Bah!!!

[teleidoplex]

[This was written as a reply to princess706's post regarding the Goddess question, but it was too long and her live journal wouldn't let me post it, even after I cut stuff]

Ahem

(puts on boring, know-it-all archaeological lecturing face, which somewhat resembles prune-eating face, but in no way resembles wasabi-eating face)

You're probably thinking of the figurines that have been attributed to a palaeolithic through neolithic "Mother Goddess" cult that supposedly spread throughout Eurasia and spanned several tens of thousands of years. The most famous of these statues is the Venus of Willendorf from Austria.

http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/willendorf.html has a decent set of pictures of the Venus of Willendorf. Ignore the text.

The idea that these figurines indicated a palaeolithic through neolithic Mother Goddess cult was a prevailing archaeological theory for a long time, and was brought to the attention of the public mainly through the works of Marija Gimbutas. The data that is used to support the theory is the prevalence of figurines in the archaeological record that sport exagerated hips, breasts and thighs. I'd like to point out some of the critiques that recent archaeological work has found with the theory of a palaeolithic through neolithic Mother Goddess cult.

1. It is difficult (if not impossible) to make associations between cultures that have a huge synchronic (space) and diachronic (time) separation. The figurines come from all over Europe and East Asia, and span an approximately 30,000 year period. The only relationship they have with each other is that they are Palaeolithic - Neolithic, and have indications of enlarged hips, breasts and thighs. It would be like trying to claim that a before picture of a woman in a weight loss ad, a painting by Titian, and a greek statue of a corpulent woman had anything in common at all. Worse, it would be like trying to claim that the three cultures that produced these works were the same culture or had the same beliefs about religion, beauty or anything else.

2. In many cases, an archaeological site might only have a very few (maybe one or two) figurines associated with it. This means that it is impossible to do any kind of in-site analysis of the figurines, much less any comparative analysis between sites. If you only had two examples of something, could you say anything about what they mean or how they relate to an entire corpus?

3. In analyzing the data, people have focused almost entirely on the "venus figurines". This is problematic for two reasons. The first is that not all the "venus figurines" being analyzed are clear representations of a female. Some of them are ambiguous, and some have strong indications of male characteristics.

This ties into the second problem, which is that the "venus figurines" represent only about 1/5 of the entire figurine assemblage from the Palaeolithic through the Neolithic. This assemblage includes figurines of animals, males, females and figurines that do not have any clear sex indicators. Many of the unclear ones have been arbitrarily attributed as female. While it seems that the "venus figurines" may have been important, they shared that importance with males, animals and "ungendered" depictions.

4. Nobody knows what these figurines were used for or represented, and there are not many ways to find out. There have been a lot of theories (again, mostly about the venus figurines and ignoring the others), from the figurines being Palaeolithic pornography (a theory tossed out in the 1960's), to being like barbie dolls, to being tools to instruct women in the changes their bodies go through during pregnancy, etc. Think of the wildest, most outrageous use that you can, and there's probably an academic paper written about it somewhere.

Now, I don't mean for this critique to in any way in-authenticate current Mother Goddess beliefs that have developed in the past several decades. The age of something is not and should never be an indication of it's authenticity or its value/validity. Moreover, I should point out that while my critiques are valid, they in no way disprove the possibility that there was some sort of Goddess belief operating in the Palaeolithic.

If anyone is interested in reading some good re-examinations of the archaeological data regarding early Goddess worship, I'd suggest picking up the book "Ancient Goddesses", edited by Lucy Goodison and Christine Morris. It has a lot of fairly accessible articles, and ranges in topic from early Crete and Minoan worship, Egyptian Hathor and Isis worship, possible evidence for Goddess worship in Brittany, etc.

At any wise, sorry for the lecture. Just trying to get the info out.

Comments

"venus" figurines

[gandolfcnc.livejournal.com]

You indicate that there are figurines of animals, obviously male, gender indeterminant, and the females with enlarged breasts, hips, and thighs.

Are there any obviously female figurins that do not have enlarged breasts, hips, and thighs? What proportion?

I don't suppose it is as simple as a common perception of women ... the way to clearly differentiate the figurine?

(taking my simplistic li'l ole mind back to the practical corner)

Re: "venus" figurines

[teleidoplex]

This is actually a really good question. How do we indicate "gender" or "sex"? How do other people? Most of our gender indicators have nothing to do with genitalia. Take a look at a fashion magazine. Many of the models are as flat as boys in the breast department, and you can't see their genitalia. They aren't pregnant, and there's no way to determine their reproductive capacity. So, if biological markers don't work, doesn't that mean that gender is defined culturally? And aren't those definitions extremely complex and not dichotomous?

And doesn't this make the "ambiguous" figurines much more interesting?

Alyc

Re: "venus" figurines

[gollumgollum.livejournal.com]

And doesn't this make the "ambiguous" figurines much more interesting?

well, we try. ;)

[bneuensc.livejournal.com]

Interested people might also want to check out Faces of the Goddess by Lotte Motz; she kind of debunks Mother-Goddess stuff, but in an interesting way. Basically, she refutes the theories (many of them centered in pop culture) that seem so very determined to reduce all Goddesses to one Goddess, by going through eight or ten different cultures and pointing out that these female deities so blithely being called "Mother Goddesses" are often not related in any way to reproduction at all. They're not pregnant, they're not mothers; hell, half the time they don't even have anything to do with agricultural fertility.

She doesn't in any way discount the importance of these divinities to their cultures, or their potential importance to people today; she's just anti-reductionist. In the course of her argument, she does yank out a lot of the support for the idea that there was once a widespread cult of the Mother Goddess -- but frankly, I'd say you could call that as much empowering as anything else, since it fights the idea of reducing female importance to motherhood.

