mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== [2]http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/goddess.html. _________________________________________________________________ Lost Tribes, Sunken Continents and Ancient Astronauts: Cult Archaeology and Creationism Briefing on THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE GODDESS Prepared by Arnaud Lambert You may also read a full version of this project, [5]MYTHS, MOTHERS, AND MATRIARCHIES: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE GODDESS. Goddess archaeology hypothesizes that the Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures of Europe (25,000 to Goddess statue 2500 BC) were matriarchal and worshipped fertility in the form of a female deity known today as the Goddess. Proponents of Goddess archaeology (Gimbutas 1991, 1996; Starhawk 1989; Stone 1976) claim that the Paleolithic and Neolithic were a time of peace and harmony between the genders as well as between humans and nature. They also argue that this era of matriarchy ended with invasions by war-like, patriarchal, speakers of Indo-European languages. The descendants of the Indo-Europeans went on to become the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Hittites, Iranians, and Vedic Indians. The Goddess was incorporated into their mythologies and many claim that her worship survived to modern times in the form of European witchcraft (Starhawk 1989: 19). Few archaeologists argue against the hypothesis that Indo-European cultures slowly replaced some of the indigenous cultures of Europe and the Near East (Drews 1989: 136-57). They do, however, question the idea that Paleolithic and Neolithic European cultures were matriarchal. They point out that the artifacts are ambiguous and can be interpreted in many different ways (Hutton 1997: 97). Finally, archaeologists state that although the evidence does suggest that prehistoric European religion may have focused on fertility, the use of Indo-European and Near Eastern myths and art to infer that these artifacts represented a matriarchal culture is an example of shoddy comparison and cannot be justified. A SUMMARY OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS: Pro: 1. Paleolithic and Neolithic female figures with exaggerated breasts, vulvas, buttocks and/or bellies. Indicates the importance of fertility in prehistoric Europe (Gimbutas 1991, 1996). Goddess statue 2. Female figurines seated on altars or thrones, handling animals, and with the heads of animals. Ceramic pieces with symbols of eggs, animals, and women. Shows that women were important in religion and governed over the fertility of animals (Gimbutas 1991, 1996). 3. The more recent cultures of Mycenae, Crete, Classical Greece, and Etrusca show evidence of worshipping similar mother and nature goddesses. Such myths and artifacts prove that the Goddess was incorporated into the patriarchal pantheons of the conquering Indo-Europeans (Gimbutas 1991, 1996). 4. Diodorus' report on Egyptian laws which gave women command over men, Elamite legal documents after 2000 BC detailing mother to daughter inheritance, and Minoan portraits of priestesses. Support the idea that women ruled society in the Near East and Mediterranean (Stone 1976). 5. The Anatolian (Turkish) site of Catal Huyuk (c. 6500-5700 BC) has shrines and female figurines in birth-giving positions. Shows that female religion was peaceful, interested in fertility, and wide-spread (Starhawk 1989; Gimbutas 1991, 1996). 6. The sketchy evidence found so far can neither prove nor disprove the existence of ancient matriarchy (Saiving 1980). Con: 1. Peter Ucko has shown that female figurines did not dominate the archaeological assemblages of the Neolithic. There were an equal number of sexless, male, and zoomorphic figures as well (Meskell 1995). 2. LeRoy McDermott has also questioned the symbolic intent of the makers of female figurines and argues that the figures may be self-portraits. This hypothesis, he suggests, explains why many female figurines have similar anatomical omissions and distortions. That is, the female images may not necessarily represent abstract principles of fertility (McDermott 1996; Hutton 1997). Moreover, Dale Guthrie suggests that Paleolithic female imagery may have been a form of paleoeroticism (Female Imagery from the Paleolithic website). The evidence is inconclusive. 3. Artifacts associated with chariot warfare and linguistics prove that a slow expansion of Indo-European speakers took place over a period of 3,500 years probably starting with Hittites in Anatolia around 1650 BC (Drews 1989). 4. If Neolithic European cultures were culturally and linguistically distinct from the Indo-European cultures that came later, then we cannot use the myths of the latter to illuminate the culture of the former. Shows the problem with making sloppy comparisons and assuming similarity means identity. 5. Archaeologists also question the extension of the ancient matriarchy premiss to Western Europe and Britain. Gimbutas inverted the archaeological order of Irish cultures in order to fit them with her ideas about the nature of matristic culture (Hutton 1997). 6. Patriarchal myths cannot lead to an objective view of a hypothesized matriarchal culture (Foley 1994; Hackett 1989). 7. The age of Goddess worship is seen by many as a time of egalitarianism and/or female gender superiority. If Gimbutas's more conservative conclusions are correct, however, egalitarianism could not have been practiced by Neolithic agriculturalists--a type of subsistence strategy that promotes social stratification. Moreover, it remains unclear whether egalitarianism excludes sexual divisions (Friedl 1998). Female superiority and gender equality are not, therefore, historic facts but are romantic fictions--unproven hypotheses at best. 8. Presupposing past female gender superiority on the basis of sketchy evidence is an example of reverse sexism (Ruether 1980; Meskell 1995). 