Why are adult daughters missing from ancient German cemeteries?(sciencemag.org)
sciencemag.org
Why are adult daughters missing from ancient German cemeteries?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/why-are-adult-daughters-missing-ancient-german-cemeteries
55 comments
That statement also surprised me. In Germanic inheritance customs the sons took precedence before daughters and it is obvious that this leads to the sons taking over the farm and land and to take care of daughters they had to be married off (instead of inheritance they got a dowry from their father).
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrilocal_residence
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrilocal_residence
I wonder how Sweden (also Germanic) turned out so differently. (AFAIK, with the old Viking/premedieval laws giving women inheritance rights etc.)
Pagan Viking society entailed many sons going on trading and raiding expeditions, sometimes never to return. It was not uncommon for both father and son to leave on the same trip, and young men were often recruited or enslaved by passing ships. Given such an unpredictable environment, the best way to ensure stability and the continuation of the family estate was to grant inheritance rights to the women who stayed home.
For those interested in a classic adventure novel set in that era, I recommend "The Long Ships" by Frans Bengtsson. The latest edition's foreword is written by Michael Chabon.
For those interested in a classic adventure novel set in that era, I recommend "The Long Ships" by Frans Bengtsson. The latest edition's foreword is written by Michael Chabon.
From the linked wikipedia article:
"female contribution to subsistence does correlate significantly with matrilocal (as opposed to patrilocal) residence in general; however, this correlation is masked by a general polygyny factor"
If you account for polygyny, the more women are involved in creating food the less likely they are to leave. A simple way to look at it is that parents invest time to teach one gender to support them at old age. If you invest time and energy to teach your sons the local methods to create food then you want them to stick around. If you invested same amount of time to teach local knowledge on both and one left then not only have you wasted half the time and effort but that local knowledge might not even be useful for the party that left.
polygyny add an other layer on it as an increase in the female contribution to subsistence also increase the the probability for polygyny which in turn increase the probability for patrilocality. A bit of cynicism would explain this by saying that if women account for the majority of creating food then fewer men is needed, resulting in polygyny, which create an power imbalance as those men will be a blood relative to a significant larger number of children compared to any woman.
To apply this then to vikings, if the men left to pillage then it must have been the women that worked the land and raised animals, which mean the they likely invested the time to teach their daughters to do the same and relied on them for support at old age.
"female contribution to subsistence does correlate significantly with matrilocal (as opposed to patrilocal) residence in general; however, this correlation is masked by a general polygyny factor"
If you account for polygyny, the more women are involved in creating food the less likely they are to leave. A simple way to look at it is that parents invest time to teach one gender to support them at old age. If you invest time and energy to teach your sons the local methods to create food then you want them to stick around. If you invested same amount of time to teach local knowledge on both and one left then not only have you wasted half the time and effort but that local knowledge might not even be useful for the party that left.
polygyny add an other layer on it as an increase in the female contribution to subsistence also increase the the probability for polygyny which in turn increase the probability for patrilocality. A bit of cynicism would explain this by saying that if women account for the majority of creating food then fewer men is needed, resulting in polygyny, which create an power imbalance as those men will be a blood relative to a significant larger number of children compared to any woman.
To apply this then to vikings, if the men left to pillage then it must have been the women that worked the land and raised animals, which mean the they likely invested the time to teach their daughters to do the same and relied on them for support at old age.
From studying this some : matrilineal property rights and ties before conversion era. (to give a vast oversimplification)
Given that there are generally more women than men in a population, and that I don't see a reason why that trend would be lessened or reversed the farther back in history we go (I imagine it actually gets more pronounced), what happens to the women that can't be married off because there aren't enough males in a culture that doesn't support polygamy but is like you describe? I imagine some small amount would become concubines/courtesans, but could that actually account for all of the discrepancy?
The gender ratio worldwide is currently somewhere around 101 female to 100 male (this is a bit hard to quantify, because in this group you’d also have ~3.4 intersex births). However, it is estimated that in the 17th century, somewhere around 1-1.5% of women giving birth died. So I would not take it for granted that the gender ratio was the same hundreds of years ago.
You can basically assume the overall population gender ratio was 1:1, the birth ratio might have been different but that is expected.
It's a self correcting phenomenon where the ratio self selects towards 1:1.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
It's a self correcting phenomenon where the ratio self selects towards 1:1.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
The birth ratio tends towards near 1:1 though it is not 1:1, the population gender ratio can be heavily skewed by different death rates, as can reproductive patterns.
i.e. did you know that genetic analyses have revealed that ancestrally, only 40% of men managed to reproduce, while 80% of women did? Maybe more relevant to what we're actually discussing.
i.e. did you know that genetic analyses have revealed that ancestrally, only 40% of men managed to reproduce, while 80% of women did? Maybe more relevant to what we're actually discussing.
