Ancient Goddesses

[Maggie]

I have a very thought-provoking book.....__Ancient Goddesses, ed. by Lucy Goodman and Christine Morris, published in 1998 by the British Museum Press. It is a collection of articles, all by female scholars, that re-examines the evidence for the growing popularity of a movement which claims that "human society and religion began with the worship of a Goddess in a peace-loving, egalitarian, matriarchal society, and that female divinities everywhere represents survivals of this early mode of religious expression."

Anyone interested in discussing these ideas?

Regards,

Maggie

[Swanspirit]

I have some ideas about "scholars " following the patriarchal line of thinking when persuing their work ....... BUT BUT BUT I have not read it........ so I really cant say ........
My main issue with the anthropologists and archeologists is that they have a STANCE..... and either they attemt to "prove" that the artifacts show one thing from their stance or another........
Another issue I have is that many of the approved scholars are patriarchal in education ( almost unavoidable) and background........ and that what appear to be scholarly works from feminists are denounced as unscholarly IF they deparrt from the "party line"..
here is a LONG but slanted IMO review of this book ......
http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/reviews/ancient-goddesses/
Love and Light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
I have some ideas about "scholars " following the patriarchal line of thinking when persuing their work ....... BUT BUT BUT I have not read it........ so I really cant say ........
My main issue with the anthropologists and archeologists is that they have a STANCE..... and either they attemt to "prove" that the artifacts show one thing from their stance or another........
Another issue I have is that many of the approved scholars are patriarchal in education ( almost unavoidable) and background........ and that what appear to be scholarly works from feminists are denounced as unscholarly IF they deparrt from the "party line"..
here is a LONG but slanted IMO review of this book ......
http://www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/reviews/ancient-goddesses/
Love and Light
Swannie

Gimbutas was a brilliant female archaeologist, and yet she slanted her evidence in her later work to 'prove' that her theory of a Pan-Euro Goddess cult was true. Female scholars can be just as dedicated to the 'party' line...........'course it depends on what party one means as to whether or not this is good..........

I've also read through the review you provided--how is it slanted? The author doesn't like the writing style of the authors in the book, but otherwise seem to feel that this book delivers what it promises.......

Regards,

Maggie

[Swanspirit]

so I really cant say but the reviewers WANT the book to disprove the "GODDESS".... and when they say .............."This is not the book that needs to be written to dispose of the Goddess; that is one which would
adequately marshal the evidence from archaeology, anthropology and history, and point out the
irrelevance of the myth to the real issues, and have a genuinely human and accessible voice. Until that
book arrives, this one will have to do."
I think that says "slant " pretty well.......
I would think a reviewer that wasnt slanted wouldnt look forward to "disposing the Goddess" but rather at the very least acieving a balanced and accurate view of where and when and what kinds of goddesses instead of disposing of her altogether......
And I fail to see how Maria Gimbutas slanted her view toward the "goddess" other than providing an heretofore unheard of in acedemia GASP feminine view of some findings.......
For instance the Venus of Villendorf....
Feminist interpretation......Ancient mother Goddess Figure
Patriarchal......Prostitute figure ( I have lots more input on that presumptive theory)
True meaning........ NOT YET IN......according to scholars
My intuitive response ..... a MOTHER GODDESS figure of importance
We are still working on theories here ......
Love and light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
so I really cant say but the reviewers WANT the book to disprove the "GODDESS".... and when they say .............."This is not the book that needs to be written to dispose of the Goddess; that is one which would
adequately marshal the evidence from archaeology, anthropology and history, and point out the
irrelevance of the myth to the real issues, and have a genuinely human and accessible voice. Until that
book arrives, this one will have to do."
I think that says "slant " pretty well.......
I would think a reviewer that wasnt slanted wouldnt look forward to "disposing the Goddess" but rather at the very least acieving a balanced and accurate view of where and when and what kinds of goddesses instead of disposing of her altogether......
And I fail to see how Maria Gimbutas slanted her view toward the "goddess" other than providing an heretofore unheard of in acedemia GASP feminine view of some findings.......
For instance the Venus of Villendorf....
Feminist interpretation......Ancient mother Goddess Figure
Patriarchal......Prostitute figure ( I have lots more input on that presumptive theory)
True meaning........ NOT YET IN......according to scholars
My intuitive response ..... a MOTHER GODDESS figure of importance
We are still working on theories here ......
Love and light
Swannie

Nope, not working on theories here. There was NO universal Great Goddess cult across Europe/Asia/. Gimbutas slanted her later work by omission--she reported on all the numbers of female figurines etc at a site BUT she did not report the numbers of male and animal figurines.

What is your evidence that the 'patriarchal' interpretation of the Venus of Willendorf is a prostitute? I've never heard that one...........

Regards,

Maggie

[Swanspirit]

slanted her work by omission........
I will have to look for the prostitute reference.... it came up in a discussion similar to this on an Avalonian message board with some
people that were asserting that there was NO FEMALE TRUE Scholarship available to refer to a Triple Goddess.......and this was years ago.. that discussion......
Love and Light
Swannie

[Swanspirit]

here is a very typical and IMO patriarchal view of said Goddess..... along with some interesting comments abuot pagans......
What do you think about this ?? What would be your take on it ?????http://www.agdei.com/woman.html
Love and Light
Swannie

[Swanspirit]

http://www.webcom.com/gimbutas/belili/welcome.html
Love and Light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
here is a very typical and IMO patriarchal view of said Goddess..... along with some interesting comments abuot pagans......
What do you think about this ?? What would be your take on it ?????http://www.agdei.com/woman.html
Love and Light
Swannie

I read as far as finding that Stonehenge is perfect example of a temple dedicated to the Earth Goddess (?) and that paganism is based on sacred sex and fertility. I doubt the rest of the article has anything worth repeating either. Since I was not raised Catholic nor am I Christian now, the changing portrayals of Mary are of little interest to me except insofar as they reflect the changing attitudes in the Catholic Church toward women as they are reflected in the art and culture of the times. They certainly say nothing beyond that.

Regards,

Maggie

[Swanspirit]

"Because paganism is based on sacred sex and fertility, it often involves orgies and child sacrifice to
ensure the continuation of nature's cycle. (Blood fertilizes the ground and is the offering.) The
eschatology of pagan religions is cyclical in nature and leads to their belief in reincarnation, to wit:
plant dead granddad in the autumn, and since he doesn't come back up in the spring, he must come
back as someone or something else. Hippies, wiccans, and assorted neopagans still go to
Stonehenge at the summer solstice to indulge their fantasies in honor of the great Earth Mother.&"
So typical of misinformation.......
and not very subtly slanted toward associating the "Goddess" and the feminine " with indulging fantasies and worse ......... typical of still prevalent attitudes........of patriachial views..... which is why I feel the BACKLASH that Maria Gimbutas and any legitimacy her work earned .... has been so harmful .....and virulent ...... and I am not surprised it continues ......... and I wouldnt be surprised to find it in this book.....
I have seen decidedly patriarchal sites point to this book the one you are referering to .....to further disparage and invalidate
the ideas of the Mother Goddess.......
Love and Light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
"Because paganism is based on sacred sex and fertility, it often involves orgies and child sacrifice to
ensure the continuation of nature's cycle. (Blood fertilizes the ground and is the offering.) The
eschatology of pagan religions is cyclical in nature and leads to their belief in reincarnation, to wit:
plant dead granddad in the autumn, and since he doesn't come back up in the spring, he must come
back as someone or something else. Hippies, wiccans, and assorted neopagans still go to
Stonehenge at the summer solstice to indulge their fantasies in honor of the great Earth Mother.&"
So typical of misinformation.......
and not very subtly slanted toward associating the "Goddess" and the feminine " with indulging fantasies and worse ......... typical of still prevalent attitudes........of patriachial views..... which is why I feel the BACKLASH that Maria Gimbutas and any legitimacy her work earned .... has been so harmful .....and virulent ...... and I am not surprised it continues ......... and I wouldnt be surprised to find it in this book.....
I have seen decidedly patriarchal sites point to this book the one you are referering to .....to further disparage and invalidate
the ideas of the Mother Goddess.......
Love and Light
Swannie

There are two issues here. First--religious beliefs are ultimately a matter of faith, which is not subject to proof of any kind. If someone chooses to believe in a universal Great Goddess, or Earth Mother, or anything else, that is the business of the individual.

BUT--when archaologica/academic writings are offered as proof--those writings are indeed subject to academic scrutiny in return, and Gimbutas' later work does not stand up. Therefore, academically, these theories are indeed subject to discussion and dissection. NOT the individual's belief in such a thing, but the academic proof offered to support it.

Personally, as a female scientist I am offended by the indirect assumption that any female scholar who does not agree with the Great Goddess movement has been co-opted by the patriarachal establishment. It sounds as if you believe that female scholars should be agreeing with this work simply because they should be showing solidarity with other women, regardless of what their own intellect and own studies tell them. That kind of 'support' in fact undermines exactly what the movement is trying to legitamize. When the academic work offered as proof of this thesis is shown to be faulty it undermines the legitemacy of the whole movement.

Regards,

Maggie

[Swanspirit]

which you have assumed I believe...... where I made no such assertion........

" Personally, as a female scientist I am offended by the indirect
assumption that any female scholar who does not agree with the
Great Goddess movement has been co-opted by the patriarachal
establishment. It sounds as if you believe that female scholars
should be agreeing with this work simply because they should be
showing solidarity with other women, regardless of what their own
intellect and own studies tell them. That kind of 'support' in fact
undermines exactly what the movement is trying to legitamize.
When the academic work offered as proof of this thesis is shown to
be faulty it undermines the legitemacy of the whole movement. "
I see you make assumptions and TAKE offense on unfounded assumptions , which you derive are IMPLIED from what I have posted thus far.....
Scientifically .... it is a reach at best...... poor technique .....and it would have been much simpler for you to simply have ASKED what I believe..... but in your rush to take offense you didnt......cant help you there......
if this were an experiment.... at this point your data is flawed.......
My beliefs in this area come nowhere near your assumptions........
and you continue to assert that Gimbutas work doest stand up ........without offering any proof .........
Love and Light
Swannie

[Swanspirit]

of which this is one....... and almost ALL of which reflect serious issues and problems with this book ......
"Heads, you lose, tails, I win., August 17, 2000
Reviewer: A reader from San Diego
When I first began to read the introduction, noting a section on the
archaeologists' story and the goddess movement's story I thought - "great,
this is going to be a balanced presentation." Unfortunately, this ended up
not being the case. The author was clearly biased against the goddess
movement from the beginning, and the "fair examination" of both sides
was, in short, not.

In an attempt to discredit Gimbutas and others like her, the author cites an
example that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that large breasted,
wide-hipped, female images are mother goddess images. While that is
true enough, there is no evidence to prove they are not. Lack of evidence
does not automatically equate to a previous non-existence.

The stand of the authors in this book, regarding Gimbutas and those of
her camp, is one of: "You can't prove your theory to be right so it must be
wrong. We can't prove ours either, but since yours is wrong ours must be
right."

In short, the theories of Gimbutas et al, are not discredited. They are
controversial at best and unproven at worst. That they are rejected by
those with opposing views is not significant. By contrast the works of
Gimbutas reject the views of opposing archaeologists as well.

By the end of this book it is clear that the editors and contributing authors
of this book are upset that the authors within the goddess movement are
more published than the "authorities" on the subject. And therein lies the
catalyst for this book. "


There are other reviews.... as well......
Thanks for bringing this up...... another book I wont waste my time on.......
Love and Light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
which you have assumed I believe...... where I made no such assertion........

I see you make assumptions and TAKE offense on unfounded assumptions , which you derive are IMPLIED from what I have posted thus far.....
Scientifically .... it is a reach at best...... poor technique .....and it would have been much simpler for you to simply have ASKED what I believe..... but in your rush to take offense you didnt......cant help you there......
if this were an experiment.... at this point your data is flawed.......
My beliefs in this area come nowhere near your assumptions........
and you continue to assert that Gimbutas work doest stand up ........without offering any proof .........
Love and Light
Swannie


Your words:

"I have some ideas about "scholars" following the patriarchal line of thinking when pursuing their work......."

"My main issue with the anthropologists and archeologists is that they have a STANCE.....and either they attempt to "prove" that the artifacts show one thing from their stance or another....."

"And I fail to see how Maria Gimbutas slanted her view toward the "goddess" other than providing a heretofore unheard of in acedemia GASP feminine view of some findings........"

Shall I go on? You have made it pretty clear that all scholars (including women) who have disagreed with Gimbuta's Great Goddess theory are disagreeing just because they were toeing the patriarchal line, particularly saying that those female scholars who disagree with this theory do so *only* because they are following the official (and patriarchal) party line. I might also point out that Gimbutas was not a bolt from the blue--or are you saying that she was the first to 'notice' this great goddess cult?


Re Gimbuta's work---the very first chapter in the book is Rethinking Figurines: A Critical View from Archaeology of Gimbutas, the 'Goddess' and Popular Culture. Just one quote:

"Despite the existence of an authoritative discourse within archaeology more widely, it is still the case that Gimbutas does diverge from archaeological practice with her arguments by assertion, that increasingly lack even the minimal 'linking arguements' between the archaeological materials and the interpretations that are made of them. The narrative is presented in an authoritarian way in which the process of inference from artefact to interpretation is mystified and ambiguities of the archaeological record are hidden."


As I've been saying all along, anyone can believe whatever they want--but when science is held to prove that point of view, the science is fair game.

You mentioned that you'd found the assertion about the Venus being a prostitute on a message board, with no reference. Since that is an unusual interpretation being stated as proof that there is a patriachal slant to scholarship, that needs to be backed up with some facts.

And NO TRUE FEMALE SCHOLARSHIP available to refer to a Triple Goddess.......

What would constitute 'true female scholarship' in this case? Even the term Triple Goddess is up for definition. Three aspects or three persons? There are triple aspected female dieties among the celtic goddesses, but they aren't the Mother, Maiden, Crone triplicity so popular right now. Once again, here is your indirect slap at female academics who disagree with these ideas. Does 'true female scholarship' only refer to those women who disagree with these ideas?


And the "BACKLASH that Maria Gimbutas and any legitimacy her work earned......has been so harmful......and virulent......."

The backlash is harmful--but it would be more to the point to recognize what is really happening. My pagan womens' discussion book has a new book coming up in November--"The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory:Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future." Exaggerated claims that cannot be supported actually does real harm to the movement itself--and that is my whole point here. BELIEFS are not up for proof or disproof here--the science being waved around to 'prove' it is.


Maggie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
of which this is one....... and almost ALL of which reflect serious issues and problems with this book ......
"Heads, you lose, tails, I win., August 17, 2000
Reviewer: A reader from San Diego
When I first began to read the introduction, noting a section on the
archaeologists' story and the goddess movement's story I thought - "great,
this is going to be a balanced presentation." Unfortunately, this ended up
not being the case. The author was clearly biased against the goddess
movement from the beginning, and the "fair examination" of both sides
was, in short, not.

In an attempt to discredit Gimbutas and others like her, the author cites an
example that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that large breasted,
wide-hipped, female images are mother goddess images. While that is
true enough, there is no evidence to prove they are not. Lack of evidence
does not automatically equate to a previous non-existence.

The stand of the authors in this book, regarding Gimbutas and those of
her camp, is one of: "You can't prove your theory to be right so it must be
wrong. We can't prove ours either, but since yours is wrong ours must be
right."

In short, the theories of Gimbutas et al, are not discredited. They are
controversial at best and unproven at worst. That they are rejected by
those with opposing views is not significant. By contrast the works of
Gimbutas reject the views of opposing archaeologists as well.

By the end of this book it is clear that the editors and contributing authors
of this book are upset that the authors within the goddess movement are
more published than the "authorities" on the subject. And therein lies the
catalyst for this book. "


There are other reviews.... as well......
Thanks for bringing this up...... another book I wont waste my time on.......
Love and Light
Swannie

You fail to mention that the book got 3 1/2 stars, and that there were only seven reader reviews. Of that seven you quoted from the only totally negative review--the rest were not. And that reviewer got it wrong--the book is simply pointing out that there is no evidence to support the assertions being made--not that since there is no evidence the writers are correct and Gimbutas is wrong.

Maggie

[Mairwen]

Originally posted by Maggie
I read as far as finding that Stonehenge is perfect example of a temple dedicated to the Earth Goddess (?) and that paganism is based on sacred sex and fertility.

Well, that would be enough to make me stop reading, too. Stonehenge as an earth goddess temple?? That's almost funny!

[Myst]

Originally posted by Maggie
"The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory:Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future." Exaggerated claims that cannot be supported actually does real harm to the movement itself--and that is my whole point here. BELIEFS are not up for proof or disproof here--the science being waved around to 'prove' it is.


I think this point is an essential one. I know for me as well as for most of my friends (male AND female), when we start reading something and find it only to be biased opinions about patriarchy we'll stop reading and stop caring what the person thinks.

Maybe we've been overexposed to what we would call whining. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion but truly Maggie is right - exaggerated claims that cannot be supported DO harm the movement. When I see exaggerated claims I stop reading, and I start thinking the person is an extremist and probably too biased to share information worth reading. When someone has no facts beyond their personal feelings and assumptions and continues to rant on and on based on that I stop listening quite quickly.

Read that again - exaggerated claims that cannot be supported do real harm to the movement. I can't say I've read the work of this author but perhaps she's realized how this is true, and perhaps by reading her work people will realize this and find better ways to encourage change.

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Mairwen


Well, that would be enough to make me stop reading, too. Stonehenge as an earth goddess temple?? That's almost funny!

It took awhile for my eyebrows to come back down............

Regards,

Maggie

[Mairwen]

Originally posted by Maggie


It took awhile for my eyebrows to come back down............

Regards,

Maggie

:rotfl:

[Swanspirit]

The Ancient Goddess Barbie:
Historical Views from the Year 5000
by Link


(Author's Note: Read this only if you consider laughter a sincere form
of worship!)

In the year 5000, historians will seek to patch together traces of the past,
to discover what life was like in today's current era. Here's one
humorous view of what they might find:

We are proud to announce that archaeologists have made a major
discovery explaining religious practice in the 1990's, over three thousand
years ago! These discoveries help us better understand the myths and
traditions which have been handed down over the years, and still survive
today within the popular cult of the Goddess Barbie. This tradition is one
of the fastest growing groups of modern-day Goddess worship.

Archaeologists have discovered that Barbie worship dates back to
ancient times. Figures of the Goddess Barbie have been unearthed,
preserved in nearly pristine state. It seems that ancient worshippers made
their images of Barbie in a material known as plastic. It was known at
the time that plastic did not decay to the elements over time and was
nearly everlasting! Because of this, it is obvious to our research team
that those items made of plastic were held in the highest regard by the
ancient culture of the 1990's. They surely wanted to preserve these
items for eternity! Research shows that ancient priestesses of Barbie
were initiated at a very young age. The initiation ceremony involved a
complex litany which lasted several weeks, usually prior to the Winter
Solstice. Young daughters would chant at length to their parents,
repeating over and over the praises of Barbie, stating their desires for the
Goddess to enter their lives. While these chants varied from priestess to
priestess, the words "I Want" are common to many of the evocations.
Later, after initiation, additional chants focused on a wide variety of
magical tools and altar accessories used by the Goddess Barbie in Her
temple.

Images of the Goddess Barbie show Her in many aspects. For example,
She was portrayed as a Solar Deity in Her Malibu Barbie aspect. This
explains the modern-day custom of Barbie worshippers donning colored
glasses and anointing themselves with special protective lotions to
celebrate the Summer Solstice! It is known that ancient religions
sometimes masked their Deities within the Saints of ancient Catholicism.
Researchers are certain this explains the name used for an ancient west
coast village known as Santa Barbara, perhaps a Mecca for Barbie
worshippers. Each Barbie figurine also held strange numerical markings,
$24.99. This explains the current custom where Barbie worshippers
tattoo themselves with this number! It was obviously the number most
sacred to the Goddess. The $ symbol was used in many ways by the
ancient culture, and was considered both a scourge and salute to religious
society.

