axj
The Living Force
It seems to be a good idea to start a new thread on this rather mind-blowing topic discussed in the latest session:
Just to recap the Y-Chromosome bottleneck findings - there have been at least three independent studies that confirmed its existence during the Holocene, even though their estimates on when exactly it happened in what parts of the world differ by thousands of years (5000 BC in Europe or 2100 BC?):
Here are some of the graphs from the first study (Karmin et al.) to highlight the possible timeframe and extent of the bottleneck:
First, it seems to have slowly begun at around 20,000 BC, increased through the Younger Dryas cataclysm and peaked at around 5000 BC (global average), before falling rapidly down and normalizing:

Secondly, these three graphs show that this bottleneck was truly more or less global (first two graphs) and apparently happened thousands of years apart in different parts of the world (final graph):



MAJOR QUESTIONS
I did some research from several angles over the last week trying to find evidence or possible answers to the following questions:
1. What can possibly explain that the Y-Chromosome bottleneck happened pretty much everywhere in the world, though up to several thousand years apart? It just doesn't does seem to make sense that matriarchical killing of men would peak at very different times all around the world.
2. Is there evidence for a mass killing of men by matriarchical societies at the time of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck?
3. What caused the rapid normalization after the peak of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck?
Doing this research gave me a much clearer picture of the neolithic times when agriculture just began to spread. I will try to structure my findings in a logical way, highlighting the best, most surprising or even bizarre findings. I focused on Europe to a large degree because I am most familiar with it and admittedly did not go very deep, mostly using Wikipedia summaries.
THE THREE ANCESTOR GROUPS OF ALL EUROPEANS
First of all, it is good to know that European prehistory (and ancestry) is basically based on three different groups:
1) Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who first inhabited Europe during the Ice Age and then spread to all of Europe
2) Neolithic farmers who moved in from Anatolia starting around 7000 BC on two routes: one major group going along the Mediterranean coasts and islands up to France and Britain, while another major farmer group spread basically along the Danube river and then also to the rest of Europe
3) Indo-European steppe herders moved in large numbers to Europe at a later date, apparently around 4000-2000 BC (mostly male migration in this case)
TWO MAJOR DIE-OFFS IN EUROPE AFTER THE YOUNGER DRYAS
The first die-off in Europe started around 5000 BC after the first population explosion due to farming:
The second die-off in Europe happened during the Bronze Age around 3200 BC, apparently due to a climatic catastrophe:
The 5000 BC die-off has left horrific evidence of a lot of violence between different groups, even up to mass ritual cannibalism in places like Herxheim. Some research shows that plague may have played a role in the die-off too.
The earliest agriculture may have started during the Ice Age, but why did it not spread then? Was the much larger amount of megafauna before the Younger Dryas cataclysm a major reason for no agriculture? Or is the evidence of Atlantean agriculture being suppressed?
INFANTICIDE WAS EXTREMELY COMMON
One thing I did not realize and that is quite shocking is that killing of newborn babies was widely accepted and practiced in many ancient cultures (a notable exception being Ancient Egypt, interestingly enough, and then all the Abrahamic religions). For the most part, apparently babies were just left to die from exposure and this was treated as a sort of abortion before abortions were possible.
According to various estimates, 15% to 50% of all babies were killed in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (during Ice Age and until the Bronze Age):
EARLY FARMING WAS DONE MOSTLY BY WOMEN
It seems very well established now that women did most of the farming in the first farming societies. There is even research that shows that female upper body strength back then was on average the same as that of world class athletes today:
Y-CHROMOSOME STABILIZATION FROM THE STEPPES? (INDO-EUROPEAN HERDERS)
There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that the reversal of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck and quick normalization was largely due to the large-scale migration of indo-european herders from the steppes. Not only were these apparently mostly migrating males, but they also seem to have brought the concept of monogamy with them - which was not all that common before that.
The last sentence points out that explaining the Y-Chromosome bottleneck with the "harem model" or the theory that some men fathered children with 17 women on average while all other men had no children cannot explain why this suddenly stopped and reversed. The only other explanation is that there was catastrophic male mortality, possibly in the choice of which children were allowed to live.
