Matriarchy: from Vatican to Mecca

Nov 2019
116
Maykop
Andrew Stepanenko
July 04, 2019 <Матриархат: от Ватикана до Мекки>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

Most legends about matriarchy are fantastic. One chronicler argued that amazons cauterized their left breast; the other one noticed that they killed men, and all of them were sure in one fact - that matriarchy means the reign of women. In practice, matriarchy is based on two principles:

1. The man and only the man rules.
2. The relationship is considered on the mother's side.

This is the basic concept.

MATRIARCHY TODAY
(Sources: vsegda_tvoj; urs_sonam)

The Akan are the most part of the population of the Republics of Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. In their families, everything, including surnames and property, is inherited on the mother’s side. Governing positions traditionally belong to men, but the right to them is given through their female relatives - mothers, sisters and daughters.

The Minangkabau populate the Western Sumatra and number about 4 million people. Mother is the head of the family. All family property is given from the mother to her daughter. The family is always headed by a man, but if he is unable to cope with his duties, women displace him and choose another one on its place. At political and religious institutes are mostly governed by men.

The Garo are one of the main ethnoses of the Indian state of Meghalaya. The head of the family is a woman, this "post" is by the inherited right is given to the youngest daughter, as well as the main part of the family property. Elder sisters remain without their dowry and arrange their life themselves. The man disagrees to marry until his future wife agrees to obey to him. Official organizations are operated by men, they control the large property.

The Мосо are the people living on the territory of the Chinese provinces Yunnan and Sichuan.
The lineage is kept through the female line, family traditions are given from the senior women to younger ones, and the property is inherited in the same way. Children receive the mother’s surname. The institute of marriage is absent. Women are free in their choice of partners and do not live with them under one roof. Instead of bringing-up their own offspring, the man are engaged in upbringing of the children belonging to their mothers’ families. Policy is mostly men’s occupation.

MATRIARCHY BASICAL PRINCIPLES
Combining the data of the past, it is rather simple to make the list of the basically principles of matriarchy.

1. As the relationship is kept through the female line, the husband and the wife are not blood relatives
2. As the husband and the wife are not blood relatives, they are not inheritors to one another
3. For the woman her children are inheritors, and the same do for the man his brothers and sisters and children of his sisters
4. For the child the closest relative-man is the uterine brother of his mother
5. The property of husbands and wives is divided and is mutually tabooed, no one can encroach on it
6. The real estate, as a rule, is fixed to the woman: the house, the earth
7. Therefore, mothers have some inherited property for their daughters, and there is nothing left to their sons
8. The personal estate, as a rule, is fixed to the man: cattle, a cart, a boat
9. Therefore, the uncles have some inherited property for their nephews and there is nothing left to their nieces
10. As a rule, the last-born child in family becomes the inheritor
11. The senior children remain without the inheritance (dowry) and arrange their life themselves
12. Pay attention that in fairy tales big brothers (or sisters) usually hate the last-born child
13. The marriage union is sometimes fixed by some reciprocal voice: with divorce, the guilty side loses it
14. The husband runs the property of his wife, for example, ploughs her earth, but does not own it
15. it is not the wife moves to the house of her husband, but the husband - to the house of his wife, the family is located matrilocal
16. The house is run by the senior woman, therefore the main problem for the son-in-law is his mother-in-law
17. The husband comes to the earth of his wife with his cattle, and with it he leaves in case of divorce
18. If the woman is a princess, the marriage means the right to govern her people
19. A knight in fairy tales receives after his marriage the princess her half-kingdom under the law
20. The king in the past often ruled as a regent with his child
21. When the princess marries, her father usually leaves his position in favor of his son-in-law
22. In some occasions, the prince, the blood relative of the mother, becomes the king

Some features from the listed above are actual even now, even in the most developed countries of Europe. Below are some clear historical examples.

AZTECS’ MATRIARCHY
Moctezuma (Motecuhzoma II), the most known ruler of the Aztecs, accepted his throne not from his father, but from hs uncle Ahuitzotl. And, if to be clear with details, the following becomes obvious:
- Motecuhzoma II accepted the power not exactly from his uncle, but from his widow;
- Motecuhzoma II accepted the power only because managed to marry the daughter of his uncle’s widow;
- Motecuhzoma II was the brother and the nephew of his uncle’s widow, so here we see again - the female line!

