What if some of the social rules we consider “normal” today are simply the result of decisions made thousands of years ago? What if the societies we inherited could have developed differently? Today I will be talking about why the society inherited patriacrhy instead of matriarchy and what would’ve happened if it was vice versa.

These questions came to my mind while watching a video(which I’ll put at the end of my blog) about the history of patriarchy and the earliest written laws. One particularly interesting idea is that societies can develop like ancient cities. New buildings are constructed on top of old foundations, while the original reasons for those foundations may eventually be forgotten. In a similar way, social institutions can survive for generations even after the circumstances that created them have changed.

The earliest written laws of Mesopotamia provide an especially interesting example. By the time legal collections such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Middle Assyrian Laws were written, Mesopotamian societies already had highly hierarchical family structures. Men generally occupied positions of authority within households, while women faced restrictions concerning marriage, sexuality, property, reproduction and, in some contexts, access to education and occupations. The laws did not necessarily invent all of these social practices, but they gave some of them formal legal recognition.

After learning these I couldn’t help but think: If patriarchal systems were historically constructed, what could their alternative have been?

The obvious answer seems to be matriarchy.

But the history is much more complicated than simply replacing men with women.

When law treats people differently

The Code of Hammurabi is particularly revealing because it shows that the idea of “equality before the law” was very different from the modern concept.

One of its most famous principles is lex talionis, usually summarized as “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” However, this principle did not create universal equality. The penalties could vary significantly according to a person’s social status. For example, the laws distinguish between free men, people of lower status and enslaved people. A physical injury inflicted on a free man could result in retaliatory punishment, while an injury involving someone of a different social class could instead result in financial compensation.

Gender also mattered in important areas of family and reproductive law.

For example, Hammurabi’s laws concerning pregnancy reveal a striking difference in whose interests the legal system prioritized. If a man struck a free-born pregnant woman and caused her to lose her unborn child, he could be required to pay compensation. If the woman died, however, the law could prescribe the death of the offender’s daughter rather than the offender himself. For women of lower social status, the compensation was different again.

This does not mean that every law was simply “men versus women.” The legal system was also deeply structured around class and social status. But it does demonstrate something important: the value assigned to a person’s body and the consequences of harming them were not necessarily equal for everyone.

Marriage law provides another example. A woman could possess property and, in certain circumstances, receive a dowry or inherit property, meaning that Mesopotamian women were not completely without legal rights. At the same time, marriage and family law placed significant authority in the hands of fathers and husbands, and women’s sexuality was heavily regulated.

This is where the history of patriarchy becomes more complicated than the simple idea that “women had no rights.” They did have legal rights in certain areas. The deeper issue is who had the authority to define those rights and under what conditions.

Reproduction and the control of women’s bodies

The connection between patriarchy and reproduction becomes even more striking in the Middle Assyrian Laws.

One law, known as MAL A 53, states that if a woman caused her own miscarriage and was convicted, she would receive an extremely severe punishment: impalement and denial of burial. Importantly, this law belongs to the Middle Assyrian Laws, not the Code of Hammurabi.

The contrast is significant.

The woman herself was the person experiencing the pregnancy, yet the legal system treated her decision concerning that pregnancy as a matter of public authority. Modern readers may therefore ask: why would a state consider a woman’s reproductive decision a crime against society?

Historian Gerda Lerner interpreted this kind of legislation in the broader context of patriarchal family structures. In her analysis, control over women’s sexuality and reproduction became connected to the authority of the male head of the family and, eventually, to the authority of the state.

The important point is not that we can know exactly what every ancient Assyrian person believed. We cannot. But the law itself provides evidence that reproduction was not treated purely as an individual matter. It could be connected to family authority, inheritance and social order which were by the way, dominated by men .

This makes the contrast between patriarchy and a hypothetical matriarchal system particularly interesting. It also raises a more provocative question: since men cannot give birth, would reproduction—and therefore the continuation of society—be viewed as primarily a female responsibility in a matriarchal system? Could this lead to men being considered less socially necessary, or even marginalized, in the same way that women have historically been marginalized under patriarchal systems? In other words, would a society dominated by women simply reverse the existing hierarchy, placing men in a subordinate position?

