W H Y A R E T H E Y N O T G O O D E N O U G H ? Discontented with the Goddesses already frequently in use, Encyclopaedia Britannica calls for more proper ones... I really ask myself to what kind of legitimacy the authors of this article may refer, when claiming the right to deny the meaning, symbolism and function of the Goddess-veneration reported of in actual research, to the extent that they don´t even consider it worth mentioning. Instead they call for a kind of goddess veneration that doesn´t yet exist. When I was looking for what kind of information thats afforded in Encyclopaedia Britannica about the brilliant research in mythology as for example by Marija Gimbutas´s and others about the different kinds of primeveal goddess veneration in Old Europe with surroundings from paleolithic times and onwards, you will find this astonishing statesments, but not one word about the actual relevant research on the topic, and their progenitors. According to the article Mother Godess in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the term stands for a wide variety of feminine and material deities that symbolize creativity, birth, fertility, sexual union and cyclical vegetation. "Mother goddess, any of a variety of feminine deities and maternal symbols of creativity, birth, fertility, sexual union, nurturing, and the cycle of growth.” Thereafter is stated that: "The term also has been applied to figures as diverse as the so-called Stone Age Venuses and the Virgin Mary." Upon which these remarkable statesment follows: “Because of the wide variations concerning maternal figures, there is a pressing, but as yet unmet, need for a more complex and useful typology of mother goddesses and maternal motifs based on meaning, symbolism, and function.” Scratching your gray hairs, you now stunned ask yourself from what direction such a kind of "pressing need" is supposed to emanate, and why not all the enormous endeavours on the subject in question, so far delivered on a professional basis, such as from Robert Graves, Merlin Stone, Marija Gimbutas and Heide Göttner Abendroth et al are good enough. Not least the latter, who already in the 80´s published a research essay on the subject which must be considered authoritative enough, with a very well-elaborated analysis of the original great goddess's various aspects and external symbolic representations and names, whose historical development and transformations until later patriarchal pervertions are presented in schematic overviews at an entirely acceptable scientific level. Not to mention the brilliant works of the real master; Marija Gimbutas of witch not one word is said. What kind of "useful typology" ??? "Useful" to whom and why? And what "maternal motives based on meaning, symbolism and function". Who may decide that and out of what kind of religious and / or ideology and for whom / who? I really ask myself to what kind of legitimacy the authors of this article may refer, when claiming the right to deny the meaning, symbolism and function of the Goddess-veneration reported of in actual research on the subject, to the extent that they don´t even consider it worth mentioning. Instead they call for a kind of goddess veneration that doesn´t yet exist. Why for example isn´t the chategorising of the manyfold layers of mening, symbolism and function good enough that Maria Gimbutas has deciphered out of the language wich the Goddesses of Old Europe speak, commented by the eminent Swedish archaeologist & mythologist Kristina Bergren in this article written together with James B Harrod Gimbutas work against all its detractors: Understanding of Marija Gimbutas "She has identified a diverse and complex range of Neolithic female divinites, including bird goddess, mistress of animals, Queen of the Mountains, snake goddess, deer mother, bear mother, life-giver, craft-giver, birth-giver, nurse, pregnant earth or earth mother, double goddess (mother-daughter), goddess of death, triangle-hourglass goddess, frog goddess, hedgehog goddess, fish goddess, bee and butterfly goddess and regeneratrix, and thereby invalidates the simplistic hypotheses of one“Great Mother” deity for the European Neolithic. Marija Gimbutas designated these multiple forms as manifestations of the “Great Goddess” as opposed to the “Great Mother”, who is secondary, to the decipherment of the various female deities. And whenever was a similar request made to replace the meaning, symbolism and function of the male fertility God´s bearing women out of their ribs, heads and crushed testicles as in Christianity and Greek mythology?