The Soviet archaelogist Marija Gimbutas is one of the most famour proponents of the theory that the patriarchical indo-european steppe herders destroyed the matriarchical early farming societies. Today many seem to challenge that view, though her Kurgan hypothesis that the indo-europeans originated in the Ukrainian steppes has been completely accepted today:
BIZARRE SOCIETIES IN THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS
There is some rather bizarre evidence about what society and families were like in the earliest settlements like Aşıklı Höyük (8200 BC) in Anatolia:
Again, there seem to be a couple possible explanations: either the men ruled and let the women do all the hard work, working them to death basically. Or maybe only a few men were allowed to live in order to father a lot of children with different women, who all died in their 20s.
EVIDENCE FOR MATRIARCHY IN THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS
Çatalhöyük in Anatolia, also one of the earliest settlements (7500 BC to 5600 BC), shows some evidence for matriarchy, a lack of family structures as we know them and an apparent preference for girls over boys:
FEMALE GODDESS FIGURINES IN ALL EARLY FARMING SETTLEMENTS
This is a more well-known topic that has been discussed a lot as a possible indication of a matriarchal society and religion:
Some interesting insights into the sexless and female figurines specifically from research at Çatalhöyük:
This is it for now. I may add more analysis and thoughts on the initial three major questions I shared above. The first one seems most problematic: What was the world-wide cause of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck, thousands of years apart in different regions?
Any comments or suggestions are welcome.
(seek10) If time permits, I have a question. In chromosomal studies, there's a phenomenon known as the Y-chromosome bottleneck. During this period, it is estimated that for every 17 females, there was only one male who left descendants. This event is believed to have occurred around 5000 BCE, although the exact timing varies. What factors might have contributed to this genetic anomaly?
--
"bottleneck in Y-chromosome lineages surfacing within the Younger Dryas boundary that in contrast to demographic reconstructions based on mtDNA, strongly indicated an accelerated differential between males to females, rising from a previous 1 male to every 3.5 females to 1 male for every 8 females by 8,000 BC and a staggering 17 females per single male by 5,000 BC, before as dramatically falling back in ratio to where we stand now with near parity of global birth rates." THE ONCE AND FUTURE SKY GOD? – From Göbekli Tepe to The Zodiac – and Beyond…' THE ONCE AND FUTURE SKY GOD? – From Göbekli Tepe to The Zodiac – and Beyond…
(L) Well, seek10, you ought to be able to figure out why there's a bottleneck in Y-chromosome! A bunch of people died! Especially in the Younger Dryas boundary, for crying all night! It accelerated.
(seek10) The anomaly seems to result from a disproportionately high rate of male mortality.
(L) Yeah, right. Okay... One male to every 3.5 females, to one male for every eight females by 8000 BC and a staggering 17 females per single male by 5000 BC. Near parity of global birth rates. Okay. Okay, it is obviously not simply cataclysmic activity.
(Andromeda) It's a long period of time.
(L) Yeah, that covers a long period of time, so... Well, what was the reason there?
A: Notice that there were matriarchies in that window of time.
Q: (L) Yeah, so...
(Joe) So they sent all the men to die...
A: Consider the divide between men and women now.
Q: (L) So are you suggesting that maybe during those times, women became angry at men, because they thought men had been responsible for bringing down the wrath of the gods on them?
A: Close.
Q: (L) And they formed matriarchies and began to suppress men in some way, because they blamed them for all the problems?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Was that in fact the cause of the problems?
A: Partly, sure.
Q: (Joe) What happened to all the men?
A: Often massacred.
Q: (Joe) By who?
(Niall) By the women?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) No...
(Niall) What are we talking about, Amazons? Men are stronger...
(L) Well, maybe the legend of the Amazons came from something like this.
A: Yes
Q: (L) And what about the legends of the women turning against their husbands? And there are Greek stories about... Who was it, the sons of.. who was it? Egyptus and the Sons of the Greeks or something. And they had all these men and married all these women, and then they were unhappy about it. The women were unhappy about it, and they were given a signal or something. They all killed their husbands in the night. I think they were like the 50 sons of Egyptus and the 50 sons of... Somebody look it up. But, okay.
(seek10) Could the current suppression of women be seen as a form of karmic rebound?
(L) What now?
