gynocentric cults in ancient europe

you know, in the early 1900s, archaeologists would go on excursions alone, and not in teams, and they discovered all this evidence for gynocentric cults throughout the middle east and all over europe, but they basically either pushed it aside and ignored it, or ‘misinterpreted’ it as other stuff. like they found all these figurines of prego women, and they were like, ‘hey! its ancient porn!’ that was up until around 1970 or so. they built shrines, and used cowrie shells (a cowrie shell looks A LOT like a vulva) and this blood-red paint/dye. this all points directly to a goddess/woman based religious sect, spanning a huge peice of europe, but until a few decades ago, was never really acknowledged. sometimes i get really pissed, and im just like, fuck all men! and then i am like, no wait… that was too literal for me to hate them anymore. so ummm… this is the first thread ive ever started, and i didnt really know where to put it. comments anyone?

Go read Gender and Archaeology by Nelson.

Or The Myth of a Matriarchal Prehistory, by an author whose name I can’t remember.

Always struck me as part of the same scholarly movement that pushed for an “Ur” reconstructivist reading of all ancient myths and lore…

Has anybody ever made it more than a few chapters into “The Golden Bough?” Pretty hysterical stuff. Remind me and I’ll quote the blurb on back sometime.

Ok, seriously. Problem A: historically speaking-- the cult figurines span a time period of twenty THOUSAND years, say, if we lump together, for example, the Venus of Willendorf with the female figures from Catal Huyuk. Does this sound like a cohesive religious movement in a continuous culture to you? Fertility cult in general, sure. No one has denied that. That can be expected in any culture. Does this point to a matriarchal society? Uh, I’m not sure we have enough evidence to seriously posit that (i.e. is use of red dye and cowrie shells enough to reconstruct a religion 30,000 years ago?).
Which historians suggested that these were porn?

You might enjoy this:
Graves, Robert. The White Goddess. Third edition amended and enlarged. London: Faber and Faber, 1952.

Thought you might get a chuckle from the following. :wink:

Karen Smith on "Why Women Ask For Directions"

I am forwarding the following on behalf of Karen Smith. Karen is a paddler (tripping canoe, wild water kayak, sea kayak, sprint kayak), the owner of Gaia's Garden (a vegan food service), and, as far as I can tell, a wicce of the White Goddess with neo-Buddhist leanings. In refutation to John Winter's examination of testicular navigation which he published on the paddlers' mailing list Wavelength, she says:

	John Winters has attempted to prove that women cannot navigate on the open ocean. His analysis is centered on women frequently requiring directions while driving in cities. This bears no relation to their ability to navigate canoes and kayaks on open seas.

	Women's navigation is based on the pituitary stimulating hormones FSH and LH. Secretion in sufficient quantities causes the development and continuance of a secondary sexual characteristic commonly known to women as the navicular gynoecium. Since this does not look like a breast, buttock, or other piece of meat, it goes unnoticed by men.

	Indeed, the only outward and visible sign of the navicular gynoecium is water retention during menstruation. The reason for water retention is twofold: first, it acts as a protective buffer against dehydration during long open ocean crossings. Let us not forget the horrid fate of dear Duncan Taylor as he drifted off from Mauritius. Second, it changes the body's electrolyte balance to stimulate electrodynamic conductivity with sea water. Quite literally, there is a bonding between woman and water world.

	Unfortunately, man has never been willing to admit, let alone examine, this secondary sexual characteristic. The closest investigations to date have involved studies of migratory birds, with conclusions tentatively looking toward the interrelation between magnetic forces and an avian organ situated near the pituitary. One supposes that if the paternalistic medical profession ever turned its attention to the minutiae of the menstrual cycle, rather than write off so many manifestations as hysteria, it might recognize the existence of the navicular gynoecium and its role in electrodynamic bonding with Mother Earth.

	We now must look at why women usually prefer to ask for directions most of the time, and why they often need to ask for directions in cities. First, the electrodynamic bonding is not just with Mother Earth; it is with all life, particularly with other women who are similarly experiencing water retention. Communication with others is simply an example of bonding initiated through the same electrodynamic forces which bond women to Gaia.

