T h e  G r e a t  S c h o l a r

M A R I J A  G I M B U T A S  

skarmavbild-2016-08-18-kl-12-51-52

 

M A R I A   G I M B U T A S 

P R E S E N T A T I O N 

 

Marija Gimbuta's revolutionary work is vanishing in the mist and becomes increasingly distanced from our modern consciousness the more we are getting close to the final phase of the era called the "anthropocen", based on the so-called "scientific" worldview according to Dawkins at al.

 

There is no room for mythopoethic visions in our design of the future, only some yet more nuclear laboratories, star wars and space missions, this time to March instead of the moon.

 

It appears fatal as I quite agree with the much sensible Eva Moberg, that the language that speaks to us from our past, which Gimbutas had the great gift and stamina to encode and present to us, could have given us the hope and visionary inspiration and strength to be able to create a future being no less characterised by peace and freedom, of equality and long-term sustainability as our ancestors once did  in our past

 

But today you can buy one of her volumnious and comprehensive works for a cheap penny online. I just got one of her most famous, almost 400 pages, tightly printed, small-sized-letters, content-rich book sent home: "The Language of the Goddess", 1991. Amazed by its heavy weight, in both a figurative and literal sense; This is truly a master's work! Standing here with this astonishing document of a bygone world in my hands, browsing back and forth in it, I got struck by sorrow and great reverence . What incredible rigour lies behind all this ciphering work by steadily and relentnessly continue searching, pondering, cathegorizing, reporting of every little detail, distinguishing of coherent patterns, underlying meaning-bearing structures, etc. etc.

 

Risen like a phoenix from the ashes, the beauty and creativity, fascination, dedication and tribute to life apparently is experienced too paradisiac for those who can not fly so high without burning their wings.

 

It is a shame on behalf of science, that the scholars nowadays seem so much more interested in their hot path of career and status in the inner circles of the establishment, than in the search for true knowledge.

 

20989121_1996097910620854_554347669821993151_o

I will have to by this book too:

 

II will

Skärmavbild 2017-08-28 kl. 21.07.25
Skärmavbild 2017-08-28 kl. 21.06.57

 

ANATOMY OF BACKLASH: CONCERNING THE WORK OF MARIJA GIMBUTAS »

by C H A R L E N E   S P R E T N A C K

 

Introduction:

Marija Gimbutas’ Pioneering Work in Five Areas

Quote:

 

"Anyone who assumes that material published under her own name will stand as an inviolable record of her positions might well consider the case of Marija Gimbutas (1921–1994). She is a renowned Lithuanian-American archaeologist who was internationally regarded as occupying the pinnacle of her field, having left an extensive written record of her pioneering work for over half a century (scores of monographs and excavation site reports, editorships of scholarly journals, presentations at international conferences published in proceedings volumes, three hundred fifty articles, and more than twenty volumes translated into numerous languages).

 

Yet, particularly after her death, she was relentlessly misrepresented in the extreme, pilloried for holding positions that she repeatedly argued against, and demeaned and dismissed—beginning first with a small group of professors and spreading to such an extent that her work is no longer read, assigned, or cited in the classes of many Anglo-American professors of European archaeology. Instead, sweeping cartoon versions of her Kurgan theory and her interpretations of Neolithic symbolism replace accurate discussions. She is barely mentioned in textbooks and was not only toppled but nearly erased entirely.

 

Once that was accomplished, her detractors and their supporters could claim in their own books and articles—usually after distancing themselves from a caricature of Gimbutas’ work they termed “outdated”— that they had made a number of fresh discoveries and conclusions about Neolithic societies which are, in truth, exactly what Gimbutas had discovered, observed, and written about decades earlier.

 

An example is “Women and Men at Çatalhöyük” by Ian Hodder in Scientific American

 

unknown-3

 

1 in which Hodder incorrectly informs his readers that Marija Gimbutas “argued forcefully for an early phase of matriarchal society.”