(seek10) Well, in some areas, women seem to play a somewhat diminished role. Could this be part of a karmic rebalancing act?
A: Partly.
Q: (Joe) Hang on, we must be talking about some very different types of women from 5,000 years ago, or in 5000 BC, because the idea that women in general could massacre men if men didn't want them to, doesn't fit.
(Niall) Well, how? Yeah.
(L) Are you saying that there were libtard women back then?
A: Close. [laughter]
Q: (L) Don't laugh!
(Joe) That still doesn't make any sense.
(Chu) Well, they could have used poisons and stuff...
(L) Think of all the stories in the myths about it! They came from somewhere!
(Joe) Who did? The myths?
(L) Yeah!
(Joe) But are we talking about women who are physically stronger than men in 5000 BC?
A: No.
Q: (Joe) So why did men allow women who were physically weaker than them to massacre them?
(L) Read the myths. It'll tell you how. I mean, consider the story of Judith and Holofernes in the Bible. She waited until he was asleep, and put a tent peg against the side of his head, and hit it with a hammer. I mean, women have all kinds of ways.
(Joe) Yeah, of course.
(L) They don't have to be stronger than men.
(Joe) Well, they said "massacre".
(L) Well "massacre" doesn't mean that they necessarily were in a battle. So, am I on the right track here?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Was there any hyperdimensional manipulation about this?
A: That's the crux of the matter. Just as it is today.
Q: (Joe) So there were matriarchies at the time that propagandized that men were the cause of all ills. And maybe to some extent they were, but not totally. And then they just basically... That's crazy. Well, I suppose you're talking about a lot fewer people, even though it's eight to one or 17 to one, you're talking about small groups, right?
(L) Right.
(Niall) But it's so pervasive that it shows up in...
(Chu) the DNA.
(Niall) Yeah, the genetic records.
(Joe) Yeah, but it's still small numbers compared to today, if you transpose it to 8 billion people.
(L) Yeah, but think also about the whole Zoroastrian thing. They were having all the raids, the cattle raids and all that kind of stuff. And then the poor, peaceful cow wasn't able to provide milk and cheese for the farmers. So everything was all messed up. So just read, what's her name? What's her name, Approaching Infinity?
(Tuatha de Danaan) Settegast, isn't it?
(L) Yes, Mary Settegast.
(Joe) There's an Irish myth about the Brown Bull... Queen Maeve and her husband were definitely in a... she was the queen and he was...
(Niall) Number two.
(Joe) Yeah. But he had more possessions than her. Well, they were equal in possessions, except that he had a magnificent brown bull and she didn't have one. So she went on a war, with a war party...
(L) See? You got a myth right there. Okay, seek10, are you happy?
(seek10) Yeah, that makes sense. Agriculture is generally believed to have begun around 7000 to 6000 BCE, though some suggest it may have started even earlier—possibly before the Younger Dryas. If we go with the assumption that agriculture began around 7000 BCE, does that imply that women were primarily responsible for agriculture at that time?"
A: Mostly.
Q: (seek10) This whole idea that agriculture led to surplus, which then allowed people to go to war and so on, doesn't seem entirely accurate.
(L) Yeah. It's almost like they were doing agriculture so they would have food to eat, so they didn't have to go out hunting. Because they didn't have any men around to do the hunting, and whatever.
A: Yes
Q: (L) Okay.
(seek10) Thank you, Laura.
Just to recap the Y-Chromosome bottleneck findings - there have been at least three independent studies that confirmed its existence during the Holocene, even though their estimates on when exactly it happened in what parts of the world differ by thousands of years (5000 BC in Europe or 2100 BC?):
(1) By analysing mitochondrial and Y chromosome sequences in more than 300 contemporary human populations worldwide, Karmin et al. highlighted that the male effective population size of these populations (estimated from the paternally transmitted Y chromosome) underwent a severe bottleneck around 5000 years ago. This remarkable decrease was not observed for the female effective population size estimated from the maternally transmitted mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
(2) These results were further supported by a study on 26 human populations from the 1000 Genomes Project, which found evidence for a similar bottleneck of male effective population size.
(3) Similarly, Batini et al. analysed genetic diversity from 17 populations from Europe and the Near East, and showed similar Y chromosome pattern.