Matriarchy is not the same as matrilineality

Before imagining an alternative, however, we need to define what “matriarchy” actually means.

A matriarchal society is generally understood as one in which women occupy central positions of social or political authority.

A matrilineal society is different: descent, inheritance or clan membership is traced through the mother’s line.

A matrilocal society is one in which a married couple traditionally lives with or near the woman’s family.

And a matrifocal household is organized primarily around the mother.

These concepts are often confused, but they describe different social structures.

A society could therefore be matrilineal without being matriarchal. Women could transmit family identity and inheritance without necessarily controlling political institutions.

This distinction is especially important when studying prehistoric societies, because archaeology can sometimes provide evidence for maternal ancestry but cannot automatically prove that women held political power.

Did matriarchal societies actually exist?

This is where the historical evidence becomes uncertain.

There is no simple archaeological discovery that says: “This civilization was ruled by women.”

Archaeologists can study burial patterns, settlements, religious objects, ancient DNA and other material evidence. But interpreting political authority from these remains is difficult.

Ancient Egypt, however, provides an interesting example of female political power. Although ancient Egyptian society cannot simply be described as a matriarchy, women could occupy positions of extraordinary political authority. At least four women are known to have ruled Egypt as pharaohs, including Sobekneferu, Hatshepsut, Tausret and Cleopatra VII. Hatshepsut is particularly significant: she did not merely act as a queen or regent but assumed the title and role of pharaoh and ruled Egypt in her own right. Her reign demonstrates that female political authority was possible within an ancient civilization whose political institutions were generally associated with male rulers.

At the same time, the existence of female pharaohs does not prove that Egypt was a matriarchal society. In fact, academic studies describes ancient Egyptian gender roles as differentiated, while women nevertheless possessed notable legal rights, including the ability to own and transfer property, make contracts and, in some cases, participate in the legal system as judges or witnesses. This makes Egypt particularly interesting for the broader question of whether female political power necessarily means matriarchy.

Also, one of the most influential theories in this area was developed by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas. She argued that parts of prehistoric Europe had been characterized by relatively peaceful, female-centred societies associated with a “Mother Goddess” tradition before later patriarchal groups transformed them.

Her ideas became highly influential, but they have also been strongly debated. Later scholars have questioned whether female figurines necessarily represented goddesses, whether they demonstrate female political authority, and whether prehistoric European societies can really be described as matriarchies.

This debate is important because it demonstrates how easily our interpretation of the past can become influenced by our expectations.

Finding a female figurine does not automatically prove female political power.

Finding a weapon (or something generally men used during ancient times)does not automatically prove male political power.

Archaeological evidence has to be interpreted rather than simply read like a historical document.

But matrilineal societies definitely existed

The fact that evidence for matriarchy is controversial does not mean that all alternative social structures are hypothetical.

There is evidence for societies organized around maternal lines.

A 2025 study published in Nature, for example, examined ancient DNA and archaeological evidence from the Fujia site in eastern China, dating to approximately 2750–2500 BCE. The researchers found evidence of two distinct maternal lineages within the community, suggesting that the population maintained a matrilineal social structure over multiple generations.

But again, this does not prove that women ruled Fujia.

The evidence shows that human societies could organize family and social identity around maternal descent. It does not prove that political power was automatically transferred to women.

So what if matriarchy had developed instead?

This is where history becomes a thought experiment rather than something that can be proven.

We cannot know what the world would look like if prehistoric societies had developed predominantly matriarchal institutions. But imagining that alternative can help us understand how deeply social structures influence everyday life.

A useful modern comparison can help us understand the difference between female political representation and matriarchy. Finland, for example, had women heading 61.1% of its cabinet ministries at the beginning of 2025, making it one of the countries with the highest proportion of women in government. Yet it would be misleading to describe Finland as a matriarchy simply because women occupy a majority of ministerial positions. Political representation and matriarchy are not the same thing. Finland remains a modern democratic state in which political authority is not formally assigned according to gender. This distinction is important because it shows that a society can have significant female political representation without becoming a “female-dominated” society in the traditional sense.