 

2 In this article on the excavation of Catalhöyük in Turkey, Hodder announces “fresh evidence of the relative power of the sexes” in that Neolithic settlement—as if it were a break- through discovery of his own, supposedly disproving the work of Gimbutas. Hodder declares that “the picture of women and men is complex” and that “We are not witnessing a patriarchy or matriarchy.”

 

3 In fact, that is the exact position taken by Gimbutas: based on the roughly egalitarian graves and other material evidence, she concluded that Neolithic societies of Europe and Anatolia had “a balanced, nonpatriarchal and nonmatriarchal social system.”

 

4 To express this balanced culture, Gimbutas expressly avoided using the term “matriarchy,” trying out several other terms.
She was certainly not a so-called “matriarchalist” as she has repeatedly been accused. One might wonder if Hodder had ever read Gimbutas’ work. In fact, Hodder admitted in a subsequent interview that he had only “read her [early] work as an undergraduate a long time ago” and that he was probably influenced by “what other people have said about her and written about her and how that stuff has been used by other people.”5

 

 

quote-archaeological-materials-are-not-mute-they-speak-their-own-language-and-they-need-to-marija-gimbutas-64-15-09

WHAT DOES A FUNNY LITTLE FIGURE LIKE THIS HAS TO TELL US ABOUT OUR PREHISTORIC PAST?

And why is it so dangerous for us to listen to, that it has to be censored?30eefb3a115a9cd13ce87beb03be4ea9

WHO WAS THIS PIONEERING SCHOLAR,  BRUNT BY SO MANY UNWARRENTED ATTACKS?

Quoting  Joan Marler:

 

"I first met Marija Gimbutas in 1979, the year after I had written Lost Goddesses of Early Greece: A Collection of Pre-Hellenic Myths. A few years later, I made a trip to Germany and Croatia, where I wanted to visit a cave on the island of Hvar in which an archaeological excavation had discovered Neolithic goddess figurines, which had subsequently been moved to a museum in Zagreb.

 

I went first to the office of the archaeological museum in Zadar, on the Croatian mainland, where I was met with the usual lack of interest that commonly greets Americans in Europe. Everything changed, however, when I presented a brief letter of introduction from Marija Gimbutas. The two archaeologists were amazed: this insignificant tourist actually knows Gimbutas! They immediately hastened to get me a chair and asked cordially if they might be of any assistance.

 

Why were the Croatian archaeologists so impressed with even my modest connection to Professor Gimbutas? Why was she so highly regarded not only in European circles of archaeology and paleolinguistics but also in the United States, where she was the editor for Eastern European archaeology at the Journal of Indo-European Studies, which she co-founded? Gimbutas was and is considered a giant in her field because, from the early 1950s until her death in 1994, Marija Gimbutas developed groundbreaking archaeological work in the following five areas:"

skarmavbild-2016-08-10-kl-09-46-41

 

1) THE CIVILISATION OF "OLD EUROPE" 

 

In 1956, as a Research Fellow at the Peabody Museum at Harvard University, Marija Gimbutas published The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, the very first monograph to present a comprehensive evaluation of the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Copper Age cultures in Russia and the Baltic area.

 

Until this volume appeared, the information available to Western scholars about the prehistory of Eastern Europe was fragmentary due to linguistic and political barriers.6

 

After thirteen years at Harvard, Marija Gimbutas accepted a full professorship in European Archaeology at UCLA in 1963 and produced, among other works, studies of the prehistoric Balts and Slavs, and the comprehensive Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe in 1965, which established her world-wide reputation as an expert on the European Bronze Age.

