Prehistoric Goddess worship?

[Phi]

As for now compartive mythology in the universities must be spent doing mundane tasks as comparing Apollo of Greek mythology with Apollo of Roman mythology.[/quote]

Perhaps if "women's studies" were not segregated from other studies, this would not be the case for you. Then you could compare goddesses of Greek mythology with goddesses of Roman mythology. It could be an exciting change for you, something new, and a new perspective. J/K

[Dream]

Very interesting threads here. So as for what nogodmasters is saying, are there any books, pdf files, university websites, etc? I am aware that there are groups of Enoch enthusiasts who do comparisons between him and a babylonian figure as well as Gilgamesh/Noah, etc. While its clear that some figures are similar, is anyone aware of a published work that shows more than similarity? I'd rather not just assume that because Noah and Gilgamesh (and others) are similar stories that Noah must 'Obviously' be a fabrication based upon prior stories for the purpose of cultural/political change. Same with David. Can you direct me to some kind of index or something?

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The question here is: if we consider the possibility of a Matriarchal rule over at least some measure of the Palaeolithic period, and to some significant degree over the population of humanity - then what do people actually envisage that rule to have been like?

The reason I ask is that I've encountered previous laims that a Matriarchy would be, essentially, a Golden Age of peace and prosperity - of joy and compassionate living - in essence, Utopia for all.

However, is it also equally possible that a Matriarchy would simply be as dominant and oppressive as any of the worst Patriarchal structures?

As there is a general tendency to patriarchal living in tribal societies, then does this also mean that there never was a great pre-historical Matriarchy in the first place?

An issue open to discussion.

Oooh, an old thread. I hadn't realized this was here.

One main stereotypical difference between women and men that is often pointed to in these discussions is that women, who gestate, birth, and nurse children, are in some ways fundamentally more nurturing than men. Although I don't think this is true across the board, it's a point to consider when thinking about issues of patriarchy/matriarchy.

First, let's clear up the dichotomous thinking. Why should culture be an either/or phenomenon? Why couldn't it be more gender egalitarian? In a healthy society, a whole spectrum of gender expression would be respected.

I think that the dimensions of masculinity is an area that needs to be developed in our cultural thinking if we are to move beyond the current struggles. We've had some significant movement in redifining what it is to be a woman, yet our ideas of what it is to be a man stagnate. Men can be nurturing; men can be sexual and sensuous without being dominating; men can be gentle, vulnverable and loving; yet none of these as of yet are culturally rewarded much. The denigrated image of sensitive men being sissies and effeminate (with that word itself serving as a derogatory term!) persists, not only among macho men, but among some women as well.

Looking at Goddess culture, I prefer the word "matrifocal" to "matriarchal". Matrifocal implies respect and reverence for mothers, without further implying that they govern everything (which is the connotation of the suffix -archy). The women who gestate, birth, and nurture with their bodies every human being who enters into the world should be revered as individuals and as a cultural archetype. The imbalance currently in dominant western civilization still remains the imbalance of revering death (in the image of a crucified male sacrificial god) over life (in the image of the goddess as mother). This is very clearly expressed in the Catholic church's imposition of Jesus Christ ascendancy over his mother, Mary (and also in the sidelining of Mary Magdeline).

There is some significant evidence that pre-Christian, pre-Greek and -Roman civilizations had Goddess-oriented cultures; also that women held spiritually and economically significant roles; also that male priests were cross-dressers. The speculation there is that men approached the life-giving spiritual powers by associating themselves with women and womanly things, wearing the garments of women. In many American Indian societies as well, cross-dressing berdaches or wintkes (many other names as well, depending on the tribe), were powerful shamans, counselors, and warriors.

Further reading:

The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker
When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone
The Chalice & the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler
Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex and Politics by Starhawk
The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture by Walter L. Williams

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Bibliography from Pathless

The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker
When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone
The Chalice & the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler
Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex and Politics by Starhawk
The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture by Walter L. Williams

Thanks for the quick reply.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Dream

Thanks for the quick reply.

Sure, although those books listed are more germane to the topic of matrifocal spirituality and not specifically to the recurrence of male mythological figures that you were asking about.

At any rate, you are more than welcome.

[Dream]

They probably have bibliographies in the back, so no worries.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The problem is that the archaeology is simply too sparse to give us direct evidence of Palaeolific thoughts in any great detail. Although there are many tantalising hints of a specific female-centric worship, so far as I know, there is no certainty of the implications of any finds. For example, was there simply a strong fertility cult or ritual within a general Patriarchal Indo-Europeanism?

