Many forms of Womens’ jewelry consist of chains, usually of silver or gold.
Is this a leftover from a past where women were no better than slaves in their status?
BTW–before I get dumped on, I do respect women, I merely admit the Past, in which they were not respected.
No, I don’t think so. I’ve seen gold chain jewellery that was clearly intended for men in patriarchal cultures, so I think the connection is tenuous.
Chains are just a nifty solution to making flexible metallic objects that can adjust to fit and lie flat (compare the Egyptian and Aztec pectoral-type neckpieces, which aren’t as adaptable.)
Gold and silver chains are at least as common among men as they are among women.
Pearls, OTOH…
Chains did more that just bonding people to slavery… like hoisting the winches! We may now have the mental association of chains=bondage, but they may not have, or it may have had alternate connotations, too.
It’s hard to know where to begin …
Chains have been worn by both men and women not only as decoration but as status indicators, i.e., chains of office.
Metal chains as decoration and functional objects have been used for millennia.
Not all slaves throughout history have been bound in chains.
There have been many societies throughout time where women were not “no better than slaves.” Even in times where the stereotype is that women were powerless, they could in fact be quite influential and operate freely in society. That’s not to say they had equal rights but they weren’t quite the subservient sex-and-housekeeping drones you seem to believe.
No. Slave chains were all put together so the links twist to the left when viewed down the chain axis. Jewelry chains all twist to the right.*
*
(shouldn’t be necessary, but this is the internet)
Yup. Sometimes even the top dawg wore chains: The Independent | Latest news and features from US, UK and worldwide
This question isn’t completely in left field! There is some small connection.
One of the reasons why women are so linked to jewelry is that in many societies, a woman’s jewelry represented her only personal wealth. Basically, a woman has few rights to income, inheritance, divorce, etc. Everything she had was up for grabs- except her jewelry. The husband and his family had no right to that. So jewelry became a kind of insurance- your last resort against the worst. A woman with plenty of jewelry could probably survive abandonment, widowhood, or even divorce. A woman without would quickly become destitute.
India leaps to mind as a culture that practiced this system. IIRC, gold jewelry is still used a bit like a savings account there. In India, as well as China, gold jewelry is sold purely by weight, which seems to point towards thinking of jewelry in investment terms.
Should’ve included the entire article: Henry VIII's benevolent side emerges with a £1m chain | The Independent | The Independent
At least one origin for chains of precious metals is that they could be used as currency. You could cut or untwist a link back in the days when coinage wasn’t always standard and people were mostly worried about weight anyway.
My thanks. 
Same was true of some non-chain jewelery as well – Viking women wore strands of glass and amber beads connecting to their cloak broaches. The beads being both a sign of wealth, and having trading value as needed.