 

Gimbutas recognized that the Neolithic and Copper Age settlements of southeastern Europe were not primitive versions of later Bronze Age cultures. Instead, these earlier societies were radically different in numerous aspects from what came later in terms of:

 

1)burial patterns (roughly egalitarian between males and females),

2) the use of a sophisticated symbol system (evidence of a systematic use of linear signs for the communication of ideas),

3) widespread evidence of domestic rituals (with a vast outpouring of elegant ritual ceramics),

4) the continual creation and use of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines (the vast majority being female),

5) the absence of weapons and organized warfare.

 

Because of the sophisticated level of cultural development; the long-lasting, stable societies; their commonalities regarding an egalitarian social structure; the well-built houses and community design; the refinement of technologies and material culture; evidence of the development of a script; and inter- connections through long-distance trade, Gimbutas determined that the non-Indo- European cultures of southeastern and eastern Europe during the Neolithic era constituted a civilization, which she called “Old Europe.”

 

She produced the first overview of this civilization in 1991, The Civilization of the Goddess, in which she drew from her extensive knowledge of past and present excavation reports. These were available to her because she read thirteen languages and traveled extensively as an exchange scholar cultivating professional relationships throughout the region. (Most of these site reports are still not translated, so many of her Anglo-American detractors are unable to read them.) She herself was the project director of five major excavations of Neolithic sites in southeastern Europe.

The Beginnings of Patriarchy in Europe:
Reflections on the Kurgan Theory of Marija Gimbutas

by prof.Joan Marler

 

 

(In The Rule of Mars: The History and Impact of Patriarchy, edited by Cristina Biaggi, Manchester, Conn: KIT; forthcoming Spring 2006)

 

An investigation of the beginnings of patriarchy in Europe is more than an intellectual exercise. Its path crosses the boundaries of archaeology, anthropology, gender studies, history, linguistics, mythology, genetics, among other disciplines, and inevitably leads to a constellation of assumptions, interpretations and beliefs about the origin story of European civilization.

Patriarchy has been defined as the social arrangement in which men possess structural power by monopolizing high-status positions in important social, economic, legal, and religious institutions (Glick and Fiske 2000:373).

As a designation of social structure, it is associated with patrilineal inheritance and a patrilocal system of residence. Patriarchy typically promotes warfare which further intensifies male dominance on every level of society (see Christ 1997:60- 62). While there is no universal consensus about exactly how and when full-fledged patriarchal institutions were first established in Europe, it is clear that by the Early Bronze Age patterns of male dominance in various regions were well established.

Some researchers prefer the idea that male dominance always existed or that patriarchal structures resulted from internal “evolution” out of more “primitive” social systems. Lithuanian/American archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (1921-1994) posits that the earliest societies in Europe were neither male dominated nor primitive and that patriarchy became established as the result of a “collision of cultures” that triggered the spread of androcratic patterns. According to her Kurgan Theory, the progressive intrusion of nomadic pastoralists from north of the Black Sea disrupted the mature, matristic, horticultural societies of southeastEurope. Between the mid-fifth to the mid-third millennia BC, radical changes took place throughout Europe in language, social structure, and ideology. This paper investigates the beginnings of patriarchy in Europe in light of Gimbutas’ Kurgan Theory which has been at the center of scholarly debates for more than half a century.

 

Background

As a Research Fellow in East European Archaeology at Harvard University (1950-1963), Marija Gimbutas devoted herself to the question of post-Palaeolithic European origins. Her monograph, The Prehistory of Eastern Europe (1956), was the first text to evaluate and summarize all archaeological research from the Baltic to the northern Caucasus up to 1955. Until Gimbutas produced this work, the prehistory of Eastern Europe had been available to Western scholars only in fragmentary form due to political and linguistic barriers. This research provided a considerable quantity of data indicating extensive culture change in Europe with the appearance of “intruders from the east” whom she named Kurgans after their distinctive burial mounds (Gimbutas 1960: 549). Gimbutas also authored the comprehensive volume, Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965), among other texts which established her reputation as a specialist on the Indo-European Bronze Age.

In the mid-1950s, Gimbutas combined her extensive background in linguisti palaeontology with archaeological evidence to locate the homeland of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speakers and to explain the rapid and extensive spread of Indo-European languages. This theory stimulated a renewed interest in the “Indo-European problem” resulting in a number of other homeland theories (see Mallory 1989:143-185; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1985:3-91; Makkay 1987; Renfrew 1987).      writes, “the Kurgan theory has been accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, in part or total, and is the solution one encounters in Encyclopedia Britannica and the Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse” (Mallory 1989, 185; see also Dergachev, 2002). The Kurgan theory continues to be critiqued and debated among a new generation of scholars (see, e.g., Manzura 1999; Stefanovich 2003; Nikolova 2003).

Gimbutas coined the term “Kurgan culture” to refer to the pastoral communities documented from the fifth millennium BC in the harsh environment of the Volga-Ural-Caspian region. These peoples, who are assumed to have spoken a Proto-Indo-European language, appear to have gone through a long process of convergence that resulted in the consolidation of shared morphology and lexicon (Gimbutas 1997:307; Mallory 1989:195; Anthony 1991:196; Lehmann 1997). “This chronology does not represent the evolution of a single group, but of a number of various steppe peoples who shared a common tradition, extending over broad temporal and spatial parameters” (Gimbutas 1991:352). “As numerous historical instances testify, pastoral societies throughout the Eurasian steppe are typified by remarkable abilities to absorb disparate ethno-linguistic groups” (Mallory 1989:260-261).

Horse domestication, which provided a powerful means of transport, was most likely accomplished by 5000 BC or earlier between eastern Ukraine and northern Kazakhstan (Bökönyi 1987; Gimbutas 1991:353). Access to horse riding may have intensified the aggressive territoriality and warlike behavior that typify these increasingly mobile tribes.

The use of horses as mounts led to an expansion in the size of potential exploitative territories by a factor of five and therefore to conflicts over localized resources that had formerly been beyond effective reach (Anthony 1986:302).

As early as the first half of the fifth millennium BC in the lower Volga basin, male burials appear in pit graves covered by kurgans (round barrows). These graves contain prestige weapons indicating both the importance of warfare and the establishment of social hierarchy. The similarity of grave goods and evidence of a horse cult in burial sites separated by thousands of kilometers suggest the existence of phenomenal mobility and intertribal relations between peoples of the Caucasus and the North Pontic steppe.

While some scholars question the association of language with specific ethnic groups (Renfrew 1987; Anthony 1991:194-195; Makkay 1992:194), Gimbutas emphasized the connection between PIE speakers and an entire complex of traits found progressively from the Volga steppe to the Dnieper. The Kurgan culture is reconstructed according to a lexicon of PIE terminology verified by archaeological data and comparative Indo-European linguistics. This multidisciplinary investigation points to a pastoral economy with rudimentary agriculture, crude cord-impressed pottery with solar motifs, horse domestication, territorialism, warfare, and a patrilineal, patriarchal social system (Gimbutas 1991, 1997; Mallory 1989:123-124; Whittle 1996:137; Best 1989:337) In In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989). Such elements were unknown west of the Black Sea before 4400 BC, but were spread throughout Europe accompanied by the appearance of Kurgan burials. The Kurgan Theory posits three infiltrations of Kurgan peoples into Europe resulting in the Indo -Europeanization of the continent over a two thousand year period (Gimbutas 1992:400-405).

 

The Civilization of Old Europe

The development of radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology during the mid-twentieth century revealed the true antiquity of the earliest food producing cultures in Europe which were suddenly understood to have flourished between the seventh and fifth millennia BC. Gimbutas’ research on the archaeology, symbolism and social structure of these Neolithic peoples indicates  balanced, egalitarian, matrilineal societies with no indication of domination of one sex over the other. She coined the over-arching term “Old Europe” in recognition of the commonalities of economy, ritual life and social structure of horticultural societies before the Indo-European influence.

Early neolithic farmig cultures from the Balcan peninsula to the Ucraine throughout southeast and central Europe, represent “old histories of tradition, renewal and reaffirmation . . .[with] little evidence for overt lineage or other internal differentiation” (Whittle 1996:121).

Colin Renfrew describes the Neolithic farmers of this period as “egalitarian peasants” whose societies were non-hierarchical. “[T]here is no reason to suggest the existence in them of hereditary chieftains, and certainly none to warrant a specialized functional division of population into warriors, priests and common people” (Renfrew 1987:253).

The well-constructed Neolithic settlements of southeast Europe are typified by elegant sculptural and ceramic art, craft specialization and elaborate ritual traditions. Of the thousands of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic sculptures found in households throughout the region, the vast majority of identifiable images are female, reflecting the centrality of women’s ritual activities (Gimbutas 1974, 1989, 1991; Hodder 1990:61-63). Archaeologist Henrieta Todorova (1978:83) writes that more than ninety percent of the Neolithic figurines found in Bulgaria are female. Of the two hundred fifty figurines from Gimbutas’ excavation at Sitagroi, norther Greece, “not one can be clearly identified as male” (Gimbutas 1986b:226).

 

Continue reading Joan Marlers paper here »

skarmavbild-2016-08-18-kl-12-55-46
skarmavbild-2016-08-18-kl-12-55-40
skarmavbild-2016-08-18-kl-12-55-23
skarmavbild-2016-08-18-kl-12-55-31
guided-tour-of-paleolithic-and-neolithic-art-goddess-4-728

GIMBUTAS´ PRESENTATION OF HER FINDINGS IN THE VIDEO: THE WORLD OF THE GODDESS

Uploaded on Dec 6, 2011

 

An absorbing view of the culture, religious beliefs, symbolism and mythology of the prehistoric, pre-patriarchal cultures of Old Europe, who revered and celebrated the Great Goddess of Life, Death, and Regeneration in all her many forms, of plants, of stone, of animals and humans, by the scholar who has made the exploration of these cultures her life work.... The program is produced by William Free, producer of the acclaimed television series with Joseph Campbell, "Transformations of Myth through Time."

 

On Gimbutas:

 

Marija Gimbutas was a Lithuanian-American archeologist known for her research into the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of "Old Europe", a term she introduced. Her works published between 1946 and 1971 introduced new views by combining traditional spadework with linguistics and mythological interpretation.

 

Ph D Ralf Metzneer Green Earth Foundation

Quote:

 

"Ashley Montagu called MGs work a benchmark in History civilisation. Josef Campell writes in the forward to The Language of the Goddess of the evident relevance of her work and a universal felt need of our time for a transformation of consciousness. Numerous scholars, writers and artists have been inspired by her decoding of the symbolic language of the life affirming and nature celebrating earth Goddess of the aboriginal europeans.

 

The findings that Dr Gimbutas has unearthed documented with meticulous scholarship, have evolutionary impacts on our time. Her work gives us hope, because it shows that we do not have to learn something new, we only have to remember that which we have tragedly forgotten.

 

Her life and her career is a fascinating story in itself. Born in Lithuania 1921 she absorbed in her childhood something of a reverence for nature and baltic ancestral culture. As Europe descended into the nightmare of holocaust and fascism and world war she fled with her family from bombards and from total collapse. She struggled with enormous economic hardship

 

To pursue her and her her very independent line of research the USA settling down to a professorship in UCLA in 1963 she embarked on her on her archaeological and prehistoric research of the cultures of the neolithic Old Europe. She has written over 200 articles and ten books including studies of the balts the slaves, the bronze Age culture in Eastern Europe and Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. Her Magnum Opus The Language of the Goddess appeared in 1999.

 

There is something here of what Carl Jung has called syncronicity and almost uncanny coming together of individual vision and collective destiny. This year in which MG work has gained such a wide audience in the West is also the the same area of which she has written about, time of which people the a that she has written about and the peoples of her own culture of origin are throwing off the seals of totalitarian oppression and peacefully moving towards a more egalitarian political structure.

 

Please listen carefully to the words of this wise woman of the baltic lands. She has a most important message for our time."

 

MARIJA GIMBUTAS:

Quote:

 

"Ladies and gentlemen

 

Archeological records show that the most ancient religion of humankind was the Goddess religion.

 

I am sorry to tell that we do not find father image in the very early prehistory. Erik Neumann an eminent psychologist, has butter sized that it has to be a pair urfather and urmother but I am sorry to say that we do not find any material that support that and why? I think its quite natural that the earliest society was matrilineal - a mothers society and no patrinilineal.

 

And for a long time we do not find any evidence for the understanding of the fathers role in the biological production. The copulation was not understood Even surprisingly in early historic times we still find matrilineal, especially in the areas that were not europeinized. Even the etruscans in Italy still mentioned that boys were mothers sons and thumbs and tombs

 

¨So here we have the matrilineal society in probably a very long time palaeolithic the old stone age with continued into the neolithic, which is he early agricultural society. And it then continued in some areas in the minoan culture of Crete and islands

 

Now we should ask the question; how old was the Goddess religion.

 

Yes I would guess it i NOT tenthousend years, n0t 20,30 40 is much more.

 

We actually cannot answer that question today, when maybe it is one million years. This we shall leave for the future

 

But today we shall focus on the neolithic culture from 7000 BC and continues to 300 BC in some areas where the agriculture started later than in the south east. This period os so rich. Full of finds of sculptures and small figurines I call figurines with are really miniature ones between two or the centimetres and 20 centimetres. And then we have humanised sculpture of human size of animals and even human beings they really survived.

 

In the neolithic there is pottery. The discovery of Pottery is very important for the symbolism for the decoration is NOT just geometric motives they are meaningful, they are extended symbols. In the beginning there wasn´t and the vase was decorated around. And then there are temples as well as temple models, there are all sorts of cult objects found in temples - all this is our basinal material for the interpretation of the religion. I would like to say, that it is not just the object that is of importance, it is of utmost importance to know HOW the objects were found. Was the figurine found in a temple, the courtyard, in a grave or in a cave - all that countsand can not be omitted from our study.

 

However even that would not explain the function of the Goddess. To a certain degree less, but we need to be sure that our interpretation is right. Then we have to see what kins of Goddess that is portrayed, is she nude or is she dressed, is she stiff or has she breasts and belly and buttocks, there are of course a variety of them. It is a tremendous variety of images.

 

The types are numerous. There is not just one Goddess that we can describe and say how she is portrayed there are hundreds of images but we can classify them. We can clarify the according to their ? are they sitting on a throne are they found in a grave And then one more thing is decisive for the deciphering of their meaning / their function are the symbols that I can classify into three major groups: abstract-hieroglyphic, symbols like a V or M or X or Y. The second group is representational like breasts, or buttocks or vulvas. And the third category are animaks. The Goddess appears as a human being but also as a bear or a dear or a pig, or like any other animal like dog or fox. And all these categories are intertwined - we can not have borderlines in between them. They are all interrelated and that is because in ancient times, it was a completely different way of ideological thinking, it was a very close tie between human beings and with animals and the Goddess could be a tree or a stone or a human being, so we are dealing with a holistic thinking. It was a period when we were not separated from nature.

 

Now I will show you the cathegories of symbols which are many:
25b cm statue of a woman with breasts a very long neck a bird Goddess a big protruding nose but no mouth a hairderess a turban maybe neatly combed and then on her right arm she has got signs chevrons multiplied “V”:s Greece. This is one of the typical sculptures of around 6000 BC or 5800BC. I myself found series of such sculptures. And if you maybe hesitate that this is a birdgoddess maybe this will convince. This is a beaked creature mother symbol. I think there is no doubt that this is birdgodesses and what is of importance is that they are found in temples I have discovered NUMBERS of bird goddesses within the temples in northern Greece and Turkey, often next to the alter and NOT in the courtyard. Bird - and snakeGoddesses were protectors of the house. The temples were normally houses not temple like with has been cause of doubt on the islands it is still the same, one or three houses and then a church and who takes care of the churches it is the women. And this I think reflects the very old tradition from neolithic period. The temples consist of two rooms one room is the smaller room is the workshop were we also fins figurines vases and with was for the preparation of the worship in the temple.

 

This is from my own here in Macedonia from the end of the 6000 BC the Vinca culture a big made about one meter high chimneys from the late 600

 

This is from the early 5000 from jugoslavia can be described as a more articulate figure a throne marked with three lines, she has a bolero dress and a crown and an apron, and then she has a mask, a ducks mask. Next image a duck. The waterbird plays a very important role in this category of images.

 

The make were used for the faces and were also decorated with chevrons and wholes for fathers and flowers. G have found removable masks dating to the 17 millennium BC, so she thinks that they have a very long history and have been used even in but here in neolthics they were used for rituals for reenactment

 

The question of the beginning of this kind of symbolism related to the birds can be seen here from between 20 000 and 14 000 BC, found in the Ukraine.

 

The chevrons are the same as those in the neolithic period with shows the importance of them. Aquatic symbols associated with waterbirds. Nets moisture mysterious"

T H E   G O D D E S S   O F   R E G E N E R A T I O N 

M A R I J A   G I M B U T A T A S

 

In this video after 1 hour and 14 minutes Marija Gimbutas, after having pointed out several different kinds of Goddess related symbolic signs of the pubestriangel / vulva (often depicted even in cave - and rock art all over the world) argued that the neolithic tombs in the societies of Old Europe being anthromorphic depicting the womb of Mother Earth (womb- tomb are related words) she demonstrates the motif of a hourglass- shaped women decorated on ceramics posted in the comment below:

 

This symbol painted on a vase from the Cucuteni culture in north east Rumania 4000 BC is, according to Marija Gimbutas, definitely the symbol of the Goddess of regeneration in the form of a double triangel shaped like a hourglass."

 

Quoting Gimbutas: "And this is a vase from Hungary from 5000 BC with the same kind of hour glass shaped Goddess of regeneration, taking a very abstract expression with three lines (extracted the triangel) instead of a head and non human hands like clows from a bird-Goddess ( vulture ?) non human hands”

 

 

 

 

Quoting Gimbutas: "Combination of two triangles inside the head of a bull - this is a bull plate figure - a beautiful combination of the Goddess of regeneration and a Bulls heads dated to around 4000 BC.”

 

 

Quoting Gimbutas: "This kind of symbolism will continue to exist especially in the Minoan culture, where we have many bull heads, bulls and so called sacred horns - the symbol of sacred horns begins much earlier in CatalHuyuk 7000 BC or even earlier.

Three Bull Heads from a Shrine in Caytal Huyuk symbolising the Goddess she was there”

 

 

Quoting Gimbutas: "And then there were vases decorated with bull heads, and the design usually is a whirling pattern of snakes - shaped spirals turning around, enhancing and stimulating life powers.”

 

 

 

Quoting Gimbutas: "The bulls were here for regeneration and appears usually above the entrance of tombs. Here an example from Sardinia, a subterranean tomb decorated with Bull horns symbolising the womb / tomb of regeneration - (rebirthing)”

 

 

Quoting Gimbutas: "The Minoan sacred horns. Celebrated symbols which very well known, and who is in the middle between the horns? In literature you can get information about this being the symbol of the double axe. Well that is not a big mistake, but I would also call this a butterfly. But the axe was also a symbol of the Goddess as it was triangular. And if you have the party of the Goddess as the shape of the hourglass and you turn it horizontally you have a butterfly and she was a butterfly, and she was a woman and she was an axe, and a double axe. But later on in the millennium when the indoeuropean arrives it is defentively transformerad into an axe.”

 

 

Quoting Gimbutas: "A sarcofagoy in Crete around 14-1500 BC - butterflies coming out of the heads of Bulls, promoting life and regeneration”

 

 

Quotiong Gimbutas "Sometimes the double axe is for sure a butterfly; here on a a seal from Zachros, eastern Crete she is a woman; she has a crown, her legs are not human - maybe bull legs. The Goddess can be a bull with vultures head, vulture is a symbol of regeneration —- thus a combination of symbols; the crescent is also a symbol of regeneration; the predominance of symbols of regenerations way out."

 

Warfare in the European Neolithic: Truth or Fiction?© Joan Marler

 

There is no evidence of territorial aggression [in Central Europe between 6500 and 5500 BC], and the total absence of lethal weapons implies a peaceful coexistence between all groups and individuals. Villages have no fortifications except occasional V-shaped ditches and retaining walls where structurally necessary. Villages were usually founded on choice locations near rivers or streams or on lake terraces, and the use of steep hills or other inaccessible terrain for habitation was unknown during this peaceful period (Gimbutas 1991:48).
No defensive features such as palisades or ditches are found in the early period of this [the Linearbandkeramik] culture (39).
No weapons except implements for hunting are found among grave goods in Europe until c. 4500-4300 B.C., nor is there evidence of hilltop fortification of Old European communities (352).

Marija Gimbutas wrote that “the period of 4500- 2500 B.C. (calibrated chronology) is one of the most complex and least understood in prehistory. It is a period which urgently demands a concerted effort by scholars from various disciplines” (Gimbutas 1980:1). In her view, warfare did not exist in Neolithic Europe until after c. 4400 BC when nomadic peoples, assumed to speak a Proto-Indo-European language, began to enter Europe from north of the Black Sea. The vision of Neolithic “Old Europe” as originally peaceful has inspired a new view of European origins among theorists from a variety of disciplines throughout the world. Nevertheless, a number of archaeologists dispute Gimbutas’ claim. My intention in this paper is to present a preliminary examination of evidence on both sides of this question to begin to determine whether or not Old Europe was indeed peaceful as Gimbutas has claimed.

In Archaeology: The Science of Once and Future Things, archaeologist Brian Hayden writes: “There is abundant evidence for warfare during the Middle and Late and even Early Neolithic, long before the Indo-Europeans arrived on the scene, although it may not have been so intense or so one-sided as the conflicts with the Indo-Europeans” (Hayden 1993:350). A comprehensive examination of the question of warfare during the European Neolithic is beyond the scope of this paper, for it would require an exhaustive analysis of hundreds of articles and monographs that discuss this subject written in every Western and Eastern European language. Since Hayden’s book is currently in use as an introductory university text, I will examine the articles used by Hayden to support his argument that warfare existed before the arrival of Indo-European speaking peoples.

It is first necessary to define a few terms. Neolithic (literally “New Stone Age”) specifically refers to the use of ground stone tools. It often implies a sedentary agrarian life style utilizing a variety of domesticated plants and animals. In northern Europe the Neolithic is often typified by the appearance of ceramics rather than by fully settled agricultural communities while the Neolithic economies of cultures north of the Black Sea, in the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian Sea regions depended upon the domestication of cattle, sheep and goats (Gimbutas 1997:352) . The Neolithic period in Europe does not begin at one moment in time. In the Mediterranean area, as well as in central and southern Anatolia, the earliest Neolithic communities are dated by calibrated radiocarbon chronology to the early seventh millennium B.C. The Balkans established a food producing economy toward the end of the seventh millennium, and in central Europe between 6000 and 5500 B.C., whereas agriculture was not established in Britain until around 4500 B.C. (Gimbutas 1991:6).