Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Prepare to cast your mind back, and follow me on a journey through
    Time.  Ready?

		*		*		*		*

    It is mumble thousand years ago, maybe ten thousand years.  A human
    is sitting on a tanned animal skin on the ground, her back braced
    against a tree.  She is knapping a flint with a bit of antler, using
    a padding of hide against her knee as her work platform.  It is a
    bit awkward, for she is very pregnant.  (Well, that is why she is
    here.  She can no longer chase down the game, not only because she
    has difficulty in running, but because certain ligaments in her
    groin have loosened, and she could injure herself permanently.)

    Occasionally she takes a break from demonstrating her excellent
    small muscle control, and looks around her.  This, like most activities
    in a hunter-gatherer culture, is dull, boring work.  She sees,
    among many other things, a few seeds of grain that were spilled in
    the gathering near the riverbank on the day before.

    She continues her work over many days, turning out razor-edged
    knives for dinner, blunter scrapers for hides, an occasional barbed
    spear point.  She notices the seeds change shape and color, and
    eventually she sees them sprout.  This gives her an idea.

		*		*		*		*

    It is now only six thousand years ago.  The long-ago development
    of agriculture has enabled humanity to begin the slow climb up the
    exponential growth curve of prosperity.  The small bands which the
    hunter-gatherer culture could support have grown to large communities
    of dozens, even hundreds, of people in a fixed, agricultural setting.

    This is a city.  Most people farm, in the area beyond the buildings.
    Some people spin flax into thread, and thread into linen clothes.
    Other mold and fire clay pots.  There are many occupations.

    There is a Council of Elders, composed of women who no longer bear
    children, and of men who no longer join the hunt.  There is a
    priesthood, and all the women are part of this.  They conduct the
    worship of the Triple Goddess, she who brought forth the world
    from her womb, she who governs birth, growth, and death.  Men
    partake of worship of the goddess by lying with the priestesses in
    the temple and feeling the love of the goddess course through them.

    The wealth of the city is in the hands of the women, which is only
    right.  Women make the grain grow.  Even if they smile and say that
    grain will grow for anyone who sows it right and tends it well, the
    grain really must have been touched by a Mother to make it grow.
    Things grow when women bless them, even the one-eyed serpent that
    all men have.

    							Ann B.

    The concept of the Triple Goddess is very ancient, widespread, and
    consistant.  She is Maiden, Matron, and Crone, representing the
    natural cycle of Birth, Life, and Death.  Because nature is cyclic
    and because humans have trouble believing in their own ending, it
    was believed that death led to re-birth.  One returned to the womb
    of the Great Mother (the Earth), and was born again.

    The Goddess is associated with the moon, for many reasons.  The
    moon has phases, passing endlessly through the same cycle, thirteen
    times a year.  It is a cycle of birth, growth, fullness, dying,
    death and rebirth.  Before the invention of artificial lighting,
    all the women in a community would enter their menstrual periods
    at the same time, since women's menstrual cycle is linked to the moon
    by its stimulation of the pineal gland in the brain.  Also, even
    in situations of artificial lighting, women's natural pheromones
    `force' all the women in a group into synchronized menstruation.

    Experientially, menstruation is a significant marker in any
    pre-industrial culture.  A girl becomes a woman when she begins
    this cycle.  A woman bleeds without being wounded, and bleeds
    without pain, a unique situation.  A woman who was not menstruating
    was a pregnant woman or a nursing mother.  A woman left this cycle
    with menopause, only when she had reached an advanced age and
    [presumed] wisdom.

    Given this, it is very easy to understand that all (?) very ancient
    peoples therefore believed that women had control of some great magic,
    magic that involved the moon, their menstrual blood and creation.
    The thinking might go something like this:

    Women all bleed together when the moon is right.  Yet there was no
    wound made, and the blood gives them no pain.  Surely the women have
    a strong magic with the moon.  A woman who does not bleed soon has
    a baby growing in her belly, and women give birth to all the people. 
    Men cannot do this; they have no part in any of this.  Only a woman
    can become a Mother, and what is important beside that?

    All of creation must have come from a Great Mother.  How else could
    it be?  Animals come out of their mothers.  Grain and fruit swell
    like a pregnant woman.  Every person in the community was born of
    a Mother, and she was helped in her birth by the other Mothers.  And
    the moon!  Women follow the moon.  And grain and flowers follow the
    sun.  It is all the same.  One Great Mother must have given birth
    to everything.

    							Ann B.

    Early civilizations were agricultural in nature, because there was
    no other culture which could provide the physical and economic
    security necessary to produce those artifacts which we recognize
    as "civilization".  As would seem inevitable, given the cyclic
    nature of agriculture, all these civilizations worshipped the
    feminine principle, in the form of a Great Mother who controlled
    birth, life, and death, and in the form of the women of the group,
    the personification of the Great Mother and, if necessary, her
    intermediary.

    Men were the consorts of women, and therefore a man was the consort
    of the Goddess.  Since women were the priesthood, landowners, and
    lawgivers, the Goddess was probably represented by the High Priestess,
    who was also the Queen.  The man married to her became the king.
    However, in a primitive agricultural society, this meant that he
    entered the cycle of death and rebirth.  Traditionally, he was
    ritually slain at the end of a fixed term of office (In later times,
    it would be when his potency failed.), and his body was returned to
    the earth (sometimes in pieces) to fructify the soil and ensure
    the crops.

    Outside of this, men were not second-class citizens or even victims.
    There is evidence that there were men in the Councils of Elders
    (the usual governing body).  They seem to have done what they were
    good at: hunting and fighting.  There was a custom of marriage for
    the general population, but it does not seem to be associated either
    with sacrifice or with sexual fidelity, just with ownership and control
    of property.

    Yet marriage was unnecessary (except for considerations of love,
    comfort, stability, etc.).  Women controlled the means of
    production, and owned most of the wealth.  There was no concept
    of bastardy.  If a man wanted to engage in sexual activity, he went
    to the temple, and worshipped the Great Goddess with one of the
    priestesses, for a deeply satisfying religious experience.

    After the rise of agriculture, there came into being [semi?] nodamic
    tribes, who lived off their flocks of sheep and goats, trading with
    the agricultural communities for what else they needed.  Such tribes
    would sometimes try to avoid the inconveniences of trade, by raiding
    to take what they wanted.  The men of the agricultural communities
    came into the spotlight; they were the principle defense against
    these outrages, and it was either the queen or her consort who led
    these forces.

    Sometime during this era, the Great Secret was discovered:  Men took
    part in the procreation of new life.  They were not entirely outsiders;
    they were a part (however briefly) of the process.

    The actual discovery seems to have been made by one of these nodamic
    tribes, -- or at least they took it most to heart -- and it had a
    very interesting result.  A woman always gives birth to her own child,
    so in a matrilineal society there is no doubt about who inherits the
    goods and possessions of the previous generation.  A woman's goods
    pass to her children, generally her daughters.  Her sons can marry
    into wealth and position.  Things are different in a society which
    cares about patrimony.  If a man wishes to know who his children are
    (and who they are not, so he does not expend his efforts on another
    man's child), then he must control the sexual activities of any woman
    by whom he wishes to bear children.  Since fertility was (and still
    is) such a mysterious area, it was considered best to control all the
    activities of all the women at all times.  It made for a very different
    social arrangement.

    Eventually, some of these agriculture-based cities fell to the
    attacks of the nomads, perhaps only because the nomads had so much
    less to lose, and so much more to gain.  The two cultures, conquered
    and conqueror, woman-based and man-based, continued in conflict.
    Some of this can be seen in various myths and legends.  Sometimes
    the woman-based culture seeped back into control, sometimes it did
    not.

    But generally the Triple Goddess was not entirely forgotten.

    							Ann B.

    Eventually, writing was invented, and people wrote down what they
    believed.  Like all of archaeology, what people wrote was in layers,
    the oldest and skimpiest at the bottom, the newer and more complete
    on the top.  Often too, then as now, people forgot, mostly, that
    things had ever been different from the way they were in the Now.

    According to a very old Sumero-Babylonian myth, the Goddess Mother
    (Babylonian Tiamat; Sumerian Nammu) created the world.  From her
    formless body the world was split, (bringing light, as with any birth)
    into Heaven and Earth.  Her menstrual blood flowed for three years and
    three months as the very fluid of creation.  The Red Sea was the
    reservoir which held it.

    A later version said that her male consort, Apsu, fertilized her
    abyss.  (Tiamat means "The Deep".)  A still later one held that Tiamat
    was the salt waters (blood) of the earth and Apsu was the sweet waters,
    and it was their churning together (like butter from cream) which
    produced the first creatures.  First was Mummu (meaning mother, or
    churning), then a pair of serpents, which gave birth to the sky and
    the earth, and those in turn gave birth to the gods, male and female.
    A still later version stated that Marduk, the son of Tiamat, created
    the world by splitting the great serpent (Tiamat) into heaven and earth.

    In the Old Testament, it is Elohim (literally, "the goddesses and
    the gods") who takes the dark, formless world which is also the
    Deep (in Hebrew, "Tehom[at]"), creates light, and splits the world
    into Heaven and Earth.

    In the oldest of Sumero-Babylonian myths, humanity was first created
    by Mami (or Mammitu).  She made them out of clay, and gave them life
    by mixing in her own blood.  The first of the male humans was
    named Adamu, meaning bloody clay.  In the Assyrian version of this,
    it was the goddess, "Mother-Womb, Creatress of Destiny", who made
    humanity out of clay; inscriptions say "in pairs she completed them."
    In a later Sumero-Babylonian myth, Mami made humanity from the blood
    of a god slain by Ea (Enki, god of the waters (Apsu)), and in a
    still later one, Marduk created humanity from his own blood.

    In the Old Testament, Elohim "male and female he created them."
    YHWH (It is a different name.) created man (male only) from dust,
    breathed life into him, and named him Adam.

    In the Babylonian civilization, when a woman was giving birth, she
    called upon Mami and Ninti (or Nintud) for aid.  Ninti means Lady
    of Life, and Lady of the Rib.  Babylonians believed that the bones
    of a baby were formed from the ribs of its mother.

    In the Old Testament, YHWH created woman from the rib of Adam.

    Again, in a very old Sumero-Babylonian myth, the goddess (Naama,
    Nahemah, Namrael) created only a male human, and coupled with him
    herself to create the start of humanity.  In a later version,
    the gods, fearing that Adamu would become immortal if he ate from
    the Tree of Life, told him that that fruit would kill him if he
    ate it.  He therefore refused it [?when it was offered to him by
    Naama?], and so remained mortal.