It was also discovered that ancient Barbie had a consort known as Ken.
Close examination of plastic Ken figures explain why today's modern
Barbie worshippers allow only eunuchs to participate in religious rites,
with no other males allowed. Since many fewer Ken figures were found,
we can assume that the ancient Barbie worshippers were a matriarchal
tradition.

Our team of linguistic researchers have determined through study of the
ancient language that Ken was renowned in many parts of the world.
This explains the origins of ancient places like Kenya, Kentucky and
even the variation of Canada. An in-depth study of the Ken mythos also
links Him to the ancient clan known as Kennedy. Note the amazing
facial similarities! Stories surrounding this ancient Kennedy cult seem to
be a unique mixture of the "slain God" stories (similar to the Egyptian
Osiris) and the revelry of the Roman Bacchus. This seems to fit all three
aspects of the Triple Kennedy myth.

Other research shows a related figure, an ancient warrior God known as
GI Joe. Since GI Joe had no known female consort, and was also a
eunuch, it is obvious that both Joe and Ken competed for the Goddess
Barbie. One theory links this to the surviving Oak King/Holly King
myths of earlier times.

Researchers also uncovered other mythical characters, known as
Shakespeare, Einstein, Gandhi, and Ralph Nader. But since the ancient
culture held these in much lower relative importance than Barbie, they
obviously were mere minor demigods of the era. We are thrilled to have
discovered these Old ways, since they shed light upon many unexplained
traditions of today. We can use this clear view of history to put our
present-day customs in perspective!

After this significant success in discovering the ancient Barbie myths, our
archaeological efforts have been approved for additional funding to
research the ancient Ninja Turtle myths as well. Since many plastic
artifacts of the Ninja Turtles have been found in North America, perhaps
they are linked to the ancient Native American cultures of Turtle Island?
Only time will tell.
Love and light
Swannie

[Mairwen]

This has relevence to this thread, how??

[Swanspirit]

........and from several thinking out of the box perspectives............
Love and Light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
........and from several thinking out of the box perspectives............
Love and Light
Swannie

That Barbie thing has been around for awhile, Swan, it was funny the first few times I read it.

If you are trying to draw a parallel here, it doesn't wash. Finding an artifact is one thing, interpreting it is another--and I'm not quite sure that some of our stuff will be goggled at sometime in the futuer.


However, *Gimbutas* is more to side of the Barbie archaeologist, I'm afraid. It was HER *interpretation* of figurines and their alleged relative frequencies at various sites and what that supposedly meant that got her in trouble.

Maggie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Maggie


--and I'm not quite sure that some of our stuff will be goggled at sometime in the futuer.


Maggie

This should read: --and I'm quite sure that some of our stuff will be goggled at sometime in the future.

[Swanspirit]

Gimbutas bashing thread instead of "pretending"you were open and unbiased... and just wanted a discussion........
Like MOST of the reviewers of this book.....at Amazon ... I came to this "discussion" hoping for some open discussion, and instead find that you have already decided what you think and are not "open for discussion" but only wish to present your views vis a vis this book ......
and am having the same response to this thread that many have had to the book .....
"Finding an artifact is one thing, interpreting it is another-" to quote you .... is true for the authors of the book ....... as well as it is for Maria Gimbutas........
Thinking out of the box is not as easy as it appears.......
The resposnses to DARWIN in his day were largely based on people's inability to think out of the current paradigm .... one of the most objectionable theories he proposed was not even natural selection......but the fact that he observed and documented that a great deal of the natural selection was done by some species by the CHOICE of mate by the FEMALE of the species......as the reason for the increased plumage and displays i.e. fighting... strutting ...nest building ...food providing abilities of the male...... so designed to as to have the FEMALE choose..... this was not well received in the society in which he lived.........and many "respected scientists " went to great lengths to prove him wrong............and some still do LOL
So ........I would imagine that the ideas that Maria Gimbutas from her BODY OF WORK will encounter a backlash and "refutations" such as this for sometime........I am not saying that she cannot be disproved....... or that some of her ideas arent open to modification.....as we learn more ...... but on the basis of this book...... I personally would not "DISPOSE OF THE GODDESS" as a possible central figure of a matriarhcal or even matrifocal society......
so for me .. this is the end of the discussion,,,,, because in my estimation it never was one........
Love nd Light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
Gimbutas bashing thread instead of "pretending"you were open and unbiased... and just wanted a discussion........
Like MOST of the reviewers of this book.....at Amazon ... I came to this "discussion" hoping for some open discussion, and instead find that you have already decided what you think and are not "open for discussion" but only wish to present your views vis a vis this book ......
and am having the same response to this thread that many have had to the book .....
"Finding an artifact is one thing, interpreting it is another-" to quote you .... is true for the authors of the book ....... as well as it is for Maria Gimbutas........
Thinking out of the box is not as easy as it appears.......
The resposnses to DARWIN in his day were largely based on people's inability to think out of the current paradigm .... one of the most objectionable theories he proposed was not even natural selection......but the fact that he observed and documented that a great deal of the natural selection was done by some species by the CHOICE of mate by the FEMALE of the species......as the reason for the increased plumage and displays i.e. fighting... strutting ...nest building ...food providing abilities of the male...... so designed to as to have the FEMALE choose..... this was not well received in the society in which he lived.........and many "respected scientists " went to great lengths to prove him wrong............and some still do LOL
So ........I would imagine that the ideas that Maria Gimbutas from her BODY OF WORK will encounter a backlash and "refutations" such as this for sometime........I am not saying that she cannot be disproved....... or that some of her ideas arent open to modification.....as we learn more ...... but on the basis of this book...... I personally would not "DISPOSE OF THE GODDESS" as a possible central figure of a matriarhcal or even matrifocal society......
so for me .. this is the end of the discussion,,,,, because in my estimation it never was one........
Love nd Light
Swannie

The 'opposing' viewpoint is not trying to prove they are right--what they are doing is simply pointing out that the evidence presented by Gimbutas does not support such a theory. If Gimbutas and others are going to use archaeology to support their theory, then they are going to have to expect that science to be scrutinized. You haven't really discussed anything, in fact you have been trying to do what you accuse me of doing--discredit the opposing view. Oddly enough, it *seemed* as if you were using the same methods as Gimbutas also--you didn't give the whole story about the reviews when you posted the comments, for instance. And I believe that I have pointed out more than once that such easily disproved 'evidence' in fact hurts the Goddess movement more than it helps. I believe I already mentioned Cynthia Eller? She wrote __Living in the Lap of the Goddess: The Feminist Spirituality Movement in America__. She is also an assistant professor of women and religion at Montclair University. She has written a new book, came out last year, __The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory:Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future_____ You might try understanding the objections to the Great Goddess movement instead of simply labelling those objections as patriarchal thinking and Gimbutas a victem of male chauvinist thinking. As I said before, that is an insult to the female scholars who disagree with the archaeological 'evidence' that has been presented.

And no--I am not trying to 'get rid of' the Great Goddess myth. Belief is one thing--proof is another. I have been questioning the 'proof' not the belief. As far as thinking outside the box goes, perhaps you'd like to give it a whirl yourself, so far you've demonstrated nothing but the standard Goddess/feminist line. My own ways are firmly polytheistic, I do not accept the Great Goddess/matriarchal society theories both for 'secular' scientific reasons and for religious reasons. It is not a kneejerk rejection of the Great Goddess.


By the way--the backlash against Darwin was because his theory was in direct opposition to the widely held belief in a Divine Creation current at the time, and people refused to believe that humans had any connection at all to the other primates. It had *nothing* to do with the fact that in some species the female chooses her own mate. As devout Christians quite a few members of the suffragette movement would have been horrified by the theory of evolution--it wasn't ever linked to women's rights when it was first presented and if it is now that's a pretty recent development.

Maggie

[Swanspirit]

SEXUAL SELECTION was a huge part of the publication which brought a STORM ( testosterone storm) of controversy regarding Darwins work..... people of that era were shocked .... sex was not something Victorians discussed......
and to discuss it and find that FEMALES HAD power.........

Sexual Selection

In 1871, Darwin published, The Descent of Man. In this book
sexual selection is described in detail. Darwin (1871) divides
sexual selection into 1) female sexual selection or female choice
where the female in a species picks a male for a specific quality,
for example colorful feathers or a beautiful song. 2) male combat
sexual selection called male-male competition where males
compete physically for the opportunity to mate with a female, for
example by having larger antlers or a more massive bulk. Fox
(1983) suggests that there is a strong element of female choice in
both alternatives, with male-male competition being a form of
female choice where a variety of successful aggression is sought
after. Perper (1989) notes that in humans, what may look like
male-male competition may indeed be, in actuality, female choice.
By describing both processes as sexual selection, Darwin makes
clear how the lines between the two may, at times, be blurred.

Sexual selection was also controversial, yet was never focussed on
by theorists early in the century as a selective process as powerful
as natural selection. Many theorists today agree with Darwin that
sexual selection may be the primary selective process in human
evolution. There are theorists that believe that sexual selection is
the most powerful force in species evolution (Miller, 1994).
Human hairlessness and language, Darwin believed, could be
explained by sexual selection. Also, males and females could pick
different qualities in each other resulting in various anomalous
human features. In The Descent of Man, Darwin pointed to Africa
as the likely origin of our species, and to apes as our closest
relatives. Wallace, Darwin's co-creator of natural selection, was a
staunch opponent of sexual selection. Many theoreticians ignored
the theory altogether. Fisher, in 1930, rescued the theory from
oblivion with his theory of runaway sexual selection that
mathematically supported Darwin's conjectures. Only beginning in
the 1970's (Trivers, 1972) were male-male competition and female
choice supported again as important processes in evolutionary
theory.

This discussion of Darwin's theory of sexual selection will focus on
the following issues: the accelerated nature of sexual selection; the
focus on novelty in sight, sound and behavior; the impact of female
choice on human evolution and the results of mutual selection in
humans; human brain size increases; and Darwin's blind spot as a
child of Victorian England. Some of these issues, such as runaway
sexual selection, will be addressed in more depth in the next
chapter when we discuss later theorists' elaborations on Darwin's
works. Female sexual selection or female choice, as one of the
foundation principles of shift theory, will be returned to several
times throughout the course of this work as we discuss the origin
and evolution of culture and the etiology of neurological disease,
certain cancers, and psychological disorders.

Darwin (1871) emphasized that sexual selection was qualitatively
different from natural selection in that it could act far faster and
could explain leaps of transformation that natural selection might
not be able to approach. He compared sexual selection to the
artificial selection of domesticated animals, both processes
exhibiting a relative lightening speed of change. Darwin followed
Lyell's non cataclysmic orientation in suggesting that evolution
generally followed a slow gradual path, but in his discussions of
sexual selection (Cronin, 1992) the restraints were off.

In addition to speed of change, sexual selection offers an
explanation for some mysteries of evolution that natural selection,
for many, had not satisfactorily explained. How birds could have
incrementally acquired feathers and flown, when any half way point
in the process may have offered few benefits, has been an issue
from Mivart to Gould. Wesson (1991) has written that feather
evolution may have progressed because the female of the ancestor
bird species was picking males with beautiful plumage and selected
for big fat colorful feathers that later were found useful for flight (it
has been suggested that their origin came for their ability to retain
heat).

Sexual selection and its propensity to operate with speed and
extreme uniqueness has also been noted when it comes to human
beings. Darwin (1871) wrote that humans may have been
prepared for language by sexual selection reinforcing the most
eloquent (non verbal) vocalists thereby creating a song-making
ability in humans that could later be bridged into language (Darwin,
1871). Darwin believed that the many radical shifts in evolution
may have been sexually selected. Other writers have noted that
sexual selection in combination with culture, may be the engine
behind the extreme speed in human evolution, especially in the last
40,000 years (Laland, 1995).

Darwin opens a discussion, in The Descent of Man, which flirts
with the very foundation of evolutionary theory. Darwin (1871)
stated point blank that animals, particularly the females, have an
aesthetic sense (Darwiin, 1871). We might say that they are
attracted to novelty or variations on a theme. At the foundation of
female choice is this attraction to novelty which can be explained
because it reinforces the priorities of natural selection. In other
words, natural selection may have selected for female sexual
selection. These propensities are deeply ingrained (Ridley, 1993;
Small, 1993) and in many species may have placed the female in
the position of guiding the direction of evolution (Small, 1993).
This thirst for novelty (Miller, 1994) may also be what
characterizes human evolution.

Female sexual selection is driven by an attraction to novelty
(Darwin, 1871), and novelty is characterised by variations in the
way things look, sound, smell or feel which can be manifested
physiologically and behaviorally. In recounting his observations of
sexual displays, Darwin concentrates on changes in looks and
sounds paying less attention to behavior (Miller, 1994), Yet he
noticed that in their displays, animals emphasized either sight or
sound, rarely excelling in both (Darwin, 1971).

Darwin (1871) assigned the insights he derived from his
observations of nature to human beings. He listed several
anomalous human features derived from sexual selection. The
human lack of hair he ascribed to male selection of less hairy
females (Darwin, 1871), a trait that became generalized to the
species. Crook (1972) concurs in this assessment. Hulse (1978)
gives as an example the relative lightness of skin color at different
social stratas in Japanese culture as evidence of males picking
females with the specific qualities that Darwin alluded to.

In, perhaps, one of the strangest turns in the history of evolutionary
theory, Wallace (1895), when confronted with human lack of hair
and expanded brain size in human beings, utterly rejected sexual
selection and turned to intervention by God to explain the
anomalous characteristics. Wallace insisted that natural selection
was the only selective process. This compelled him, in the end, to
look to deistic intervention to explain human evolution.

Human sexuality was not easily discussed in Darwin's day. Freud's
works would not appear for several decades. A number of
contemporary theorists have focussed on human sexual features,
both physiological and behavioral, as the results of sexual selection.
Many of these hypotheses are built upon a principle that Darwin
alluded to, but did not pursue, that females in human evolution
hypothetically could be responsible for particularly important
human features. Darwin very hesitantly suggested that human
evolution progressed, before the establishment of contemporary
polygynous and monogamous patriarchal social structures, under
promiscuous social structures characterized by a high degree of
female choice (Smith, 1976). In some very succinct ways, human
sexual anatomical and behavioral characteristics offer more than
just clues as to how human being evolved, they suggest the very
process itself. At the core of that process is female choice.

I dont know what kind Of scientist you are ........ but I would think you might do your research prior to making statements as easily disputed as the one you made about Darwin and sexual selection......and making the erroneous assumption YET again that what I was referring had anything to do with feminism and Darwin....
BUT there is a huge amount of ongoing and current debate .....in you want to enter that fray ...... about feminism and sociobiology ...... you know .... genes are destiny thing .. with the feminist and scientific communities so ......there is a great deal of modern connection with Darwin's theiories and some aspects of feminist thought ............
AS I said before you DONT know my views you just keep assuming ........
I would rather have a discussion (not a debate of opposing views) with someone who was more open to hearing all sides......
Love and Light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
SEXUAL SELECTION was a huge part of the publication which brought a STORM ( testosterone storm) of controversy regarding Darwins work..... people of that era were shocked .... sex was not something Victorians discussed......
and to discuss it and find that FEMALES HAD power.........

Sexual Selection

In 1871, Darwin published, The Descent of Man. In this book
sexual selection is described in detail. Darwin (1871) divides
sexual selection into 1) female sexual selection or female choice
where the female in a species picks a male for a specific quality,
for example colorful feathers or a beautiful song. 2) male combat
sexual selection called male-male competition where males
compete physically for the opportunity to mate with a female, for
example by having larger antlers or a more massive bulk. Fox
(1983) suggests that there is a strong element of female choice in
both alternatives, with male-male competition being a form of
female choice where a variety of successful aggression is sought
after. Perper (1989) notes that in humans, what may look like
male-male competition may indeed be, in actuality, female choice.
By describing both processes as sexual selection, Darwin makes
clear how the lines between the two may, at times, be blurred.

Sexual selection was also controversial, yet was never focussed on
by theorists early in the century as a selective process as powerful
as natural selection. Many theorists today agree with Darwin that
sexual selection may be the primary selective process in human
evolution. There are theorists that believe that sexual selection is
the most powerful force in species evolution (Miller, 1994).
Human hairlessness and language, Darwin believed, could be
explained by sexual selection. Also, males and females could pick
different qualities in each other resulting in various anomalous
human features. In The Descent of Man, Darwin pointed to Africa
as the likely origin of our species, and to apes as our closest
relatives. Wallace, Darwin's co-creator of natural selection, was a
staunch opponent of sexual selection. Many theoreticians ignored
the theory altogether. Fisher, in 1930, rescued the theory from
oblivion with his theory of runaway sexual selection that
mathematically supported Darwin's conjectures. Only beginning in
the 1970's (Trivers, 1972) were male-male competition and female
choice supported again as important processes in evolutionary
theory.

This discussion of Darwin's theory of sexual selection will focus on
the following issues: the accelerated nature of sexual selection; the
focus on novelty in sight, sound and behavior; the impact of female
choice on human evolution and the results of mutual selection in
humans; human brain size increases; and Darwin's blind spot as a
child of Victorian England. Some of these issues, such as runaway
sexual selection, will be addressed in more depth in the next
chapter when we discuss later theorists' elaborations on Darwin's
works. Female sexual selection or female choice, as one of the
foundation principles of shift theory, will be returned to several
times throughout the course of this work as we discuss the origin
and evolution of culture and the etiology of neurological disease,
certain cancers, and psychological disorders.

Darwin (1871) emphasized that sexual selection was qualitatively
different from natural selection in that it could act far faster and
could explain leaps of transformation that natural selection might
not be able to approach. He compared sexual selection to the
artificial selection of domesticated animals, both processes
exhibiting a relative lightening speed of change. Darwin followed
Lyell's non cataclysmic orientation in suggesting that evolution
generally followed a slow gradual path, but in his discussions of
sexual selection (Cronin, 1992) the restraints were off.

In addition to speed of change, sexual selection offers an
explanation for some mysteries of evolution that natural selection,
for many, had not satisfactorily explained. How birds could have
incrementally acquired feathers and flown, when any half way point
in the process may have offered few benefits, has been an issue
from Mivart to Gould. Wesson (1991) has written that feather
evolution may have progressed because the female of the ancestor
bird species was picking males with beautiful plumage and selected
for big fat colorful feathers that later were found useful for flight (it
has been suggested that their origin came for their ability to retain
heat).

Sexual selection and its propensity to operate with speed and
extreme uniqueness has also been noted when it comes to human
beings. Darwin (1871) wrote that humans may have been
prepared for language by sexual selection reinforcing the most
eloquent (non verbal) vocalists thereby creating a song-making
ability in humans that could later be bridged into language (Darwin,
1871). Darwin believed that the many radical shifts in evolution
may have been sexually selected. Other writers have noted that
sexual selection in combination with culture, may be the engine
behind the extreme speed in human evolution, especially in the last
40,000 years (Laland, 1995).

Darwin opens a discussion, in The Descent of Man, which flirts
with the very foundation of evolutionary theory. Darwin (1871)
stated point blank that animals, particularly the females, have an
aesthetic sense (Darwiin, 1871). We might say that they are
attracted to novelty or variations on a theme. At the foundation of
female choice is this attraction to novelty which can be explained
because it reinforces the priorities of natural selection. In other
words, natural selection may have selected for female sexual
selection. These propensities are deeply ingrained (Ridley, 1993;
Small, 1993) and in many species may have placed the female in
the position of guiding the direction of evolution (Small, 1993).
This thirst for novelty (Miller, 1994) may also be what
characterizes human evolution.

Female sexual selection is driven by an attraction to novelty
(Darwin, 1871), and novelty is characterised by variations in the
way things look, sound, smell or feel which can be manifested
physiologically and behaviorally. In recounting his observations of
sexual displays, Darwin concentrates on changes in looks and
sounds paying less attention to behavior (Miller, 1994), Yet he
noticed that in their displays, animals emphasized either sight or
sound, rarely excelling in both (Darwin, 1971).

Darwin (1871) assigned the insights he derived from his
observations of nature to human beings. He listed several
anomalous human features derived from sexual selection. The
human lack of hair he ascribed to male selection of less hairy
females (Darwin, 1871), a trait that became generalized to the
species. Crook (1972) concurs in this assessment. Hulse (1978)
gives as an example the relative lightness of skin color at different
social stratas in Japanese culture as evidence of males picking
females with the specific qualities that Darwin alluded to.

