wonderkat’s blog

Plus make sure to take breaks regularly - and stop if anything starts to hurt!

here’s the link and the story, it’s Amazing

Prehistoric European archaeology is so far outside my area of expertise that I hadn't actually come across her name before you sent this ask.

Honestly, I don't feel all that qualified to give an opinion, but from little I've gleaned, it seems to me that 1) she was a woman in archaeology when that was very difficult, and 2) while interesting, her theories about gender are a little rigid and binary for me to feel completely comfortable supporting. That being said, she seems to be a product of her era, and I while I might not agree with all of her work, I can understand where she was coming from.

Namely, the "Mother Goddess" theory of human history and religion. This idea suggests that, prior to the "patriarchal" and "warlike" societies that we traditionally know from history, ancient European societies ascribed to a peaceful, matriarchal tradition characterised by worship of a single or central mother goddess.

I have... A lot of issues with this theory, some of which are archaeological and some of which have to do with modern culture and modern religion.

First of all, this theory rather aggressively pushes the idea that separate genders shape societies in separate ways, and you will have a markedly different society with women in charge than with men in charge. They link matriarchal structures with peace and patriarchal ones with war in a very essentialist way, one we don't actually see in practice. The idea that women will create a compassionate, peaceful society, while men will create a violent and rigid one, isn't something we see in actual cultures. In reality, both men and women rule as a reflection of the culture they were raised in, and carry on those power structures as long as they benefit from them.

This theory also has strong roots in modern western monotheism. It hinges on the worship of a central goddess, and the dominant authority of her priestesses. As someone who has studied pagan and shamanic beliefs to some extent, I just don't buy that the early cultures of Europe structured their religions this way. Celtic religion, for instance, had a wide variety of gods that varied by community, area, and priority. The gods of bronze age Britain would be very different than those of bronze age Germany, and the gods a person worshipped would be the ones with the most impact on their life. Looking at more recent hunter-gatherer cultures in North America, we see a pattern of powerful supernatural beings that wouldn't quite be viewed in the same way as gods. The further back we look, the less convinced I am that modern ideas of one all-powerful deity apply at all to the period discussed in this theory.

If anything, this idea of a "one mother goddess" tells us more about our culture, and our lack of imagination, than about the cultures it ostensibly describes.

It's also very tied up in modern new age religions. This, in my opinion, has kept the ancient mother goddess concept relevant longer than it would have been if it was only an archaeological theory. Religion doesn't require the level of archaeological evidence science does for an idea to persist, and the ideas this theory suggests are very appealing to feminist seekers looking for a way to believe outside the patriarchal structures of organised religion. As a result, it has gained roots in communities not trained to evaluate scientific evidence or put these ideas in the cultural framework of ancient societies.

I think this theory grew out of a perfect storm of modern concerns and profound misunderstandings. In the mid-20th century (and even today) we desperately needed an alternative to the patriarchal religious structures of mainstream christianity. The people championing the idea of a utopia ruled over by a compassionate mother goddess found that alternative in questionable archaeological evidence.

Unfortunately, it's really difficult to conceptualise the culture, values, and beliefs of ancient peoples though a modern lens. Archaeologists study the past for years to get there, and still constantly struggle to tell what is really going on in the archaeological record and what results when that record is filtered through modern western experience.

The mother goddess theory is an example of this. Why do we believe artistic depictions of people to be religious in nature? Because they often are to us. Why do we believe a single goddess, not a variety of female spirits, is depicted? Because we were raised in a culture that considers monotheism the norm.

I can't scientifically disprove that there was ever a culture that worshipped a single mother goddess, but I can also find no reputable archaeological evidence for it. I have no issue with people believing in it, as long as they recognise that this is religion, not science.

I'd also encourage the people attracted to this theory to think critically about why. Why believe women lead us to utopia, while men only lead us to ruin? Why do we need a compassionate creator, man or woman, to inspire us to better? Where do people outside the gender binary fit in this idea?

Anyway, here's a paper that goes over a few of these points, and the issues in the archaeological evidence:

Meskell, L. (1995). Goddesses, Gimbutas and new age archaeology. Antiquity, 69(262), 74-86.

And here's a much more fun and practical take on Venus figurines, suggesting that they could have been self-portraits by female carvers:

McDermott, L. (1996). Self-representation in Upper Paleolithic female figurines. Current Anthropology, 37(2), 227-275.

1. COMMIT TO THE BIT

2. PARTAKE IN THE DIVINE ACT OF CREATION