The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory Chapter 3: The Story They Tell

Note: I've actually finished the book at this point but took notes/underlined key passages and will be posting a chapter by chapter review mostly to help me work through the material a second time and focus on one chapter at a time.

This chapter took me a bit to get through. It wasn't poorly written but it is dense with new information (to me at least).

In a nutshell this chapter traces the inception of the myth and its adoption by matriarchal feminists and just what the myth entails and encompasses. 

Beginning in 1861 learned persons (usually the new breed of evolutionary anthropologists) began to postulate and theorize about prehistoric matriarchy drawing on sources like Greek myths. Around the turn of the century the theory was dropped as a legitimate idea and evolutionary anthropology later fell out of favor in most areas. Between 1900-1970s a few academics began to embrace and champion the myth once again spurred on in the 1970s by second-wave feminism. Three key developments influence the myth at that point, the rejection of the myth by feminist anthropologists, the growth of feminist spirituality with an interest in a prehistoric goddess agenda, and the work of Marija Gimbutas.

Spiritual feminists argued three new facets of prehistory and the matriarchal myth and goddess worship namely that said worship was extremely beneficial to women, the goddess was worshiped almost singularly with the exclusion of gods, and the triumph of patriarchy was the end of such worship (an interesting bit of logical chicanery, basically saying that this unproven/unsupported possible event occurred because of this also unproven/unsupported event).

Marija Gimbutas was an undeniably gifted linguist with functional skills in roughly twenty languages and more improtantly regarding the myth and her support of it was the fact that she she was a trained archeologist and therefore in a position to add weight and credence to the belief beyond simple faith.

The period often cited as the height of matriarchy was between 8000 and 3000 BCE and it was located in Old Europe, the Near East, and the Mediterranean (some argue it was universal but these areas and this time period seem to be the most agreed upon and the areas and time period in which Eller focuses her discussion). Eller goes on to point out the ethnocentrism of these choices as old Europe is the location where most of the ardent supporters of the myth trace their lineage or ancestral homelands to.

In addition to widespread goddess worship the people of the matriarchy were supposedly in tune with nature, lived harmoniously, and were close to the creatures of the earth, the earth itself as well as celestial bodies, and generally lived in a peace with sustainable ecological technologies. Additionally it was widely thought that these societies had little or no concept of private property and sex was frequent and casual with few if any negative consequences.

One of the (weirdest) explanations for the  rise and spread of matriarchy was the idea that men were somehow unaware of their role in procreation and therefore saw childbirth as a magical and divine act. This - to me - smacks of idiocy. For a people that hunted to survive it boggles the mind to think they would be somehow unaware of sexual reproduction and a male's role in it. One only has to watch insects, frogs, and similar animals in a suburban neighborhood to witness coupling and draw a conclusion from it.

So what happened? Some argue that change within the matriarchies such as the advent of private property, changes to family structure, and even the advent of wide scale labor intensive farming lead to male dominance, or as the second theory prefers, an outsider patriarchal group literally invaded and conquered the matriarchies (neither theory is exclusive, a mélange of the two is cited as well). So how is it that males in this near-perfect utopia of equality and sustainable living rebelled or assumed dominance? Some argue that men were, in fact, happy but felt marginalized when compared to the power of women and their dispensability, or perhaps womb envy spurred them on, whatever the case the matriarchies fell. The patriarchal invaders are often claimed to be the 'Kurgans' from the Russian steppes (never mind how they originated in a matriarchal world or how they arose in an area some cite as a homeland of matriarchy).

Others argue that natural disaster or diseases crippled matriarchy or lead to warfare that enhanced the status of men, others even claim that patriarchy is a result of a waning of literal feminine power or the goddess turning away as part of a cycle, some even claim that the fall was due to extraterrestrial influence (seriously!) or even that modern men are the result of some mutation or genetic defect.

 

As a weird sort of peace offering or nod to equality the argument continues that even within the patriarchy men were subjected to self-imposed hierarchies, separated from women and nature and restricted to limited (though prestigious and powerful) roles.

So what about the future? Assuming that we can 'return' to a matriarchy what will happen to men? Is a matriarchy where men are marginalized and treated as women are today really an improvement? According to Eller, "...there is near unanimity that it will not be a simple recreation of our prehistoric matriarchal past. If nothing else, our 'much larger population' and 'greater technological complexity' make it impossible, say feminist matriarchalists, to reproduce prehistoric matriarchies in the twenty-first century...[j]ust where women will stand in these future societies ranges from equality with men to special respect for being women to being 'dominant and listened to' under a form of government described as a 'socialist matriarchy'" (pg 54-55 para. 4-2).

It is clear, even at this early stage, that matriarchal prehistory is a politically/socially motivated construct hinging on questionable, often outdated, or highly filtered information supplied by persons with a vested interest in, and personal agenda for, the information and the support and dissemination of the myth-as-fact.

Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 3 The Story They Tell. Print.