Did Women Once Rule The World?

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 16 2002, 10:33 AM
Dianna,

An interesting article. At times, I have often wondered the same. One finds Venus figurines
throughout Europe and Asia dated to prehistoric times. I believe they are fairly prevalent over a wide area. However, there are many such instances of societies that worship goddesses that in historic times that still had men in the top political positions.

There are many reasons why the vast majority of scholars believe that societies have been largely patriarchal in the past. For one, as soon as historic times begin (once writing appears) positions of high political power are largely held by men. Not exclusively of course but largely so. If societies were mostly matriarchal in the past, the question would be "why the revolution?" Speculating on continuity makes much more sense than betting on change because many early societies did not have contact with each other. Why would matriarchal socities the world over suddenly become patriarchal with little contact between civilizations?

The following statement isnot true: "it has been assumed by archeologists and scholars that people in pre-historic times must of been even more brutal than people in historic times. The only findings that contradicted this was Palaeolithic cave art, found in France and Spain, which was so well executed that it undermined the belief that Stone Age people were ignorant brutes10". There is much evidence of man's brutal past including such evidence as ancient skulls with spear holes through them. Though it is true that many if not most anthropolohists do not think of ancient man as "ignorant brutes" and a majority probably once did. The part that is not true is that there is much evidence that man was brutal in the past. Large civilizations can really enhance the appearance of brutality because they have the ability to organize brutality. Murder rates in modern "primitive socities" (forgive the term) are very high when compared to our western norms however.

Also - if one looks at our closest living ancestors, the chimps, bonobos and other great apes, one finds patriarchal societies, often with several women per male leader. The degree of sexual dimorphism in humans is probably also a hint.

The underlying presumption that a society that is less violent is more likely to have a female leader or leaders has, as far as I know, no basis in fact.

There are always assumptions in anthropology and man, they can be many - sometimes to the point of annoyance. I think though, that if you tally the evidence, there is little evidence to suggest that societies were considerably more matriarchal in the past over a wide area and more to suggest they were patriarchal.

The real question is what about the future? I think balance will be the rule there - eventually.

I knew at least you would read this and reply.

I'm going to get back to this. OK?