The estimated timeframe of this bottleneck varies between world regions, ranging from 8300 BP in the Near East to 1400 BP in Siberia, and was estimated to 5000 BP in Europe according to Karmin et al. using a mutation rate of 0.74 × 10−9 mutations/bp/year for the Y chromosome. Using a slightly higher mutation rate (1.0 × 10−9 mutations/bp/year), Batini et al. estimated more recent dates for this bottleneck (ranging from 4200 to 2100 BP for the Near Eastern and European populations).
Patrilineal segmentary systems provide a peaceful explanation for the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck - Nature Communications
Here are some of the graphs from the first study (Karmin et al.) to highlight the possible timeframe and extent of the bottleneck:
First, it seems to have slowly begun at around 20,000 BC, increased through the Younger Dryas cataclysm and peaked at around 5000 BC (global average), before falling rapidly down and normalizing:

Secondly, these three graphs show that this bottleneck was truly more or less global (first two graphs) and apparently happened thousands of years apart in different parts of the world (final graph):



MAJOR QUESTIONS
I did some research from several angles over the last week trying to find evidence or possible answers to the following questions:
1. What can possibly explain that the Y-Chromosome bottleneck happened pretty much everywhere in the world, though up to several thousand years apart? It just doesn't does seem to make sense that matriarchical killing of men would peak at very different times all around the world.
2. Is there evidence for a mass killing of men by matriarchical societies at the time of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck?
3. What caused the rapid normalization after the peak of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck?
Doing this research gave me a much clearer picture of the neolithic times when agriculture just began to spread. I will try to structure my findings in a logical way, highlighting the best, most surprising or even bizarre findings. I focused on Europe to a large degree because I am most familiar with it and admittedly did not go very deep, mostly using Wikipedia summaries.
THE THREE ANCESTOR GROUPS OF ALL EUROPEANS
First of all, it is good to know that European prehistory (and ancestry) is basically based on three different groups:
1) Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who first inhabited Europe during the Ice Age and then spread to all of Europe
2) Neolithic farmers who moved in from Anatolia starting around 7000 BC on two routes: one major group going along the Mediterranean coasts and islands up to France and Britain, while another major farmer group spread basically along the Danube river and then also to the rest of Europe
3) Indo-European steppe herders moved in large numbers to Europe at a later date, apparently around 4000-2000 BC (mostly male migration in this case)
TWO MAJOR DIE-OFFS IN EUROPE AFTER THE YOUNGER DRYAS
The first die-off in Europe started around 5000 BC after the first population explosion due to farming:
Note that this population crash around 5000 BC happened at the same time as the peak and then quick reversal of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck.With some exceptions, population levels rose rapidly at the beginning of the Neolithic until they reached the carrying capacity. This was followed by a population crash of "enormous magnitude" after 5000 BC, with levels remaining low during the next 1,500 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe
The second die-off in Europe happened during the Bronze Age around 3200 BC, apparently due to a climatic catastrophe:
Beginning around 3200 BC, the Earth's climate became colder and drier than it had ever been since the end of the last Ice age, resulting in the worst drought in the history of Europe since the beginning of agriculture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni–Trypillia_culture
The 5000 BC die-off has left horrific evidence of a lot of violence between different groups, even up to mass ritual cannibalism in places like Herxheim. Some research shows that plague may have played a role in the die-off too.
The earliest agriculture may have started during the Ice Age, but why did it not spread then? Was the much larger amount of megafauna before the Younger Dryas cataclysm a major reason for no agriculture? Or is the evidence of Atlantean agriculture being suppressed?
Grinin dates the beginning of the agricultural revolution within the interval 12,000 to 9,000 BP, though in some cases the first cultivated plants or domesticated animals' bones are even of a more ancient age of 14–15 thousand years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
INFANTICIDE WAS EXTREMELY COMMON
One thing I did not realize and that is quite shocking is that killing of newborn babies was widely accepted and practiced in many ancient cultures (a notable exception being Ancient Egypt, interestingly enough, and then all the Abrahamic religions). For the most part, apparently babies were just left to die from exposure and this was treated as a sort of abortion before abortions were possible.