    In the Old Testament, the woman, Eve, eats the fruit of the Tree
    of Good and Evil, although YHWH had told her not to (or Adam told
    her that YHWH had told him -- it is unclear), and Adam eats of it
    as well.  This brings death into the world for all creatures.

    In the New Testament, this action is declared to be Original Sin.    

    							Ann B.

    Through the use of these myths, we see ideas about the world change
    in synchronization with changes from a matrilineal society to a
    patriarchal one.  The idea of a goddess who creates the world from
    her own body changes to the idea of a god separate from the world
    of his creation.  The idea that women and men are equal in the eye
    of the goddess changes to the idea that women are subordinate to
    men.  The idea that woman brings life changes to the idea that woman
    brings death.  The idea that death is a natural part of nature
    changes to the idea that death is an externally-imposed punishment.

    The nature of the differences in religions was studied in the
    lengthy seminar, "Monotheism and the World Religions".  It was
    proposed that differentiations could profitably be made by determining
    whether "confrontation" or "interiority" was the best way to
    describe the <whatever> under consideration.  Dissatisfaction
    with this hammer was expressed, but it was noted that thereafter
    a lot of their problems and questions looked like nails.  (For
    example, Pagels realized that 100% of the Gnostic Gospels rejected
    as heretical by the Christian Church were 100% "interior", while
    100% of the accepted Christian Gospels were at least partially
    "confrontational".)

    Since the term "confrontation" now evokes the word "superpowers",
    and since we now realized the dangers, ecological and otherwise,
    of considering ourselves separate from nature, we just might get
    the uneasy feeling that we misplaced something valuable along
    with the Great Goddess.

    						Ann B.

    Ann,
    Thank you so much for entering this.  I can't tell you how much
    it means to me personally.  I don't know what it will take to bring
    our world back into balance... but the inner faith I have always
    had in the Goddess (and the inner rage that I have always felt when
    She was under attack) are calmed by your words.  I know that, ...
    one day, Her truth will gently permeate our world once again and
    our society will find comfort in her gentleness.

    

    Marvelous, Ann. Thank you.
    
    

    Very interesting, Ann.  However, might I enquire as to why you placed
    this information in WOMANNOTES?  It seems to be a *bit* more suited
    to the RELIGION conference.  I think there is enough heated debate
    in this conference already without introducing religion.
    
    Dave
    

    Dave,
    
    I think that it helps us understand the world of today better
    when we understand the past that we have come from...
    
    Bonnie

    Why here?
    
    ...because this is a spin-off from the note on the "dehumanization
    of women", which base note thereof, was on this particular tack.
    
    I believe the explanation is in *this* basenote, and so far as I'm
    concerned, it's entirely appropriate.
    
    Dawn
    

    I agree too. The explaination is much better as presented here.
    Thanx Ann.

    Might I ask, where did you get this??
    also, I DO believe MEN had to have SOMETHING to do with it!
    

Re -.1

>    Might I ask, where did you get this??
>    also, I DO believe MEN had to have SOMETHING to do with it!
    
For starters, try reading "The Chalice And The Blade"  by Riane Eisler.
It contains an excellent summary of feminist scholarship in the areas of
archaeology and history.  The footnotes contain many references to other
works if you desire to study further.  I believe all of the works mentioned
in .0 were also mentioned in this book.

/Mike

    Thank you, I will look for it.

Thank you, Ann.  One of my favorite subjects, and much more relevant to 
women's situation in the world than many folks might think...

    Thank you. This is the first time I've made it into this notesfile
    since the beginning of October and I'm very glad to see this note.
    
    I have looked for a copy of THE CHALICE AND THE BLADE in many
    bookstores, in Cambridge and in New York City, but I have not
    found a copy -- most told me the book was backordered at the
    distributor level.  If anyone knows of a store carrying this
    book, please let me know.
    
    Pat

RE: .0-.5

Quite good writing, Ann!

RE: .5

"The idea that women and men are equal in the eye of the goddess changes to the
idea that women are subordinate to men."

It sounds to me like your ancient history is as female sexist as recent history
has been male sexist!

Perhaps men have never had to fear as much of physical abuse from women, as
women have from men, but women have never had to treat (all) men as gods,
either! 

Are we on a cyclical path?  Are we circling back to female sexism?

RE: .10

"...because this is a spin-off from the note on the "dehumanization of women",
which base note thereof, was on this particular tack."

If .0-.5 is the "dehumanization of woman", then right now, we are going through
a "dehumanization of man".

RE: .12

I don't get your point.

Jim.

     RE:  .17

>"The idea that women and men are equal in the eye of the goddess changes to the
>idea that women are subordinate to men."

!It sounds to me like your ancient history is as female sexist as recent history
!has been male sexist!

    	How interesting.  You think that the idea that "women and men
    	are **EQUAL**" is female sexism.  What do you see as a non-sexist
    	society, then?  Do you think the "natural order" of things should
    	be that women are subordinate to men (but by a lesser degree
    	than "recent history"?  
    
!Perhaps men have never had to fear as much of physical abuse from women, as
!women have from men, but women have never had to treat (all) men as gods,
!either! 

    	Where did you get the idea that *ALL* women were treated as
    	goddesses?
    
    							Suzanne....

    
    
    
    
    
    
    		I do believe there were civilizations before us.
                
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

RE: .18

"You think that the idea that "women and men are **EQUAL**" is female sexism."

No.  I think that what is portrayed here, is not equality.

Examples of Female sexism a history: (RE: .0-.5)

"Occasionally she takes a break from demonstrating her excellent small muscle
control,"

Implying that (equally trained) men do not have excellent small muscle control??

"This gives her an idea."

Implying that agriculture was discovered by women?? Implying that most
discoveries were by women??

"There is a priesthood, and all the women are part of this... Men partake of
worship of the goddess by lying with the priestesses in the temple" 

Men cannot be in the priesthood??  May be involved only in a subservient role???

"The wealth of the city is in the hands of the women, which is only right."

But not men; that would be wrong??

"Women make the grain grow."

But not men??

"Things grow when women bless them,"

But not men??

"all these civilizations worshipped the feminine principle..."

But not the 'male principle'??

"...in the form of the women of the group,"

????

"Men were the consorts of women"

But not men!!

"Since women were the priesthood, landowners, and lawgivers"

But not men!!

"[the King] was ritually slain at the end of a fixed term of office"

worse then wife beating!!

"Women controlled the means of production, and owned most of the wealth."

But not men!!

"A woman's goods pass to her children, generally her daughters.  Her sons can
marry into wealth and position."

Try reversing the sexes, and see if it sounds familiar???

THIS IS NOT EQUALITY!!!

It is not my purpose to pick apart Ann's writing, or dispute it, but

THIS IS NOT EQUALITY!!!

Perhaps the sexism is not in history, itself, but in the account of history,
or both, but there is certainly female sexism here.

Perhaps, because the references are unknown to me, it make it difficult for me
to swollow them wholeheartedly.  Yet, if I wish to learn, I must be open minded.
Yet, if I wish to hold the truth, I must not be so open minded that my brains
fall out on the floor. 

RE: -.2

"What do you see as a non-sexist society, then?"

That deserves it's own note; is there one?

"Do you think the "natural order" of things should be that women are subordinate
to men (but by a lesser degree than "recent history"?"

No.

"Where did you get the idea that *ALL* women were treated as goddesses?"

See above. 
        
Jim.

    	RE:  .20
    
    	Jim, you sound upset.  Does it bother you that much to even
    	imagine what it must have been like for men to be subordinate
    	to women?  Gee, can't imagine why.  Maybe you hate or are
    	angry at all women.  (Does ***THAT*** sound familiar at all?)
    
    	The things you describe are, indeed, somewhat similar to the way
    	men treated women later.  Why do you see male subservience
    	as "men had to worship all women as Goddesses" and don't see
    	that women **ALSO** have had to regard men the same way in
    	the centuries since then?
    
    	Don't be so upset about a lesson in history.  All it shows is
    	that both sexes have had turns at being dominant in our culture.
    	In these enlightened times, we should be able to face that and
    	realize that neither sex belongs in control of the other (although
    	*both* have been capable of it in the past.)
    
    	Just *knowing* that we have each been dominant at one time or
    	another is a good and powerful thing for us to keep in mind,
    	in my opinion.
    
    							Suzanne...

RE: .21

"Jim, you sound upset."

Not particularly...

"Does it bother you that much to even imagine what it must have been like for
men to be subordinate to women?"

Yes, as much as it bothers me to think what it must have been like for women to
be subservient to men. ... Not, I take that back; I feel more for the women
being subservient, because I can't imagine myself being subservient, but I can
imagine women being subservient.

"Maybe you hate or are angry at all women.  (Does ***THAT*** sound familiar at
all?)"

Boringly familiar...

"The things you describe are, indeed, somewhat similar to the way men treated
women later."

BINGO!

"Why do you see male subservience as "men had to worship all women as Goddesses"
and don't see that women **ALSO** have had to regard men the same way in the
centuries since then?"

I don't know a point where women had to do that.

Jim.

    	RE:  .22
    
    	***NEITHER*** do you know of a point that *men* had to worship
    	*women* as goddesses.
    
    							Suzanne...
    

        Re .23,
        
        Greek, Roman,  Indian  to  name  but three where men worshipped
        female deities...
        
        

    
    	RE:  .24
    
    	yes, but Jim was talking about worshipping *all* women (or men)
    	as deities.  
    
    
    
    

        I saw  it  -  I  was  replying  to your .23 which didn't really
        address the point...
        

    Jim,

    In your first reply, you wrote, "but women have never had to
    treat (all) men as gods".

    Nowhere did I write that at any time did men have to treat ~all
    women~ as "gods" (and that word should be "goddesses" :-), nor
    (as far as we can tell) were men ever required to worship all women.
    They were urged to give their wives a great deal of respect, as much
    as they gave their mothers, and in at least one culture the wife
    did indeed become the husband's "goddess of the hearth".  Still,
    in Rome, for the hearth goddess there was a male "Great Maker of
    the Path", and why should this not be true for every wife and
    husband?

    Second, in the Bible, in First Corinthians 11:3, it says "...the
    head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband..."
    The Brahminists were told, "Though of bad conduct or debauched,
    a husband must always be worshipped like a god by a good wife."
    Both of these tell me that a wife is supposed to worship one man
    as a god.  (The former also tells me that St. Paul did not have as
    his primary vision of "woman" a person who could be married or
    unmarried.)

    		*		*		*

    To answer those (later) questions which you thought were rhetorical:


    Q:  Implying that (equally trained) men do not have excellent small
    muscle control??

