Scan barcode
lu_root's review against another edition
Il tema e i concetti sono bellissimi e super interessanti. Ma che faticaccia per leggerlo! Non so se perché Gimbutas non ha avuto modo di rifinirlo (è morta poco dopo la prima stesura; e io non ho letto niente altro di suo). Oppure è perché mi sono dovuta leggere 60 pagine al giorno, tutto di fretta. Insomma, non posso dire che sia stata una lettura piacevole. Però sicuramente ne esco arricchita, che è una buona cosa.
faunodecetimmolare's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
2.0
Note: I read the Spanish translation of the book (that isn't found in the "other editions" tab)
Since I first found out about Marija Gimbutas on my Introduction to Indoeuropean class in college, I've felt ambivalent about her. I deeply respect the labour and findings she has given to the original Urheimat for indoeuropeans and her work in pre-historical Europe. However, as another reviewer has already pointed out, her views about the Goddess Cult are also very biased (which, to be fair, that has been the case of many male philologist and arqueologist in the not so far past). I find that, in this book, she tends to jump out into conclussions that admit no other interpetation, such as the identification of tombs as a symbolic interpretation of the uterus, the reeds as related to the uterine fluid, and so on. She also seems to paint the matriarchal pre-indoeuropean europe almost as a homogeneous culture, in both religion and symbolisms, neglecting the universalims of some of the behaviours and beliefs, and, more evidently, as a utopian world before the patriarchal indoeuropeans (then, again, i'm in no way deniying the evidently patriarchal and warrior-culture of the indoeuropeans).
However, it is important to note how Gimbuta's work has been a milestone and breaking point for feminist works (even if she didn't really considered her labour as "feminist")
Since I first found out about Marija Gimbutas on my Introduction to Indoeuropean class in college, I've felt ambivalent about her. I deeply respect the labour and findings she has given to the original Urheimat for indoeuropeans and her work in pre-historical Europe. However, as another reviewer has already pointed out, her views about the Goddess Cult are also very biased (which, to be fair, that has been the case of many male philologist and arqueologist in the not so far past). I find that, in this book, she tends to jump out into conclussions that admit no other interpetation, such as the identification of tombs as a symbolic interpretation of the uterus, the reeds as related to the uterine fluid, and so on. She also seems to paint the matriarchal pre-indoeuropean europe almost as a homogeneous culture, in both religion and symbolisms, neglecting the universalims of some of the behaviours and beliefs, and, more evidently, as a utopian world before the patriarchal indoeuropeans (then, again, i'm in no way deniying the evidently patriarchal and warrior-culture of the indoeuropeans).
However, it is important to note how Gimbuta's work has been a milestone and breaking point for feminist works (even if she didn't really considered her labour as "feminist")
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
2.0
Dr. Marija Gimbutienė was responsible for the Kurgan hypothesis, which has an ever-increasing amount of evidence supporting it. Dr. Gimbutienė was also responsible for pioneering the idea that pre-Neolithic societies were peaceful matriarchies, which does not.
Her work is a step up from Robert Graves—a large step up—but still only a single step in that regard. The crux of Dr. Gimbutienė's hypothesis is that there were two systems: the "gynocentric" (matriarchal) pre-Kurgan Old European system, and the "androcratic" (patriarchal) Bronze Age Indo-European system which would eventually supplant it. The matristic societies were peaceful (i.e., not warlike), honoured women and female deities, and espoused economic equality. The patriarchal societies, specifically the Kurgan peoples, on the other hand, invaded Europe and imposed upon its natives the hierarchal male-dominated warrior culture. If you're thinking this sounds suspiciously like the noble savage trope, you're not alone, because in essence that is exactly what it is. (Also there are not-insignificant parallels with proto-fascist thought and the return to an imagined utopian traditional past, but I digress.) Bernard Wailes once called Dr. Gimbutienė "immensely knowledgeable but not very good in critical analysis," which I think is a perfect way of summarising the issue. Where she diverges from hard evidence, her theories become increasingly shaky, depending predominantly on conjecture and confirmation bias.
It's fascinating stuff. It's easy to buy into the myth, because we want it to be true: the idea that there was a woman-centric society living peacefully and prosperously up until the mean scary men attacked is certainly an appealing one. And to her credit the majority of hard evidence presented in the book is correct, albeit outdated; Dr. Gimbutienė was an excellent archaeologist and scholar with a significant weakness. This book is best read as supplementary material to other, more accurate, texts. But it's a fascinating read indeed, full of tantalising details and seductive theories, it's easy to understand why someone could turn a blind eye to the lack of concrete evidence. To quote Oscar Wilde, the truth is rarely pure and never simple.
Just to be entirely clear on the reality of things, the matriarchal theory is, almost entirely, bullshit: Europe had its fair share of weapons, hillforts, violent anthropogenic deaths, and warfare, long before the Kurgan incursion supposedly shattered the blissful peace of a woman-led society. Adult men were also given preferential treatment in burial situations, while women and children were often given notably reduced ceremony. Basically, there's no reliable evidence that women ever held a dominant position in any (co-ed; the Amazons don't count) society—there were, of course, various societies over time in which women held different levels of power, but never once was there an instance of women unequivocally ruling. Goddess worship has existed in countless cultures which were, in practice, vehemently and indeed violently misogynistic—to paraphrase Margaret Atwood, "up on a pedestal" is exactly as dehumanising as "down on your knees."
Her work is a step up from Robert Graves—a large step up—but still only a single step in that regard. The crux of Dr. Gimbutienė's hypothesis is that there were two systems: the "gynocentric" (matriarchal) pre-Kurgan Old European system, and the "androcratic" (patriarchal) Bronze Age Indo-European system which would eventually supplant it. The matristic societies were peaceful (i.e., not warlike), honoured women and female deities, and espoused economic equality. The patriarchal societies, specifically the Kurgan peoples, on the other hand, invaded Europe and imposed upon its natives the hierarchal male-dominated warrior culture. If you're thinking this sounds suspiciously like the noble savage trope, you're not alone, because in essence that is exactly what it is. (Also there are not-insignificant parallels with proto-fascist thought and the return to an imagined utopian traditional past, but I digress.) Bernard Wailes once called Dr. Gimbutienė "immensely knowledgeable but not very good in critical analysis," which I think is a perfect way of summarising the issue. Where she diverges from hard evidence, her theories become increasingly shaky, depending predominantly on conjecture and confirmation bias.
It's fascinating stuff. It's easy to buy into the myth, because we want it to be true: the idea that there was a woman-centric society living peacefully and prosperously up until the mean scary men attacked is certainly an appealing one. And to her credit the majority of hard evidence presented in the book is correct, albeit outdated; Dr. Gimbutienė was an excellent archaeologist and scholar with a significant weakness. This book is best read as supplementary material to other, more accurate, texts. But it's a fascinating read indeed, full of tantalising details and seductive theories, it's easy to understand why someone could turn a blind eye to the lack of concrete evidence. To quote Oscar Wilde, the truth is rarely pure and never simple.
Just to be entirely clear on the reality of things, the matriarchal theory is, almost entirely, bullshit: Europe had its fair share of weapons, hillforts, violent anthropogenic deaths, and warfare, long before the Kurgan incursion supposedly shattered the blissful peace of a woman-led society. Adult men were also given preferential treatment in burial situations, while women and children were often given notably reduced ceremony. Basically, there's no reliable evidence that women ever held a dominant position in any (co-ed; the Amazons don't count) society—there were, of course, various societies over time in which women held different levels of power, but never once was there an instance of women unequivocally ruling. Goddess worship has existed in countless cultures which were, in practice, vehemently and indeed violently misogynistic—to paraphrase Margaret Atwood, "up on a pedestal" is exactly as dehumanising as "down on your knees."
norma_cenva's review against another edition
5.0
This is an absolutely amazing book! The depth of the discoveries, the research... amazing!
More...