This chapter confines itself to an ethnographic and archeologically based evaluation of the viability of the myth of matriarchal prehistory focusing on reproduction and kinship, goddess worship, women's economic roles, and interpersonal violence.
Regarding kinship and reproduction she notes that there is no correlation between the 'mysterious' miracle of female pregnancy and prestige, in fact it seems, if anything, to damage the prestige of women. Childbirth in prehistory was an incredibly risky affair that often lead to high infant/mother mortality rates. It is noted that there are occasions when men mimic female birthing and pregnancy but in none of those cases resulted in an improvement in status or prestige of women. It is also noted that marriage is largely a heterosexual institution and cross culturally it serves to restrict a woman's sexuality and partners - this was noted regardless of the society's attitude toward sex.
Goddess worship is also problematic as what we do know about goddesses is that many do not fit the matriarchalists view of a goddess, that is the loving mother, the creator and destroyer, the spiritual embodiment of nature but rather can be and are brutally violent. Additionally many goddesses seem to stand for what human womanhood isn't rather than as an embodiment or archetype of what it is. There is no reason to believe that the depiction and worship of a female deity had/has anything to do with the status or treatment of women in the culture that worships that deity.
Eller notes that according to ethnographic evidence the division of labor between men and women is apparently arbitrary. In some cultures men would do the hard labor of farming while in others women would, but, she does note that it appears that women's labor tends to be designed to take into account the need to care for small children. Reciprocity is another aspect of the sexual division of labor, men might hunt but they then bring the meat back to the group, women might gather and weave but they bring the food back to the group and use the cloth for men and women. This does not result in equality or mutual respect. Looking at horticultural and slave owning societies she notes that, "...the basic relationship does seem to hold...those who hold power make others work for them" (pg 110 para 1). That is, just because women do hard and vital work doesn't mean they are held in high esteem within their culture. This casts extreme doubts on the matriarchalist view of strong, economically indispensable tribal mothers at the head of their societies. Eller concludes that there was no uniform status for women and that in some cultures their lives may have been quite good while in others it may have been quite awful.
The weirdly illogical assertion that matriarchal societies were wholly peaceful (Gimbutas even claimed that certain supposedly matriarchal societies didn't have any weapons for killing humans) is clearly disputed by evidence dating back to the supposed period of matriarchy indicating violent non-accidental human deaths. Further there is extant archeological evidence indicating earthworks and palisades were erected to defend against attackers and not to be used as elaborate flood control systems as again attested to by Gimbutas.
In conclusion there is basically zero evidence of a matriarchal culture in prehistory let alone a world wide or even widespread matriarchal culture in ethnographic or archeological findings.
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 6 The Case Against Prehistoric Matriarchies I: Other Societies, Early Societies. Print.
Regarding kinship and reproduction she notes that there is no correlation between the 'mysterious' miracle of female pregnancy and prestige, in fact it seems, if anything, to damage the prestige of women. Childbirth in prehistory was an incredibly risky affair that often lead to high infant/mother mortality rates. It is noted that there are occasions when men mimic female birthing and pregnancy but in none of those cases resulted in an improvement in status or prestige of women. It is also noted that marriage is largely a heterosexual institution and cross culturally it serves to restrict a woman's sexuality and partners - this was noted regardless of the society's attitude toward sex.
Goddess worship is also problematic as what we do know about goddesses is that many do not fit the matriarchalists view of a goddess, that is the loving mother, the creator and destroyer, the spiritual embodiment of nature but rather can be and are brutally violent. Additionally many goddesses seem to stand for what human womanhood isn't rather than as an embodiment or archetype of what it is. There is no reason to believe that the depiction and worship of a female deity had/has anything to do with the status or treatment of women in the culture that worships that deity.
Eller notes that according to ethnographic evidence the division of labor between men and women is apparently arbitrary. In some cultures men would do the hard labor of farming while in others women would, but, she does note that it appears that women's labor tends to be designed to take into account the need to care for small children. Reciprocity is another aspect of the sexual division of labor, men might hunt but they then bring the meat back to the group, women might gather and weave but they bring the food back to the group and use the cloth for men and women. This does not result in equality or mutual respect. Looking at horticultural and slave owning societies she notes that, "...the basic relationship does seem to hold...those who hold power make others work for them" (pg 110 para 1). That is, just because women do hard and vital work doesn't mean they are held in high esteem within their culture. This casts extreme doubts on the matriarchalist view of strong, economically indispensable tribal mothers at the head of their societies. Eller concludes that there was no uniform status for women and that in some cultures their lives may have been quite good while in others it may have been quite awful.
The weirdly illogical assertion that matriarchal societies were wholly peaceful (Gimbutas even claimed that certain supposedly matriarchal societies didn't have any weapons for killing humans) is clearly disputed by evidence dating back to the supposed period of matriarchy indicating violent non-accidental human deaths. Further there is extant archeological evidence indicating earthworks and palisades were erected to defend against attackers and not to be used as elaborate flood control systems as again attested to by Gimbutas.
In conclusion there is basically zero evidence of a matriarchal culture in prehistory let alone a world wide or even widespread matriarchal culture in ethnographic or archeological findings.
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 6 The Case Against Prehistoric Matriarchies I: Other Societies, Early Societies. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment