R2a from Siberia spreading to Iran, influenced the creation of Proto-Indo-European languages, transferring to R1b, emerging south of the Caucasus, and then spreading north into Russia/Europe

“The ANE lineage is defined by association with the MA-1, or “Mal’ta boy”, remains of 24,000 years ago in central Siberia Mal’ta-Buret’ culture 24,000-15,000 years ago. The Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) samples (Afontova Gora 3, Mal’ta 1, and Yana-RHS) show evidence for minor gene flow from an East Asian-related group (simplified by the Amis, Han, or Tianyuan) but no evidence for ANE-related geneflow into East Asians (Amis, Han, Tianyuan), except the Ainu, of North Japan.” ref 

“The ANE lineage is defined by association with the MA-1, or “Mal’ta boy”, remains of 24,000 years ago in central Siberia Mal’ta-Buret’ culture 24,000-15,000 years ago “basal to modern-day Europeans”. Some Ancient North Eurasians also carried East Asian populations, such as Tianyuan Man.” ref

“Bronze-age-steppe Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures were ANE at around 50% and Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) at around 75% ANE. Karelia culture: Y-DNA R1a-M417 8,400 years ago, Y-DNA J, 7,200 years ago, and Samara, of Y-haplogroup R1b-P297 7,600 years ago is closely related to ANE from Afontova Gora, 18,000 years ago around the time of blond hair first seen there.” ref 

Ancient North Eurasian

“In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient North Eurasian (often abbreviated as ANE) is the name given to an ancestral West Eurasian component that represents descent from the people similar to the Mal’ta–Buret’ culture and populations closely related to them, such as from Afontova Gora and the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site. Significant ANE ancestry are found in some modern populations, including Europeans and Native Americans.” ref 

“The ANE lineage is defined by association with the MA-1, or “Mal’ta boy“, the remains of an individual who lived during the Last Glacial Maximum, 24,000 years ago in central Siberia, Ancient North Eurasians are described as a lineage “which is deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe,” meaning that they diverged from Paleolithic Europeans a long time ago.” ref

“The ANE population has also been described as having been “basal to modern-day Europeans” but not especially related to East Asians, and is suggested to have perhaps originated in Europe or Western Asia or the Eurasian Steppe of Central Asia. However, some samples associated with Ancient North Eurasians also carried ancestry from an ancient East Asian population, such as Tianyuan Man. Sikora et al. (2019) found that the Yana RHS sample (31,600 BP) in Northern Siberia “can be modeled as early West Eurasian with an approximately 22% contribution from early East Asians.” ref

“Populations genetically similar to MA-1 were an important genetic contributor to Native Americans, Europeans, Central Asians, South Asians, and some East Asian groups, in order of significance. Lazaridis et al. (2016:10) note “a cline of ANE ancestry across the east-west extent of Eurasia.” The ancient Bronze-age-steppe Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures were found to have a noteworthy ANE component at ~50%.” ref

“According to Moreno-Mayar et al. 2018 between 14% and 38% of Native American ancestry may originate from gene flow from the Mal’ta–Buret’ people (ANE). This difference is caused by the penetration of posterior Siberian migrations into the Americas, with the lowest percentages of ANE ancestry found in Eskimos and Alaskan Natives, as these groups are the result of migrations into the Americas roughly 5,000 years ago.” ref 

“Estimates for ANE ancestry among first wave Native Americans show higher percentages, such as 42% for those belonging to the Andean region in South America. The other gene flow in Native Americans (the remainder of their ancestry) was of East Asian origin. Gene sequencing of another south-central Siberian people (Afontova Gora-2) dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures to that of Mal’ta boy-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum.” ref

“The earliest known individual with a genetic mutation associated with blonde hair in modern Europeans is an Ancient North Eurasian female dating to around 16000 BCE from the Afontova Gora 3 site in Siberia. It has been suggested that their mythology may have included a narrative, found in both Indo-European and some Native American fables, in which a dog guards the path to the afterlife.” ref

“Genomic studies also indicate that the ANE component was introduced to Western Europe by people related to the Yamnaya culture, long after the Paleolithic. It is reported in modern-day Europeans (7%–25%), but not of Europeans before the Bronze Age. Additional ANE ancestry is found in European populations through paleolithic interactions with Eastern Hunter-Gatherers, which resulted in populations such as Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers.” ref

“The Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) split from the ancestors of European peoples somewhere in the Middle East or South-central Asia, and used a northern dispersal route through Central Asia into Northern Asia and Siberia. Genetic analyses show that all ANE samples (Afontova Gora 3, Mal’ta 1, and Yana-RHS) show evidence for minor gene flow from an East Asian-related group (simplified by the Amis, Han, or Tianyuan). In contrast, no evidence for ANE-related geneflow into East Asians (Amis, Han, Tianyuan), except the Ainu, was found.” ref

“Genetic data suggests that the ANE formed during the Terminal Upper-Paleolithic (36+-1,5ka) period from a deeply European-related population, which was once widespread in Northern Eurasia, and from an early East Asian-related group, which migrated northwards into Central Asia and Siberia, merging with this deeply European-related population. These population dynamics and constant northwards geneflow of East Asian-related ancestry would later gave rise to the “Ancestral Native Americans” and Paleosiberians, which replaced the ANE as dominant population of Siberia.” ref

ref, ref, ref

“Lighter skin and blond hair evolved in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. The SLC24A5 gene’s derived threonine or Ala111Thr allele (rs1426654) has been shown to be a major factor in the light skin tone of Europeans. Possibly originating as long as 19,000 years ago, it has been the subject of selection in the ancestors of Europeans as recently as within the last 5,000 years, and is fixed in modern European populations.” ref, ref

DNA-researcher: It’s not ‘woke’ to portray prehistoric Europeans with dark skin.

“It’s evolution. Ancient DNA analyses suggest that prehistoric Europeans looked different from modern Europeans today, but some people find that hard to accept. There was an artistic picture of an almost 6,000-year-old, girl who was walking along Lolland’s south coast and spits a piece of birch tar into the reeds. It didn’t taste great, but it helped to soothe her toothache. Fast forward 6,000 years, Danish archaeologists working on the Fehmarnbelt project stumble across the piece and recognize it for what it is: an almost 6,000-year-old piece of chewing gum. This ancient piece of gum is now on display at the Museum Lolland-Falster in southern Denmark among an amazing collection of Stone Age artifacts uncovered during the excavations. If you have not been, it is well worth a visit. In 2019, my research team at the University of Copenhagen managed something quite remarkable: We succeeded in extracting DNA from the gum and used it to reconstruct the girl’s entire genome — the first time anyone had sequenced an ancient human genome from anything other than skeletal remains. As the gum had been found on Lolland, we affectionately nicknamed her ‘Lola’.” ref

Stone-age girl in social media ‘shitstorm’ 

“The story of Lola and her chewing gum made headlines around the world when we published the genome in 2019 and then, suddenly, in the summer of 2023, Lola was back in the news, caught up in a media ‘shitstorm’. The ‘shitstorm’ first gathered pace on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and escalated to the point where the museum had to defend itself on national TV. Even the Danish newspaper ‘Ekstrabladet’ felt they had to comment and gave their opinion in a passionate editorial. So, what happened? These things are difficult to reconstruct, but evidently some people who had seen the image of Lola thought that she looked “way too dark” and accused us—and the museum—of ‘blackwashing’ the past. I suppose this episode says more about our own biases than anything else, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain why we portrayed Lola the way we did and what this tells us about the evolution of skin color in this part of the world.” ref

What we know about Lola

“First a disclaimer, we do not know exactly how old Lola was when she spat that chewing gum into the water. But based on her genome and other DNA trapped in the gum, we learned a lot of other things about her and her world. For example, we learned that she was a hunter-gatherer who lived off wild resources like fish, nuts, and wild game. At the time, small farming communities started to appear in other parts of Europe, but from what we can tell Lola and her kin still lived — as her ancestors had done for thousands of years before her — as hunter-gatherers. We also learned that she likely had dark skin, dark hair, and blue eyes. But how do we know that?” ref

The genetics of human skin pigmentation

“Skin color is a highly heritable and polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by multiple genes and their interactions with one another. One of the most well-known genes associated with skin pigmentation is the melanocortin 1 receptor gene (MC1R), but there are dozens more that have been reported to be involved in the pigmentation process. Most of these genes influence skin color by regulating the production of melanin, a dark pigment that protects from the deleterious effects of UV radiation. Basically, the more melanin you have in your skin, the darker it will be, and the more sun your skin can tolerate before you get sunburn. Eye and hair color are determined in a similar way, but the mechanisms that control the production of melanin in the eyes and hair are quite complex and independent processes. That is why it is possible to end up with different combinations of traits, such as the dark hair and blue eyes that are often seen in Europeans today, or the light hair and brown eyes that are common for Solomon Islanders, for example.” ref

How do we know what Lola looked like?

“Because the genes involved in pigmentation have been well studied, it is possible to predict the skin, eye, and hair color of an individual based on their genotype with a certain probability, something that is routinely done in forensic investigations. In practice, this works by checking which variants of a gene are present and what phenotype they are associated with. The more genes we can include in this analysis, the more confident we can be that our prediction is correct. In Lola’s case, we studied 41 gene variants across her genome that have been associated with skin, hair, and eye color in humans, and concluded that she likely had this unusual (at least for today) combination of dark skin, dark hair, and blue eyes.” ref

A common look in prehistoric Europe

“It is difficult to know exactly what people looked like 10,000 years ago. But based on ancient DNA studies, it appears that Lola’s ‘look’ was much more common in prehistoric Europe than it is today. Thanks to advances in ancient DNA sequencing, we now have the genomes of dozens of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (i.e. the period between around 50,000 and 5,000 years before present in Europe) individuals from Western Europe. And interestingly they all seem to lack the skin-lightening variants that are so common in Europeans today, indicating that they had dark skin. This is true for ‘Cheddar Man’ who lived around 10,000 years ago in southern England, as well as dozens of other Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer individuals from France, northern Italy, Spain, the Baltic, and other parts of Europe. Like skin color, eye color is also a fairly complex trait, involving the interaction of many different genes. Therefore, eye color is fairly difficult to predict, but it looks like Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Western Europe often had blue eyes, just like Lola. Overall, it looks like Lola’s phenotype—the combination of dark skin, dark hair, and blue eyes—was much more common in prehistoric Europe than it is today.” ref

How Europeans got their lighter skin

“So, why did people in prehistoric Europe look so different from northern Europeans today? The answer to this question lies in a complex interplay between our genes, our changing diets, population movements, and the environment. It has been theorized for some time that lighter skin emerged as an adaptive trait to light poor environments as it allows you to absorb sunlight more effectively, which is essential for the production of vitamin D. However, it was unclear when this happened. Early studies suggested that we first may have evolved lighter skin as our ancestors moved out of Africa and into Europe c. 50,000 years ago, but we now believe that this happened much later in European prehistory. In fact, there is evidence that lighter skin only evolved within the last 5,000 years or so, as a result of genetic admixture from Neolithic farming populations (who carried the skin-lightening variant) and strong selection favoring lighter skin.” ref

Our changing diet also played a part

“In addition, it looks like our changing diets also played a part. During most of European prehistory people relied on wild resources like nuts, game, and fish that are all rich in vitamin D, which is essential to our health. That changed dramatically during the Neolithic when people started to rely on a farmer’s diet that was rich in carbohydrates, but poor in vitamin D. Interestingly, this is exactly the period when we see lighter skin tones evolve in Western Europe and we think that the lack of vitamin D in the diet may have increased the selection pressures favouring lighter skin. All in all, there is solid evidence to suggest that lighter skin tones only evolved in Europe within the last 5,000 years or so, and that people who lived in Europe before then typically had darker skin. It is not that surprising, then, that Lola had darker skin. It simply reflects the fact that she lived at a time when Europeans had not yet evolved their lighter skin.” ref

ref

ref

Analysis: How did the patriarchy start – and will evolution get rid of it?

