It's amazing how cities that stood for 600 years like this one, with people that were apparently so rich and important, are now almost forgotten. Puts in perspective those things and people that we consider today to be important
sociaty only remebers what it wants to remeber. through propaganda social trends and other pointless pretentions we perpetuate a lie long enough till its history.
Why would this one Diadem rewrite history? Numerous times throughout many different cultures there have been women of power or completely matriarchal cultures. Why is this one woman and diadem different from them? Europe itself has never been strictly patriarchal. It was mostly the Romans and Greeks and Religion that spread patriarchy in Europe, and this would predate those for the most part. So Why was this so different? I'm not saying the find isn't important but why the emphasis in how this would have large aspects for history as we know it?
PUBLIC HEALTH. Maybe the man and the woman ruled together as a polytheistic theocracy. Yet, dead bodies, even when mummified, are usually considered "unclean" and thus are buried in multiple, nested containers and/or at safe distances from the places where people live and work. Cemeteries are usually located outside city limits until urban sprawl surrounds them. Only very powerful or distinguished individuals are buried in shrines, tombs and crypts inside an occupied building, such as Westminster Abbey in The City of London, chapels and castles. Notre Dame Chartres is the only cathedral of the seven Notre Dame cathedrals in France that has never had any buried bodies on its grounds, because it was considered too holy and sacred to be defiled by burials of any human remains of any human beings.
The crown doesn't mean this woman ruled or had power. Queen consorts have worn crowns since ancient times in many countries. In the UK, the queen consort had her own crown made, but she didn't rule or hold power.
This is fascinating! Finding a silver diadem is wonderful, and shows that the woman must have been someone important, even if she was not Queen, a princess is important. We know so little about civilizations in Europe, that date to around 2000 BC! Finds like this city and the bones of the people are helping to teach us that even that long ago, people were more sophisticated than we thought! Thank you so much for sharing this video!! I love learning about ancient civilizations!! ~Janet in Canada
Indeed Janet. All the intonations of a mutual respect and recognition of beneficial qualities irrespective of gender. Highly admirable traits revealed was such skill and authenticity it takes my breath away. BTW, I’m glad I clicked “read more “on your comment to hear your full thought and appreciation.
The Minoan civilization is fascinating from Crete, female seems to be a female dominant society. Images of topless female on the Knossos temple holding snakes on both hands
She had a piece of jewelry, so she must have been a queen. A strong ,empowered queen who could kick the asses of many men. Just like in the movies. Science.
The first thing I thought about the woman being buried in the diadem and the man being buried without a crown was that his crown was likely given to his successor as a symbol of legitimacy and power and was thus too important to just be buried. Note that I am not an archeologist or an expert in anything to do with the bronze age or this culture in Spain.
@@lechatel Gold has actually not historically always held a higher status. It is very dependent on which metal is rarer in an area. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had scarce access to silver but relatively abundant access to gold. Gold was still very valuable to them, but the scarcity of silver made it even more sought after. Though it is definitely more common for gold to be valued more since it is generally rarer and doesn’t tarnish.
@@lechatel Seconding Michael Spinelli's comment: Gold is not always the most valued material. Availability of the material is what makes it rare. While there is more silver on earth than gold, the accessibility of silver was poor until the exploration of the New World. There were scant silver mines in Europe and some silver was extracted as a bi-product of galena. It's easy information to research. There was a really great exhibit in Edinburgh around 2017 on Scottish silver. So many assume the "ancient celts" were all about the gold, but due to the looting and reusing of silver (which was more highly prized) during the Roman period, the major of high status artifacts that still exist are of metals that were not melted down by later populations.
We've literally had powerful Queens and Empresses in supposedly patriarchal societies, who ran Empires and Kingdoms. What is with the silly claim about wondering and being in shock if it is confirmed this woman was a ruler of a patriarchal society?
I like how BBC immediately went after the grill power angle like this discovery was to "revolutionize" our knowledge of the past. This is as far from news as it could be. Also the man had jewelry made of gold, why would a silver diadem be somehow special?
They are desperate to rewrite history. Men practically constructed every single physical part of the world in which we live. They find one piece of jewellry and that's all they need.
Conclusions like these often say more about the archaeologist's/ historian's personal beliefs than about reality. Early civilizations are particularly useful for projecting one's own beliefs on them due to a lack of knowledge on them. When studying archaeology at university, I always found it striking that all communist archaeologist always found evidence for prehistoric egalitarian proto-communist societies, while neo-liberals always found evidence for complex trade and proto-capitalism. Likewise, feminist archaeologies and historians tend to see ancient matriarchies almost everywhere. Similarly, almost all past societies are now presented as if they were extremely multicultural, from ancient Rome to the Vikings. Whenever ideologies are involved, no matter which one, I always tend to take any conclusions with a pitch of salt, or rather a mountain. If only scholars could leave out there personal ideological background (that goes for all ideologies) and focus on searching for the truth.
@@marcustulliuscicero3987 Exactly. The grave goods only tell us who had ceremonial power, nothing more. To me, it seems common sense to say, in any period of history there would have been some male leaders and some female leaders. That's based on general experience of people. These were people, not very different from ourselves. We all know women who are difficult to push around, and we all know women with good leadership skills. We also know that many societies, past or present, go to extraordinary lengths to prop up very poor leaders; male or female. I'm just not sure about what this archaeologist believes has been "discovered". Even societies that deeply oppress women, generate a lot of mystique about why women are "special", (not in a good way). Women can be subordinated and given nice jewellery. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
@@marcustulliuscicero3987 Your points are well made and well taken; however, it didn't appear that it was the archeologist making these leaps to fit the current PC narrative -- it was the BBC. The archeologist simply put forth possibilities, and said that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove them -- "more questions than answers".
The Bronze Age is such a fascinating era! We tend to focus on Greece, but what if Spain has just as rich a culture? Another finding, announced but a month ago, which could rewrite Bronze Age history is the led curse tablet at Mt Ebal, which could correlate with an earlier date of the conquest of Canaan than the standard narrative. A question regarding the decline of this culture is whether or not it correlates with the explosion of Thera, which would have produced great climate change and its repercussions.
The Earth Mother ideology has been around for a long time. I believe one of the oldest ceramics ever found was of the Earth Mother. It's pretty easy to imagine that women in some early development cultures wielded great amounts of power.
The surprise that we modern people express in evidence suggesting that a woman could have held a powerful position in her ancient society is a telling cultural realization in itself.
Really? The woke BBC and woke academic are "shocked and surprised" at the story the woke academic with scant evidence is pushing. Maybe they're not aware of Cleopatra or Boudicca? Or maybe it's just convenient to forget them and others so they can act surprised.
I think it's funny that we think things were always just the way they are now. I seriously doubt that is the case...but it DOES lead to incredible bias in "science"
It absolutely does. Now it is the turn of feminism and the so called heteropatriarchy, just look at how horny she gets talking about power. So sad that politics and ideology has to interfere with science
🏺🏛⚱️💀👑☠️..Its truly Fascinating how modern archeological assumptions are so corrupted and obscured by our own postmoderne' concerns, hopes, needs, and narratives. An ancient burial site is uncovered with a royal couple ...he is adorned with gold ...she merely with silver... Yet, the only historical question that arises is the neoFeminist concern... Was this very young woman welding real power over the ancient warrior clans of ancient Spain?... Before we jump to that satisfying conclusion ...should not they first ask?... If she ruled?.. who then? was this older Fellow next to her with all the Gold?...merely her consort or first gentleman????... Perhaps, it is more likely it was he was the Warrior King, who ruled with Power...and she... his beautiful young wife and queen...
