Into to the history of matriarchy

[daybrown]

Why should we assume that Neolithic Native Europeans are any different from other living tribes that were described by anthropologists? Of course, just as we see lots of variation in primitive tribes in America, Africa, Indonesia, etc, we'd expect some discriminating characteristics. And certainly, just as anthropologists have struggled to understand those they see, so also any of us would struggle to understand ancestors.

But I think we can at least minimize the misunderstanding by abandoning Christian family values. When I consider all the artifacts related to musical instruments, sacred potions, and what Gimbutas calls "Phallic Wands", I conclude my neolithic, and especially chalcolithic ancestors, were into sex, drugs, and rock & roll.

Which presents enormous problems for US academics hoping to attain, or even maintain, tenure. And why should we assume that the researchers who used to be limited behind the Iron curtain were even more biased? Gimbutas had the enormous advantage of being raised in Slavic Europe, spoke the languages, and what's more, actually bothered, like an anthropologist, to go to speak with the rural people about their folkways, which were largely ignored by the Communist authorities. It seems that none of her critics have bothered to do likewise, or even recognize the importance of oral history.

which is admittedly useful to anthropologists in understanding the tribes they have studied. Her academic critics say she made way too much of too little- the artifacts. and completely ignore the integrative process she used in matching the iconography with oral traditions still extant in obscure rural communities. We all know what "Frankly my Dear, I dont giveadamn." meant or what "the Yellow Brick Road" looks like. Thus also, in folk tales all over Europe, there were phrases in the various tales about local heros, places, and events, that keep popping up among widely dispersed and isolated villagers.

The methods of etymology allowed her to trace the roots back to the Chalcolithic era of Slavic Europe. Her reconstruction of the Goddess cosmology was not just based on the artifacts. I have only read her "The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe" and "The Language of the Goddess". I have not read, nor defend what she has said in defending her position. I note that both works are lavish with illustrations and photos of what has been found. I note further, that she does not discuss what was *not* found, but what should have been were her critics correct.

The forward of the latter work was by Joseph Campbell, who likewise has received lots of criticism. But I note none of his critics have nearly the encyclopedic knowledge of the history and evolution of myth, most especially as it is transfered from a hunting to an agrarian culture. He closes his forward with:"The message here is of an actual age of peace and harmony with the creative energies of nature, which for a spell of 4000 prehistoric years, anteceded the 5000 of what James Joyce has termed the "nightmare" (of contending tribal and national interests) from which it is certainly time for this planet to wake. [his parens].

He says this, not because of what was found in Chalcolithic Slavic Europe, but becuase of what was not found, which would certainly be there were his critics correct. And in the 20 odd years since, after the fall of the Iron curtain, when western researchers have had convenient access to virgin tels, nothing has been found to challenge his assertion. There's a *reason* for the Golden Age of Peace. And we see the very same thing at Carcal Peru, the New World's first city, 5000 years ago, which also lacks any defensive works or any signs of warfare.

Sass, in "The Substance of Civilization" notes that the agrarian revolution, such as at Carcal or Anatolia or Slavic Europe, provides *500* times the amount of food for a local population as they could extract from the ecosystem using hunter/gatherer methods. The populations of these early cities exploded such that it would have been suicide for an aggressive hunting tribe (no more than a few hundred) to attack them.

<On another point of feminist revisonism:
I question the assumption that the neolithic "Venus" fertility figures signify that "God was a woman.", or that women were rulers.>
I guess you missed it. I write a lot, not everyone sees everything. But I have a copy of the Maitreyasamiti texts in Tocharian A, which was copied from a much earlier text in the 5th century. It is a conversation between the Living Buddah and the Gautamid *Queen* of Kucha. If there were a king in this era, Buddah would hve been talking to him about the appropriate way for her to perform her duties. And during the discourse, the subject of mysogeny comes up: YQ 1.44 1/1 [verso] line 4 "Having heard that (the Buddah praising women) and having become glad, the women say: Shame on the denouncers, who..." further on referring to them as the "arrogant Sakyas", ie. the warlords which are still running much of Central Asia. Written in a Brahmi Sanskrit font. http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/te ... ic/tht.htm has jpgs to look at.

Then too, you mite consult "The Mother of the Universe" by Lex Hixon, which is a translation of the hymns to Kali by 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad. Ramprasad also writes with a Brahmi Sanskrit font, and makes it perfectly clear that Kali is the divine force. He often uses the mantra "Kaly-me, Kali-ma" to close a stanza. "Kali-ma" in Tocharian means "everywhere". It is perhaps Kharma that this whole idea of the divine as female gets men so upset. Ramprasad suggests we should challenge conventionality. And while he clearly prefers Tantric sexuality, he recognizes that there are many Kharmapaths to the Goddess. As we see in the Tocharian tradition as well. In Tocharian, the word for "Kharmapath" is... "Kharmapath".