Matrilineal societies exist around the world – it’s time to look beyond the patriarchy.

Hopewell Mound Builder culture (200 BCE–500 CE)

“The Hopewell inherited from their Adena Mound Building culture (500 BCE–100 CE) forebears an incipient social stratification.” ref

“These cultures likely accorded certain families a special place of privilege. Some scholars suggest that these societies were marked by the emergence of “big-men/women”, leaders whose influence depended on their skill at persuasion in important matters such as trade and religion. They also perhaps augmented their influence by cultivating reciprocal obligations with other important community members. The emergence of “big-men/women” was a step toward the development of these societies into highly structured and stratified chiefdoms.” ref

On the Significance of Matrilineal Chiefship

” UNDER the term chiefship as here used we include only that civil office in which the incumbent is the head of a family and has under his rule a band of families, a tribe, or a nation. Such chiefs are, for example, the band chiefs of the north and east Algonkian, the chiefs of the households of the Nootka, of the households or matrilineal “families” of the Iroquois; the tribal head chiefs of the Nootka, Coast, and Delt Salish, Tsimshian, etc., and the kings of the Natchez, man African states, modern European nations, etc. The first essential fact we have to note about this office is that universally it is the prerogative of an adult male. Occasionally, it is held by a child, the functions of pending the child chief’s maturity, being exercise warmer” or regent. Occasionally also, which is more the office is held by a female. A child holds office those peoples with whom the chiefship has become hereditary, and the heir presumptive may not be A woman holds office only where the office is strictly a given family, and when no eligible male heir is near enough in blood to be considered acceptable in a closely related female who can be expected soon son and so perpetuate the chiefship through the descent.” ref

“An example of the type of situation which gave rise to the installation of queens even among so-called “primitive” folk may
well be noted at length at this point, in part because of certain remarkable features which will interest us more in a moment. In the year 1660 the Piscottoways (Ganawagas, Conoys) of Maryland applied to the governor of the province for ratification of their choice of an “emperor,” and to his inquiry as to their customs relative to succession they replied that the office went, on the death of an incumbent, to his brother, “and for want of such, to a sister’s son,” and stated that in such wise the office had descended from their first emperor-who had been some one come to rule over them from the eastern Shore of Maryland-for thirteen generations, without interruption, until the time of the emperor Kittamaqund who preceded the emperor just deceased.” ref

“Kittamaqund had died without having brother or sister, (and, presum without a sister’s son) to succeed him, and took it upon him, therefore, to appoint his daughter to be “queen.” The perejected this appointment, however, as contrary to tribal custom and chose as emperor, Weghucasso, who was descended “from of the brothers, which one, they knew not, of the first emperor “And Weghucasso at his death appointed to be king some descendant of one of the first kings.” This appointee was Jan Wizous, which in their language signifies a true king [they] would not suffer us to call him Towzin, which is the they give to the sons of their kings who by their custom ar to succeed in rule, but his brothers, or the sons of his sisters.” To avoid possible misconceptions it is perhaps at this point to consider a practice prevailing among
Kwakiutl of British Columbia.” ref

“For them Boas patrilineal inheritance is the rule for certain circumstances the annual or winter ceremonies of the secret societies, such as that of master-of-ceremonies, those of caretaker of the drum, of the batons, of the eagle-down, etc. Civil privileges also are sometimes so inherited but much the larger number of these are given by a father to his son-in-law expressly in trust for the donor’s grandson. Hill-Tout has noted for the not-distant Siciatl that the chiefship, a civil “privilege” on the Northwest Coast, maybe so inherited, or bestowed; regularly it goes to the eldest son of a chief but where there is no son the son-in-law will succeed,5 as a consequence of which in the third generation the reigning chief will be the grandson of the chief whose son-in-law succeeded, the chiefship, thereby descending in the direct line of succession just as if the daughter herself had actually succeeded to the office and exercised its functions. It has been suggested that the practice of the southern Kwakiutl indicates an adaptation of a former patrilineal inheritance to concepts diffused from the tribes farther up the coast with whom all privileges and property including the privilege of chiefship descend matrilineally.” ref

“However, it has also been pointed out that the kinship terms of the Kwakiutl correspond to a loose organization in which relationship is reckoned bilaterally, as is the case with the closely related Nootka. For the Nootka Sapir has shown that privileges are inherited through both the male and female lines, with a preference for the male line, the inheritance of privileges being in a measure conditioned by the fact that privileges are not only personally owned but also definitely associated with the local group among whom they originate. More data, especially on the inheritance of the particular of chiefship, is desirable, but it seems evident that the Kwa represent simply a people reckoning bilaterally, but who, like peoples whose developing institution of chiefship has not be affected by the influence of a matrilineal kinship reckoning, the develop a patrilineal inheritance of office.” ref

“Rather than an indication of influences from the northern tribes and an addition to the idea of a matrilineal reckoning, the peculiar Kwa inheritance practice we have noted is simply an indication of Kwakiutl concern that privileges, in general, should descend patrilineally. And, in case a chief only has daughters, the Kw, like the Society, with the son-in-law arrangement, are able to the chiefship in the direct line of descent and, at the same, avoid having a woman chief or queen. We may now confine ourselves to the actual chiefship. Typically, though not always, it is cor the mother-sib. Despite the fact that with many whom the sib, and, specifically, the mother-sib, is a institution-such as the Iroquois, the Haida, etc.-this does not include the concept of even a fictitious kin its members, it yet remains obvious that sib member
patrilineally or matrilineally reckoned, is acquired the blood relationship to a father or a mother member obvious, and is perhaps superfluous to observe, also, whether transmitted matrilineally or patrilineally inherited by virtue of actual blood relationship cumbent of the office.” ref

“But a matrilineal reckoning for an which is universally the prerogative of a male and his male cessors appears as a noteworthy phenomenon, particularly of the fact that different types of inheritance reckonings for ent prerogatives, privileges, things, relationships, etc. contained within the same cultural considered in connection with the processes by which chiefship undoubtedly evolved. Definitely, instituted chiefship is itself an office which cannot be placed too far back in social evolution; and the concept and practice of the inheritance of the office exclusively within some one family of the group of families concerned must be placed reltively later, in that obviously intermediary developments remain on record as the existing practice of many peoples-though very definite records of this gradual evolution for any one people are hardly available. This evolution of the concept of ban and higher chiefships as hereditary within a given family and even as with many peoples, through an inflexible rule of picture took place of course concurrently with the of concepts of the inheritance of other things such ship, real, and personal property, songs, names, other office, etc.” ref

The Real Mound Builders of North America: matrilineal chiefdom

 Mississippian Chiefdoms

“Although groups speaking several different languages produced Mississippian societies, they shared many cultural traits. The most spectacular features of these societies were the temple- and burial-mound centers they constructed. The largest such site is at Cahokia in what is now Collinsville, Illinois, just east of St. Louis, Missouri; the village area extended for six miles along the Illinois River, contained eighty-five temple and burial mounds, and sustained a population perhaps as high as seventy-five thousand persons. Being master farmers allowed the Mississippians to develop such large societies, although most chiefdoms were much smaller than Cahokia. All Mississippian sites utilized maize or corn as a primary staple and supplemented it with other plants and meats.” ref

“Chiefdoms. Mississippian societies are called chiefdoms because they were governed by small groups of elites or even by a single individual, called a paramount chief. Commoners and outlying satellite villages paid tributes of corn, deer meat, animal skins, and prestige items to the principal town. In some cases new towns joined a chiefdom by military conquest. The labor of commoners built the mounds and suggests that elites held the power to assemble large bodies of people to do their bidding. Leadership passed through hereditary lines in at least some of these chiefdoms, but high status was most likely based upon command of spiritual forces. The general population recognized the large amounts of power that leaders manipulated and honored them with positions of prestige. Matrilineal kinship characterized Mississippian culture, and female paramount chiefs greeted Spanish expeditions, such as the “Lady of Cofitachequi” from the chiefdom of Cofitachequi in present-day South Carolina who welcomed Hernando de Soto in the 1540s.” ref

“Decline. Mississippian chiefdoms still existed in the mid 1500s when de Soto and others traveled through the Southeast, but just a century later, the mound sites were abandoned. Because of this timing, scholars looked to the de Soto campaign as the cause of this phenomenon. It is probable that some of de Soto’s men, or maybe the horses and pigs that accompanied them, carried diseases to which the Indians had no immunity. Pandemics may have wiped the Mississippians from the map, replacing them with refugee groups of survivors who banded together for protection but lacked the numbers to maintain the mounds. Many Mississippian sites became vacant before European contact, however, which suggests that local reasons contributed to abandonment. Perhaps Mississippians overused their resources, depleting the soil for corn and cutting down trees necessary for their buildings and fires. Possibly, climatic changes resulted in drought or a shorter growing season, thus reducing the food supply. Political conflict and war between chiefdoms could have weakened some to the point of being unsustainable. Likely, all of the above factors contributed to the abandonment of the mound sites. The Choctaws, Creeks, Chickasaws, Cherokees, and Seminoles descended from the Mississippian peoples and held many traits in common with their ancestors.” ref

“Although the first people entered what is now the Mississippi about 12,000 years ago, the earliest major phase of earthen mound construction in this area did not begin until some 2100 years ago. Mounds continued to be built sporadically for another 1800 years, or until around 1700 CE. Archeologists, the scientist who study the evidence of past human lifeways, classify moundbuilding Indians of the Southeast into three major chronological/cultural divisions: the Archaic, the Woodland, and the Mississippian traditions. To date, no mounds of the Archaic period (7000 to 1000 BCE) have been positively identified in Mississippi; the mounds described herein all date to the last two cultural periods.” ref

“The Middle Woodland period (100 BCE to 200 CE) was the first era of widespread mound construction in Mississippi. Middle Woodland peoples were primarily hunters and gatherers who occupied semipermanent or permanent settlements. Some mounds of this period were built to bury important members of local tribal groups. These burial mounds were rounded, dome-shaped structures that generally range from about three to 18 feet high, with diameters from 50 to 100 feet. Distinctive artifacts obtained through long-distance trade were sometimes placed with those buried in the mounds. The construction of burial mounds declined after the Middle Woodland, and only a few were built during the Late Woodland period (circa 400 to 1000 CE). Woodland burial mounds can be visited at the Boyd, Bynum, and Pharr sites and at Chewalla Lake in Holy Springs National Forest. (The Chewalla Mound is not included in this itinerary because it is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places).” ref