9. Arguing that there is not enough evidence to either prove or disprove the idea of ancient matriarchies is an appeal to ignorance. BOOKS and ARTICLES: Conkey, Margaret W., and Ruth E. Tringham. 1998. Archaeology and the Goddess: Exploring the Contours of Feminist Archaeology. In Feminisms in the Academy. Domna C. Stanton and Abigail J. Stewart, eds. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press Argues that archaeology must engage feminism and use the past to challenge the present. However, they also argue that current feminist archaeology is trapped in the structure of patriarchal science. They advocate developing archaeological methods and theories which are contingent, critical, and humanly-compelling. Foley, Helene P. 1994. A Question of Origins: Goddess Cults Greek and Modern. Women's Studies 23: 193-215. Questions the usefulness of using mythic structures from the patriarchal culture of the ancient Greeks in order to show a prior utopian past. She suggests that placing these myths within their patriarchal context can, however, reveal their enduring interest. Gimbutas, Marija. 1991. The Language of the Goddess. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Maria Gimbutas Analyzes prehistoric European female/animal images to show that the symbolism of the Goddess underlies many aspects of contemporary Western culture. She uses sources from ancient Greece and Mycenae to interpret these artifacts. Gimbutas, Marija. 1996 [1974]. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500-3500 BC: Myths and Cult Images. New and Updated Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press. In this earlier work, Gimbutas examines prehistoric European cult images in order to prove that prehistoric European society was a village society worshipping the Goddess as a principle of fertility before the invasions by patriarchal Indo-Europeans. Again, she uses written evidence from Indo- European cultures like Classical Greece and Mycenae to interpret the artifacts. Hackett, Jo Ann. 1989. Can a Sexist Model Liberate Us? Ancient Near Eastern "Fertility" Goddesses. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 5 (1): 65-76. Claims that the connection between goddesses and fertility is exaggerated. The result, she claims, is a perpetuation of a Biblical polemic which degrades goddess cults. She advises those interested in ancient goddesses to critically examine the secondary literature as well as the translated texts. Hutton, Ronald. 1997. The Neolithic Great Goddess: A Study in Modern Tradition. Antiquity 71: 91-99. Shows how the idea of the Goddess emerged from academia and entered popular culture. He focuses on the work of archaeologists like Jacquetta Hawkes and Marija Gimbutas and details how their political views had a deleterious effect on their use of questionable sources. Meskell, Lynn. 1995. Goddesses, Gimbutas and 'New Age' Archaeology. Antiquity 69: 74-86. Argues that while archaeology must examine the effects of gender in ancient societies, it must not fall into the trap of creating rigid gender roles, reverse sexism, and fantasy. She claims that the Mother Goddess meta-narrative poses a challenge to the solidarity of feminist scholars and the interpretive integrity of archaeology. She advises a critical reading of the evidence in light of other interpretations. Motz, Lotte. 1998. The Faces of the Goddess. New York: Oxford University Press. Claims that the idea of a single Great Goddess is a modern notion and that matriarchal cultures were not driven out patriarchal invaders. Starhawk. 1989. The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess. 10th Anniversary Edition, Revised and Updated. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Her book traces a direct line of descent between modern witchcraft and ancient Goddess-worshippers based on the work of Merlin Stone and Margaret Murray. Surprisingly, she does not cite Gimbutas. The rest of the book details several spells and rituals centered around the Goddess. Stone, Merlin. 1976. When God Was a Woman. New York: Barnes and Noble Books. Claims to show how the archaeological and documentary evidence depicts the Goddess as a figure of fertility and wisdom. She further states that the Goddess was turned into a mythic figure of debauchery and depravity by a patriarchal conspiracy. WEB RESOURCES: "[6]Learning the Language of the Goddess": A site dedicated to the life and work of Marija Gimbutas. It includes an interview with her as well as a bibliography. The site claims that she is largely responsible for the popularity of the goddess religion and that her works catapulted her out of academic obscurity. "[7]People Featured: Marija Gimbutas" Another site dedicated to Gimbutas. It includes a succinct life history which claims that she was the main advocate of the Indo-European proto-language theory. It also states that her theory of ancient matriarchy was highly controversial but was praised by both feminists and Joseph Campbell. "[8]Pomegranate Tours: 'Land of the Goddess' Tour" Describes Turkish sites and provides the itinerary of a tour to Turkey which claims that it is the ancient home of Goddess worship. "[9]Wynde Riter's Page of the Goddess" A site for women only, although men are allowed to peek! It is dedicated to personal transformation through the Goddess. "[10]The Goddess Oracle" Another New Age site which sells Goddess images based on the pantheons of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Babylonia, Turkey, India, China, and Mesoamerica. It also sells self- help books and oracle devices based on the Goddess. "[11]Some Critiques of the Feminist/New Age "Goddess" Claims" Gathers academic articles and book passages by