumps to mind is the modern concept of "child" is likely far different than in the past, when manhood ceremonies might have occurred as early as 15 years old. We have plenty of young kings and military commanders just from the last thousand years, stretching back 10 or 20 thousand, who knows? As for women in war, just from written era of history (the last 4k years) there's ample evidence of women fighting in war and being honored for valor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare Since you mention tribes I assume you mean more the 5-20k years ago timeline, in which case I'd hesitate to plainly speculate that these societies all tucked their women away in caves like the Flintstones suggests, or that any one of these societies was much like another. It's a very, very long period of time after all. David Graeber is a fun anthropologist to read if you want to challenge some of the "common sense" assumptions we often make about ancient societies. "Debt" and "The Dawn of Everything" in particular I recommend.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> One counter point that immediately jumps to mind is the modern concept of "child" is likely far different than in the past, when manhood ceremonies might have occurred as early as 15 years old. ...You're arguing that the age of manhood has grown lower over time? You have your bar mitzvah at 13. > As for women in war, just from written era of history (the last 4k years) there's ample evidence of women fighting in war and being honored for valor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare Here's what that link looks like: > 16th century BCE – Ahhotep I is credited with a stela at Karnak for "having pulled Egypt together, having cared for its army, having guarded it, having brought back those who fled, gathering up its deserters, having quieted the South, subduing those who defy her". > 1479–1458 BCE – Reign of Hatshepsut. It is possible that she led military campaigns against Nubia and Canaan. > 13th century BCE – Estimated time of the Trojan War. According to ancient sources, several women participate in battle > 13th century BCE – Lady Fu Hao, consort of the Chinese emperor Wu Ding, led 3,000 troops into battle during the Shang dynasty. > Mid-12th century BCE – Deborah believed to have been appointed judge and defeated the army of King Jabin of Canaan, according to the Book of Judges. > 11th century BCE – 4th century CE [sic] – Approximate time for the burial of a Kangju woman in modern Kazakhstan who was buried with a sword and a dagger. > Late 9th century–8th century BCE – Shammuramat (Semiramis) ruled the Neo-Assyrian Empire. She was the first woman to rule an empire without a man ruling with her. You might notice that so far only one of these examples involves a woman fighting in war, and that example is taken from legendary "documentation" written 600+ years after the events.
- komali2 2y ago
  To clarify, I was attempting to give a simple overview in counter to the idea that "all ancient peoples put women and children first because procreation etc." It's an assumption contradicted by what evidence we have. You're right, much of what we have of ancient times is nothing more than legends, or the work of one or two historians. From 10k back we have basically nothing but archaeological evidence. So first of all, there's not evidence to suggest this idea that women and children were universally tucked safely away from things like war. Second of all, we do have evidence of participation by women in war - the legends of the Amazonians didn't come from nowhere, and women did, apparently, fight in the Trojan war, and women did get buried with weapons, and there are tales of warrior women, etc. As for children, my point was more like, "women and children first" in 2024 would result in some 15 year old boys on the life boat, whereas 20000 years ago a 15 year old boy could very well have a spear put in his hand before a battle.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > Second of all, we do have evidence of participation by women in war - the legends of the Amazonians didn't come from nowhere That is, in the most literal sense, not evidence. It's also a completely unjustified claim. Where did the legends of Ellen Ripley come from? > and women did, apparently, fight in the Trojan war There's no evidence for that either. > and women did get buried with weapons Yep. There's evidence for that. It appears to be a single-digit number of women per 1000 years, and there isn't evidence that they used the weapons. We have mass graves from prehistoric battles. A female skeleton in one of those would have been big news.
    - komali2 2y ago
      > We have mass graves from prehistoric battles. A female skeleton in one of those would have been big news. Doesn't seem to make the news, since in archaeological circles it's not really newsworthy. This really is just applying modern gender ideology to ancient peoples that had different ideas about gender roles. Well I guess it does technically "make the news" since more niche news sites report on the findings. Maybe my own background makes me find it not really newsworthy. https://www.history.com/news/dna-proves-viking-women-were-powerful-warriors https://www.history.com/news/dna-proves-viking-women-were-po... https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-grave-sword-mirror-woman-warrior https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-grave-sword-mirr... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tomb-containing-three-generations-amazon-warrior-women-unearthed-russia-180973877/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tomb-containing-th... https://www.worldhistory.org/amazon/ https://www.worldhistory.org/amazon/
CTDOCodebases 2y ago
> You, and many, have argued the point about the tribes and whatnot, but I've found that this frequently seems to be just applying one's current day culture to a speculation of what things might have been like. To be fair we can only speculate but I actually came to this conclusion thinking about the two scenarios mathematically. Women increase the rate at which a tribes population can grow so when women die in combat a tribes growth rate diminishes. When a competing tribe manages to capture a woman in combat the growth rate of her original tribe diminishes and the growth rate of her new tribe increases. So sure, bigger does not always mean better but in a small population faced with constant threats the bigger tribes had a statistical advantage. > One counter point that immediately jumps to mind is the modern concept of "child" is likely far different than in the past, when manhood ceremonies might have occurred as early as 15 years old. We have plenty of young kings and military commanders just from the last thousand years, stretching back 10 or 20 thousand, who knows? I don't understand why this is a counter point. The age of what is considered a child has changed over the years but generally and historically speaking it coincides with the age of puberty so if anything it proves my point instead of diminishing it. > As for women in war, just from written era of history (the last 4k years) there's ample evidence of women fighting in war and being honored for valor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare No doubt there has been many brave female warriors. My position is that this has been the statistical exception not the norm and that over time the societies that failed to follow the idea of "save the women and children" have declined and been extinguished or absorbed by those that do. > Since you mention tribes I assume you mean more the 5-20k years ago timeline, in which case I'd hesitate to plainly speculate that these societies all tucked their women away in caves like the Flintstones suggests, or that any one of these societies was much like another. It's a very, very long period of time after all. Agreed. It is a very, very long period of time and what we are seeing is the results of experiments played out over that time. Notice the trend in the ratio of male to female combatants in modern and historical armies. > David Graeber is a fun anthropologist to read if you want to challenge some of the "common sense" assumptions we often make about ancient societies. "Debt" and "The Dawn of Everything" in particular I recommend. Thanks for the recommendations. Ill check them out.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> One counter point that immediately jumps to mind is the modern concept of "child" is likely far different than in the past, when manhood ceremonies might have occurred as early as 15 years old. ...You're arguing that the age of manhood has grown lower over time? You have your bar mitzvah at 13. > As for women in war, just from written era of history (the last 4k years) there's ample evidence of women fighting in war and being honored for valor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare Here's what that link looks like: > 16th century BCE – Ahhotep I is credited with a stela at Karnak for "having pulled Egypt together, having cared for its army, having guarded it, having brought back those who fled, gathering up its deserters, having quieted the South, subduing those who defy her". > 1479–1458 BCE – Reign of Hatshepsut. It is possible that she led military campaigns against Nubia and Canaan. > 13th century BCE – Estimated time of the Trojan War. According to ancient sources, several women participate in battle > 13th century BCE – Lady Fu Hao, consort of the Chinese emperor Wu Ding, led 3,000 troops into battle during the Shang dynasty. > Mid-12th century BCE – Deborah believed to have been appointed judge and defeated the army of King Jabin of Canaan, according to the Book of Judges. > 11th century BCE – 4th century CE [sic] – Approximate time for the burial of a Kangju woman in modern Kazakhstan who was buried with a sword and a dagger. > Late 9th century–8th century BCE – Shammuramat (Semiramis) ruled the Neo-Assyrian Empire. She was the first woman to rule an empire without a man ruling with her. You might notice that so far only one of these examples involves a woman fighting in war, and that example is taken from legendary "documentation" written 600+ years after the events.