“The Mississippian period (1000 to 1700 CE) saw a resurgence of mound building across much of the southeastern United States. Most Mississippian mounds are rectangular, flat-topped earthen platforms upon which temples or residences of chiefs were erected. These buildings were constructed of wooden posts covered with mud plaster and had thatched roofs. Mississippian platform mounds range in height from eight to almost 60 feet and are from 60 to as much as 770 feet in width at the base. Mississippian period mounds can be seen at the Winterville, Jaketown, Pocahontas, Emerald, Grand Village, Owl Creek, and Bear Creek sites.” ref

“Mississippian period mound sites mark centers of social and political authority. They are indicators of a way of life more complex than that of the Woodland and earlier periods. In contrast to the relatively simple, egalitarian tribal organization of most societies of the Woodland period, regional Mississippian populations were typically organized into chiefdoms–territorial groups with hereditary, elite leadership classes. Across the Southeast, the chiefdom system of political organization arose as a means of managing increased social complexity caused by steady population growth. This population growth was sustained by agriculture (corn, beans, and squash)–a revolutionary new means of subsistence that became an economic mainstay during the Mississippian period.” ref

“Mound construction was once again in decline by the time the first Europeans came to this region in the 1500s. Shortly thereafter, epidemic diseases introduced by early European explorers decimated native populations across the Southeast, causing catastrophic societal disruption. As a result, by the time sustained contact with European colonists began about 1700 CE, the long tradition of mound building had nearly ended.” ref

Ancient Colombian chiefdoms

“Chiefdoms in Central America were small groups who developed unique art forms in order to distinguish themselves and compete with one another. c. 500 B.C.E.–1600 C.E.” ref

Tribe versus Chiefdom in Lower Central America

“Abstract: It has commonly been argued that chiefdoms were the dominant form of prehispanic political organization in Lower Central America. Reexamination of the data base, however, reveals that tribal forms of organization were also present in Lower Central America at the time of Spanish contact and before. The salient characteristics of both tribes and chiefdoms are discussed, and criteria for identifying tribes and chiefdoms in the archaeological record are outlined. Data from the Central Provinces of Panama and the Gulf of Nicoya are then examined in light of these criteria. We argue that while a chiefdom form of organization prevailed in Panama, the Gulf of Nicoya was occupied by tribal groups immediately prior to contact with the Spanish.” ref

“The customs and social systems of South American peoples are closely and naturally related to the environments in which they live. These environmental relationships are mediated by the systems of technology that the people use to exploit their resources. Four basic types of social and cultural organization of South American peoples emerge from the archaeological and historical records: (1) central Andean irrigation civilizations, (2) chiefdoms of the northern Andes and the circum-Caribbean, (3) tropical-forest farming villages, and (4) nomadic hunters and gatherers. Each type developed in its own fashion during thousands of years, and since the 16th century each has made a distinctive adjustment to the impact of European civilization. The original migrants to the New World had no knowledge of the domestication of plants or animals, with the exception of dogs, which were used in hunting. Recent discoveries in Mexico indicate that agriculture was independently discovered in the New World in roughly the same era that it was established in the Middle East (about 7000–8000 BCE) and that New World civilizations were built on an indigenous agricultural base.” ref

“The evidence on early hunting and gathering peoples in Peru is still sparse. It is not yet possible to reconstruct social patterns, since most of the remains consist only of shellfish middens and small, widely scattered campsites along the coast. It was a period of thousands of years’ duration, however, toward the end of which some knowledge of plant domestication reached the Peruvian coast. The next major era is set off by incipient agriculture and also is characterized by the remains of small, hamlet-type communities along the Pacific Ocean near river mouths, where the alluvial soil was able to support crops. Technology remained simple, irrigation was not practiced, and population remained small.” ref

“After the passage of 1,000 years or so, marked developments appear in the archaeological record. These include many new crops, irrigation ditches that extended the arable area and controlled the supply of water, more and larger communities that attest to a growing population, and important temple mounds that formed the symbolic centres of theocratic government controlled by a priestly class. The formative era saw the development of the basic technologies and life-styles that were to become elaborated into even more complex cultural forms and state institutions. The emergence of city-states and empires in the central Andes is the result of local cultural-ecological adjustments of this sort, based on an irrigation agriculture that supported growing populations and necessitated controls in the hands of priests and nobles, with a warrior class subservient to the state.” ref

Subsistence Economy and Chiefdom Emergence in the Muisca Area

“ABSTRACT: Muisca societies located in the central mountains of Colombia impressed early Spanish arrivals in the sixteenth century with the power and level of respect commanded by their chiefs and the quality and variety of the crafts their artisans produced, sometimes from raw materials obtained from other regions. Early Spanish accounts especially emphasize the “advanced” economic development of Muisca societies, with what seemed to European eyes especially well-organized and flourishing trade and dense populations that were well-provisioned despite the fairly cold, wet, high-elevation zone they inhabited. As several regional chiefdoms in northern South America have been studied archaeologically, it has often turned out that their subsistence and craft economies do not involve very high degrees of trade, tribute, or household interdependence. This emerging pattern contrasts with sixteenth-century descriptions of the Muisca.” ref

“The archaeological evidence of Muisca societies has provided at best only incomplete confirmation of the descriptions in historical sources, particularly in regard to the development of local, regional, and supra-regional patterns of economic interdependence and the importance of such an economy to the emergence of chiefly power. One aspect of economic interdependence specifically discussed in the historical sources, however, has been subject to very little archaeological investigation. This is the agricultural exploitation of warmer low-elevation zones located quite close to some of the principal Muisca chiefly centers. In these areas higher temperatures led to greater productivity as well as protection from the frosts that were a constant risk to agriculture in the Muisca heartland. There are detailed sixteenth-century historical accounts of the importance of these resources for sustaining the very high population densities of the Muisca heartland, high densities fully attested to by both historical and archaeological information.” ref

“Under the supervision of Dr. Robert D. Drennan, Pedro Argüello will carry out a systematic regional survey of some 100 sq km in the Tena region on the slopes leading down from the western edge of the Muisca heartland toward the valley of the Magdalena River. The Tena region, which ranges from 2200 m above sea level down to about 700 m, is specifically mentioned in sixteenth-century documents as a major source of agricultural produce for the Bogotá chiefdom. If its agricultural resources were increasingly intensively exploited as Muisca chiefdoms emerged and developed and population levels in the high-elevation Muisca heartland grew, this will be reflected in changing patterns of distribution of human occupation in the Tena region. Such a result would provide stronger support for the historical accounts of one of the economic foundations of Muisca chiefly power than has been forthcoming from archaeological investigations of other aspects of Muisca economy. It would help to explain the relatively late but extremely rapid development of the Muisca chiefdoms and to position these societies properly in comparative analysis of the pathways toward the consolidation of political power in general.” ref

“The societies of the Muisca area in the eastern highlands of Colombia were described by early Spanish conquerors as among the richest and most highly developed societies they encountered in northern South America. Chiefs were rich and powerful, and controlled regional populations engaged in well-organized intensive agricultural production to sustain quite high population densities. Archaeological evidence tends to agree that these societies developed vigorously during the last few hundred years before the sixteenth-century arrival of the Spanish, but evidence available to date provides conflicting views about their earlier trajectories of development. In several ways archaeological evidence has failed to convincingly substantiate sixteenth-century written accounts. One aspect of Muisca demography and agricultural production is described in these accounts in particular detail. It involves the expansion by Muisca populations from the high-elevation Bogotá Savannah down the slopes toward the Magdalena River at the expense of Panche people who had previously occupied the zone. The driving force behind this expansion was said to be the need to increase and intensify agricultural production in the warmer Tena region in order to sustain burgeoning populations in the Bogotá Savannah.” ref

“The archaeological research confirmed that Muisca people did, in fact, live in the Tena region, not only in the last few hundred years before the Spanish Conquest but in much earlier times as well. The history of this occupation goes back at least 2400 years to the initial period of sedentary farming. During the earliest occupation of the Tena region—during the Herrera period (400 BCE–800 CE)—the majority of the population lived in widely scattered dispersed farmsteads, although a cluster of occupation more like a nucleated village also occurred. This settlement pattern continued in similar form during the next period—Early Muisca (800–1200 CE)—during which the region witnessed quite substantial population growth. During the last prehispanic period—Late Muisca (1200–1550 CE)—a combination of dispersed farmsteads and nucleated villages persisted, but in sharp contrast to the implications of the sixteenth-century accounts, population actually decreased somewhat, making the Tena region extremely unusual among the demographic patterns for the Muisca area at this time.” ref

“The region’s inhabitants, like those of earlier periods, were Muisca farmers living there year-round, and practicing relatively extensive agriculture. There is no sign of a major influx of seasonal occupation by people whose permanent residences were in the higher-elevation Bogotá Savannah. Nor is there indication of more intensive agricultural production. These results question literal interpretations of sixteenth-century written accounts of late Muisca expansion beyond the Altiplano Cundiboyacense and of the intensive and organized exploitation of the agricultural resources of adjacent lower-elevation zones as a source of chiefly wealth and power. They thus add to our knowledge of the variety of pathways followed in the development of very early complex societies, in which the foundations of much modern human social organization were constructed.” ref

Chiefdoms in northern South America

“Abstract: The multiple and varied trajectories of chiefdom development in northern South America (and adjacent Central America) offer a rich opportunity for evaluating generalizations about the processes of chiefdom development. Sequences of the south coast of Ecuador, the Alto Magdalena, Calima, the Muisca region, Barinas, and the Tairona region are well enough documented to attempt to use in this way. Although centralized, hierarchical societies develop in all these regions, there are many differences in the character of centralization and hierarchy and in the pacing of the development, and none of the traditionally proposed forces of social change is entirely adequate to account for these cases. Attention to the role played by competition between aspiring chiefs and their factions offers promise for more satisfactory generalizations that could be evaluated through further comparative study.” ref

Precolumbian Chiefdom Settlements with Stone Spheres of the Diquís

“The property includes four archaeological sites located in the Diquís Delta in southern Costa Rica, which are considered unique examples of the complex social, economic, and political systems of the period CE 500–1500. They contain artificial mounds, paved areas, burial sites, and, most significantly, a collection of stone spheres between 0.7 m and 2.57 m in diameter, whose meaning, use, and production remain largely a mystery. The spheres are distinctive for their perfection, number, size and density, and placement in original locations. Their preservation from the looting that befell the vast majority of archaeological sites in Costa Rica has been attributed to the thick layers of sediment that kept them buried for centuries.” ref

“Four archaeological sites (Finca 6, Batambal, El Silencio, and Grijalba-2) located in the Diquís Delta in southern Costa Rica illustrates a collection of unique stone spheres located in chiefdom settlement structures of the Precolumbian period. The four sites represent different settlement structures of chiefdom societies (500-1500 CE) containing artificial mounds, paved areas, and burial sites. Special objects of wonder and admiration are the distinctive Diquís stone spheres, which are rare in their perfection of large-sized (up to 2.57m diameter) spherical structures but are also distinct for their number and location in their original positions within residential areas.” ref 

“The Precolumbian Chiefdom Settlements with Stone Spheres of the Diquís illustrate the physical evidence of the complex political, social, and productive structures of the Precolumbian hierarchical societies. The chiefdoms which inhabited the Diquís Delta created hierarchical settlements expressing the division of different levels of power centers, presented by the different serial components. Likewise, the exceptional stone spheres, which continue to leave researchers speculating about the method and tools of their production, represent an exceptional testimony to the artistic traditions and craft capabilities of these Precolumbian societies.” ref 

Simple Chiefdoms

https://sites.santafe.edu/~bowles/SimpleChiefdoms.ppt

 Elite Status and Gender: Women Leaders in Chiefdom Societies of the Southeastern U.S.

“ABSTRACT: This dissertation presents an ethnohistorical study of women chiefs in the Southeastern United States. Women chiefs were a recurring feature of Southeastern chiefdom societies at and following European contact. Knowledge of how and why women filled these public roles helps explain how chiefdom societies were organized, their political structure, and how gender roles were defined. Chiefdom structure, political economy, and chiefly succession are examined to provided a framework for understanding how chiefdoms operate and how chiefs come to power. Ethnohistoric data are presented and analyzed, supporting the conclusion that women chiefs were present at the very dawn of European contact, even when there were high ranking men available to fill the office. Women sometimes served as regents, usually for an immature child, but some of the women identified as regents were actually chiefs. Women chiefs are present because their elite status takes precedence over their gender. Chiefly offices may not necessarily be gendered male or female, since women accessed them regularly. This analysis shows that elite status, personal ability, and strong support from a faction are needed for both women and men to become chiefs, regardless of gender. Women chiefs were present in both matrilineal and patrilineal societies, so the form of kinship reckoning is not a critical or limiting variable for determining the likelihood of women chiefs being present. The most salient variable is the presence of ascribed, elite statuses that women can access. Therefore, the innate structure of chiefdom societies themselves makes it likely that women chiefs will be present. Baseline comparative data from chiefdom societies having women chiefs from outside the U.S.–Tonga and Taíno –are used to generate a hypothesis about the presence of women chiefs.” ref

Paramount Chief

“A paramount chief is the English-language designation for the highest-level political leader in a regional or local polity or country administered politically with a chief-based system. This term is used occasionally in anthropological and archaeological theory to refer to the rulers of multiple chiefdoms or the rulers of exceptionally powerful chiefdoms that have subordinated others. Paramount chiefs were identified by English-speakers as existing in Native American confederacies and regional chiefdoms, such as the Powhatan Confederacy and Piscataway Native Americans encountered by European colonists in the Chesapeake Bay region of North America. During the Victoria era, paramount chief was a formal title created by British colonial administrators in the British Empire and applied in Britain’s colonies in Asia and Africa. They used it as a substitute for the word “king” to ensure that only the British monarch held that title. Since the title “chief” was already used in terms of district and town administrators, the addition of “paramount” was made so as to distinguish between the ruling monarch and the local aristocracy.” ref

In Asia

“Khan, alternately spelled lowercase as khan and sometimes spelled as Han, Xan, Ke-Han, Turkic: khān, Mongolian: qāān, Chinese: 可汗 or 汗, kehan or han) is an originally Central Asian title for a sovereign or military ruler, first used by medieval Turko-Mongol nomadic tribes living to the north of China. ‘Khan’ is first seen as a title in the Xianbei confederation for their chief between 283 and 289 and was used as a state title by the Rouran confederation. It was subsequently adopted by the Göktürks before Turkic peoples and the Mongols brought it to the rest of Asia. In the middle of the sixth century it was known as “Kagan – King of the Turks” to the Persians. It now has many equivalent meanings such as commander, leader, or ruler. The most famous khan was the Great Khan of Mongols: Genghis Khan. Another famous Manchu khan was Nurhachi.” ref

“Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, Huguan Siou is the paramount leader for the Kadazandusun Murut indigenous community in Sabah. The current and the second Huguan Siou is Joseph Pairin Kitingan. The office is near sacred and can be left vacant if no one is deemed worthy to hold the title.” ref

In Oceania

“New Zealand, Ariki Nui of Ngati Tuwharetoa, a Māori tribe in the central North Island – a hereditary chieftainship which still has great influence. In the 1850s the Māori King Movement resulted in the election of a Waikato chief as Māori King.” ref

“Cook Islands, the paramount chief of the Cook Islands was an ariki of the Makea Nui dynasty, a chiefdom of the Te Au O Tonga tribe in Rarotonga, the Kingdom of Rarotonga was established in 1858 and ended in 1888.” ref

“Fiji, during the October–December 1987 secession agitation on one island, known as the Republic of Rotuma, led by Henry Gibson (remained in New Zealand), his style was Gagaj Sau Lagfatmaro, rendered as Paramount chief or King of the Molmahao Clan. NB: This title was not recognized by the Rotuma Island Council as the titles Gagaja and Sau have never been used together. The closest thing to a paramount chief is the position of Fakpure, currently belonging to the district chief (gagaj ‘es itu’u) of Noa’tau. The British Sovereign was recognized as “Paramount Chief“, even after the country became a republic on 7 October 1987; however, this was not an office of state.” ref

“Polynesia, Rapa Nui (Easter Island) paramount chief or king, the ariki henua or ariki mau*. Samoa, paramount titles in the fa’amatai chiefly system include; Malietoa, Mata’afa, Tupua Tamasese, and Tuimaleali’ifano. American Samoa, paramount chief titles in the fa’amatai chiefly system include; Tui Manu’a, Le’iato.” ref

In Africa

Former chiefdoms in North America

“A Chiefdom of Ameca, C Cahokia polity, Casqui, Chiefdoms of Hispaniola, and Coosa chiefdom, G Guale, J Jaega, M Mocoso, O Ocute, P Pohoy, S Saturiwa, T Tacatacuru, Tocobaga, U Utinahica, Uzita (Florida).”

Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas

“Much has been learned about the ways chiefdoms were organized, their origins, and their ultimate fates from poring over historical accounts, sifting through archaeological sites, and observing contemporary peoples. This book, which focuses on the Americas, includes general statements on the development of chiefdoms (Elsa Redmond, Robert Carniero, and Pita Kelekna) and case studies of groups in South America (Elsa Redmond, Charles Spencer, William Sturtevant, Neil Whitehead, and Doris Kurella), the Caribbean (William Keegan and coauthors), and the United States (Winifred Creamer and Jonathan Haas, Helen Rountree and Randolph Turner, and Jerald Milanich).” ref

“These authors concentrate on the societies that gave rise to chiefdoms and the process of chiefdom formation. Redmond introduces chieftaincy to cover short-term leadership achieved by especially capable and charismatic people within the context of essentially autonomous villages. A chieftain is like a Melanesian big man, but without the latter’s geographical and cultural connotations. Chieftains exercise some control over their fellow villagers, the scope and duration of their authority are determined by the exigencies of various situations, and their reputation and influence extend to neighboring settlements. A chieftaincy is thus a society with recognized leaders, but their influence is short-lived, limited, and tied to particular circumstances. In contrast, chiefdoms are kin-based societies with social hierarchies headed by permanent chiefs, who inherit their positions of authority over the inhabitants of multiple villages. Chieftaincies came and went over time; only some of them developed into full-blown chiefdoms.” ref

“Whatever the merits of new sociopolitical categories, classification systems reveal nothing about the processes behind cultural change. What is really of interest are the circumstances that led to the crystallization of situationally advantageous leadership positions and intervillage alliances to form institutionalized social hierarchies, including chiefs, and permanent ties among dominant and subordinate villages. Carneiro refers to this transformation as the “flashpoint,” which is appropriate considering its likely suddenness. It makes considerable sense to argue that under the right conditions politically autonomous villages with presumptive leadership positions—Redmond’s chieftaincies—developed into multicommunity societies with fixed chiefly positions embedded within kin-based social hierarchies. But just what combination of circumstances gave rise to chiefdoms? Carneiro argues that whatever factors were behind chiefdom formation, they were few in number. Separate explanations are not needed in all of the many places where these societies arose. His position is arguably the most important and provocative point in this book. It is a challenge to look for ultimate causes, rather than being content with an uninterpretable hotchpotch of context-specific details.” ref

“Simplifying greatly, most scenarios for chiefdom origins invoke either warfare or economic relations, especially the role of chiefs as managers of critical resources or as major players in exchanges of highly coveted prestige goods. Contributors to this book emphasize the part played by warfare in chiefdom development. These societies arose in places where there was little chance of flight to escape severe endemic warfare. This position is argued strongly by Carneiro in an elaboration of his thirty-year-old environmental circumscription and warfare model. In short, the first chief was a highly successful and influential war leader who was determined to hold onto his position of dominance in the affairs of multiple villages located in places where the pressure on resources and harrassment by enemies could not be relieved by movement elsewhere.” ref

The Origin of State Societies in South America

“Abstract: The earliest states developed in the central Andean highlands and along the central Pacific coast of western South America. The consensus in the archaeological literature is that state societies first developed in the central Andes in the early part of the first millennium CE. A minority opinion holds that first-generation states developed as early as the late second millennium BCE in the same area. The Andean region constitutes one of a few areas of first-generation state development in the world. This area, therefore, represents an important case study for the comparative analysis of state formation. This article outlines the arguments for state formation in South America, presents the evidence, analyzes the underlying assumptions about these arguments, and assesses the South American data in terms of contemporary anthropological theory of state evolution.” ref

MATRILINY AND PATRILINY BETWEEN COHABITATION EQUILIBRIUM AND MODERNITY IN THE CAMEROON GRASSFIELDS

“ABSTRACT: The paper explores the principles in the kinship structure of the cluster of speakers of the Ring Group of Grassfield Bantu, who are at once matrilineal and patrilineal, living in the south-western edge of the western Cameroon highlands. Although operating in an inverted mirror image, the seemingly opposed kinship structures have a common logic where the basic kinship unit is residential (household). There is an attempt to strike a balance between descent groups without constituting double descent, and women occupy positions that stress symmetry rather than subordination, although there is patriarchy. The impact of modernity on matriliny in a context of generalized patriliny is also examined with the conclusion that the drift towards “patrilineal” practices does not imply a change of system but implies adaptations that leave the system unmodified.” ref

Traditional leaders in Zambia shift gender norms and strengthen women’s land rights

How community-level dialogues uprooted harmful gender norms that hinder women’s rights to land.