    A:  That's right.  Modern science has performed tests, and
    ascertained this.  I would not have mentioned it otherwise.
    (And I was tempted to put in a smiley face, but decided it was
    unesthetic.)

    Q:  Implying that agriculture was discovered by women?? 

    A:  That's right.  Anthropologist-archaeologists are coming to
    this conclusion, partly by observing modern hunter-gatherer
    cultures.

    Q:  Implying that most discoveries were by women??

    A:  No.  You made up that implication out of thin air.

    Q:  Men cannot be in the priesthood??

    A:  That was right, for a very long time.  Then a man who was willing
    to castrate himself (to become more like a woman) could become a
    priest.  Later that requirement was dropped -- in some religions.
    Many early Christians castrated themselves to better serve their
    deity.  (Eventually this practice was discouraged.)

    Q:  May be involved only in a subservient role???

    A:  No.  I have here photographs of several clay plaques.  Two
    show either the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) or a random man
    and priestess.  They are lying side by side on a bed  (Most
    people slept on the floor.  This is how archaeologists know this
    is a temple scene.) and are clearly in the early stages of making
    love.  Such plaques (in lead as well as clay) are common.  Looking
    at these plaques it is easy to see that men were equal partners
    in these rituals; they just could not take a role for which they
    were biologically unsuited.  (Giving birth, in case you were wondering.)

    Q:  But it would be wrong for men to hold wealth??

    A:  Men were entitled to possessions and money.  (Compare and
    contrast with 19th century America.)  They earned them and
    inherited them.  Even so, women were expected to take over a man's
    debts upon marriage, but if the couple was agreed, this was not
    required.  However, women did own the means of production.  They
    were the ones who had originally laid out the fields (tiny by our
    standards, remember), sowed, tended, and reaped.  They were the
    ones who expanded production.  They were the ones who made lasting
    buildings feasible.  They OWNed those things.  Their children
    inherited those things, and mostly it was their girl children,
    perhaps for sentiment, but also for practical reasons.  A
    hunter-soldier can't bring an orchard or field with him; he must
    leave it in the care of a skilled, trustworthy person who is not
    going off like he is.  That person is a woman.  And if he doesn't
    come back...  (If he came back wounded, there was someone to care
    for him.)

    Q:  But men do not make the grain grow??  Things do not grow when
    men bless them??

    A:  You were not paying attention when I described what happened
    after the king (or priest-king, as such a man is generally called)
    was ritually slain.  His remains were used to fructify the fields,
    and guarantee the crop.

    Q: None of these civilizations worshipped the 'male principle'??

    A:  How could they until they learned that there was one?

    Q:  Men were the consorts of women  But not men!!

    A:  What do you want here anyhow?  Family descended in the female
    line, which was the only line that anyone could be sure of.  Therefore
    inheritance was in the female line.  A man became king by marrying
    the queen.  BUT.  He was then king, lawgiver, ruler, etc.

    	"[Inanna,] Give [Dumuzi] a favorable and glorious reign.
    	Grant him the king's throne, firm in its foundations.
    	Grant him the shepherd's staff of judgment.
    	Grant him the enduring crown with the radiant and noble
    		diadem.
    	...
    	Let his shepherd's staff protect all of Sumer and Akkad."

    (This is a late poem.  Earlier Inanna married the farmer, not the
    shepherd.)

    Q:  "[the King] was ritually slain at the end of a fixed term of office"
    worse then wife beating!!

    (You seem to have left questions by this point.)

    A:  What price would you pay for immortality?  We still know who
    Gilgamesh is, who Dumuzi is.  (His Semitic name is Tammuz, as in
    Ezekiel 8:14.)  We know Adonis, Osiris, Attis....  What price do
    you think anyone would pay to be Savior of his people?

    Still, how is it worse?  1. It is only one man in the entire community.
    2.  He is a volunteer.  3.  He knew his fate before he volunteered.
    4.  He lives well, and is deeply respected.  5.  He is the salvation
    of his community.  6.  His death is quick, and relatively painless.

    In this season of the year, it is especially amusing to be able to
    point to the scarecrows hanging in the fields.  As any farmer will
    tell you, not one has ever scared away a single crow.  Yet it hangs
    there in the fertile field for a reason:  This is the ritual corpse
    of the ritual slaying of the ritual king, after centuries of emendation.

    Here is the cruel sexism of women personified.

    							Ann B.    

Ann,
	Thanks for entering this! 1 little thing bothers me though
	(had to be something, right? :^)) :

  re: .1
>    This, like most activities
>    in a hunter-gatherer culture, is dull, boring work.

	Why oh why do sooo many people assume a hunter-gatherer's life
	is dull and boring? Have you ever tried making stone tools?
	It is great fun, requires much skill, and allows for a great
	deal of creativity. Just my opinion of course, but, I'll take
	a hunter-gatherer lifestyle over any 'civilized' lifestyle
	anytime. (if only the 'civilized' cultures hadn't destroyed so
	much of the world).

	As far as I'm concerned the only good thing to come out of
	civilisation is the sailboard. :^)

		Back to read-only...
			Robert.

RE: .22

"***NEITHER*** do you know of a point that *men* had to worship *women* as
goddesses."

To quote Ann...

"all these civilizations worshipped the feminine principle ... in the form of
the women of the group," 

RE: .25

You misquote me...

RE: .27

You wrote the above; you mentioned, "worship", not "respect".  I think that
my singling it out is a bit stronger then you meant, but you did say "worship".

If you are going to quote the Bible, I suggest that you include all of the
quotes relating men and women.  In many places, the Bible says 'women must do
X', and then says 'men must do the counterpart of X'.  I suspect that the
Brahminists do likewise. 

The fact that people *do* ignore one side or the other, depending on what they
want to prove, is a problem; obviously both men and women do that!

Modern science determined that females in our society have better small muscle
coord then males *in our society*.  This is conditioning.

RE: rest

I repeat; this is not equality.  I will not argue the truthfullness of your
'history'.

RE: .28

I find a lot of things that many people consider boring, exciting.

Jim.

    Jim,
    
    I believe that science has shown that girls develop small muscle
    control faster and better than boys and boys develop large muscle
    control faster and better when they are little kids. This appears
    to be biological. 
    
    Bonnie

    Reply to .28; Nicolazzo,
    
    Ok, try making 3 flint knives, cleaning 10 hides, tending a field,
    cooking over gosh knows what kind of a fire, cleaning 500 heads
    of corn, sewing up the 10 hides with a bone needle, suckling the little
    ones, cleaning the mud hut (or whatever passed as a home), and putting
    up with a grumpy hunter that neither caught any rabbits nor found
    any roots.
    
    After years of this I'm sure you'd find it dull, boring work.

    
    	I've heard before that it was a big turning point when men
    discovered their role in producing a baby; the A + B gives C
    relationship. I've also heard that the women knew all about this
    before man, they just didnt bother to explain it to them.
    
    	Stone rows in New England always run and intersect in threes;
    three in parallel, a "T" or a "Y". Since these were likely built
    by American Indians to adorn the land, I wonder if there is any
    connection to the "Triple Goddess"? (American Indians were also
    known to be Earth Mother worshipers)                           
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    Reply to .32; Jasniewski,
    
    The Triple Goddess is relatively a Mediterinian phenomena. I rather
    doubt that the Amerindians knew about her unless we assume that some
    Celts made their way across the Atlantic pond accidently. 

    
    	There's no reason to believe that the first contact North America
    had with Europeans was through the "Pilgrims". A good friend of
    mine is trying to show that archeological constructs here in New
    England *are* Celtic - either in origin or in influence. NE may
    have been inhabited 10, 20 maybe even 40,000 years ago.
    
    	He has stones shaped in the classic "Earth Mother" profile...
    
    	Joe
    

    Well, "Mediterranean" in the sense of being the heart of the Old
    World, but we do find strong indications of the worship of the
    Triple Goddess from Ireland to Malaya.
    
    Walker (whom I do not trust) writes, "Even in pre-Columbian Mexico
    the Virgin Goddess who gave birth to the Savior Quetzalcoatl was
    a trinity, one of `three divine sisters.'"  She cites Joseph
    Campbell's _The_Masks_of_God:_Primitive_Mythology_ (1959) page
    458 for this.  I'd expect to find a reference to a youthful goddess
    as the mother of Quetzalcoatl, without any of the elaboration
    Walker gives.  If Campbell says that the sisters are all different
    ages, and this one is the youngest, then we could tentatively give
    this as a New World reference.
    
    							Ann B.

Re: .32:

    	Stone rows in New England always run and intersect in threes;
    three in parallel, a "T" or a "Y". Since these were likely built
    by American Indians to adorn the land, I wonder if there is any
    connection to the "Triple Goddess"? (American Indians were also
    known to be Earth Mother worshipers)                           
    
Nonsense.  Since I've been orienteering for a year or two, I've become
quite familiar with New England stone walls.  They intersect in every
combination one can imagine.  Two walls can intersect in a V or T,
three in a Y, and 4 in an X.  My understanding is that they were
built by farmers in the early 1800's at the edge of their fields from
the stones that appeared during spring thaw.

Martin.

    

    I believe she said "stone rows" though Martin, not "stone walls".

    Actually, most (if not all) tripple goddesses in Europe, Asia, and
    Asia minor are derivitives of Kali.
    
    Elizabeth

    
    	Yet, there are stone rows up hillsides, into swamps and many
    other places that arent fields and seem unsuitable for farming.
    They differ from the farmer's walls in that there are no right angles,
    nothing is ever square, etc. It's likely that many have been modified
    to suit another purpose; I find it interesting when I see one get
    "squared up" as it approaches a farmhouse.
    
    	I've heard one estimate of 170 *miles* of stone rows in Boxboro
    alone.
    
    	Many times, just following one will take you to someplace special.
    It may be a well, or waterfall, or perhaps a very large rock that's
    just "there" in the middle of the woods. They seem to connect points
    on the landscape, rather than border them. I think they represent
    an incredible expense of effort, for reasons unknown   
    
    	Joe
    

re: .39:

    	Yet, there are stone rows up hillsides, into swamps and many
    other places that arent fields and seem unsuitable for farming.

Yup, one reason why a large part of the New England population moved
to Ohio (and points west) in the early 1800's.
    
    	Many times, just following one will take you to someplace special.
    It may be a well, or waterfall, or perhaps a very large rock that's
    just "there" in the middle of the woods. They seem to connect points
    on the landscape, rather than border them. I think they represent
    an incredible expense of effort, for reasons unknown   

Good way to layout a field -- in the absence of a town surveyor, not
to mention a town.  My 1:15000 map of the Boxford State Forest shows
a large number of trapezoid-shaped fields, many boardering (but not
passing through) swamps.  On the other hand, I have run into stone
walls that seem to start "nowhere" and go "nowhere."

