From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:22:16 GMT

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

The use of art simply as a means of reproducing reality is a fairly new
idea.  I think it was (in Europe, at least) not until the end of the
Middle Ages that the new means of drawing things AS THEY LOOKED, with
accurate perspective, was started, and then more as a curiosity. 

Early artwork also points to this predisposition to use the media as a
means of recording symbolic things.  If the loincloth were not important
to the symbolism of the statuette, it would not be included.  Given the
prominence of female figures with lactant breasts and big stomachs, the
symbolic nature of the female body practically screams for it to be
recorded in media whose primary purpose would be to record symbolism.

This is not a tautology.  Evidence points to people's likelihood to use
the arts to record symbolic stuff long before they were used to record
things realistically.  The symbolic nature of the female body, easily
seen in the many statuettes and paintings of pregnant women and the
dearth of those of men, as well as the mythology of many of these
peoples, indicates that the pubic region would be of acute interest
symbolically.  I'll stop pounding this into the ground. 
 
>	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. 

>	... all over the globe clay models very similar  to
>>        those  of the Neolithic are made as children's dolls. Just as  in
>>        the  modern West, most are intended for girls and are  themselves
>>        female.
>
>	That may well be so, but it would be important to see pictures
>of such clay dolls. A lot of the Neolithic statuettes discussed by
>Gimbutas look like very fine artistic work, which is _not_ something
>that one would give to a little kid to play with. Unless children's
>behavior has changed drastically over the last several thousand years.

I also see a slight difference between a corn husk doll and an ivory
carved statue of a really seriously pregnant woman with milk-filled
breasts.  These were not Barbie dolls. 

>	...Another widespread use of such figures is in  sympathetic
>>        magic

In other words, connected with supernatural power and all that jazz,
obviously not play 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.

>	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.  

>	[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. 

>>             Ian Hodder ... notes that women  were  buried
>>        with  ornaments and cosmetic boxes,
>
>	Ornaments, probably. Cosmetic boxes? How does one tell when a
>little box is a cosmetic box? He violates his own caveats here.

His use of the term "cosmetic" is really infuriating, as if no
respectable cavegirl would be caught without her kohl compact. 

>	... men with weapons of  war  and
                                 ^^^
His own preconceptions are showing here. 

>	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'. 

>>        hunting and implements of agriculture; that women were  portrayed
>>        far  more  often in the figurines, usually nude, while  men  were
>>        portrayed  most often in the wall-paintings, clothed and  usually
>>        engaged in hunting; that the art placed a great emphasis on  wild
>>        nature  and little upon agriculture or domestic tasks;  and  that
>>        the  living spaces around the hearths and the  cooking-pots  were
>>        never decorated like the rest of the hearth...

Wrong.  Hearths were in my experience and research highly decorated. 

>	Scenes of hunting, yes. War, no.
>
>	One doesn't see any scenes of military triumph, as far as I am aware.
>
>	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?  

>>             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. 

>>             [RS  note:  Rohrlich  is a feminist scholar  who  makes  the
>>             highly-dubious  claim that ancient Crete was a  "matriarchy"
>>             (in   _Becoming  Visible  -  Women  in  European   History_,
>>             Bridenthal  & Koonz, eds., Houghton Mifflin,  1977,  chapter
>>             2)]

Why "dubious?"  Other scholars have concluded that men ruled the
Paleolithic cultures on far less evidence.  From what I've seen, Kaftor
certainly qualifies as woman-oriented at the very least.  The profusion
of female figures, and the central position they take is provocative, as
are the bezillions of female figurines carved, and the corresponding lack
of male figures, including the bronze worshippers.  

>>             Question: How can you tell if you've gone too far in drawing
>>        conclusions?
>>             Gimbutas:  Well,  this  has to do with  your  intuition  and
>>        experience. Just like an art creation you must feel that you  are
>>        right in what you are saying.
>
>	I agree that that sounds like the judge who said of hard-core
>pornography that "I know it when I see it".

An unwise statement on her part, but ultimately true, in physics as well
as archaeology.  I just hope her idea of "feeling you are right" is
trustworthy. 

Blessings,
Janis