	Second, it cannot hurt to ask for directions, and may help through the gaining of related information resulting from the formation of social ties. A good example is the difference in approach to arctic navigation between Victoria Jason and Don Starkell. Victoria is a grandmother who used her social skills to successfully and enjoyably complete much of the North West Passage. In contrast, the aggressiveness of Don led to expensive rescue efforts and the loss of body parts. Both paddled the same area at the same time, even paddling together one season, yet the woman's efforts succeeded where the man's ended in tragedy. The same can be said for the Hubbard expedition to interior Labrador, which ended in death when Leonis followed his Peter up the wrong river and starved. His wife, wondering how anyone could go so seriously off course, mounted her own expedition, based on forming bonds with aboriginal people of the area, and comfortably completed the route which had defeated her late husband. Bonding with others often makes the difference between success or tragedy, and while the physiology of bonding is based on the navicular gynoecium, the communicative element must be practiced on an ongoing basis.

	Third, the process of social interaction among women is not artificially estopped as it is with men, for testicular navigation, rooted in the male endocrine system, includes both increased aggression and, if you will excuse the pun, linearity. Essentially, male navigation is not so much navigation as a random colonization in which a great many males strike out with great determination in random directions, with the net result being that most will fail, but on occasion one will actually arrive at somewhere of interest. In particular, the Franklin expedition, which ended in a mad hatter's tea party as the lead poisoned crew pulled a boat laden with silver dinner services across the tundra, and the many following failed rescue attempts, one ending in cannibalism, come to mind as examples of the growth of the cult of exploration, in which male aggression and single-mindedness in penetrating the unknown are held up as the epitome of voyaging.

	Most notably, male explorers who take a less aggressive, more socially interactive approach, are far less testosterone driven, and indeed exhibit considerable evidence of a gonadotropic hormone balance more typical of females. For example, the journals and writings of Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton, who explored much of the Sind, Arabia and Africa, and who translated the spiritually erotic Kama Sutra and the seminal Tales of a Thousand-and-One Nights, are replete with allusions to his sexual exploration of both genders. One must ask if there was a correlation between his remarkable navigational ability and his gender identification, and if society's promotion of homophobia as part of the ultra-male ethos is contraindicative to Ur based navigation.

	Fourth, the reason that women often must ask for directions in a city is due to industrial based toxins commonly present in the urban atmosphere impacting on the female endocrine system. The industrial complex, which is dramatically affecting the global climate, which is spewing toxins and carcinogens in unprecedented quantities, and which is driving thousands of species to extinction, is also debilitating female navigation through the disruption of gonadotropic balance. The industrial complex is male based, and since the patriarchy neither knows nor would care about women's navigation, let alone the survival of Mother Earth, nothing is being done to solve the problem. On the high sea, away from many of the more concentrated pollutants, women's hormonal systems come back into balance; the pituitary stimulating hormones FSH and LH are produced in sufficient quantities to support the proper function of the navicular gynoecium. On the open ocean, away from the towering icons of industrial masculinity, ejaculating their filth into the atmosphere, women are able to navigate quite competently.

	Finally, John Winters makes much of happy male explorers who navigated across unexplored oceans to find new lands. I ask, what did they find during their travels: not what they found on land at the end of their voyages, but what they experienced while actually on the water? Aphrodite was born and rose up out of the sea, but Odysseus, who spent the decade following the fall of Troy quite lost, was just another sperm fighting to survive in the great ocean of Gaia's womb. The Nereid's home was the sea, yet Odysseus' crew desperately tried to find a home far from the sea.

	Even the patriarchal Christian tradition recognizes the difficulty males have in becoming one with Gaia and her waters. For example, from Psalms: "They that go down to the sea in ships: and occupy their business in great waters; these men see the works of the Lord: and his wonders in the deep. They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man: and are at their wit's end. So when they cry unto the Lord in their trouble: he delivereth them out of their distress. Then they are glad, because they are at rest: and so he bringeth them unto the haven where they would be." In this male based mythology men are lost and scared when voyaging onto the ocean, and consider death a release.

	Women's relationship with the Ur, with Gaia, with air, earth, fire and water, is not one of aggression and tragedy as it is for men. The patriarchal discounting of female navigation is simply one more example in the present millennium of repeated male attempts at subjugation of the ancient White Goddess, domination of the physical world, and dismissal of spiritual being.

Copyright Richard Culpeper (Muffin), Hon.B.A., LL.B., Barr.L., M.A.
http://www.tbaytel.net/culpeper
“Hour after hour, day after day, far from sight of shore,
We laughed and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean,
Wanting never to return.”
Kimosippi '95

“Testicular navigation???”

It is a theory which was first set forth by Dr. Peregrine Inverbon, Ph.d., DD, LL.d, Ph.G.

Since I have begun studying this topic, I keep noticing the same pattern of responding to a feminist view of prehistory. Or rather, not really responding to it.