They might have had the matrilineal social structure that was once common in many cultures around the world. In this system the line descends through women, and the women's brothers are the male leaders, usually war leaders. The people who lived in this inaccessible walled town must have needed to defend themselves from some serious enemies. The Iroquoian peoples of the lower Great Lakes were a very warlike people who conquered an area as large as western Europe. They had a matrilineal system. The men were out conquering, and the women stayed home running things. Women "owned" their homes and their children, a family consisted of women and their matrilineal descendants of both sexes, and marriages were not strong and often temporary. This system has the same conservation of wealth and support for children as a patrilineal system, but roles are different. It will be interesting to see what DNA says about the relationship between these two "royal" people.
That matrilineal joint family system was (and sometimes still is) practiced by the Nair caste of Kerala, and the Maharajas of Travancore and Cochin. Brothers and sisters lived together with the sisters' children. Nair husbands visited their wives but did not live with them. Nair women could have a second (Brahmin) husband but his children were Nairs too. Uncles had more say in child-rearing than fathers. The king was succeeded by his eldest sister's son. The royal line ran from one queen mother to the next queen mother. The Amma Maharani ruled while the king was a minor.
🏺🏛⚱️💀👑☠️..Its truly Fascinating how modern archeological assumptions are so corrupted and obscured by our own postmoderne' concerns, hopes, needs, and narratives. An ancient burial site is uncovered with a royal couple ...he is adorned with gold ...she merely with silver... Yet, the only historical question that arises is the neoFeminist concern... Was this very young woman welding real power over the ancient warrior clans of ancient Spain?... Before we jump to that satisfying conclusion ...should not they first ask?... If she ruled?.. who then? was this older Fellow next to her with all the Gold?...merely her consort or first gentleman????... Perhaps, it is more likely it was he was the Warrior King, who ruled with Power...and she... his beautiful young wife and queen...
Did this culture value gold more than silver? Because if so doesn’t the fact that his accessories/jewelry were made of gold and hers were made of silver give us a clue as to which one, the man or the woman, had the highest status in that society regardless of the diadem she was wearing?
Both were very valuable in ancient societies due to their ability to hold a high polish without oxidation. Gold was more valuable due to its association with Sun worship. Silver was associated with the Moon. Your Q is a really good one and beyond my knowledge.
Its not uncommon for men to decorate their women as a means of showing off. My wife looks far better in diamond earrings and and evening gown than I do.
Well, could be. Wearing a diadem could mean she was the ruler, or the wife of a ruler, or a secondary noble, or the wife of a secondary noble, or the daughter of someone rich, or probably other variations. Consider the complex history of head ornament in countless cultures. That's a lot of weight of assumption to put on a piece of decoration, even if you've got a handful of other grave finds from the same culture for comparison. I had hoped archaeology and anthropology had grown more careful about constructing their stories from the physical evidence.
Quien fue el jefe? es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasutago Boudica fue la esposa de este Rey. Fue Reina de un tribo, no el pais. Ella es importante obviamente por lo que hizo.
Actually, "the exception tests the rule" is a more modern translation. If your rule does not cover the exceptions then it is not a rule. You have to add the exceptional circumstances to your rule to make it correct.
A diadem that partially covers the face seems odd. However, the shape is reminiscent of developed nasal, so I wonder if nasal helms were worn as armor in their culture. If she'd been a shield maiden the shape of the diadem could have been a reminder of power earned through warrior prowess. Any clues to healed wounds on the remains?
Que trabajo más excelente! Ojalá podamos aportar un poco más del luz sobre los misteriosos y miticos reinos de la edad de bronce en Iberia, mucha suerte a todos!
Great findings and video. Many thanks. I can't help thinking wich was the orientation of the tumb? Which side was facing were? Anyway, good work, keep us updated please? 👍🏽😘
Was the diadem found on her skull? My first thought was that the diadem would be worn with the round decorative piece pointing up , but they seem pretty sure that it's worn the other way with the round piece govering the nose? How did they know? Were there paintings depicting how it's worn?
For as long as I have been alive, my observation has been that any sort of 'social contract' between men and women has gone from bad to worse. I'm in my sixties now, and feminism had only begun to alter society in the mid-nineteen sixties. To think this discovery would somehow alter anything historically about modern understanding of that increasingly divisive contract would be, at best, naive. In fact, stories like this are actively supressed by those who would continue to tell the story of the social contract to its "Brave, New" conclusion feminism has always hoped for.
The first thing I thought of was the diadem that Princess Bubblegum wears in the Adventure Time animated series. Nearly identical design, but worn with the "ball" pointing up, instead of down over the face.
I wonder if they decided some bones belonged to the "poor" because of the changes that hard physical labor made on the bones? If so, it's possible that these might have been leaders of the laborers. Alternately, it might have been possible, in this age, for people to change rank.
History is full of powerful women just look at Egypt in the bronze age. So this find is exactly what we already knew which the lady too points out about the diadem: ‘this symbol of power that we know only women wear’ No modern ideological message here, just a couple with the usual significant age difference burried together 😉
Is it certain that the diadem was worn over the nose, or over the forehead? I like how they put utensils and probably food for them to eat on the other-side. What were the spirals made of, iron? Meteoric?
It was formerly thought (since the 19th century) that the disk was turn upwards. Thanks to this particular excavation, we now know that (at least in this case) the disc was pointing downwards.
@@asba5551 as I look at it facing downwards, I wonder if it was meant to protect the bridge of the nose a bit? Pointing downwards it reminds me of the faceplate of some helmets with nose guards. Also, just because they were buried with it pointing down doesn’t necessarily mean the wore it that way in life? I am not an archeologist, so I am just speculating here. It’s all fascinating! So wonderful to see the possibility of a strong female ruler or ruling class that long ago.
@@DawnDavidson Queens and other female rulers have been common throughout history. But the older man decked out in gold in the same grave was probably the king, but this video neglects to mention him much for some reason.
Hold for him, silver for her? That would appear to indicate status. Has there ever been a time, since gold was discovered, that it was NOT the higher standard? When the Norse king died, the queen went on the longship, to be burned with her dead husband. It is possible this is something similar, but the queen may have been buried alive (rather than burned alive)? I don’t know if there is any way to tell whether she was already dead when put into the ground.
I read a few days ago (on a german website) that silver was indeed more valuable in europe for some periods of history, but most of the time, gold was considered more valuable. They didnt say when this time period was though
The archaeologist here says the girl's body was put in the tomb 'some time' afterwards. I don't know how she could tell that, nor did she say 'how long' afterwards (probably can never distinguish that accurately) - but if that's really the case, then the queen was allowed to live out at least a portion of her life. If it is his wife, maybe she was pregnant with the king's child at the time of his death? They could hardly kill her and kill the heir to the throne, and couldn't really kill her afterwards while she was nursing. But it is quite believable that she could have died afterwards as a result of childbirth, or from a disease or infection a little later in life. I doubt she would have been a blood relative (daughter, sister, niece, etc) - because the queen would always have a better claim to share his tomb, unless she was stolen away in a raid on the realm. If unrelated, maybe this girl is a 'sacrifice' to the king's spirit, in a bid to dispel some bad fortune affecting the kingdom? It's quite possible this culture did not make a habit of burying slaves, concubines with their dead as the Ancient Egyptians did, but they may have been aware of that tradition and felt that it was worth trying to 'appease' his restless/angry spirit, or 'request' his protection by offering her to him. Going back to the timely-pregnancy-saved-the-queen theory, maybe they connected a spot of bad luck to the fact they never killed her at the same time as burying the king, and 'brought matters up to speed,' so to speak. I'm betting that's happened more than once in ancient history! In all honesty though, I'd have thought it might have been better to let archaeologists do a lot more digging for a few more years before we're subjected to this article - which only succeeds in begging more questions than answers. It's quite frustrating really. As to the comparative value of silver and gold, I've always believed that very ancient civilisations put more much weight into the 'representative' rather than the 'monetary' values of these 2 metals. It's clear from Ancient Greek and other ancient mythologies that at some point in time, men were (in a superstitious sense) more closely connected with the sun, and women with the moon (Apollo, Selene, Zeus transforming into a shower of golden rain over Danae for instance). With gold being closer to the colour of the sun, and silver to the moon: monarch's crowns, jewellery, and other symbols of office would naturally be created from the appropriate metals to complement male and female rulers. Why put a crown of gold on the head of a queen, when pagan belief connects females to the moon, the moon more naturally represented by a crown of silver? Once the pagan worship of sun and moon started to be replaced by the more serious belief in one-god-does-everything type religions, societies may have stopped the tradition of crowning their queens with silver since that would've been a very blatant and probably 'dangerous' demonstration of continuing the pagan belief in moon worship. Instead, they would have crowned them with gold - still shiny, valuable, rare and an acceptable sign of status in front of all those newly-robed priests just begging to scream heretic at every opportunity.
When we stratigraphy ancient societies by using terms like "poor" we're imposing modern classifications on civilizations that may not have looked at it as a lower class. Isn't it possible that since all other members of the society had to chip in to help support them they held a higher position than what we would assign them?
they might have been malnourished or something - they don't tell us why they think they were poor though, it's hard to know how they reached that conclusion when they don't give the supporting evidence. Assuming there is some... perhaps a ritual sacrifice or a captured enemy?
I wonder how they determined the "poor people" skeletons to be "poor people". A lot of these BBC Reels are fascinating but lack context & raise so many more questions than answers --- just reading the page, so many good questions are being asked by commenters --- that they frequently feel like trailers for eventual docu-series.
The “diadem” may be a headpiece that’s worn to protect the nose & cartilage. When nose cartilage breaks, it can be pushed up & into the brain; causing significant damage and possibly death.
I'm curious as to why they translated it as Hearing Room when what she said was Audience Room. Were they being scientifically careful with the implications of audience? Why not say meeting room?
The reality is, of course, that regardless what they call it, we have no definitive understanding of exactly what it was for. It may have been a place where business was decided, it may have been religious.
THE QUEEN OF SHEBA ruled. That women were rulers is fact and not out of the ordinary. That "fact" is not presented as such however, it is not out of the ordinary.
Exactly, there have been countless female leaders in Celtic societies for example. I can understand this being a breakthrough for the culture/history of the area though. But all societies were once matrilineal and Mother-centered, as well as Goddess worshipping.
Boudicca, queen of the Iceni in eastern Britain at the time of the Roman conquest, ruled after her death of her husband. That is possibly the example closest to the rulers of this site in Spain, since both were part of the Indo-European peoples (I wonder if the Spanish Argaric culture was Celtic?). Of course, there were Hatshepsut and Cleopatra in Egypt.
@@elainechubb971 even then, Boudicca didn't really rule, she led a rebellion which had been organized by her late husband, pushing the men to action not by invoking authority but by shaming the men for allowing the Romans to subjugate them and violate their women. Cleopatra got power because she was co-ruler with her young brother, who was only a child at the time, who she then proceeded to murder in cold blood. Hatshepsut legitimitimized her rule by pretending to be a man
@@kloewe6069 that is simply dishonest and untrue. Most ancient societies identified as matriarchal are simply asserted as such because there isn't as clear of evidence for patriarchal organization as there is for the Steppe derived peoples. However, closely related and descended cultures, namely the Iberians, Sardinians, and Phoenicians survived into the historical period and we know for a fact that none of them were even remotely matriarchal, nor were their chief deities mother goddesses I would suggest you interpret history based on the evidence which exists, not on your own ideology and wishful thinking
Me gusta que tal vez a los antiguos no les importaba que los muros de sus casas y palacios no fueran rectos y todo exacto. Si era todo así ondulado se ve muy adaptado, orgánico jaja, buen estilo.
It's quite funny that if they find a male body with a crown they immediately say "He must have been the King!" but a female with a diadem is "OH, um, maybe she was a princess? Or a consort of some kind?.... But clearly quite important is some way."
It was common in ancient times for women to be considered valuable members of society. In fact the story of the Amazonian women who ruled alone and kept men as slaves was most probably based on a known civilization in (I believe somewhere around Greece) where women were heavily involved in politics due to necessity as their men were incredibly war like and constantly out fighting wars. It wasn't a civilization of weak beta males ruled by alpha females, it was a civilization of males so alpha it required the women to also become more alpha. It was also believed that in some cases that women and men couldn't engage in the same magical practices. I think females were believed to be better suited for seeing into the future and stuff when it came to the druids at least. Also if you were the daughter of a ruler you probably also ruled over some stuff. In the case of Some Pharoah's who wrote themselves into history as Gods Kim jung style, their daughters would be considered Goddess and again, probably ruled over a fair bit of stuff. I find it staggering, that the people who find this stuff are amazed that women had some say back in the day. But the say they had wasn't gained through conquest and victories if thats what they are trying to portray? It was inherited.
That's what I was thinking. The silt that covered these sites coming from a terrifying tsunami. Oddly enough I have dreamt of a several miles high tsunami since about the age of 3. At first I had no words to describe this terrifying dream but eventually I found out about tsunamis. Only in later life have I learned about the massive ones caused by huge comets hitting earth or by magnetic pole reversal. I do believe that is how this "civilisation" will end.
Crown represents victorious power whereas a diadem ,worn characteristically by women, represents royalty , either by birthright or w/e ,not necessarily a power position. Googled it.
And again we observe a gender politics in science. Did you know that, for example, in the society of Iranian people woman had a prominent role and they even were a rulers, a monarchs, of own people? It was actually. But is that means that Iranian people had a matriarchy? No, because it's well know that Iranian people like the other Indo-Europeans had a strong patriarchal society. Here is the same thing and I think that the conclusions that have showed on the video are unscientific and related to the modern left gender politics ideology.
How about the idea that she was buried with her husband, even though she was younger? Was she killed to accompany him? The poorer people buried there, slaves? There are many alternative explanations more in line with recorded history.
Not this time though. They found a fancy hat. That doesn't mean anything on its face. The male may have lacked a crown because it was passed on to a successor and was more important above ground.
When two people are buried together, a number of questions arise. Did they die together, or were they killed together? If the woman died later, was she buried with her husband or father? Or was she killed to be buried with her husband as a sacrifice? There would be other possibilities.
I vaguely recall an episode of Time Team where they uncovered a cemetery with several such couple burials, who were part of a Jutish settlement in Hampshire later wiped out by other Germanic invaders. Did they do that in Jutland?
My only concern is the poison of our politics today has been skewing history, so is this nothing more than that or have we really found something unique and incredible.
If the “parliament “ had been served by the same family servants for years, then it would have been their “home” also, and they would have been properly buried there as would be their right. Or would it? It would certainly possibly give a glimpse into society/compassion/relationships of that era. Or could they have been family but poor? I wonder how they could tell they were poor. Perhaps some don’t wish to be buried with wealth or are like monks or such. Gosh. I actually don’t know why that triggered me. Perhaps the phrasing. Perhaps we will find out just why these poor people were buried here. Just sounds so….’ist. It’s probably because they belonged there. Money isn’t everything.
I enjoy how the comments have run the full range from the legacy of Marija Gimbutas ["Europe was ALL matriarchal until those evil steppe Indo-European horse patriarchs showed up and either killed everyone or just imposed patriarchy on them because that was the steppe thing to do"], to more recent variations ["Both the proto Europeans and the Indo-Europeans had matriarchy because that's what the steppe cultures all did until they settled down and agrarianism created patriarchy"; or "everybody had evil patriarchy but we've just discovered the lost matriarchy whose history the men tried to obscure"; or "everybody in Europe was matriarchy until the Greeks and Romans showed up with patriarchal religions" thus misrepresenting the complexity of every society of iron age Europe and all their religious systems including the Greeks and Romans]. I especially appreciated all comments that didn't start from the assumption that matriarchy or patriarchy are universal explainers and the only categories that could possibly matter, a perfect framework for history. Any society that had hereditary leadership or hereditary family status and influential families across generations had some kind of place for influential or powerful women at least some of the time.
Oh. Don't read my comments then, because you'll be really disappointed to discover that I'm not at all interested in the patriarchal/matriarchal question, but just rave on about the pagan connection between man-sun-gold and women-moon-silver, and the probable influence this has over their symbols of office. That seems to make more sense to me than the world-changing announcement that a queen might have ruled a country for a change. 'Nice' of the BBC to fail to remember that they've been ruled by the longest living queen in history, by 3 very powerful queens in the past (Boudicca, Elizabeth I and Victoria), by a female prime minister - twice, and one of those for longer than any other male prime minister in the 20th century! What do they want, for goodness sake?
No dates,650 years of occupation does not fit with the bronze age that is briefly mentioned,the first building civilisations of europe?,where is the context/dates relating to what was found?
It’s vital to remember that gender inequality is only as old as settled civilization. Prior to that, women were equal to men. Societies in West Africa remained highly egalitarian until Arab and Christian colonization. Patriarchy, Neoliberalism and the Age of Reason are very limiting lenses through which to view history. Archeological evidence for female political authority is so exciting because it demonstrates the diversity of social organization humans are capable of.
Why do you place the diadem/crown upside-down? She wouldn't have worn it like that, it would have smashed her nose and been very painful to wear like that. Probably impossible to wear like that. More than likely you have it all wrong as usual and it belonged to the male. Give the king his crown back.
Silver for the Moon and Gold for the Sun.
Which may imply that the large room is not a Parliament but a place with religious purpose and the women could have been a priest.
@@EduardGhergheluca These people probably did not make any distinction between Religion and Politics.
@@Wayzor_ Certainly in some societies the priests had as much or more power than the ruling king/queen did.
Then the diadem should be of gold.
Dylan, your comment "Silver for the moon..." seems spot in. Women more governed by the moon. Good point.
It's amazing how cities that stood for 600 years like this one, with people that were apparently so rich and important, are now almost forgotten. Puts in perspective those things and people that we consider today to be important
put a woman in charge ..
sociaty only remebers what it wants to remeber. through propaganda social trends and other pointless pretentions we perpetuate a lie long enough till its history.
That's what Marcus Aurelius said around 150 AD in his Meditations.
Ozymandius, my dear friend.
Why would this one Diadem rewrite history? Numerous times throughout many different cultures there have been women of power or completely matriarchal cultures. Why is this one woman and diadem different from them? Europe itself has never been strictly patriarchal. It was mostly the Romans and Greeks and Religion that spread patriarchy in Europe, and this would predate those for the most part. So Why was this so different? I'm not saying the find isn't important but why the emphasis in how this would have large aspects for history as we know it?
it's mainstream media haha. No-one would watch archaelogy videos unless they put some crazy title on it.
@@EM-cl7cl makes sense.
What cultures are matriarchal? And I Mean that, and not matrilineal.
@@yeraycatalangaspar195 Read "The dawn of everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow.
Titles are meant to make you click and watch.
She could be an important religious figure too. That would explain why she was buried inside the building.
PUBLIC HEALTH. Maybe the man and the woman ruled together as a polytheistic theocracy. Yet, dead bodies, even when mummified, are usually considered "unclean" and thus are buried in multiple, nested containers and/or at safe distances from the places where people live and work. Cemeteries are usually located outside city limits until urban sprawl surrounds them. Only very powerful or distinguished individuals are buried in shrines, tombs and crypts inside an occupied building, such as Westminster Abbey in The City of London, chapels and castles. Notre Dame Chartres is the only cathedral of the seven Notre Dame cathedrals in France that has never had any buried bodies on its grounds, because it was considered too holy and sacred to be defiled by burials of any human remains of any human beings.
The crown doesn't mean this woman ruled or had power. Queen consorts have worn crowns since ancient times in many countries. In the UK, the queen consort had her own crown made, but she didn't rule or hold power.
This is fascinating! Finding a silver diadem is wonderful, and shows that the woman must have been someone important, even if she was not Queen, a princess is important. We know so little about civilizations in Europe, that date to around 2000 BC! Finds like this city and the bones of the people are helping to teach us that even that long ago, people were more sophisticated than we thought! Thank you so much for sharing this video!! I love learning about ancient civilizations!! ~Janet in Canada
Indeed Janet. All the intonations of a mutual respect and recognition of beneficial qualities irrespective of gender. Highly admirable traits revealed was such skill and authenticity it takes my breath away. BTW, I’m glad I clicked “read more “on your comment to hear your full thought and appreciation.
The Minoan civilization is fascinating from Crete, female seems to be a female dominant society. Images of topless female on the Knossos temple holding snakes on both hands
She had a piece of jewelry, so she must have been a queen. A strong ,empowered queen who could kick the asses of many men. Just like in the movies. Science.
It's the BBC At the expensive private schools they all went to 'science' was what the working classes studied.
Diadems were only worn by Royalty and aristocrats. It's not any piece of jewellery
@@adflix424 says who?
Honest answer: "We have no idea what this inanimate object represents "
Actually honest answer: “We have MANY ideas about what this object represents, and few ways to determine which are accurate.”
The first thing I thought about the woman being buried in the diadem and the man being buried without a crown was that his crown was likely given to his successor as a symbol of legitimacy and power and was thus too important to just be buried. Note that I am not an archeologist or an expert in anything to do with the bronze age or this culture in Spain.
Excellent point. Especially as his accessories were gold and hers silver. Gold has always been the highest status.
Or it could have been stolen by someone at the time
Yes, there are the a few possibilities to explore before going for ‘women ruled the bronze age’.
@@lechatel Gold has actually not historically always held a higher status. It is very dependent on which metal is rarer in an area. The ancient Egyptians, for example, had scarce access to silver but relatively abundant access to gold. Gold was still very valuable to them, but the scarcity of silver made it even more sought after. Though it is definitely more common for gold to be valued more since it is generally rarer and doesn’t tarnish.
@@lechatel Seconding Michael Spinelli's comment: Gold is not always the most valued material. Availability of the material is what makes it rare. While there is more silver on earth than gold, the accessibility of silver was poor until the exploration of the New World. There were scant silver mines in Europe and some silver was extracted as a bi-product of galena. It's easy information to research. There was a really great exhibit in Edinburgh around 2017 on Scottish silver. So many assume the "ancient celts" were all about the gold, but due to the looting and reusing of silver (which was more highly prized) during the Roman period, the major of high status artifacts that still exist are of metals that were not melted down by later populations.
Don't all queen's wear crowns.Even those married to a king.
We've literally had powerful Queens and Empresses in supposedly patriarchal societies, who ran Empires and Kingdoms.
What is with the silly claim about wondering and being in shock if it is confirmed this woman was a ruler of a patriarchal society?
I like how BBC immediately went after the grill power angle like this discovery was to "revolutionize" our knowledge of the past. This is as far from news as it could be. Also the man had jewelry made of gold, why would a silver diadem be somehow special?
They are desperate to rewrite history. Men practically constructed every single physical part of the world in which we live. They find one piece of jewellry and that's all they need.
Conclusions like these often say more about the archaeologist's/ historian's personal beliefs than about reality. Early civilizations are particularly useful for projecting one's own beliefs on them due to a lack of knowledge on them. When studying archaeology at university, I always found it striking that all communist archaeologist always found evidence for prehistoric egalitarian proto-communist societies, while neo-liberals always found evidence for complex trade and proto-capitalism. Likewise, feminist archaeologies and historians tend to see ancient matriarchies almost everywhere. Similarly, almost all past societies are now presented as if they were extremely multicultural, from ancient Rome to the Vikings. Whenever ideologies are involved, no matter which one, I always tend to take any conclusions with a pitch of salt, or rather a mountain. If only scholars could leave out there personal ideological background (that goes for all ideologies) and focus on searching for the truth.
@@marcustulliuscicero3987 Exactly. The grave goods only tell us who had ceremonial power, nothing more. To me, it seems common sense to say, in any period of history there would have been some male leaders and some female leaders. That's based on general experience of people. These were people, not very different from ourselves. We all know women who are difficult to push around, and we all know women with good leadership skills. We also know that many societies, past or present, go to extraordinary lengths to prop up very poor leaders; male or female. I'm just not sure about what this archaeologist believes has been "discovered". Even societies that deeply oppress women, generate a lot of mystique about why women are "special", (not in a good way). Women can be subordinated and given nice jewellery. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
More Marxist drivel from the Bolshevik Broadcast Corporation.
@@marcustulliuscicero3987 Your points are well made and well taken; however, it didn't appear that it was the archeologist making these leaps to fit the current PC narrative -- it was the BBC. The archeologist simply put forth possibilities, and said that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove them -- "more questions than answers".
The Bronze Age is such a fascinating era! We tend to focus on Greece, but what if Spain has just as rich a culture?
Another finding, announced but a month ago, which could rewrite Bronze Age history is the led curse tablet at Mt Ebal, which could correlate with an earlier date of the conquest of Canaan than the standard narrative.
A question regarding the decline of this culture is whether or not it correlates with the explosion of Thera, which would have produced great climate change and its repercussions.
Bet that in the end it will turn out that they were Greeks?
@@sak594 could be... or Phoenicians...
In this age in Balkans exist very rich culture too.
@@MegaTratincica Yes. Very true!
What if the rest of the world outside of Europe also had a rich culture?!?!???
I didn't see any evidence shown in the video that could lead to the speculation of this woman might be the ruler.
The Earth Mother ideology has been around for a long time. I believe one of the oldest ceramics ever found was of the Earth Mother. It's pretty easy to imagine that women in some early development cultures wielded great amounts of power.
The surprise that we modern people express in evidence suggesting that a woman could have held a powerful position in her ancient society is a telling cultural realization in itself.
Really? The woke BBC and woke academic are "shocked and surprised" at the story the woke academic with scant evidence is pushing. Maybe they're not aware of Cleopatra or Boudicca? Or maybe it's just convenient to forget them and others so they can act surprised.
Someone once told me - There is no end to learning. Result: I just love this information
I think it's funny that we think things were always just the way they are now. I seriously doubt that is the case...but it DOES lead to incredible bias in "science"
It absolutely does. Now it is the turn of feminism and the so called heteropatriarchy, just look at how horny she gets talking about power. So sad that politics and ideology has to interfere with science
🏺🏛⚱️💀👑☠️..Its truly Fascinating how modern archeological assumptions are so corrupted and obscured by our own postmoderne' concerns, hopes, needs, and narratives.
An ancient burial site is uncovered with a royal couple ...he is adorned with gold ...she merely with silver...
Yet, the only historical question that arises is the neoFeminist concern... Was this very young woman welding real power over the ancient warrior clans of ancient Spain?...
Before we jump to that satisfying conclusion ...should not they first ask?... If she ruled?.. who then? was this older Fellow next to her with all the Gold?...merely her consort or first gentleman????...
Perhaps, it is more likely it was he was the Warrior King, who ruled with Power...and she... his beautiful young wife and queen...
...nobody with at least two braincells thinks that. Society of today is dramatically different from what it was just 50 years ago.
You are showing your bias right now by instantly believing something because you want it to be true rather than being backed by evidence.
@@nodruj8681 so are you
Looking forward to the results of further studies to reveal more about these fascinating people.
They might have had the matrilineal social structure that was once common in many cultures around the world. In this system the line descends through women, and the women's brothers are the male leaders, usually war leaders. The people who lived in this inaccessible walled town must have needed to defend themselves from some serious enemies. The Iroquoian peoples of the lower Great Lakes were a very warlike people who conquered an area as large as western Europe. They had a matrilineal system. The men were out conquering, and the women stayed home running things. Women "owned" their homes and their children, a family consisted of women and their matrilineal descendants of both sexes, and marriages were not strong and often temporary. This system has the same conservation of wealth and support for children as a patrilineal system, but roles are different.
It will be interesting to see what DNA says about the relationship between these two "royal" people.
Same as Sparta.
Matrilineal isn't the same as matriarchal.
That matrilineal joint family system was (and sometimes still is) practiced by the Nair caste of Kerala, and the Maharajas of Travancore and Cochin.
Brothers and sisters lived together with the sisters' children. Nair husbands visited their wives but did not live with them. Nair women could have a second (Brahmin) husband but his children were Nairs too. Uncles had more say in child-rearing than fathers.
