CHAPTER ONE
The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory
Why
an Invented Past Won't Give Women a
Future
By CYNTHIA ELLER
Beacon Press
Read the Review
Meeting Matriarchy
Once while I was browsing through
On the Issues, a feminist magazine,
I happened upon an advertisement for a T-shirt: "I Survived
Five-Thousand Years of Patriarchal Hierarchies," it proclaimed (see
Fig. 1.1). This same birthday for patriarchy, five thousand years in the
past, was mentioned several times in a lecture I attended in 1992 in
New York City. I heard this number very frequently in the late 1980s
and early 1990s; I was researching the feminist spirituality movement,
and five thousand is the most common age spiritual feminists assign to
"the patriarchy." Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised to hear it yet
again. But I was: the speaker was Gloria Steinem, and I hadn't figured
her for a partisan of this theory.
As I later learned, Steinem had been speculating about the origins
of the patriarchy as early as 1972, when she told the readers of
Wonder
Woman this story:
Once upon a time, the many cultures of this world were all part of the
gynocratic age. Paternity had not yet been discovered, and it was thought
... that women bore fruit like trees—when they were ripe. Childbirth
was mysterious. It was vital. And it was envied. Women were worshipped
because of it, were considered superior because of it.... Men were on
the periphery—an interchangeable body of workers for, and worshippers
of, the female center, the principle of life.
The discovery of paternity, of sexual cause and childbirth effect, was
as cataclysmic for society as, say, the discovery of fire or the shattering
of the atom. Gradually, the idea of male ownership of children took
hold....
Gynocracy also suffered from the periodic invasions of nomadic
tribes.... The conflict between the hunters and the growers was really
the conflict between male-dominated and female-dominated cultures.
... women gradually lost their freedom, mystery, and superior position.
For five thousand years or more, the gynocratic age had flowered in
peace and productivity. Slowly, in varying stages and in different parts of
the world, the social order was painfully reversed. Women became the
underclass, marked by their visible differences.
In 1972, Steinem was a voice in the wilderness with her talk of a past
gynocratic age; only a handful of feminists had even broached the
topic. The second wave of feminism was young then, but for most
feminists the patriarchy was old, unimaginably old.
Too old, some would say. The patriarchy is younger now, thanks
to growing feminist acceptance of the idea that human society
was matriarchal—or at least "woman-centered" and goddess-worshipping—from
the Paleolithic era, 1.5 to 2 million years ago,
until sometime around 3000 BCE. There are almost as many versions
of this story as there are storytellers, but these are its basic contours:
* In a time before written records, society was centered around women.
Women were revered for their mysterious life-giving powers, honored
as incarnations and priestesses of the great goddess. They reared
their children to carry on their line, created both art and technology,
and made important decisions for their communities.
* Then a great transformation occurred—whether through a sudden
cataclysm or a long, drawn-out sea change—and society was thereafter
dominated by men. This is the culture and the mindset that we
know as "patriarchy," and in which we live today.
* What the future holds is not determined, and indeed depends most
heavily on the actions that we take now: particularly as we become
aware of our true history. But the pervasive hope is that the future will
bring a time of peace, ecological balance, and harmony between the
sexes, with women either recovering their past ascendancy, or at last
establishing a truly egalitarian society under the aegis of the goddess.
Not everyone who discusses this theory believes that the history of
human social life on Earth happened this way. There is substantial dissension.
But the story is circulating widely. It is a tale that is told in
Sunday school classrooms, at academic conferences, at neopagan festivals,
on network television, at feminist political action meetings, and
in the pages of everything from populist feminist works to children's
books to archaeological tomes. For those with ears to hear it, the noise
the theory of matriarchal prehistory makes as we move into a new
millennium is deafening.
My first encounter with the theory that prehistory was matriarchal
came in 1979 in a class titled "Minoan and Mycenaean Greece."
While on site at Knossos, our professor—an archaeologist with the
American School of Classical Studies in Athens—noted that the artifactual
evidence on the island of Crete pointed toward Minoan society
being matriarchal. I don't recall much of what he said in defense
of this assertion or what he meant by "matriarchal." All of this is overshadowed
in my memory by the reaction of the other members of the
class to the professor's statement: they laughed. Some of them nervously,
some derisively. One or two expressed doubt. The general
sentiment went something like this: "As if women would ever have
run things, could ever have run things ... and if they did, men surely
had to put an end to it!" And, as my classmates gleefully noted, men
did put an end to it, for it was a matter of historical record, they said,
that the civilization of Minoan Crete was displaced by the apparently
patriarchal Mycenaeans.
There were only a dozen or so of us there, ranging in age from
teens to forties—Greeks, Turks, expatriate Americans—about evenly
divided between women and men. The men's reactions held center
stage (as men's reactions in college classes tended to do in 1979). I don't
know what the other women in the class were thinking; they either
laughed along with the men or said nothing. I felt the whole discussion
amounted to cruel teasing of the playground variety, and I was
annoyed with the professor for bringing it up and then letting it degenerate
from archaeological observation to cheap joke. I left that interaction
thinking, "Matriarchal? So what?" If a lot of snickering was
all that prehistoric matriarchies could get me, who needed them?
Having thus washed my hands of the theory of prehistoric matriarchy,
I didn't encounter it again until the early 1980s, when I was in
graduate school doing research on feminist goddess-worship. I heard
the theory constantly then, from everyone I interviewed, and in virtually
every book I read that came out of the feminist spirituality
movement. This matriarchy was no Cretan peculiarity, but a worldwide
phenomenon that stretched back through prehistory to the very
origins of the human race. These "matriarchies"—often called by
other names—were not crude reversals of patriarchal power, but
models of peace, plenty, harmony with nature, and, significantly, sex
egalitarianism.
There was an answer here to my late adolescent question, "Matriarchal?
So what?"—a thoroughly reasoned and passionately felt answer.
Far from meaning nothing, the existence of prehistoric matriarchies
meant everything to the women I met through my study of
feminist spirituality. In both conversation and literature, I heard the
evangelical tone of the converted: the theory of prehistoric matriarchy
gave these individuals an understanding of how we came to this
juncture in human history and what we could hope for in the future.
It underwrote their politics, their ritual, their thealogy (or understanding
of the goddess), and indeed, their entire worldview.
As a student of religion, I was fascinated with this theory, with its
power to explain history, to set a feminist and ecological ethical
agenda, and incredibly, to change lives. Of course I knew theoretically
that this is precisely what myths do—and this narrative of
matriarchal utopia and patriarchal takeover was surely a myth, at least
in the scholarly sense: it was a tale told repeatedly and reverently, explaining
things (namely, the origin of sexism) otherwise thought to
be painfully inexplicable. But to see a myth developing and gaining
ground before my own eyes—and more significantly, in my own
peer group—was a revelation to me. Here was a myth that, however
recently created, wielded tremendous psychological and spiritual
power.
My phenomenological fascination with what I came to think of
as "the myth of matriarchal prehistory" was sincere, and at times
dominated my thinking. But it was accompanied by other, multiple
fascinations. To begin with, once the memory of the derisive laughter
at Knossos faded, I was intrigued with the idea of female rule or female
"centeredness" in society. It was a reversal that had a sweet taste
of power and revenge. More positively, it allowed me to imagine myself
and other women as people whose biological sex did not immediately
make the idea of their leadership, creativity, or autonomy either
ridiculous or suspect. It provided a vocabulary for dreaming of utopia,
and a license to claim that it was not mere fantasy, but a dream
rooted in an ancient reality.
In other words, I had no trouble appreciating the myth's appeal.
Except for one small problem—and one much larger problem—I
might now be writing a book titled
Matriarchal Prehistory: Our Glorious
Past and Our Hope for the Future. But if I was intrigued with the
newness and power of the myth, and with its bold gender reversals, I
was at least as impressed by the fact that anyone took it seriously as history.
Poking holes in the "evidence" for this myth was, to rely on cliché,
like shooting fish in a barrel. After a long day of research in the
library, I could go out with friends and entertain them with the latest
argument I'd read for matriarchal prehistory, made up entirely—I
pointed out—of a highly ideological reading of a couple of prehistoric
artifacts accompanied by some dubious anthropology, perhaps a
little astrology, and a fatuous premise ... or two or three.
When I picked up my research on feminist spirituality again in the
late 1980s and early 1990S, I got to know many women involved in
the movement, and I felt largely sympathetic toward their struggles to
create a more female-friendly religion. But I continued to be appalled
by the sheer credulousness they demonstrated toward their very dubious
version of what happened in Western prehistory. The evidence
available to us regarding gender relations in prehistory is sketchy and
ambiguous, and always subject to the interpretation of biased individuals.
But even with these limitations, what evidence we
do have from
prehistory cannot support the weight laid upon it by the matriarchal
thesis. Theoretically, prehistory could have been matriarchal, but it
probably wasn't, and nothing offered up in support of the matriarchal
thesis is especially persuasive.
However, a myth does not need to be true—or even necessarily
be
believed to be true—to be powerful, to make a difference in how
people think and live, and in what people value. Yet even as I tried to
put aside the question of the myth's historicity, I remained uncomfortable
with it. It exerted a magnetic appeal for me, but an even
stronger magnetic repulsion. Eventually I had to admit that something
was behind my constant bickering about the myth's historicity,
something more than a lofty notion of intellectual honesty and the
integrity of historical method. For certainly there are other myths
that I have never felt driven to dispute: White lotus flowers blossomed
in the footsteps of the newly born Shakyamuni? Moses came down
from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments carved into two
stone tablets? Personally, I doubt that either of these things happened,
but I would never waste my breath arguing these points with the
faithful. Truth claims seem beside the point to me: what matters is
why the story is told, the uses to which it is put and by whom.
I have been a close observer of the myth of matriarchal prehistory
for fifteen years now and have watched as it has moved from its somewhat
parochial home in the feminist spirituality movement out into
the feminist and cultural mainstream. But I haven't been able to cheer
at the myth's increasing acceptance. My irritation with the historical
claims made by the myth's partisans masks a deeper discontent with
the myth's assumptions. There is a theory of sex and gender embedded
in the myth of matriarchal prehistory, and it is neither original
nor revolutionary. Women are defined quite narrowly as those who
give birth and nurture, who identify themselves in terms of their relationships,
and who are closely allied with the body, nature, and sex—usually
for unavoidable reasons of their biological makeup. This image
of women is drastically revalued in feminist matriarchal myth,
such that it is not a mark of shame or subordination, but of pride and
power. But this image is nevertheless quite conventional and, at least
up until now, it has done an excellent job of serving patriarchal
interests.
Indeed, the myth of matriarchal prehistory is not a feminist creation,
in spite of the aggressively feminist spin it has carried over the
past twenty-five years. Since the myth was revived from classical
Greek sources in 1861 by Johann Jakob Bachofen, it has had—at
best—a very mixed record where feminism is concerned. The majority
of men who championed the myth of matriarchal prehistory during
its first century (and they have mostly been men) have regarded
patriarchy as an evolutionary advance over prehistoric matriarchies,
in spite of some lingering nostalgia for women's equality or beneficent
rule. Feminists of the latter half of the twentieth century are not
the first to find in the myth of matriarchal prehistory a manifesto for
feminist social change, but this has not been the dominant meaning
attached to the myth of matriarchal prehistory, only the most recent.
Though there is nothing inherently feminist in matriarchal myth,
this is no reason to disqualify it for feminist purposes. If the myth now
functions in a feminist way, its antifeminist past can become merely a
curious historical footnote. And it
does function in a feminist way
now, at least at a psychological level: there are ample testimonies to
that. Many women—and some men too—have experienced the
story of our matriarchal past as profoundly empowering, and as a firm
foundation from which to call for, and believe in, a better future for
us all.
Why then take the time and trouble to critique this myth, especially
since it means running the risk of splitting feminist ranks,
which are thin enough as it is? Simply put, it is my feminist movement
too, and when I see it going down a road which, however inviting,
looks like the wrong way to me, I feel an obligation to speak up.
Whatever positive effects this myth has on individual women, they
must be balanced against the historical and archaeological evidence
the myth ignores or misinterprets and the sexist assumptions it leaves
Undisturbed. The myth of matriarchal prehistory postures as "documented
fact," as "to date the most scientifically plausible account of
the available information." These claims can be—and will be here—shown
to be false. Relying on matriarchal myth in the face of the evidence
that challenges its veracity leaves feminists open to charges of
vacuousness and irrelevance that we cannot afford to court. And the
gendered stereotypes upon which matriarchal myth rests persistently
work to flatten out differences among women; to exaggerate differences
between women and men; and to hand women an identity that
is symbolic, timeless, and archetypal, instead of giving them the freedom
to craft identities that suit their individual temperaments, skills,
preferences, and moral and political commitments.
In the course of my critique of feminist matriarchal myth, I do
not intend to offer a substitute account of what happened between
women and men in prehistoric times, or to determine whether patriarchy
is a human universal or a recent historical phenomenon. These
are questions that are hard to escape—feminist matriarchal myth was
created largely in response to them—and intriguing to speculate
upon. But the stories we spin out and the evidence we amass about the
origins of sexism are fundamentally academic. They are not capable
of telling us whether or how we might put an end to sexism. As I argue
at the end of this book, these are moral and political questions;
not scientific or historical ones.
The enemies of feminism have long posed issues of patriarchy and
sexism in pseudoscientific and historical terms. It is not in feminist interests
to join them at this game, especially when it is so (relatively)
easy to undermine the ground rules. We know enough about biological
sex differences to know that they are neither so striking nor so uniform
that we either need to or ought to make our policy decisions in
reference to them. And we know that cultures worldwide have demonstrated
tremendous variability in constructing and regulating gender,
indicating that we have significant freedom in making our own
choices about what gender will mean for us. Certainly recent history,
both technological and social, proves that innovation is possible:
we are not forever condemned to find our future in our past. Discovering—or
more to the point, inventing—prehistoric ages in
which women and men lived in harmony and equality is a burden that
feminists need not, and should not bear. Clinging to shopworn notions
of gender and promoting a demonstrably fictional past can only
hurt us over the long run as we work to create a future that helps all
women, children, and men flourish.
In spite of overwhelming drawbacks, the myth of matriarchal prehistory
continues to thrive. Any adequate critique of this myth must be
based on a proper understanding of it: who promotes it and what they
stand to gain by doing so; how it has evolved and where and how it is
being disseminated; and exactly what this story claims for our past and
our future. It is to this descriptive task that the next two chapters are
devoted.
(C) 2000 Cynthia Eller All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-8070-6792-X