David:
>This assumes, of course, that there was a "Goddess" and not a bunch of
>goddesses.
Ugh, lay down your sword. I'm not a Wiccan, nor feminist, nor am I
irrational. Let's talk about this calmly.
Yes, it does assume this. However, there is a concrete reason for this
assumption because putting aside the feminist and overimaginative views
of Gimbutas, the idea of a central Goddess figure giving birth to the
world makes good conceptual sense, is attested elsewhere, and fits well
with the mythological picture that we see in the Mediterranean Nelothic
given the existing artifacts.
First, everything points to the conclusion that the Mediterranean
coastal & Near-East areas were thriving with trade and exchange during
the neolithic. There were most probably not just exchanges of products
and technologies. Comparative linguistics shows that Indo-European
adopted Semitic words into its vocabulary. Therefore, clearly there was
more exchange going on than just material. Cultural exchange such as
the sharing of language, traditions, stories and mythologies must also
have taken place at this time.
After accepting this large-scale cultural exchange and that the resultant
mythologies of this area were probably very interconnected and
homogeneous to some degree, we can see how a common world-view could
arise. So we must determine this general mythos and this is where,
despite drowning oneself in exact details and other misgivings you may
have about her, Gimbutas has offered some credible solutions for this
general world-view.
Taking a look just at the possible concept of a woman giving birth to the
cosmos makes a lot of plain ol' common sense if you think about it in
steps. Prehistoric peoples would have surely recognized that women were
the ones that gave birth to children. A simple observation, of course,
but we can better understand the Goddess concept when we extend the fact
that "women give birth to children" to "women give birth to all mankind".
From this small semantic leap, it's only another small step to concluding
that a giant woman must have given birth to all life, all creation itself
because the female form can be taken as a symbol of birth.
This concept while bizarre and trite in the modern world is based on
understandable reasoning. It also explains the meaning behind many
Goddess figurines showing a plump naked lady with big birthing hips,
sometimes even in the process of giving birth. This is not sexual; this
is about creation; this is about the core of this world-view. I don't
think these kinds of interpretations compare to "wavy lines".
Now, I don't know the inspiration underlying Gimbutas' views about a
neolithic Goddess but a similar idea exists amongst the Navajo who have
their own "Goddess" called Asdzaa Nadleehe ("Changing Woman"). When
you examine the myths of this matrilinear culture, Changing Woman
appears to be intimately connected with creation and the seasons, just
like the neolithic Goddess concept. Further, while it's true that the
Goddess was probably not the only goddess or god that was worshipped
at that time, just as Changing Woman is not the only spirit known to
the Navajo, this doesn't negate her deep importance within the
world-view.
Further comparison of myths in the Fertile Crescent & Anatolia, and
the myths of later Indo-European peoples shows that there is a constant
recurring theme of a fertility goddess of great relevance. This is not
Gimbutasism because unlike the meaning behind abstract wavy lines, this
particular fact is blunt for anyone to see and has been seen by more
than just Gimbutas' "followers".
In the end, the concept is sound, we find attestation amongst the Navajo,
it fits well when compared to existing myths of a fertility goddess in the
area and the artifacts found. After all that, it seems the only objection
you have left is the idea that the Goddess mythos was monotheistic --
something I didn't state, regardless of what Gimbutas or subsequent
authors may have claimed.
>The idea of the cosmic pillar as tree equalling the doubtfully existing
>Goddess flies in the face of the identifying of such trees in general with
>what would be considered "masculine" trees, such as oaks and ashes.
Let's get a grip here. I'm trying to get across the idea that the
tree symbolism is an abstractification of the Goddess but I didn't assert
that this later tree symbolism was ONLY identified with the Goddess that
may or may not have existed by this time in the original form.
Depending on what culture or time frame we're talking about, the
Goddess may have faded out of existence or as Gimbutas rightly claims
was dethroned to a secondary position through marriage to a male deity
thereby adopting some of her former attributes and functions.
Her many forms such as Hathor, Ishtar, Ashtarte, Turan, Venus, Aphrodite
and Inanna (not to mention the uncanny resemblance of her name in different
languages as though widely borrowed during prehistory) demonstrate that
there really IS a fertility goddess underlying this that is associated
consistently with widely used attributes such as Venus, the World Tree
and fertility.
>(I believe that the Baltic axis mundi was the feminine birch, but that is
>an exception.)
The fertility goddess Hathor was identified with the sycamore. We also
have Eve (obviously fertile being the First Woman) and the Tree of
Knowledge in Genesis, just aching for analysis. In some cultures, the
central Tree has been replaced with a Mountain. So in Sumerian
mythology, we should examine Nin-Hursag (who is fertilized by En-Ki
to produce plants) but even still there is Inanna and the huluppu myth
lacking any sign of big erect penises to contend with. Also over in
sunny Anatolia there is Istustaya who sits under a hawthorn tree waiting
for Telepinu, the god of seasons, to return.
So this presents us with the following questions. What does Hathor have
to do with a tree?? Why on earth did God plunk a tree, of all things, in
the middle of the garden of Eden to test Eve?? Why would a phallic
mountain be female?? What does a huluppu tree look like and why does
Inanna need to tend to it?? Why doesn't she live in a house like normal
women instead of that damned tree?? Why doesn't Istustaya wait near
a lake instead?? I'm sure you must see the overwhelming association here
between a fertility goddess and a tree -- That's what the Goddess is
based on.
>Throw in the phallic nature of trees and I think that the identification
>of the two goes beyond believability.
Just because I stated that the tree was originally a symbol of the Goddess
doesn't mean that these derivative symbolisms MUST remain feminine and
non-phallic. Of course the tree can be phallic, but this doesn't negate
the feminine origin. It's very "believable" when you understand that some
cultures may view creation a little differently as the union between man
and woman. The tree, while being the Goddess, can later be thought of as
a phallus rising to empregnate the female sky to give birth to creation,
similar to the Egyptian cosmos. In this way, "feminine" > "bisexual" >
"masculine".
Don't throw away the idea of a neolithic goddess underlying creation
merely because of Gimbutas or cult religions. There's a lot here that
you're dismissing and you don't even offer a viable alternative.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail