Mark wrote
>
> http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/fmuntean/POM5a3.html
>
> --quote--
> The burden of proof has now shifted. Those who do not accept
Gimbutas' theory of pre-Indo-European Old Europe and its overthrow by
invading, horse-riding Kurgan nomads need to present persuasive
material evidence of indigenous warfare, sexual and economic
inequality and the dominance of male rulers and male power icons
(male
deities) as typical of Neolithic European (pre)history. Without a
preponderance of evidence to the contrary, we are justified in
acknowledging that Gimbutas has proposed the most plausible and
probable interpretation of the presently available material data for
these aspects of Neolithic Europe.
> --end quote--
>
> Gimbutas' theories are dominant. If I've got it right, she
preferred
a Volga homeland for horse domestication and the origin of the Kurgan
culture. Mallory and others, though, seem to prefer a more western
location, in Sredney Stog.
>
> As for the quote I give at the top, the author's view seems to be
that the conquest model has become fashionable again.
Eilaine Reisler paraphrased Gimbutas's model in her book "The
Challice
and the Blade" which has gone down well in neo=pagan feminist circles
drawing upon Merlin Stone's earlier "When God was a Woman".
Reisler has the view that Old Europe was characterised by peace and
prosperity interupted by ethnic cleansing from the Kurgans who failed
to wipe out the natives....
I find the approach that suggests that the secondary products
revolution (As suggested by Ehrensburg) tended to confine wonmen at
home and gave men all the food production roles, had much more to do
with the origins of Patriarchy.
Regards
John