Egypt was a Matriarchy according to American Men Soldiers: HUMAN FLESHY QUEENS mislabeled fictitious

My guess of how patriarchy became dominant in European "civilization", based on what I know of ancient History is this:

Ancient Egypt largely developed from the older Egyptian civilization, and got most of its primitive philosophy and science from, since early Greek philosophers were in fact scholars in Egypt "mysteries".

The Cretan civilization is of direct descent from ancient Egypt, and had an influence on the Spartan society, Both were mostly female predominant in terms of politics and general civilian affairs, since3 they recognized somewhat equal rights between men and women, and had queens as rulers, at times. The male-dominating influence rather seems to be coming from the Eastern/Persian influence on Greece, but that's just a guess, since the power structure in ancient Middle-East seemed to be more male-centered.

Republic of Athens was the first real patriarchy in the Egypt-based Ancient Greece (during the era of athenian domination), with women reduced to a mere slave/breeder role, and men taking over all aspects of politics. Under the early Roman empire, since Athens lost its influence over other Greek cities/colonies, women seemed tp have taken back some of their dignity, since they were allowed to practice science and philosophy, the most well-known example being Hypathia, of the Egyptian Roman city conclave Alexandria.

Through the Roman Empire and especially the later Roman Church, and the Greek-based Orthodox church, patriarchy was ENFORCED on all pagan/proto-christian societies all across Europe, as one of the main basis of the new Latin/Christian civilization.

But in many ancient civilizations, matriarchy was actually well-spread, and this breaks with the general misconception that society was naturally male-dominated all-across the world for millenias.

Originally, women are generally playing a "designer" or "planner" role in society, while the men, for their spirited temper and usually tougher build, play the role of the "front" or the executor. In other words, women are the brains, and men the brawls. But it's not all black and white, since there were also women warriors -such as the famous Amazons- and male designers....

Great post ! You've inspired me to become a member, after reading the ATS forums for about a month.
A previous topic posted somewhere here raised the question of what the head of the sphinx could have been... maybe you have the answer - a woman.
Another one spoke of a revelation this year which would upset a large number of people but would show us what we really are.
Lastly I read, last week I think, about the Egyptian military sealing off the area around the chamber found beneath the sphinx and the removal Dr Hawass from his position ... don't know whether any of this true but it would make a great TV show !

Interesting research and information, S&F!!

This reminded me of something I read a ways back that I've been scratching my head over, trying to remember the source for further research. It was a theory that elements of the democratic underpinnings the US founding fathers used was found in certain Indian tribes, with one critical component missing. There was a "Council of Grandmothers" which had ultimate decision-making responsibility (at least in the case of war).

Perhaps the patterns of subjugating women by religious, theosophical and cultural movements over the last few thousand years came as the result of subjugation by matriarchal societies prior. Interesting to ponder anyways.

reply to post by Open2Truth

Perhaps the patterns of subjugating women by religious, theosophical and cultural movements over the last few thousand years came as the result of subjugation by matriarchal societies prior.

Very interesting comment.

There is no doubt that abuse breeds more abuse. But few matriarchal societies were abusive. Why don't people/societies do what works cooperatively?

imho - It all goes back to the deification of "Mother" Earth: she feeds us, nurtures us, keeps us warm and cozy - then the hag turns on us: dumping snow and ice on our heads, opening hell-holes filled with fire and brimstone beneath our feet, drowning us with deluges from the skies and tsunamis from the seas. ...Some peoples' abuse and abandonment issues are just genetic. imho.

reply to post by soficrow


Clearly, not everyone felt that Matriarchies were not abusive. The female utopia probably wasn't, and it had its issues.

I certainly don't read the descriptions of matriarchies and think, gosh sounds awesome to be my son in those. Nor was there a lack caste, which in and of itself suggests that some women were far less important than others. Equality is not an inherent trait. Lack of equality, and a caste system is a form of abuse.

Clearly at some point enough men realized and wanted a greater role in their biological destiny than they were being afforded.

All systems with inherent flaws eventually will correct themselves, or the flaws become abundant enough to pull the system apart.

For patriarchies, their power leaders definition of what is good in a woman means that those systems are inherently building flaws in their population of males. Causing system crash.

This seems to have happened to these Matriarchies. Failure to adapt, and inherent failures in their population preferences led to systemic crashes which could not be contained.

While one might suggest that in some these changes were forced - I'm sure that's true. Once the force stopped, you don't notice that the men in those groups are rushing to go back to their previous state. Their loyalty to a "better" way seems less than perfect.

Cool, Black African Queens ruled ancient Egypt and The world. Must
have been nice, no wonder Egypts rule lasted so long

reply to post by BoneMosaic


I remember reading a mainstream newspaper article about scientists and how they discussed a

find which found that Women no longer need Men to procreate. It was quite interesting.

Women in Egypt
Egyptian Queens and Pharaohs

Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe

Matriarchy

The argument for the existence of prehistoric matriarchal societies (societies, that is, in which familial and political authority was wielded by women), first developed by Johann Jacob Bachofen [see also the section Mother Goddess under Women in Prehistory], was further articulated by, among others, Friedrich Engels in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State published in 1884. Engels argued that the transition from primate societies to the earliest human social structure was achieved by granting to solidarity a supreme importance which transcended even sexual competitiveness and jealousy. According to Engels, solidarity was achieved through "group marriage" where whole groups of kin-related women were collectively "married" to whole groups of men. Under these circumstances, only the mother of a child was known, so kinship tended to be traced through the female line, creating what Engels called a "matrilineal clan." The kinship rights of men were his sisters and her children.

The question of whether or not some cultures in the early historical period were, if not matriarchal, then at least matrilineal, is today a controversial one. The consensus among most anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed. The issue has important ramifications. To argue in support of matrilinearity in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Crete, and Anatolia is also to argue that these cultures were still matrilineal as they entered the historical period; that they, and by inference other cultures too, were matrilineal in the prehistoric era. If this was indeed the case, then matrilinearity was, and for some still is, a more "natural" (because prehistoric and therefore "primitive," uncorrupted, and true) arrangement of human society. This "natural" state, however, was gradually destroyed as men established the "unnatural" condition of patriarchy by subjugating women and usurping female power.

The historical period, beginning around 5,500 years ago, marks the beginning of the rise of patriarchy. It arose gradually, however, and for a while women appear to have maintained, mostly by default of tradition and custom, especially in conservative societies like that in Ancient Egypt, a position of importance that was not only different from but, and this is the crucial point, also independent of that of men. In other words, for a while in Ancient Egypt (and also in Minoan Crete and still in Archaic Greece), women were recognized as embodying an identity and power which derived from, and was based upon, the female, of which the Mother Goddess, and ultimately all female goddesses, was its manifestation.

It was a power acknowledged and respected by men which resided in the female and could be claimed by all women; it was not, as it subsequently became in the later Egyptian, Greek, and Minoan periods and has remained ever since, a power defined and delimited by men.

reply to post by MapMistress


This is not news. But you do have to read about the ancient religion and worship of the Goddess to learn the past, which explains our present.

reply to post by Teeky

It was most likely a mix. As they have found king tutankhamens dna showed 98% european blend.
If necessary i will find that article again, or you can if you like.

Originally posted by awareness10
reply to post by Teeky

 

As they have found king tutankhamens dna showed 98% european blend.

That's exactly how the FACTS get twisted and things start getting confused....it's not "98% european blend"

Half of European men share King Tut's DNA

In other words 50% share a common ancestor with Tut not "98% European blend"

I'm actually more interested in what this thread is saying about OUR attitudes.

Looking back over my lifetime, I really can't say that I see any need for a gender bias in government.

I have seen warlike women and pacifist men.

They both have something to offer and a free & fair society should allow their leaders to use their natural gifts to the best of their ability.

I don't see why one of the dominant political systems of the ancient world would not also see things that way.

reply to post by MapMistress




First things first ! You have done one hell of a job. I thought I was the only one that noticed this. I visited Egypt back in June of 2001 and was there for two months. I have seen a great deal in Egypt, I was given access to certain places only a handful of people ever get to see. I came to the same conclusion you did, somethings just not right. There's a ton of stuff that's "just not right" about Ancient Egypt.

This is definitely something that should be addressed by the Egyptian Government (although I highly doubt anything will ever happen). One thing however, I hope that you understand this misrepresentation isn't anything new and was started over two thousand years ago and has only progressed since then. Once the Arabs gained complete control of Egypt, history was changed forever. I don't know who caused more damage the Church or the Arabs. The ceilings of almost every temple dedicated to a "Queen" with Maat pointing to the constellations were burnt by the church...they damaged many of them but some of them are still in good shape. Now that Zawi Hawas, has control over Egypt's antiquities, I fear that true history will be buried even more. Dr. Hawas, is one of the world's most dishonest historians in my high opinion and I can't stand him.

The same was done to the Kingdom of Kush and even more terrible atrocities to Timbuktu, by the ancient Arabs and the church, history just wiped away almost as if it never existed. I do not mean to sound like I am against Arabs as I most certainly am not, but when they conquered most of North Africa, they changed their true history to take away from who and what was really behind the greatest civilization on Earth. Again, this is my opinion.

Really, you have done a great service and I thank you.

reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1

Hawass is out now, so maybe the Truth will start to resurface.

Great thought provoking post! I'll have this hypothesis on the top of my mind for a while!

The only thing I am truly perplexed about is what the significance is of a bunch of soldiers saying this???

Were these some highly educated soldiers especially in translating ancient hieroglyphics? With a rich knowledge of ancient Egypt, who could comprehend what they saw in Egypt? (why'd they join the military then?)
Not trying to irritate you but I can't stop wondering why everyone (because I guess I am the only one on this thread who doesn't get it) looks to military soldiers as the holders of wisdom on history, archeology, sociology, etc.!
Maybe someone could explain to me what I am missing here??

Forgive me your Highness, let me rephrase and repost from a source

King Tut’s DNA is Western European
Posted by EU Times on Jun 7th, 2010

Despite the refusal of the Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, to release any DNA results which might indicate the racial ancestry of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, the leaked results reveal that King Tut’s DNA is a 99.6 percent match with Western European Y chromosomes.

The DNA test results were inadvertently revealed on a Discovery Channel TV documentary filmed with Hawass’s permission — but it seems as if the Egyptian failed to spot the giveaway part of the documentary which revealed the test results.

Hawass previously announced that he would not release the racial DNA results of Egyptian mummies — obviously because he feared the consequences of such a revelation.

On the Discovery Channel broadcast, which can be seen on the Discovery Channel website here, or if they pull it, on YouTube here, at approximately 1:53 into the video, the camera pans over a printout of DNA test results from King Tut.

Firstly, here is a brief explanation of the results visible in the video. It is a list of what is called Short Tandem Repeats (STRs).

STRs are repeated DNA sequences which are “short repeat units” whose characteristics make them especially suitable for human identification.

These STR values for 17 markers visible in the video are as follows:
DYS 19 – 14 (? not clear)
DYS 385a – 11
DYS 385b – 14
DYS 389i – 13
DYS 389ii – 30
DYS 390 – 24
DYS 391 – 11
DYS 392 – 13
DYS 393 – 13
DYS 437 – 14 (? not clear)
DYS 438 – 12
DYS 439 – 10
DYS 448 – 19
DYS 456 – 15
DYS 458 – 16
DYS 635 – 23
YGATAH4 – 11

What does this mean? Fortunately, a genius by the name of Whit Athey provides the key to this list. Mr Athey is a retired physicist whose working career was primarily at the Food and Drug Administration where he was chief of one of the medical device labs.

Mr Athey received his doctorate in physics and biochemistry at Tufts University, and undergraduate (engineering) and masters (math) degrees at Auburn University. For several years during the 1980s, he also taught one course each semester in the electrical engineering department of the University of Maryland. Besides his interest in genetic genealogy, he is an amateur astronomer and has his own small observatory near his home in Brookeville, MD.

He also runs a very valuable website called the “Haplogroup Predictor” which allows users to input STR data and generate the haplogroup which marks those STR data.

For those who want to know what a haplogroup is, here is a “simple” definition: a haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation.

Still none the wiser? Damn these scientists.

Ok, let’s try it this way: a haplotype is a combination of multiple specific locations of a gene or DNA sequence on a chromosome.

Haplogroups are assigned letters of the alphabet, and refinements consist of additional number and letter combinations, for example R1b or R1b1. Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups have different haplogroup designations. In essence, haplogroups give an inisight into ancestral origins dating back thousands of years.

By entering all the STR data inadvertently shown on the Discovery video, a 99.6 percent fit with the R1b haplogroup is revealed.

The significance is, of course, that R1b is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Europe reaching its highest concentrations in Ireland, Scotland, western England and the European Atlantic seaboard — in other words, European through and through.

So much for the Afro-centrists and others who have derided the very obvious northwestern European appearance of a large number of the pharonic mummies. It seems like March of the Titans was right after all…


www.eutimes.net...

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by awareness10
reply to post by Teeky

 

As they have found king tutankhamens dna showed 98% european blend.

That's exactly how the FACTS get twisted and things start getting confused....it's not "98% european blend"

Half of European men share King Tut's DNA

In other words 50% share a common ancestor with Tut not "98% European blend"

edit on 4-8-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by louieprima


Most likely it was Sinai duty:

en.wikipedia.org...

I never had to do it, but it's not uncommon.

reply to post by awareness10


Hey thanks.

But you left this part out...

Your Source

Starting with ‘the’ most recent common ancestor (MRCA) at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in the past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than a hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.

reply to post by awareness10


Thanks for the article, but that still doesn't convince me that ancient egypt was ruled by Europeans all the way until the last dynasty. Why should it bother anyone if ancient egypt was ruled by black african women at one time?
Even better is that one of the most powerful ancient civilizations on Earth was mostly matriarchal. It proves that women are capable of leading a successful nation as well.

blog.fabmagazineonline.com...

You MIGHT want to recheck your source, here.

Originally posted by awareness10
Forgive me your Highness, let me rephrase and repost from a source

King Tut’s DNA is Western European
Posted by EU Times on Jun 7th, 2010

Despite the refusal of the Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, to release any DNA results which might indicate the racial ancestry of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, the leaked results reveal that King Tut’s DNA is a 99.6 percent match with Western European Y chromosomes.

The DNA test results were inadvertently revealed on a Discovery Channel TV documentary filmed with Hawass’s permission — but it seems as if the Egyptian failed to spot the giveaway part of the documentary which revealed the test results.

He's "related to" Europeans in the same way that I am "related to" King Tut. Somewhere way back in history there were many ancestors of mine from the Egyptian area (and Palestine, and India and China and Japan and Greece and Russia and Germany and Scotland and Finland and so on and so forth) -- so if you checked my DNA you'd find that I was distantly related to Tut. So are my neighbors (since their ancestors came from Europe) and so are you.
ca.news.yahoo.com...

The news source you quoted (using the Discovery Channel) is controversial -- and in fact, the Discovery Channel didn't show the full DNA sequence. www.livescience.com...