In, perhaps, one of the strangest turns in the history of evolutionary
theory, Wallace (1895), when confronted with human lack of hair
and expanded brain size in human beings, utterly rejected sexual
selection and turned to intervention by God to explain the
anomalous characteristics. Wallace insisted that natural selection
was the only selective process. This compelled him, in the end, to
look to deistic intervention to explain human evolution.

Human sexuality was not easily discussed in Darwin's day. Freud's
works would not appear for several decades. A number of
contemporary theorists have focussed on human sexual features,
both physiological and behavioral, as the results of sexual selection.
Many of these hypotheses are built upon a principle that Darwin
alluded to, but did not pursue, that females in human evolution
hypothetically could be responsible for particularly important
human features. Darwin very hesitantly suggested that human
evolution progressed, before the establishment of contemporary
polygynous and monogamous patriarchal social structures, under
promiscuous social structures characterized by a high degree of
female choice (Smith, 1976). In some very succinct ways, human
sexual anatomical and behavioral characteristics offer more than
just clues as to how human being evolved, they suggest the very
process itself. At the core of that process is female choice.

I dont know what kind Of scientist you are ........ but I would think you might do your research prior to making statements as easily disputed as the one you made about Darwin and sexual selection......and making the erroneous assumption YET again that what I was referring had anything to do with feminism and Darwin....
BUT there is a huge amount of ongoing and current debate .....in you want to enter that fray ...... about feminism and sociobiology ...... you know .... genes are destiny thing .. with the feminist and scientific communities so ......there is a great deal of modern connection with Darwin's theiories and some aspects of feminist thought ............
AS I said before you DONT know my views you just keep assuming ........
I would rather have a discussion (not a debate of opposing views) with someone who was more open to hearing all sides......
Love and Light
Swannie


What is your source for this information? It certainly isn't yours. And, nothing in it supports your statement that the main opposition to Darwin's theory was opposition to the idea of female choice in sexual partners. In fact, this piece states explicity that attention was focussed on natural selection as *the* evolutionary force and sexual selection was barely discussed in the early years of the century--when his theory was new--and it was that theory of evolution that caused the fire storm. In fact, your quote states that sexual selection was rescued 'from oblivion' in the 1930's.

Genes are not a 'destiny thing'--the debate between nature and nurture is of long standing and no where near being resolved.

I have a BS from Michigan State University in botany, and an MS from the University of Michigan in biology, major field of study botany. And your background is?

At least some of your views are pretty clear just from your posts so far. In any case, it is not your beliefs that are being debated, it is what you are offering as 'proof' that I have been discussing.
I'd be glad to discuss this with someone who is 'more open to hearing all sides'. Got any names?



Maggie

[Swanspirit]

was in error..........
and my "qualifications" besides my Degree in Nursing ... and my national Certification in Mental Health Nursing..... and my over twenty years of experience in the medical field ..... are that I have a mind and I can think and reason.........I didnt know this was only a "debate for the academically qualified....."
so I am heading over to the misheard lyrics thread .... it is more fun than the misread posts one here ..........
Love and light
Swannie

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
was in error..........
and my "qualifications" besides my Degree in Nursing ... and my national Certification in Mental Health Nursing..... and my over twenty years of experience in the medical field ..... are that I have a mind and I can think and reason.........I didnt know this was only a "debate for the academically qualified....."
so I am heading over to the misheard lyrics thread .... it is more fun than the misread posts one here ..........
Love and light
Swannie

You were the one who brought up qualifications--"I don't know what kind of scientist you are" and then suggested I research the question before sounding off.


You are the one not reading your own postings--as I pointed out, what you posted didn't support your own point.

Now we are having a debate? I thought you didn't want that, just a discussion. And frankly, none of what's been posted so far needs anything except basic reading comprehension to participate in.

[Myst]

Ok what I see here is one person discussing scientific and archaeological studies and proof, and another posting articles and reviews from a site and questioning the first person's ability to comprehend the discussion.

Maybe some of us would like to stop the arguing over who's intelligent enough to understand or who's reading who's posts and actually discuss the matter at hand?

What evidence exists to prove this society existed, if any? I've heard the argument that it never existed before. At this point I wish I had that book or even a local library to visit to borrow it. The question isn't "was their a matriarchal society" or what have you, it's what proof was there? What proof have people come up with, or was it all biased opinions? Were people just trying to say that patriarchy is evil and before that matriarchy ruled the world properly?

[Danustouch]

hehehe...thus the phrase.."BURDEN OF PROOF". I'm hearing alot of "EVIDENCE" and "STUDIES" and "PROOF" from Maggie. But..the opposing view has not yet provided ANY proof. Only opinions, essays, and reviews. With little source, little documentation, no archaeological/scientific proof, what-so-ever. That is the difference between THEORIZING, and PROVING.

Proof, to me, would be documented evidence, archeological samples, first hand witnesses (which of course, there are none left). Etc. Reviews, Essays, and Differing opinions, are just that..opinions. NOT scientific "proof" or even "evidence".

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Willow Raven
Ok what I see here is one person discussing scientific and archaeological studies and proof, and another posting articles and reviews from a site and questioning the first person's ability to comprehend the discussion.

Maybe some of us would like to stop the arguing over who's intelligent enough to understand or who's reading who's posts and actually discuss the matter at hand?

What evidence exists to prove this society existed, if any? I've heard the argument that it never existed before. At this point I wish I had that book or even a local library to visit to borrow it. The question isn't "was their a matriarchal society" or what have you, it's what proof was there? What proof have people come up with, or was it all biased opinions? Were people just trying to say that patriarchy is evil and before that matriarchy ruled the world properly?

The question being discussed IS what is the proof and whether or not it actually supports the Great Goddess theory. The proof being offered by Swan is Gimbuta's work--she's the archaeologist and it is her work that is in question now. The Goddess movement has gone from her conclusion--that there once was a universal Great Goddess, and moved on to the allegation that pre-history was matriarchal and was crushed by the patriarchal societies that succeeded it. For me the body of work already done in the field makes these theories very doubtful, if not impossible. Gimbuta's later field work is what she herself used to support her universal Great Goddess theory, and it is exactly that later work that is coming under fire when the actual information from those sites is reviewed--even by female archaeologists. And yes, in some quarters it is believed that patriarchy is evil and that if we 'returned' to the prehistorical matriarchy things would improve. That is in itself a rather doubtful proposition, but not one part of this topic.

Regards,

Maggie

[Swanspirit]

NOW THIS is a BALANCED VIEW...... IMO and you will not the Gimbutas IS FAR from the ONLY
proponent of a Goddess ........

Modern Eyes on an Ancient World: Theories and
Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Depictions of Females.

by Annique-Elise Goode




INTRODUCTION

There are two opposing idea regarding the nature of art: Plato
declared art to be mere imitation of what one literally sees, while 19th
century art theory considered it an expression of emotions (Bahn
1998: xxii). These two approaches, literal and symbolic, have been
used, and in some cases, even combined, in scholarly attempts to
interpret prehistoric human representations. Many interpretations
have been made as to the meaning and function of Upper Paleolithic
carvings, figurines and motifs representative (or said to be) of
females. In my descriptive paper, I discussed prehistoric art in
general and described the genres of female depictions that exist in
prehistory. Here, I will present their literal and symbolic
interpretations, both the mainstream and the more unusual or
obscure.

The focus will be on Upper Paleolithic European depictions of
females, due to the high number of representations found in that area
and time period, and the amount of literature on that theme. The intent
is not to prove one interpretation to be correct above all others. On
the contrary, it is to present proposed ideas and analyze them to a
two-fold conclusion, that 1) the very nature of the extraordinarily
ancient artifacts and their creators renders conclusive interpretation
virtually impossible and 2) the large number of interpretations already
made are encouraging and should provoke further investigation to
refine them or create new ideas. This is not a contradiction, as the
impossibility of conclusively proving something should not prevent
robust discussion and debate from provoking serious thought on the
matter.

Prehistoric human figures are often discussed as a single
phenomenon, despite the facts that they cover an immense time span
(roughly 25,000 BC to 2,000 BC), and have many variations on a basic
theme. Ehrenberg (1989:66) feels that they should not be interpreted
as singular, for these reasons. The same tendency to
homogenization is true of studies of prehistoric female depictions
(Delporte 1993; Ehrenberg 1989; McDermott 1996). As Delporte (1993)
points out, there is a question of whether Paleolithic art, and by
extension, female representations, had one intention or function
which was static over 20,000 years of the Upper Paleolithic or
whether it was more fluid in nature. The fluidity model suggests that
socio-economic change, diversity of style and technique, and the
passage of time may have an affect on the intention and function of
the artifacts.

This is an important point, as "universality" theories are based on the
assumption that Paleolithic cultural evolution being so much slower
than ours makes such uniformity possible (Delporte 1993). However,
we cannot discount the fact that feminine depictions of the Upper
Paleolithic have, between the Gravettian (23-18 000 BC) and
Magdalenian (18 000 – 14 000 BC) periods and from various aspects,
sufficient differences that make it difficult to accept a single
explanation as applicable to all examples so far discovered (Delporte
1993).

Another issue that has emerged in interpretation is the often – quoted
idea that there is a significant majority of female depictions over
males and children (Bahn 1997; McDermott 1996; Rawson 1973).
Ehrenberg (1989) objects to this position, cautioning that female
Venus figurines, while a distinct group, should be considered as part
of a much larger series of Paleolithic carved figures. She contends
that while some of these figures are females, most have naturalistic
rather than exaggerated proportions, and that in fact, most figures are
sexless (1989: 68). Duhard (1993) follows suit, reasoning that, based
on the assumption that Paleolithic artists portrayed men and women
from real-life models around them, Paleolithic art should portray the
actual diversity of their life, including physical, gender and age
variations in human depictions. Duhard (1993) examined prehistoric
human depictions of children, women at various ages and stages of
reproductive life, and of men, and concluded that it is a mistake to
think of obese women as being the general rule in prehistoric human
depictions. He contends that there is in fact a wide variation of female
representations: obese, slim, pregnant, short, thickset etc… I feel this
is an important issue to bring up before presenting interpretations
based on this assumption of dominance of female depictions in
Paleolithic art.