“Across much of Africa, land is not allocated and inherited under statutory law but through customary practices rooted in kinship. In patrilineal systems, land belongs to men’s families and is inherited through the paternal line. In Zambia, many ethnic groups follow a matrilineal system, where women own land and pass it down the maternal line. But ownership does not necessarily translate into access, use and control of land. Even in matrilineal societies, social and gender norms undermine women’s decision-making power. Traditionally – regardless of patrilineal or matrilineal systems − men have authority over household resources, including land − so when it comes to land rights, women are left out.In Zambia’s customary systems chiefs and their advisors – known as indunas – and village headpersons allocate land. These customary leaders are usually men and, as custodians of tradition and culture, heavily influence whether harmful gender norms and practices persist or change.” ref

“A woman headperson in the Nyamphande chiefdom addressed a pressing form of gender-based violence related to land: the use of traditional funeral rites to deny widows’ access to their deceased spouse’s land. Indunas and village headpersons who participated in the dialogues encouraged men in their communities to include their wives in land documentation. And the indunas led by example, committing to share their own land with their wives and children, both boys and girls. Induna Jacob Phiri, from Mnukwa chiefdom, was the first to share his land after the first dialogue session, saying “My wife had access to my land and planted crops of her own choice, but I never thought about what could happen to her if I died. I knew I needed to act while I was still alive, so I gave her a portion of land to be her own. After that, I felt empowered to tell people in my village to do the same.” ref

“Not all indunas embrace change. Despite promising shifts in behaviors and gender norms, many indunas did not support change − taking a backseat or even attempting to block and discourage those willing to drive it forward. Although bringing together indunas from different chiefdoms intended to foster collaboration, the pilot initiative found that individual action by the indunas was much more successful than collective action. Some of the indunas resisted changes in social norms, and it is important to invest more time in supporting the indunas and headpersons to have a deeper understanding of existing gender norms that should be changed before moving to planning and implementation. Change starts with community. The pilot showed that shifting harmful gender norms at the community level is crucial in supporting women to access land rights. Given their role in regulating local culture and advising the traditional authority on land administration, customary leaders like indunas and village headpersons are a key entry point for that shift. Change can be slow. But spaces for dialogue, critical reflection, and support for action-planning enabled the indunas to not only change their own beliefs, but also begin to see their role and their communities in a different light.” ref

Powhatan Complex paramount chiefdom (male) or, more rarely, a (female)

“The Powhatan were a matrilineal society, so his right to be chief was inherited from his mother.” ref

“The Powhatan people are Native Americans who belong to member tribes of the Powhatan Confederacy, or Tsenacommacah. They are Algonquian peoples whose historic territories were in eastern Virginia, and their Powhatan language is an Eastern Algonquian language. All of Virginia’s Native peoples practiced agriculture. Powhatans made offerings and prayed at sunrise. Although, they also prayed and made offerings to specific gods, who were believed to be in control of the harvest. They used the land differently, and their religion was a Native one. Significantly, one of the major duties of Powhatan priests was controlling the weather. Various tribes each held some individual powers locally, and each had a chief known as a weroance (male) or, more rarely, a weroansqua (female), meaning “commander. As early as the era of John Smith, the individual tribes of this grouping were recognized by English colonists as falling under the greater authority of the centralized power led by the chiefdom of Powhatan (c. 1545 – c. 1618), whose proper name was Wahunsenacawh or (in 17th century English spelling) Wahunsunacock.” ref

“In 1607, when the first permanent English colonial settlement in North America was founded at Jamestown, he ruled primarily from Werowocomoco, which was located on the northern shore of the York River. This site of Werowocomoco was rediscovered in the early 21st century; it was central to the tribes of the Confederacy. The improvements discovered at the site during archaeological research have confirmed that Powhatan had a paramount chiefdom over the other tribes in the power hierarchy. Anthropologist Robert L. Carneiro in his The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. The Transition to Statehood in the New World (1981), deeply explores the political structure of the chiefdom and confederacy. Powhatan (and his several successors) ruled what is called a complex chiefdom, referred to by scholars as the Powhatan Paramount Chiefdom. Research work continues at Werowocomoco and elsewhere that deepens understanding of the Powhatan world. Wahunsenacawh had inherited control over six tribes but dominated more than 30 by 1607 when the English settlers established their Virginia Colony at Jamestown. The original six tribes under Wahunsenacawh were: the Powhatan (proper), the Arrohateck, the Appamattuck, the Pamunkey, the Mattaponi, and the Chiskiack.” ref

“He added the Kecoughtan to his fold by 1598. Some other affiliated groups included the Rappahannock, Moraughtacund, Weyanoak, Paspahegh, Quiyoughcohannock, Warraskoyack, and Nansemond. Another closely related tribe of the same language group was the Chickahominy, but they managed to preserve their autonomy from the Powhatan Paramount Chiefdom. The Accawmacke, located on the Eastern Shore across the Chesapeake Bay, were nominally tributary to the Powhatan Chiefdom but enjoyed autonomy under their own Paramount Chief or “Emperor”, Debedeavon (aka “The Laughing King”). Half a million Native Americans were living in the Allegheny Mountains around the year 1600. 30,000 of those 500,000 lived in the Chesapeake region under Powhatan’s rule, by 1677 only five percent of his population remained. The huge jump in deaths was caused by exposure and contact with Europeans. In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1781–82), Thomas Jefferson estimated that the Powhatan Confederacy occupied about 8,000 square miles (20,000 km²) of territory, with a population of about 8,000 people, of whom 2400 were warriors. Later scholars estimated the total population of the paramountcy as 15,000.” ref 

“Powhatan (died April 1618, Virginia [U.S.]) was a North American Indian leader, father of Pocahontas. He presided over the Powhatan empire at the time the English established the Jamestown Colony (1607). Powhatan had inherited rulership of an empire of six tribes from his father. After succeeding his father, Powhatan brought about two dozen other tribes into the empire that was named for him; at the peak of his power, he is estimated to have ruled between 13,000 and 34,000 people. Powhatan was an astute and energetic ruler, but he was also noted as being strict and occasionally cruel toward his subjects. In the Algonquian language of his people, his title as emperor was mamanatowick, and his territory was known as Tsenacommacah. Each tribe within the Powhatan empire had its own chief, or weroance, and Powhatan ruled as the chief of these chiefs.” ref

“English colonists established a settlement, known as Jamestown, on an uninhabited peninsula within his territory in 1607. The Powhatan empire at the time of the colonists’ arrival essentially covered present-day eastern Virginia, extending from the Potomac River to the Great Dismal Swamp, and its capital was at the village of Werowocomoco. Powhatan initially acted ambivalently toward the English settlement, sometimes ordering or permitting attacks against the colonists while at other times trading tribal food for sought-after English goods such as metal tools. During the colony’s early years, he appears to have viewed the English as potential allies against his own enemies—namely, the Monacan, Mannahoac, and Massawomeck tribes to the north and west. In his trading and negotiation with the colony in those years, the English were generally represented by John Smith, with whom Powhatan played a cat-and-mouse game as each side assessed the other’s capabilities and intentions.” ref 

“Among the Algonquian-speaking Virginia Indians, succession to the status of chief, or weroance, was matrilineal, meaning that Wahunsonacock must have been the son of a sister of a Powhatan weroance, taking his place as chief on the death of his uncle. Despite his status, Wahunsonacock’s childhood likely was no different from other boys; until he was about five, he went to the gardens, marshes, and forests with his mother, probably practicing archery, with her encouragement, on any creature that moved there. As an adolescent, having proved himself a proficient hunter, he endured the huskanaw ritual initiating him into manhood, after which he returned to his family and joined the ranks of the tribe’s warriors and hunters. His status as an heir to the rank of chief probably made him a cockarouse, or member of his uncle’s council.” ref 

“Powhatan’s given name was Wahunsenacawh, also spelled Wahunsunacock. Little of his early life is known apart from what we can assume. We know that he came to power in the town of Powhatan, which was located near present-day Richmond. As a boy he would have aided his mother in tasks like farming and gathering useful plants. As a teenager, he would undergo a coming-of-age ritual called a huskanaw. Now considered an adult, he would have joined the other men in hunting, and might have also served as a member of the chief’s council due to his high rank. At an unknown age, he became the weroance, or chief, of Powhatan. In order to become a weroance in a matrilineal, or female-based system of inheritance, he could have been the son of the previous weroance’s sister. The new weroance of the Powhatan people would expand his political influence using several methods. One such method was force. Warfare was an expected and frequent reality of life in Powhatan’s time, and all men would have been trained as warriors.” ref

Proto-Oceanic Society was Matrilineal

“This article considers the distribution of matrilineality in the daughters of Proto Oceanic (POc) society and asserts that this distribution is most conveniently explained by Per Hage’s (1998) suggestion that POc society/Ancestral Lapita society may have been matrilineal. Proto Oceanic was the Austronesian interstage ancestral to all the Austronesian languages in Oceania with the exception of two—the Western Micronesian languages Palauan  (Palau  Island)  and Chamorro  (Mariana Islands).  POc speakers were the bearers of Early Western Lapita culture which appears in the archaeological record in the Bismarck Archipelago between 3400 and 3300 years ago.” ref

Matrilineality and the Melanesian Origin of Polynesian Y Chromosomes

“Linguists and archaeologists are in general agreement that the Austronesian languages originated in Southeast Asia on or near Taiwan around 3000 b.c. and that Austronesian-speakers dispersed through Island Southeast Asia, reaching Melanesia by 1450 b.c. and Western Polynesia by 950 BCE. This model is supported by genetic data showing a predominantly Asian origin of Polynesian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Recently, however, Kayser et al. (2000) have shown a Melanesian origin of Polynesian Y chromosomes favoring a Slow Boat to Polynesia model with substantial population interaction components in relation to indigenous non-Austronesian (Papuan) populations in Melanesia. Our hypothesis is that the predominance of maternally transmitted mtDNA of Asian origin and the significant presence of paternally transmitted Y chromosomes of Melanesian origin in Polynesian ancestry can be accounted for as an effect of matrilocal residence and matrilineal descent in ProtoOceanic society.” ref

“For present purposes matrilineal descent groups are lineages or clans in which membership is traced exclusively through female links to a founding ancestor. In matrilocal residence a married couple lives “with or near the female matrilineal kinsmen of the wife”. In a matrilineal chiefdom, as hypothesized for Proto-Oceanic, a man is succeeded by his sister’s son. In a patrilineal descent, group membership is traced exclusively through male links to a founding ancestor, and a man is succeeded by his son. In patrilocal residence a married couple lives “with or near the male patrilineal kinsmen of the husband.” In a cognatic descent group membership is traced through either male or female links. Double descent (not to be confused with cognatic descent) refers to the presence of both matrilineal and patrilineal descent groups in the same society.” ref

There are three lineages of Polynesian mtDNA. The predominant lineage, accounting for 90–95% of Polynesian mtDNA, is a haplotype possessing a 9-base-pair intergenic deletion shared with Asian populations. The greater diversity of this haplotype in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Taiwan implies an Asian origin and an eastward expansion of Austronesian-speakers into Polynesia. A second haplotype, accounting for 3.5% of Polynesian mtDNA, is also found in Melanesia, in Vanuatu and in coastal New Guinea. Kayser et al. (2000) have discovered three haplotypes (lineages) of Polynesian Y chromosomes. The dominant haplotype, DYS 390.3del/RPS4Y711T, accounts for 82% of Cook Island, 70% of Western Samoan, 26% of Coastal Papua New Guinean, and 9–12% of Indonesian Y chromosomes. This haplotype is not found in any other Southeast Asian or Asian population.” ref

“It originated in Melanesia an estimated 11,500 years ago, long before the intrusion of Austronesian-speakers into Melanesia about 3,500 years ago. A second haplotype, M122C/M9G, is infrequent in Polynesia, accounting for 7.1–10.7% of Polynesian Y chromosomes, but frequent in East and Southeast Asia. It probably originated in Asia on the order of 11,000 years ago. Kayser et al. conclude from the Y-chromosome data that the express-train model should be replaced by a slow-boat model in which the Austronesian-speaking (Oceanic) ancestors of the Polynesians moved slowly across Melanesia, “mixing extensively” with indigenous non-Austronesian-speaking (Papuan) populations, leaving behind their genes and “incorporating” many Melanesian non-Austronesian genes. This model is consistent with cultural and archaeological evidence of Austronesian–non-Austronesian interaction and with the linguistic “pause” in the spread of the Austronesian languages between the arrival of the Lapita archaeological culture in 1450 BCE and about 1100 BCE.” ref

“On general comparative grounds, some century or centuries of change would seem to be required to account for the common linguistic innovations that mark all Austronesian Oceanic languages (and no other [living] Austronesian languages) matrilocal residence and matrilineal descent in proto-oceanic society Kayser et al.’s model does not specify the type of “intermixing” between Austronesian- and non-Austronesian-speaking populations in Melanesia, but we suggest that it took place in the framework of matrilocal residence and matrilineal descent in Proto-Oceanic society. By “Proto-Oceanic” we mean the language at the end point of its common development in the Bismarcks before the various incremental and abrupt dispersals that led to more localized varieties of speech. By “Proto-Oceanic society” we mean, formally, what can be reconstructed, linguistically, about the social vocabulary of Proto-Oceanic-speakers and what we infer from that about their society.” ref

By “Lapita society” the archaeologists mean what was surely the same community and what can be inferred about it through archaeology, comparative ethnography, and comparative linguistics. Proto-Oceanic (Lapita) society was a sophisticated maritime and horticultural society of Austronesian origin that developed in the region of the Bismarck Archipelago in western Melanesia around 1500 BCE. The society was based on an extensive voyaging and exchange network. By 1100 to 1200 BCE daughter societies were expanding eastward, arriving in the Fiji-Tonga-Samoa area by 950 BCE. After a “long pause” in Western Polynesia of as much as 1,000 years, as evidenced by numerous innovations in ProtoPolynesian, colonization resumed, reaching all islands in Eastern Polynesia by 1000 BCE.” ref

Trobriander people

“Trobriander, any of the Melanesian people of the Kiriwina (Trobriand) Islands, lying off eastern New Guinea. Subsistence is based on yams and other vegetables, domesticated pigs, and fish. Storage houses for yams and the chief’s house stand in the middle of the village, surrounded by dwellings arranged in circles. Each hut is occupied by a single family. Trobrianders are divided into totemic clans, the members of which trace their descent matrilineally (i.e., from a common ancestor through the female line). The village is the major social unit; members make their gardens together under the guidance of a garden magician, perform ceremonies, and travel together on trading expeditions. Each village has a headman, and high-ranking headmen, or chiefs, may have authority over several villages.” ref

“Wealth is extremely important as a sign of power and the means of exercising it. The Trobrianders are noted for their elaborate intertribal trading system, the kula (q.v.), which was described in the anthropological classic Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) by Bronisław Malinowski. Red shell necklaces are traded between permanent trading partners in a clockwise direction around a ring of islands; white shell bracelets are traded counterclockwise. Large seagoing dugout canoes are constructed for the interisland trading expeditions.” ref

Daughter Preference and Contraceptive-use in Matrilineal Tribal Societies in Meghalaya, India

“Abstract: Although son preference in patrilineal society is an established fact, daughter preference in matrilineal society is not thoroughly examined. Very few studies have been carried out on the issue. This paper attempts to explore the daughter preference and contraceptive-use in matrilineal tribal societies in Meghalaya, India. Data from the National Family Health Survey 1998-1999 have been used in this study because, among the large-scale surveys, only this dataset allows identification of matrilineal sample. Mean, percentage, and standard deviation are computed in the present study. Further, the data have been cross-tabulated, and logistic regression has been run through SPSS (version 15). Among the ever-married matrilineal women, 17% desired more sons than daughters but 18.2% desired more daughters than sons. About 11% of ever-married women could achieve their desired sex composition of children. However, a very striking finding suggests that, even after achieving desired sex composition of children, as high as 61.8% of women were still not using contraception mainly because of programme factors while one-fourth were still depending on temporary methods. The rest 13.2% adopted terminal method of contraception, which calls for immediate attention of planners. With the increase in the number of sons but without daughter, contraceptive-use drastically decreased. The most desired sex composition of children seems to be two daughters and a son. Absence of daughter with increase in the total number of sons increased the desire for additional children. Every woman with two or more sons but without daughter wanted the next child to be a daughter. Thus, there are ample evidences to draw the conclusion that there is, in fact, a daughter preference in the matrilineal tribal societies in Meghalaya, India. Policy-makers may, thus, target the women who have achieved fertility and should ensure that daughter preference does not lead to the negligence to sons.” ref

My best Video talking about My thoughts on “Religion and Deity Evolution” with Questions and Answers

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Do you truly think “Religious Belief” is only a matter of some personal choice?

Do you not see how coercive one’s world of choice is limited to the obvious hereditary belief, in most religious choices available to the child of religious parents or caregivers? Religion is more commonly like a family, culture, society, etc. available belief that limits the belief choices of the child and that is when “Religious Belief” is not only a matter of some personal choice and when it becomes hereditary faith, not because of the quality of its alleged facts or proposed truths but because everyone else important to the child believes similarly so they do as well simply mimicking authority beliefs handed to them. Because children are raised in religion rather than being presented all possible choices but rather one limited dogmatic brand of “Religious Belief” where children only have a choice of following the belief as instructed, and then personally claim the faith hereditary belief seen in the confirming to the belief they have held themselves all their lives. This is obvious in statements asked and answered by children claiming a faith they barely understand but they do understand that their family believes “this or that” faith, so they feel obligated to believe it too. While I do agree that “Religious Belief” should only be a matter of some personal choice, it rarely is… End Hereditary Religion!

Opposition to Imposed Hereditary Religion

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which allows us to achieve new positive thinking and accurate outcomes.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

My thoughts on Religion Evolution with external links for more info:

• (Pre-Animism Africa mainly, but also Europe, and Asia at least 300,000 years ago), (Pre-Animism – Oxford Dictionaries)
• (Animism Africa around 100,000 years ago), (Animism – Britannica.com)
• (Totemism Europe around 50,000 years ago), (Totemism – Anthropology)
• (Shamanism Siberia around 30,000 years ago), (Shamanism – Britannica.com)
• (Paganism Turkey around 12,000 years ago), (Paganism – BBC Religion)
• (Progressed Organized Religion “Institutional Religion” Egypt around 5,000 years ago), (Ancient Egyptian Religion – Britannica.com)
• (CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS after 4,000 years ago) (Origin of Major Religions – Sacred Texts)
• (Early Atheistic Doubting at least by 2,600 years ago) (History of Atheism – Wikipedia)

“Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure, or a firefighter talks about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victims of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions.

“Understanding Religion Evolution: Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion”

Understanding Religion Evolution:

• Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago)
• Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago)
• Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago)
• Shamanism (Siberia: 30,000 years ago)
• Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago)
• Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago), (Egypt, the First Dynasty 5,150 years ago)
• CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago)
• Early Atheistic Doubting (at least by 2,600 years ago)

“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred. 

Quick Evolution of Religion?

Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago) pre-religion is a beginning that evolves into later Animism. So, Religion as we think of it, to me, all starts in a general way with Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (Siberia/Russia: 30,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago) (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago)  with CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago).

Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of “religion” as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.

Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.

I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values. Every amount spent on war is theft to children in need of food or the homeless kept from shelter.

Here are several of my blog posts on history:

