Did Women Once Rule The World?

[Dianna Vesta]

DV: Below is a very interesting and thought provoking article. It's not for everyone but what I find interesting is that in neolitic times women and sex were celebrated. Had the course of life remained on that path, where would porn be today?


*******************************************

In recent years archeologists have increasingly found more and more evidence of the possibility of a Matriarchal age in the past. Yet we do not hear about this in either the mainstream media or in the alternative press. Yet if what is being discovered now is true, we will have to re-write ancient history and rethink what is the true nature of human beings. Because what archeologists are now discovering suggests that in the stone age we were not the savage brutes as portrayed in academic speculation. But we were in fact peace loving people who worshipped a ancient deity called the Great Mother. Recent archeological evidence shows that the history of war and violence only began long after civilization got started.

The concept that women once ruled the world in ancient times is nothing new. It got started by a scholar called J.J Bachofen1 in the 19th century. He brought together all the evidence of matriarchy in ancient times then available. He was strongly criticized for this by other scholars who dismissed and discredited his work. Yet in spite of this, his work was to inspire the scholars James Frazer to write his famous book, "The Golden Bough". It also influenced Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who publicly praised Bachofen's work. As well as the famous psychologist Carl Jung who developed from it the theory that the ancient Great Mother was a very important archetype in the collective unconscious. 2 In spite of the condemnation of Bachofen the controversy wouldn't go away. Other scholars in the early 20th century also wrote about matriarchy like Robert Briffault,3 Jane Harrison4 and Dr Margaret Murray.5 But this argument was kept very much within academic circles. Then in the 1940s the poet Robert Graves wrote his book, "The White Goddess" which was the first attempt to bring this argument to the general public, even though it was a very complex book. Then on the wave of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s feminist scholars like Merlin Stone6 and Barbara G. Walker7 also continued to dig deep into ancient history to find more evidence of matriarchy in ancient times.

After the second world war archeologists started to make finds that was also supporting the idea that there was a matriarchal age in the past. This evidence was again dismissed by academics but feminist writers like Elizabeth Gould Davis8 who was brave enough to directly claim that women did once rule the world. And Riane Eisler9 who kept strictly to feminist dogma and claimed that in the matriarchal age the sexes were equal. But the biggest change in recent years is of archeological evidence that supports the ancient Golden Age myth. That has been written about in ancient Greek Legend, by the Taoist Chinese, and even in the Bible in the story of the Garden of Eden which comes from a Mesopotamian Golden Age legend. In fact most ancient cultures all over the world have a Golden Age myth of some kind.

Up until recently modern academics have rejected these legends as pure myth. Not only do they sound too good to be true. Recorded history shows a different story. It seems that the further you go back in history the more brutal and violent, men seem to behave. For instance to see gladiators fighting to death as a sport like in the Roman games would be unacceptable in every society today. Though it has to be admitted we still see war, genocide and torture in our modern world. So 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. In fact Archeologists at first refused to believe that these paintings could possibly made by Stone Age people. And it was only modern dating techniques that convinced them. Also the amount of feminine images found in both Stone-age and Neolithic sites showed that Stone age people may have other things on their mind other than violence. But academics dismissed these finds as being part of a fertility cult and never took them seriously. During the second half of the 20th century archeologists dug more and more into Neolithic sites and too much feminine imagery was being found to be lightly dismissed. And they began to find evidence that turned the idea that we were brutal savages in pre-historic times, on its head.

In the 1960s a archeologists called Mellaart lead a team to excavate a site in Anatolia in Turkey. This site turn out to be the oldest city ever discovered11. Called Catal Huyuk it goes back over 9,000 years. What was discovered goes against all assumptions archeologist have about people living in Neolithic times. They couldn't find any fortifications to defend the city or any weapons of war. Neither could they find signs of violence committed on people buried in graves. It was also a city full of feminine imagery to the degree that Mellaart was force to say that the people worshipped the Ancient Great Mother.

So unsettling was these discoveries that the site was closed down for thirty years and the academic world ignored the implications of this find. Because the prevailing view was that the first civilizations were created by warrior tribal leaders who conquered other tribes and then had to build fortifications and organize the people to defend himself. So to have the oldest city ever discovered that didn't have any sign of fortifications, weapons of war or signs of violence greatly contradicted this theory. As in many cases in science when new facts opposed a very popular and fashionable theory then it was the facts that are ignored until enough facts are produced to make the fashionable theory untenable. So most academics chose to ignore this find except one archeologist, Mariji Gimbutas, who was brave enough to challenge the accepted wisdom of the academic world.