...

The question here is: if we consider the possibility of a Matriarchal rule over at least some measure of the Palaeolithic period, and to some significant degree over the population of humanity - then what do people actually envisage that rule to have been like?

The reason I ask is that I've encountered previous laims that a Matriarchy would be, essentially, a Golden Age of peace and prosperity - of joy and compassionate living - in essence, Utopia for all.

However, is it also equally possible that a Matriarchy would simply be as dominant and oppressive as any of the worst Patriarchal structures?

As there is a general tendency to patriarchal living in tribal societies, then does this also mean that there never was a great pre-historical Matriarchy in the first place?

An issue open to discussion.

Marija Gimbutas, former professor emerita of European archeology at UCLA, took an interdisciplinary approach to researching Goddess culture. I first came across her name when I read Riane Eisler's The Chalice & The Blade, and I very recently (as in yesterday) was lucky enough to get a copy of Gimbutas' 1991 book The Civilization of the Goddess. I haven't even gotten through the preface yet, but have already come across some real gems that I'd like to share, very relevant to this thread.

"I reject the assumption that civilization refers only to androcratic warrior societies. The generative basis of any civilization lies in its degree of artistic creation, aesthetic achievements, nonmaterial values, and freedom which make life meaningful and enjoyable for all its citizens, as well as a balance of powers between the sexes. Neolithic Europe was not a time 'before civilization'.... It was instead a true civilization in the best meaning of the world."

(page viii)

In light of this, looking at the state of global civilization, increasingly westernized, militaristic, conflict- and consumption-oriented, a strong argument could be made that we are not living in a true civilization; we are not even living in the breakdown of a true civilization. What we are experiencing is more along the lines of the death throes of a material fetishizing, de-spirited anti-culture.

"It is a gross misunderstanding to imagine warfare as endemic to the human condition. ... There are no depictions of arms (weapons used against other humans) in Paleolithic cave paintings, nor are there remains of weapons used by man against man during the Neolithic of Old Europe. From some hundred and fifty paintings that survived at Catal Huyuk, there is not one depicting a scene of conflict or fighting, or of war or torture."

(pages ix-x)

I will be the first to admit a bias in wanting to believe in an ancient civilization that did not practice war and was very likely of an anarchist framework. That said, Gimbutas does present evidence of the absence of war-oriented artifacts in the areas she has studied.

I find it likely, even glaringly obvious, that a culture, ancient or modern or future, that values creativity, personal and collective freedom, meaningful work, as well as the absence of weapons and military strife, would put a high reverence on life and the creative life principle. Woman as conceiver, deliverer, and nurturer of life would be a powerful spiritual/religious symbol. Further, in a culture that understands the sperm-egg biology of reproduction (many so-called 'primitive' cultures, such as the Australian Aborigines, did not believe that men played any role in reproduction), men would also be similarly deified in a life-affirming way; that is, as a lustful, priapic lover. This is Pan and Dionysus of the Greeks, and Kokopeli of the Southwest American Indians. This is also the demonized incubus of Christian thought, as well as the Devil himself, who was well-known by the persecutors of the witch-hunts and trials as the consort of witches. It's Robin Hood, the verdant Green Man, champion of the downtrodden, god of the witches.

It seems to me that a lot of the reactions against Goddess culture and worship, the pooh-poohing of it as an unrealistic ideal utopian dreamland, are offered by men or women who are somehow enamored of the notion of historical/scientific progress, the andocratic society, and the religions of just, heavenly gods who sit outside of the world and time, judging and weighing. Science itself, in the Copernican sense, is such a god: external, rational, eternal laws and rules. But the science of the mid-twentieth and now 21st centuries is chaotic and not able to be pinned-down. It turns out that Copernicus and Newton saw what they believed they would see, measured the way they did without recognizing that they were participants in the processes of life that they sought to measure and exactly pin-down for all time. But the great gift of progress has brought us to a curve in spacetime, and we must recognize that the river cannot be made straight; it don't flow like that. Made straight, rivers and civilizations run too fast, erode, and crash. Civilization and humanity, like a river, must curve and meander and dance, as well as create and copulate and cooperate.

Civilization is not measured in centuries of progress or by the atomic weight of Uranium, but is measured by its symptoms of beauty, connection, creativity, meaning, and yes, love for creation.