Neolithic matriarchy?

ancientpeoples:

 Once upon a time, the many cultures of this world were all part of the gynocratic age. Paternity had not yet been discovered…Childbirth was mysterious. It was vital. And it was envied. Women were worshipped because of it, were considered superior because of it…. Men were on the periphery—an interchangeable body of workers for, and worshippers of, the female center, the principle of life.

The discovery of paternity, of sexual cause and childbirth effect, was as cataclysmic for society as, say, the discovery of fire or the shattering of the atom. Gradually, the idea of male ownership of children took hold….

Gynocracy also suffered from the periodic invasions of nomadic tribes…. The conflict between the hunters and the growers was really the conflict between male-dominated and female-dominated cultures.

[W]omen gradually lost their freedom, mystery, and superior position. For five thousand years or more, the gynocratic age had flowered in peace and productivity. Slowly, in varying stages and in different parts of the world, the social order was painfully reversed. Women became the underclass, marked by their visible differences.[1]

The foregoing account was penned by Gloria Steinem in 1972. The theory of a Neolithic matriarchy, though, did not originate with her. It was advanced over a century before her by the Swiss philologist Johann Bachofen in his 1861 book, Das Mutterrecht.[2] It was popularized in the United States in the mid-twentieth century by psychologist Erich Neumann, then by Marija Gimbutas, and then, of course, by Gloria Steinem.[3]

The principal evidence for the theory consists of primitive artifacts depicting feminine shapes and images. The reasoning is that since people crafted female figurines during the Stone Age, it may be inferred that they must have worshipped goddesses.

Scholars recently have begun to question the soundness of this reasoning. Professor Lotte Motz, for example, correctly observes that Stone Age images of men and animals are just as numerous as images of women.[4] Moreover, there is no evidence that Stone Age female figurines were created for the purpose of goddess-worship. It is possible they were fertility symbols, sexual objects or simply artwork.[5] Finally, even if goddesses were worshipped in the Stone Age, that does not necessarily mean that women enjoyed higher social or political status than men. Examples of artistic exaltations of femininity and motherhood in patriarchal societies are plentiful.

According to Motz, “there clearly was … no imposition of a patriarchal system….”[6]

Women’s Studies Professor Cynthia Eller has characterized the Neolithic matriarchy theory as a myth driven by ideology, an inversion of antifeminism.[7]

Whether the first human social organizations were matriarchal, patriarchal or egalitarian may never be known. It is possible that they were matriarchal; it is equally possible that they were not. Without written records from the period, we have no real knowledge, and can only speculate.

In any case, even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that a Neolithic matriarchy existed, it is far from certain that women’s superior political and/or social position would have ensured them a superior right to the custody of children. Social hierarchical position and political power do not always correlate positively with child custody rights. In fact, the correlation, in many cases, appears to be an inverse one. In patriarchal cultures it is typically women, not men, who possess  superior rights to the custody of children, when the contest is between the mother and the father of a child. It is entirely possible that in a society ruled by women, men might have been confined to the role of tending to the children. Delegating the child-care role exclusively to men certainly would have afforded women the freedom and time they would have needed to go about the business of ruling the world.

The truth is that nobody knows whether prehistoric civilizations viewed children as the property of their mothers, their fathers, both or neither. Nobody knows how the issue of child custody was addressed. It is possible it was never addressed at all.

Law Office of Tom James Law Blogs www.tomjameslaw.com/blog


[1] Gloria Steinem, Introduction to William M. Marston, Wonder Woman (1972)

[2] Johann J. Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht (Stuttgart, Krais & Hoffmann 1861); cf. Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society (New York, H. Holt 1871)

[3] Marija Gimbutas, Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, 6500-3500 B.C. (1974); Erich Neumann, The Great Mother (Ralph Manheim trans., 1955); Steinem, supra note 1.

[4] Lotte Motz, The Faces of the Goddess (1997)

[5] See Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy 29 (1986)

[6] Motz, supra note 4 at 35.

[7] Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Wont Give Women a Future (2000)

Article written by tomjamesmn

posted 7 months ago 33074 souls || Reblog

genuinehuman:

From out of the bushes…

posted 7 months ago 2693 souls || Reblog

kiwibutt:

yessssssssss. Hes’s transparent~

(Source: kiwiggle, via yellowfur)

posted 7 months ago 6378 souls || Reblog

pc4sh:

IS IT OCTOBER YET?????

(via yellowfur)

posted 7 months ago 6832 souls || Reblog

dailynewsstop:

Marriott Carpet Men at DragonCon 2013

View Post

(via themooseofanna)

posted 7 months ago 7727 souls || Reblog

mookau:

This is definitely a portal to another world

(Source: crooksh4nks, via themooseofanna)

posted 7 months ago 457190 souls || Reblog

bryankonietzko:

brainbubblegum:

Tattoos always come back to haunt you…

This is brilliant!

(via incubus-tahno)

posted 7 months ago 4890 souls || Reblog

arswiss:

I’ve wanted to get this down for a while.  I have an interesting view when it comes to this.

I once heard someone call their body their “meatsuit” and it got me thinking.  What is a body?  Why do we place so much importance on it?  There are so many people that place judgement on a person for their body, but never stop to consider the person inside that body.  

My view is that our body is nothing more that our vehicle.  We can see the world though the eyes, hear sounds through the ears, and express our thoughts with the vocal chords.  But really what you and your body are are two entirely different things. And you leave your body behind when you die. 

I think a person should put more effort into bettering “themselves” before their “vehicle.”

Basically, I try to live my life by looking past a persons body, or “vehicle” and trying to see the person inside.  And it has helped me relate to people, it’s helped me look past differences, and it’s helped me kind of see that while we are all special, and we are all essentially equal.

(via incubus-tahno)

posted 7 months ago 187792 souls || Reblog