Because they are the most prominent and theorized depictions of
Paleolithic females studied, I will focus on so-called Venus figurines,
described in detail in my first paper. They are interesting artifacts,
having produced fierce and passionate debates about their meaning
and function that created most of the interpretations to be presented.
As Delporte (1993) mused, [trans.] "There is, in effect, a contradiction
between the precariousness of the information and the exuberance
of the literature!". Perhaps the reason for their interpretative interest
to academia lies in their widespread and numerous discoveries
across Europe, and their often greatly exaggerated sexual features
that mark them as undeniably female, unlike some of their more
vague "sisters".

Finally, there are several important questions that should be asked
upon reviewing and interpreting prehistoric human figures: where
and when were they made? In what contexts were they found? Do
they represent women exclusively? Is there sufficient similarity in
design and context to suggest the plausibility of a single explanation
for all the figures found in Europe (Ehrenberg 1989: 66)? These
questions need to be considered seriously, and all assumptions
examined for validity before an interpretation can be fully formulated.

INTERPRETATIONS

Ethnographic references have been attempted and in fact,
ethnographic comparison was a major source of explanation for
Paleolithic art in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Delporte 1993).
The possibility of using such ethnographic comparison of historic
small-scale hunting/gathering societies in analyzing Paleolithic
representations of females has been considered (Delporte 1993;
Grand 1967; Rawson 1973). After all, people in small-scale societies
do often have anthropomorphic representations, which may have
analogies with those of the Paleolithic (Delporte 1993). This is a
convenient approach, as the motivation for ethnographic
representations are known and documented. However, the problem
with this approach is that, despite any accuracy of ethnographic data
(which is sometimes questionable), one cannot superimpose fairly
recent human cultures onto a time, place and people 30,000 years
ancient. The time gap and potential cultural differences are simply too
great.

I will begin my presentation of interpretations with a look at theories
of art as imitation, interpretations of 'vulvar' images, and other literal
approaches. From there, I will move to symbolic interpretations,
which yield a wider variety of theories ranging from "magic art" to
ancestral representations. Finally, I will consider an important and
prominent fusion of literal and symbolic approaches: female
representations as images of sexuality and eroticism. I do not have
preference for any one interpretation, and wish to emphasize my
viewpoint that a multiplicity of interpretation is necessary to fit a
variety of representations that do not form a homogenous model, and
further, that there are as yet no methods to conclusively confirm or
reject most interpretations at hand.

Literal Interpretations Kingsley Palmer once noted that "In studying
prehistoric art only one thing is certain: nothing is certain!" (cited in
Bahn 1998: 170). This is important to keep in mind when looking at
literal interpretations. Simply because something is interpreted as
being literally what it looks like (to the modern eye), does not render
that interpretation conclusive. Still, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,
to quote Freud, and there is merit to the notion that Paleolithic artists
would depict objects, things and concepts as they are seen in real
life.

This Platonic approach of art as imitation influenced one of the first
academic opinions on prehistoric art. Piette (year not given; cited in
Delporte 1993: 266) considered the statuettes actual portraits of
Paleolithic women, and went so far as to divide Paleolithic women
into two races, one adipose and the other svelte. From this and other
similar notions came the hypothesis of female steatopygia, or
over-large buttocks, as being significant. There were suggestions
that the figurines were portraits of Paleolithic aesthetic ideals of
women (Delporte 1993:266). Challenged by R.Verneau and L.
Passemard, among others, both the "simple portraits" and
steatopygia hypotheses were abandoned (Delporte 1993).

However, McDermott (1996) has revived the concept of Paleolithic
female depictions as representations of real-life models. He proposed
the non-mainstream and interesting idea of Upper Paleolithic female
figurines being self-representations created by Paleolithic women of
their visual perceptions of their own bodies. He reasons that visual
distortions produced by looking down on one's own body could
account for the exaggerated distortions of the figures, which Duhard
(1993b; cited in McDermott 1996:234) concluded were deliberately
created and not the result of the physical constraints of the material
worked, as some argued.

McDermott (1996) attempted to prove his argument by creating
photographic simulations of visual self-perceptions of modern
females at various stages of their reproductive life, including
pregnancy, and superimposing them onto the actual figurines from a
similar perspective (i.e. looking down on one's chest and feet) in
order to demonstrate similarity. His ideas were congratulated as
original and intriguing, but colleagues were unconvinced of their
validity (P. Bahn, J. Cook, H. Delporte, J.-P Duhard, A. Marshack;
cited in a "comments" section of McDermott 1996: 248 – 275). There
were several areas of criticism. The greatest was McDermott's
assumption that only an immediate visual template based on
self-perception could be used, in the absence of technological
assistance (Bisson; cited in McDermott 1996: 249). It seems more
realistic to use other community members as models, or one's visual
memory of what human females look like. The difficulty of looking at
one's body without mirrors seems overly impractical to be worth the
effort.

Another sore point was his contention that all Paleolithic artists were
female. The gender of Paleolithic artists has been considerably
discussed, with the traditional assumption being that they were male
(Bahn 1998). Others contend that they were female, as do McDermott
(1996) and Lubell (1994), who suggests that women created these
figures for members of their community. More cautious
archaeologists berate both traditional and feminist theorists for
overgeneralizations. As Bahn writes in his response to McDermott's
essay (McDermott 1996: 248), it is as sexist to claim that all female
images were made by women as it is to say they were all made by
men. Furthermore, one cannot determine the gender of the creators
of the Paleolithic images simply on the basis of content ("if they are
female, the artist was female"). The fact remains that we cannot know
their sex. To base an argument almost entirely on an assumption that
cannot be proven is risky business, indeed. McDermott's theory has
the value of being original, and his essay had the commendable
effect of provoking a great deal of discussion and response.
However, due to inherent assumptions and generalizations, it cannot
be considered a major source of interpretation at this time. The
so-called 'vulvar' images, reputed to be among the oldest known
depictions of women (Lubell 1994), have generated a great deal of
debate regarding their significance, meaning and even whether one
should consider them vulvas at all (Bahn, 1998; Delporte 1993; Lubell
1994)!! There are, in many parts of the world, motifs with a variety of
shapes (i.e. circular, oval, indented, 'hoofprint') that have been
interpreted by many researchers as vulvas (Bahn 1998). These motifs
were first named "pudendum muliebre" by Breuil, who began what
Bahn (1998: 174) calls "an obsession with sexual interpretations".
The identification of many motifs as being literal representations of
female genitalia led to theories of an Ice Age preoccupation with sex
(Bahn 1998; Delporte 1993).

In fact, Bahn accuses proponents of the "vulvar images" theory of
engaging in circular argument: "the motifs are assumed to be vulvas,
from which an obsession with sex is inferred, the evidence for which
is the vulvas! (1998:174). Bahn (1998) points out that, if one considers
the only definite examples to be those found in context and therefore
unquestionably vulvas, vulvar images are actually quite hard to find
in Ice Age art. He admits that there are ethnographic examples of
motifs symbolizing vulvas that would not likely be interpreted as
such without the documentation (1998: 175) but argues that this is
further proof of the contentiousness of interpreting all such motifs as
being vulvar in significance.

Delporte (1993) and others disagree with Bahn's somewhat sardonic
approach, insisting that there are far more examples of vulvar motifs
that he cares to admit, and that interpreting them as literal and
symbolic representations of female genitalia does not signify an
obsession with sex on the part of the researchers or artists as much
as it does a potential concept of feminine mysticism in the Paleolithic
mind (Delporte 1993; Lubell 1994; Rawson 1973). For myself, I am
inclined to believe that there is merit to both camps' argument and
that there will be instances when either one of them shall be correct.
The variety of Paleolithic motif shapes and contexts make this highly
likely.

In contrast with these somewhat complex and highly debated ideas, it
was startling to find a rather simple, straightforward and mundane
explanation suggested for some prehistoric figurines: their possible
use as children's dolls (Ehrenberg 1989: 76). In many parts of the
world today, figurines are indeed played with by children as dolls,
and Ehrenberg (1989) argues that such an interpretation cannot be
dismissed as potentially applicable to some prehistoric models. The
reasons given are ethnographic comparisons, the use of cheap,
accessible material such as clay, the presence of animal as well as
human figurines, and the apparent carelessness with which some of
the figurines were disposed of (Ehrenberg 1989: 76). There is no way
to prove this theory, but it does provide a possibility, and is
refreshingly straightforward without simplistic overgeneralization.

Symbolic Interpretations

I cautioned in my presentation of literal interpretations that nothing is
certain. Here, again, I feel compelled to quote from Bahn (1998:221):
"There are pitfalls in an excessively literal interpretation of ancient art,
but there are far more in non-literal interpretations, which, at their
worst, are mere wishful thinking or flights of fancy". When we step
into the realm of the symbolic, where one thing can mean or
represent something quite different, and ideas are even more difficult
to prove, the road must be treaded cautiously and theories examined
with care. Recall the questions for examination and interpretation of
prehistoric human figurines: where and when were these artifacts
made, and in what contexts were they found? It is not enough to look
at what their physical dimensions and properties are – we must also
look to their provenience, matrix and associated materials for
additional clues to the artifacts' significance and meaning.

The most basic symbolic approach to prehistoric art involves the
concept of 'magic'. From this mystical association comes varied
interpretations of individual prehistoric animal or human figurines as
gods, demons, spirits or ancestors (Bahn, 1998; Delporte 1993;
Ehrenberg 1989; Grand 1967), symbols and tools of magic power.
The concept of prehistoric art as magic art (Delporte 1993) began with
ethnographic observations of small-scale societies possessing
religious figures, totems or so-called 'fetishes', which led to the
"pervasive idea" (McDermott, 1996: 233) that all prehistoric art was
involved with hunting or fertility magic.

Earlier archaeologists spoke of "classic interpretations of prehistoric
art" as being symbolic acts of ensuring successful hunts or the
fecundity of women within the community (e.g. Grand 1967). More
recent works also portray such artwork as the Venus of Laussel as
female shamans who aid in the hunt (Delporte 1993: 269) or as tools
of sympathetic magic to aid fertility (Ehrenberg 1989). Ehrenberg
suggests this fertility symbolism may have had even greater
importance in societies where the link between male impregnation
and childbirth is not fully understood. This point has value, but I
suspect it does not give Paleolithic people enough credit for
intelligent observation. As well, Bahn (1998) points out that there is
no direct evidence to link shamanism with Ice Age art beyond a
simple assumption. Finally, the problem of using relatively recent
ethnographic data to interpret such ancient works has been already
discussed.

Despite these criticisms, McDermott (1996) concedes that with or
without magical elements, the idea that primary sexual feature
exaggerations signal a symbolic interest in fertility and fecundity has
been very influential. As Passemard (1938; cited in Delporte 1993)
states, true steatopygia is rarely represented, which strengthens the
interpretation of symbolism in the enormous hips and breasts.
Theories of fecundity, which do not always include magical elements,
first occurred in the early 19th century. Piette, Boules, Hoernes and
other researchers (years not given; cited in Delporte 1993: 267) used
ethnographic comparison to suggest that women were depicted to
celebrate their natural role as the generators of life and (perhaps) to
magically make women pregnant by these representations
(Passemard 1938; cited in Delporte 1993: 265). Modern theories of
fecundity use the presence of gravid figures, representations of
'vulvas' and apparent implications of ritual (e.g. body posture,
adornment, context) to demonstrate that femininity and maternity
were functional themes of Paleolithic art (Delporte 1993). Gravidity is
determined by breast development in addition to the presence of
"gros ventres" (large stomachs) (Duhard 1993).

Delporte (1993) has suggested that a possible motivation for such
Paleolithic emphasis on femininity and maternity may be high infant
mortality, likely suffered in the harsh environment of the Ice Age. This,
he reasons, would lead to an encouragement of and preoccupation
with female pregnancy and childbirth in order to keep population
levels relatively stable. The use of sympathetic magic tools to aid
women's' fertility and celebrate their maternal role would then result
in the creation of carved figurines.

While Upper Paleolithic depictions of women as images of fertility and
fecundity are a popular theory, it does have its detractors. As
mentioned before, gravidity cannot be inferred simply from obesity,
which can occur due to old age or a combination of rich diet and
excessive sedentism. Nor are all figurines, and rock petroglyphs and
paintings, clearly defined. Even obviously female examples do not
always possess markers of gravidity (see Duhard 1993). Again, we
see a theory that may hold true for some female depictions, but as a
generalized model for all Paleolithic female figurines, fails to satisfy. It
would be better applied, in my opinion, as a subset of a more
heterogeneously complex model.

P. Rice (1981; cited in Delporte 1993: 268), mindful of these issues,
suggests that Venus figurines are indeed images of femininity, but
not of maternity. Rice states that they represent women at different
ages, with realistic, corresponding proportions. The motivation is
given as an honouring of women's roles in society and an affirmation
of women as sacred and mysterious. Interestingly, Rice (1981) makes
the assumption that the artists were male.

Recently, there has been a movement towards searching for sacred
motifs that were widespread in particular parts of the world (Bahn
1998: 248-249) resulting in what I term "universality theories".
Attempts have been made to identify universal categories such as
solar deities, fertility cults, the Earth Mother and the axis mundi (Bahn
1998). From this has emerged an approach to rock art as text, the
symbols acting as a sort of universal code to be cracked.
Transferring this theory to figurines, Delporte (1993: 253; 256 – 257)
spoke of a unity of motivation and significance across prehistoric
space and time. An example of universality theories is the
interpretation of Venus figurines as symbolic representations of a
universal Mother Goddess (Ehrenberg 1989: 73).

According to Ehrenberg (1989), most Paleolithic figurines show
marked similarities, which strongly suggest a common meaning and
linked social or religious tradition throughout Europe. She contends
that the majority of these figurines are women, and their interpretation
central to the theme of universal symbolism within Paleolithic
figurines. Many researchers writing on the Venus figures have
emphasized their sexual characteristics (particularly
often-exaggerated breasts and buttocks) and the many incidents of
apparent gravidity among them (Ehrenberg 1989). It has been
suggested that a continent-wide Mother Goddess cult existed during
Paleolithic times, and that the notable presence of sexualized female
depictions represents universal symbolism of that cult (Ehrenberg
1989; McDermott 1996).

Ehrenberg, while supportive of a possible thematic symbolism in
Paleolithic art, considers such a cult unlikely in Paleolithic European
societies. She points out that this assumes far closer and more
detailed contact between different groups than otherwise implied by
links in other aspects of material culture (Ehrenberg 1989:73). As well,
she notes that religions based on deities would be unusual in similar
small-scale societies of today, as they typically centre on general
spirits and forces rather than personified gods and goddesses. While
the possibility remains that goddess figures may have been
worshipped in Paleolithic times, it does not follow from this
hypothesis that every figurine in prehistoric Europe must be
interpreted this way. As well, the unresolved question of
homogeneity in prehistoric human cultures, and the static or fluidic
nature of their evolution has already been discussed (refer to pp. 1-2).


Sexuality and Eroticism: A Combined Approach

Since 1913, with H. Klaatsch's (Delporte 1993: 269) suggestion of an
erotic ideal, there have been several attempts to explain female
depictions in terms of sexuality and eroticism (Delporte 1993;
Ehrenberg 1989; Lubell 1994; McDermott 1996). Except for rare
exceptions such as the Mal'ta statuette, the majority of Paleolithic
female representations are nude (Delporte 1993). This nudity has
been questioned on several levels, as researchers ask if they are
indicative of actual conditions, aesthetic values or serve as sexual
stimulus. The resulting theory eschews a singularly literal or
symbolic approach in favour of a combination of the two.

Some have interpreted the frequent nudity of female depictions,
particularly of statuettes, as literal reflections of actual reality. They
argue, using ethnological comparisons, that thermal regulation and
the biological defenses of "certain human populations" (Jude, year
not given; Delporte:269) allow them to dwell in colder climates
without need for clothing. While I find this a rather preposterous
claim, which attempts to equate modern-day climes with those of the
Ice Age, I agree we should not discount literal expressions as
potential bases upon which symbolic interpretations can be made.

An apparent fascination with the exaggerated features of Paleolithic
female figurines has resulted in a host of ideas ranging from the
aesthetic ideal of obese women to "paleoporn"(Delporte 1993;
Duhard 1993; McDermott1996). S.Nelson (1990; cited in Delporte
1993: 270) presented a well-documented analysis concluding that
nudity is associated with eroticism, and that erotically sexualized
statuettes were made by men for men. This places women in a
position of fulfilling male sexual and erotic desires. The assumption
of male artistry was based on the reasoning that "the bulging
volumes of [figurines] were made…and fondled by men because
clearly no other group would have had such an interest in the female
form" (Colling and Onians 1978:12-14; cited in McDermott 1996).
Such androcentric views have been criticized by feminist scholars,
who argue that the vulvar images and female statuettes were not
created as pornography, but to serve spiritual needs (Ehrenberg
1989; Lubell 1994). Unfortunately, analyses of figurines in literal and
symbolic sexual terms become controversial without solid
methodological proof to back them. Potentially useful ideas in this
combined approach do not as yet have well-constructed theories to
support them. It is hope that this will change with time.

CONCLUSION

A pessimistic man once stated, [trans.] "We must admit that we know
nothing, and will never know anything [about Venus statuettes]"
(Passemard 1938; cited in Delporte 1993: 265). This view is echoed
by Marshack (1972; cited in Lubelll 1994: 66), who said, "we know
only that the range of [Paleolithic] female images and the many forms
of presentation and use preclude any simple interpretations". The
issue of change, continuity and meaning in Upper Paleolithic cultures
cannot be readily resolved, and any interpretation must remain that:
interpretation and theory only – for the time being, they cannot be
proven, particularly when one ventures into the realm of the
symbolic. Marshack does hint at a measure of optimism, however,
and many of the interpretations discussed in this paper have aspects
with potential for further study. Despite the present impossibility of
proving theories on Paleolithic art, persistence in the continual
creation and refinement of ideas is absolutely necessary. The
creation of a well-structured complex model that draws from past
theories and examines literal and symbolic meaning at multiple levels
would be a promising step forward in the fascinating study of Upper
Paleolithic representations of females.
Love and Light
Swannie

[Myst]

Originally posted by Maggie
The question being discussed IS what is the proof and whether or not it actually supports the Great Goddess theory.

Yes that was my question exactly, thanks for saying it again in a different wording. :)

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Swanspirit
NOW THIS is a BALANCED VIEW...... IMO and you will not the Gimbutas IS FAR from the ONLY
proponent of a Goddess ........

Modern Eyes on an Ancient World: Theories and
Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Depictions of Females.

by Annique-Elise Goode





Yup, this is an outstanding article, and while explaining the various theories and interpretations that have been put forward by many people, not just Gimbutas, she gives a good overview. However, this article *is* a survey article and it does not support any one theory, in fact it makes the problems with the universal goddess theory (among others) extremely clear. For example, right in this same article you just posted:

Recently, there has been a movement towards searching for sacred
motifs that were widespread in particular parts of the world (Bahn
1998: 248-249) resulting in what I term "universality theories".
Attempts have been made to identify universal categories such as
solar deities, fertility cults, the Earth Mother and the axis mundi (Bahn
1998). From this has emerged an approach to rock art as text, the
symbols acting as a sort of universal code to be cracked.
Transferring this theory to figurines, Delporte (1993: 253; 256 – 257)
spoke of a unity of motivation and significance across prehistoric
space and time. An example of universality theories is the
interpretation of Venus figurines as symbolic representations of a
universal Mother Goddess (Ehrenberg 1989: 73).

According to Ehrenberg (1989), most Paleolithic figurines show
marked similarities, which strongly suggest a common meaning and
linked social or religious tradition throughout Europe. She contends
that the majority of these figurines are women, and their interpretation
central to the theme of universal symbolism within Paleolithic
figurines. Many researchers writing on the Venus figures have
emphasized their sexual characteristics (particularly
often-exaggerated breasts and buttocks) and the many incidents of
apparent gravidity among them (Ehrenberg 1989). It has been
suggested that a continent-wide Mother Goddess cult existed during
Paleolithic times, and that the notable presence of sexualized female
depictions represents universal symbolism of that cult (Ehrenberg
1989; McDermott 1996).