In this context i want to add that according to the World Happiness Report, Finland is the world’s happiest country for the ninth consecutive year; which is honestly not surprising:)

If we look at it from another perspective, if women had traditionally held the main political and economic authority, family structures might have developed differently.

Inheritance might have followed the maternal line more frequently. Marriage might have been organized differently. A woman’s relationship with her birth family could potentially have remained more economically important after marriage.

The organization of work might also have developed differently. Activities traditionally associated with women, such as childcare, caregiving, food production and maintaining communities, might have been given greater social and economic recognition. Rather than being treated as private responsibilities, these activities could have been considered essential forms of productive work and central to the functioning of society.

The same could apply to political priorities. A political system shaped predominantly by women might have placed greater emphasis on community welfare, education, healthcare, childcare and social cooperation. This would not mean that women are naturally more caring or peaceful than men, but that people who have historically experienced these responsibilities more directly might have given them greater political importance.

Even ideas about what makes a person “productive” could potentially have been different. If care, education, cooperation and maintaining communities had been valued as highly as military power, territorial expansion or economic accumulation, societies might have developed a different understanding of what progress actually means.

Most importantly, laws concerning reproduction might have developed from a different starting assumption.

Pregnancy would be primarily understood as a matter concerning the woman who experienced it rather than as an issue controlled by the male head of the household.

Instead of asking:

“What rights does a husband or father have over this woman’s reproductive capacity?”

the legal system might have started with:

“What rights does the woman herself have over her own body?”

Of course, a matriarchal society would not automatically have been more humane, peaceful or egalitarian. A society ruled predominantly by women could still have class divisions, slavery, violence, inequality and authoritarian laws.

Changing who holds power does not automatically eliminate the possibility of oppression.

That is why the most interesting alternative to patriarchy may not actually be matriarchy.

It may be equality.

What would equality have looked like?

Imagine if some of the earliest legal systems had begun from a different assumption:

📚 Men and women are equally capable of holding political authority.

📚 Marriage does not transfer control of one person’s body to another.

📚 A person’s legal status does not depend on their sex.

📚 Violence against a woman is treated as seriously as violence against a man.

📚 Reproduction is not automatically defined as the property of a family, husband or state.

These ideas may sound obvious today, but they were not the assumptions reflected in many ancient legal systems.

The important question, therefore, is not simply whether women could have ruled instead of men.

It is whether societies could have developed institutions in which gender was less important in determining who had power.

Patriarchy may have deep roots, but does that make it inevitable?

It would be tempting to look at the development of early states, private property and written law and conclude that patriarchy was simply the natural outcome of civilization.

But history does not provide such a straightforward answer.

The archaeological record contains evidence of different forms of kinship and social organization. Some societies were patrilineal, others matrilineal, and many probably had structures that cannot be neatly placed into either category.

The existence of different systems matters because it challenges the assumption that there was only one possible path for human societies.

The video that inspired this article compares social structures to ancient cities: a city may have been designed for the needs of people thousands of years ago, but later generations continue building on the same foundations even when those foundations no longer fit their needs.

The same could be true of gender roles.

A rule created in one historical context can become a tradition. A tradition can become an institution. An institution can become a law. And eventually, people may begin to assume that the system is simply “the way things are.”

But something being old does not necessarily make it natural.

And something being widespread does not necessarily make it inevitable.

The alternative to patriarchy: equality

Perhaps the biggest mistake would be to imagine history as a competition between two systems: patriarchy on one side and matriarchy on the other.

Why should the alternative to male dominance necessarily be female dominance?

A matriarchal society could still reproduce the same fundamental problem if power were simply transferred from one gender to another. The difference would be who holds the power, not whether the system itself is based on hierarchy.

The more meaningful alternative may therefore be equality: a society in which being born male or female does not determine how much authority, freedom, legal protection or social value a person receives.

The Code of Hammurabi, the Middle Assyrian Laws, and other ancient legal systems remind us that laws can transform social assumptions into established institutions—unfortunately, in this case, reinforcing existing inequalities.

And if human beings were capable of constructing those institutions, then later generations are also capable of questioning and reconstructing them.

The video that I watched: