How was polygamy viewed in Indo-European societies? And how was it practiced? Was it common or restricted to the elites? Perhaps linguistics and mythological tales can help. Do we have genetic evidence of these practices?
>>18666636It's why R1a became widespread.https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/p%C3%B3tnih%E2%82%82>“co-wife; concubine”https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/sap%C3%A1tniH
>>18666636Most Indo-European tribes were intelligent enough to know how damaging this was to society in the long run it would simply wither and weaken paternal relationships and in fact turn the lives of male children into a daily longhouse. Imagine living under the influence of several women in the same family? My God. Not to mention how this inflates hypergamy its a Semitic practice
>>18666651Polygamy would be very likely in the initial waves of the Indo-European expansion. It's difficult to imagine what happened to the Iberian peninsula wasn't partly due to polygamy.
>>18666651While I agree with your arguments regarding the effects of polygamy, your analysis is quite far from reality. The RV has some verses that deal with polygamy, and as him have shown>>18666650 we have linguistic evidence dating back to the PIIr. It is interesting to note how the practice was supposedly absent or rare in the western branches. I don't know if there's a concrete way to analyze how common it was, but I'm inclined to think it was relatively common in the Indo-Iranian branches for some reason.
>>18666651Nah, men tended to die too young. There was always a surplus of women. It's only in very peaceful modern times that we can experience so little gender imbalance in the population.
>>18666657>It's difficult to imagine what happened to the Iberian peninsula wasn't partly due to polygamy.Explain
>>18666662>>18666657That's why I said the **majority**. Indo-Iranians were already far outside the European sphere when they left and very mixed with mysterious meat they were great hedonists. Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Italic, and Hellenic peoples were monogamous. Besides, how do you prove that the EPIE expansions were polygamous? The links only showed why I'm saying it was restricted to Indo-Iranian branches who got high on plants every day.
>>18666666The extreme haplogroup turnover points to something like Indo-Europeans killing the local men, taking multiple local women for themselves, or a bit of both.
>>18666662The situation among the Vedic people was bizarre, if not humiliating. women performed magic to make their own husbands "lose interest" in their concubine wives out of jealousy, and it seems there are entire hymns narrating this. Fuck your wife were so petty as to use magic with plants or some such nonsense to make you lose interest in your second wife and send her away.With a wife like that, who needs enemies? I can imagine relationships filled with daily fights and confrontations.
>>18666676Makes sense to me
>>18666636>How was polygamy viewed in Indo-European societies?Weren't the Romans shocked at how Brits were openly practicing harlotry which eventually lead to the Boudica revolt because that whore was treated like a whore by romaboos ? Both of these soicieties were Indo-European with one soiciety having cuckoldry loving males and the other having talibani males
>>18666675>Besides, how do you prove that the EPIE expansions were polygamous?I haven't researched this before so I don't know the best places to look, but one word that occurs to me is *ǵénh1trih2 "mother"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C7%B5%C3%A9nh%E2%82%81trih%E2%82%82What's the point of this word to begin with? Why not use, you know, the normal word for mother? The verbal root is *ǵenh1- "to give birth", so a hypothesis I just came up with is that *ǵénh1trih2 may have originally specified "birth mother", which is a natural distinction you'd want to make if your father has multiple wives. They might also count as your "mothers", just not your birth mother.
>>18666702 their case was as gay as it gets.
>>18666636Back then you could be killed for not living a politely civil life. Things like sexual promiscuity were punished and nobility was seen as something valuable. False nobility could become a problem if you had power or prestige and get away with it, but wicked doers always got punished. Like that English king who had several wives and he kept killing them off or divorcing them. Nobility that is involved in divorce is wrong. But nobility in remaining faithful to promises for marriage is the only righteous path. If childhood promises were made for marriage, between 3 girls and 1 boy, and the girl broke her promise and all 3 girls were unfaithful, and one asked the boy if she could fulfill it for him, then in Jesus Christ’s blood and in nobility, that’s a righteous pursuit. But those girls are cursed till they fulfill their vow, and the boy is cursed to be praying for his enemy till it is fulfilled, unless he asks for forgiveness, but is still pursuing the promises to their fulfillment in prayer. If polygamy ever occurred in their hearts, this doesn’t mean the childhood promises are now considered confusion just because people didn’t do what they were supposed to do. Neither does the presence of sin in their relationship. Everyone has faults or accidents. The important thing is to cover up the sins , ask forgiveness, and follow God to one man to one woman as God created it. There is instances like Jacob, but his sin fell on his uncle who did it. So God used it for the good, and Europe would take Christian principles from the Bible. A man should not listen to the spirits only that he sees in the world. He should listen directly from his wife. I noticed that praying and waiting on God results in a bunch of shit sometimes. But that’s not God, His Word said to be warned of the spirits, only true child’s of God do not get carried off by the sea of spiritual warfare that happens. I’m talking about like in The Lion King, Simba sees his father talking.
