<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: important work in the field of archeology
Review: In this book, Gimbutas lays out what will become the field of archaeomythology - breaking the archaelogical taboo of reconstructing ancient culture, and expanding the boundaries of archaeology. The work is controversial and at times over-reaches itself in drawing far-reaching conclusions from existing archaeological evidence. However, this doesn't make the work any less important.Gimbutas was a pioneer in her field, and challenged the traditional concepts we have of the origins of Western civilization. While her assertions may seem fantastical and absurd to some, they are worth exploring. Scholars in the field of anthropology have already begun to realize that women played a far larger role as hunters in early societies, and Gimbutas's work paved the way for scholars to allow the thought of an expanded role from what we perceive as traditional female gender roles. Whether you agree with her work or not, this book and others by Gimbutas are worth reading. Her theories are thought-provoking and ground-breaking, and based on years of careful research by a reknowned and respected scholar. As a scholar, I find that my opinions lie somewhere between Gimbutas and traditional ideas of the development of Western civilization - but as a scholar I also find her work incredibly important and worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't expect eye appeal
Review: Neolithic art is, at best, dissapointing. Facial features weren't very important in the Neolithic and the statues shown uniformly have undersized little pinheads. Many have no recognizable facial features at all. With the modern emphasis on the human face, modern viewers will find little connection to these statues. Partially what determines form is the medium. Ceramic breaks when it falls. Top heavy statues fell to their destruction quickly, and people learned to make bottom heavy statues if they wanted them to last. Hence lots of photos of squat, bottom-heavy statues that sit stable on a shelf. No heads or arms, just enormous kneeling thighs for these paper weights. Many photos show the heads and arms broke off anyway. Those looking to be swept away by the mythic beauty of powerful goddesses will be disappointed. Those looking for Neolithic Europe as it really was will find it copiously filled with photographs and drawings.
Rating: 
Summary: misinterpretative madness
Review: When I first read this book, it confirmed a feeling I had then: that archaeologists should be forbidden by law to make any attempt at culture history. It is nonsense, pure and simple; a wild attempt at inventing a "matriarchalist" past for Europe that ignores even its own evidence. To give one instance of its lunacy, it argues that war only entered Gimbutas' imagined "Old European" culture with the evil patriarchalist Indo-Europeans and their steppe-bred war axes... and then goes on to tell us that wooden palisades (that is, FORTIFICATIONS) were a regular feature of "Old European" settlements! What were they meaning to keep out, wolves? Gimbutas' archaeological work is not without value, but when it comes to interpreting it, a moron or a politician could do better. She simply is trapped in the foolish ideology of the "great goddess", a pathetic though unortunately popular reflex of contemporary political obsession. Luckily, I have since found out that some archaeologists (for instance, Filippo Coarelli) DO read and understand anthropology, culture history, comparative sociology, etc. - but as for this sort of stuff, leave it to Wiccans and other ignorami.
Rating:
Summary: misinterpretative madness
Review: When I first read this book, it confirmed a feeling I had then: that archaeologists should be forbidden by law to make any attempt at culture history. It is nonsense, pure and simple; a wild attempt at inventing a "matriarchalist" past for Europe that ignores even its own evidence. To give one instance of its lunacy, it argues that war only entered Gimbutas' imagined "Old European" culture with the evil patriarchalist Indo-Europeans and their steppe-bred war axes... and then goes on to tell us that wooden palisades (that is, FORTIFICATIONS) were a regular feature of "Old European" settlements! What were they meaning to keep out, wolves? Gimbutas' archaeological work is not without value, but when it comes to interpreting it, a moron or a politician could do better. She simply is trapped in the foolish ideology of the "great goddess", a pathetic though unortunately popular reflex of contemporary political obsession. Luckily, I have since found out that some archaeologists (for instance, Filippo Coarelli) DO read and understand anthropology, culture history, comparative sociology, etc. - but as for this sort of stuff, leave it to Wiccans and other ignorami.
<< 1 >>
| 
