From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:36:10 GMT

In article <2B4CBB28.1230@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.224225.11815@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: 	[I don't have Gimbutas's books with me at the moment, and a
: lot of the comments Sheaffer had quoted are too non-specific for me to
: examine in detail...]
: 
: In article <1993Jan7.011122.27059@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>[deleted]
>
: 	...One
: >        was  Peter Ucko, in his monograph _Anthropomorphic  Figurines  of
: >        Predynastic  Egypt  and  Neolithic  Crete_  ....  Professor  Ucko
: >        reminded  readers  that a large minority of  Neolithic  figurines
: >        were  male  or asexual, that few if any statuettes had  signs  of
: >        majesty  or  supernatural  power,  and  that  few  of  them   had
: >        accentuated sexual characteristics (the 'pubic triangles' on many
: >        of   them   could  be  loincloths).
: 
: 	Loincloths? He sounds like his imagination has gone on
: overdrive. Loincloths need belts, and where are the belts? And if
: there is a cloth over the front, where is it in back?

	I looked at some of those pictures, and there were several
unmistakable pubic triangles, not to mention breasts and wide hips. On
some others, there were what looked a bit like bikini bottoms, however
:-) Loincloths? No.

>I also disagree with his contention that they are merely loincloths, but
>for different reasons.

	[On how a lot of early art had symbolic importance, and why it
might be important to show pregnant women...]

	I partly agree, but there is plenty of "realistic" art from
before modern times.

: 	And how does he diagnose "signs of majesty [and] supernatural
: power"?
>
>I think that the fact that most female figurines were pregnant or
>lactating is a damned good indicator that something was going on,
>especially since people in Paleolithic-type societies tend to spend a
>lot of their time NOT pregnant.  Lactation is also a tabu time for sex
>(frequently).  This deliberate reproduction of something tabu speaks
>volumes. 

	I agree. One counter-hypothesis is that these statuettes
represent some ideal of well-stuffed beauty. Then, where are all the
fat men?

	[On how some of these were probably not dolls...]

: 	...  there  was  absolutely  no  need  to  interpret  them
: >        everywhere as the same female or male deity.
: 
: 	The only thing I will concede is that the syncretism is
: perhaps unwarranted.

>Agreed. 

>Well, not the same deity as recognized by everyone, but I think that the
>underlying connections between Mother deities can't be ignored.  He is
>saying that because the Mother deity was not called by the same name and
>worshipped with the same rituals all over Europe that there was no
>Mother deity, which is going a bit too far to the other side.

	Absolutely right.

: 	I also note that Gimbutas does not interpret _all_ of them as
: deities; some of them look very much like fancily dressed people,
: probably participants in rituals, an interpretation she supports.

>Whether or not Gimbutas is right or not is actually not my primary
>concern here.  I just hope her adherents aren't fundie-like in their 
>desire to interpret her as they want.  If she is right/wrong, the truth
>will out -- as long as she isn't treated as some sort of feminist whacko
>by those who dislike her, or as some sort of Mother-Savior by those who
>do.  

	I hope it is apparent that I'm not some kind of "Gimbutas
fundamentalist". 

: 	[Spirals, circles, genderless figures != Mother-Goddess
: symbols]
: 
: 	Maybe. But Gimbutas has her answer to that in her books; she
: proposes that spirals are symbols of regeneration or something.

>Their incredible numbers and the profusion of different societies that
>use spirals does spell something odd -- whatever it is. 

	Some of Gimbutas's examples are of paired spirals that do look
a bit like eyes, but she shows an example of a _triplet_ of spirals
coming out of one point.

: 	Spears and daggers can be used for both, and they could have
: been used mostly for hunting and only occasionally for fighting off
: raiders.

>How about the labrys?  Looks pretty scary to me, and it was exclusively
>womens'. 

	Actually, the Minoan double-ax is an interesting case in point
of how one might tell if an artifact is symbolic or not. Although
these artifacts certainly do look like axes with blades on both sides,
there is good reason to suppose that these are not "real" axes.
Consider the edges, which are carefully curled, and consider that they
are typically made from thin sheets of bronze or gold. On the other
hand, a "real" metal ax blade has straight edges, and it gets thick
toward where the handle is. While a "real" ax is designed to survive a
lot of chopping, I'm sure one of those Minoan "double-axes" would
crumple pretty quickly if one tried to chop down a tree with one of
them.

	Furthermore, I've never seen any representation of one of
these artifacts being used to cut or chop at anything. Every depiction
I've seen of them in Minoan art is with the handle vertical, as if it
was a flag or a religious symbol.

	The ultimate origin? I personally prefer Gimbutas' "golden
butterfly" theory to any militaristic one; where is one of them being
used to cut off anyone's head? (let's say).

	[In Catal Huyuk art...]

: 	So it is still reasonable to conclude that warfare was rare;
: those hunting scenes would suggest the principal uses of those weapons.

>Is it not possible that early man wasn't also bragging just a little about
>his exploits?  

	Completely possible, although it's significant that the Catal
Huyuk painters didn't brag about military triumph.

: >             Gimbutas proposes a single, simplistic theory - invasion  by
: >        violent, patriarchal Indo-Europeans - to account for the  changes
: >        that radically transformed human society in this period...
: 
: 	I agree that it certainly does look simplistic.
>
>Same here, but as I illustrated above, I think those in academia are
>going a bit too far to refute EVERYTHING she has said. 

	I agree.

	And if Gimbutas's picture is at least partially correct, then
one has to ask why Old Europe was relatively non-militaristic. To some
critics, it might seem like Gimbutas is making them seem like they
were nicer people than most others. But, there are alternative and
more cynical explanations, such as the difficulty of conducting
successful raids and other warlike actions without good weapons, such
as bronze daggers, and transportation, such as the horse (you can't go
very fast if you have to walk the whole distance). There was a
December 1991 _Scientific American_ discussing the domestication of
the horse, which pointed out that riding horses made raiding and
warfare a whole lot easier; though this would seem to agree with
Gimbutas's view of the Kurgans being much more warlike than the Old
Europeans, she is nowhere mentioned in that article!

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.pagan