NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6354

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6354 sci.skeptic:21583 soc.women:21775 soc.men:21602
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,sci.skeptic,soc.women,soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!overload.lbl.gov!s1.gov!lip
From: [e-mail] (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Dr. Goldberg Replies to "Patriarchy" Debate
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: s1.gov
Organization: LLNL
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:53:18 GMT
Lines: 70

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

    [On Neolithic Europe...]

... So in
>the absence of evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable conclusion
>is that they were the same as any other known human society, i.e.
>ruled by males.

    There you go again. _Every_ society _must_ have a
clearly-defined hierarchy of leadership. The trouble with _that_ is
that a lot of Paleolithic-level societies did not have clear
leadership; a lot of "tribal chiefs" were inadvertently created by
colonists who wanted some leader-figures analogous to their leaders to
deal with.

    And Gimbutas _does_ address the question of social
organization in her work, though she does concede the difficulty of
doing so without intelligible written records. She notes a lack of
clear evidence of Old European "big men", with the possible exception
of certain Bulgarian seashell magnates.

    It is true that her "best" evidence is from centuries
afterwards, from the Minoans, but even that would seem to be rather
strong. There is no clear evidence of a king -- or queen -- in any of
the art that's been found so far, for example. One of the cutest bits
of Minoan art is one of the frescoes from the "Palace" of Knossos
which shows a big audience for some spectacle, possibly a dance or the
bull games. In front of a mixed-sex audience are some well-dressed
ladies who seem like they are pleasantly chatting with each other.
They are drawn in more detail than the others, who are drawn in
impressionistic squiggles, and they wear some colorful clothes -- long
skirts and short-sleeved shirts open in front, revealing their
breasts. It is thought that these ladies were some sort of Palace
staff, possibly priestesses.

    I may note that Minoan female fashion features some serious
Political Incorrectness -- women apparently expose their breasts on a
regular basis (Oh, no! Just like a Playboy centerfold!!) , and they
wear colorful, fancy skirts (Oh, no! They're slaves of fashion!!). And
they let their hair grow long!!! They certainly didn't wear flannel
shirts and blue jeans, and they certainly didn't cut their hair very
short; they certainly didn't dress like some of our society's
stereotypes of lesbians.

    And I hope you will have a chance to read in detail what she
has to say, than to rely on summaries that are little better than
caricatures.

>>    And I have not seen a detailed (yes, _detailed_) critique of
>>Marija Gimbutas's work from him. Maybe he's afraid of being proven
>>wrong :-) One-liners about Minoan goddesses wielding what look like
>>double axes don't count.

>True, he has not written such. Perhaps we can prod him into doing so? :)

>But if it's any consolation, I'm putting together a sort of "Goddess
>file" myself, bringing together in one place (for undoubtedly the first
>time) the reasons for doubting the nice cozy little picture that Gimbutas
>presents (which one of her colleagues terms her "Walt Disney" version
>of prehistory!). For now, that will have to do. :(

    I'm sure it's easy to snicker at Gimbutas's theorizing as
Goddess-worshipping romanticism. And I wouldn't want to have too rosy
a picture of the societies she discusses; for one thing, the technical
level was _very_ low by present-day standards.
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/[e-mail]