archaeologists to critique some of the arguments made by Gimbutas regarding ancient European matriarchies and Goddess worship. "[12]Will the 'Great Goddess' Resurface?" A well-made web page detailing some of the arguments in favor of and against ancient European Goddess worship. This site appears to be a student brief. "[13]In Memory of Marija Gimbutas" A short eulogy for the late Marija Gimbutas. "[14]Female Imagery from the Paleolithic: The Case of Grimaldi: Paleoeroticism" Discusses Dale Guthrie's hypothesis that Paleolithic female imagery may have been created by adolescent boys to satisfy their sexual fantasies. Concludes that eroticism may have contributed to the construction of these figures. "[15]House of the Goddess" An overview of various approaches to the study of Goddess traditions. ASSESSMENT: The topic of Goddess archaeology remains as heated as ever. It seems that the majority of archaeologists have shown that the myths and narratives from ancient Greece and Mesopotamia used by Goddess archaeologists are too bound in the context of patriarchal cultures to be of much use in reconstructing past religions which may or may not have been female centered. The prehistoric cult images cited by Marija Gimbutas and Merlin Stone are vague and can be interpreted in a number of ways. There is simply not enough conclusive data to support the idea of a prehistoric matriarchal culture of Goddess worshippers. The misrepresentation of archaeological data is one thing, but the adoption of utopian narratives based on such theories is even more problematic. In some cases, these myths result in a form of reverse sexism (Meskell 1995: 83). In other words, the Mother Goddess narrative has the capability to ruin the accomplishments of both feminists and archaeologists in the analysis of gender in the past. These issues, unfortunately, are not discussed in much of the literature on pseudoarchaeology. While creationism and the politics of multiculturalism have become important issues in the study of pseudoarchaeology (Ortiz de Montellano 1995: 134), the effects of gender on pseudoarchaeology remain vaguely defined. The problem, however, remains the same: sources are read and used uncritically, vague evidence is viewed as absolute truth, and the political and religious needs of the present interfere with the scientific reading of the past. Recently, some post-structural archaeologists have begun to use the ideas of Goddess-worshippers as alternative readings of the past at Catal Huyuk (Bender 1998: 195-6). In my opinion, the scholarly acknowledgement of such suspect readings of the past can only strengthen their already dubious credibility. We all agree that gender discrimination is wrong. Let's not make the mistake of concealing the past in order to prove our point. Additional References Cited Bender, Barbara. 1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. New York: Berg. Drews, Robert. 1989 The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Friedl, Ernestine. 1998 Society and Sex Roles. In Annual Editions: Anthropology 98/99. Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill. McDermott, LeRoy. 1996 Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figures. Current Anthropology 37 (2): 227-75. Ortiz de Montellano, Bernard. 1995 Multiculturalism, Cult Archaeology, and Pseudoscience. In Cult Archaeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past. Expanded Edition. ed. by Francis B. Harrold and Raymond A. Eve. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1980 Goddesses and Witches: Liberation and Countercultural Feminism. Christian Century (10-17 September 1980): 842-847. Saiving, Valerie. 1976 Androcentrism in Religious Studies. Journal of Religion 56: 177-197. [16]arnaud-lambert at uiowa.edu _________________________________________________________________ | [17]Main | [18]Outline | [19]Brief | [20]Brief Schedule | [21]Debunking Tools | [22]Video Guides | [23]Projects | [24]Final | _________________________________________________________________ [25]larry-zimmerman at uiowa.edu [26]University of Iowa Anthropology 10/30/98 References 1. http://www.google.com/help/features.html#cached 2. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/goddess.html 3. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/goddess.html 4. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FbSDKGytnqUJ:www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/goddess.html+figurines+%2Bneolithic+&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&strip=1 5. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/godlong.htm 6. http://www.levity.com/mavericks/gim-int.htm 7. http://www.mysticfire.com/NIGimbutas.html 8. http://www.pomegranatetours.com/goddess.htm 9. http://members.tripod.com/%7EWyndeRiter/index.html 10. http://www.goddessoracle.com/ 11. http://patriarchy.com/%7Esheaffer/texts/goddess.html 12. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Egloria/Goddess.html 13. http://www.mysticfire.com/MAGoddessingRvw.html 14. http://www.insticeagestudies.com/readings/techsoci/tech06.html 15. http://members.aol.com/HoGoddess3/index.html 16. mailto:arnaud-lambert at uiowa.edu 17. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/index.html 18. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/losttrib.htm 19. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/brief.html 20. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/briefschd.htm 21. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/debunk.html 22. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/videos.html 23. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/projects97.html 24. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro/webcourse/lost/final.htm 25. mailto:larry-zimmerman at uiowa.edu 26. http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eanthro