[ombriel.livejournal.com]

I believe these "Venus" statues were once used to support the claim that early human society was matriarchal. But the evidence is overwhelmingly that there is no evidence for there ever having been a matriarchal society, ever, and that the closest thing was a genuinely egalitarian (men and women have equal status) culture on Crete.

I think that these statues are often used in a revisionist way. Some people--a lot women--find solace in the idea of a matriarchal or woman-centered past because the idea is that if it existed then, that means power in culture isn't inherently gender-specific (ie, men are not "naturally" the leaders and power-holders in human society). I think these statues lend themselves to having individual objectives/hopes projected onto them. It's fascinating to see how people weave webs of significance around objects of the past. I think the way these venus statues have been approached reveals as much (maybe more) about what (some) modern people need as it does about the past.

[princess706.livejournal.com]

I love you for making into words what I was trying to think. I hate the idea that there is anything inherent about men, that we're only now able to step into their shoes and assume leadership positions. I just would hate to know how I'd react if it was *proven* either way. I'm no feminist, I just think I deserve equal pay for equal work. And whoo-boy am I in the middle of the boys club now. ::shiver::

There were three girls in my class this week. I was one of them.

If I come back as an aminal, I want to be a hyena.

[gollumgollum.livejournal.com]

I'm no feminist, I just think I deserve equal pay for equal work.

in a nutshell, that *is* feminism. it's really only the idea that men and women are equal, that women deserve to be treated (and paid!1) as such, and that historically they haven't been.

sorry. feminism's been given a bad name. it just drives me crazy to see so many people say "i'm not a feminist, i just [believe in a core issue of feminism]."

-kate the crazy feminist-

[bneuensc.livejournal.com]

It has been given a bad name, and it bothers me that I don't particularly want to be called a feminist, even though my attitudes are feminist (in the good, non-radical, non-man-hating sense of the word). I wish we could somehow come up with a way to distinguish between basic feminism, and the extremist "sisterhood of womyn" stuff that I don't associate myself with.

[princess706.livejournal.com]

I guess I don't see that as feminism. I see it as equalism. Equality? Equilateral? Isosceles! :)

Ahem.

In *some* industries (nursing, librarians, and kindergarten teachers) it's the men who have to work to prove themselves equal, and I think that's unfair too. Am I still a feminist? I mean, if I am, that's okay too, I just would hate to get punched if I'm not and I say I am.

[princess706.livejournal.com]

I never intendend this to become a huge discussion. Though I do appreciate intellectual input, dear Kitsune.

I was flabbergasted by Kate's question. I really don't have a personal Goddess (even with a small "g") I'm just entranced into near-catatonia by round tummies. I want to lay my head on them and never rise. I want to smooth aromatic oils into the skin while I circle around and around and around...

I understand that the statue I'm referring to (and yes, both Alyc and Cass were right about it, bag on and thank you for the links) was found in a lot of places in a lot of times. I was just using it as a reference that was easily recognizable to most people as to what I was picturing in my head. ::yawn:: I'm tired.

And I need a Goddess.

Can you imagine the want ad? "Committed white female seeks spiritual relationship with non-physical feminine entity for a mortal lifetime of worship."

Snicker.

[gollumgollum.livejournal.com]

damn. if it weren't for that "non-physical" part... ;)

if it helps, i'm a bit flabbergasted by my question. i thought about it for a while, and almost didn't post it. and i wasn't sure if you were a goddess person or not. so i thought i'd ask, in an incredibly roundabout sort of way.

incidentally, is it problematic to dig the Willendorf statuettes on pure aesthetics alone? i'd dig having a little figurine that looked kinda like me. like Sarah, i'm a fan of round tummies.

hmm.

[princess706.livejournal.com]

damn. if it weren't for that "non-physical" part... ;)

You tease.... see you tonight!

[teleidoplex]

Most definitely problematic from an archaeologist's point of view. If you just dig them up, then archaeologists lose everything about them that is necessary to say anything about them -- that is, their context. When archaeologists dig they (ideally) look at the entire matrix (all the stuff that's there). That's how archaeologists figure out what's been going on in the past. It really is like a puzzle, and the things we usually consider to be artefacts (like the figurines) are only one tiny piece.

So, yeah, from an archaeologist's pov, it's a terrible thing to do. When you dig up artefacts, not only do you take away those puzzle pieces, but you also destroy a whole bunch of other ones that can never be recovered.

Now the problem of course is that archaeologists are only one group of people with an interest in these things. The big argument going on right now is whether an archaeologist's stake (their interest) is more important or should be more valued that the interests of other stakeholders like collectors, looters, land-owners, indiginous groups, tourists etc.

It's a whole messy issue.

[gollumgollum.livejournal.com]

oh, i don't want to dig one up--i was using dig in the 50s slang sense of the word. i just think they're neat looking. (although i guess i'm still looking at them and digging 'em completely out of context...)

[teleidoplex]

Ah.

I don't think there's anything wrong with digging them. I don't think most archaeologists would (if they were being utterly honest, they're mostly in it for the same reasons). They just get nervous sometimes because people digging artefacts funds other people to dig for artefacts, which means that archaeologists can't dig for context, which means that there is less knowledge about the artefact for you to dig.

Dig it?

Ow...I just hurt my brain.

[gollumgollum.livejournal.com]

well, they have nothing to fear from me, as i plan on never having the money to blow on sending people out to rape and pillage other cultures, no matter how much i'd like to. ;)

and yeah, i dig. but not like *you* dig. knowwhatimean? ;)