Enjoy this wise and intelligent
corrective to
the oft-repeated errors of assumption
about the work of Marija Gimbutas.
Here is the letter I've sent to
Scientific American in response to Ian
Hodder's article "Women and Men
at Çatalhöyük" Scientific American
(January
2004:76-81). I encourage
you to write a response, as well.
All best wishes, Joan
Dear Editor,
In a recent article in Scientific
American (January 2004), "Women and
Men at
Çatalhöyük,"
archaeologist Ian Hodder presents "fresh evidence of the
relative power of the sexes"
in Anatolia 9000 years ago. Although his
research team examined every
shred of evidence looking for differences
in
power or status between the sexes,
they found a peaceful,
non-hierarchical
society in which sex was
relatively unimportant in assigning social
roles
for 1200 years. This is
big news within a discipline that too often
assumes
sexual asymmetry and warfare
to be a fact of life in human societies.
In Hodder's view, this new discovery
presents a more complicated picture
than the "simplistic" scenario
presented by archaeologist Marija
Gimbutas
who "forcefully argued for an
early phase of matriarchal society" as
well as
belief in a "mother goddess."
Hodder defines matriarchy as "women were
the
leaders, descent was through
the female line, and inheritance passed
from
mother to daughters." Although
he states that cultural anthropology
provides no substantial claims
for true matriarchies, matrilineal
cultures
are actually well known in anthropology.
The rub comes with questions
of
female power and divinity.
Gimbutas repeatedly rejected
the term matriarchy because it usually
implies
rule by women as the mirror image
of patriarchy. Decades ago she
described
the earliest farming cultures
of Europe, as well as Çatalhöyük, as
balanced,
egalitarian cultures in which
the sexes were "more or less on equal
footing." Hodder's team is actually
confirming Gimbutas' statement
instead
of proving her wrong.
People who have seen row after
row of female sculptures from Çatalhöyük
at
the archaeological museum in
Ankara may be amazed by Hodder's statement
that
"much of the art is very masculine."
Hodder uses as evidence the few
painted scenes of tiny males
with enormous bulls, evidence of feasting,
and
bull heads mounted within shrines.
When searching for the symbolic
significance of the plentiful
bucrania, it's important to keep in mind
that
bulls are always more expendable
than cows and would have been butchered
and
consumed more frequently.
Hodder ignores the dozen or so sculptures
mounted
on walls with outspread legs
and upraised arms found by James Mellaart
in
similar excavation levels.
Some of these figures have clearly marked
breasts, are seemingly pregnant
or poised above bucrania as though
giving
birth to animal life. In
Gimbutas' view, such female images functioned
as
visual metaphors expressing sacred
concepts. Both she and James Mellaart
did
not hesitate to use the term
"goddess."
I commend Ian Hodder for
recognizing a link between the large clay
statuette of a seated, pregnant
woman flanked by female leopards found
in a
grain bin (p. 78) and the figurine
with the seed in her body (p. 82).
These
sculptures illustrate an enduring
association between grain and the
life-giving powers of women reflected
in Neolithic art for thousands of
years. Hodder apparently rejects
a sacred association, implied by
Mellaart's
and Gimbutas' references to "goddess,"
in favor of a more secular
representation of "the
symbolic importance of women" and "sympathetic
magic." It is interesting
to note that clay tablets from Sumer, c.
2000
BC, describe the goddess Inanna
pouring forth grain from her womb.
Perhaps, as the excavations continue
into the upper levels of
Çatalhöyük,
the sacred dimension rendered
in female forms will be recognized as an
obvious feature of this balanced,
egalitarian society.
Joan Marler
Sebastopol, CA
Home //