>>18666666BEGONE DEMON
>>18666721>>18666718That idiot Simon Salva is back. Get out of here, you miserable pest. There are plenty of spam threads for you to bother people. pretending to be a Christian and trolling isn't useful here.
>>18666705NTA is indeed a strange word.
>>18666636Polygamy was present in many indo European societies. Ancient Celtic and Baltic in particular, with some evidence for Germanic too. Just not the norm ofc, less common than in Arab culture for example.
>>18666754>celtic>baltic>GermanicSources, please? Basically **Every** conquering sustained Indo-European society was patriarchal and monogamous from the Pater Familias in Rome (and later Christendom) to the Mundium in Germania to the Oikos in Greece.>>18666705It seems there aren't any articles that corroborate this, right?
>>18666727No idea who you are talking about. Is it because you are afraid of The Lion King movie?
>>18666765>>18666712Both celtroons and Germanoids were matriarchal their women were easily able to get a divorce from men
>>18666773Are you still going to continue spreading these low-quality lies that they were "matriarchal"? You seem obsessed with it. If you're not the same guy>>18666712doing sameflag, these Roman accounts are propaganda. or do you believe they felt offended when travelers refused to sleep with their men and that they lived as hunter-gatherers? They were first property of their father. Then property of their husband. Shut up please
>>18666773Things could vary wildly between the different tribes I think. Germans being uber chuddy and sissy could be true at the same time depending on which tribe one is talking about. I suppose the same to be true for nords as well. Besides, nomadic people almost always end up selecting for polygamy, or serial monogamy at the very least, because you can't let feelings of loyalty to your wife back home, prevent you from reproducing when you venture into new, hostile lands.When one gender partakes in this and self selects for genes associated with polygamy & promiscuity, the other gender is bound to start practicing this as well, especially when you give them full freedom, simply because a child inherits genes from both a mom and a dad.I'd wager muslim women will end up becoming uber whores if u destroy islamic thot patrol, all in just one generation, simply because they carry a lot of genes associated with polygamy that they'd inherited from their fathers.
>>18666675>It seems there aren't any articles that corroborate this, right?It's just a thought I had. I'm not aware of any articles.
>>18666808meant for >>18666765
Check this out. Polygamy in the context of the Bronze Age is discussed around minute 8:55. it should be taken into account in the interpretation of family structures and burial patterns of the time, and of course, migration. Perhaps what he said will make sense in the end>>18666676 A very interesting lecture for anyone who wants to watch it.Something interesting mentioned by the her is that the accumulation of power and wealth by some specific men 9:12-9:48 may have generated a significant imbalance in reproductive success. This could be one of the main reasons why specific male lineages to the detriment of others, were so successful. also note how diverse the MTDNA of Indo-European women is. It seems that powerful men were reproducing en masse. https://youtu.be/als4ZiP_PCs?is=JM0EF_Yy4EtkQLb1
>>18666651Dumb ass Polygyny is when a man has multiple wives while Polyandry is when a women has multiple husbands. Polyamoury is what involves open relationships. wasn't an open relationship or anything like that
>>18666864>>18666808>Reconstructing the History of Marriage Strategies in Indo-European–Speaking Societies: Monogamy and PolygynyLaura Fortunato demonstrates that monogamy was the standard rule in the original proto-Indo-European society. They weren't Semitic.
>>18666871Why do you seem to be taking this so personally? Notice that nobody here is arguing whether polygamy is morally acceptable or superior to monogamy. That's not the topic of the OP's statement or anyone else's here. we're discussing whether or not they practiced polygamy. You who are signaling virtue>Reconstructing the History of Marriage Strategies in Indo-European–Speaking Societies: Monogamy and PolygynyThis article is from 2011. I'm sure a lot has changed since then.
>>18666871>standard ruleI sincerely doubt there's such a thing. You have a thing now with Christians where that sort of description is appropriate since monogamy is standard doctrine, but PIEs are unlikely to have had a rule as such against polygyny. What you most likely had is general long term trends toward monogamy, but that would be the case for any society that isn't dysfunctional.Instead, what most likely happened is there were brief episodes of widespread polygyny as Indo-Europeans expanded into certain areas. Women of outsiders were probably fair game, but on the steppe there would need to less hoarding of women, unless of course that was one impetus for Indo-Europeans to leave the steppe: some elites were hoarding women and young men struck out on their own in new lands.
I was just thinking that some degree of polygyny is to be expected with a highly mobile, nomadic people. Is an analogy with Bedouins appropriate?Living as a steppe herder probably encouraged individualism and autonomy. You could get away having a few wives more easily by having no neighbors and staying on the move. This kind of lifestyle is not a recipe for settled society, and it actively prevents it by encouraging surplus men to go elsewhere.