She was to say boldly:

"Archeologists and historians have assumed that civilization implies a hierarchical political and religious organization, warfare, a class stratification, and a complex division of labor. This pattern is indeed
typical of androcratic (male dominated) societies such as Indo-European but does not apply to the gynocentric (mother/women-centred) cultures described in this book. The civilisation that flourished in Old Europe between 6500 and 3300 BC and in Crete until 1450 BC enjoyed a long period of uninterrupted peaceful living which produced artistic expression of graceful beauty and refinement, demonstrating a higher quality of life than many androcratic classed societies."12

The late Marija Gimbutas was digging in another Neolithic sites in Achilleion, Thessaly in Greece and also found finds, of feminine imagery and no sign of violence and warfare. Also in her books and scientific papers she highlight the Neolithic findings that archeologists had made at Lepenski Vir and Vlasac in Northern Yugoslavia. As well as the Neolithic findings by Soviet scientists in Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, and the Western Ukraine. Western archeologist had made similar finds in Crete, Cyprus, Thera, Sardinia, Sicliy and Malta. All showing peaceful societies that worshipped the Great Mother. Yet archeologists chose to ignore these findings, because they contradicted the belief of the time that civilization was started by warrior leaders. It was only Gimbutas who was brave enough to take these finds seriously and she became a very controversial figure.

Her work was for a long time forgotten and dismissed. But in more recent times other archeologists also made similar finds. In the excavation of Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan again archeologists could find no signs violence or weapons of war13. The same is true of Caral in Peru the oldest city ever discovered in South America, going back to 5,000 years. Given the violent history of later South American civilizations with mass human sacrifice, archeologists expected to find the same thing. But no matter how hard they looked they couldn't find any evidence of human sacrifice, warfare, fortifications or any other indication of violence. And they had to conclude that this civilization existed in peace for thousands of years. It seems that Caral wasn't just a isolated city, as archeologists found trading good at this site from all over South America. Demonstrating it was the center of a vast trading network that covered most of this continent. Which suggested that not only did Caral lived in peace, but this was true for the whole of South America at the time. 14

The overwhelming evidence of these finding have made more modern academics wonder if Mariji Gimutas might be right after all. Some archeologists are now supporting her like Richard Rudgley in his book "Lost Civilizations Of The Stone Age", and his TV series "Secrets Of The Stone Age".

So what is the implication of these findings?

As Richard Rudgley points out 95% of existence as humans is in pre-historic times. Yet we know so little about this time, it is only from the tools, paintings and carvings found in excavations can we get understanding of what life must of been like then. All carved and painted images found of human beings found in the Stone-age are overwhelmingly images of women. What Marija Gimbutas shows is that most of these images celebrate the whole process of birth from the sex act to breast feeding. It seems in prehistoric times menstruation, the vagina, the sexual act, giving birth, and breast feeding was seen as something divine, holy and sacred. This is in contrast to historic times where menstruation became taboo and unclean in many societies. The sex act also become sinful and dirty. It was also claimed that children were born in sin because they were born of women, and even breast feeding become shameful, as even now many women are reluctant to breast feed in public.

This is supported by the findings of Gimbutas who showed that the downfall of many of the peaceful Goddess civilizations was caused by violent patriarchal tribes invading them from the north. So it suggests that it was the invention of war that ended the last Golden Age. Where the new rulers behaved like Mafia bosses in imposing a reign of terror on the people to control them, and started a protection racket that was in effect the first taxation. Making the rulers very wealthy and forcing poverty onto the people. Who now had to, not only to work to feed and shelter themselves, but they had to work to feed the new rulers and their armies, as well as build them palaces and fortifications, and make arms and luxury goods. This is a clear case where men like Adam had to work by the sweat of their brow. While the new rulers encouraged men to no longer respect women and make them their slaves.

This is clearly seen in the contrast between the findings of the Neolithic age where we see a predominance of feminine images, and no evidence of warfare and violence. With the later iron age were we find more than anything else images of wars, violence as well as the glorification of kings, rulers, conquest and wealth. Archeologists in the iron age also find graves where people have clearly been put to death through violence. We also have the first myths of the hero who conquers other nations. As well as male gods who begins to lay down strict laws and punish those who dares to disobey them.

Now evidence of matriarchy doesn't only come from the past, the shocking fact is that the general public are completely unaware that there are many matriarchy communities that have survived up until the present day. The biggest is the The Minangkabau people in Western Sumatra and numbers about 4 million people and is the largest and most stable Matriarchal community in the world today15. In China there are also Matriarchal community16, 17. In India there is a region called Kerala18 which again is matriarchal and has a reputation of being a well run, stable and prosperous area. There is evidence of matriarchal communities that survived in Africa up until colonial times19. There are even American Indian tribes that are still Matriarchal20. I have been informed that there are over 150 matriarchal communities all over the world but you never hear about this in either the mainstream or alternative media.

So if we are looking for a conspiracy we have to wonder why all these facts have been kept concealed and covered up for so long. From the time when Bachofen first put forward the idea that there once was a matriarchal age in the past it seems that the establishment have worked very hard to conceal this fact. To the degree of destroying archeological sites. In Malta there is a very large Neolithic Goddess temple. The first archeology done on this temple was done by a Roman Catholic priest. His effort included rubbing off important and irreplaceable wall painting from the temple walls. Then digging up the temple floor and taken away all archeological evidence, which has now mysteriously disappeared21. This behaviour is not unusual, when the Christian Church or the state of Israel finance archeological excavations in the Israel what they find fits in with what is written in the Bible. But excavations carried out by universities who do not have any affiliation to the Christian Church or the state find something completely different. For instance in the homes of ordinary Jews of two thousand years ago and older they find statues of Goddesses. The evidence is that the ordinary people of Israel were still worshipping the Goddess Asherah up until the Roman occupation.

Suppression of evidence to do with matriarchy and Goddess worship goes back even further than this22. Dr Margaret Murray done research on the witch hunts in medieval Europe. What she discovered wasn't that the witch hunts were started by hysteria as commonly believed. But was a ruthless campaign by the Christian Church to destroy a Goddess religion that still existed among the peasant class. Going back even further when both the Christian Church and later on the Moslems became state religions, the first thing they done was to destroy as much as possible all ancient knowledge. As feminists scholars have pointed out there main targets have been Goddess Temples and female scholars of the time. It seems that from then on all evidence of a matriarchal age in the past has been suppressed or destroyed.

The reason for this is not hard to work out. If people in the last matriarchal age were worse off than people in historic times there wouldn't be a problem. Rulers in historic times could point to the fact that people are better off under their rule than people in the ancient past. But if the opposite is true then there is a real problem. If it become general knowledge that people in our matriarchal past were better off than people even today then that would become political dynamite. Because people then would ask the obvious question, "would we all be better off if we similar society as we had in Neolithic times?" That is to say a society that respected feminine values rather than masculine values23. This could create a world wide social revolution that would greatly undermine the power of our present ruling elite.

So the ruling elite does have a very good reason to suppress and destroy these facts. Graham Hancock recently has attempted to get archeologists interested in the possibility that there is ancient cities under the sea that was flooded by the melting of the ice of the last ice age. And was greatly puzzled that these archeologists showed no interest in this. But if the ruling elite are aware that more than likely these ancient cities were ruled by women they would have a very good reason to not want archeologists poking about these sites. Because finding indisputable proof that women did once rule the world is political dynamite and could start and political revolution that would sweep away the power of our present ruling establishment.


End

References

1. Bachofen, J.J. Myth, Religion And Mother Right
2. Gabon, W. Elinor The Once And Future Goddess
3. Briffault, Robert The Mothers
4. Harrison, Jane Prolegomena To The Study Of Greek Religion
5. Murray, Dr Margaret The Witch-Cult In Western Europe
6. Stone, Merlin When God Was A Woman
7. Walker, Barbara G. The Women's Encyclopedia Of Myths And Secrets
8. Davis, Elizabeth Gould The First Sex
9. Eisler, Riane The Chalice And The Blade
10. Rudgeley, Richard Lost Civilisations Of The Stone Age
11. Mellaart J. Catal Huyuk: A Neolithic Town In Anatolia
12. Gimbutas, Marija The Civilisation Of The Goddess
13. Great Civilisations, The Indus (TV program)
14. Horizon, The Lost Pyramids Of Caral (TV progam)
15. Sanday, Peggy Reeves Women At The Center: Life In A Modern Matriarchy
16. Abendroth, Heide Göttner The Mosuo as a Living Matriarchal Society
17. Cai Hua A Society Without Fathers Or Husbands
18. http://www.hinduismtoday.com/1996/2/#gen169
19. Meyerowitz, Eve The Akan Of Ghana. The Sacred State Of The Akan
20. Tile, Karin E. Kuna Crafts, Gender And The Global Economy
21. Hancock, Graham Underworld: Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age
22. http://www.suppressedhistories.net
23. http://www.promatriarchy.net

[Almighty Colin]

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.



Last edited by Colin at Nov 16 2002, 10:38 AM

[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?

[Winetalk.com]

I dunno what happened 30,000 years ago,
but today according to some paysite owners,
most of the women can't throw a pizza party for 4 years olds
;-)))

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 16 2002, 11:38 AM
I dunno what happened 30,000 years ago,
but today according to some paysite owners,
most of the women can't throw a pizza party for 4 years olds
;-)))

wow. Ok Serge. I didn't expect that from you but ok!

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Dianna Vesta+Nov 16 2002, 12:10 PM-->