Matriarchy to Patriarchy in the Neolithic and the Y-Chromosome Bottleneck

[John G]

Or maybe it just replaced a 4D STS inspired fertility cult created for the genetic selection purposes. Possibly for preparation of the genetic pool in the early stages of the current cycle of civilization (e.g. post Atlantis). The perfect time to do it.
Notice that most of the 'goddess' figurines are heavily focused on the female body parts related to function of fertility. Why obsession with fertility and female heavy society with only few select males. Breeding (genetic selection) cult is a possibility. You would think that divine goddess would have more to offer than that.

'Goddess on a Throne' Figurines Resemble ETs from Early Advanced Culture - The Cosmic Web

A Goddess on a Throne figurine, one of many found near Kosovo, looks like a stereotypical extraterrestrial from a mysterious advanced culture.

the-cosmic-web.com

View attachment 110294
And weakening of men was likely done prior to those practices in order to prevent resistence. Similar to what has been done in our times.
Just an idea. I like entertaining unusual ideas. Prove me wrong.


It actually is 'killing' God, killing logos (which is masculine).

6th density is neither male nor female. The loss of the "goddess" is just the idea of channeling becoming less and less mainstream over time within patriarchal times. The French cave paintings probably are the best channeling based shamanistic ancient artifacts based on their relationship to Zoroastrianism. From Laura's Secret History book: "It is clear that shamanism, as it is known, has declined from its original unified and coherent system. One reason for thinking so is that, while there are many local terms for a male shaman, there is only one for a female shaman. Shamanism, it seems, was formerly a woman’s activity." Whether shaman as female, effeminate male, or any kind of male, the idea of channeling as mainstream has declined under male dominated so called enlightened reasoning but as I said secular liberal feminism responses aren't helping with the problem either.

 

[nicklebleu]

6th density is neither male nor female.

Bur our earthly experience is … For me neither matriarchy (or matrilinearity) nor patriarchy is optimal. Men need women, and women need men. The optimal system complements men with women, not just on the basis of gender, but on every level (personal, spiritual etc).

After all, the Universe is all about balance, and I think that is the only way to overcome the dichotomy of gender.

 

[Ina]

Some time ago, my husband had a very interesting discussion with a chief, who asked if he had a wife and children. My husband said he had two daughters, and then the chief said 'Oh! You are rich!', in the sense that he was 'set' and will not have to work. Even now, the fathers receive either animals or money for their daughters when they marry. Women are still the ones that carry water and wood (on their heads), work to make, maintain, and generally keep the house and the men, and work the land of the chief. Men also work but in areas like protection and fighting with other men (to defend territory), animal hearding and politics. Children, boys, grow mainly by themselves among other children and when are big enough are put to work. The girl children are taken care of as they are perceived as 'valuable', therefore the interest for their survival.

 

[Maya]

Bur our earthly experience is … For me neither matriarchy (or matrilinearity) nor patriarchy is optimal. Men need women, and women need men. The optimal system complements men with women, not just on the basis of gender, but on every level (personal, spiritual etc).

After all, the Universe is all about balance, and I think that is the only way to overcome the dichotomy of gender.

I could not agree more to this.
It has always been stupid to me this old story who is more important and should be in carge in society,
so to say.
We came here to learn and grow, through different bodies, hormones, preferencies, coping mechanisms caused by that and obviously all kinds of higher densities influences in many times.
So all religion, rituals, fighting for hierarchy and resources, natural disasters, famines etc was result of 4D STS manipulation and human cosmic conection feedback. Again for the result of testing reach and direction ( STS, STO ) of our souls.

By all that we could conclude that gender in different lifetimes is only a tool for biodiversity or catalist for soul growth.
And common purpose is to cultivate healthy charatcers who can cooperate to do useful and beautiful things and learn to detect disturbed ones and protect against it.
It should be we (souled conscious humans) 'vs' organic portals and other unwanted beings.
The goal is to become inedible while waithing for the playground to be leveled.
Not to fight among genders.

But I guess it will always remain hot topic no matter what
Anyway it is a signicifant matter to know why this y chromosome bottleneck situation happened all over the world.
Thank you all

 

[Serendipity]

It could be in some cases, but in others the idea of fertility can be intertwined with a philosophy linked to a cosmos-nature that provides sustenance and abundance for its children.

In their subjective vision they see it this way, but God-the universe has an important part of a feminine-creative character, so ultimately what John G. says is fulfilled.

I think the issue isn't so simple or linear. It's true that due to biological differences, men may be more motivated in greater numbers to take on positions of high responsibility or leadership. This doesn't seem to pose many problems in and of itself, if the purpose that drives these men is ultimately service. Rather, the problems stem from the establishment in society of a vision and philosophy increasingly oriented toward self-service, domination, and exclusion of the feminine side (and therefore the positive concepts associated with it).

We also have to take into account hyperdimensional manipulation and the ponerological cycle (psychopathy occurs more frequently in the masculine side, so a patriarchy should be more susceptible to infestation and social degradation if things are allowed to take their natural course without further intervention). We also have details like this:


Here we have certain problems associated with "the masculine," and I bet the second case where transdensity interactions are mentioned were of a STS nature.
In fact, I see it as possible that the end of certain matriarchal societies was partly brought about by aggression by patriarchal societies that were unable to resist the spoils of war they could obtain.

It matters little in and of itself whether a society is a matriarchy or a patriarchy. The establishment or decline of these here on Earth apparently responds to maximizing suffering, and when one fails to fulfill this purpose, it seems to be replaced by its counterpart, thus prolonging the cycle.

So to answer your question, it may be that "a patriarchy" is beneficial—it functions well enough here on Earth and is enhanced for the better if philosophies associated with service to others predominate in that society.

But I don't know; a matriarchy that adheres to that orientation could also function well.
What's more, in a fourth-density society that seeks to orient itself toward service to others, the social configuration and its needs may change enough for these terms to become obsolete and inadequate.

Yes I'm not saying patriarchical structures are the best or certainly not the ideal. Egalitarian like structures are, ideally based on the higher value/belief systems based on truth/christ/life.

What I'm saying is that under the STS rule and 4D STS rule in specific, (which we still are under), and especially during the 'difficult' and unsafe times, it is patriarchical power structures that work the best and the nature (of men and women) naturally gravitates to and elects for them. They are usually the ones that survive the best. Because masculine in power is logos/order in power.

And I claim that if you try and succeed under those same circumstances, to down the patriarchy by weaking men, you might get infantcidal, men exterminating, devouring, sexuality/breeding/self worshipping 'fat goddess' figures down the line, if you get the pun. If you eliminate masculine/logos (no matter the form it takes, more or less strict or benign, the point is it's the order/the structure), what's left (under STS rule) is usually just chaos.

And ofc I'm still not sure if this theory of mine (about those matriarchies being the extreme manifestations of the dark feminine aspect) holds water. But I'm presenting it here just in case.

 

[Serendipity]

6th density is neither male nor female. The loss of the "goddess" is just the idea of channeling becoming less and less mainstream over time within patriarchal times. The French cave paintings probably are the best channeling based shamanistic ancient artifacts based on their relationship to Zoroastrianism. From Laura's Secret History book: "It is clear that shamanism, as it is known, has declined from its original unified and coherent system. One reason for thinking so is that, while there are many local terms for a male shaman, there is only one for a female shaman. Shamanism, it seems, was formerly a woman’s activity." Whether shaman as female, effeminate male, or any kind of male, the idea of channeling as mainstream has declined under male dominated so called enlightened reasoning but as I said secular liberal feminism responses aren't helping with the problem either.

Consider that maybe those shamans from the 'genocidal matriarchies' weren't channeling the true Goddess, but 4D STS (who instructed them what to do...get rid of men and create matriachy and implement breeding/genetic selection campaign). A possibility?

Rememeber that it's a jungle out there in those realms.

 

[John G]

Consider that maybe those shamans from the 'genocidal matriarchies' weren't channeling the true Goddess, but 4D STS (who instructed them what to do...get rid of men and create matriachy and implement breeding/genetic selection campaign). A possibility?

Rememeber that it's a jungle out there in those realms.

No doubt one of the roles of the Shaman was to battle demons and black magicians. The French cave painting links to Zoroastrian ideas and shamanic practices shows that there was a good side too. Things like 7 story mountain cosmology symbolism is intriguing too. The 7 heavens kinds of ideas got pushed out by Polycarp made up monotheism. There's often too much male brute force control of things resulting in loss/marginalizing of good ideas. For every Paul who wants to get women into the esoteric gifts of the spirit roles, there's too many controlling Polycarps to undo the good. Male dominated scientism has made the mainstream even more materialistic. Feminism even makes the push back way too secular of a thing.

 

[Serendipity]

A: Consider the divide between men and women now.

A: That's the crux of the matter. Just as it is today.

The word "crux" comes from Latin, meaning "cross."

Cross of the matter between men and women?

 

[ApotheosisMMC.]

But I guess it will always remain hot topic no matter what

Without a doubt, but the good thing is that in this place we have the opportunity to minimize our reactions in favor of benign and open debate.

Yes I'm not saying patriarchical structures are the best or certainly not the ideal. Egalitarian like structures are, ideally based on the higher value/belief systems based on truth/christ/life.

What I'm saying is that under the STS rule and 4D STS rule in specific, (which we still are under), and especially during the 'difficult' and unsafe times, it is patriarchical power structures that work the best and the nature (of men and women) naturally gravitates to and elects for them. They are usually the ones that survive the best. Because masculine in power is logos/order in power.

Okay, it's true about the archetype of order associated with the masculine, and that this brings benefits to a society, often preventing it from tending too far toward chaos and disintegrating. But that doesn't mean that a matriarchal society, or women themselves, can't express or understand this same archetype well enough to maintain a certain degree of prosperity.

Nor do we know many historical precedents of large matriarchal societies to make a proper comparison, beyond seeing in various societies a certain acceptance and appreciation of feminine roles or that the succession of female bloodlines is prioritized for various reasons.
In a physically difficult and warlike third-density environment (also hyperdimensionally controlled), it might make sense that in certain eras patriarchies arise more naturally, but this seems more like a bias or necessity where survival and strength are prioritized and feminine qualities are not appreciated, somewhat diminished in a reality inclined toward the material.

In fact, theoretically, a matriarchal society, in terms of organization and philosophy, that does not suffer from pacifist naivety, can make use of men without excluding them for its defense and social survival.

It is also necessary to consider how the biological differences between the sexes and the environment make a patriarchy emerge more naturally than a matriarchy, and it could be beneficial solely and simply due to the greater demands for survival in this reality and, despite the negative aspects of this scheme, represent certain benefits in terms of survival and social stability.

But this is a matter of perspective, since just as patriarchy can be the root of increased social preservation, it does not necessarily exclude such a society from maintaining a basic pattern of thought, from gradually becoming infected by psychopathy, from having a tendency to conquer other places, causing suffering and destruction in all its forms, and from the society itself eventually falling at some point to another patriarchy.

So, despite the fact that, given the configuration of reality, a patriarchy can satisfy the preservation of basic needs, there are too many possible configurations to give a simplistic answer. In this reality, there is an eternal cycle that fosters constant struggle, in which neither a patriarchy nor a matriarchy alone can guarantee a level of benefit greater than a certain limit and for a certain period of time.

An important detail that I'm missing is that, although in higher realities, STO individuals of both sexes work in greater balance without excluding the positive aspects of the archetypes associated with each.

Here below, this reality can also occur to a certain extent, and that's why sticking with the idea that patriarchy could be more beneficial in certain circumstances seems petty and insufficient to me.

Consider that maybe those shamans from the 'genocidal matriarchies' weren't channeling the true Goddess, but 4D STS (who instructed them what to do...get rid of men and create matriachy and implement breeding/genetic selection campaign). A possibility?

Rememeber that it's a jungle out there in those realms.