That is a long term phenomena - long enough that evolution by natural selection can operate. Nothing to do with less than a thousand years/a few dozen generations.
Evolution and natural selection do work on those timescales. Take a look at rapid evolution for examples.
I'm not sure how fast exactly human birth ratios swing but I would hazard a guess a few dozen generations would be enough to self select at least partially back towards the norm. How long did it take the worlds population to recover after WW1/2?
I'm happy to see evidence contrary but please don't just dismiss things as if evolution is working on geological timescales it's just not.
I'm not sure how fast exactly human birth ratios swing but I would hazard a guess a few dozen generations would be enough to self select at least partially back towards the norm. How long did it take the worlds population to recover after WW1/2?
I'm happy to see evidence contrary but please don't just dismiss things as if evolution is working on geological timescales it's just not.
But then you have to take into account more men dying in war and whatnot.
Yep. In the old days women died in child birth, men died at war. And everyone that died was born. What comes out, by nature is nearly 50/50 - and what dies is the same ratio as born...by whatever means nature determine
[deleted]
105 men are born to every 100 women. The men die more quickly. In pre-industrial societies men out number women till age 45, then women outnumber men. The ratio is 2 to 1 at age 80, 5 to 1 at age 100.
Right now, Sweden is the nation with the oldest crossover. Men outnumber women till age 60, which is amazing.
Right now, Sweden is the nation with the oldest crossover. Men outnumber women till age 60, which is amazing.
> Given that there are generally more women than men in a population ... what happens to the women that can't be married off ... concubines
This discussion has left the realm of biology or genetics, and has turned directly to culture and society. Society has long conquered genetics and biology.
This discussion has left the realm of biology or genetics, and has turned directly to culture and society. Society has long conquered genetics and biology.
Some women don't want to marry men.
Do you have any sources for that? I have seen zero evidence of that in my travels through China nor online other then some references about Neolithic times (not exactly recent) and the Oroqen people (who believe that marrying within their own tribe is akin to incest).
I was mostly led to believe that up to the cultural revolution people mostly stayed and married in their own village.
Not from any book in particular, mostly from hearing stories from older Chinese (60-80+ year-olds, mostly diaspora in Malaysia, Singapore, and U.S., though also one or two younger mainlanders[1]), and reading various articles on the internet, plus Wikipedia to help piece things together. I did take one or two Chinese culture classes in college, but that was long ago and it would be hard to untangle what I learned then from what I've learned since then.
Here's an example I just Googled which I don't remember ever reading before but echos what I said almost exactly:
> Like other Chinese, Hakka practice surname exogamy. Marriage traditionally was arranged, often village exogamous, and also patrilocal. Hakka marriage ceremonies suggest the transfer of women from one family to another and the incorporation of women into their husband's household and lineage rather than the establishment of bonds between two families. Wives are included in ancestral worship of their husband's lineage. Many Hakka claim that polygynous marriages were rare among the Hakka, yet until recently polygynous marriages were found among poor Hakka villagers in the New Territories of Hong Kong.
-- https://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Hakka-Marr...
Hardly a reputable source (seems like it was pulled from an older Wikipedia article), but such agreement would seem like an unlikely coincidence. A bibliography is provided at https://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Hakka.html
[1] Some aspects of traditional Chinese culture are better preserved outside China, as the Cultural Revolution literally and figuratively killed off parts of the cultural memory. Nonetheless, the reverse is also true; some aspects of the culture are preserved in the mainland but not in the diaspora. Perhaps only the historians really have the full story, even for relatively modern (e.g. early 20th century) practices.
Here's an example I just Googled which I don't remember ever reading before but echos what I said almost exactly:
> Like other Chinese, Hakka practice surname exogamy. Marriage traditionally was arranged, often village exogamous, and also patrilocal. Hakka marriage ceremonies suggest the transfer of women from one family to another and the incorporation of women into their husband's household and lineage rather than the establishment of bonds between two families. Wives are included in ancestral worship of their husband's lineage. Many Hakka claim that polygynous marriages were rare among the Hakka, yet until recently polygynous marriages were found among poor Hakka villagers in the New Territories of Hong Kong.
-- https://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Hakka-Marr...
