AHC/PC: Women equal in Athenian democracy

[holycookie]

Nearly 20% of human societies in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample are matrilineal. It isn't the majority, but it isn't very rare.

says that '(22.2%) societies were claimed to have experienced transition from matriliny and only 24/180 (13.3%) were claimed to be society-wide.".
It also says that "First, as is to be expected, increasingly rigorous or more conservative types of coding show successively fewer cases of transition either away from or towards matriliny. Second, claims of transition away from matriliny are much more common than transitions towards matriliny, generally three times more common or more, depending on the measure."

Dude, he said Scythian women did not engage in combat despite forensic evidence indicating that female skeletons with head wounds got them from right-handed opponents during active fighting

no, what this indicates is trauma or violence due to war. If this means that women were Amazons who fought on the side of men or the situation at the time was unstable and they had to defend themselves from attacks (common during human history, after all, when they are attacking the headquarters of the tribe, women help as they can ) is not possible to say. You have several women unearthed with marks of violence throughout human history, this does not mean that they were all warriors, but that they all had contact with violence

That sort of thinking is a problem in these discussions. It's hard to have a discussion about women being more equal in Athenian democracy if even clear archaeological evidence of blurred gender roles is just dismissed out of hand.

you have evidence that may indicate a more martial and equal society for both sexes. But it's a theory, steppe tribal societies do and suffer from raids (gengis khan's mother suffered from this for example) and this could be the origin of these marks.

This shoddy historical reasoning happens virtually whenever we have discussion touching on Western society's knee-jerk biases.

Spare me, Western society is the most female-friendly in the world (I say this as someone not from the Western world). If we compare Latin America (my region), Africa or Asia, we see that the West has more freedom and rights for women than any other region. It's something of the first world that really annoys me (they don't stop complaining about how bad their situation is, my friend more than half of the world would change position with you in the blink of an eye)

 

[Citrakayah]

says that '(22.2%) societies were claimed to have experienced transition from matriliny and only 24/180 (13.3%) were claimed to be society-wide.".
It also says that "First, as is to be expected, increasingly rigorous or more conservative types of coding show successively fewer cases of transition either away from or towards matriliny. Second, claims of transition away from matriliny are much more common than transitions towards matriliny, generally three times more common or more, depending on the measure."

From the introduction:

Matriliny is a comparatively less common form of descent among contemporary societies; whereas patrilineal societies make up 41% of the societies included in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS) [6], matrilineal societies constitute only 17%

17% is almost 20%. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, very rare.

no, what this indicates is trauma or violence due to war. If this means that women were Amazons who fought on the side of men or the situation at the time was unstable and they had to defend themselves from attacks (common during human history, after all, when they are attacking the headquarters of the tribe, women help as they can ) is not possible to say. You have several women unearthed with marks of violence throughout human history, this does not mean that they were all warriors, but that they all had contact with violence

Did you miss the forensic evidence indicating that they were facing their opponent and actively fighting back with a weapon?

In many cases, the direction of the attack is obvious, and bioarchaeologists can determine whether wounds were sustained in face-to-face combat, while in motion, on horseback, fleeing, or after death. The descriptions of the injuries conjure up scenes of violent combat. In a study of Scythian male and female skeletons with head wounds from battle-axes, most blows were dealt by right-handed opponents during active fighting. Other evidence comes from cutting wounds or “nightstick” fractures of left forearm bones. Forensic analysis suggests that these individuals warded off blows with their left arms while attacking with their right.

Sure, it's theoretically possible that every single one of these injuries is from females with no combat experience who were not expected to fight and nevertheless fought armed opponents head-on while trying to whack them with whatever they had on hand rather than running. This is also a possibility whenever you find a male skeleton with combat wounds. There is a clear double standard in how this forensic evidence is interpreted.

 

[holycookie]

From the introduction:

thanks, I hadn't seen it.

17% is almost 20%. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, very rare.

this is relatively little on a large scale, it indicates that there are societies with this form of government. I didn't see in the text whether it showed whether they were grouped close to each other or not.

Did you miss the forensic evidence indicating that they were facing their opponent and actively fighting back with a weapon?