Ehrenberg, while supportive of a possible thematic symbolism in
Paleolithic art, considers such a cult unlikely in Paleolithic European
societies. She points out that this assumes far closer and more
detailed contact between different groups than otherwise implied by
links in other aspects of material culture (Ehrenberg 1989:73). As well,
she notes that religions based on deities would be unusual in similar
small-scale societies of today, as they typically centre on general
spirits and forces rather than personified gods and goddesses. While
the possibility remains that goddess figures may have been
worshipped in Paleolithic times, it does not follow from this
hypothesis that every figurine in prehistoric Europe must be
interpreted this way. As well, the unresolved question of
homogeneity in prehistoric human cultures, and the static or fluidic
nature of their evolution has already been discussed (refer to pp. 1-2).



This section clearly states the problems with this theory, and unambiguously too. As noted in this article, assuming a universal Great Goddess also assumes a homogenous culture (among other things) across Europe. This is extremely unlikely, as noted in this article.


I never said that Gimbutas was the only proponent of this theory, she was one of the first and perhaps the best known because she was an archaeologist and a good one at that, considered brilliant by some. The problem with Gimbutas in her *later* work, is that she fudged her data and made it appear to support her theory more strongly than it actually did. The article on Gimbutas and figurines in the book Ancient Goddesses goes back over the field records from her digs or other's sites she uses as sources, and once the authors present the original figures it becomes obvious that Gimbutas under-reported or ignored the occurance of male figures, unidentified figures, and animal figures found at the same digs as the female figures she does report at length. I consider this unethical, and that it actually undermines the validity of her other work--did she do this elsewhere? How much can her field work now be trusted? This is what I meant about this kind of thing hurting the movement in general, and it in fact tarnishes her reputation itself.


Once again, *belief* in a Great Goddess is not the subject under discussion here. It is the academic evidence put forward by *some to prove* that such a cult existed in prehistory that is in question. As such, it is obvious both from the sources I have cited and Swan's own sources she has posted here that the archaeological evidence does not support such an interpretation at this time. I don't consider it proof that goddess worship didn't exist--just that the prepondernce of anthropological and archaeological evidence at this time does NOT support the existence of a universal Great Goddess cult across Paleolithic Europe.


I really would like to know where you got this article from, I'd like to read the rest of the book. If this section is representative, it looks pretty good.

Maggie

[Dr. Doom]

I am just getting started on this Forum. I tend to learn as I talk. I personally like the idea of a female Goddess to serve. I am a married man, and try to avoid philandering. But in a spiritual sense, I feel unsatisfied wtih my wife. I feel like it would be nice to serve the spiritual ideals of a woman, but my wife is more concerned with the physical world, and other aspects of religion that do not relate to spirtual service. So I imagine the qualities I would like to see in a Goddess, and carry on secret conversations wtih my imaginary Goddess. Almost prayers.

[Phi]

I know this thread is old, but someone other than me has shown a new interest in it, so:

I think that both of the warring parties above were right.
There is no scientific archaeoligical evidence (like a site, language, carved writing, scroll etc.) to support Gimbutas theory that the statues found mean that there was a widespread goddess religion in ancient pre-patri-historical times.

But it is also fact that our educational systems and the training we receive in them, as well as the support that scientists need to do work is based on a patriarchal foundation and imbued with patriarchial viewpoints. (Trust me, the womans' movement is not that old!)

Male archaeologists take a legend-tale and go looking for the archaeological artifacts.
Gimbutas took archaeological artifact and created a legend-tale.
Cart-before-horse according to the way of the science.

There are many legend-tales that led to archaeological discoveries. But these were patri legends, primarily, sought out by male archaeologists, primarily...because patirarchs wrote and controlled the legend-writing and history...
Is there an extant matri-history? A series of matri-legends?
How many legends with any real detail are written that tell about matriarchies that might have existed in places where male societies did not destroy/absorb/tear down/build over anything that might be left of a postualted matri site? Not too many, actually.

Perhaps Gimbutas was a wily old bird, after all. Now that there is a legend-tale that is creating controversy, maybe smart archaeologists will begin to search out the remnants of old legend-tales about powerful women, and where they resided (The Amazon legend seems to show that tribes of such women are recorded to have continued in one specific area for a long time.)
If future archaeologists will go dig there...maybe there will be found archaeological evidence of a culture where there was a matriarchial society, and a society of goddess-worshipers. (And to follow that legend would be proper archaeological order.)
(That might in turn give further evidence(who knows???) that that type of society was once widespread.) And Gimbutas might be exhonorated at last.
End of story...

[Gorgonqueen]

The ancient goddesses were always more popular, than their male counterparts. I'm not really sure why this was. Perhaps because in primitive times, people did not connect the sexual act with a woman giving birth, so women were seen as lifebringers, creatrixes, holy vessels of power.
Therefore, the goddess became the most important figure in any pantheon. She was life and death, creator and destroyer, mother and crone, virginal maiden and sensual witch. That is my opinion anyway. We still worship goddess figures even today, look at Princess Diana. When Princess Diana was alive, wasn't the media mania and magazine obsession that she fostered, a form of worship?

[amethyst_faerie]

creatix? WOW! What a fantabulous word! Oh. Sorry to drastically lower the brow of this thread.

[Hekateseunach]

slanted her work by omission........
I will have to look for the prostitute reference.... it came up in a discussion similar to this on an Avalonian message board with some
people that were asserting that there was NO FEMALE TRUE Scholarship available to refer to a Triple Goddess.......and this was years ago.. that discussion......
Hi. I'm new to this webring but I hop I'm not intruding?
I have the book you are talking about, its very good. Although I have only read some of it - as much as relates to Greek goddesses. I am familiar with Gimbutas also, and would always taking her with a pinch of salt. Archaeology in general, particularly when it focuses on pre-history tends to be extreme. I suppose in a world where funding is everything, there is no room for doubt. As someone who has worked extensively in the field, my own experience of archaeology is a profession that is in want of a common sense approach. For instance, Gimbutas is quick to jump into a long dissertation on sacred images, ritual art etc... and waists no time in expounding quite off the wall things in my opinion based on very little evidence - No body that I have ever read (and thats not to say they not out there) has ever put forward the idea that many, perhaps not all, but many of these figurines may not be ritual objects at all - did pre-historic kids not play with clay the way we do with plastercine? Admitedly however if one took this view, one could write off all archaeology - hoever my point is that common sense should be the first tool we use in interpreting evidence like votary figurines, and only after you honestly try to disprove a theory, and fail can it be said to hold water.
But I have to say Dr. Morris is very good in her field - along with her husband Alan Peatfield - the work done on the little known Peak Sanctuary of Apsifades Kourukos in Crete, was excellent and done with a high degree of realism and Lucy Goodison's Book - Death Women and the Sun is an extremely informative book - so if as editors they have set out on a campaign of myth busting, there is probably a very good reason for it.
Personally I don't buy the matriarchy thing nor the goddess stuff. Thats not to say I don't believe the ancients believed in a mother goddess - I just don't think it is as sensational as they, particularly Gimbutas, are making it out to be.

[Maggie]

slanted her work by omission........
I will have to look for the prostitute reference.... it came up in a discussion similar to this on an Avalonian message board with some
people that were asserting that there was NO FEMALE TRUE Scholarship available to refer to a Triple Goddess.......and this was years ago.. that discussion......

I'm glad that people are posting to this thread again! I had forgotten about it, actually. I'm curious about this phrase, I've seen it quite often. What is "true female scholarship"? How does it differ from any other kind of scholarship?


Hi. I'm new to this webring but I hop I'm not intruding?

Not at all!



my own experience of archaeology is a profession that is in want of a common sense approach. For instance, Gimbutas is quick to jump into a long dissertation on sacred images, ritual art etc... and waists no time in expounding quite off the wall things in my opinion based on very little evidence - No body that I have ever read (and thats not to say they not out there) has ever put forward the idea that many, perhaps not all, but many of these figurines may not be ritual objects at all - did pre-historic kids not play with clay the way we do with plastercine? Admitedly however if one took this view, one could write off all archaeology - hoever my point is that common sense should be the first tool we use in interpreting evidence like votary figurines, and only after you honestly try to disprove a theory, and fail can it be said to hold water.

That's my problem with some of this too. Common sense. I'm not an archaeologist, but I have to admit there are times I wonder at the sheer number of "votary/ritual objects" that are always listed.


But I have to say Dr. Morris is very good in her field - along with her husband Alan Peatfield - the work done on the little known Peak Sanctuary of Apsifades Kourukos in Crete, was excellent and done with a high degree of realism and Lucy Goodison's Book - Death Women and the Sun is an extremely informative book - so if as editors they have set out on a campaign of myth busting, there is probably a very good reason for it.
Personally I don't buy the matriarchy thing nor the goddess stuff. Thats not to say I don't believe the ancients believed in a mother goddess - I just don't think it is as sensational as they, particularly Gimbutas, are making it out to be.

If someone wants to believe in the Great Goddess, that's their business, not mine. If someone offers "proof" that such a thing historically existed, that's another thing. I have problems with people cooking the "evidence", that's all.

Maggie

[Hekateseunach]

Nice to find someone who is level headed about things. Incidently Christine Morris hosted a series of guest lectures last year entitled Ancient Goddesses, I'm not sure if the papers were published but you might check out www.tcd.ie (www.tcd.ie) and go to the Classics dept website to find our more about it, if its still up.

[Maggie]

I try to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the link, I'll look.

Maggie

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Maggie, I actually picked that book up last year at the half-price bookstore and still haven't gotten around to reading it. Would you recommend it then?

[Maggie]

Maggie, I actually picked that book up last year at the half-price bookstore and still haven't gotten around to reading it. Would you recommend it then?

Ancient Goddesses? Yes, I would. It's not an exploration of the Great Goddess spirituality per se, it's a re-examination of the evidence that Gimbutas and others have used to "prove" their theory. I found it very interesting.

Maggie

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Ancient Goddesses? Yes, I would. It's not an exploration of the Great Goddess spirituality per se, it's a re-examination of the evidence that Gimbutas and others have used to "prove" their theory. I found it very interesting.

Maggie

That's good. I don't want to read a book about Great Goddess spirituality. Not my thing. What it actually covers sounds very interesting. Thanks for the recommendation.