"What we lack for prehistory, however, is a trained observer, an insider who could translate prehistoric art for us" (page 116 para 2).
This opens chapter seven which focuses on the ethnographic and archeological evidence for the matriarchal myth as it exists in prehistoric art and architecture and it clearly and accurately pinpoints the absolute conundrum that lies in citing a modern interpretation of the art and architecture of prehistoric societies. Even if the observer is utterly divorced from the debate about prehistoric matriarchy they will inevitably bring to bare their modern interpretations and biases no matter how hard they try not to simply because we do not have a prehistoric interpreter or even a firm idea of what any prehistoric culture's values or world view were like. It is an exercise in intellectual hubris to attempt to overlay something as enormous as the matriarchal myth upon such massively separated works of art. Not to mention that citing them as evidence of anything aside from the existence of the peoples that made them is highly questionable.
One of the problematic assertions is that several images and designs are indicative of goddess worship, the problem is that these animals and designs are so ubiquitous and interpreted so broadly that it is possible to declare almost any image as evidence of goddess worship. Again a case of tweaking evidence to support a hypothesis rather than creating a hypothesis to fit the evidence. One such list of these images includes nearly sixty images ranging from the sun and moon to triangles, circles, and dots - as indicative of goddess worship. Seriously, because clearly no one could ever possibly use such images for any other purpose. And again, this is assuming an impossible knowledge and intimacy with prehistoric thinking, across the world.
The same problematic broad interpretations and agenda motivated observations are also applied to figurines, statues, and jewelry (even in the case of artworks that are strongly phallic such as abstract pillars with breasts that more strongly resemble a penis and testicles or 'breast pendants' which when hung on a string naturally balance to appear to represent, again, a penis and testicles). Further, when images are strongly female in nature they are declared to be goddess images rather than say healing fetishes, or even pornographic images - each of which is just as, and in some cases, more likely than goddess imagery.
Everything from temple layouts to wall decorations (including walls that have had small animal skulls molded into the plaster and then these non paired or vertically paired skulls have been termed 'breasts) are cited as evidence of goddess worship even when such assertions are patently exaggerated and fly in the face of common sense, simple reason, and basic observational skills.
Clearly citing art and architecture to stand as evidence of something as immutable and difficult to define and describe as a prehistoric religion is poorly reasoned at best.
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 7 The Case Against Matriarchies II: Prehistoric Art and Architecture. Print.
This opens chapter seven which focuses on the ethnographic and archeological evidence for the matriarchal myth as it exists in prehistoric art and architecture and it clearly and accurately pinpoints the absolute conundrum that lies in citing a modern interpretation of the art and architecture of prehistoric societies. Even if the observer is utterly divorced from the debate about prehistoric matriarchy they will inevitably bring to bare their modern interpretations and biases no matter how hard they try not to simply because we do not have a prehistoric interpreter or even a firm idea of what any prehistoric culture's values or world view were like. It is an exercise in intellectual hubris to attempt to overlay something as enormous as the matriarchal myth upon such massively separated works of art. Not to mention that citing them as evidence of anything aside from the existence of the peoples that made them is highly questionable.
One of the problematic assertions is that several images and designs are indicative of goddess worship, the problem is that these animals and designs are so ubiquitous and interpreted so broadly that it is possible to declare almost any image as evidence of goddess worship. Again a case of tweaking evidence to support a hypothesis rather than creating a hypothesis to fit the evidence. One such list of these images includes nearly sixty images ranging from the sun and moon to triangles, circles, and dots - as indicative of goddess worship. Seriously, because clearly no one could ever possibly use such images for any other purpose. And again, this is assuming an impossible knowledge and intimacy with prehistoric thinking, across the world.
The same problematic broad interpretations and agenda motivated observations are also applied to figurines, statues, and jewelry (even in the case of artworks that are strongly phallic such as abstract pillars with breasts that more strongly resemble a penis and testicles or 'breast pendants' which when hung on a string naturally balance to appear to represent, again, a penis and testicles). Further, when images are strongly female in nature they are declared to be goddess images rather than say healing fetishes, or even pornographic images - each of which is just as, and in some cases, more likely than goddess imagery.
Everything from temple layouts to wall decorations (including walls that have had small animal skulls molded into the plaster and then these non paired or vertically paired skulls have been termed 'breasts) are cited as evidence of goddess worship even when such assertions are patently exaggerated and fly in the face of common sense, simple reason, and basic observational skills.
Clearly citing art and architecture to stand as evidence of something as immutable and difficult to define and describe as a prehistoric religion is poorly reasoned at best.
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 7 The Case Against Matriarchies II: Prehistoric Art and Architecture. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment