We tend to look at things through prejudicial lenses. Especially in early civilizations, we naturally assume the rulers were all men. But what if they weren’t?

We do know of some exceptions. Hatshepsut ruled Egypt, ruling from 1479 to 1458 BCE as one of the few female pharaohs. Her record survived because her accomplishments overwhelmed all attempts to erase her from history.

In later times, Boudica, a Celtic queen in what is now Great Britain, led a revolt against the Romans around 60–61 AD. It was ultimately unsuccessful, but still…

Go back further, say at least 4000 years ago, to the Sumerian civilization. The major city-state of Ur was founded around 3800 B.C. in present-day Iraq near the Euphrates River delta. When archeologists began excavating the site, in the royal cemetery they found burials with valuable treasures consistent with elites. But some of these extravagant tombs contained the skeletons of women. This included tombs that were thought to contain the remains of kings.

Of course, the first assumption was these women were consorts. Women simply could not have been the city’s rulers! But closer and more impartial examinations have called that assumption into question. In other words, perhaps some women were buried like kings because they were?

It’s an idea that’s gaining credibility as more evidence comes to light.

For all the details, see “What if Some of History’s Earliest Kings Were Really Queens?” by Liddy Berman (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/history-earliest-kings-ur-sumeria?)