That may have been the case in part, but that does not exclude women's ability to communicate with positive sources and the benefit that this can bring to a society in other places-times... The effect could certainly have been enhanced in a semi-fourth density society prior to the events of "the fall".

 

[Liliea]

Yes I'm not saying patriarchical structures are the best or certainly not the ideal. Egalitarian like structures are, ideally based on the higher value/belief systems based on truth/christ/life.

Laura explains it in a chapter of the Wave and in The Secret Story of the World:

Laura says:

The divinity in ancient religion was not a female or male figure, but male and female. This does not mean that ancient peoples were hermaphrodites, but rather symbolized the balanced state of right and left brain function before the fall.
The fact that women were on equal footing with men, in terms of honor and respect, makes the modern patriarchal mind look like it was a female-dominated society. But these were not peoples ruled by women. They were cultures in which men and women were in harmony and in which brain functions were balanced so that they were allowed to “transduce” cosmic energies into their reality for the purpose of active creation.

What I'm saying is that under the STS rule and 4D STS rule in specific, (which we still are under), and especially during the 'difficult' and unsafe times, it is patriarchical power structures that work the best and the nature (of men and women) naturally gravitates to and elects for them. They are usually the ones that survive the best. Because masculine in power is logos/order in power.

I find that in itself contradictory in relation to what we call “the fall” - the apple, the tree, the snake, etc.; if patriarchy is the structure that works best now then it would have made no sense for SS4D to diminish the power of the divine feminine. The question is, it works best for whom ?
If this structure is usually better at survival - as you put forward an almost Darwinian concept - then ultimately matriarchy did better because in terms of time-space it has all the advantage because as we know patriarchy is something imposed very recently.
I would like to clarify that I do not share your competitive point of view, I just point out the defect and also say that the concept of matriarchy is a historical and social political-patriarchal if such a thing exists, of division-distortion, or better I could say a very 3D vision.

And ofc I'm still not sure if this theory of mine (about those matriarchies being the extreme manifestations of the dark feminine aspect) holds water. But I'm presenting it here just in case.

It is a subjective appreciation to identify matriarchy as something obscure. I think there may be a confusion with the concept or an anachronistic negative association because it is not even about gender as Laura explains it, what comes after the separation or the fall responds to my understanding as a response of the human being in front of a kind of stalking, fear, or transmarginal inhibition.


Marija Gimbuntas in her book THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODDESS explains:

Eric Neumann, the eminent Jungian psychologist and highly regarded author (1955), uses the term Great Mother in the sense of a psychic reality. According to him, the image of the Great Mother developed from the new feminine archetypal, which ultimately derives from the uroboros, symbol of the beginning. The Great Round, an unconscious and undifferentiated stage. The uroboric totality is also a symbol of the united primordial parents, from which the figures of the Great Father and the Great Mother later separated. The Great Mother was finally divided into a Good Mother and a Terrible Mother, according to the positive and negative elements of her character. Neumann also speaks of her transforming character, i.e., becoming the Lady of the Plants and the Lady of the Beasts.

This psychological approach has opened new avenues in the interpretation of some aspects of the prehistoric Goddess. And although I believe that the term mother devalues her importance in itself and does not allow us to appreciate her full character. Moreover, much of Neumann's archetype is based on post-Indo-European religious ideology after the image of the Goddess had undergone a profound and largely degrading transformation.

Note that the archetypal symbol he adopts is that of the serpent, a symbol of "early aboriginal cultural forms" (Eliade,) which is usurped to be considered as a guardian of knowledge is a way of taking power away from the human race and handing it over to "God", that really is what can be considered murky and dark.

Therefore, for the historical period before, I prefer the term “Great Goddess”, as it better describes her absolute dominion, her creative, destructive and regenerative powers. My archaeological research does not confirm the hypothetical existence of the primordial parents and their division into the figures of the Great Father and the Great Mother or the further division of the Great Mother figure into a Good and a Terrible Mother. There is no trace of a father figure in any of the Paleolithic periods. The life-creating power seems to have been solely that of the Great Goddess. A complete division in the Mother never occurred: the Life-Giver and the Death-Bearer are one deity. Her manifestations are manifold: she may be anthropomorphic or zoomorphic; she may appear in a triple aspect; she may be a waterfowl or a bird of prey, a less harmful or a poisonous serpent; but ultimately she is an indivisible Goddess. If the “good” is life, birth, health and increase of wealth, she may be called the good destiny.
The term "Terrible Mother" needs an explanation in the aspect "vulture" or the murderous Goddess is certainly frightening, but if we look at the symbols associated with the aspect of death, it becomes clear that these symbols do not exist alone: they are intertwined with those that promote regeneration. The goddess of the vulture, owl and raven ( ) is both a harbinger of death () and a goddess with breasts () and life-creating labyrinths in her abdomen, or a triangle (vulva) or hourglass-shaped (double triangle)with vulture legs, or she is a bee or a butterfly.

In its death aspect it is the same destiny that gives life, determines its duration, and then takes it away when the time comes. It does so because it controls the duration of the life cycle. The Bringer of Death does not punish men for doing wrong or anything of the sort; she only performs her necessary duty. The regeneration of the beginning at the moment of death.
It begins within the body of the goddess, in her moist womb which expresses itself in animal form as a fish, frog, tortoise, hedgehog, hare or the head of the bull.

(...) The unity with nature is particularly clear in the symbolism of the serpent: its vital energy branches out in the living beings that surround it: the members of the household family that the serpent watches over, the domestic animals and the trees.(...) The serpent and the bird, both embody the vital energy of and are the seats of the souls of the dead.

Goddesses are guardians (genii, penates) of the family, the clan and, later in history, the city (such as Athena of Athens, whose symbols are the bird and the snake). They oversee the continuity of life energy, the well-being and health of the family and the increase of the food supply.
The association of the giving and growing Fate with waterfowl and the ram is due to the fact that waterfowl were the main food supply from the Paleolithic, and sheep became the most important meat supply from the earliest Neolithic.

(....)The pregnancy or fatness of a woman or animal was considered as sacred as the pregnancy of the earth before its flowering in the spring. Every protuberance in nature, be it a mound, a hill, a menhir or a female body.... The number two and duplicity-two seeds, duo fruits, two buttocks-meant blessed multiplication. Since it was more than one it had more strength and greater influence on fertility.

As said before, fertility was not sexuality; it was multiplication, growth, flowering. To this class of symbols belong the male deities of nascent, blooming and dying vegetation: the young, strong and blooming god and the old, sad and dying god. Within the category of Mother Earth, there is a division into the contrasting images of young and old, or into images of mother and daughter, symbolic of death and ascent

Then, the environment was transformed and the world began to be gradually shaped into what it is today:

The result of the clash of ancient Europeans with Indo-European religious forms is visible in the dethroning of ancient European goddesses, the disappearance of temples, cult paraphernalia and sacred signs, and the drastic reduction of religious images in the visual arts. This impoverishment began in east-central Europe and gradually affected all of central Europe. The Aegean islands, Crete and the central and western Mediterranean regions continued the old European traditions for several millennia.

In fact, the core of civilization was lost.
This transformation, however, was not a substitution of one culture for another, but a gradual hybridization of two different symbolic systems. Since the androcentric ideology of the Indo-Europeans was that of the new ruling class, it has come down to us as the "official" belief system of ancient Europe. But the sacred images and symbols of old Europe were never completely uprooted; these most persistent features in human history were too deeply implanted in the psyche. They could only have disappeared with the total extermination of the female population.

They could only have disappeared with the total extermination of the female population? I think that this meant at the time, more than an extermination in itself, a deep energetic spiritual loss, a form of polarization, the loss of their freedom and rights, power over themselves, over the lands and above all because of the syncretism of worship, the imposition that they began to perceive of the role of the goddess in other new foreign religions as for example, the multiple killings of evil serpents in different myths after the civilizational change or as the Babylonian hero Marduk, who kills Tiamat, the goddess of the sea (another monster), or Trito, in the proto-Indo-European religion, which becomes a warrior to kill the three-headed serpent, that gives meaning to the appearance of communes of women warriors, Amazons, fighting for their rights of the past...

Gimbutas narrates an interesting conversion as he calls it, from a parthenogenetic goddess to her birth into a male god:

Most strikingly visible is the conversion of Athena (Minerva), the bird god of the old Europa-dess, into a militarized figure bearing a shield and wearing a helmet. The belief in her birth from the head of Zeus, the ruling god of the Indo-Europeans in Greece, shows to what extent the transformation from a parthenogenetic goddess, to her birth from a male god!

And yet this is not entirely surprising: Zeus was a bull (in Indo-European symbolism the God of Thunder is a bull), and the birth of Athena from the head of a bull was but a reminder of the birth of a bucranium, which was a simulacrum of the womb in ancient European symbolism.
The Death Bearer of the Owl Goddess on stone stelae with a sword or dagger during the Bronze Age in Sardinia, Corsica, Liguria, southern France and Spain.
The Greek Athena and the Irish Morn'gan and Badb are known to appear in battle scenes as vultures, ravens, cranes or crows. The transformation of this goddess into a mare also occurred during the Bronze Age.

Parthenogenetic goddesses who were created from themselves without the help of male insemination, gradually transformed into brides, wives and daughters and were eroticized, linked to the principle of sexual love, as a response to a patriarchal and patrilineal system. For example, the Greek Hera became the wife of Zeus. In addition, Zeus had to "seduce" (with a nod to historical accuracy, we might prefer the term "rape") hundreds of other goddesses and nymphs to establish himself in all parts of Europe.

At the end, I am deeply concerned about a part of the text where the substitution of one culture by another is mentioned, and even more when it mentions the “gradual hybridization of two different symbolic systems”, revealing a “new foreign ideology”, a methodology of replacement of the cultural and genetic heritage in full rule.

 

[axj]

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.

This seems to be a two part question:

1) What happened in all the different regions when the Y-Chromosome bottleneck spiked?
2) What happened in all those region to reverse the Y-Chromosome bottleneck towards normal levels?

It may be a good idea to further analyze this graph showing the possible timeline of the spike in different regions around the world:


Note that the timeframe displayed here is "thousands of years ago" and not BC/AD. Which means that the bottleneck in Europe shown here was around 4000 BC to 2500 BC (not 5000 BC as I wrote earlier).

SOME INSIGHTS FROM THIS GRAPH
a) The Y-Chromosome bottleneck apparently happened first in the Near East, Southeast & East Asia and South Asia.

b) The bottleneck seems to have lasted the longest in South Asia (6000 BC to 1500 BC) and the Near East (5000 BC to 3000 BC), while being much shorter in all other regions. Is there evidence for matriarchical early farming societies surving much longer in places like India? It seems that the famous Indus Valley civilization (3300 BC - 1900 BC) existed when the bottleneck in that region was reversing, indicating that this culture was quite different than what came before.

c) The spike happened last in Siberia (although the build-up towards it lasted several thousand years). It was also relatively late in Central Asia (4500 BC), despite the indo-european patriarchical systems spreading in that area early on. The spike in Europe was basically in the middle between the early and late spikes in other regions (3000 BC).

d) What is also interesting is that there is a second Y-Chromosome bottleneck in Central Asia around 1000-1500 AD. In this case it was almost certainly due to the Mongol invasions of Central Asia and beyond, with the conquerors killing a lot of the male population and raping the women in the conquered regions.

e) The Andes in South America also experienced this Y-Chromosome bottleneck and quick reversal very early on (5000 BC). Being disconnected from the rest of the world, this finding is particularly interesting. It seems to suggest the matriarchical system was spread by Atlantean survivors who went to different parts of the world. And the spike seems to have happened at the time of agriculture first spreading in South America as well, which was supposedly developed independently there.


TWO REASONS FOR THE BOTTLENECK
So it seems that there may have been at least two major causes for the Y-Chromosome bottlenecks. The earliest ones could have been caused by matriarchical societies practicing male infanticide on a large scale.

