mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

Where's the History?

Even though evidence from prehistoric times is "comparatively sparse,"
we are told that "matriarchal myth fails completely on historical
grounds." If so, this book doesn't provide them. There is little
history and much interpretation. Citing the early deaths of women at
Catal Höyük (average age in the 20s) and high infant mortality,
[INLINE] Eller concludes the situation was unlikely to cause reverence
for miraculous pregnancy and birth as "the gifts of a munificent
goddess." On that analogy, world suffering precludes beneficent
deities in any religion. But there are plenty of historical instances
of childbirth goddesses venerated under conditions of high maternal
and infant mortality. It would be just as easy to conclude that the
danger of childbearing intensified the impulse to appeal to its
goddess for protection, and might even give it the charge of a
shamanistic passage.

<<< Niuheliang, NE China

Eller rejects the idea that burial of women under the central
platforms had any implications of high status. After all, the men
might still have owned the platforms and "buried their wives and
children under them" out of affection -- or to underscore their
ownership of them as property! The unlikelihood of these
interpretations is pointed up by the fact that the men are buried on
the peripheries. If they had been found buried in the shrine centers,
archaeologists would have held that up as confirmation of their
importance and authority.

The statement that "most remains are not detectably gendered" may be
true. The problem is that until recently archaeologists paid scant
attention to evidence about gender. They made big assumptions about
the kind of grave goods that would go with males or females, sexing
burials by grave goods rather than skeleton analysis. Often they
failed to record relevant data. I'm reminded of how medical
researchers (another historically male-dominated field) have taken men
as the norm and made assumptions about women accordingly. Eller
concedes that archaeologists "typically rely on ethnographic
analogies" to interpret remains. The questions naturally arise, which
cultures should be used for comparison? If it's the modern local
culture, what about the migrations, colonizations, conversions or
other historical shifts which have taken place in the intervening
millennia?

The book's skeptical stance fades as Eller turns to the "third gender"
option. Not only is the evidence for female power problematic, but "we
cannot assume that a female skeleton is a woman." She may have been
biologically male but socially female. But if it is difficult to prove
female authority from prehistoric remains, it is an even more daunting
task to prove, as Eller claims, "that gender was a pronounced category
in prehistory and that it was characterized by 'variability,
permeability, changeability, and ambiguity,' that it was 'dynamic and
historically specific'." Maybe so, but here the demand for evidence is
suddenly missing in action.

Eller writes that theories for the cause of patriarchy Òtend to find
fault with men,Ó who are described as awful and wicked. But elsewhere
we are told that Ònarrators of the myth are generally reluctant to
blame men...Ó It's enough to make your head whirl. The bookÕs
discussion of the rise of patriarchy centers mainly around theories of
sudden patriarchal invasions. Of course, patriarchy by conquest is
only one model. Others have described a gradual change in which male
dominance builds up within a society over time, but Eller has little
to say about these. She alludes briefly to theories that the advent of
plow agriculture or animal husbandry had something to do with the
development of male domination. The case Gerda Lerner made in The
Creation of Patriarchy is barely mentioned. Nothing in The Myth hints
at the extensive discussion of historical indicators of this shift in
the last thirty years.

Eller's summary of the kurgan invasions narrative is miles removed
from Gimbutas' detailed, data-studded analysis. She asks where the
invaders came from, and, sarcastically: "How did they carry out their
nefarious mission?" Stooping to conspiracy theory, she suggests that
(all questions of historical evidence aside) "fms" picked the
Ukrainian steppe because it's large, within striking distance of
"Europe and the Near East," and with a poorly documented prehistory.
Best of all is its sparse modern population "since no one wants to
come from the place where patriarchy began..." Whew. (In the
footnotes, we learn that Cold War demonization of the Russkies was
also at work.) The documentation Gimbutas assembled is nowhere in
sight.

Eller is critical of the assertion that early neolithic sites were
peaceful, but her discussion of weapons and fortifications is
extremely thin. She cites the presence of maces, but without
comparative data, or names of sites other than Catal Höyük. The book's
discussion of the Aegean is particularly disappointing. We're offered
a male scholar's speculation that Crete may have been "warlike," but
the evidence has disappeared... because all military encounters took
place at sea. Surprisingly, Eller claims that "fms" minimize the
intensely patriarchal character of ancient Greece. Her own account
blurs the distinctions between Cretan, Mycenean, Homeric and classical
Greek societies in an attempt to create the impression of a
patriarchal continuum.

There is plenty of room for Eller's criticism of a chronic
overemphasis on Europe and West Asia (though she is unjustified in
implying that the problem characterizes all "fms," or is somehow
unique to feminists). The fixation on the "West" comes from the
dominant Euro/American culture which continually broadcasts its own
myths in education, the arts and all media. Intellectual culture is
awash in this bias, in the books published and in influential review
magazines, in the over-representation of European subjects in the
canon, and in prestigious web sites that equate "antiquity" or "the
ancient world" with the Mediterranean and a narrow slice of Asia.

There is no question that the nature of available sources, especially
those that openly address women's status, has shaped the content of
much feminist analysis. Some have [INLINE] accepted these structural
blinders too easily, and end up reproducing the stereotypical
spotlight on the Mediterranean. Eisler acknowledges the problem of
limited focus in The Chalice and the Blade, but doesn't go beyond
recommending that further study is needed in other world regions.
(However, she did inspire Chinese scholars to take her up on it.) In
turn, Eisler became a primary source for a great many women who had no
other historical background. They took up her examples of Catal Höyük,
Malta and Crete and elevated them as the primary models of prehistoric
female power. It's common to hear women extrapolating from this narrow
sample to make declarations about "when patriarchy started." But there
is no one chronology, as some of us have been saying for years, and a
wide variation in degrees of patriarchy. Sumatra and Malawi and
Ontario and Venezuela have their own chronologies and their own
constellations of social custom and change.

Utah 

A similar pattern has occurred in response to the work of Marija
Gimbutas, creating the impression that once again, it's all about
Europe. But to stop there is to give a very incomplete picture of the
range of feminist research going on. There is an explosion of
investigation into these questions globally. My own work in the
Suppressed Histories Archives has involved 30 years of intensive
research into women in the archaeological record and oral histories of
Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the islands. There are many others,
some of whom are named above.

Amidst all the talk of bad scholarship, I was surprised to see no
examples of my pet peeve: writers who make uninformed speculations
about the derivation and relationships of ancient names. IÕve seen
some pretty strange linguistic comparisons over the years, especially
in some of the older feminist books: attributing ÒAbrahamÓ and
ÒBrahmaÓ to a common origin, for example, or saying that ÒKaliÓ and
ÒCailleachÓ are the same name, or even that ÒCailleachÓ derives from
ÒKali.Ó* Carelessness or indifference to historical and linguistic
evidence has been a problem with some writers, one that just adds fuel
to claims that all feminist history is spurious. The fact that such
all-encompassing smears are so easily believed is even more
problematic. All scholarship should be taken on its own merits. In the
meantime, sweeping dismissals are ideological in their own right.

(Continued) .............................................[1] NEXT
------>

[2]Whose Interpretation?
[3]T [4]he Furor Over Gimbutas
[5]Deconstructing "Matriarchal Myth"
[6]Arguing About the Goddess
[7]PoMo Prescriptions

© 2000 Max Dashu

[8]Articles | [9]Catalog | [10]Home

References

1. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller5.html
2. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller.html
3. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller2.html
4. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller2.html
5. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller3.html
6. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller5.html
7. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller6.html
8. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/articles.html
9. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/catalog.html
10. http://www.suppressedhistories.net/index.html