Hardly a reputable source (seems like it was pulled from an older Wikipedia article), but such agreement would seem like an unlikely coincidence. A bibliography is provided at https://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Hakka.html
[1] Some aspects of traditional Chinese culture are better preserved outside China, as the Cultural Revolution literally and figuratively killed off parts of the cultural memory. Nonetheless, the reverse is also true; some aspects of the culture are preserved in the mainland but not in the diaspora. Perhaps only the historians really have the full story, even for relatively modern (e.g. early 20th century) practices.
>I have seen zero evidence of that in my travels through China
The parent comment said: "The Chinese, for example, practiced until recently strict exogamous marriage [...]". This explains your experience.
>Do you have any sources for that?
Try searching "Chinese exogamy" in Google Scholar. Surname (i.e. "clan") exogamy is fairly well-known and still practiced. Here's a passage from Rubie S Watson's afterword to the 1991 book on Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society that she co-edited:
>In China, most unions have involved the transfer of the bride to her husband's household, which, at least initially, has often been headed by her husband's father or a senior agnate. Although not all newly married couples have lived patrilocally, residence with the husband's family has remained both numerically and symbolically significant. This has been especially the case in rural areas where more than 80 percent of the population live and where village exogamy has remained the usual practice.
If you're reacting to the statement that "[w]omen were forbidden to have contact with their biological family after marriage", this was not necessarily a strict prohibition. Because exogamy typically involves moving to a faraway village, it was usually a hassle for the bride to travel back to their biological family, and so if she actually did it, it could be interpreted as a breakdown in the marriage.
Until recently, the practice of adopting a pre-adolescent girl to be the future bride of a pre-adolescent son (tongyangxi) was also a common form of arranged marriage in China.[1] The practice can also go in the other direction, and is known as zhaozhui, or "son-in-law adoption".
[0] https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6p30...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongyangxi
The parent comment said: "The Chinese, for example, practiced until recently strict exogamous marriage [...]". This explains your experience.
>Do you have any sources for that?
Try searching "Chinese exogamy" in Google Scholar. Surname (i.e. "clan") exogamy is fairly well-known and still practiced. Here's a passage from Rubie S Watson's afterword to the 1991 book on Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society that she co-edited:
>In China, most unions have involved the transfer of the bride to her husband's household, which, at least initially, has often been headed by her husband's father or a senior agnate. Although not all newly married couples have lived patrilocally, residence with the husband's family has remained both numerically and symbolically significant. This has been especially the case in rural areas where more than 80 percent of the population live and where village exogamy has remained the usual practice.
If you're reacting to the statement that "[w]omen were forbidden to have contact with their biological family after marriage", this was not necessarily a strict prohibition. Because exogamy typically involves moving to a faraway village, it was usually a hassle for the bride to travel back to their biological family, and so if she actually did it, it could be interpreted as a breakdown in the marriage.
Until recently, the practice of adopting a pre-adolescent girl to be the future bride of a pre-adolescent son (tongyangxi) was also a common form of arranged marriage in China.[1] The practice can also go in the other direction, and is known as zhaozhui, or "son-in-law adoption".
[0] https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6p30...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongyangxi
To be honest, they're pretty universal. Not sure if this comment is appropriate. Please ask me to delete it if it is.
TLDR: They were all sent away to other communities to marry. Sons stayed in the community, but daughters once they reached adulthood left the community for other communities.
Not all. The poor stayed behind as servants or slaves.
Which would be majority of population.
You're doing god's work
Sent away sounds quite harsh. Ran off with that dashing young noble who was passing through would be just as fine as an explanation.
"Strontium levels from three men, in contrast, showed that although they had left the valley as teens, they returned as adults."
"Strontium levels from three men, in contrast, showed that although they had left the valley as teens, they returned as adults."
Considering the social patterns I'm not sure it is very likely that a significant number "ran off" as part of their culture.
We know absolutely nothing about their social patterns outside of burial habits and bone structure, and now genetic relatedness. “Ran off“ is a bit of an exaggeration of course, because it implies resistance, but "sent away" is just as much a conclusion too far. Perhaps they were all taken by force by roaming young men, perhaps they were rejecting an entire parade of princely bachelors before eventually accepting "the one", perhaps they were expelled into the woods, we just don't know.
What the evidence does tell us is that land was inherited along the male line and that women did not marry down to the local lower class (necessitating a move when the upper class consists entirely of your close male relatives and their wives).
What the evidence does tell us is that land was inherited along the male line and that women did not marry down to the local lower class (necessitating a move when the upper class consists entirely of your close male relatives and their wives).
I got the impression that the study ranged quite a large amount of time, it seems unlikely events such as "taken by roaming young men" would be as constant as the article implies their findings are.
Rather a social construct would seem more likely to be consistent.
Rather a social construct would seem more likely to be consistent.
The most plausible scenario (and the one that is consistent with later highly stratified societies) is that they just could not marry locally due to status differential to all local males outside of the family. That's all the social construct you need to match the observation.
But the article paints that as an act of sending away, when a more passive approach is not only just as plausible, if not more, but also supported by the observation of males that did a significant amount of traveling before settling down back home.
But the article paints that as an act of sending away, when a more passive approach is not only just as plausible, if not more, but also supported by the observation of males that did a significant amount of traveling before settling down back home.
But why were they not found in the cemeteries of other communities?
They were. The article isn't saying that there aren't any adult women being found in cemeteries. It's saying that none of the adult women being found in the cemeteries seem to be the daughter of anyone else in the community.
They weren’t daughters there. They were mothers.
They were, next to their husbands and with eulogies written by their children.
[deleted]
Many Native American folk tales there are suggest a similar form of exogamy, where daughters leave the tribe to find a partner and new community to be a part of.
What effect would this kind of exogamy have? It might lead to a fair standardisation of the domestic arts, since women "from everywhere" came together in each tribe and could compare and adopt methods. Whereas, the arts of the hunt and the art of war might remain fairly distinct in each tribe.
What effect would this kind of exogamy have? It might lead to a fair standardisation of the domestic arts, since women "from everywhere" came together in each tribe and could compare and adopt methods. Whereas, the arts of the hunt and the art of war might remain fairly distinct in each tribe.
I didn't fully understand this from the article but, with "adult daughters" they would mean, unmarried women? I mean, if "all" adult women were send away to be married elsewhere then they'd have to bring in "new" women to marry the local men, right? So, local men would also marry local women in that they did find graves of families (ie. with mothers and fathers)? But they don't say that.
Maybe women were married at a very young age and men could marry at a much older age. Maybe men could marry multiple times, women would often die in child birth.
Maybe women were married at a very young age and men could marry at a much older age. Maybe men could marry multiple times, women would often die in child birth.
> I didn't fully understand this from the article but, with "adult daughters" they would mean, unmarried women?
No.
The article is saying that the adult women found in burial sites were originally born elsewhere, and their ancestors are not found in the same burial site.
This is basically some variation of “patrilocal residence”.
No.
The article is saying that the adult women found in burial sites were originally born elsewhere, and their ancestors are not found in the same burial site.
This is basically some variation of “patrilocal residence”.
Something shocking something Germans were always evil patriarchs. For all of time. The study is titled "Kinship-based social inequality in Bronze Age Europe." I question this study, which is behind a paywall. So the idea is women go off on their own to find mates? And they studied 104 bones(?) using "deep regional approach" to determine this. Seems a very small sample size to make this generalization about the past. How is it that academics always find in the past that which validates their present views?
>"We apply a deep micro-regional approach and analyze genome wide data of 104 human individuals deriving from farmstead-related cemeteries from the Late Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age in southern Germany."
>"We apply a deep micro-regional approach and analyze genome wide data of 104 human individuals deriving from farmstead-related cemeteries from the Late Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age in southern Germany."
I always try to explain these things with evolutionary biology. I look to the non-human animal kingdom to see if the pattern of behavior exists in other species too. This one does.
In many species, members of clans and tribes go off to discover mating opportunities. I believe much of it has to do with limiting inbreeding.
I remember a scene in Game of Thrones where the guy didn't want to be eaten by the dead things, so he said he was going to take his boats to an island, kill all the men, and take their wives. Such things happen often in war. It might be a reason war exists.
In the case of the German daughters, if the males work the land, know the land, defend the land from invaders, then it would make sense the daughters leave to be protected by such men in another land.
In many species, members of clans and tribes go off to discover mating opportunities. I believe much of it has to do with limiting inbreeding.
I remember a scene in Game of Thrones where the guy didn't want to be eaten by the dead things, so he said he was going to take his boats to an island, kill all the men, and take their wives. Such things happen often in war. It might be a reason war exists.
In the case of the German daughters, if the males work the land, know the land, defend the land from invaders, then it would make sense the daughters leave to be protected by such men in another land.
Game of Thrones is not a historical source, it’s a work of fiction created with modern biases.
You say you look to evolutionary biology, but it’s far more common for females to form family groups that kick the males out once they’re of age. Social animals like horses, bison, lions, even eusocial insects like bees and termites- they all send their males out to other groups.