The "incredible expense of effort" that went into making stone walls
was necessary if you planned to plow the land around here.

Martin.
    

re: .39 & .40:

>>    	Yet, there are stone rows up hillsides, into swamps and many
>>    other places that arent fields and seem unsuitable for farming.
>
>Yup, one reason why a large part of the New England population moved
>to Ohio (and points west) in the early 1800's.

    That is not to mention the minor point that things that look like
    forest and swamps today frequently looked like fields 100-250 years
    ago.  There are some interesting mid 1800s accounts of Vermont which
    mention that every acre of the state with soil was farmed.  According
    to that, most of the current Vermont forests are <150 years old.
    
>>    	Many times, just following one will take you to someplace special.
>>    It may be a well, or waterfall, or perhaps a very large rock that's
>>    just "there" in the middle of the woods. They seem to connect points
>>    on the landscape, rather than border them. I think they represent
>>    an incredible expense of effort, for reasons unknown   
>
>Good way to layout a field -- in the absence of a town surveyor, not
>to mention a town.  My 1:15000 map of the Boxford State Forest shows
>a large number of trapezoid-shaped fields, many boardering (but not
>passing through) swamps.  On the other hand, I have run into stone
>walls that seem to start "nowhere" and go "nowhere."
>
>The "incredible expense of effort" that went into making stone walls
>was necessary if you planned to plow the land around here.

    Once you take the rocks out of the soil you plan to plow, what do
    you do with them?   Pile them up along the edge of the field   8^{).

    All of this discussion indictates that the vast majority of "stone
    rows" that a layman would discover in New England are really the
    artifacts of Colonial and later era farmers.  It does not mean there
    aren't any pre-colonial stone rows.  It does not even mean that the
    pre-colonial stone rows that might exist were the edges of fields
    farmed by Amerinds.  All it means is that the evidence is hard to
    find.

    Dick

    We have lots of stone walls behind my parents' house, which is now
    110 acres of conservation land (mostly swamp and skunk cabbage,
    but it's still woods to me) and there are lots of stone walls. 
    But that area was an agricultural area (asparagus fields, pig farms,
    etc) a long time ago, so the walls probably divided the lands.
    
    I watched an interesting documentary on "The Discover Channel" (one
    of the few things I love about cable TV) the other night.  It told
    of many "stone rings" (like Stonehenge) in the United Kingdom. 
    Apparently there were some much larger than Stonehenge.  And the
    earliest ones are perfectly round, but the later ones become
    elliptical, oval, or are circles with "flattened" sides.  The surveyors
    who are looking into this discussed how they circles were laid out
    and came up with simple geometric operations with nothing but pegs
    in the ground and ropes that would produce many of the more odd
    shapes.  Also, they found in many of the circles one stone that
    was "reclining", or horizontally flat and lower than two upright
    stones, one to each side.  Apparently these reclining stones are
    oriented beneath the direct path of the moon, and they can only
    assume that various sacrifices were made by a people who did not
    understand the natural things that "plagued" them, and hoped to
    appease some greater power.
    
    
    -Jody
    

    Well, it isn't called "Mystery Hill" for nothing.

    Up in New Hampshire, not too far from Canobie Lake, is Mystery
    Hill, a.k.a. America's Stonehenge.  Whatever it is, is strange.
    Ignoring the alignment rocks, and the echo chamber, and the
    things meddled with in the nineteenth century, there is still
    weirdness there.  In one place, there is a flat "bed" of small
    (child's fist size) rocks, in a sort of triangular shape, on a
    bit of a slope.  It gives every indication of being pointless.

    Now, blithely ignoring the stone rows:  I remembered a reference
    to Hiawatha and Nicomas (I have one chance in twenty of spelling
    that correctly.) in Walker, and it mentioned that Nicomas was (among
    other things) female.  Well, I hadn't remembered that, and the
    Encyclopedia Americana said nothing about her, either under
    "Hiawatha" or "Song of Hiawatha".  So I asked Tony Lewis, who knows
    everything.

    "Tony, do you remember `The Song of Hiawatha'?"

    "Well, a little.  What--?"

    "I remember Nicomas as being a man, but I just read that it was a
    woman, and--"

    "`Old Nicomas, daughter of the moon'.  Is that what you mean?"

    Yes, and that's what Walker meant.  Using that reference to the Moon,
    I found this in Walker:  "Sioux Indians called the moon `The Old
    Woman Who Never Dies.'  Iroquois called her `The Eternal One.'"  This
    is footnoted to _The_Mothers_ by Robert Briffault, a book which my
    library has located as being in two other libraries in the area.

    So, we may not have a Triple Goddess in the New World, but at least
    we have a lunar Goddess.  (Let's face it, given the biological
    situation, any primitive culture which didn't associate women with
    the moon in some way just wasn't Paying Attention.)

    							Ann B.

    Tidying up a bit:

    Dave, I did put something on this in the RELIGION notefile a year
    ago, see notes 16.19 and 14.17.  You will notice the minimal
    response to them.

    Yes, Robert, knapping flints is interesting when you do it for
    fun.  So is ironing a shirt, scraping a hide, or (to give The Classic
    Example) whitewashing a fence.  When you do something for work,
    however, you do take little breaks to look around you and rest
    your eyes, hands, and back.  And ten thousand years ago, anyone
    would have been using Mousterian (I've misspelled that.) technique.
    This is one of the neatest ideas in the history of the world,
    but I think it would make the work even duller.

    No, I don't know anything about working flint.  But I happen to
    keep this chunk of flint in my coat pocket (Not everything goes in
    my purse.) so if you'd like to come by and show me sometime....

    							Ann B.

    re .43 For any of you who live in Mass or so NH who haven't 
    been to Mystery Hill...it is really worth the trip. We went
    oh, 6-8 years ago, and both Don and I and the children really
    enjoyed it. It puts a whole new perspective on the history
    of this area.

    Reply on AmerIndians,
    
    From my limited reading on primitive belief systems and AmerIndians
    I think that for some reason the AmerIndians froze their belief
    systems for some 10,000 years. Strong oral traditions?
    
    Anyway what we see in AmerIndian belief systems could reflect what
    Europe was like some 10,000 years ago. Or maybe more properly Asian
    belief systems 10,000 years ago.

    
    	As for going down a rathole on the stone walls, I believe the
    title of this note is "beliefs in early civilizations"; the stone
    walls and other artifacts such as stone chambers, perched boulders
    and standing stones all contribute to my belief that the Amerinds
    lived here for thousands of years before "contemporary" Europeans
    set foot on this land.
    
    	Furthermore, I believe the population here once rivaled what
    it is today, in terms of sheer numbers. Most died off as a result
    of contact passed disease from European traders, long before C.C. 
    "discovered" America. I cannot substantiate these beliefs, however,
    as I am no expert. I could argue about source of the artifacts left 
    here (right in your own backyard), but I believe the responses 
    would only be "typical";
    
    	Stone rows ===> Colonial Farmer's fences
    	Stone chambers ===> Colonial Farmer's root cellars
    	Perched boulders (multi-ton) ===> Colonial Farmer's idea of a joke
    	Standing Stones ===> Colonial farmer's road markers	
    ...etc
    
    Someday, I will be able to suggest a text which treats the subject
    directly, but as yet it remains unpublished. I'll post the information
    here when it becomes available-
                                                           
    	Joe Jas
    

        The New Engalnd stone walls are no great mystery. Virtually
        every square acre of New England was under cultivation at one
        one time or another. Since the thing that most commonly grows in
        New England soil is rocks, and they get in the way, you pile
        them up and make walls. I'm not kidding, by the way, new rocks
        show up in your field every year. The action of the freezing and
        thawing ground pops them to the surface. 
        
        The standing stones, stone circles and stone alters in New
        England are another thing entirely. They predate modern European
        colonization. There are some that seem clearly to be Amerindian
        in origin and some that show a strong connection to Celtic and
        Nordic peoples. It seems quite likely that there were earlier
        discoveries and even settlements of America from Europe.
        
        JimB. 

    I finally made a quick dash into Cambridge, and bought a copy of
    _The_Chalice_and_the_Blade_ by Riane Eisler.  (I got the last copy
    on display at Sagada (formerly Shambala) on JFK Street, near the
    intersection with Mt. Auburn Street.)

    It was very disconcerting -- however heartening -- to find my (very
    tentative) conclusion stated in the Introduction as the basic
    premise of the book!  Now that I've read it, I'll correct and add
    to the initial statements in this note:

    I didn't write anything about the domestication of animals, because
    I didn't know much about it.  Eisler wrote about it, and the PBS
    series, "The First Eden", narrated by Richard Attenborough spoke
    about it.  The invention of agriculture and the domestication of
    animals go hand in hand.  First, the latter could not really occur
    until people had a way of life which anchored them to one place,
    because of the requirement that animals (especially wild ones) be
    penned in a fixed and secure location.  Second, domestication was
    probably undertaken by the women.

    I can see several ways to reach this conclusion.  Attenborough notes
    that domestication probably began with the offspring of animals
    killed in hunting.  The creatures he pictured were very appealing,
    especially the shoats, and I can easily imagine small children
    begging their parents to let the kids keep the kids.  Since we know
    which parent had the most experience at caring for immature mammals,
    we can guess which parent got to take care of the cute, furry
    animals.  Again, since the women were responsible for the farming,
    they had to be the ones to decide that they could afford to give
    some of their grain to the beasts, ior to expend the effort in
    gathering silage, in return for a future material gain (wool, eggs,
    and milk, as well as meat, hides, and horn).  From another angle,
    the animals which were domesticated first are those animals most
    closely associated with the Great Goddess in her various forms.
    (Note also that the horse, which was not domesticated early, is
    not so associated.)

    Eisler is of the opinion that the role of the male in reproduction
    was understood much earlier than I had indicated.  She points to
    various Neolithic paintings and artifacts which honor bulls, their
    horns, phalluses, and boars.  And it would be nice to think that
    our ancestors weren't all inobservant dunderheads, wouldn't it?

    Another social situation I left out was slavery.  I had just
    assumed that it existed, because I had been taught that slavery
    appeared when a society had sufficient surplus to afford the risks
    associated with an added population.  Therefore, it is unsurprising
    that there are no signs of slavery during the Neolithic.  What is
    surprising is that there are no signs of slavery in Catal Huyuk
    or Hacilar.  (These are those very early cities mentioned by Mikie?
    Morgan, which prospered (between them) for fifteen hundred years
    without protective walls.)

    Another error I made was about the priesthood.  There was indeed
    a male as well as a female priesthood in Catal Huyuk.  Not that
    this was a massively prestigious role.  Priests, like everyone else,
    lived in houses that were about twenty-five square meters in area.
    The places of worship were about the same size.  There were no great
    differences in wealth discernible.  Priestesses were buried in shrines,
    with obsidian mirrors.  Priests were buried in shrines, with "fine bone
    belt fasteners".

    							Ann B.

    REply to .49; Ann,
    
    Belt fasteners? Did they have pants or did they ware a sort of kilt?
    Bermuda shorts perhaps? B^)

RE: .49

"The invention of agriculture and the domestication of animals go hand in hand.
First, the latter could not really occur until people had a way of life which
anchored them to one place, because of the requirement that animals (especially
wild ones) be penned in a fixed and secure location."

How does this account with the nomadic domestication of the horse, and other
nomadic domestic animals: dogs, and other beasts of burden?

"Second, domestication was probably undertaken by the women."

It nomadic settings it's more likely that animals were domesticated by being
"broken" by hunters, rather then 'gentled' by women.  Is this possiblity
mentioned?

Jim. 

    Jim,
    
    Dogs were domesticated as part of the farming culture.  They were
    indeed used for hunting; as such, they are sacred to the Greek
    goddess, Artemis, the Roman goddesses, Diana and Lupa, and the
    Vedic goddess, Sarama.  Get the picture?  Dogs are associated with
    the goddess, not the god.  The phrase, "son of a bitch", may
    trace its use as an epithet to the meaning (as used by Christians)
    of "follower of the Goddess" -- such as the aleni.
    
    The first use of the horse as a domestic animal is by the Kurgans
    (best known for the First Kurgan Invasion (4300-4200 bce), the
    Second Kurgan Invasion (3400-3200 bce), and the Third Kurgan
    Invasion (3000-2800 bce)).  These people are (surprise!) the
    patriarchal invaders mentioned in earlier notes.  Since they were
    nomadic pastoralists, they have left few traces, but presumably
    the methods they used were similar to the methods Attenborough
    gave for the domestication of sheep, but with the added twist that
    the tamers *had* to be nomadic in order to provide sufficient
    foraging supplies (grass) for this much larger animal.
    
    Mikie,
    
    I don't know, but I can guess at the kind of fasteners.  One would
    be a varient on the Chinese frog closure.  The other I have used,
    but it's harder to explain....  Take two rings over an inch in
    diameter.  Attach one end of the belt by tying it around the rings.
    Attach the other end by (This is the obscure part.) running it
    under the rings, then up into the center of the rings, out over the
    top ring, but back inside the bottom ring, then pull it back tight
    in the direction it came from.  Trust me; it works :-).
    
    							Ann B.
    

    Reply to .-2;Ann and Jim,
    
    Thanx Ann, Glad I'm not Chinese. Chinese puzzles rack my gourd too.
    Can get them apart but not together.
    
    Jim,
    
    It seems to me that horses were domesticated because they could keep up
    with heards of animals better than a man on foot. It seems natural to
    me that if a horse could be used to herd animals then a horse could be
    used to herd people. Consequently the horse's martial use would be a
    logical and powerful extension of the domestic use of the horse. 

>    It seems to me that horses were domesticated because they could keep up
>    with heards of animals better than a man on foot. It seems natural to
>    me that if a horse could be used to herd animals then a horse could be
>    used to herd people. Consequently the horse's martial use would be a
>    logical and powerful extension of the domestic use of the horse. 

    Mikie,

    Keeping up makes sense when dealing with a migrating herd.  It probably
    does not work for active herding.  The earliest domestication of the
    horse seems to have been for pull sledges or wagons not for riding.

    Dick

    Reply to .54, Dick,
    
    Agreed. Supposedly the first wagons were carts with the wheels solidly
    mounted on axles tethered to the cart with leather thongs. Got to have
    been your basic utlility vehicle. B^) 
    
    I can't remember any instance of AmerIndians using the cart or wheel
    till after the whiteman taught them the use of such. Can anyone else
    remember such an instance? 
    
    Also a pet theory of mine is that the AmerIndian, as in existance when
    the white man came to North America, is a good indicator of what life
    was like some 10,000 years ago. 
    
    Anyone know how AmerIndian men viewed women previous to the intrusion
    of the whiteman? Also what are the cultural differences (as regarding
    women) between say the pueblo type AmerIndians and the nomadic herding
    type? 

    
    
    From what I remember, the plains indians in North America used
    sledges (travoises?) pulled by dogs. Dunno what the East Coast
    tribes used; seems like it would be hard to pull any kind of 
    sledge through the woods (?).
    
    The Incas DID know about the wheel. They used it on children's
    toys. Wasn't too practical to pull a wagon through the mountains.
    
    As far as women's status, from reading _Hanta Yo_, which was supposedly
    basicly historicly correct, they weren't especially regarded. On
    the other hand, the book was more concerned with the men's actions.
    
    Ed E. (occasionally in non-read-only mode)

    
    BTW, a thought just joggled loose--did all the women in Amerind
    cultures menstruate at the same time? This would tie in with the
    influence of the moon on the pineal gland, mentioned in .2
    
    In fact, has this synchronization been noted in any primitive
    culture? Seems like that would be something anthropologists would
    mention. What say Mede, Malinowski, etc? 
    
    I confess to having problems with the idea. I know that light will
    act on the pineal to reset the biological clock, but I haven't heard
    that it will affect a monthly cycle, only a 24 hour cycle. Also,
    the amount of light used had to be rather bright--more like sunlight
    than moonlight. Also, how much moonlight would people be exposed
    to? Most people sleep under cover, right?
    
    (And I USED to have more answers than questions. Old age creeps
    up...)
    
    E.

    1.  The claim is that the Kurgan rode on horseback.  I don't
    know if they used horses to haul anything.  They may not have,
    because the horsecollar, which is the only thing that makes the
    horse a decent puller, was not invented until, uh, 600 c.e., well,
    post-Roman, I'm pretty sure.
    
    What evidence was used to support this contention I cannot say,
    but I can guess at one piece.  The Greek legends of the centaurs
    are thought to be tales of mounted men.  The centaurs were crude,
    violent, lecherous, and did not hold their liquor well.  That
    could describe the Kurgan.  :-}
    
    2.  Amerind tribes have customs and organizations that vary all
    over the place.  The Aztec valued war and blood sacrifice, but did
    not consider their women to be the equal of men.  The Iroquois
    had (have?) a form of matrilineal inheritance, and a social
    organization which gave Ben Franklin a few ideas which he had
    incorporated into the U.S. Constitution.
    
    3.  Yes, it is true that women in primitive tribes/situation all
    menstruaate together.  It is hard to winkle out this bit of
    information, because, to male anthropologists, this is Not
    Interesting, so it is not *prominently* reported.  The discovery
    would go something like:
    Anthropologist:  Those huts there.  They're empty.  Do you ever
    use them?
    Native:  No.  Women use them.
    
    (later)
    A:  When are those huts used?
    N:  Every full (or whatever) moon.
    
    (later)
    A:  What are the huts used for?
    N:  (long pause)  Women stay there when they are unclean.
    
    Eventually someone put the two facts together.
    
    4.  Bright light would not cause the synchronization, since the
    sun is bright *every* day.
    
    In fact, someone who realized that primitive women were synchronized
    to the moon used this fact to regularize the menstual cycle in
    women who were having fertility problems, by giving them a dim
    little night light when the moon was gibbous or full.
    
    							Ann B.

    In _The_Chalice_and_the_Blade_, Riane Eisler describes the social
    model believed to have come into existence with the creation of
    agriculture, if not earlier.  She calls this the "partnership model",
    and describes how it differs from the "dominator model", whose
    variants we are more used to seeing.

    The sciences of anthropology and archaeology began in the nineteenth
    century.  These men [sic] began with a nineteenth century set of
    assumptions and beliefs.  How unsurprising.  One result of this
    was that they began by assuming that all primitive cultures were
    patriarchal.  Eventually (well into the twentieth century), it was
    recognized that no evidence was being found for this viewpoint.

    A new viewpoint was tried; i.e., that primitive societies were
    matriarchal.  This viewpoint was abandoned with alacrity when it
    was realized that no evidence pointed to this viewpoint either.
    So they went back to the notion that primitive cultures were
    patriarchal.

    Then studies of modern primitives (the !Kung and BaMbuti) disclosed
    that these people were neither matriarchal nor patriarchal.  Social
    operation was by discussion culminating in consensus.  (Another
    study, that of the Chambri (a.k.a. the Tchambuli) by D.B. Gewertz
    and F.K. Errington, has reanalyzed Mead's data, added new data,
    and come to the conclusion that "Chambri women neither dominate
    Chambri men, nor vice versa.", adding another society to the pile.)

    This model, of all members of the tribe or group acting together
    to formulate policy and implementation, with no one "ruling" the
    others, seemed to map well to the observed data.  Yet this is only
    now starting to be considered as the probable governance mode of
    the Neolithic and (at least) Copper Age.

    Why should this be so?  To those of us living in DEC's Wonderful
    World of Matrix Management, it should seem easy to understand that
    "there can be societies in which difference is not necessarily
    equated with inferiority or superiority."  Nevertheless, everywhere
    we turn, we see the attitude of:

    	"You're different."  =  "You're pond scum."

    Why didn't those early societies, in which the women produced the
    children, the vegetable nutrition, the clothing, the tools, and
    who-knows-what-else, put men in an inferior position?  Why were
    men treated as partners and equals?  I think I understand why, and
    I'm very pleased with this insight, because it requires a point
    of view I haven't come by naturally.

    It is a mother's viewpoint.  A mother sees all her children as
    different, having different personalities, aptitudes, preferences,
    and limitations, yet she loves them all, each as much as the next,
    finding a special place in her heart for every one.  This is the
    viewpoint that sees each person in a society as valuable, as
    unique, as someone whose opinions deserve hearing, whose feelings
    deserve consideration.  This viewpoint is then easily projected
    beyond the group, so that other groups are seen as deserving of
    the same considerations, and so that the deity is seen as having
    this same maternal love and concern.

    This matches the data again:  No war, no slavery, not even any great
    social differentiation to form "rich" and "poor", planned cities, with
    unpretentious temples mixed in with the houses, wide streets, et
    cetera.

    							Ann B.