• To Find Truth You Must First Look
• Archaeology Knowledge Challenge?
• Beware of Pseudo-History like the Claims of a Hammer in a 400 Million-Year-Old Rock
• The Evolution of Fire Sacralizing and/or Worship 1.5 million to 300,000 years ago and beyond?
• Proto Religion: Superstition around 1 million years ago, to Pre-Animism 300,000 years ago, & then Animism Religion 100,000 years ago
• Stone Age Art: 500,000 – 233,000 Years Old
• Around 500,000 – 233,000 years ago, Oldest Anthropomorphic art (Pre-animism) is Related to Female
• 400,000 Years Old Sociocultural Evolution
• Burial-pits, Cave-tombs, and/or Shallow-graves begin with Homo
• The Emergence of Pre-Religion 300,000 years ago, with Pre-Animism?
• Pre-Animism: Portable Rock Art at least 300,000-year-old
• Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
• Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.
• Homo Naledi and an Intentional Cemetery “Pre-Animism” dating to around 250,000 years ago?
• Neanderthals “Primal Religion (Pre-Animism/Animism?)” Mystery Cave Rings 175,000 Years Ago
• 130,000 years ago – Earliest evidence for burial and it’s Neanderthals…
• Did Neanderthals teach us “Primal Religion (Pre-Animism/Animism?)” 120,000 Years Ago?
• What about Neanderthals and Religion?
• Animism: an approximately 100,000-year-old belief system?
• Animism: a belief among some indigenous people, young children, or all religious people!
• The Origin of Language: Starts in Symbolism Around 100,000 years ago, to Early Proto-Writing 44,000-5,000 years ago with Unrealized Connections
• Rock crystal stone tools 75,000 Years Ago – (Spain) made by Neanderthals
• Prehistoric Child Burials Begin at Least Around 78,000 Years Ago
• Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago
• Similarities and differences in Animism and Totemism
• Did Neanderthals Help Inspire Totemism? Because there is Art Dating to Around 65,000 Years Ago in Spain?
• History of Drug Use with Religion or Sacred Rituals possibly 58,000 years ago?
• Totemism: an approximately 50,000-year-old belief system?
• Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
• Australia & Aboriginal Religion at least around 50,000 years old
• Modern Humans start around 50,000 years ago Helped by Feminisation
• Out of Africa: “the evolution of religion seems tied to the movement of people”
• Totemism and Shamanism Dispersal Theory Expressed around 50,000 to 30,000 years ago
• Back-migrations to Africa, Starting with Eurasia to North Africa around 45,000 years ago
• Possible Religion Motivations in the First Cave Art at around 43,000 years ago?
• 43,000-33,000 years old Aurignacian Figurine Marks, like at the Swabian Jura caves in Germany
• 41,000-20,000-year-old Upper Paleolithic Tally sticks
• 40,000 years old Aurignacian Lion Figurine Early Totemism?
• 40,000-35,000 years ago “first seeming use of a Totem” ancestor, animal, and possible pre-goddess worship?
• Prehistoric Egypt 40,000 years ago to The First Dynasty 5,150 years ago
• 38,000 Years Old Engraving of an Aurochs with Seeming Totemism Expression?
• Aurignacian Period female ‘Venus’ carvings start at 35,000 years ago, then Transfer on to Other Cultures?
• Sacred Bulls, the Moon, and Fertility begins at least around 35,000 years ago?
• Women were the focus of religion, from at least around 35,000 years ago, until 2,000 years ago?
• Stars: Ancestors, Spirit Animals, and Deities (around 6,000 years ago, with connections to shamanism at 30,000 years ago and possibly further back to 40,000 years ago with totemism)
• Sacred Bulls, the Moon, and Fertility begins at least around 35,000 years ago?
• 34,000 years ago Lunar Calendar Cave art around the Time Shift From Totemism to Early Shamanism
• 34,000 years old Russan “Sungir” Early Totemistic-Shamanism
• 31,000-25,000 years old Dolni Vestonice, Czech Republic Totemistic-Shamanism
• Shamanism: an approximately 30,000-year-old belief system
• Could the Phallus Phenomena (A Bull Horn) and the Shamanism Phenomena beginning around 30,000 years ago
• Lenticular Cloud Formations may connect to Ancient “House of Gods” Mythology
• “Sky Burial” and its possible origins at least 12,000 years ago to likely 30,000 years ago or older.
• The Peopling of the Americas Pre-Paleoindians/Paleoamericans around 30,000 to 12,000 years ago
• Hunter-Gatherer/Indigenous Peoples Religiosity, Beliefs, and Practices
• Starting 30,000 Years Ago is the Sitting Venus Phenomena
• Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
• Trinity Evolution Started over 30,000 years ago, Maybe?
• Paleolithic Totem Venuses become the later Goddesses of the Neolithic and beyond?
• The “Inner Asian Mountain Corridor” as well as the “Eurasian Steppe Corridor” and Repetitious Migrations
• Who were the Groups migrating and merging with the previous Groups of Europe?
• 27,000 to 25,000 Years ago Oldest Shaman was Female, Buried with the Oldest Portrait Carving
• Could a Gravettian carving around 25,000 years old relate to Later Goddess and the Bull cults like Catal Huyuk
• Gravettian burial of Caviglione Woman, (shaman?) dated to around 24,000 years ago
• The Gravettian culture (Europe) shared ritual ideas and The Ancient North Eurasian culture (Asia) 24,000 years ago
• 24,000 Years Old Sacred Burial of a Siberian Mal’ta Boy
• Mal’ta–Buret’ culture of Siberia and Basal Haplogroup R* or R-M207
• Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians
• Leda and the Swan: possibly relates back to 24,000–15,000 years old Mal’ta–Buret’ culture, Lake Baikal, Siberia?
• Similarities in Shamanism?
• Black, White, and Yellow Shamanism?
• Shamanistic rock art from central Aboriginal Siberians and Aboriginal drums in the Americas
• Horned female shamans and Pre-satanism Devil/horned-god Worship?
• Epipalaeolithic Near East 20,000 to 9,000 years ago and the Emergence of Advanced Culture as well as New Religion?
• Sifting through the relation of Bird spirits/deities of the sky (20,000 to 5,000 years ago)
• (Magdalenian/Iberomaurusian) Connections to the First Paganists of the early Neolithic Near East Dating from around 17,000 to 12,000 Years Ago
• 16,000 to 12,000 years ago Magdalenian Sacred Ritual and Symbols
• Are the Natufians of Israel around 15,000 to 11,500 years ago who you thought they were?
• Natufians: an Ancient People at the Origins of Agriculture and Sedentary Life
• Possible Clan Leader/Special “MALE” Ancestor Totem Poles At Least 13,500 years ago?
• Jewish People with DNA at least 13,200 years old, Judaism, and the Origins of Some of its Ideas
• Genetic studies on Jewish DNA is not 6,000 years old but has origin links to about 20,000 to 30,000 years ago?
• Baltic Reindeer Hunters: Swiderian, Lyngby, Ahrensburgian, and Krasnosillya cultures 12,020 to 11,020 years ago are evidence of powerful migratory waves during the last 13,000 years and a genetic link to Saami and the Finno-Ugric peoples.
• My Reasoned Speculations on the Early Migrations of Paganism 13,000 to 3,000 years ago, Cultural Transfer
• 13,000-12,000 years ago Culture Leading to New Oppression changed everything and it was not always this way.
• The Rise of Inequality: patriarchy and state hierarchy inequality
• Fertile Crescent 12,500 – 9,500 Years Ago: fertility and death cult belief system?
• 12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey) Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism
• Paganism: spread of Haplogroup J and its Seeming connection of Bull Worship
• Pre-Pottery Neolithic (10000 – 6500 BCE) and Pottery Neolithic (7000–5000 BCE)
• 12,000-year-old Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made pagan temple”
• Gobekli Tepe is more like Shamanistic early Paganism, Not Adam, Eve, and Cain or Bible anything!
• Ritualistic Bird Symbolism at Gobekli Tepe and its “Ancestor Cult”
• Male-Homosexual (female-like) / Trans-woman (female) Seated Figurine from Gobekli Tepe
• Could a 12,000-year-old Bull Geoglyph at Göbekli Tepe relate to older Bull and Female Art 25,000 years ago and Later Goddess and the Bull cults like Catal Huyuk?
• Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses around 12,000 years ago as well as male gods after 7,000 years ago.
• Alcohol, where Agriculture and Religion Become one? Such as Gobekli Tepe’s Ritualistic use of Grain as Food and Ritual Drink
• Epigravettians Join the Religious Partying at Gobekli Tepe?
• Neolithic Ritual Sites with T-Pillars and other Cultic Pillars
• Paganism: Goddesses around 12,000 years ago then Male Gods after 7,000 years ago
• First Patriarchy: Split of Women’s Status around 12,000 years ago & First Hierarchy: fall of Women’s Status around 5,000 years ago.
• Natufians: an Ancient People at the Origins of Agriculture and Sedentary Life
• J DNA and the Spread of Agricultural Religion (paganism)
• Paganism: an approximately 12,000-year-old belief system
• Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism)
• Shaman burial in Israel 12,000 years ago and the Shamanism Phenomena
• Need to Mythicized: gods and goddesses
• 12,000 – 7,000 Years Ago – Paleo-Indian Culture (The Americas)
• Ancient Egypt: Epipaleolithic, Neolithic, and Predynastic from 12,000 to 5,000 years ago
• 12,000 – 2,000 Years Ago – Indigenous-Scandinavians (Nordic)
• Norse did not wear helmets with horns?
• Pre-Pottery Neolithic Skull Cult around 11,500 to 8,400 Years Ago?
• Masked Head Hunters of “Karahan Tepe” 11,400-year-old monumental site from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A to B
• 10,400 – 10,100 Years Ago, in Turkey the Nevail Cori Religious Settlement
• Evolution of human skin color, white-skin is really under 10,000 years old?
• Indo-European language Trees fit an Agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8,000 – 9,500 years ago
• 9,000-6,500 Years Old Submerged Pre-Pottery/Pottery Neolithic Ritual Settlements off Israel’s Coast
• Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city” around 9,500 to 7,700 years ago (Turkey)
• Goddesses/Demigoddesses/Grandmother-Mother Ancestor Spirits from Catal Huyuk?
• Cultic Hunting at Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city”
• Special Items and Art as well as Special Elite Burials at Catal Huyuk
• New Rituals and Violence with the appearance of Pottery and People?
• Haplogroup N and its related Uralic Languages and Cultures
• Ainu people, Sámi people, Native Americans, the Ancient North Eurasians, and Paganistic-Shamanism with Totemism
• Ideas, Technology and People from Turkey, Europe, to China and Back again 9,000 to 5,000 years ago?
• First Pottery of Europe and the Related Cultures
• 9,000 years old Neolithic Artifacts Judean Desert and Hills Israel
• 9,000-7,000 years-old Sex and Death Rituals: Cult Sites in Israel, Jordan, and the Sinai
• 9,000-8500 year old Horned Female shaman Bad Dürrenberg Germany
• Neolithic Jewelry and the Spread of Farming in Europe Emerging out of West Turkey
• 8,600-year-old Tortoise Shells in Neolithic graves in central China have Early Writing and Shamanism
• Swing of the Mace: the rise of Elite, Forced Authority, and Inequality begin to Emerge 8,500 years ago?
• Migrations and Changing Europeans Beginning around 8,000 Years Ago
• My “Steppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesis” 8,000/7,000 years ago
• Around 8,000-year-old Shared Idea of the Mistress of Animals, “Ritual” Motif
• Pre-Columbian Red-Paint (red ochre) Maritime Archaic Culture 8,000-3,000 years ago
• 7,522-6,522 years ago Linear Pottery culture which I think relates to Arcane Capitalism’s origins
• Arcane Capitalism: Primitive socialism, Primitive capital, Private ownership, Means of production, Market capitalism, Class discrimination, and Petite bourgeoisie (smaller capitalists)
• 7,500-4,750 years old Ritualistic Cucuteni-Trypillian culture of Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine
• Roots of a changing early society 7,200-6,700 years ago Jordan and Israel
• Agriculture religion (Paganism) with farming reached Britain between about 7,000 to 6,500 or so years ago and seemingly expressed in things like Western Europe’s Long Barrows
• My Thoughts on Possible Migrations of “R” DNA and Proto-Indo-European?
• “Millet” Spreading from China 7,022 years ago to Europe and related Language may have Spread with it leading to Proto-Indo-European
• Proto-Indo-European (PIE), ancestor of Indo-European languages: DNA, Society, Language, and Mythology
  
