Goddesses in Prehistory

Goodison, Lucy; Morris, Christine

doi:10.1002/9781118294291.ch13

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While traditional archaeologists sometimes uncritically gendered the new objects and activities offered by the Neolithic (e.g., axes, making pottery, gardening, plowing), most archaeologists have rightly been more cautious. Among explicitly theoretical work, there has been deconstruction of “Goddess” interpretations (e.g., Goodison and Morris 2013; Meskell 1995), and interpretations of figurines, both in Europe and in the related but different contexts of the Neolithic Near East (Bailey 2005, 2013; Chapman and Gaydarska 2006; Meskell et al 2008; Nakamura and Meskell 2009; Nanoglou 2008). Hodder (1990) attempted a Bourdieuesque post-structuralist interpretation of Neolithic habitus, but developed it little further (cf.…”

Section: Gender In the European Neolithicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, archaeologists have interpreted Neolithic figurines as an iconography relating women's fertility to agriculture; in the fullest version (Gimbutas 1989, 1991), they represent the Goddess worshipped by matriarchal Neolithic societies. Others critique this view as gender-biased, essentializing, and incorporating anachronistic ideas of both religion and women (Goodison and Morris 2013; Meskell 1995). However, perhaps shunning the topic as dangerously value-laden, with few exceptions (e.g., Chapman and Gaydarska 2006:53–70), archaeologists have avoided discussing what figurines actually do imply about gender.…”

Section: Gender In the European Neolithicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Why should this be so? It cannot be due to theoretical innocence: Neolithic archaeologists have been at the forefront of theoretical explorations, and feminist critiques of “goddess” meta-narratives (e.g., Goodison and Morris 2013) underline Neolithic theorists’ acuity and awareness of gender. Is it for lack of material evidence?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Becoming Gendered in European Prehistory: Was Neolithic Gender Fundamentally Different?

Robb

Harris

2017

Am. Antiq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is notable how little gender archaeology has been written for the European Neolithic, in contrast to the following Bronze Age. We cannot blame this absence on a lack of empirical data or on archaeologists’ theoretical naïveté. Instead, we argue that this absence reflects the fact that gender in this period was qualitatively different in form from the types of gender that emerged in Europe from about 3000 cal BC onwards; the latter still form the norm in European and American contexts today, and our standard theories and methodologies are designed to uncover this specific form of gender. In Bronze Age gender systems, gender was mostly binary, associated with stable, lifelong identities expressed in recurrent complexes of gendered symbolism. In contrast, Neolithic gender appears to have been less firmly associated with personal identity and more contextually relevant; it slips easily through our methodological nets. In proposing this “contextual gender” model for Neolithic gender, we both open up new understandings of gender in the past and present and pose significant questions for our models of gender more widely.

show abstract

Section: Gender In the European Neolithicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gender In the European Neolithicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Becoming Gendered in European Prehistory: Was Neolithic Gender Fundamentally Different?

Robb

Harris

2017

Am. Antiq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tako tzv. "debata o Boginji" stavlja u fokus pitanja roda u savremenom društvu i odražava način na koji ono projektuje aktuelna pitanja na prošlost (Goodison and Morris 2013). 3 Zanimljiva je i veza između koncepta Boginje i ekofeminističkih pokreta: njihovi aktivisti prave paralelu između (lošeg) tretmana žena i tretmana prirodne sredine; ta analogija ističe kontrast između matrijarhalnih društava, koja su živela u harmoniji s prirodom i patrijarhalnih, koja eksploatišu prirodna blaga (Eller 2001, 17).…”

Section: J V 744unclassified

Domination of Women? Gender Representation in the Corpus of Late Neolithic Anthropomorphic Figurines

Vuković

2021

eap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the inception of the discipline of archaeology, figurines have been considered as the basis for research into the praehistoric social order and religious ideas. In spite of the numerous critiques, the idea that they are the reflection of adoration of Mother Goddess and fertility cults, has persevered even to the present day, mainly thanks to the work of Maria Gimbutas. Her simplified approach to praehistory, apart from giving rise to pseudo-archaeological narratives, has induced severe criticism and polemics inside archaeology. The concept of the Goddess has migrated during the recent period from the academic writing to the realm of pseudo-science, daily politics and activism. In our country, the ideas of the Golden Past, considered to be the origin of the European civilization, are particularly present in the „grey zone“: the public sphere, facilitated through media. All these narratives are based upon the preconception that in the Neolithic collections the representations of women dominate. The results of the preliminary analyses of gender representation in Neolithic assemblages have proven that the claims of women’s dominance are ill-founded, and emphasized once more the significant presence, or even dominance of asexual figurines. On the other hand, the criteria for identification have shown to be unreliable, raising the question of usefulness of such attempts, as well as a number of new questions. Primarily, the role and meaning of the presence/absence of secondary sex attributes, their correlation to age, as well as possible regional differences in meaning and function of figurines are discussed.

show abstract

Goddesses

Morris

2015

The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goddesses are a prominent element of religions throughout the world, past and present. Their roles and characters are as varied as the cultures to which they belong. Their sexuality is expressed through mythic narratives and ritual or cult practices, and relates to many key domains such as erotic love, creation myths, the fertility of people, animals and plants, pregnancy and childbirth. Within the study of early prehistoric religion there continues to be extensive debate about the existence of a primal mother or great goddess.

show abstract

Goddesses in Prehistory

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Becoming Gendered in European Prehistory: Was Neolithic Gender Fundamentally Different?

Becoming Gendered in European Prehistory: Was Neolithic Gender Fundamentally Different?

Domination of Women? Gender Representation in the Corpus of Late Neolithic Anthropomorphic Figurines

Goddesses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About