Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence

Rating:
Summary: Sophisticated but not convincing
Review: First of all - I don't agree with the view of the authors. I think that there is strong evidence for the existence for a Goddess cult in the Palaeolitic and Neolithic Europe. But I must admit that this book is effectively written and argue much better than many other authors who have attacked Gimbutas and the so called Goddess theory (cf the attacks by authors like Brian Hayden and Brian Fagan!).

The best chapters is those on historical known goddess cults (Egyptian, Mesopotamian). Here it is quite impossible to deny the evidence and this chapters make interesting reading. The chapter on Minoan Crete is also one of the best, although it is strange why it never refer to Nanno Marinatos ground-breaking work. The other prehistoric chapters are less convincing. Lynn Meskells chapter on Catalhoyok is particularly thin, and the author never seriously discuss the real evidence for a goddess cult in Catalhoyuk. Maybe she has a political agenda of her own - she cites with approval Bambergers view that the myth of matriarchy is a tool for oppressing women and that it is necessary to destroy this myth to free women from patriarchal oppression. I can't help wondering why! When se for example dismiss the must famous statue claimed to represent a goddess claiming the interpetation is "doubtful" without explaining why the interpretation is doubtful I don't think she is taking her opponents seriously. She never in detail discuss the woman figurines, instead she is using sweeping formulations, saying that nothing is proved. Of coups it isn't but there is a lot of evidence she don't want to discuss.

In Tringhams and Conkeys chapter on figurines they also state that the goddess theory is not proved. But that is besides the point. None of the theories they use as alternatives - for example the quite bizarre theory at p. 42 that the figurines functioned as sexual assaults by the oppressed women (she cites no evidence that women was oppressed) against dominating males is certainly not proved either!
Tringhams and Conkey use the method put forward by Peter J Ucko in 1964 when they argue that the majority of figurines was not even female. The essence of Uckos method is to use quite formalistic criteria to decide the gender of the figurines, that is the the presence or absence of female and male genitalia, breasts or beards. Ucko certainly missed that there indeed are other morphological differences between the sexes! In fact, I have tested about 20 people and showed them pictures of some of the figurines Peter J Ucko defined as sexless. Everyone said (without hesitation) that they considered them as female!

In Caroline Malones chapter on Malta she use Uckos methods for gendering the figurines, and she even supports Renfrews theory that Neolithic Malta was a chiefdom society comparable to the Polynesian chiefdoms. That there is no evidence for warfare at Neolithic Malta, that the Maltese culture presents no material evidence of social stratification, don't make her think about the plausibility of this theory. She argues that since chiefdoms in the ethnographic presence are patrilineal so Neolithic Malta probably was patrilienal. But the only real similarity between Malta and Polynesian chiefdoms was the erection of big stone monuments. That a population must be socially stratified and patriarchal in order to build huge monuments is a political statement in itself.... As Eleanor Leacock always pointed out, the so called ethnographic present has been formed by the existence of colonialism and other types of patriarchal influence during hundreds, if not thousand of years. It is dangerous to use ethnogrpahic analogies in such mechanical way.

Shee Twohigs chapter is quite better. She even end by implying hat even the rejection of the Goddess theory could be the result of some hidden agenda. This is undoubtedly true. What i miss in her chapter is a discussion of Gimbutas theory that the megalithic tomb plan in itself represent the Goddess body.

At page 8 Goodison and Morris notes that the archaeologists turned their backs at the Goddess theory at the same tine the feminists began taking it up. But they never reflect on why this happened. Personally I believe there could be a quite non-scientific reason for this. Before the feminists politicized the goddess theory it was more or less uncontroversial. But when it suddenly became the focus of a polarized debate the archeologists, who usually are not the most radical persons - almost immediately began to distance themselves from the theory. It is the same whith the matriarchy theory. Is it really a coincidence that the academic denial of this theory came about the same time the women got their write to vote!? When women was safely oppressed the theory of matriarchy was not dangerous at all. When they revolted it suddenly became dangerous... The Goddess theory lasted longer - at least it was "only" about religion. But when groups within the second wave of the feminist movement began to politicize women's spirituality the backlash was soon to come...

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating Read
Review: If one were to judge 19th century American and European society by images alone one might conclude that it was a more gender egalitarian society than what exists today (eg. the statue of liberty, Queen Victoria, liberty on the barracades, the statue on the top of the US capitol, etc.). Lucy Goodison and other contributors start from the premise that we don't know what we don't know. True believers, of course, will have no use for this kind of skepticism. While not comprehensive this book does a good job separating archeology from modern myth.

Rating:
Summary: Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater
Review: It appears the authors unfortunately have fallen victim to their own criticism of others, which is try to try and rearrange the facts of history to fit a feminist bias, by denying that womanhood for aeons was celebrated in terms of motherhood. Not one of their contributors opposes their view, which is always a sign of bias.

I always feel it is ungracious of researchers to be so critical of those who went before, as though one piece of research does not build upon those that have gone before it. Although some of Gimbutas' work is now subject to criticism, the authors make the mistake of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' in an attempt to substantiate their own theory.

The researchers are guilty also of selectively choosing evidence to back their theory, while ignoring the research of many great scholars, not just Gimbutas, which provides reams of evidence in support of Great Mother Goddess throughout most cultures of the world. The Goddess, after all, is the Earth herself, and it was natural for those who lived close to the earth to worship her, and her regenerative powers.

While their voice adds a valuable contribution to the debate, it is a biased voice and therefore flawed.