Marija Gimbutus, Her Works

Post Reply New Topic

I’m wondering how many women here are familiar with the work of Marija Gimbutus and if so what is your opinion of her theories, ideas and concepts.

About 40 years ago an anthropologist I was working with gave me this replica of an ‘Earth Mother’ effigy and one of her books. It got me started on a special interest I’ve had ever since.

45 views and no takers so I have to assume that there aren't to many women on here who suscribe to her theories about the development of mindkind.

I don't know much about Goddess Theories, but they seem to be bashed as fruity New Age Occult fantasies as the stereotype. How much do you know about whether Neolithic women actually ruled and governed or if they were just esteemed symbols that held meaning through myths?

I don't know about the new age occult stuff but I do find it intestesting that somebody suspected that a maternal heirarchy existed at one time in prehistory. It was, and still is , a contested theory.

I expected at least a few of the females who post here to be familiar with her ground breaking work and theories on sexual equality but it may be that this particular group of women are not that well read.

Hey, your guess is as good as mine. I think everyone's busy because it's Thursday, and just hasn't had the time to get around to everything.

Gimbutus is one of my fascinations. Finding a thread about her almost made me do a happy dance.

Her work is being downplayed in the most childish of ways. The patriarchy lovers always claim she's wrong, but they never, ever seem to come up with alternative explanations. The most inane comment I ever heard in response to all of the ancient female goddess statues, is that they were some sort of caveman porn. Whatever.

The same group that disparages her and claim that matriarchy never existed, also conveniently ignore the matriarchal societies that survived into modern times. The Mosuo people of China are alive and kicking, and happily living under matriarchy. Native Americans are another example. Here we have direct links to the past, through societies that haven't changed their social structure despite the passage of so many centuries, yet the claim is still made that matriarchy never even existed.

The reasons behind dismissing her work is purely political. You will find that all of her critics are right-wingers who believe that patriarchy is the natural order, ordained by god. All of their conclusions are based on circular reasoning, and not the actual content of her work.

I don't think you can compare primitive preliterate cultures to modern hierarchical organized "patriarchies". In preliterate cultures society tends to be less well organized overall, people are less subsumed under a central authority, so there is room for multiple voices in ways that are not available in modern cultures (postmodern cultures add room for these voices again). So calling them matriarchies may be deceptive. When you say "matriarchy" people think "female patriarchy", substituting a female authority figure for the male authority figure we are used to seeing. But I don't think that's how it would have worked back then. I think it's more that there are strong women in some communities, and they make an impression, and their presence may make it felt over many generations because of traditions they started or leaders they mentored.

I've read quite a few early texts, written down in the early literate period of a variety of cultures, but composed in the earlier preliterate period, and it's consistent that these preliterate cultures are haphazardly organized.

Viking women (in preliterate times) were strong in that they had their own wealth, from weaving (cloth was a form of currency/wealth), and this gave them a voice in society that they might not otherwise have had. But they didn't rule, and the vast majority of them didn't fight like men either. (Cross dressing was actually grounds for divorce in Iceland.) They weren't Valkyries, though some of them were witches.

I would imagine this was the same in the Fertile Crescent: that women had a source of wealth (textiles, or food they grew/gathered), and that this gave them opportunities to contribute to society and shape it.

I've read that the "venus" figurines may have been good luck charms for childbirth, given that they were often broken soon after having been made.

Anemone you could say the opposite is true. With animals that congregate in smaller groups/troupes (and not in civilisations), like bonobos and chimps, it can be easier to discern particular roles. It is not something that is ever clear cut though, and always open to interpretation. For instance do we always know what is it that we are witnessing and are these concepts even apparent to the animal? Nobody has the upper hand 100% of the time. But you are just it is not just a question male and female.

We get bowled over by ideas in our conscious minds, but we are actually limited by self influence in observing our own animalistic behaviours.

Bonobos are said to be matriarchal, egalitarian and non-violent. Chimps are said to patriarchal, hieratical, and violent. We have behavioural traits of both. However each description is actually simplification and they still don’t know for sure (but there is probably serious work on this than there is with humans).

Also it doesn't necessarily follow that because we are closer to bonobos we would behave more like them. Apart from the obvious throw back, we have diverged from bonobos just like they have from chimps.

Our societies are mishmashes, even if you think that there is a bias. There is constant power shifting. Egalitarianism is not static equality, but dynamic management of power shifting. Power shifting is apparent in intelligent and more "primitive" animals.

Come on you guys. That relic looks like a dildo.

A dildo is phallic and also be a female and male aid. How many things look like a dick or a dildo? That was rhetorical One piece of achlogical evidence on its own doesn't amount to much evidence one way or the other

It's interesting to note that the piece makes a female figure look phallic. No modern phallic symbols are an embodiment of a female, but there are some feminine looking sex toys on the market.

there is a distinction between matriarchal and matrilineal

euro-american society is patriarchal but uses a kinship system known as dual descent - we trace our family tree along both sides.
matrilineal societies do exist nowadays, as do patrilineal societies.

from my anth studies, my understanding is that a matrilineal society can be patriarchal.

matriarchy.. maternal hierarchy. i'm throwing around words.

garyww i noticed Marija Gimbutus on your website and was curious, but perhaps i missed further linking.

the cacophony of voices denouncing the notion that females have power are fearful voices

medusa's womb
vagina dentata
the insatiable mysterious

irrational dichotomizing, and rending of women's ways into irrationality

You're right Presentjoy, that there is a difference between matriarchal and matrilineal societies, and that the latter can be partriarchal. I'm Jewish, and we are an example.

It's been my experience that there is a lot of confusion about the word matriarchy. Many think that it describes a society where only women rule, rather than men and women equally. Matriarchies are egalitarian, though. Some Native American tribes are examples. (It's funny to note that Native Americans thought that the European settlers were strange because of their refusal to do business with the females of the tribe.) A matriarchy is achieved when at least half of those who rule are women. Sweden is almost there, as well as Rwanda. Matriarchy is also different from patriarchy, in that it requires no oppression of any in the group.

I can't agree with Anemone that the matriarchal societies were disorganized. Osiris wasn't introduced to Egypt as the first male god until 3000 bc. Prior to that, female goddesses were worshiped in both Upper and Lower Egypt. As early as 5500 bc, tribes had organized enough to succeed at animal husbandry and agriculture. They created works of art, jewelry, pottery, and so on. True, they lived simpler lives than the later invaders, but I am not sure that renders them disorganized. As for literacy, since the fairly recent discovery that writing started a full 500 years earlier than previously thought , we can see that the written word was around long before any male gods were even introduced.

And you guys are so right about that relic looking like a dildo!