Of course, this does not indicate whether they are warriors, it indicates that they defended themselves. Which is obvious if someone attacks you you defend yourself. The fact that a woman is not a warrior does not prevent her from knowing how to fight. In certain tribes of stepps women hunted (and therefore knew how to use the bow, spear and knife well) but this does not mean that they are part of the soldiers.
you're assuming that because they weren't part of the army that they wouldn't defend themselves and would just stand there looking at infinity. In all sieges of cities, women helped in the defense as auxiliaries (carrying things to and fro, helping the wounded, etc.) and if times were desperate, they helped men to defend the city with weapons (that doesn't make society tolerant of warrior women)

females with no combat experience who were not expected to fight and nevertheless fought armed opponents head-on while trying to whack them with whatever they had on hand rather than running.

women in Scandinavian societies help in the defense of the city this does not mean that they were part of the raids, just that in defense of the family they fought (as well as in the rest of the world)

This is also a possibility whenever you find a male skeleton with combat wounds.

this is true there must be cases that a body was indicated as a warrior when it was a priest or something like that

There is a clear double standard in how this forensic evidence is interpreted.

no, what this indicates is that women defended themselves and in certain cultures they knew how to fight, that does not make them soldiers. It's a thin line but it exists, women fighting invaders to defend the tribe (it's common in human history from Arab tribes to Mongols) but that doesn't make them warriors.

 

[piratedude]

And if one wanted to throw a further wrench into things: theres nothing saying that these biologically female bodies who appear to have fought were identified as women by their society. I would not call a society feminist if in order for afab people to become fighters they had to give up femininity.

 

[TheCataphract]

What about Scythia? Scythian women often did fight. Perhaps with Scythian influence Greek norms might change.

Could anything move the Greeks away from heavy infantry as their main force, and what options are viable?

What about something religious, recognize that mortal women can have some of Athena's wisdom and skills.

One thing I have often wondered is if mounted combat itself is something of an equalizer for women. In addition to being raised in a more physically demanding lifestyle than the typical Greek woman, could the horse have made it more possible for the Scythian women to hold their own in battle? After all, it seems likely to me that in that case that the strength of the horse would be more important than the rider, to a certain extent.

It's pure conjecture on my part, but regardless, perhaps you might see more Scythian influence on the Thessalians, who were some of the only Greeks of that time period famed for their cavalry largely due to terrain, or like others have said, perhaps some strong mixing or influence on a Greek Black Sea colony.

For the Thessalians it would likely have to be a fairly early influence, perhaps some Scythian tribe settles in the region early on and maintains military prominence in the region, and maintains that by some combination of military necessity and cultural momentum.

The necessity would probably come from being pretty consistently outnumbered in a relatively small plain. Fighting mounted, even though horse archery would likely decline as they became more settled, can make up for disparity in numbers, but they would potentially never be comfortable enough to entirely give up part of their potential numbers. If some women are already fighting on horseback.

So it would take some doing, but I don't think it's necessarily impossible, and it would be pretty constantly challenged by the surrounding Greeks as well, so I don't know how long it could last, particularly if they are conquered and assimilated.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Did you miss the forensic evidence indicating that they were facing their opponent and actively fighting back with a weapon?

Forensics suggest that some wounds were inflicted by a man directly facing the victim, and some were inflicted on a victim shielding herself with her left arm. I don't see how forensics would show that the victims were actively fighting with a weapon when the wounds were inflicted, so until someone explains how they can, I'll assume that this is the archaeologist's/reporter's interpretation of the evidence.

 

[carbon1923]

One idea I have for this is during early Athenian history, the childless widow of a notable citizen pushes for his property to become hers as his only living family. When the Athenian equivalent of a judge rejects this, a spear on a statue of Athena breaks and falls, impaling the judge. This leads the city to believe that allowing widows to own the property of their husbands is Athena's will.

Over time with this stepping stone, wealthy and notable women gain more and more influence and wealth, equalising laws for the genders until they are seen as equal.
As for citizenship requiring military service, over time it becomes civil service. In this case most men gain citizenship as soldiers while women gain it as bureaucrats and military doctors/nurses.

 

[PolishMagnet]

One idea I have for this is during early Athenian history, the childless widow of a notable citizen pushes for his property to become hers as his only living family. When the Athenian equivalent of a judge rejects this, a spear on a statue of Athena breaks and falls, impaling the judge. This leads the city to believe that allowing widows to own the property of their husbands is Athena's will.

