This chapter discusses the impossibility of determining gender and sometimes even sex based on artifacts that have survived from prehistory onward as well as the disciplines that are used (or abused) in the name of 'proving' matriarchal prehistory. Considering that we have an incredibly difficult time defining gender and sometimes sex now with living history and persons to interview and study this is a point that should be painfully obvious to a critical thinker with any knowledge of the subject. Or, as Eller bluntly states in the opening, "matriarchal myth fails completely on historical grounds. Evidence from prehistoric times is comparatively sparse, and hard to interpret conclusively. However, even taking these difficulties into account, what evidence we do have does not support the thesis that prehistory was matriarchal and goddess-worshiping or even that it was sexually egalitarian" (page81 para 2).
She goes on to discuss cultural anthropology and the evolution of ethnographies as well as some of the inherent biases in them and what an ethnography can and shouldn't be used for. She notes that while ethnographies are useful regarding modern day societies and cultures that are hunter gatherers or horticulturalists they are still focusing on modern peoples. She then discusses archeology, what it does and doesn't look at and what it information it can glean and how that information can be applied. For instance it can tell you what kind of stone an item is made from, even what tools the item is made with but it cannot determine conclusively that the wiggly lines on the item are a symbol of a pan-societal goddess. It just can't.
On page 91 she notes that simply because perfect knowledge of the past is not possible does not mean that it is acceptable or appropriate to then claim that, "one account of the past is as good or bad as another" (para 1). She goes on to clarify and set up her techniques for the next two chapters, "an adequate account of the past must offer data in its support...it must seek to interpret all the data, and not merely that which is convenient or supportive of the theory...it must strive to have conclusions follow evidence rather than the other way around...finally it must be possible to show that an account is wrong or implausible" (page 91, para 2) - emphasis mine.
Basically she is outlining the two disciplines that she will draw from most heavily in the next two chapters. She notes their scope and limitations and concludes by defining what a good theory of prehistory and its evidence must have to be taken seriously and considered possible let alone likely.
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 5 Finding Gender in Prehistory. Print.
She goes on to discuss cultural anthropology and the evolution of ethnographies as well as some of the inherent biases in them and what an ethnography can and shouldn't be used for. She notes that while ethnographies are useful regarding modern day societies and cultures that are hunter gatherers or horticulturalists they are still focusing on modern peoples. She then discusses archeology, what it does and doesn't look at and what it information it can glean and how that information can be applied. For instance it can tell you what kind of stone an item is made from, even what tools the item is made with but it cannot determine conclusively that the wiggly lines on the item are a symbol of a pan-societal goddess. It just can't.
On page 91 she notes that simply because perfect knowledge of the past is not possible does not mean that it is acceptable or appropriate to then claim that, "one account of the past is as good or bad as another" (para 1). She goes on to clarify and set up her techniques for the next two chapters, "an adequate account of the past must offer data in its support...it must seek to interpret all the data, and not merely that which is convenient or supportive of the theory...it must strive to have conclusions follow evidence rather than the other way around...finally it must be possible to show that an account is wrong or implausible" (page 91, para 2) - emphasis mine.
Basically she is outlining the two disciplines that she will draw from most heavily in the next two chapters. She notes their scope and limitations and concludes by defining what a good theory of prehistory and its evidence must have to be taken seriously and considered possible let alone likely.
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 5 Finding Gender in Prehistory. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment