NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6725

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 1.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6725 soc.women:22028 sci.skeptic:21925
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!cs.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!darkwing.uoregon.edu!delancey
From: [e-mail] (Scott C DeLancey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas' "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 21:26:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: pith.1i519vINNl95
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: darkwing.uoregon.edu

I have no problem with Shaeffer's conclusions, or with most of his cited
material on Gimbutas, but he goes overboard in tossing in criticism of
Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis.  True, this is somewhat controversial, like
any other theory about prehistory, but it is by no means the same kind
of silliness as the "Idyllic Goddess" culture story.  In fact, some version
of it is widely accepted in scholarly circles, and it has both more
empirical support and more adherents than any competing story.

Remember that every claim ever made in archeology is controversial.  It
is unfair--and detracts considerably from the argument--to equate the
inevitable controversy about what is nevertheless an eminently respectable
theory, with the very different situation of unanimous rejection of
a clearly untenable theory, even when the two theories are the work of
the same individual.  The "Idyllic Goddess" story does depend on the
idea of Indo-European migrations into Europe, but the converse doesn't
hold--the theory of Indo-European invasions in no way depends on any
theory about what the pre-Indo-European culture was like.

Scott DeLancey                [e-mail]
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403