Since there seems to be evidence that in early farming societies women were mostly doing the farming work while men were apparently mostly responsible for hunting - maybe the fact that farming provided much more food while hunting yielded less and less as the population grew could have been a major reason for limiting the number of males.

Maybe the spike was due to the matriarchical early farming societies recognizing that even farming cannot support an increasing number of people, resulting in "population control" measures. Which apparently still weren't enough, since there was a massive die-off in Europe, for example, starting around 5000 BC - unless it was was caused primarily by plague and not by overpopulation.

The later instances of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck seem to have been more likely due to male dominated conquests where males were killed while women were kept alive, either to be raped or maybe also resulting in a sort of "harem model" in many cases.


SIMILARITIES IN DIFFERENT REGIONS WORLDWIDE
The Y-Chromosome bottleneck and the subsequent reversal seem to coincide with quite a few major changes in the prehistoric world:

- Spread of farming and permanent settlements instead of earlier nomadic hunting and gathering
- Introduction of the concept of private property
- Introduction of monogamy (apparently by the new patriarchical societies)
- More mobility in some societies due to the domestication of horses and the invention of the wheel

Which of these new developments played a role in the Y-Chromosome bottleneck in all the different regions? Why would farming always result in there being less males who reproduce, unless there was a world-wide spread of a matriarchical system with similar beliefs? It does seem that early societies for some reason believed that women should do farming work while men should be hunting.


REASONS FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE BOTTLENECK
The reversal of the early bottleneck (not counting the much later conquest-related ones in Central Asia) seems to be likely due to:

- Introduction of monogamous families as standard in many cultures (did it happen in South America too?)
- Maybe the initial beliefs that men should only hunt fell away and contributed to the normalization
- Patriarchies probably replaced old beliefs regarding the 'value' of males
- Patriarchy, private property and monogamy seem to have been somewhat intertwined new concepts

It seems that looking more into the prehistory in the Andes around the time of the Y-Chromosome bottleneck there (7000 BC) could yield more insights, since it was a disconnected region and still had the same bottleneck in a similar timeframe to the Eurasian cultures.

 

[axj]

Laura explains it in a chapter of the Wave and in The Secret Story of the World:

Laura says:

The divinity in ancient religion was not a female or male figure, but male and female. This does not mean that ancient peoples were hermaphrodites, but rather symbolized the balanced state of right and left brain function before the fall.
The fact that women were on equal footing with men, in terms of honor and respect, makes the modern patriarchal mind look like it was a female-dominated society. But these were not peoples ruled by women. They were cultures in which men and women were in harmony and in which brain functions were balanced so that they were allowed to “transduce” cosmic energies into their reality for the purpose of active creation.

Laura was indeed talking about something important - that there was a third type of ancient societies, other than the matriarchies or patriarchies. And that this more balanced type of society was apparently responsible for building the megaliths:

From what I have been able to piece together, these ancient peoples of the megaliths were in tune with the Celestial Forces. They were a group apart from the serpent oriented agriculturists, or the serpent hating (though still unwittingly controlled by them in the guise of Yahweh/Jehovah), wandering shepherd king monotheists. They worshipped neither the earth with a pantheon of gods nor a single creator god embodied in a concept. They were, in effect the “Third Man”. [...]

But, back to the Third Man, these ancient peoples probably didn’t worship anything in the sense we would understand it. Diodorus put his own spin on what he was telling, and it would have been difficult for his Mediterranean mind to grasp people that just simply loved and studied and observed and utilized the principles of Nature. [...]

The divinity in the old religion was not a female or a male figure, but was both male and female. This does not mean that the ancient peoples were hermaphrodites, but rather it symbolized the balanced right- and left-brain function state prior to the Fall.

The fact that women were on an equal footing with men, in terms of honor and respect, makes it seem to the modern patriarchal mind that it was a female dominated society. But these were not peoples who were ruled by women. They were cultures in which men and women were in harmony and in which the brain functions were balanced so that they were enabled to “transduce” the cosmic energies into their reality for the purpose of active creation.

