The concept of inheritance emerged when human societies ceased to be predominantly nomadic and began to settle down with the Neolithic Revolution. Before that, in hunter-gatherer groups, there were few accumulable goods, and social organization tended to be more collective and egalitarian, with little need to transmit material wealth between generations. With agriculture, division of labor, domestication of animals, and sedentary life, arable land, herds, tools, and surpluses that need continuity after the death of an individual to continue being produced came into existence. This led to the formation of more defined family structures and the creation of social rules about who is entitled to these goods, often associated with kinship and descent.The most widely accepted hypothesis regarding the expansion of haplogroup R is that men from the steppe formed a dominant elite that took Neolithic women, using practices such as polygyny to multiply their descendants and replace a large part of the Neolithic paternal lineages, but this raises a number of questions for me: In a patriarchal and warlike society like the Indo-European one, who inherited the patriarch's position and possessions? Was there competition between half-siblings? Was there any formal criterion of legitimacy or maternal prestige? How was the fragmentation of power among dozens of heirs avoided? Were these children all recognized as part of the same lineage, or were there internal hierarchies between legitimate and other heirs? And who raised them in practice, the dominant Indo-European male group itself, or subordinate Neolithic women and even men, since the patriarch did not have time for this? If local men were marginalized, killed, or incorporated as dependents, to what extent did they influence the upbringing of these children?
Let's see if /his/ is smart enough to answer this.
>>18457143>>18457147Since no one on /his/ has answered me, I'll propose my hypothesis:In this type of society, an elite chief or patriarch could have several wives or concubines, fathering many sons, but the internal logic did not allow them all to inherit equally, as this would fragment land, herds, and authority. From an early age, there was differentiation among them, with those linked to the principal wife tending to occupy positions closer to succession, while the others grew up with expectations of displacement, and as they reached adolescence they were progressively removed from the domestic sphere, dominated by mothers, servants, and relatives, and prepared for a decisive transition to the collective male world.This transition culminated in entry into the Kóryos (Männerbund), which functioned as an institution parallel to the family. It was not merely a group of warriors, but a true socialization structure where young men were reorganized into bands with their own identity, subjected to initiation rituals, rigid discipline, and a culture that valued controlled aggression, loyalty to the group, and leadership ability. Within this environment, they ceased to be merely "other sons of the patriarchs" and began to be evaluated by performance, courage, and collective recognition, creating internal hierarchies that partially replaced family hierarchies.
>>18457864The Männerbund solved the inheritance problem by channeling the surplus of young men out of the domestic unit, encouraging them to acquire wealth through their own means, whether through plunder, seasonal warfare, service to other leaders, or even migration and the founding of new settlements. This created a continuous mechanism of expansion, where groups of young men could move, conquer, or settle in new regions, reproducing the same social structures there and maintaining the identity of the larger group.Thus, inheritance ceased to be a purely internal problem, only one or a few sons remained as direct successors to the patrimony and authority of the Indo-European patriarch, while the others were absorbed by this warrior institution that redefined their social role. Instead of fragmenting power among many heirs, the system concentrated continuity in a main line and transformed the others into agents of expansion, which at the same time reduced intense domestic conflicts and broadened the political and territorial reach of these populations.
Well, one of the common things through out history has been the first son getting it all, so the sons from the later wives, would have to go and build their own farms or perhaps, get a small piece / some kind of starting capital from the parents.
>>18457883>would have to go and build their own farms or perhapsThat would be easier to achieve by joining bands of other youngs without inheritance from the patriarchs, but this brings me to another question:How did the Kóryos divide their spoils? How did they maintain unity even though they were half-brothers whose inheritance was relegated by the Indo-European patriarchy? How could the leader be an authority figure for them even though his inheritance rights were cucked by the patriarch's firstborn or favorite son?
>>18458139>How could the leader be an authority figure for them even though his inheritance rights were cucked by the patriarch's firstborn or favorite son?The fact nomadic pastoralists could figure out the second order consequences of "just kill your firstborn half-brother and take his shit lol" but you can't says a lot lol
>>18457143cringe AI imagecringe AI post
>>18458301>>18458317Thanks 4 th3 bumperino faget
>>18458639Schizo.
>>18457143taking more than one wife is fine, if you grow and hunt their food yourselfbut in a highly specialized society which only exists because of an implicit social contract, it should be recognized that mate availability is the carrot on a man's stick which keeps him engaged productivelyyou could attribute many problems of the last few decades to male inability to provide for a wife and families sustenance
>>18459696Why do men need to be engaged productively? This is a narrative that serves parasitic rulers
>>18458301>could figure out the second order consequence of "just kill your firstborn half-brother and take his shit lol"The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European creation myth is literally the fratricide of *Yemo, whose death gives rise to the creation that his brother Manu rules. How the fuck can this not be interpreted that way? The only moral lesson I can draw from this is that, in addition to being brothers, Yemo is also a twin, so this fratricide would be seen more as self-sacrifice. Since creation originated from the self-sacrificed twin of the patriarch of Indo-European patriarchs, it all belongs to them and only they can offer sacrifices.>>18459696>>18459746Industrial Revolution has replaced the man's productivity role in family.Modern gender equality is not so much a product of feminism anymore, but much rather a new reality. A few decades, let alone centuries ago, women physically needed men to just survive, they would defend them, bring food to the table and sacrifice themselves for the survival of the offspring. Women could not survive alone or bring up a child without a man. Today, however, the government has undertaken a significant portion of the male responsibilities. A woman does not need a man to be protected, the police force will do that instead. A woman does not need a man to provide for the family, the government will pay welfare. Plus, the nature of the work itself has changed, back then it was mostly hard physical labour few women could perform, now its mostly intellectual work or mundane tasks that do not require physical strength. Women can do those just fine and do not have o seek a man do it for them. While feminism has obviously accelerated those changes, they would have taken place inevitably, whether you like it or not. It’s pointless to cling to an archaic idea of a society where women would continue being dependent on men when they no longer have any need to. It just does not work that way and is not supposed to.
>>18458139A leader would emerge organically over time, the strongest, most aggressive one most likely, he would take the spoils and divide them among his subordinates according to their loyalty and skill in battle