When Motecuhzoma died, no one of his numerous sons pretended to the throne. The power shifted only with his daughters, as a dowry. And the supreme power was fixed to his daughter Tekuichpo .So again we see that the blood of Motecuhzoma had no importance; what was important was the fact that Tekuichpo was the daughter his most highborn wife, and moving upwards the lineage makes it clear that she was distant great-granddaughter of Ilancueitl, the foundress of the dynasty. For this reason, the following rulers were Cuitláhuac and Cuauhtémoc who married her in turn. Then this woman became the wife of smart Hernan Cortes, and his son from Tekuichpo, who was Motecuhzoma too, was the Aztec lord and the viceroy of Spain*. He signed orders, which were legal in Mexico and California. Hernan indeed became Regent with his son.

* in official history of Spain the viceroy Motecuhzoma is not mentioned, but there is some information about him in some unedited Spanish evidences

"INTERPRITER" MARINA
The christened Indian, Hernan Cortes’s interpreter and companion was not lucky with posthumous glory. The Spaniards, who thanks to Marina got the power over all Mexico, carefully avoided the description of the true role of this unusual "interpreter".

Bernal Dias called her "the most magnificent" woman.
Gomara named her as "girl-slave" or “our Indian interpreter”.
Cortes himself mentioned her as “the woman-interpreter, local Indian” in his second letter to Charles V.
On one hand, she was also considered as a slave for sexual pleasure of Aztec rulers, as if she was a thing presented to Cortes. And on the other – his lover, spy and adviser for Indian psychology. And even La Chingada - the greatest whore who had sold her people to Spaniards. All these colorful epithets are concealment devices of the essence of the matter.
Cortes surely had two interpreters besides Marina. Cortes had enough slaves, whores and even psychology advisers. But he could approach to the power only with the help of Marina. To begin with that Malinalli (so was her called actually) was the daughter of the captured and sacrificed main rival of Motecuhzoma II in fight for power. Moreover, in the family hierarchy Malinalli was higher than the spouse of Motecuhzoma II. Therefore, when Cortes (according to the advice of Motecuhzoma’s enemies) married her, he got the title of Malinche – which means “Malinalli’s husband” - and together with the title, he got enormous dynastic rights.
Thanks to this marriage Cortes also got total control of Mexico - from the Indians’ point of view it was absolutely legal. So princess Malinalli was neither the whore, nor the traitress, nor an ordinary interpreter, of course. Even if she would be silent as fish, all doors would open before them. Malinalli was embodied nobility herself. There was nothing more to expect from her.
Cortes, who was a notary, that is, a lawyer, immediately perceived the advantages and … historians somehow do not attract attention to that fact, but Cortes's all actions in Mexico were reduced to seizure of noble women and children. He took women in his dynastic harem, and used children as an alive board. By the way, it saved his life when he escaped from Tenochtitlan.
In the long term, Malinalli’s son from Cortes, Don Martin Cortes, would have among Aztecs the same rights, as other princes, and he would receive the status of the viceroy from the Spanish crown. But Don Martin was not lucky; the council of tribe chiefs conducted a ceremony of expulsion of his mother from the family, and Cortes gave the former queen to one of the officers, who adopted unaccomplished viceroy.
Cortes made some more attempts: has adopted one of Motecuhzoma’s daughters, got children from his other daughter, and after capital assault, captured and married the most noble princess - Tekuichpo. And Mexico obeyed - not to Cortes, but to Tekuichpo’s son from Cortes - next Motecuhzoma.
 
Nov 2019
116
Maykop
MATRIARCHY IN INDIA
It is not a secret that before the European invasion the power in India was given on the mother’s side. Europeans successfully used the Indian mother right, - as soon as certain "pirate" John Every* had stolen the Great Mogul harem.

* "Every" (sometimes written as "Avery") - a pseudonym the Odysseus "Anybody" type; so “Every” means "Everyone". It is quite an unusual pseudonym for a pirate; they used to have more simple nicknames. Every’s flag was also unordinary: four gold chevrons on the red field. And if red color symbolizes courage and so it is quite suitable, four gold chevrons are nonsense for a pirate. Gold symbolizes the power and nobility, and chevrons reflect hierarchy among naval officers.

Several separately employed by him in America piracy ships caught Mogul’s fleet at the coast of Arabia, captured the vessel with his harem then Every married the Great Mogul Aurangzeb’s main relative and declared (according to one of versions) the beginning of a new dynasty in India.