komali2 2y ago
To clarify, I was attempting to give a simple overview in counter to the idea that "all ancient peoples put women and children first because procreation etc." It's an assumption contradicted by what evidence we have. You're right, much of what we have of ancient times is nothing more than legends, or the work of one or two historians. From 10k back we have basically nothing but archaeological evidence. So first of all, there's not evidence to suggest this idea that women and children were universally tucked safely away from things like war. Second of all, we do have evidence of participation by women in war - the legends of the Amazonians didn't come from nowhere, and women did, apparently, fight in the Trojan war, and women did get buried with weapons, and there are tales of warrior women, etc. As for children, my point was more like, "women and children first" in 2024 would result in some 15 year old boys on the life boat, whereas 20000 years ago a 15 year old boy could very well have a spear put in his hand before a battle.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > Second of all, we do have evidence of participation by women in war - the legends of the Amazonians didn't come from nowhere That is, in the most literal sense, not evidence. It's also a completely unjustified claim. Where did the legends of Ellen Ripley come from? > and women did, apparently, fight in the Trojan war There's no evidence for that either. > and women did get buried with weapons Yep. There's evidence for that. It appears to be a single-digit number of women per 1000 years, and there isn't evidence that they used the weapons. We have mass graves from prehistoric battles. A female skeleton in one of those would have been big news.
  - komali2 2y ago
    > We have mass graves from prehistoric battles. A female skeleton in one of those would have been big news. Doesn't seem to make the news, since in archaeological circles it's not really newsworthy. This really is just applying modern gender ideology to ancient peoples that had different ideas about gender roles. Well I guess it does technically "make the news" since more niche news sites report on the findings. Maybe my own background makes me find it not really newsworthy. https://www.history.com/news/dna-proves-viking-women-were-powerful-warriors https://www.history.com/news/dna-proves-viking-women-were-po... https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-grave-sword-mirror-woman-warrior https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-grave-sword-mirr... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tomb-containing-three-generations-amazon-warrior-women-unearthed-russia-180973877/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tomb-containing-th... https://www.worldhistory.org/amazon/ https://www.worldhistory.org/amazon/

CTDOCodebases 2y ago

> You, and many, have argued the point about the tribes and whatnot, but I've found that this frequently seems to be just applying one's current day culture to a speculation of what things might have been like. To be fair we can only speculate but I actually came to this conclusion thinking about the two scenarios mathematically. Women increase the rate at which a tribes population can grow so when women die in combat a tribes growth rate diminishes. When a competing tribe manages to capture a woman in combat the growth rate of her original tribe diminishes and the growth rate of her new tribe increases. So sure, bigger does not always mean better but in a small population faced with constant threats the bigger tribes had a statistical advantage. > One counter point that immediately jumps to mind is the modern concept of "child" is likely far different than in the past, when manhood ceremonies might have occurred as early as 15 years old. We have plenty of young kings and military commanders just from the last thousand years, stretching back 10 or 20 thousand, who knows? I don't understand why this is a counter point. The age of what is considered a child has changed over the years but generally and historically speaking it coincides with the age of puberty so if anything it proves my point instead of diminishing it. > As for women in war, just from written era of history (the last 4k years) there's ample evidence of women fighting in war and being honored for valor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare No doubt there has been many brave female warriors. My position is that this has been the statistical exception not the norm and that over time the societies that failed to follow the idea of "save the women and children" have declined and been extinguished or absorbed by those that do. > Since you mention tribes I assume you mean more the 5-20k years ago timeline, in which case I'd hesitate to plainly speculate that these societies all tucked their women away in caves like the Flintstones suggests, or that any one of these societies was much like another. It's a very, very long period of time after all. Agreed. It is a very, very long period of time and what we are seeing is the results of experiments played out over that time. Notice the trend in the ratio of male to female combatants in modern and historical armies. > David Graeber is a fun anthropologist to read if you want to challenge some of the "common sense" assumptions we often make about ancient societies. "Debt" and "The Dawn of Everything" in particular I recommend. Thanks for the recommendations. Ill check them out.