    
    
    re: .59
    
    The Great Mother Goddess is the example that best describes
    how true equality could work.  To value each child for what
    they are and to care for each equally.  It is difficult for
    me to give to my son when my daugther is also in need and vice
    versa.  (I do not give the same thing to each, but address
    the individual need of each.)
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			The Great Mother sees all children as hers
    

RE: .*

Again, equality sounds great, ...

*But* I don't think that what you have described,
      nor what I believe prehistory was like, nor 
      'Goddess worship' 
to be equality

Jim.

    Well, Jim, since you don't give a definition of equality, I'll have
    to go on what you've said elsewhere, which is that you think true
    sexual equality is everyone acting like everyone else, with no
    shread of individuality.

    *IF* I use that definition, the partnership society described by
    Eisler isn't equality -- it's better.

    For example:  From M.I. Finley's little masterwork, _The_World_
    _of_Odysseus_, I learned that Minoan Crete (a partnership society,
    according to Eisler) had over one hundred occupations, and that
    Homeric Greece (a dominator society (unquestionably) of several
    centuries later) had barely a dozen.  Such a simple fact speaks
    to me eloquently of greater variety, opportunity, and creativity,
    a society where *every* individual has greater scope for
    fulfillment.  Even if it ain't equality, it's a lot better than
    the alternative.

    							Ann B.

RE: -.1  :-)

Well, *my* idea of true sexual equality, or a good life, isn't "everyone acting
like everyone else, with no shred of individuality", but I do/did worry about
about that happening unintentionally. 

The thing that supposedly keeps this happening is that everybody is different,
everybody wants something different.  With luck we end up with a pluralistic
society.  The only problem then is how do we stop people from stepping on each
others toes, intentionally, or unintentionally?

Jim.

    convince them they are inherently evil... tell them that God made
    them as an afterthought...  restrict their rights to ownership and
    education ... deny them the self-respect assumed by others as a
    natural right... 
    
    and if that doesn't work... we can burn them as witches_;-)

    Oh, ... lets pretend its a reply.  

RE: .64

you pose:

"convince them they are inherently evil... tell them that God made them as an
afterthought...  restrict their rights to ownership and education ... deny them
the self-respect assumed by others as a natural right... 
    
and if that doesn't work... we can burn them as witches_;-)" 

as a reply to:

"The only problem then is how do we stop people from stepping on each others
toes, intentionally, or unintentionally?"

Obviously your (sic) method violates the toe tromping principle which was the
problem for which a solution was being sought.

Jim.

    It has been suggested that the mention of certain women in the Bible
    is a valid counterargument to the contention that male-oriented
    religions have attempted to place women in the role of second-class
    humans.  (Phrased like that, it does sound sort of silly.)

    This contention arose in Topic 478.  However, because of the
    conclusions I draw, I feel that what *I* have to say on the matter
    is more appropriately placed here.

    The names mentioned were Martha, Elizabeth, Mary, Ruth, Deborah,
    and Esther.

    Elizabeth's Bible role is that of the mother of John the Baptist.
    This is not a role which argues against the subordination of women,
    so I shall ignore it.  Martha's Bible role is that of a servant.
    This is not a role which argues against the subordination of women,
    so I shall ignore it.

    The Book of Ruth is only three pages long.  The reason the story
    of Ruth is *remembered* is that she is the great-grandmother of
    King David.  The reason the story is *included* is that she was
    a foreign woman-and-bride, but good things came from her.  In
    _Asimov's_Guide_to_the_Bible:_The_Old_Testament_, Isaac claims
    that the book was written after the Babylonian Exile to urge the
    leadership of Israel to ease up on its policy against intermarriage
    with foreign women, using the argument that if Boaz had not married
    the Moabitess, Ruth, then King David would never have been born.

    Ruth is best remembered for her faithful devotion to Naomi, her
    mother-in-law.  Reading the book, I was struck not only by that,
    but at the skill and subtlety of her skills as a seductress.  (Ruth
    2:2, 2:7, 2:14, 3:9)  No matter.  Loyalty and devotion was something
    Ruth must have learned at her mother's knee.  The Moabites were
    a matrilocal people (Ruth 1:8), and  worshipped Ba'al, the son and
    husband of the Goddess.  (The Bible *never* manages to refer to the
    Goddess in the singular, and prefers to ignore her worship entirely,
    referring instead to the worship of Ba'al[s].)

    The story of Deborah is found in Chapters 4 and 5 of Judges.  In
    _Asimov's_Guide_, he describes Judges as "a collection of ancient
    documents", and explains that the judges were really rulers, since
    that is what rulers did in times of peace, and also explains that the
    judges neither ruled consecutively nor [necessarily] over all of Israel.

    In addition to being a ruler, Deborah is described as being a
    "prophetess".  Many have agreed that, since Judges is so very old,
    Deborah probably comes from a matrilineal tradition that predates
    the entry of the Hebrews into the area between Bethel and Ramah.
    Here she sits under a palm tree, also called Deborah, and acts as
    a judge for the people.  This last sounds a bit like a ritual.  It
    reminded me of "Inanna and the *Huluppu* Tree", and in looking at
    that, I found that the "Huluppu" is believed to be the date palm,
    and the first clay tablet [picture] associated with this poem shows
    a date palm, a seated woman gesturing, the seated Inanna, and her
    serpent, symbol of wisdom.

    Esther is *not* a woman of a pre-patriarchal society.

    The Book of Esther is nearly twice as long as the Book of Ruth,
    and is curious for being the only book in the Bible which does not
    mention God -- or doesn't seem to.  It is set in the reign of
    Xerxes I  (Ahasuerus is the Hebrew version of the Persian name
    Khshayarsha; Xerxes is the Greek version.) in the early fifth
    century b.c.e., but was (probably) not written until the second.
    The Festival of Lots, Purim, is the celebration associated with this
    book, but Jewish scholars believe that Purim is a very old festival,
    dating back to pagan times.

    The book says the queen is named Vashti, yet there is no such person
    listed in any of the records we have about Xerxes -- but there is
    an Elamite goddess named Vashti.  The book says the king's prime
    minister is named Haman, yet there is no such person listed in any
    of the records we have about Xerxes -- but there is an Elamite god
    named Hamman.  The book says Haman's wife is named Zeresh -- and
    the Elamite goddess named Kirisha is married to the god Hamman.
    The book says the new, Jewish queen is named Esther, yet there is no
    such person listed in any of the records we have about Xerxes -- but
    there is a Babylonian goddess named Ishtar (Ashtoreth, Astarte).
    Esther's real name is given as being Hadassah, which means Star,
    which is also what Astarte means, because the Evening and Morning
    Star, Venus, is sacred to her.  The book says the king's new prime
    minister is named Mordecai, yet there is no such person listed in any
    of the records we have about Xerxes -- but there is a Babylonian god
    named Marduk (Merodach).  Marduk and Ishtar are cousins too, just
    like Mordecai and Esther.

    In other words, this is a story about the triumph of the new,
    Babylonian gods over the old, Elamite gods.  The praiseworthy Esther,
    who just sits there looking beautiful, is really the Triple Goddess,
    Ishtar.

    In the Bible, Mary is treated as a subordinate character (John
    19:26-27); it is only later in the Christian era that she becomes
    a powerful being.  She is called the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God,
    and the Queen of Heaven.  She is pictured as wearing a robe of blue,
    generally trimmed with pearls, and with the crescent moon nearby,
    frequently under her feet.  Sometimes she is framed within a scalloped
    sea shell.  All these things are symbols of the Maiden Aphrodite,
    the Great Goddess.

    Now we understand the Christian Church's opposition to the worship
    of Mary; it is a hearkening back to Goddess-worship.

    In summation, of the six women named, two are servile creatures who
    do not refute the contention, two are from non-patriarchal cultures,
    and two are forms of the Goddess.

    								Ann B.

RE: .68

"It has been suggested that the mention of certain women in the Bible is a valid
counterargument to the contention that male-oriented religions have attempted to
place women in the role of second-class humans."

It is not the mention of them, but the mention of them in non oppressed, non
subservient roles.

"Elizabeth's Bible role is that of the mother of John the Baptist. This is not a
role which argues against the subordination of women"

Are you saying that being a mother *is* subordinate?  I have given examples of
women whom I feel were good role models, and were not oppressed, or subordinate.
That in itself is an argument that all women were not subordinate.  But it
sounds like you believe that to be a mother is to be subordinate.

I do not see any evidence that Martha, at least the one I am thinking of, was a
servant.  That she waited on Jesus, yes; that she was a servant, no. It does say
that she was living with her sister.

From what you say of Esther, I would guess that the book is not literally true,
but is a story/parable/legend of *some* sort.  I do not accept your name games
as proof that Esther is not of Jewish tradition, but is pagan instead.  By your
logic, we are all pagan, becuase we all name pagan names, regardless of what we
are.  You complain of Christianity/Judaism, I give an example of good from the
Bible, and you proceed to tell me that that does not count?  Come on! 

I do not see John 19:26-27, 'this is now your mother, take care of her',
describing Mary as subordinate.

"In summation, of the six women named, two are servile creatures who do not
refute the contention, two are from non-patriarchal cultures, and two are forms
of the Goddess."

By your logic, I could equally claim that your Goddess is a form of my God!

Jim. 
    

    re .68
    
    Ann may I sit at your feet and learn more.
    
    _peggy
    

    one more thing.
    
    		(-|-)
    		  |
    		  |	The Queen of Heaven is alive in all of us
    
    				some more than others, though.
    
    _peggy
    

    Peggy,
    
    It that an axe, a hoe-axe, or a butterfly?  They are all the symbol
    of the Goddess.
    
    Jim,
    
    The next time I see Isaac, I will tell him what you think of his
    name correlations.  I am sure he will give them the appropriate
    amount of consideration.
    
    							Ann B.

	A good friend of mine is writing a book; here is the publisher's
announcement. I believe this would be of interest, in a constructive manner,
to those in this conference.

	"The Lindisfarne Press announces:

				MANITOU
	Stone Structures Reveal New England's Native Civilization.

						James W. Mavor, Jr
						and Byron E. Dix

	English settlers in northeastern America Called the land New England,
in part because it reminded them of home. Not only did the natural landscape 
itself remind them of England, but they also saw stone walls, standing stones
and stone heaps like those of the English countryside. This remarkable 
collection of man made stoneworks, now largely hidden in the modern forests
or partially destroyed by development, is awesome in the number and size of
the structures and in their complexity. Mavor and Dix believe that the builders
of most of these stone structures were Native Americans, following ancient 
traditions based upon a profound sensitivity to nature and a recognition of the
spirituality of all things in nature. The stoneworks, they argue, played a role
in shamanic practices and in the ritual landscape architecture complementing
the natural landscape. The record left in stone dwarfs all other records of 
Indian past, and the implications of the author's argument may rewrite all 
past results of New England archaeology and ethnology.

	The discoveries that led Dix and Mayvor to a solution of the riddles of
New England's stone structures have a strong thread of celectial observation,
which was the dominant feature of the spiritual life of Native Americans and
possibly of some of the foreign adventurers as well. This thread provides the 
framework of the author's anthropological method in which everything is 
perceived as interrelated, and historical records and archeological results 
are seen in a new light.

	Mavor and Dix attack many of the myths which comprise New England 
history, including the behavior of early foreign settlers, their relations with
the Indians, and the religious lives of the settlers and Christianized Indians.
They have discovered many ways in which the natural environment shaped the
perceptions of the native people and contributed to the design of the stonework.
Sensing a continuity through time and a geographical commonality in ritual, they
conclude that the conventional classifications of Native American peoples and
the catalogues of subsistence artifacts, invented by the white man, are more a 
hinderance than a help to a broad understanding of native culture.

	Dix and Mavor lead the reader along the path of their research, weaving
their personal adventure into the explanations of their observations and 
theories in order to encourage others to follow in their footsteps, the better
to judge their novel approach and it's results.

	James W. Mavor, Jr., and Byron E. Dix have been partners in research for
the past ten years, bringing their engineering and scientific perspectives to
problems of the human past. They have written 23 articles on ancient New England
and Europe. Mavor is also the author of VOYAGE TO ATLANTIS, the story of the
discovery of a Minoan town on the island of Thera destroyed by an ancient 
volcanic eruption, possible the root of Plato's Atlantis.

	Table of Contents

	 1. First Discovery in Vermont
	 2. A Pleiades and Sun Sanctuary
	 3. Stone mounds in Massasoit's Domain
	 4. The land and the Sky
	 5. Indian Traditions of Stone and Earth Works
	 6. Cape Cod and the Islands
	 7. Jesuits, Pilgrims and Puritans Meet the Indians
	 8. Eighteenth Century Indian and Colonial Religion
	 9. Shakers and Shamanic Christianity
	10. European and New England Stoneworks Compared
	11. The Land of the Mohegans
	12. Nashoba
	13. Back to Calendar One
	14. Epilog: Manitou

	Approximately 350 text pages plus 225 illustrations.

	If you would like to recieve a publication announcement and order
	form, please (send) your name and address to Lindisfarne Press,
	P.O. box 778, Great Barrington, MA 01230."

	The book as yet remains unpublished. Announcement expected sometime
	in 1988.

	Joe Jas

    
    
    It is a double-side axe called a Labrys (I am still looking for
    the correct spelling).  It comes from Crete.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	I saw a shooting star last night.
    

    double-sided = male/female, good/bad, light/dark, yin/yang,
    warm/cold...etc
    
    a double-sided axe...tell me, is that anything like a two-edged
    sword?  Life is full of two edged swords - things that heal in one
    direction, yet hurt in another - things like technology.  You also
    have to be careful when swinging a double-sided axe, as you could
    really hack your compatriot in the backswing.  
    
    Personally, I prefer a halberd, which has one blade, and a spike
    to the other side (spike on top optional).
    
          ^
         <-)
          |
          |
    -Jody
        

    Reply to .75, Bobbitt,
    
    The double axe has a symbology. This symbology is associated with
    certain ancient cultures. The double axe is associated with Crete,
    and I believe, Syria also, perhaps at an earlier date.
                        
    Peggy can correct me if she feels the need. The double axe is made
    up of two cresent moons. I think it could have been a secpter of
    the Goddess and as such an extension of HER power.

    Also I believe that the double axe was not used as a weapon of
    warfare....at least in the goddess worshiping cultures.

    I was just trying to draw a few analogies, thassall...
    
    but your response, Bonnie, brought up a question....was there warfare
    in goddess-worshipping cultures?  Was there warfare *between*
    goddess-worshipping cultures?  Was there disagreement over belief
    between goddess-worshipping and god-worshipping cultures that ended
    in bloodshed?
    
    curious
    
    -Jody
    

    Jody, The history I have read indicated that the goddes worshiping
    cultures were remarkably free of warfare. One illustration of
    this is that their cities were not fortified.
    
    When the god worshiping cultures invaded there was indeed warfare
    and the goddess cultures were taken over. But There are other writers
    in this conference who know more about this than I do.

    This is the day of the winter solstice, the shortest day and
    longest night of the year in the Northern Hemisphere.  This season
    has seen many celebrations because of this.

    The Christians placed the birthday of Jesus on December 25th, to
    redirect the worship being given to Mithra[s] on *his* birthday.
    (Jesus seems to have been born in the early spring, since shepherds
    watch their flocks by night only during the lambing season.)  Mithra
    was given the birthdate of December 25th, since he was the son of
    the sun, and the 25th was the Birthday of the Unconquered Son.

    Before that, the night of the 24th was celebrated as the Night of
    the Mother, Modranect, the time when the Great Goddess gave birth
    again to the sun god.

    Yet even before this time was celebrated as a time of rebirth for
    the sun, it was celebrated as the time of year when the Great Goddess
    created the world from herself, bringing light where before there
    had always been darkness.  (Since the Earth is at perigee about now,
    this would be a good time to celebrate our planet's creation, if
    the theory that it was created by being ejected from the sun were
    still current.)

    Those among us who have been much taken with the Big Bang may wish
    to celebrate the anniversary of that brief event at this time.

    							Ann B.

    re .80:
    
    I had understood that the early Roman Christians chose Dec. 25 to
    celebrate the birth of Christ to coincide with the celebration of 
    Saturnalia; the "extra" five days at the end of the Roman 360 day year.
    Which in practice was essentially a 5 day party, and anyone NOT
    celebrating would be looked upon suspiciously, so in order to remain
    inconspicuous, decided to celebrate Christ's birth at that time.
    
    Who worshipped Mithra[s] and Modranect?
    
    I am not trying to contradict you, just asking for clarification.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    Steve,

    Darn.  I remember Saturnalia as lasting *ten* days.  Also, Rome,
    like most polytheistic societies, was very tolerant of religious
    variation.  What they were *in*tolerant of included the sort of
    anti-[Roman]social actions which early Christians were inclined
    towards.  The Christian Church did not give *any* date for the
    birth of Jesus until the fourth century.  When one was selected,
    it was on the grounds that people were familiar with the date as
    being the birthday of a god.

    Modranect is a Saxon *term*, not the name of an entity.  "Modra"
    is "mother" and "nect" is "night"; hence, Night of the Mother.
    Being a Saxon term, this variation on the solstice celebration
    would have been observed by (surprise!) people in Northern Europe,
    especially Saxony and southern Britain.

    Now I'm going to perform some fake histrionics, as I did in Note 606.2.

    ~Who worshipped Mithras?~!  How can you ask that question?  Doesn't
    every educated person at least *recognize* the name?  Or couldn't
    you at least have looked in an encyclopedia?  Arghhh!

    So much for that.

    Mithras was the Iranian god of the sun, justice, contracts, and war.
    He was later the principle deity worshipped across the Persian
    Empire (as it was, pre-Alexander).  The Greeks, in their traditional
    emnity towards all things Persian, were not interested in Mithras.
    He was very important to the Romans, however.  He was especially
    worshipped by soldiers, so his influence spanned Europe from Yorkshire
    to the Rhine to the Danube to the Euphrates.  His was a mystery
    religion, with seven levels of initiates.  Only males were admitted
    to his worship, which was associated with the ritual slaying of
    a bull, which was a re�nactment of Mithras slaying of the divine
    bull which turned into the moon.  (Does this sound familiar?)

    							Ann B.

    Reply to the last few,         
         
                     "Mithras, God of the Morning,
                      our trumpets waken the Wall!
                       Rome is above all nations,
                        but Thou art above all!"
               
                 (Song of Mithras; a hymn of the 30th Legion)

    Mithra was worshiped before Zoroaster (Zarathustra) both under the name
    of Mithra and Mitra.  As Mitra (in Vedic Mythology) the deity
    represented as a sun god (the light of the World?) and was one of the
    "Adityas", literally "friend". Mitra was considered the "ruler of the
    day" and Varuna is the ruler of the night. 

    "The remarkable influence of Mithra on other religions and mythologies
    was potent over a wide area and for many centuries, although little
    recognized until recent years." F & W page 732. 

    Mithra was/is very adaptive and changes over the centuries. These
    changes are really only changes in emphasis.  Mithra had almost as many
    attributive titles as "Zeus-Jupiter" and as many "labors" as
    "Heracles-Hercules".  But the illuminative aspects of Mithra prevail.
    For even in the Cave Dwelling Mithra (the cave dwelling, bull killing,
    hero god of the Romans) he was worshiped as the god of light.
    Paraphrase from F & W page 733. 

    Mithra and Christianity had a bitter struggle for about 200 years. 

    "The importance of Mithraism, the worship of Mithra, lies in the fact
    that it was a serious, perhaps the most dangerous rival of Christianity
    from the time of Trajan (early 2nd century A.D.) till the fourth
    century, when the official adoption of Christianity by Constantine and
    his successors deprived of it's state income and encouraged its
    ruthless extermination by zealous Christian Bishops.  The incredibly
    cruel murder of the Neo-Platonist Hypatia belongs in this dark period."
    F & W page 733. 

    The competition between Christianity and Mithraism had been very keen
    for two centuries, however and for several reasons. 
                                      
    o	Mithraism with it's mystic symbolism of hope, and it teachings of
    austerity and endurance, gradually began to win slaves, working men,
    and the common people in general.  From these same people Christianity
    was also hoping to make converts. 

    o	Mithraism, by the time of Trajan, had become familiar to the great
    mass of Roman soldiers, who soon adopted it as their own and became it
    missionaries to the whole Roman world. 
               
    o	Mythrism had much in common with Christian beliefs, symbols and
    practices, such as baptism for the remission of sins, the ever present
    Eucharist complete with consecrated wine, the sign of the cross on the
    brow, redemption, salvation, sacramentary grace, rebirth in the spirit,
    confirmation and the promise of eternal life.  The celebration of the
    birth of Mithra was on Dec. 25th, and that of his rebirth during the
    spring equinox. 
         
    The shocked Christian apologist were driven to denounce the Mithraic
    beliefs and customs as diabolical and blasphemous caricatures of
    Christianity. 
         
    The few borrowings were mutual and who borrowed which is now difficult
    to determine.  Most of the parallels were probably independently
    arrived and which could show that the "collective dream" was pretty
    much an item in that part of the world. 
         
    Most of the above text was taken from "F & W" pages 732 and 733.  More
    material is found in "The Story of Christian Origins" chapter 12.

    Another set of similarities between Mithrists and early Christians
    was the way they related to each other.  Both groups called other
    members of their group "brother".  Both groups held property in
    common.  Both groups were "cheap" mystery religions.  Most such
    religions had high costs of joining, and could only be afforded
    by the wealthy.  Christianity and Mithrism were the "working man's"
    mystery religion.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    The most common objects found in prehistoric sites in Europe [of
    the Gravettian-Aurignacian culture] are the statuettes of adult women
    called "Venus figures".  I'm sure we've all seen at least pictures of
    them; head with dressed hair, arms pressed to the front below the
    ample bosom and above the ample hips and belly, legs together and
    tapering to a point about the location of the feet is a common version.
    Their material may be terra cotta, bone, or stone.

    When archaeology began, there was no background against which these
    artifacts could be mapped.  So, they were collected and catalogued
    along with flint tools, bowls of dried pigment, pictures of animals
    carved on horn or ivory, and all the rest.  As archaeology became
    more sophisticated, records and cataloguing became more detailed.
    It was realized that these figurines were common, very common, within
    a site, and across many areas.  The men [sic] called them "Venus
    figures", and speculated that they were a primitive version of
    `Playboy' nudes.

    	An Aside:  Frequently I've read that some of these figures
    	portray "grossly" or "grotesquely" "fat" women.  This has
    	always bothered me, because I have *never* seen a figure
    	that I would so describe.  Now, my experience is not at all
    	wide in this area.  It may be that I have never seen any of
    	the grotesquely fat Venus figures.  It might nevertheless
    	be that those writing the judgments have never seen even
    	moderately fat women without their clothes on, and have been
    	using `Playboy' nudes as their yardstick.

    The collections of Venus figures grew, as did the amount of data
    describing their placement within the sites.  Slowly there evolved
    a realization that these figures were centrally present in this
    culture.  They were not found casually placed in the corner of caves,
    or broken and discarded in the midden heap.  They were found in the
    middle of things, associated with objects long acknowledged to have
    religious associations, stood in wall niches, and placed in graves.

    Slowly, the old ideas that Venus figures were pornographic images,
    or that they were counters for women-as-chattel were put aside.  The
    idea that they were figures of worship, images of a worshipped
    ancestor or woman-like deity came to the forefront.  Still, there
    was nothing like confirming evidence.

    	Another aside:  Some years ago, a few friends and I visited
    	an exhibit on prehistoric artifacts at the Boston Museum of
    	Science.  (It was wonderful.)  There was a little talk and
    	demonstration given involving Venus figures.  The demonstrator
    	showed us three Venus figures, each made in different styles.
    	He said that one had been recovered in France, one in Germany,
    	and one in Russia.  He then held them up one at a time, and
    	had us vote on where we thought each of them had come from.

    	So we voted in our haphazard fashion, based on the appearance
    	of the figures.  The majority of the voters were correct; the
    	one that seemed French in style had been found in France, and
    	so on.  (The French one looked French (or at least not-German
    	and not-Russian) to me; the Russian one could have been German,
    	but the German one could not have been Russian -- to me.)  It
    	was very, ah, interesting.  Now, these figures may well have
    	been deliberately picked out from a spectrum of all styles
    	found in an area.  Still, the idea that a particular geographical
    	area has a particular influence on the people who live there
    	is a very interesting one.  (Any further discussion on this
    	should go in DEJAVU :-).)

    Then came excavations in Catal Huyuk and Hacilar.  In the top layers
    were statues of the Goddess.  As the digging went deeper and deeper,
    the statues changed, changing shape and becoming more primitive,
    but with each form showing a clear relationship between the later
    form found above it, and the earlier form found below it.  In the
    oldest layers the statues were Venus figures; the connection had
    been demonstrated.

    This is the sort of thing that makes archaeology so impressive to
    me; the slow, patient gathering of tiny bits of information over
    miles and years, until, after generations of archaeologists have
    labored, a conclusion can actually be made about a theory we laymen
    would never have dreamed could be proven one way or another.

    							Ann B.

    re: .85
    
    That's an interesting and impressive summary, Ann.  
    
    On your first aside:  When I took archaeology in college, I was able to
    view a number of these so-called Venus figures, and a couple of them
    could only be described as grotesquely, hugely, humongously fat. 
    The vast majority, however, are merely robust.  (Like me!)
    
    I find it interesting that the male archaeologists find the physical
    generousity of even the more ordinary of these figures the most
    outstanding thing about them. I guess they just aren't used to being
    around regular adult women!
    
    --bonnie    

    
    It was my understanding that the extremely "fat" Venus figures were
    intended to represent very *pregnant* women.  Bonnie, I haven't
    seen the figures you're talking about, just pictures.  Does this
    seem to be a reasonable conclusion to you?
    
    Rita
    

    Rita, 

    I'm not an archeologist or a scholar of ancient religion, so I'm
    getting out of my territory here -- 
   
    Yes, some of them looked very pregnant.  Most of them just had big
    breasts and generous hips -- like they had given birth a few times.
    (The instructor was able to show us about 50 figures from the
    university's collection, all German/Swiss if I'm remembering
    correctly.)  But at least one of them did look just plain fat.  Arms,
    legs, hips and buttocks, everywhere.  If she were a real woman of about
    5'6", she would weigh a good 300 pounds or more.  She may have been
    pregnant, too -- it would have been hard to tell. 
    
    The thing that struck me the most was that while all the figures had a
    certain similarity of style and technique, they all had a certain
    individuality about them, too.  No two were alike.  The instructor
    felt, and I have to agree with her, that many of them must have been
    modelled from living women.  She speculated that perhaps one's
    oldest living female ancestress, or one's own mother, became one's
    personal diety (similar to the Greek household gods). 
    
    As I said, I'm not a scholar of this field, so I don't know if she
    had any evidence on her side, but it's a theory I find emotionally
    very appealing.  And it fit with the emotional impact of these little
    figures.  They were made with love and care.
    
    --bonnie

It's very simple... when food was scarce, fat was status...  In our culture
where food is plentifull, but self control is scarce, thin is in.

These 'Venus' statues are like 'Venus De Milo', and distinct from the pregnant/
obese/ overflowingly endowed 'fertility' figurines, right?

Jim.

    >These 'Venus' statues are like 'Venus De Milo', and distinct from
    >the pregnant/obese/overflowing endowed 'fertility' figurine, right?

    Wrong. Have you been reading the notes? The so called 'fertility'
    figurines are precisely what is being talked about!
    
    Bonnie

    Earlier in this note I have made references to men ruling even in
    a matrilineal society.  This calls for some elucidation.

    I cannot say for certain *why* men got to direct some of the
    activities in matrilineal societies -- the why of things is the
    riskiest guess of all.  But of course I have a theory:

    All people like to feel useful.  (It is one of our species more
    endearing traits, although it may drive the parents of small
    children mad.)  In an agricultural society with domesticated
    animals, the role of the hunter is a small one, and presumably
    the majority of men turned to other, more productive occupations.
    (You'd still need some hunters to limit predation, and to track
    down and return escaped livestock -- and for an occasional change
    in the diet.)

    It is advisable that people do work that they are good at, and
    preferable that they do work they enjoy.  Therefore, when the need
    for conflict-using-force arose, those people who were stronger and
    less adverse to aggressive behavior were the ones who got to be
    the soldiers.  As far as I can tell [This is a caveat indicating
    that I am not certain about the true level of aggressiveness inherent
    in the two sexes.], this meant that the tiny "armies" of those days
    were mostly men.

    Leadership of an army would still have devolved onto the leader of
    the community; i.e., the queen.  However, she would still have her
    original communal duties, which could not be delegated since they
    were of a [quasi-]religious nature.  Still, like most adult humans,
    she was probably married, and her husband probably wanted to be
    useful, and probably [See caveat above.] was more aggressive than
    she.  So, in the long run, it may have worked out that the husband
    of the queen became the dux bellorum, to filch a phrase.

    With the rise of the male-dominated societies, the role of the
    husband of the queen changed from that of consort and aide to that
    of king and ruler.  Even so, in societies conquered by the dominator
    tribes, the linkage between the king and the woman who was the
    matrilineal descendant of the ruling line was of great importance.

    		*		*		*

    Determination of who became the new king could be done in a number
    of ways.  One could win a war against a people, and win queen along
    with country, as did Hercules.  One could simply kill the old king,
    and marry the queen, as did �dipus.  One could perform a difficult
    task that made one worthy of marrying the queen, as did Leander for
    Hero.  One could enter into a competition for the right to marry
    the daughter of the dead queen, mediated by the king, as did
    Hippomenes for Atalanta.  (If you recall, the penalty for failure
    was severe in all these cases.)

    Or one could be a male born into the royal line, which we have today.
    Of course, how things went worked a little differently in a matrilineal
    society.  The Egyptian technique is both well-known and entertaining:
    The son rules.  However, it is the son of his [half-]sister who
    succeeds him.  Descent is thus in the female line, with the fathers
    of the royal line being of no concern, yet with males as the rulers,
    the Pharaohs.  (Perhaps it helps to remember that "Pharaoh" means
    "Big House", meaning where the ruler dwelt.)

    Eventually, after [I presume] it was discovered that males were
    part of the procreative process, each Pharaoh took to securing the
    rule for his own son:  He married his sister, so *their* son ruled.
    This explains the doggedly incestuous nature of the dynasties of
    ancient Egypt, and the interrelationships of Laius, Jocasta, and
    �dipus.  It also opens up an entertaining line of speculation based
    on Genesis 20:12.

    Now, one or two of the methods mentioned above for selecting a king
    may have struck you as very familiar.  They should, for they are
    used in fairy tales:  The king is old, his queen is dead, he has
    no interest in remarrying, and his only child is a daughter (or all
    his children are daughters).  The young hero may have any background;
    the sole requirement is that he perform the task[s] set for him,
    and then he will marry the princess and become king thereafter.
    Very familiar, right?  And very old.  The king does not remarry
    because then he would no longer be the king.  The king has no sons
    for the same reason that the hero has left home -- they have left
    to "seek their fortunes"; i.e., marry exogamously into another royal
    family.  The hero becomes the new king, not because the old king
    *says* so, but because he has proved himself worthy of marrying
    the queen, as *adjudicated* by the old king.

    							Ann B.