According to various estimates, 15% to 50% of all babies were killed in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (during Ice Age and until the Bronze Age):
Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent. Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Pre-Islamic Arabia, early modern Europe, Aboriginal Australia, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans.
Parental infanticide researchers have found that mothers are more likely to commit infanticide. In the special case of neonaticide (murder in the first 24 hours of life), mothers account for almost all the perpetrators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
EARLY FARMING WAS DONE MOSTLY BY WOMEN
It seems very well established now that women did most of the farming in the first farming societies. There is even research that shows that female upper body strength back then was on average the same as that of world class athletes today:
Recent research suggests that early Neolithic farmers were significantly influenced by women, who played a central role in agricultural activities.
A 2017 study analyzing prehistoric bones from the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages found that women engaged in consistent, repetitive, and difficult manual labor, challenging the long-held belief that they were primarily responsible for domestic work. The study revealed that women's upper body strength was comparable to that of modern elite female athletes, indicating that they performed heavy labor such as digging, hoeing, and hauling.
Additionally, the Transfarmation Project highlights that prehistoric farms were "manned" primarily by women, with women being responsible for the lion's share of farming responsibilities in early agricultural societies. The Transfarmation Project emphasizes that women were the original pioneers of farming, with historical evidence showing their critical contributions to early agricultural societies.
https://www.science.org/content/article/strong-women-did-lot-heavy-lifting-ancient-farming-societies
Y-CHROMOSOME STABILIZATION FROM THE STEPPES? (INDO-EUROPEAN HERDERS)
There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that the reversal of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck and quick normalization was largely due to the large-scale migration of indo-european herders from the steppes. Not only were these apparently mostly migrating males, but they also seem to have brought the concept of monogamy with them - which was not all that common before that.
The Yamnaya migrations from the Pontic-Caspian steppe into temperate Europe changed the course of history: they brought not only a new language, but also new ideas about how society was organized around small monogamous families with individual ownership to animals and land. This new society became the foundation for the Bronze Age, and for the way European societies continued to develop to the present.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170404084429.htm
Recent anthropological data suggest that the modern concept of life-long monogamy has been in place for only the last 10,000 years. Genetic evidence has demonstrated that a greater proportion of men began contributing to the genetic pool between 5,000–10,000 years ago (i.e., there was an increase in women reproducing with different men rather than multiple women reproducing with the same man), which suggests that reproductive monogamy became more common at that time. This would correspond to the Neolithic agricultural revolution. [...]
However, there was a temporary but sharp decrease in the ratio during the start of the Neolithic resolution, where the average man with modern descendants had children with 17 women (circa 8,000 years ago). Given the dramatic cultural shifts towards sedentary agriculture at the time, this is speculated to represent a dramatic change from a community-based society towards the hoarding of power and resources more consistent with a harem model; however, the rapid movement back towards 4.5 women per man after this dip, accompanied by evidence for the move towards monogamy as the agricultural revolution progressed, may suggest a dramatic, unknown factor such as catastrophic male mortality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy
The last sentence points out that explaining the Y-Chromosome bottleneck with the "harem model" or the theory that some men fathered children with 17 women on average while all other men had no children cannot explain why this suddenly stopped and reversed. The only other explanation is that there was catastrophic male mortality, possibly in the choice of which children were allowed to live.
The Soviet archaelogist Marija Gimbutas is one of the most famour proponents of the theory that the patriarchical indo-european steppe herders destroyed the matriarchical early farming societies. Today many seem to challenge that view, though her Kurgan hypothesis that the indo-europeans originated in the Ukrainian steppes has been completely accepted today:
Gimbutas thought the Copper Age ended when invaders from the east swept into the region around 4000 BC. The newcomers were “patriarchal, stratified … mobile, and war oriented”—everything the people of the Copper Age weren’t. They spoke Indo-European, the ancient tongue that forms the basis for English, Gaelic, Russian, and many other languages. The new arrivals put their stamp on Europe, and wiped out the goddess worship of the Copper Age in the process.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/trav...thsonian-journeys-travel-quarterly-180958733/
BIZARRE SOCIETIES IN THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS
There is some rather bizarre evidence about what society and families were like in the earliest settlements like Aşıklı Höyük (8200 BC) in Anatolia:
So in the earliest settlements men lived into their 50s while women died in their 20s. Child mortality was also extremely high, with half of the children dying within a year of birth (on purpose?).The male population had individuals up to the age of 55–57 years of age, while the majority of females died between the ages of 20 and 25. The skeletal remains of these women show spinal deformities indicating that they had to carry heavy loads. This does not itself prove that there was a division of labour between the sexes. The fact that the men seem to have outlived the women might be interpreted as sign that the women were subject to more strenuous physical labour than their male counterparts.
Children represent 37.8% of the deceased, with 43.7% mortality within a year of birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aşıklı_Höyük
Again, there seem to be a couple possible explanations: either the men ruled and let the women do all the hard work, working them to death basically. Or maybe only a few men were allowed to live in order to father a lot of children with different women, who all died in their 20s.
EVIDENCE FOR MATRIARCHY IN THE EARLIEST SETTLEMENTS
Çatalhöyük in Anatolia, also one of the earliest settlements (7500 BC to 5600 BC), shows some evidence for matriarchy, a lack of family structures as we know them and an apparent preference for girls over boys:
The site—Çatalhöyük—has long been critical for researchers seeking to understand what the first agricultural and sedentary societies looked like. Now, DNA from the humans buried there suggests these early farmers organized their families along the mother’s side, researchers report today in Science. In the settlement’s later phases, households were made up of genetically unrelated children and adults, indications people practiced widespread adoption or fostering.
Among the adult burials, “the females seem to be associated with the house,” says Mehmet Somel, a geneticist at the Middle East Technical University who led the study. Men, meanwhile, moved in from elsewhere in the settlement—a pattern known as matrilocality.
Other archaeological evidence adds to the picture. Female children, for example, tended to be buried with more grave goods, such as beads and pottery. “Young girls were treated very differently from young boys,” says Ian Hodder, an emeritus professor of archaeology at Stanford University and co-author of the new paper. “They were buried with lots more artifacts,” he says–five times as many on average.
Over the more than 1000 years that Çatalhöyük was occupied, burial practices changed. In the settlement’s later phases, people interred in the same house weren’t necessarily close genetic relatives. But chemical signatures in their bones showed that they shared the same diet, suggesting perhaps that unrelated babies were nursed by the same group of women.
It’s a hint that their concept of what makes a family wasn’t limited to blood relatives. “The assumption was always that people buried in the same house were genetically related,” says Sabina Cveček, an anthropologist at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Austrian Academy of Sciences who was not part of the research team.
A widespread system of fostering or adoption, for example, could be evidence that some form of egalitarianism prevailed at Çatalhöyük. “You’re giving out your children to other people all the time and sharing everything,” Hodder says.
https://www.science.org/content/article/stone-age-farmers-households-passed-mother-daughter
FEMALE GODDESS FIGURINES IN ALL EARLY FARMING SETTLEMENTS
This is a more well-known topic that has been discussed a lot as a possible indication of a matriarchal society and religion:
In 4500 bc, before the first cities were built in Mesopotamia and Egypt, Old Europe was among the most sophisticated and technologically advanced places in the world. At its peak, about 5000–3500 bc, Old Europe was developing many of the political, technological, and ideological signs of "civilization". Some Old European villages grew to citylike sizes, larger than the earliest cities of Mesopotamia
Female "goddess" figurines, found in almost every settlement, have triggered intense debates about the ritual and political power of women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_(archaeology)
Some interesting insights into the sexless and female figurines specifically from research at Çatalhöyük:
These sexless humanoid figurines seem to have been predominantly made of stone, and disappear after level VI. From that level onwards clay figurines with the marks of females are almost exclusively found.
Many of the humanoid figurines are headless. These heads may have been deliberately broken as a means of ending their potency. This can be deduced from the fact that many of the headless figurines were made of stone, suggesting that the heads did not accidentally break off, but were consciously removed. (p. 156)
https://www.academia.edu/597391/Dür...n_Nederlands_Instituut_voor_het_Nabije_Oosten
This is it for now. I may add more analysis and thoughts on the initial three major questions I shared above. The first one seems most problematic: What was the world-wide cause of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck, thousands of years apart in different regions?
Any comments or suggestions are welcome.