The king was succeeded by his eldest sister's son. The royal line ran from one queen mother to the next queen mother. The Amma Maharani ruled while the king was a minor.
@@pakde8002 True, but in matrilineal cultures women usually have higher status and more agency than in patrilineal ones.
🏺🏛⚱️💀👑☠️..Its truly Fascinating how modern archeological assumptions are so corrupted and obscured by our own postmoderne' concerns, hopes, needs, and narratives.
An ancient burial site is uncovered with a royal couple ...he is adorned with gold ...she merely with silver...
Yet, the only historical question that arises is the neoFeminist concern... Was this very young woman welding real power over the ancient warrior clans of ancient Spain?...
Before we jump to that satisfying conclusion ...should not they first ask?... If she ruled?.. who then? was this older Fellow next to her with all the Gold?...merely her consort or first gentleman????...
Perhaps, it is more likely it was he was the Warrior King, who ruled with Power...and she... his beautiful young wife and queen...
Did this culture value gold more than silver? Because if so doesn’t the fact that his accessories/jewelry were made of gold and hers were made of silver give us a clue as to which one, the man or the woman, had the highest status in that society regardless of the diadem she was wearing?
Both were very valuable in ancient societies due to their ability to hold a high polish without oxidation.
Gold was more valuable due to its association with Sun worship.
Silver was associated with the Moon.
Your Q is a really good one and beyond my knowledge.
That and the fact he was 40 and she was 25. Usually an indicator of power differential.
Such a really good question 👀
Its not uncommon for men to decorate their women as a means of showing off.
My wife looks far better in diamond earrings and and evening gown than I do.
@@totallylegalshit7579 No doubt 👍
Well, could be. Wearing a diadem could mean she was the ruler, or the wife of a ruler, or a secondary noble, or the wife of a secondary noble, or the daughter of someone rich, or probably other variations. Consider the complex history of head ornament in countless cultures. That's a lot of weight of assumption to put on a piece of decoration, even if you've got a handful of other grave finds from the same culture for comparison. I had hoped archaeology and anthropology had grown more careful about constructing their stories from the physical evidence.
Money game
It has to justify the narrative.
Yes I agree
She specifically said it's a possibility, not that they consider that the final answer.
As stated, there is no narrative ... only questions.
Sino me equivoco en esa época estaban los celtas en la mayoría de europa. No es el único caso, no se olviden de Boudica en lo que es hoy Inglaterra..
Quien fue el jefe?
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasutago
Boudica fue la esposa de este Rey. Fue Reina de un tribo, no el pais. Ella es importante obviamente por lo que hizo.
They show the diadem upside down
Could mean almost anything at all.
WOW, I thought that was Tiryns! Looks very much like it. I wonder if there was any connection there to the Mycenaean civilisation further east?
I wondered the same thing.
No, it was an isolated proto-iberian urban culture that evolved from proto-urban Chalcolithic culture of Los Millares
Great work. More please 🙏
As fascinating as this discovery is, it is rather misleading, as an exception does not disprove the rule - neither today nor 4000 years ago.
Actually, "the exception tests the rule" is a more modern translation. If your rule does not cover the exceptions then it is not a rule. You have to add the exceptional circumstances to your rule to make it correct.
@@pattheplanter ofc, but incompleteness of exceptions can be said about any existing rule. And it's still not going to rewrite history.
Most likely she was executed to accompany her husband in the afterlife.
A diadem that partially covers the face seems odd. However, the shape is reminiscent of developed nasal, so I wonder if nasal helms were worn as armor in their culture. If she'd been a shield maiden the shape of the diadem could have been a reminder of power earned through warrior prowess. Any clues to healed wounds on the remains?
Que trabajo más excelente! Ojalá podamos aportar un poco más del luz sobre los misteriosos y miticos reinos de la edad de bronce en Iberia, mucha suerte a todos!
Around the same time the ancient egyptians were building huge pyramids.
Now we know why the Bronze Age came crashing down. 😒
Amazing and captivating. So intelligently pursued. How can one not feel connected to a glimpse of our journey. TY for this awareness.
Fascinating.
Great findings and video.
Many thanks.
I can't help thinking wich
was the orientation of the tumb?
Which side was facing were?
Anyway, good work, keep us updated please? 👍🏽😘
Also, in Egypt, "grave-robbers" were usually just slaves owned by the next Pharaoh.
Fantastic piece 👏
Thank you
Was the diadem found on her skull? My first thought was that the diadem would be worn with the round decorative piece pointing up , but they seem pretty sure that it's worn the other way with the round piece govering the nose? How did they know? Were there paintings depicting how it's worn?
one silver diadem found in this woman's grave, and you ask? did women rule the bronze age? what a huge assumption based on a single find.
For as long as I have been alive, my observation has been that any sort of 'social contract' between men and women has gone from bad to worse. I'm in my sixties now, and feminism had only begun to alter society in the mid-nineteen sixties.
To think this discovery would somehow alter anything historically about modern understanding of that increasingly divisive contract would be, at best, naive.
In fact, stories like this are actively supressed by those who would continue to tell the story of the social contract to its "Brave, New" conclusion feminism has always hoped for.
The first thing I thought of was the diadem that Princess Bubblegum wears in the Adventure Time animated series. Nearly identical design, but worn with the "ball" pointing up, instead of down over the face.
representing the moon... but perhaps they found it pointing down on her skull?
I wonder if they decided some bones belonged to the "poor" because of the changes that hard physical labor made on the bones? If so, it's possible that these might have been leaders of the laborers. Alternately, it might have been possible, in this age, for people to change rank.
Diet also plays a part in how bones develop. A poor person would not have as good nutrition and that shows up in the bones
@@fishinwidow35 perhaps a ritual sacrifice? or an enemy hostage?
History is full of powerful women just look at Egypt in the bronze age. So this find is exactly what we already knew which the lady too points out about the diadem:
‘this symbol of power that we know only women wear’
No modern ideological message here, just a couple with the usual significant age difference burried together 😉
Fascinating!
It's quite difficult for a civilization to show the earliest signs of social stratification two thousand years after the likes of Varna necropolis.
In any other era that would be grave robbery. Leave the dead in peace.
Is it certain that the diadem was worn over the nose, or over the forehead? I like how they put utensils and probably food for them to eat on the other-side. What were the spirals made of, iron? Meteoric?
It was formerly thought (since the 19th century) that the disk was turn upwards. Thanks to this particular excavation, we now know that (at least in this case) the disc was pointing downwards.
@@asba5551 Thanks
@@asba5551 as I look at it facing downwards, I wonder if it was meant to protect the bridge of the nose a bit? Pointing downwards it reminds me of the faceplate of some helmets with nose guards.
Also, just because they were buried with it pointing down doesn’t necessarily mean the wore it that way in life? I am not an archeologist, so I am just speculating here.
It’s all fascinating! So wonderful to see the possibility of a strong female ruler or ruling class that long ago.
@@DawnDavidson Queens and other female rulers have been common throughout history.
But the older man decked out in gold in the same grave was probably the king, but this video neglects to mention him much for some reason.
@@asba5551 just look at Wonder Woman 😁
Rewriting history! The BBC's forte!!!
Oh look, another insecure angry man
Hold for him, silver for her? That would appear to indicate status. Has there ever been a time, since gold was discovered, that it was NOT the higher standard?
When the Norse king died, the queen went on the longship, to be burned with her dead husband. It is possible this is something similar, but the queen may have been buried alive (rather than burned alive)? I don’t know if there is any way to tell whether she was already dead when put into the ground.
I read a few days ago (on a german website) that silver was indeed more valuable in europe for some periods of history, but most of the time, gold was considered more valuable. They didnt say when this time period was though
The archaeologist here says the girl's body was put in the tomb 'some time' afterwards. I don't know how she could tell that, nor did she say 'how long' afterwards (probably can never distinguish that accurately) - but if that's really the case, then the queen was allowed to live out at least a portion of her life.
If it is his wife, maybe she was pregnant with the king's child at the time of his death? They could hardly kill her and kill the heir to the throne, and couldn't really kill her afterwards while she was nursing. But it is quite believable that she could have died afterwards as a result of childbirth, or from a disease or infection a little later in life.
I doubt she would have been a blood relative (daughter, sister, niece, etc) - because the queen would always have a better claim to share his tomb, unless she was stolen away in a raid on the realm.
If unrelated, maybe this girl is a 'sacrifice' to the king's spirit, in a bid to dispel some bad fortune affecting the kingdom?
It's quite possible this culture did not make a habit of burying slaves, concubines with their dead as the Ancient Egyptians did, but they may have been aware of that tradition and felt that it was worth trying to 'appease' his restless/angry spirit, or 'request' his protection by offering her to him.
Going back to the timely-pregnancy-saved-the-queen theory, maybe they connected a spot of bad luck to the fact they never killed her at the same time as burying the king, and 'brought matters up to speed,' so to speak. I'm betting that's happened more than once in ancient history!
In all honesty though, I'd have thought it might have been better to let archaeologists do a lot more digging for a few more years before we're subjected to this article - which only succeeds in begging more questions than answers. It's quite frustrating really.
As to the comparative value of silver and gold, I've always believed that very ancient civilisations put more much weight into the 'representative' rather than the 'monetary' values of these 2 metals.
It's clear from Ancient Greek and other ancient mythologies that at some point in time, men were (in a superstitious sense) more closely connected with the sun, and women with the moon (Apollo, Selene, Zeus transforming into a shower of golden rain over Danae for instance).
With gold being closer to the colour of the sun, and silver to the moon: monarch's crowns, jewellery, and other symbols of office would naturally be created from the appropriate metals to complement male and female rulers. Why put a crown of gold on the head of a queen, when pagan belief connects females to the moon, the moon more naturally represented by a crown of silver?
Once the pagan worship of sun and moon started to be replaced by the more serious belief in one-god-does-everything type religions, societies may have stopped the tradition of crowning their queens with silver since that would've been a very blatant and probably 'dangerous' demonstration of continuing the pagan belief in moon worship. Instead, they would have crowned them with gold - still shiny, valuable, rare and an acceptable sign of status in front of all those newly-robed priests just begging to scream heretic at every opportunity.
@@LMN2922 silver was mainly mined in Spain, not much gold.
room looks like a golden cube
which is the ratio of 1.63 length/ 1.0 width / .63 heigth.
There is good reason to believe women were rulers in eat times. The matriarchy the givers of life and keepers of knowledge were revered.
So stunning, much brave !
When we stratigraphy ancient societies by using terms like "poor" we're imposing modern classifications on civilizations that may not have looked at it as a lower class. Isn't it possible that since all other members of the society had to chip in to help support them they held a higher position than what we would assign them?
they might have been malnourished or something - they don't tell us why they think they were poor though, it's hard to know how they reached that conclusion when they don't give the supporting evidence. Assuming there is some... perhaps a ritual sacrifice or a captured enemy?
Amazing ! Just it : ISN T "storage room" she does say "area where meals (almuerzo = lunch) are prepared" so kind of kitchen room 😋
I wonder how they determined the "poor people" skeletons to be "poor people". A lot of these BBC Reels are fascinating but lack context & raise so many more questions than answers --- just reading the page, so many good questions are being asked by commenters --- that they frequently feel like trailers for eventual docu-series.
The “diadem” may be a headpiece that’s worn to protect the nose & cartilage. When nose cartilage breaks, it can be pushed up & into the brain; causing significant damage and possibly death.
Perhaps she was of warrior caste. You brought up fascinating points.
If they turned that diadiem upside down, it would closely resemble the head dress of some of the Sea Peoples as depicted in Egyptian art.
I'm curious as to why they translated it as Hearing Room when what she said was Audience Room. Were they being scientifically careful with the implications of audience? Why not say meeting room?
The reality is, of course, that regardless what they call it, we have no definitive understanding of exactly what it was for. It may have been a place where business was decided, it may have been religious.
Put a gem stone in the round part, and you have Princess Bubblegum's tiara (from Adventure Time) exactly.
At 4.38' the bones of the "lower-class citizen" are damaged and in a weird position. Was the person mutilated before the burial?
Brilliant reporting. Academic timelines are merely temporary estimates
The wood posts are not original are they?
Unless they're petrified they couldn't be.
Maybe she just looked pretty in it
I'd laugh if they discovered all the women in this city wore one.
Fascinating…
why did one of the skeletons have a rock jammed in its mouth? medieval vampire burials had rocks in their mouthes
THE QUEEN OF SHEBA ruled. That women were rulers is fact and not out of the ordinary.
That "fact" is not presented as such however, it is not out of the ordinary.
Exactly, there have been countless female leaders in Celtic societies for example. I can understand this being a breakthrough for the culture/history of the area though. But all societies were once matrilineal and Mother-centered, as well as Goddess worshipping.
Boudicca, queen of the Iceni in eastern Britain at the time of the Roman conquest, ruled after her death of her husband. That is possibly the example closest to the rulers of this site in Spain, since both were part of the Indo-European peoples (I wonder if the Spanish Argaric culture was Celtic?). Of course, there were Hatshepsut and Cleopatra in Egypt.
@@elainechubb971 even then, Boudicca didn't really rule, she led a rebellion which had been organized by her late husband, pushing the men to action not by invoking authority but by shaming the men for allowing the Romans to subjugate them and violate their women. Cleopatra got power because she was co-ruler with her young brother, who was only a child at the time, who she then proceeded to murder in cold blood. Hatshepsut legitimitimized her rule by pretending to be a man
@@kloewe6069 that is simply dishonest and untrue. Most ancient societies identified as matriarchal are simply asserted as such because there isn't as clear of evidence for patriarchal organization as there is for the Steppe derived peoples. However, closely related and descended cultures, namely the Iberians, Sardinians, and Phoenicians survived into the historical period and we know for a fact that none of them were even remotely matriarchal, nor were their chief deities mother goddesses
I would suggest you interpret history based on the evidence which exists, not on your own ideology and wishful thinking
Everyone knows momma runs the show! Ive never experienced a household where the ultimate authority wasn't the momma bear!
isnt the diadem being worn upside down?
How tall were these people?
Me gusta que tal vez a los antiguos no les importaba que los muros de sus casas y palacios no fueran rectos y todo exacto. Si era todo así ondulado se ve muy adaptado, orgánico jaja, buen estilo.
Looks just like Catal Hoyuk...same burials too
It's quite funny that if they find a male body with a crown they immediately say "He must have been the King!" but a female with a diadem is "OH, um, maybe she was a princess? Or a consort of some kind?.... But clearly quite important is some way."
The only question this answers is whether or not women wore jewelry. It appears some of the rich ones did.
It was common in ancient times for women to be considered valuable members of society. In fact the story of the Amazonian women who ruled alone and kept men as slaves was most probably based on a known civilization in (I believe somewhere around Greece) where women were heavily involved in politics due to necessity as their men were incredibly war like and constantly out fighting wars. It wasn't a civilization of weak beta males ruled by alpha females, it was a civilization of males so alpha it required the women to also become more alpha. It was also believed that in some cases that women and men couldn't engage in the same magical practices. I think females were believed to be better suited for seeing into the future and stuff when it came to the druids at least.
Also if you were the daughter of a ruler you probably also ruled over some stuff. In the case of Some Pharoah's who wrote themselves into history as Gods Kim jung style, their daughters would be considered Goddess and again, probably ruled over a fair bit of stuff. I find it staggering, that the people who find this stuff are amazed that women had some say back in the day. But the say they had wasn't gained through conquest and victories if thats what they are trying to portray? It was inherited.
We need beers!
Beef farmer,
Australia
Nice overview of the find, but the title is just the teensiest little bit click-baity.
Just imagine the Tsunami that immediately wiped out coastal cities thru out the Medditeranian
That's what I was thinking. The silt that covered these sites coming from a terrifying tsunami. Oddly enough I have dreamt of a several miles high tsunami since about the age of 3. At first I had no words to describe this terrifying dream but eventually I found out about tsunamis. Only in later life have I learned about the massive ones caused by huge comets hitting earth or by magnetic pole reversal. I do believe that is how this "civilisation" will end.
Crown represents victorious power whereas a diadem ,worn characteristically by women, represents royalty , either by birthright or w/e ,not necessarily a power position.
Googled it.
Ooh a Google archeologist! Sorry I couldn't resist 😄
People are ignorant, there are countless stories about female rulers in the ancient world.
And again we observe a gender politics in science. Did you know that, for example, in the society of Iranian people woman had a prominent role and they even were a rulers, a monarchs, of own people? It was actually. But is that means that Iranian people had a matriarchy? No, because it's well know that Iranian people like the other Indo-Europeans had a strong patriarchal society. Here is the same thing and I think that the conclusions that have showed on the video are unscientific and related to the modern left gender politics ideology.
How about the idea that she was buried with her husband, even though she was younger? Was she killed to accompany him? The poorer people buried there, slaves? There are many alternative explanations more in line with recorded history.
History has been rewritten and will be again soon and again and again
Not this time though. They found a fancy hat. That doesn't mean anything on its face. The male may have lacked a crown because it was passed on to a successor and was more important above ground.
When two people are buried together, a number of questions arise. Did they die together, or were they killed together? If the woman died later, was she buried with her husband or father? Or was she killed to be buried with her husband as a sacrifice? There would be other possibilities.
Could they have been brother and sister?
I vaguely recall an episode of Time Team where they uncovered a cemetery with several such couple burials, who were part of a Jutish settlement in Hampshire later wiped out by other Germanic invaders. Did they do that in Jutland?
She was the ruler, and that's why that particular civilization died out.
No culture is homogenous, there are always exceptions. Unless they find more evidence of female rulers of the Bronze Age this is more wishful thinking
My only concern is the poison of our politics today has been skewing history, so is this nothing more than that or have we really found something unique and incredible.
Look up Tartaria if you want to find out about re writing history
Wow. So interesting.
Not much history is written about bronze age Spain to begin with. Sounds like your finding it out and writing it now
That's archaeology for you - always finding stuff.
If the “parliament “ had been served by the same family servants for years, then it would have been their “home” also, and they would have been properly buried there as would be their right. Or would it? It would certainly possibly give a glimpse into society/compassion/relationships of that era. Or could they have been family but poor? I wonder how they could tell they were poor. Perhaps some don’t wish to be buried with wealth or are like monks or such. Gosh. I actually don’t know why that triggered me. Perhaps the phrasing. Perhaps we will find out just why these poor people were buried here. Just sounds so….’ist. It’s probably because they belonged there. Money isn’t everything.
Someone's about to re-write the Philippine history and it's not a piece of ancient metal 👀
Does the BBC want a matriarchy?
lol
4:40, there looks like a brick in the skeleton's mouth, which other places and times indicates a vampire. Is that what we're seeing,?
Perhaps the lady was respect for the person she was, just as we do now. No need to project a sexist agenda BBC.
Descended from the survivors of Atlantis.
I enjoy how the comments have run the full range from the legacy of Marija Gimbutas ["Europe was ALL matriarchal until those evil steppe Indo-European horse patriarchs showed up and either killed everyone or just imposed patriarchy on them because that was the steppe thing to do"], to more recent variations ["Both the proto Europeans and the Indo-Europeans had matriarchy because that's what the steppe cultures all did until they settled down and agrarianism created patriarchy"; or "everybody had evil patriarchy but we've just discovered the lost matriarchy whose history the men tried to obscure"; or "everybody in Europe was matriarchy until the Greeks and Romans showed up with patriarchal religions" thus misrepresenting the complexity of every society of iron age Europe and all their religious systems including the Greeks and Romans].
I especially appreciated all comments that didn't start from the assumption that matriarchy or patriarchy are universal explainers and the only categories that could possibly matter, a perfect framework for history. Any society that had hereditary leadership or hereditary family status and influential families across generations had some kind of place for influential or powerful women at least some of the time.
Oh. Don't read my comments then, because you'll be really disappointed to discover that I'm not at all interested in the patriarchal/matriarchal question, but just rave on about the pagan connection between man-sun-gold and women-moon-silver, and the probable influence this has over their symbols of office.
That seems to make more sense to me than the world-changing announcement that a queen might have ruled a country for a change.
'Nice' of the BBC to fail to remember that they've been ruled by the longest living queen in history, by 3 very powerful queens in the past (Boudicca, Elizabeth I and Victoria), by a female prime minister - twice, and one of those for longer than any other male prime minister in the 20th century!
What do they want, for goodness sake?
Could she be a representative of the worst kind of toxic femininity and the oppressive matriarch?
No dates,650 years of occupation does not fit with the bronze age that is briefly mentioned,the first building civilisations of europe?,where is the context/dates relating to what was found?
It’s vital to remember that gender inequality is only as old as settled civilization. Prior to that, women were equal to men. Societies in West Africa remained highly egalitarian until Arab and Christian colonization. Patriarchy, Neoliberalism and the Age of Reason are very limiting lenses through which to view history. Archeological evidence for female political authority is so exciting because it demonstrates the diversity of social organization humans are capable of.
Why do you place the diadem/crown upside-down? She wouldn't have worn it like that, it would have smashed her nose and been very painful to wear like that. Probably impossible to wear like that.
More than likely you have it all wrong as usual and it belonged to the male.
Give the king his crown back.
Back at again with not only clickbait, but many conclusions being reached without valid evidence..