Clearly that the Mogul got furious and started to close trading stations and to throw Englishmen into prisons so the British parliament had to pretend that all were awfully upset by the piracy evidence, and to send a well-known “ruthless pirate” William Kidd into a pursuit of the thief of the harem. Everything shows it was a setup: an elderly businessman William Kidd owning several ships wanted just to live a quiet life occupying his elective post; but he got caught on a bribe, and the authorities forced him under the threat of judicial punishment to take a role of a pirate hunter, more precisely, one pirate hunter - Every.

Kidd started up into a pursuit, moved round Africa, visited some piracy moorages and when he returned with those data that he had collected about Every, he was immediately sent to London for interrogation in the Parliament. Thus, Tori party members immediately tried to use Kidd for discredit (!) of Wig-lords. Moreover, Kidd was forced to call someone's names! He knew what he was involved in, and trying to save life, did not give any name and only wrote a letter to King Wilhelm. As a result, the papers did not appear at trial at all, and he was sentenced to the death for the murder of the officer who had arose revolt on the ship (but not for the piracy). The owner of four gold chevrons on the banner and one-time pseudonym "Every" - together with the harem - remained off-camera forever.

It seems that so in 1707 in India there appeared a new Mogul whose name was Bahadur Shah – according to this context, he was juvenile son of Aurangzeb’s relative captured in the sea and "pirate Every" who remained off-camera. There is one rather symptomatic coincidence that the British East Indian Company in India was named "Bahadur’s Company", and this Bahadur’s Company had the right to collect tax from the population. In the author’s opinion, there was only one real way to pull out such powers from hands of Great Mogul’s collectors - to become the Great Mogul himself (or his regent). It seems that "Every" became such regent for Bahadur, - as Cortes became a regent for Tekuichpo’s son.

In 1712 when the son of the stolen princess and "pirate Every" was 16 (for that time, he was considered as an adult person for 2 years), Bahadur died. However he left 4 sons (probably, from different noble mothers), and the fight for power began between clans as a result. This war was inevitable and consequent because of that in matriarchal India did not include any primogeniture and the true lord of the stolen harem - secret "Every" - could find for 14-15-yearold Bahadur such marriage parties which obviously lead to war.

THE BYZANTIAN MATRIARCHY
The fact of normal maternal right in Byzantium is proved by almost all facts. Here is the main evidence: custom to geld noble princes. At those times, chroniclers named it differently: “to cut off a nose”, for example, but after digging up other sources the nose turns into other part of the body. We will try to explain the reasons for that.
As family and tribe traditions approve relationship on the mother's side, the best way to come to the power was to marry a noble woman. The country was actually her this dowry. And the best way to keep the power was to make her a child. After that the wife could be banished into a monastery or one could help her to die because of puerperal fever, and her husband as the father of the baby could easily become a regent with the royal (on the mother’s side) child till his/her adulthood. However if the prince-baby was a castrate he was nobody. And his regent was nobody too. Therefore, all revolutions began with seizure of noble women and castrations of their sons.
So, for example, in the beginning of VII century two Heraclii, the father and the son, started revolt in Byzantium. They began it with taking the usurper Phocas’s family away consisting of three royal women. By the way, these women were really precious for Phocas, when the revolt began, he immediately hid them in the monastery Nea Metanoia. But the merchant corporation of Prasinoi pulled out tsarinas from the monastery and passed them to the Heraclii. It also became the main condition of recognition of Heraclii’s legitimate power. The situation is absolutale the same as with Cortes and Malinalli.
Tsarinas belonged to three generations: the grandmother (Epiphania), the mother (Fabia) and the daughter (Fabia too). The grandmother became the wife of Heraclius the Elder, and - attention! - there and then she became his son’s foster mother. Form that date the chroniclers started writing: “Epiphania – the mother of Emperor Heraclius”.
Heraclius the Younger married the younger women, and in May 612 one of them (by then christened as Eudoxia) gave birth to Heraclius’s son, and three months later when the kid got stronger, she died because she became absolutely useless. It is necessary to emphasize here that the tsarina’s death was a correct political action. She, being alive, was dangerous, as she could give birth to a prince from someone else. And Heraclius was the only one who had the right to this baby. As a regent he ruled those who obeyed the family of the baby’s mother.

The NOTE: there are no data on the boys born by three tsarinas before the revolt. Probably, they were gelded during the revolution. Sons of Emperor Heraclius were gelded during the following revolution (soon after his death).

The NOTE 2: John of Nikiû stated the story a bit different. Three royal women belonged to the family of Justinian - one of the previous emperors. Therefore, the marriage with one of them meant for Heraclii’s clan building relation with Justinian’s family. Probably, therefore the soldier's emperor Phocas who first captured the family and had a plan to marry one of the women, after consultations of priestly and judicial officials, refused his idea and resignedly gave all three women to the son of the eldest matron.

MATRIARCHY IN VATICAN
In encyclopedias this phenomenon reveals as so: nepotism (from an Lat. nepos, gen. case nepotis - grandson, nephew) - distribution by the Popes of the highest church positions or lands to the closest relatives. It was well spread in XV-XVI centuries. In a more comprehensive sense (modern meaning), it means favoritism.
This definition contradicts the facts and documents, because in XI century (but not in XV) Peter's throne passed to the nephew of the previous Pope. And since then it was a non-stop process - up to the beginning of XIX century. Here is the list of those Popes who were appointed by the church directly in the result of nepotism. They are 12.

Benedict IX. 1032-1044. Theophylactus, Count of Tusculum, Benedict VIII and John XIX's nephew.
Innocent III. 1198 1216. Lotario de' Conti, Count of Segni. Clement III’s nephew.
Celestine IV. 1241. Goffredo da Castiglione, Urban III’s nephew.
Alexander IV. 1254-1261. Rinaldo de' Conti, Count of Segni. Gregory IX's nephew.
Adrian V. 1276. Ottobuono de' Fieschi, Count of Lavagna. Innocent IV’s nephew.
Honorius IV. 1285-1287. Giacomo Savelli. Honorius III’s grandnephew.
Gregory XI. 1370-1378. Pierre Roger de Beaufort. Clement VI’s nephew.
Eugene IV. 1431-1447. Gabriele Condulmer. Gregory XII’s nephew.
Paul II. 1464-1471. Pietro Barbo. Eugene IV’s nephew.
Alexander VI. 1492-1503. Rodrigo de Borgia. Callixtus III’s nephew.
Pius III. 1503. Francesco Todeschini Piccolomini. Pius II’s nephew.
Leo XI. 1605. Alessandro de' Medici. Leo X’s nephew.

The complete list is much larger. We managed to find 64 Fathers (from 535 till 1799), who got their positions due to family relations, but that fact was not emphasized. And the point is not that they are someone's relatives; the matter is that the Holy Sees were inherited strictly on the mother’s side. The father delegated the power to the nephew, the son of the sister on mother. Here we see normal maternal right, as in case with Greeks, Aztecs and Moguls. This maternal right was recognised in Rome by everyone, as papal destiny was lifelong, and the nephew of the dead (and consequently already powerless) Pope could ascend the same throne only if his right was recognized by all members of the Curia.
It lasted up to Napoleon Bonaparte's intervention.
 
Nov 2019
116
Maykop
MATRIARCHY IN ASSYRIAN CHURCH
The same scheme existed in the East Assyrian Church (we have not found the data on throne transfer in other Eastern Churches). The patriarchate was given only from the uncle to the nephew, without consideration of the candidate’s age, experience or, say, personal qualities. Mar Simon, for example (who decided to join the Gregorian calendar in 1964), became the patriarch when he was 12.

NEPOTISM IN RUSSIA
In July, 1796 Vsevolod Alekseevich Vsevolozhsky, being childless, bequeathed all his fortune to his nephew Vsevolod Andreevich Vsevolozhsky who, after death of his uncle on October, 6th, 1796, became the owner of all inheritance of Vsevolod Alekseevich.
In history, the number of cases when the nephew inherited from his uncle, instead of his father, is critically great and is usually explained with childlessness. However, considering that the Vsevolozhskys belong to the Rurik family, it is impossible to exclude the fact that Vsevolod Alekseevich was a castrate – as the last castrates in Europe lived up to 1860.

SOME WORDS ABOUT “PORNOCRACY”
The maternal right also results in the so-called “pornocracy”, the huge power of women over Popes. Here is a short list of the Popes openly depending on their “female popes” (in practice, all of them depended on their sisters, aunts or mothers).

Lando. 913-914. He was put on the papal throne by Theodora the Elder.
John X. 914-928. He was put on the papal throne by Theodora the Elder.
Leo VI. 928. He was put on the papal throne by Marozia.
Stephen VII (VIII), 928-931. He was put on the papal throne by Marozia.
John XI. 931-936. Marozia and Pope Sergius III’s son.
Innocent X. 1644-1655. Ruled the Church together with his sister Olimpia Maidalchini.

Such situation could not be in the society based on the paternal right principles. Any "family tyranny" would mean near the Pope neither his sister or mother, but his father or elder brother. It turns out that churches lived and delegated the power by the maternal right long enough – up to XIX (the Roman Catholics), and even till the end of XX (the Assyrian) centuries.

The NOTE: Repeatedly described ceremony of palpation check of the future Pope having male testes could occur only due to historical memory of Popes- castrates and later ban of tradition to appoint female Popes. The support to this thesis is the case with as though mythological Pope Joan who pretended to be a man.
In our opinion, John could give herself out to be not a man but a castrate. Yes, and celibacy in the Catholic church could be legalized as the sign of the castrates’ caste lobby. Moreover, castrates, as well as harems were a relict residual of the matriarchal way of the power concentration. We will shown now, why.

SECRET OF FAMILY MUHAMMAD
The Prophet Muhammad had 12 wives.

Name and age at marriage, Muhammad’s age, years of marriage, number of children
Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, 40 years old, Muhammad was 25 years old, 25 years of marriage, 7 or 8 children
Sawda bint Zamʿa, from 55 till 65 years old, Muhammad was 50 years old
Aisha Banu Taim, from 6 till 20 years old, Muhammad was 53 years old, 50 years of marriage
Hafsa bint Umar, 20 years old, Muhammad was 54 years old, 8 years of marriage
Zaynab bint Khuzayma Banu Hilal, 3-8 months of marriage, died
Umm Salama Hind bint Abi Umayya Banu Makhzum, 29 years old, Muhammad was 55 years old, 7 years of marriage
Zaynab bint Jahsh Banu Asad, 35 years old, Muhammad was 56-58 years old, 4-6 years of marriage
Juwayriyya bint al-Harith, 20 years old, Muhammad was 57 years old, 5 years of marriage
Ramlah binte Abi-Sufyan Umm Habibah, from 24 till 34 years old, Muhammad was 59-61 years old, 1-3 years of marriage
Safiyya bint Huyayy Banu Nadir, 17 years old, Muhammad was 61 years old, 3-5 years of marriage
Maymuna bint al-Harith Banu Hashim (Sahaba), 36 years old, Muhammad was 60 years old, 3 years of marriage
Maria al-Qibtiyya, 20 years old, Muhammad was 58 years old, 4 years of marriage, gave birth to the son Ibrahim

Khadijah seven children had with Muhammad. Their names were al-Kasim, at-Tahir, at-Tajjib, Zajnab, Rukajja, Umm Kulsum and Fatima (according to the Sunnite, there was also the eighth child - son Abdulla). All boys (and only boys) died in the early childhood. All girls lived till the beginning of the prophetical mission, took Islam, moved from Mecca to Medina and died before Muhammad’s death. Фатима died six months later after the death of her father.
The Christian Maria of Greek-Egyptian origin had from Muhammad one son Ibrahim. He, as well as other boys, died in infancy. By tacit agreement, it is supposed that Muhammad had no more children from other ten wives.
And what did actually happen?

Sawda married the Prophet in her ripe old age, and, perhaps, she must be excluded from the number of potential women in childbirth. However, elementary calculation shows that other nine wives of the Prophet could easily give birth from 15 to 25 children during their marriage period. Moreover, some wives had an honorary title meaning the child birth, for example, Umm Salama and Umm Habibah.
Indeed, for the most Muhammad’s wives he was not the first husband, that is, they could receive the title before marriage with the Prophet. But Aisha who married as an absolutely young girl could give birth to a child only in marriage with the Prophet, and Muhammad named her Umm Abdallah, that is literally translated as Abdallaha’s Mother and means that Aisha gave birth of the son to her husband. However, no data on this Muhammad’s son are found, as though Aisha gave birth to nobody. However, even if we not consider all five listed above women, there are seven more. After all, were they all sterile? Muhammad was definitely not sterile. Seven (according to the Sunnite - eight) children with Khadijah and one with Maria (one of the last wives) clearly prove the Prophet’s virile well-being. However, children are absent.
Let's ask themselves a question - why data on children of Muhammad from Khadijah, Maria and - presumably from Aisha were preserved. The answer is simple: in all three cases it was impossible to vanish the data on children. Ibrahim was a noble Egyptian Copt on the mother's side so, he was repeatedly mentioned in the Coptic annals. Aisha also had “information background” - in the person of Negus Ethiopian chromatists, and children from Khadijah were born, when their father had not become the conventional leader yet, and there were a lot of household data left about them, so it was impossible to vanish them to the end.
There are absolutely no data on those children of the Prophet who were absolute Arabians and Moslems, that is, they had no annalistic history abroad and, in fact, could apply for natural inheritance of their father’s deed. Well, winners write the history, and children of the Prophet, as the results show, have lost.
The winner in this fight is Ali’s family – Fatima’s husband, who suddenly died after her father’s death. Here we have a classical matriarchal model of coming to the power: marriage with a noble woman, a birth of her children (girls are more desirable) and her death when she is not needed anymore. The widower becomes the regent with his children and the only lord over their tribes.
The question, why girls are more desirable as children, is natural. The answer is easy: the regent can give his daughter to the relative under his control and continue his ruling for two more decades, but he should give his power his son. Muhammad also tried to stop this out-of-date practice and … won everywhere, except his own family.