The OP used a carefully chosen term, gynocentric (did anyone notice?). Nowhere did echonymph refer to “matriarchy” or anything like it. Yet the opposing arguments refute “matriarchy” which is not what this thread is about.

I have been reading The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory by Cynthia Eller, who does the same thing. She begins with the intent to refute the ideas of Marija Gimbutas and Riane Eisler. She trots out the well-worn arguments that there is no evidence for a “matriarchy” anywhere at any time.

I admit Gimbutas probably made a lot of highly romantic claims on the basis of insufficient evidence, and started up a popular movement based on her writings. I’m not a Gimbutas follower. I would say her significance was to bring the question of what human life was like before patriarchy into prominence, however inaccurate her conclusions may have been. I’m not writing to defend Gimbutas, but she did have an important impact in getting scholars to examine this topic instead of ignoring it.

But to accuse Eisler of claiming “prehistoric matriarchy” is just so totally wrong and dishonest. In all her writing, Eisler has plainly stated that matriarchy is not her thesis. But then her critics like Eller, like the ones in this thread, instead of actually dealing with the issues Eisler raises in The Chalice and the Blade, attack “matriarchy.” Everyone, matriarchy is not a real issue anymore, it’s just being used as a straw man (umm… straw woman?) that’s easy to refute.

The idea was formulated as “Mutterrecht” in the 19th century by German scholars on the model of patriarchy. When they found no evidence for men then being overlords, ergo somebody has to be the overlords, it must have been women ruling everything and keeping men down — after all, when men ruled they kept women down. Eisler argues that the problem is not patriarchy versus matriarchy at all. She posits the “dominator” model versus the “cooperative” model. The dominator assumes that one part of society has to keep the other down. If that other takes power, they’ll keep you down.

Eisler interprets the evidence, with Minoan Crete as a case study, that prepatriarchal societies had equality between men and women, with neither side lording it over the others. The Goddess was at the center of their religious life (this is what echonymph meant by “gynocentric”), but that does not imply social or political matriarchy. The Goddess religion was not about keeping down men, as the Minoan civilization with its kings shows. It does mean that there was not a big gap between rich and poor, that women’s economic contributions to society were highly valued, and that the major resources of the culture were not given over to war and conquest.

I have been studying the ancient, pre-Brahmin Tamil civilization shown in the sangam literature, and it too was a time of powerful, free women. Not a matriarchy—politically, they were ruled by kings and chieftains—but a gynocentric culture of economic and social equality between men and women, in which women’s power was believed to be the vivifying force of life.

Eisler draws an important distinction between the patriarchal power to dominate and the gynocentric power to actualize.

Rita M. Gross’s book Feminism and Religion: An Introduction sharply criticizes the determinist dogma that men are genetically bound to be patriarchal oppressors. If that role is biologically determined, then there’s no hope the human race will ever be free of it, is there? Instead, Gross makes a strong case for the changing economic and technological conditions at the close of the Neolithic for the developments that brought about patriarchy. She argues that it was not “patriarchy” that caused the oppression of women, but the economic and technological circumstances that allowed the dominator model to take over. the implication of this is that as external conditions change, the men of the future do not need to be patriarchal or oppressive, there is hope for a return to the cooperative model. Gross’s analysis is even more nuanced and carefully developed than Eisler’s. It’s a refreshing read.

The resurgence of the Divine Feminine has been gathering a tremendous momentum and is likely to continue for a long time. Instead of brushing aside the significance of this rediscovery of the ancient gynocentric religion of the Goddess, it would be better to understand how it offers a chance to be free of one group dominating the other; men and women as equal partners.

As feminism continues to define and redefine itself in a myriad of ways, approaches such as Gross’ are particularly refreshing for me, for I am an environmentalist, and I believe her structuring her approach upon interdependence and mutual respect is key to the world’s survival.

At the same time, however, I can’t say whether or not her redefining gynocentricity as being distinctly different from matriarchy is historically on target or not (though I suspect it is). Rather, I suggest that just as previous gynocritics often structured their views around matriarchy/patriarchy, now the critical structure is moving elsewhere, without there being a great deal of actual evidence to support either school (though at a gut level I buy Gross’ technological model creating and driving patriarchal culture). I wonder if Gross might be sanding down the corners of a square peg to make it fit in a round hole, as I believe she has done previously in redefining Buddhism. I wonder if she might actually have found the round peg which already fits. I wonder if the entire paradigm is off either way.

In any event, structures which move away from the binary and often zero sum patriarchy/matriarchy fight over who has the power to control, and instead move toward an inclusive approach based on the ability to create, are heartening to me, so I greatly enjoy seeing them presented, tested and developed.

Good carefully reasoned response, Muffin. Glad to see people seriously thinking along these lines, and people informed on this topic. Maybe this thread belongs in GD?

Jomo Mojo I think you argument is quite valid, by and large. The only thing I might take immediate exception with in your post is the following…

I find those two particular assertions highly dubious ( not the middle assertion in the original sentence, which I think is reasonable ) both as historical facts ( I think the evidence is a bit flimsy, from what I’ve seen ) and as reasonable assumptions of what a gynocentric culture would project. I don’t think aggression and social stratification are a facet of ( or at least not exclusive to ) patriarchal societies. I think they are a facet of the human animal and its pack orientation. Tribalism is the source of most conflict and I believe it endemic to both sexes.

It’s not a great comparison by any means, but in certain NA tribes where women played a prominent role, such as the Iroquois ( Haudenosauneee ), there certainly seemed to be plenty of externally channeled political aggression by women. The Iroquois women could ( and apparently did ) channel the course of military campaigns and negotiations by withholding food ( or refusing to harvest, I admit I forget the exact dynamic ), which they had more or less sole control over, from the men.

Now I suppose we could quibble about what constituted ‘major resources’. Were the ‘major resources’ expended by the Minoan civilization ( And I’m sure they were ‘major’ ) to establish and maintain their naval ( and hence political ) hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean, military or mercantile expenditures? I would contend that they were one and the same and were probably so regarded by the ruling class on Crete. I think the two are pretty difficult to tease apart.

Anyway, just a thought :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane

I think it does. Of course tucked off here in humble land we can actually have a discussion, whereas once it hits GD I expect that it would melt down into quibbles with misogynists.

Nice discussion. Regarding my particular input, I think I read “matriarchal” INTO the OP; I apologize. Many of the advocates of the gynocentric religion theory do see a link with praxis in social/political spheres-- I was likely extrapolating.
I like the idea of a gender equivilancy (hey, I’m a girl, too), but a fertility cult doesn’t necessarily suggest this, either. For example, pre-Reform Christianity had/has an important gynocentric aspect (the Marian cult (and emphasis on the Holy Family) was big big big-- arguably rivaling the Christ cult in the 15th C.), but that sure didn’t make it an egalitarian religion. Has the primary Goddess Amaterasu saved orthodox Shinto culture from patriarchy?
These are more recent examples, of course, but my point was the difficulty of reconstructing these cultures-- Minoan Crete, sure-- we have some (minimal, really) information about that, at least; Paleolithic Austria? Well. . . There’s Crete in the third millenium BCE, and then there’s the 29th millenium BCE.
I agree: We should leave this in IMHO . . .

You don’t find Minoan fortifications. No art glorifying warriors and conquerors as in most other cultures at that level of development. Their art is graceful and fun-loving, and shows women as socially prominent as men, if not more so. The excavations show that the poorest classes did not live as poorly in comparison to the richest classes as in other countries—the standard of living gap between rich and poor was smaller among the Minoans than in other cultures of that level. Eisler attributes this to the absence of the dominator model.

Early Christianity from the patriarchal age (2nd-4th centuries or so) had some extremely misogynistic teachings. The Marian cult came into prominence much later, during the High Middle Ages. This was when troubadors had been disseminating the cult of the feminine, which at its core was about sacred sex, perhaps influenced by Sufi erotic poetry.

Pre-Vedic India was a Dravidian society in which women’s sacred power was predominant, as is evident from the earliest Tamil literature. Tamil Nadu and Kerala were the last parts of India to come under Aryan Brahmin influence, and the earlier Dravidian feminine power is still evident there. The Brahmin religion, being heavily patriarchal, instituted gender inequality that persists in India to this day. Since then the religion in India has been a dynamic between the pre-Vedic Goddess worship which still thrives and the patriarchal Brahmin rule. In the South Indian state of Kerala, the original Dravidian matrilineal social order still survives. There is this tension between the worship of the Feminine in religion and the low social status of women under the Brahmins. The question is often asked, if Hindus worship such powerful goddesses, why aren’t the women empowered? There is a lot of women’s power active in India, and has been for centuries, but it isn’t always apparent to external observers. This is one subject I have studied in depth … I wonder if it bears any comparison to the question of Goddess-worship under patriarchal Shinto and similar situations.

Even without the issue of pro- or anti-matriarchy, I am not comfortable with the notion of “widespread goddess worship”. Some folks, like O.G. S. Crawford in The Eye Goddess, saw “goddesses” in every pot with two swirls on it, and saw all of these images as evidence of a single, Europe-wide Cult of the Goddess. The evidence simply doesn’t support such a sweeping hypothesis. Both Crawford and Marija Gimbutas are guilty of interpreting WAY beyond the evidence, and I can’t help but think that their conclusions match their prejudices. I mention this in my book, and give some references there. I realize that I’m not an expert in thgis field, while Gimbutas was a trained expert, but it seemed clear to me that she was making a lot of unsupported claims (and this was before I’d read anyone else’s critique of her work).

Jomo Mojo: Nice rebuttal :slight_smile: . A few points, though:

1.) From what little I’ve read, the most modern archaeological evidence seems to indicate that fortifications did exist. It’s just that they were a relatively minor feature of Minoan palaces. Indicating infrequent, but perhaps occasional, penetration by hostiles, either internal or external.

Either way, lack ( or very limited ) fortifications may just be an artifact of the complete naval dominance of the Minoans, plus a fairly content and homogenous native populace. I believe there are allusions in Homer to this ( might be wrong on that one, though ).

2.) Perhaps we don’t see many scenes of open warfare in Minoan art, but I believe their are representations of weaponry ( religious in nature perhaps? ) and longswords and daggers have been unearthed in archaeological digs. Furthermore there are also representations of what are surely either dedicated warships or well-armed merchant vessels ( pulling double-duty would make sense ).

Again, I think we could conceivably chalk up a lack of widespread cultural militarism to a lack of external threats rather than the influence of feminine values.

3.) Gynocentrism as intrinsically more peaceful is somewhat contradicted by the other example you use, of pre-Vedic South India. Too my understanding a significant portion of the evidence drawn from that Tamil literature includes allusions to such-and-such clan being wiped out for insulting the honor of such-and-such prominent woman. Or some kingdom or city being razed as the result of some similar treatment. Hardly all that peaceful :smiley: .

4.) In regards to the differentiation between haves and have-nots in Minoan society. I quite agree that the evidence seems to point towards a great deal of across the board prosperity in Crete. But again, citing that as an artifact of a gynocentric culture seems to be jumping the gun a bit. We may just be talking about a monstrously wealthy mercantile state, shielded from credible external threat by the very fleet that generated said wealth and by its isolated nature as an island state. All of this concentrated in a relatively small and insular geographic space, with a presumably smallish, sophisticated, homogenous, happy, and hence easily controlled populace.

Now all that said, I’m not definitively saying you’re wrong in your interpretation :slight_smile: . Just that I think the evidence is scanty and equivocal enough to be open to alternative interpretations. Minoan Crete certainly does appear to have been gynocentric as you define it. And it certainly was an absolutely remarkable and rather unique society. But whether peace and prosperity flowed from its gynocentrism or from its unique historical and geographical situation seems to be an open question. And actually I could posit that it could have in fact gone in the other direction - i.e. peace and prosperity allowed the development of a healthy gynocentric culture :slight_smile: .

Or we could both be right and nothing either one of us has posted really contradicts the other and it’s all of the above :wink: .

  • Tamerlane

Couple things:

  1. I agree that the whole “cult of the Goddess” thing seems to be blown terribly out of proportion. I don’t see enough concrete evidence to state anything more complex than “prehistoric people believed in suprenatural forces, and probably was real concerned with fertility.” Also, I think the modern desire to impose uniformity on the past is a problem: different people in different areas with different needs likely had different beliefs. Gynocentrists always seem to propose that at some point the “past” began to exist in a perfect and uniform state and then change happened. Small lingering pockets (Such as Crete) can then be used as a gateway to the “past” which exisited everywhere the same.

  2. Often times I think that there is an unstated teliological claim being made that I disagree with. The implication is that however we were in the past is how we are “supposed” to be, the natural state of humans. Not everyone does it, and in fact, most scholors understand that this is not the case. However, people who read these scholors often make this leap.

3)Rich and poor on Crete: it seems to me (and I am no expert) that one of the advantages of being a mercantile powerhouse is that you can keep your poor people far away, and just ship in the food. I mean, our poor in the Western world today are much, much better of than the poor in most other places, but that is not because we are less greedy–it is becasue we can afford to exploit them at a distance. Considering that efficient transportation was a strong point of Minoan civilization, it seems that looking only at the people on the actual island is skewing one’s sample. Furthermore, as Tamaerlane pointed out, Crete + a fantastic navy = a pretty signifigant fortification system.

Interesting discussion, but I agree that it is better suited for Great Debates.

Be seeing you.