I know this is gettin long, but just one more point about women managing assets. The Tocharians inherited from their Amazon ancesstresses herds of livestock. These were handed down matrilineally. The stock was symbolized by small metal discs, like bolt washers, with a hole thru the center so they could be strung on a string to not loose on horseback. Each disc was engraved with the name of the herd or stock, or in time, field, or whatever other asset. Rich women wore these disks, not strung, but as lace, to display them better, as necklaces, belts, or as we still see, bridal headbands in the region. As metal became more common, the discs were used to represent less valuable assets, and eventually, just the value for the base metal itself. The Tocharian name for these disks:"Cash".

And still today, we see belly dancers wearing cash laced together such that they tinkle as hips wriggle. These strings of cash around a woman's waist are known as "Kucha belts". One other point about the Gautama of Kucha, was that all the brothels in the city were hers. The brothels were a civic institution. Just as men were drafted into armies, Kuchan girls were drafted into brothels. Hence we have the phrase, "Koochi coo"... the final "i" being a female suffix.

You can use force to control the behavior of men and build a great empire. But there's another way to control men that the employers of force try to suppress: sex. The Kuchans, and indeed all the matriarchs back to the Neolithic, used sex. Gimbutas never picked up on that. But I looked at the "phallic wands" in her books, and I've seen porn flix, so I know dildos when I see them. So- I can understand why it is that American academics in particular, cant discuss this.

[Guest]

More propaganda; still no verifiable references from impartial sources.
I think TRIPE just about covers it.

[Minimalist]

It is perhaps Kharma that this whole idea of the divine as female gets men so upset

Where is Jean Marie when we need her?

[stan]

Here is an interesting review of one of Gimbutas's books that eloquently sums up what some of us have been saying to daybrown:

Lovely, beautiful bunkum, November 30, 2003
Reviewer: Rose M. Nunez (Eugene, OR United States)

When I was a brand-new starry-eyed goddess worshipper, I adored every gorgeous drawing, every elegant photograph in this lavish book. The story that these images claim to narrate, that of a peaceful, matriarchal utopia, sensual and celebratory, made my heart sing and gave me hope that we might someday return to the "old ways." Gimbutas reads the sherds and statues and decorated pots as symbols of the goddess. Thus, slashes = rain = water = primordial symbol of the goddess. Triangles = vulvas = primordial symbol of the goddess. And so on.
guess again
Unfortunately, Gimbutas is guessing, or, more charitably, seeing meanings she wants badly to believe. She presents no evidence for her interpretations; she simply shows us a picture of a pot and tells us what she has decided it means. If you think the evidence must be SOMEWHERE (that's what I thought), even if in another book, or a series of articles, guess again. Most archaeologists and anthropologists who are familiar with her (including many female scholars) reject her theory. They point to evidence that directly contradicts Gimbutas' vision of a pacific agrarian utopia: These people had weapons, they had armies, they had male gods who were aggressively sexual. Gimbutas simply selectively ignored evidence that didn't fit her thesis. She committed other violations of scholarly integrity too numerous to list here. Type "Gimbutas" into Google and you'll find several web sites belonging to archaeologists and anthropologists who are saddened by the public's rush to embrace her blatantly revisionist view of the neolithic.

Despite this book's scholarly bankruptcy, I have to rate it three stars. It is gorgeous, and there's no reason to discredit the pictures -- just the spellbinding and utterly mistaken story Gimbutas claims they tell.

[Leona Conner]

Welcome back Mini, you've been missed on this thread.

This bull c**p isn't just propaganda, it's feminist propaganda. All her quotes are from writers with an adgenda, a point to make. I can't figure out what side of the road this woman is walking on, she's trying to make it sound like women were the leaders and warriors, but they did it only with sex. I find that insulting. I've never had to use sex to get what I want. Or maybe I've just never wanted anything badly enough.

[daybrown]

Gi,mbutas didnt get it all right, but her numerous critics missed what she was wrong about, and are wrong about what she was right about. Yet again I see criticism of what she made of the geometric iconography of LBK ware, apparently utterly unaware of her research in remote rural communities where they still used much of the same iconography, tying that to oral tradition.

Yet again, I see that not everyone carefully reads my rants. The *reason* the Native American men rode horses bareback, and the original Aryan men didnt, I already mentioned, which archaeologist EW Barber pointed out. Which you can see if you take a look at the horse at http://anzi.biz/artifax.htm; it does *not* have the kind of broad flat back that later evolved which men could ride. and if you look at the size of the steed, you can see that a warrior would run it into the ground quick.

But Gimbutas either missed, or failed to include two important aspects of the culture, perhaps because of her academic connection with Berkeley. Those are *not*, as she puts it, "phallic wands". they are dildos.

And she shows us iconography of mushrooms and sacred pottery used to mix potions, without ever mentioning that the potion in question was made from Amanita Muscaria. Which I doubt she ever tried. You can order them online. They are legal, and as powerful in their own way as LSD. This, despite the innumerble references in ancient texts to the trance state of witches. I'm somewhat bemused the the fluff bunnies today trying to copy ancient witch ritual lack the balls to actually use the potions.

"The Pre-history of Sex" by Timothy Taylor cites medieval letters to the Bishop explaining why brother Stud Muffin went missing all summer by saying that he was 'Bewitched". What nobody talks about, is that it was brother Stud Muffin who carried around the 'broomstick' in his pants that the witches like to ride.

nobody has the guts to mention the otherwise poisonous potions made from Mandrake, Nightshade, Foxglove and the like that witches got off on by using them in a douche as transdemerals. Much less will we see any of today's wiccan fluff bunnies dare to try it.

Gimbutas wont talk about the witches making beer with rye & wheat that was infected with ergot, and taking out a whole battallion with a barrel - strychnine poisoning. There's a *reason* the Latin word for 'witch' meant "poisoner". Just cause witches didnt use blades, dont mean they could not kill; and by hosting "fertility rites" they got all the informers they wanted.

But among themselves, just as we see thousands of years later among the city states run by women in the Tarim basin, they didnt make war. War was bad for business. Trade flows around war zones. Everyone making money off war, makes it off those stupid enough to go to war. The guys who died during World Wars I & II were not the banker's sons. Did Bush go to Viet Nam?

[daybrown]

Another clue to the Amazons was reported by Edw Gibbons, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". I downloaded a copy off the net. Still got it if you want one, it was 6 1.44meg text files (so they'd fit on a floppy). I think it was in vol IV, but you can scan thru refs to Roman General Proculus. He is a world record holder....

The Sarmatians, (who were descended from the Scythian Amazons) were being hassled by the Persians, planning to invade what we now know as Georgia. So, they traveled all the way across Anatolia to make General Proculus an offer he could not refuse, if he'd take his 5 legions back across what's now Turkey and kick ass on the Persians for them.

They gave him 100 virgins.

Think about that for a minute. Has there *ever* been a male leader with the moral authority to make such an offer? Gibbon says it took about a week for him to fuck them all, then being an honorable man, he went and kicked ass on the Persians. And bought the Sarmatians 50 years of peace.

not a bad deal. I think they got the girls back.

[Guest]

The guys who died during World Wars I & II were not the banker's sons.

Yea right! The British & Commonwealth Officers in WW1 were exclusively recruited from the middle and upper classes; I'd imagine that included quite a few 'Banker's sons'.
In ww2 a member of the British royal family (Duke of Kent?) was killed on an anti-submarine patrol (it was covered in issue 37 of After the Battle magazine around 1983 http://www.afterthebattle.com ) one of the Kennedy's was killed on a bombing mission... Why don't you go to http://www.naval-military-press.com . They sell a series of CD-ROMS called "Soldiers Died..." which cover both wars. Can't remember if they're searchable online, but they're full of 'banker's sons'.

[Rokcet Scientist]

it took about a week for him to fuck them all

This guy fucked a 100 virgins in one week? Yeah, right...
Shows how much you 'know' about men.

[...]I think they got the girls back.

Of course they did: sans hymen they were soiled goods!

[Minimalist]

"They gave him 100 virgins. "


One gets 72 Virgins from the muslims just for blowing oneself up on a bus.
100 virgins for liberating an entire country seems pretty cheap.

Anyway, more to the point:

SEVERIANUS, P. ALEIUS (fl. late 2nd century A.D.) Roman legate in charge of the defense of Armenia against PARTHIA in 161 A.D. He was notable for his complete failure in preventing the invasion of the country by VOLOGASES in and for leading virtually an entire legion to its destruction near Elegeia. His resounding defeat brought Lucius VERUS to the East, precipitating a major war with Parthia in 163.

VERUS, LUCIUS (Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus) (130-169 A.D.) Co-emperor with marcus aurelius from 161 to 169. Born Lucius Ceionius Commodus, he was the son of Lucius aelius caesar, the adopted heir of Hadrian. His father died in 137, and antoninus pius was adopted as heir. As part of Hadrian's attempt to ensure stability in the succession, Antoninus Pius took into his house both Marcus Aurelius and Lucius. Verus served as quaestor in 153 and consul in 154, and, in 161, with Marcus. Antoninus died in 161, and Marcus was proclaimed emperor and quickly declared that he wanted a colleague. With the new name of Lucius Aurelius Verus, or Lucius Verus, he became the political equal of Marcus Aurelius—but was never able to overcome the widely held view that he enjoyed a life of rest and recreation. He certainly was not the equal of Marcus Aurelius in terms of intellect, a fact particularly visible in his conduct of military operations.

Crises had been building for many years on the frontiers, and in 162 they erupted. Verus assumed command of the legions in the East, in response to an attack by vologases in of Parthia upon Armenia, the placement of a Parthian client on the throne, and the defeat of the Roman General severianus at Elegeia. After months of delay, he finally arrived in syria with badly needed reinforcements. Allowing his generals a free hand, most importantly Statius Priscus and Gaius Avidius cassius, Verus laid claim to the title of Armeniacus in 163, with credit for the severe defeats inflicted upon the Parthians in 165-166. Verus returned in triumph to rome in 166, where he and Marcus celebrated their positions of Fathers of the Country (Pater Patriae). The joy was shortlived, for barbarian incursions began in conjunction with a terrible plague brought back from the East by the legions. In winter 168, both emperors were at aquileia. In the spring, Verus was at Altinum, where he suffered some kind of seizure and died. The body was entombed in the Mausoleum of Hadrian in Rome, as rumors began that he had been poisoned. Such stories were probably untrue. However, despite his marriage to Marcus' daughter lucilla, in 164, the passing of Verus was not entirely unwelcome, for in the future his presence could have become troublesome to imperial unity.

In any event....the Romans would not have needed an invitation from anyone to react to an invasion of the province of Armenia.

[daybrown]

<In any event....the Romans would not have needed an invitation from anyone to react to an invasion of the province of Armenia.>
Sarmatia was not Armenia. Besides, dont argue with me, argue with Gibbon. The incident with General Proculus and the 100 Sarmatian virgins was pretty well known, and part of his fame as a lecherous stud. People put up with it because he was a damn competent general.

The main point still remains: can you *imagine* any male leader having the moral authority to make such an offer? I dont *think* so. This is but one of a myriad cultural clues to matriarchic culture on the Steppes.

Besides, put it the other way. Look at the horses! 137cm at the withers with very sharp backbones. How in the hell could men ride such beasts before the invention of the saddle, much less the stirrup? And if they could not catch the women who chose to flee, how then could they control women?

It aint like the farming business. You dont havta be big and strong to ride a horse all day to work cattle, sheep, & goats. In fact, the lighter you are, the easier it is on the horse. What advantage, economically or militarily, would male warriors have had in this era? How could they *prevent* the Amazons from evolving?

Lack of sperm donors? Nope. Herodutus writes of Scythian women coming down to the shore to have sex with greek sailors. Would a tribe run by men permit this? Where have they ever? The only example that comes to mind is the South seas, and in those isolated island populations, the drive for genetic diversity would have been impossible for the chiefs to control. But this was not a problem in the great land masses where other tribes of men were everywhere.

[Guest]

Sarmatia was not Armenia. Besides, dont argue with me, argue with Gibbon. The incident with General Proculus and the 100 Sarmatian virgins was pretty well known, and part of his fame as a lecherous stud. People put up with it because he was a damn competent general.

No. 1300 years later Gibbon repeated a LEGEND and gullible people have been passing it off as fact ever since.

The main point still remains: can you *imagine* any male leader having the moral authority to make such an offer? I dont *think* so. This is but one of a myriad cultural clues to matriarchic culture on the Steppes.

Why bother, when Gold is more valuable, visible, and longer-lasting?! We're talking about ancient societies based on conspicuous consumption.

Besides, put it the other way. Look at the horses! 137cm at the withers with very sharp backbones. How in the hell could men ride such beasts before the invention of the saddle, much less the stirrup? And if they could not catch the women who chose to flee, how then could they control women?

137cm is about four and a half feet; I can't imagine any human-female or otherwise-being able to ride one.

It aint like the farming business. You dont havta be big and strong to ride a horse all day to work cattle, sheep, & goats.

No, but the horse has to be big enough to actually mount first!

[Rokcet Scientist]

Realist, you could save so much time...

...but I was just trying to paint a picture in my mind what that would look like: a man, or woman (hey, I'm cool!), riding on that horse of 137cm...

ROTFLMAO !!!

Good I had the Kleenex handy.

[Guest]

Yeah, it amused me too...my in-laws actually breed horses!

[Rokcet Scientist]

ROTFLMAO !!!

Just imagine their cavalry charging...

ROTFLMAO !!!
Not even Woody Allen could come up with a scene like that LOL

Wooooo! That would surely scare the bad male enemy away!