• The Dnieper–Donets culture and Asian varieties of Millet from China to the Black Sea region of Europe by 7,022 years ago
• Kurgan 6,000 years ago/dolmens 7,000 years ago: funeral, ritual, and other?
• 7,020 to 6,020-year-old Proto-Indo-European Homeland of Urheimat or proposed home of their Language and Religion
• Ancient Megaliths: Kurgan, Ziggurat, Pyramid, Menhir, Trilithon, Dolman, Kromlech, and Kromlech of Trilithons
• The Mytheme of Ancient North Eurasian Sacred-Dog belief and similar motifs are found in Indo-European, Native American, and Siberian comparative mythology
• Elite Power Accumulation: Ancient Trade, Tokens, Writing, Wealth, Merchants, and Priest-Kings
• Sacred Mounds, Mountains, Kurgans, and Pyramids may hold deep connections?
• Between 7,000-5,000 Years ago, rise of unequal hierarchy elite, leading to a “birth of the State” or worship of power, strong new sexism, oppression of non-elites, and the fall of Women’s equal status
• Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite & their slaves
• Hell and Underworld mythologies starting maybe as far back as 7,000 to 5,000 years ago with the Proto-Indo-Europeans?
• The First Expression of the Male God around 7,000 years ago?
• White (light complexion skin) Bigotry and Sexism started 7,000 years ago?
• Around 7,000-year-old Shared Idea of the Divine Bird (Tutelary and/or Trickster spirit/deity), “Ritual” Motif
• Nekhbet an Ancient Egyptian Vulture Goddess and Tutelary Deity
• 6,720 to 4,920 years old Ritualistic Hongshan Culture of Inner Mongolia with 5,000-year-old Pyramid Mounds and Temples
• First proto-king in the Balkans, Varna culture around 6,500 years ago?
• 6,500–5,800 years ago in Israel Late Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Period in the Southern Levant Seems to Express Northern Levant Migrations, Cultural and Religious Transfer
• KING OF BEASTS: Master of Animals “Ritual” Motif, around 6,000 years old or older…
• Around 6000-year-old Shared Idea of the Solid Wheel & the Spoked Wheel-Shaped Ritual Motif
• “The Ghassulian Star,” a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan; a Proto-Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna or Star of Venus?
• Religious/Ritual Ideas, including goddesses and gods as well as ritual mounds or pyramids from Northeastern Asia at least 6,000 years old, seemingly filtering to Iran, Iraq, the Mediterranean, Europe, Egypt, and the Americas?
• Maykop (5,720–5,020 years ago) Caucasus region Bronze Age culture-related to Copper Age farmers from the south, influenced by the Ubaid period and Leyla-Tepe culture, as well as influencing the Kura-Araxes culture
• 5-600-year-old Tomb, Mummy, and First Bearded Male Figurine in a Grave
• Kura-Araxes Cultural 5,520 to 4,470 years old DNA traces to the Canaanites, Arabs, and Jews
• Minoan/Cretan (Keftiu) Civilization and Religion around 5,520 to 3,120 years ago
• Evolution Of Science at least by 5,500 years ago
• 5,500 Years old birth of the State, the rise of Hierarchy, and the fall of Women’s status
• “Jiroft culture” 5,100 – 4,200 years ago and the History of Iran
• Stonehenge: Paganistic Burial and Astrological Ritual Complex, England (5,100-3,600 years ago)
• Around 5,000-year-old Shared Idea of the “Tree of Life” Ritual Motif
• Complex rituals for elite, seen from China to Egypt, at least by 5,000 years ago
• Around 5,000 years ago: “Birth of the State” where Religion gets Military Power and Influence
• The Center of the World “Axis Mundi” and/or “Sacred Mountains” Mythology Could Relate to the Altai Mountains, Heart of the Steppe
• Progressed organized religion starts, an approximately 5,000-year-old belief system
• China’s Civilization between 5,000-3,000 years ago, was a time of war and class struggle, violent transition from free clans to a Slave or Elite society
• Origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation at least by around 5,000 years ago.
• Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)
• Ziggurats (multi-platform temples: 4,900 years old) to Pyramids (multi-platform tombs: 4,700 years old)
• Did a 4,520–4,420-year-old Volcano In Turkey Inspire the Bible God?
• Finland’s Horned Shaman and Pre-Horned-God at least 4,500 years ago?
• 4,000-year-Old Dolmens in Israel: A Connected Dolmen Religious Phenomenon?
• Creation myths: From chaos, Ex nihilo, Earth-diver, Emergence, World egg, and World parent
• Bronze Age “Ritual” connections of the Bell Beaker culture with the Corded Ware/Single Grave culture, which were related to the Yamnaya culture and Proto-Indo-European Languages/Religions
• Low Gods (Earth/ Tutelary deity), High Gods (Sky/Supreme deity), and Moralistic Gods (Deity enforcement/divine order)
• The exchange of people, ideas, and material-culture including, to me, the new god (Sky Father) and goddess (Earth Mother) religion between the Cucuteni-Trypillians and others which is then spread far and wide
• Koryaks: Indigenous People of the Russian Far East and Big Raven myths also found in Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and other Indigenous People of North America
• 42 Principles Of Maat (Egyptian Goddess of the justice) around 4,400 years ago, 2000 Years Before Ten Commandments
• “Happy Easter” Well Happy Eostre/Ishter
• 4,320-3,820 years old “Shimao” (North China) site with Totemistic-Shamanistic Paganism and a Stepped Pyramid
• 4,250 to 3,400 Year old Stonehenge from Russia: Arkaim?
• 4,100-year-old beaker with medicinal & flowering plants in a grave of a woman in Scotland
• Early European Farmer ancestry, Kelif el Boroud people with the Cardial Ware culture, and the Bell Beaker culture Paganists too, spread into North Africa, then to the Canary Islands off West Africa
• Flood Accounts: Gilgamesh epic (4,100 years ago) Noah in Genesis (2,600 years ago)
• Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)
• When was the beginning: TIMELINE OF CURRENT RELIGIONS, which start around 4,000 years ago.
• Early Religions Thought to Express Proto-Monotheistic Systems around 4,000 years ago
• Kultepe? An archaeological site with a 4,000 years old women’s rights document.
• Single God Religions (Monotheism) = “Man-o-theism” started around 4,000 years ago with the Great Sky Spirit/God Tiān (天)?
• Confucianism’s Tiān (Shangdi god 4,000 years old): Supernaturalism, Pantheism or Theism?
• Yes, Your Male God is Ridiculous
• Mythology, a Lunar Deity is a Goddess or God of the Moon
• Sacred Land, Hills, and Mountains: Sami Mythology (Paganistic Shamanism)
• Horse Worship/Sacrifice: mythical union of Ruling Elite/Kingship and the Horse
• The Amorite/Amurru people’s God Amurru “Lord of the Steppe”, relates to the Origins of the Bible God?
• Bronze Age Exotic Trade Routes Spread Quite Far as well as Spread Religious Ideas with Them
• Sami and the Northern Indigenous Peoples Landscape, Language, and its Connection to Religion
• Prototype of Ancient Analemmatic Sundials around 3,900-3,150 years ago and a Possible Solar Connection to gods?
• Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)
• The Weakening of Ancient Trade and the Strengthening of Religions around 3000 years ago?
• Are you aware that there are religions that worship women gods, explain now religion tears women down?
• Animistic, Totemistic, and Paganistic Superstition Origins of bible god and the bible’s Religion.
• Myths and Folklore: “Trickster gods and goddesses”
• Jews, Judaism, and the Origins of Some of its Ideas
• An Old Branch of Religion Still Giving Fruit: Sacred Trees
• Dating the BIBLE: naming names and telling times (written less than 3,000 years ago, provable to 2,200 years ago)
• Did a Volcano Inspire the bible god?
• Yamnaya culture or at least Proto-Indo-European Languages/Religions may actually relate back to North Asia?
• Dené–Yeniseian language, Old Copper Complex, and Pre-Columbian Mound Builders?
• No “dinosaurs and humans didn’t exist together just because some think they are in the bible itself”
• Sacred Shit and Sacred Animals?
• Everyone Killed in the Bible Flood? “Nephilim” (giants)?
• Hey, Damien dude, I have a question for you regarding “the bible” Exodus.
• Archaeology Disproves the Bible
• Bible Battle, Just More, Bible Babble
• The Jericho Conquest lie?
• Canaanites and Israelites?
• Accurate Account on how did Christianity Began?
• Let’s talk about Christianity.
• So the 10 commandments isn’t anything to go by either right?
• Misinformed christian
• Debunking Jesus?
• Paulism vs Jesus
• Ok, you seem confused so let’s talk about Buddhism.
• Unacknowledged Buddhism: Gods, Savior, Demons, Rebirth, Heavens, Hells, and Terrorism
• His Foolishness The Dalai Lama
• Yin and Yang is sexist with an ORIGIN around 2,300 years ago?
• I Believe Archaeology, not Myths & Why Not, as the Religious Myths Already Violate Reason!
• Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
• Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis? As Always, Just Pseudoscience.
• Ancient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are Pseudohistorians
• The Pseudohistoric and Pseudoscientific claims about “Bakoni Ruins” of South Africa
• Why do people think Religion is much more than supernaturalism and superstitionism?
• Religion is an Evolved Product
• Was the Value of Ancient Women Different?
• 1000 to 1100 CE, human sacrifice Cahokia Mounds a pre-Columbian Native American site
• Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?
• Promoting Religion as Real is Mentally Harmful to a Flourishing Humanity
• Screw All Religions and Their Toxic lies, they are all fraud
• Forget Religions’ Unfounded Myths, I Have Substantiated “Archaeology Facts.”
• Religion Dispersal throughout the World
• I Hate Religion Just as I Hate all Pseudoscience
• Exposing Scientology, Eckankar, Wicca and Other Nonsense?
• Main deity or religious belief systems
• Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science.
• Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
• Ancient Alien Conspiracy Theorists: Misunderstanding, Rhetoric, Misinformation, Fabrications, and Lies
• Misinformation, Distortion, and Pseudoscience in Talking with a Christian Creationist
• Judging the Lack of Goodness in Gods, Even the Norse God Odin
• Challenging the Belief in God-like Aliens and Gods in General
• A Challenge to Christian use of Torture Devices?
• Yes, Hinduism is a Religion
• Trump is One of the Most Reactionary Forces of Far-right Christian Extremism
• Was the Bull Head a Symbol of God? Yes!
• Primate Death Rituals
• Christian – “God and Christianity are objectively true”
• Australopithecus afarensis Death Ritual?
• You Claim Global Warming is a Hoax?
• Doubter of Science and Defamer of Atheists?
• I think that sounds like the Bible?
• History of the Antifa (“anti-fascist”) Movements
• Indianapolis Anti-Blasphemy Laws #Free Soheil Rally
• Damien, you repeat the golden rule in so many forms then you say religion is dogmatic?
• Science is a Trustable Methodology whereas Faith is not Trustable at all!
• Was I ever a believer, before I was an atheist?
• Atheists rise in reason
• Mistrust of science?
• Open to Talking About the Definition of ‘God’? But first, we address Faith.
• ‘United Monarchy’ full of splendor and power – Saul, David, and Solomon? Most likely not.
• Is there EXODUS ARCHAEOLOGY? The short answer is “no.”
• Lacking Proof of Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods is Just a Lack of Research?
• Religion and Politics: Faith Beliefs vs. Rational Thinking
• Hammer of Truth that lying pig RELIGION: challenged by an archaeologist
• “The Hammer of Truth” -ontology question- What do You Mean by That?
• Navigation of a bad argument: Ad Hominem vs. Attack
• Why is it Often Claimed that Gods have a Gender?
• Why are basically all monotheistic religions ones that have a male god?
• Shifting through the Claims in support of Faith
• Dear Mr. AtHope, The 20th Century is an Indictment of Secularism and a Failed Atheist Century
• An Understanding of the Worldwide Statistics and Dynamics of Terrorist Incidents and Suicide Attacks
• Intoxication and Evolution? Addressing and Assessing the “Stoned Ape” or “Drunken Monkey” Theories as Catalysts in Human Evolution
• Sacred Menstrual cloth? Inanna’s knot, Isis knot, and maybe Ma’at’s feather?
• Damien, why don’t the Hebrews accept the bible stories?
• Dealing with a Troll and Arguing Over Word Meaning
• Knowledge without Belief? Justified beliefs or disbeliefs worthy of Knowledge?
• Afrocentrism and African Religions
• Crecganford @crecganford offers history & stories of the people, places, gods, & culture
• Empiricism-Denier?

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

To me, Animism starts in Southern Africa, then to West Europe, and becomes Totemism. Another split goes near the Russia and Siberia border becoming Shamanism, which heads into Central Europe meeting up with Totemism, which also had moved there, mixing the two which then heads to Lake Baikal in Siberia. From there this Shamanism-Totemism heads to Turkey where it becomes Paganism.

My thoughts on the Evolution of Religion: from Animism to Paganism

Philosophy to the Rescue: explaining Reason, Logic, Evidence, Truth, Certainty, Reality, and Science

Talking about “Religion and Deity Evolution” on Twitter (X) Questions and Answers

You can’t change people, by reason and evidence. WRONG, I do it all the time.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Not all “Religions” or “Religious Persuasions” have a god(s) but

All can be said to believe in some imaginary beings or imaginary things like spirits, afterlives, etc.

Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, and Paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref