Into to the history of matriarchy

[daybrown]

While there are antecedents in Anatolia, archaeologist M. Gimbutas shows a far wider sample of artiacts of matriarchic cultures in Chalcolithic Slavic Europe from 4000-8000 BCE.

Along with the introduction of agriculture to the riverine flood plains from the Danube to the Dneiper, there was a flowering in several other arts like fabric & pottery, and the invention of arsenic bronze & writing.

About 6000 years ago, the alpha male Kurgan warriors introduced the first domestic horses from Ukraine to the Cucuteni, who lived along the Danube delta and Western Black Sea coast. And- disappeared. No kurgans were built for another thousand years.

JP Mallory inadvertantly mentions one reason why on pg 199 of his "In Search of the Indo-Europeans". He notes that the Kurgans were (perhaps the first?) 2 meter tall 100kg warriors that domesticate the first horses, which he says were only 54" at the withers. Put a mighty warrior on a pony like that, and his weight will run it into the ground within a mile.

No doubt the Vinca put the ponies to work dragging chalcocite out of the Transylvanian mines. But for sure, as Mallory noted, the horses were also introduced to what he calls the "gracile" Cucuteni. Their women weighed only about 50kg. A woman on such a horse would immediately discover that she can ride faster and further than any alpha male warrior could run, and that no way could he catch her on horseback. Hence the Amazons.

As EW Barber, in "The Mummies of Urumchi noted", men would have gotten their balls crushed riding such horses in the eras before saddles, much less the stirrup. And even just walking or trotting all day would have given men the same kind of testicular problems olympic bike riders have. Horses have evolved a lot since then, getting flatter backs rather than the rather sharp backbone like a deer or goat, that would give any man pause.

But- it appears that the horses also brought in Anthrax. The whole region of Chalcolithic culture was gradually abandoned for hundreds of years. But, by then, the Cucuteni already had developed the plank hulled sailboats, so we see their pottery in the Cycladic isles (isolated from Anthrax) and see them evolved into the more obviously matriarchic Minoans.

However, the Vinca, Petresti, and others took the horses onto the steppes to become the Amazons. And as Barber noted, they just kept moving East as long as the grass held out. All the way to what is now Tien Shen province in China 4000 years ago.... to become known as the Tocharians.

Who were literate, so we have their texts, of which I have one copy, 'The Maitreyasamiti-Nataka texts in Tocharian A.(from Amazon.com appropriately enough!) an in it, we see a conversation between the *living* Buddah and the Gautimid *Queen* of Kucha. And among the subjects under discussion is the growing phenomena of what we call mysogeny.

We also have innumerable letters, which I expect women of today would understand, of women in Niya (or whatever town) writing to the women running offices in Kucha, about the inventory being shipped in the caravans run by their men, as well as arranging for their men to get laid when they get to town. The 'wives' apparently didnt want their boys to pick up anything from just any whore when they got there.

Of course, they practiced birth control, and had very stable populations, which you can see in the matriarchic communities all the way back to Hungary. Which proved to be their downfall, when hordes of Mongols showed up and wiped them out. Except for some few who escaped into Tibet, and again we have, as we do with the Mosuo of China, anthropology reports of women who own all the property, have multiple husbands, and take on co-wives as their entrepreneurial activities expand.

Because of herbal birth control, matriarchies never became vast populations, but it is unwarrented dismissibility to say they never existed when we have some few examples of it still extant in obscure remote areas. And it begs the question of how it exists there now if it was not introduced.

The Tibetan matriarchies are Buddhist, but it is *not* Indian Buddhism. the font they use is derived from the Brahmi Sanskrit of the Tocharians. And in the Tocharians, we see their blonde & red hair and beards as well as blue used to depict eyes. The wool they wear has European DNA, is woven in the standard twill, which the Chinese never used, and as Barber shows us in 'The Mummies of Urumchi" is even woven in classic *Tartan.*

Matriarchies exist now, and we can trace their cultural heritage all the way back to Slavic Europe 6000 years ago. Douglas Adams does the same with the Tocharian language, tracing it back to the Proto-Indo-European. Granted that they were not common, and preferred to avoid areas subject to lots of conflict... where most of History gets written.

[Frank Harrist]

I just remembered that the Caddo Indians, which I study because they were right here where I live, were matrilineal. This isn't the same as matriarcal, but it does show that women have always had power in different cultures. Matrilineal means that things are passed down (inherited) through the mother's side of the family.

[stan]

I was just about to write this note and add it the the thread...about
Amazons....so I'll put it here now.

Matriarchy is one thing....power and rule passed down through women.

and "Amazons" are another.

[Frank Harrist]

RIGHT!

[stan]

I am a bit skeptical about the allegation of testicular damage being a big factor....
The American Indians, for one, rode bareback, and I have never heard of
any such problems on their part.
Furthermore, I would think that this is something that would have been dealt with
immediately if it had occurred to any significant degree. OUCH!

[Barracuda]

Yes, there is a difference between matriarchal societies and societies where women were warriors.

I am sure there were matriarchal societies were women were not warriors, but there were also patriarchal socieites were they were warriors.

The Celts were a patriarchal society, but some of the women were noted warriors.

It seems to me DayBrown's post assumes that all the matriarchal cultures were related. Perhaps they were developed independently, and perhaps for different reasons....

[stan]

In the spirit of my "yes, but"....appeal...
In response to daybrown's latest:
"Maybe. But....."

A lot of the assertions of DB concern parts of the world that were behind the
iron curtain, and somehow I wonder if the sciences in those areas
have been as objective as they have elsewhere. How much has been supressed, politicised, or even made up? How thorough has been the training of archeologists in those areas, and how thoroughly have findings been scrutinized and questioned by groups of peers?
.........
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.
In sub-Saharan Africa wooden fertility figures are given to young women in order to prepare them for motherhood and ensure that they have babies.
I think there are some female divinities to go along with this, but this doesn't mean that their societies are matriarchal. So maybe the famous
cycladic figures and venus figurines are something like this, instead of images of a goddess.
Likewise the obese figures giving birth represented by figurines from Catal Huyuk. There are societies in Africa who fatten young women, but women do not rule there.

[Rokcet Scientist]

So? "Today's" Judaism is matrilineal, but patriarchal. You are considered a Jew if your mother was one, irrespective of your father's background. But in Jewish society men clearly rule. In Israeli civil law, afaik, children get their father's name. There would seem to be a strong 'disallignment' there between religion/culture and actual law, but somehow the Israelis seem to be able to reconcile the two.
Anyway, this is to illustrate that 'weird' constellations of forces governing societies can and do exist. But they're really not that 'weird', they're just not ours!

[Leona Conner]

[quote="stan"]In the spirit of my "yes, but"....appeal...
In response to daybrown's latest:
"Maybe. But....."

A lot of the assertions of DB concern parts of the world that were behind the
iron curtain, and somehow I wonder if the sciences in those areas
have been as objective as they have elsewhere. How much has been supressed, politicised, or even made up? How thorough has been the training of archeologists in those areas, and how thoroughly have findings been scrutinized and questioned by groups of peers?
.........
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.
In sub-Saharan Africa wooden fertility figures are given to young women in order to prepare them for motherhood and ensure that they have babies.
I think there are some female divinities to go along with this, but this doesn't mean that their societies are matriarchal. So maybe the famous
cycladic figures and venus figurines are something like this, instead of images of a goddess.
Likewise the obese figures giving birth represented by figurines from Catal Huyuk. There are societies in Africa who fatten young women, but women do not rule there.[/quote]

Stan, DB is a student of Marija Gimbutas and JP Mallory, who by the way was a student of Gimbutas. Gimbutas laid pivotal groundwork for integrating archaelogical data with linguistic studies of Indo-European origins. Her model for Indo-European origins is still the leading theory in the field. Its basic outlines are upheld -- minus the focus on women’s status and goddess interpretations -- by her former student J.P. Mallory, now one of the top authorities in IE Studies. The thing is that many in the field consider her very controversial because of her focus on "matriarchy" and a "mother goddess," and the role of women in acient society. The fact that so much of her work was in areas that were off limits to most achaeologists of the world, hasn't help her cause. Yes there has been discoveries of graves of women warriors in the steppes but I don't think they have found enough to make it the rule rather than the exception. I do feel that DB needs to give us some back up sources for her statements other than Gimbutas and Mallory.

My thoughts on the Venus figurines is that they were used more for fertility rituals. If you want the crops to grow or the animals you depend on for food to multiply, what better representation than a female. Yeh, I know you guys have something to do with reproduction but it doesn't take near as long as the females part.

[stan]

Hi, Leona.

Thanks for your response.
As you probably saw, I was inclined to defend db because of her
obvious talents and the plausibility of some of her ideas.
I was giving her the benefit of the doubt and trying to extend some courtesy.
But we have all asked her for more citations and other sorts of confirmation, and she has not come forward with them, so I give up, as Frank did.
Yet she thinks we are dismissing her.
Thanks for the tip on the Indo-European language connection. I might enjoy reading Gimbutas.
Those venus figurines have always puzzled me...they are obviously important, and represent some kind of persistent beliefs....they have never seemed "beautiful" to me in an artistic sense, with the exception of the Cycladic ones. But perhaps women see symbolic beauty in them.
Trying to get inside the mind of paleo- and neolithic people seems impossible to me. For example we have the "beautiful" and naturalistic renderings of animals in the caves of Altamira and Lascaux, but none of humans in such superb rendition.
Back to the Black Sea...If it can really be shown that there was a "queendom" in Indo-Europe, or even an army of female warriors,
so be it!

[Rokcet Scientist]

[...]A lot of the assertions of DB concern parts of the world that were behind the iron curtain, and somehow I wonder if the sciences in those areas have been as objective as they have elsewhere. How much has been supressed, politicised, or even made up?[...]

Which is why the general principles of objective scientific debate, postulation, referencing and testing should apply and not some weird local set of mores. Like it was indeed behind the iron curtain. Or almost had been in the Kansas school system! (You guys escaped by the skin of your teeth there, my friends! And the lesson is: it can happen to you too!)

[Leona Conner]

[quote="stan"]
Thanks for the tip on the Indo-European language connection. I might enjoy reading Gimbutas.
Those venus figurines have always puzzled me...they are obviously important, and represent some kind of persistent beliefs....they have never seemed "beautiful" to me in an artistic sense, with the exception of the Cycladic ones. But perhaps women see symbolic beauty in them.[/quote]

Just remember if you do read Gimbutas, she was a feminist and just as McCarthy found communists under every bed, she found a feminime connection to everything.

As for the Venus figurines, I like to imagine some mother sitting by the fire making one to give to her daughter as a right of passage to womanhood. Or maybe as a fetish on her wedding day to ensure there would be a next generation. In many cultures today mothers still have special rituals to perform at this time in her daughters. I know I did.

[Guest]

Trying to get inside the mind of paleo- and neolithic people seems impossible to me.

Stan,
I'm sure I saw a book called Inside the Neolithic mind in the archaeology section at the university bookshop the other day. Might even have been Paleolithic. Haven't read it myself, but if you're interested I can try to get the ISBN etc for you.

[Tech]

Stan
I thought the general concecuss of the Venus figurines and their purpose, was that the figurines were simply fertility objects, as the idea of a fertility goddess or mother goddess is found throughout most cultures of the world and occour within a large time frame of human history. and have been found throughout Europe, from western France, to western Russia

[stan]

Tech:

Yes, I grant what you are saying in a general way, but there is a school of thought on US college campuses today that "God is a woman," and they use
these early figurines to prove that religion was "originally" woman- centered, but was later hijacked by the men, in order to keep women down.
Where, they ask, are the male fertility figures?

(Well, the phallic images are there later on...but probably suppressed from many popular publications. There was a finding of a very old sculpture of a copulating couple in the last 6 months...but I can't remember the details.)