The NOTE: It is strange, but among children of Ali and Fatima we can see Zajnab and Umm-Kulsum in succession, that is, Ali’s children are namesakes of the 4th and 6th children of Muhammad. In my opinion, Ali could easily adopt the Prophet’s daughters. It would give him paternal power over them - with all legal consequences.

MATRIARCHY IN ANCIENT ROME
And here are three citations from the article of a historian Alexander Victorovich Koptev “The Legal mechanism of the imperial power transfer in archaic Rome and sacral functions the celer tribune”.

According to the tradition the Roman emperors acted as a husband of the daughter of his predecessor (Numa - the husband of Titus Tatius’s daughter, Servius Tullius – of Lucius Tarquinius Priscus’s daughter, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus – of Servius Tullius’s daughter), or as a son of the emperor’s daughter (Romulus - the son of Numitor’s daughter, Ancus Marcius - Numa Pompilius’s daughter, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus – Lucumo’s daughter in Etruria, Servius Tullius - Ocrisia from Corniculum) or, that means the same, as a emperor’s grandson (Tullus Hostilius, Romulus’s grandson = Hostilia, Tarquinius Superbus - Prisca).
The bearer of royalty were the women of the emperors’ families whose husbands became the owners of the imperial title by the right of marriage with them. Traditionally it is Lavinia, Ilia (Rhea Silvia), Tatia, Hersilia , Pompilia, Egeria, Tarquinia, Tullia, Lucretia. In the ceremony of "sacred" marriage the tsar and the tsarina represented the main deities of their community. Their children of "divine origin” could not aspire to an imperial title in their community, but were desired grooms for emperors’ daughters of other "cities" of Latium. Sacral union of “30 cities”, apparently, bound all royal families into a single system of potential marriage partners.
The bearer of the royal title became either the tsar’s son-in-law, who was simultaneously his nephew, or the tsar’s grandson, who was his daughter’s son, whose husband was the tsar in other "city".

We see in Ancient Rome the same model of coming to power, as in Mexico, Arabia, India and Byzantium.
 
Nov 2019
116
Maykop
MATRIARCHY IN THE USA
The legal doctrine Partus sequitur ventrem was a part of the colonial law which was taken in Virginia in 1662, and soon in other colonies. The doctrine said: “All children born in this country, should be considered in slavery or free only according to the status of the mother...” Doctrine Partus sequitur ventrem (the literal translation: that which is brought forth follows the belly) directly followed from the Roman civil law and totally dominated in colonies.

CONDITION OF THE TITLE ACCEPTION
John III the Peaceful (von der Mark) married Maria von Jülich-Berg, the daughter and the inheritor of Duke William IV von Jülich-Berg in 1509. After his father-in-law’s death in 1511, he became a regent with the wife, and accepted the title of Duke von Jülich-Berg.

MODERN MATRIARCHY IN TOGO
Nicolas Gerard Victor Grunitzky was the president of Togo in 1963 - 1967. The son of the retired German officer and the African princess Elisabeth Sossime Adjonou from Amegashi royal family. Its predecessor Sylvanus Olympio was the son of the Brazilian slave trader and the princess of the Yoruba people.

POLYGAMY
Polygamy has deep practical sense in the conditions of matriarchy. The more wives one has, the more dowry (lands and people) the polygamist controls.
The Tale of Bygone Years: “Vladimir was obsessed with lust, and he had wives […], and 300 concubines in Vyshgorod, 300 in Belgorod and 200 in Berestov …”.
August II from Meissen, as they write, had 80 "mistresses".
Philipp, Prince and Landgrave of Hesse had two official wives.
Emperors Charles the Great, Lothar and Pepin had several wives.
On July, 23rd, 1534 The city of Muenster proclaimed polygamy as the best form of marriage.
And here is Phillip II's family, the king of Spanish and Portuguese.

1st wife: Maria de Avis. She married when she was 16, had a baby at the age of 18, died in 2 days.
2nd wife: Maria I Tudor. She married when she was 38, had a baby at the age of 39, died when she was 42.
3rd wife: Elizabeth Valois. She married when she was 14, had a baby at the age of 21, died when she was 23.
4th wife: Anna Habsburg. She married when she was 21, had a baby at the age of 22, died when she was31.

Early death rate is a norm of political life. The child is given to a wet nurse, and his mother is helped to die or enter a monastery. The purpose of this operation is to get children with whom the polygamist becomes a lawful regent. In Europe polygamy was regarded as not Christian practice since 1771 when inquisitions allowed to open cases on polygamists for the first time.

OPRICHNINA
Oprichnina it is a part of lands of the grand duchesses, at their full and direct disposal. Oprichnina in the Moscow princedom was the land terror given to out a widow after partition of her former husband’s property. Wiki emphasizes that oprichnina was not regulated by any legislation, and it is a legal nonsense: property cannot exist without any legal tradition.
Her we have normal matrilineal property and power transfer in notable families - in the form of dowry. When a husband dies, the dowry (indivisible in a common law) is reverted to a widow with her children. For this reason, Europe was similar to a scrappy blanket up to second half of 19 century.

MATRIARCHAL POWER PYRAMID
Ivan the Terrible ruled at four levels:
1. The property and people belonging to his own family
2. Dowry, belonging his wives (oprichnina) - as a regent with common children
3. As the grand duke - boyars of the Moscow kingdom (without direct access to their property)
4. As the elective tsar of whole Russia - zemshchina, that is, the nobility, allied to the Moscow kingdom: Estonia, the Caucasus, the Volga region (without direct access to their property, as well)
We see that at every level tsar Ivan was not a proprietor (the private property did not exist at that time), but only the plenipotentiary managing director. In each case the proprietor is a collective - the family.

MATRIARCHY SOURCE
The write that the matriarchal society has developed due of disordered sexual relation (greetings to Freud), when the authentic parent is one - mum. In practice, any disorder frustrates a person - it complicates prediction. Actively advertised idea about group sex of savages is not proven. The most primitive Amazonian tribes have already got legal norms protecting their families: for seducing of someone’s wife her husband has the right to knock the seducer with a cudgel on the head. And the guilty patiently waits until he is punished.
The so-called “group marriage” is collective responsibility for women and children, instead of group sex; people are inclined to form steady pairs - let them be just for 3-4 years, but during all this time they will be steady. People feel more comfortable in such pairs.

Matriarchy has developed owing to initially different forms of responsibility. Only adults go hunting and each man is obliged to be responsible for himself. In village four people from five are children; seniors bear responsibility for them, and these seniors are woman. As a result, two types of hierarchy develop in a tribe synchronously: the business one (male type) and family one (female type). The purpose of the male type hierarchy is prey, and a person is just means for the purpose achievement. The group can lose a person while hunting and cannot return with empty hands. In the female type hierarchy, prey is only means, let it be a key one, but it is only means, and the purpose is a person (the survived offspring). Therefore, the society arranges business according to the male model, and the main social institutes - to the female one.

ROLE OF THE MAN IN THE POWER
Despite mentioned above, the matriarchal society is in great need of the man on the top. The cause is the following: intrinsic readiness of the man to achieve the purpose, despite the means. In a situation regular (in practice, inevitable) conflicts someone is required, capable to force the most impudent guys to follow the law. Moreover, the far this man from the interests of certain families, the more effective he will work. For this reason the king is usually a stranger for the people, the foreign knight who has anyhow proved that is worthy marriage with the people’s own princess.

EXACT MEANING OF THE TERM
The exact meaning of the word "matriarchy" is "maternal by origin". A root "arch" "power" does not have the meaning “power” and in the best way to see the nature of this root is to compare the words where it is the beginning of a word: archaic, archeology, archive.

THE RESUME
Matriarchal (in exact meaning of this word) relationship entirely predetermined the civilisation growth and development until at least 1771, and to a considerable extent - to the middle of 19 century. Distortion of matriarchal sense of historical events or excluding of this sense out of this research interferes with an establishment of the historical truth, first of all, in history of the power and assets inheritance.
 
Jun 2017
604
maine
In practice, matriarchy is based on two principles:

1. The man and only the man rules.
2. The relationship is considered on the mother's side.
Perhaps you have confused a matrilineal society with a matriarchal society. In the first, men rule but relationship is based on the female line. In the second, women are rulers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tammuz
Nov 2019
116
Maykop
Perhaps you have confused a matrilineal society with a matriarchal society. In the first, men rule but relationship is based on the female line. In the second, women are rulers.
I think that you have not read the text to the end. Definitions in good dictionaries clearly indicate what matriarchy is. I didn’t add anything from myself.
 
Nov 2016
1,267
Germany
1. The man and only the man rules.
2. The relationship is considered on the mother's side.
I have often written about the subject here, but never under the concept of matriarchy, because such a system is very rare, if it exists at all. Matriarchy would mean that women have political power.

That's not the case with the Akans you mention, they have male kings. Also the Moco in China are politically determined by males.

What you mean is 'matrilineal' and 'matricentric', but not 'matriarchy', since '-archy' refers to domination, and this is hold by males in the societies you mention.


According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), matriarchy is a "form of social organization in which the mother or oldest female is the head of the family, and descent and relationship are reckoned through the female line; government or rule by a woman or women."[2] A popular definition, according to James Peoples and Garrick Bailey, is "female dominance".[3] Within the academic discipline of cultural anthropology, according to the OED, matriarchy is a "culture or community in which such a system prevails"[2] or a "family, society, organization, etc., dominated by a woman or women."[2] In general anthropology, according to William A. Haviland, matriarchy is "rule by women".[4] A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property

Here is a brief outline of how egalitarian prehistoric societies evolved into patriarchal-hierarchical historical societies.

Until the Neolithic (starting from ca. 10,000 BCE) Paleolithic humans lived in matrifocal communities without fixed partner relationship (in the sense of marriage). When a female lived with a male, she did not move to his family household but he to her family household, that is, the household of the matrifocal community, centered around a matrilineal line. There were no fathers because paternity was most probably unknown until the advent of livestock at the beginning of the Neolithic. When a couple separated the male went back to his original family. When paternity was discovered (in the context of livestock around 8,000 BCE) among the males the desire arose to exactly know who were their sons for the purpose of inheriting their property to them. The precondition for that was the binding of the female to the male and the prohibiton of female relationships to other males. However the total institutionalisation of marriage took a long time and was established in the Ancient East probably not before the 4th millennium BCE. Until then females seem to have had the possibility of marrying two males what become forbidden in Sumer only around 2,500 BCE by king Urukagina.

The purpose of marriage was the disponibility and control of the female by the male, what means the beginning of patriarchy and suppression of women. Simultaneously the warriordom was institutionalized what led to the advent of slavery (war prisoners). By this the males came in control of their females, their children, and their house slaves.

Roughly spoken, the steps were like this:

+ until the beginning of the Neolithic (around 10,000 BCE) females were socially at least equal to males; in the religious field it seems that they had a certain dominance, due to the gender of the main deity.

+ until the mid of the Neolithic (around 5,000 BCE) females were equal to males in both fields (social and religious) cause males caught up through the emergence of male fertility gods.

+ from this time, females became step by step socially downgraded while religiously remaining equal.

+ from the 3rd mill., females considerably lost social rights while goddesses kept their importance in state religion as well as in personal faith.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: duncanness

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,726
Dispargum
I think that you have not read the text to the end. Definitions in good dictionaries clearly indicate what matriarchy is. I didn’t add anything from myself.
Long posts like the ones you've been making here and in other threads tend to be problematic. The best posts are less than 100 words. People dislike reading long posts in chat rooms. It's something to do with the media type. The same people who will read very long books grow impatient with long chat room posts. You are far more likely to get your point across in smaller doses rather than all at once.
 
Nov 2019
116
Maykop
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), matriarchy is a "form of social organization in which the mother or oldest female is the head of the family, and descent and relationship are reckoned through the female line;
The definition of the Oxford Dictionary fits perfectly with historical reality, and I completely agree with that definition.
I recommend reading my text to the end, otherwise the text will not be understood.
 
Nov 2019
116
Maykop
Long posts like the ones you've been making here and in other threads tend to be problematic. The best posts are less than 100 words. People dislike reading long posts in chat rooms. It's something to do with the media type. The same people who will read very long books grow impatient with long chat room posts. You are far more likely to get your point across in smaller doses rather than all at once.
Thanks. I understand. This topic is very serious, fundamental. I tried to expound it as briefly as possible.