Unfortunately, the symbols and their meanings as well as the knowledge of their activation were degenerated into self-serving figments of the prurient imaginations of later redactors. The Matriarchal agriculture oriented societies alongside the Patriarchal Shepherd King societies were the results of the split. Neither of them accurately represented the pre-Fall society that is symbolized by the Androgyne.

The Wave Chapter 24: The Bacchantes Meet Apollo At Stonehenge And Play The Third Man Theme

The Bacchantes Meet Apollo At Stonehenge And Play The Third Man Theme Now, I want to make some little observations and conjectures. Most of the creation myths speak about some sort of ritual fault …

cassiopaea.org

You seem to be mixing up this third, more balanced, type of ancient societies with the matriarchies.

Marija Gimbuntas in her book THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODDESS explains

Marija Gimbuntas ideas are basically of the feminist kind, that the violent patriarchies destroyed the peaceful matriarchies that existed before that. I would take anything she says on this topic with a big grain of salt.

 

[John G]

Laura was indeed talking about something important - that there was a third type of ancient societies, other than the matriarchies or patriarchies. And that this more balanced type of society was apparently responsible for building the megaliths:

...pre-Fall society that is symbolized by the Androgyne...

You seem to be mixing up this third, more balanced, type of ancient societies with the matriarchies.

Marija Gimbuntas ideas are basically of the feminist kind, that the violent patriarchies destroyed the peaceful matriarchies that existed before that. I would take anything she says on this topic with a big grain of salt.

There's also this from the Casswiki description of the goddess that might relate to this topic:

Archeology and mythology suggest that a masculine, often war-like and vindictive dominator god supplanted a
feminine, co-operation oriented goddess at some point in prehistory.

Place of women in society. It seems the social status of women took a decisive fall with the establishment
of agricultural settlements and monotheism.

Hunter-gatherer and herding vs. land ownership and large scale agriculture and cities. There is generally
little written record of goddess worship. Records seem to begin with commerce and centralized rule
associated with large scale agriculture and cities.

The megalithic cultures of Europe may have been a more recent part of the ancient goddess worship, extending near
historical times.

So while goddess worship and increased social status for women aren't a matriarchy really; it could seem like one relative to the monotheistic masculine dominator god that took over.

 

[Liliea]

You seem to be mixing up this third, more balanced, type of ancient societies with the matriarchies.

No, I am just clarifying the genesis of the concept of worship of the divine feminine.

Because otherwise, in that context, what would be the role of “The Third Man” and his relationship with Bottleneck?

Marija Gimbuntas ideas are basically of the feminist kind, that the violent patriarchies destroyed the peaceful matriarchies that existed before that. I would take anything she says on this topic with a big grain of salt.

The opinion that Marija Gimbutas is a soviet archaeologist with some success but disqualified by the smithsonian magazine (which among other things is full of incorrect and recreated pictures) with polarized feminist ideas, is an opinion that I do not share but it is a point of view and I will not go into it.

It is not my intention to impose someone's work, and for the sake of balance and my time, I will only say that MG's vision may be the arduous result of a body of research based on pictorial motifs of the mythology of the Mother-Goddess-Creator - otherwise undocumented - based on her work as an academic anthropologist and in situ, (the elaboration of hypotheses and the denunciation of ideological contents in the pre-existing historiography) that allows us a broader and more complex reading of a period in history that still reaches our days and that is purposely veiled by the biased and sometimes pejorative academic paradigm.

 

[Serendipity]

Q: (L) Was there any hyperdimensional manipulation about this (massacre of men, genocidal matriarchies)?

A: That (manipulation) is the crux(cross) of the (biological/genetic) matter (between men and women.. as the context suggests). a.k.a. the manipulation of crossing of male and female cromosomes in meiosis, a.k.a. genetic selection. Just as it is today.

If that wordplay is correct interpretation, then it only confirms the idea that it was genetic selection campaigns directed by 4D STS.

And today we have it done through vaccines etc.