You say you look to evolutionary biology, but it’s far more common for females to form family groups that kick the males out once they’re of age. Social animals like horses, bison, lions, even eusocial insects like bees and termites- they all send their males out to other groups.
Nature can be a bit more complex.
Take baboons. Male indeed leave the troop while females tend to stay, but there is an exception. Low ranking females also tend to leave and join new troops. It is not that great to be at the bottom of the social hierarchy and female hierarchy in a baboon troop is based on linage so there is very little social mobility. Joining a new troop is not easy and often produce the same results as new females are rarely welcomed by the other females but it has a slightly better chance for social mobility compared to staying in the old one.
I would be surprised if you don't see the same pattern in many other social animals where the majority of the females are blood relatives.
Bees are a bit complex since in order to create new hives they swarm. In that situation they create a new queen and the old queen leaves with a subset of the bees and form a new hive while the new queen stays and start to lay eggs in the old hive.
Take baboons. Male indeed leave the troop while females tend to stay, but there is an exception. Low ranking females also tend to leave and join new troops. It is not that great to be at the bottom of the social hierarchy and female hierarchy in a baboon troop is based on linage so there is very little social mobility. Joining a new troop is not easy and often produce the same results as new females are rarely welcomed by the other females but it has a slightly better chance for social mobility compared to staying in the old one.
I would be surprised if you don't see the same pattern in many other social animals where the majority of the females are blood relatives.
Bees are a bit complex since in order to create new hives they swarm. In that situation they create a new queen and the old queen leaves with a subset of the bees and form a new hive while the new queen stays and start to lay eggs in the old hive.
Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, send females to other groups.
This hypothesis seems less like evolutionary biology and more like evolutionary psychology.
Which might seem pedantic, but I think most evolutionary biologists would consider it to be a pretty important distinction.
Which might seem pedantic, but I think most evolutionary biologists would consider it to be a pretty important distinction.
It does make sense. In hindsight. But why would the tribes send away all their daughters in the first place? I don't think that inbreeding was a concept back then. So what compelled a rich and powerful father to send away all his daughters. That seems rather odd to me.
> I don't think that inbreeding was a concept back then.
There are evolutionary guards against inbreeding. Its why brothers + sisters can grow up and live together, but for the most part don't feel like dating or marrying each other.
Its beyond culture: its written in our genetic code itself. Presumably, the primitive-man tribes who did do in-breeding were probably wiped out in the stone-age due to the (now well known) problems.
True, there are exceptions. But in the general case, the guards against in-breeding are part of the human's genetic code. Sorta anyway: IIRC the specific genetic programming is against "marrying people who you grew up with".
There are evolutionary guards against inbreeding. Its why brothers + sisters can grow up and live together, but for the most part don't feel like dating or marrying each other.
Its beyond culture: its written in our genetic code itself. Presumably, the primitive-man tribes who did do in-breeding were probably wiped out in the stone-age due to the (now well known) problems.
True, there are exceptions. But in the general case, the guards against in-breeding are part of the human's genetic code. Sorta anyway: IIRC the specific genetic programming is against "marrying people who you grew up with".
There are also relatively-modern tribe rules which provide some protection. For example Australian tribes use a split into subsections where you're allowed to marry only 4 out of 8 (or some other configuration) which provides a minimum of some number of generations before people with common ancestors can marry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_kinship#...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_kinship#...
But there are no evolutionary guards against cousin/cousin inbreeding whose effects show only after some generations. I don't think that this policy was a deliberate attempt to save the gene pool.
Assuming Male Primogeniture; A rich and powerful father arranging the marriages of his daughters to other powerful and wealthy families is how business relationships and alliances were formed, and how one could potentially move their own family up the social order.
It's pretty much how royalty and landed gentry used to work in Europe.
It's pretty much how royalty and landed gentry used to work in Europe.
Sure. But wouldn't you expect these marriages to also be arranged within the domain to at least some degree?
[deleted]
So, political marriages?
How is this shocking? The Chinese, for example, practiced until recently strict exogamous marriage whereby women were always married off outside the clan and men always stayed home. Women were forbidden to have contact with their biological family after marriage; in a sense their entire identity, including their lineage, became that of the clan they married into. It's similar to adoption in that regard, in the sense that in traditional East Asian cultures you don't distinguish adopted children from "blood" relations.
Such practices, while not universal, could be found around the world, AFAIU. It's a well known social pattern, which is why it's odd to hear it characterized as shocking.