Over time with this stepping stone, wealthy and notable women gain more and more influence and wealth, equalising laws for the genders until they are seen as equal.
As for citizenship requiring military service, over time it becomes civil service. In this case most men gain citizenship as soldiers while women gain it as bureaucrats and military doctors/nurses.

I like that idea of one person becoming a trailblazer out of pure chance. From there I think it could be spun into a story as the Greeks liked to do, perhaps some of the Olympians get in on the action for good measure, and bam (μπαμ) - women can do things. Realistically it might be a slower change, but as it becomes a story in the wider Greek consciousness, perhaps it gets some traction?

 

[Bored Young Man]

One thing I have often wondered is if mounted combat itself is something of an equalizer for women. In addition to being raised in a more physically demanding lifestyle than the typical Greek woman, could the horse have made it more possible for the Scythian women to hold their own in battle? After all, it seems likely to me that in that case that the strength of the horse would be more important than the rider, to a certain extent.

Early horse breeds that were on average smaller and weaker; therefore better suited towards women smaller in stature. You see that by the Mongol age the majority of mounted warriors are male and in the archaeological record of larger and larger warhorse skeletons.

The necessity would probably come from being pretty consistently outnumbered in a relatively small plain. Fighting mounted, even though horse archery would likely decline as they became more settled, can make up for disparity in numbers, but they would potentially never be comfortable enough to entirely give up part of their potential numbers. If some women are already fighting on horseback.

The early Amazons used horsed to relocate like mounted infantry, but it wasn't as easy to fight on horseback at the time. Horse archers then and later relied upon massed volleys which requires a large army to be effective in contrast to raiding which is a different skill-set. Archery depends on torso frame, back strength, and arm strength: all things that men tend to be better built for. Look if warfare was about flexibility, then women would have it hands down.

 

[LuckyLuciano]

For some sports the differences between the sexes are marginal. Archery and Horse Riding for example.

 

[TheCataphract]

Early horse breeds that were on average smaller and weaker; therefore better suited towards women smaller in stature. You see that by the Mongol age the majority of mounted warriors are male and in the archaeological record of larger and larger warhorse skeletons.

Early horse breeds are indeed shorter, but I don't think women have any particular problem riding modern horses.

Also the Mongols are a bit of an odd example don't you think? Mongol horses were notable for being particularly short.

I think most warriors were males because that was the culture of the time, and most times for that matter.

The early Amazons used horsed to relocate like mounted infantry, but it wasn't as easy to fight on horseback at the time. Horse archers then and later relied upon massed volleys which requires a large army to be effective in contrast to raiding which is a different skill-set. Archery depends on torso frame, back strength, and arm strength: all things that men tend to be better built for. Look if warfare was about flexibility, then women would have it hands down.

I don't know that we can categorically say how amazons fought, given that we aren't entirely sure they existed. The Scythians are our best guess for the people that would inspire accounts of female warriors in Greek accounts, based on limited archeological evidence and nomadic cultures historically producing prominent female warlords. A queen who handed the Persians a defeat in a semi-historical account, and much later a Mongolian woman leading a unit of horse archers in the Chagatai Khanate being the ones that come to mind right now, though I'd have to sit down and do some research to put anything more compelling together.

I'm not trying to argue that it is the norm, I just put forward a very specific scenario, with some very specific political, cultural and military pressures that might produce a society where women are expected to fight along with their men for collective survival, and wondering whether fighting from horseback might be an equalizer, assuming they are trained of course.

Also note I didn't talk much about horse archery, other than that it would likely disappear in a sedentary context.

While women can do archery and in an ancient context with relatively light draw weight bows they might actually be able to do it fairly well, by the time the draw weights of medieval bows are reaching high enough to require years of training for men to even build the strength to consistently draw them I definitely don't think that's the best weapon for a hypothetical woman. A lance would likely be best, as generally they'd want the weight and strength of the horse to be the most important.

But again this is all conjecture. I genuinely would like to see an experiment to see whether a woman who trains for years can build the strength to use a war bow effectively. I've seen a handful of men doing it with longbows based off the Mary Rose wreck with incredible draw weights. I suspect it would be very difficult, but I don't know that anyone has even tried, so I think any conclusions would be educated guesses at best.

 

[tus3]

For some sports the differences between the sexes are marginal. Archery and Horse Riding for example.

If I am not mistaken in sport you are supposed to hit the target, and in war you are supposed to draw hard enough for the arrow to pierce the target's armour. The latter requires quite a lot more brute force...

Though, I wonder why the debate had turned to how good women are at war; such discussions seem like a death end to me; there had been pre-modern republican societies who were more gender-equal than Ancient Greece (for example the Iroquois), but if I am not mistaken that was not because their women were exceptionally likely to wage war...

 

[PolishMagnet]

If I am not mistaken in sport you are supposed to hit the target, and in war you are supposed to draw hard enough for the arrow to pierce the target's armour. The latter requires quite a lot more brute force...

Though, I wonder why the debate had turned to how good women are at war; such discussions seem like a death end to me; there had been pre-modern republican societies who were more gender-equal than Ancient Greece (for example the Iroquois), but if I am not mistaken that was not because their women were exceptionally likely to wage war...

Very good points. Can we think of any reasons why tribes like the Iroquois were more egalitarian?

Alternatively, can the debate of ignorant vs educated voters in Greek democracy (IE excluding the poor masses) be redirected towards some kinds of tests/challenges? Perhaps something not unlike Chinese civil exams, where a resident proves they are a learned/worthy person in order to gain citizenship and voting.

From there, perhaps women could slip through and be recognized by merit?

 

[Analytical Engine]

Very good points. Can we think of any reasons why tribes like the Iroquois were more egalitarian?

Were the Iroquois actually more equal, or was it a case that "X does thing A, Y does thing B, and never shall the twain meet?" They did have a pretty heavily sex-segregated economy, after all.

Besides, Sparta had a group of people act as a check on the power of their rulers (the Ephors).

 

[PolishMagnet]

Were the Iroquois actually more equal, or was it a case that "X does thing A, Y does thing B, and never shall the twain meet?" They did have a pretty heavily sex-segregated economy, after all.

I just mean more equal in terms of value... Athenians (and I believe many Greeks of the time) generally thought women were more promiscuous and less intelligent. They thought women needed to be kept under strict control. Women, as far as I remember, were not technically citizens but only the wives of citizens.

Besides, Sparta had a group of people act as a check on the power of their rulers (the Ephors).

Right but the Ephors were all rich men... I don't remember ever hearing about a female ephor. That's also skipping over the huge imbalance between the citizens of Sparta and the helots...

 

[tus3]

Alternatively, can the debate of ignorant vs educated voters in Greek democracy (IE excluding the poor masses) be redirected towards some kinds of tests/challenges? Perhaps something not unlike Chinese civil exams, where a resident proves they are a learned/worthy person in order to gain citizenship and voting.

From there, perhaps women could slip through and be recognized by merit?

That seems to me basically the same as the 'get in through a loophole in a property qualifications law'-method, except with extra steps.

 

[LuckyLuciano]

If I am not mistaken in sport you are supposed to hit the target, and in war you are supposed to draw hard enough for the arrow to pierce the target's armour. The latter requires quite a lot more brute force...

Though, I wonder why the debate had turned to how good women are at war; such discussions seem like a death end to me; there had been pre-modern republican societies who were more gender-equal than Ancient Greece (for example the Iroquois), but if I am not mistaken that was not because their women were exceptionally likely to wage war...

I wonder why accuracy wouldn’t be more important. Not saying that it was, just in my mind im imaging sniping your enemy in the face to be much more effective 😂

But i definitely agree with your second point. The focus definitely shouldn’t be on the military. IMO population dynamics is much more important. A situation that creates a noticeable disparity between women and men in demographics seems to me to be the easiest way. Demographic collapse isn’t uncommon or unlikely, an Athenian plague for example that hits men harder when combined with a series of wars. There would be a conservative backlash like oligarchy but it fails to take hold, women would definitely be able to argue for greater rights and have valid reasons to. They would have to take up more jobs that men had previously occupied. Since the military ranks have to be refilled, thats even less men available to continue the cities functions when on campaign, meaning even more women in critical jobs.

 

[PolishMagnet]

That seems to me basically the same as the 'get in through a loophole in a property qualifications law'-method, except with extra steps.

Well it would be different in that a level of action would be required as opposed to a tradition is broken and then it becomes the norm.

Everyone has to do a test vs people are in or out based on a preexisting law.