The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory
-a review of Cynthia Eller's book
Jack Crowley- ADF Dedicant
I first
read Cynthia Eller's book The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory
during the summer of 2006. It was a book recommended in the ADF
Dedicants' program. I knew from the title that it would be a
controversial book and one that went against my ideological and
thealogical grain. Yet, I've always believed in textposure,
in the importance of being exposed to diverse ideas.
I strongly disagree with censorship of any
form. So I was willing to tackle this book. Yet
once I was done reading it carefully, I had another conundrum.
How would I respond to it?
It was due to this uncertainty about response that I delayed so long in posting this review. Even now I am uncertain exactly how I will respond or put into words my feelings about this book. It most definitely is about feelings. It is about opinions. It is about interpretation and bias, action and reaction. It is about prehistory, that ambiguous period of time before the creation of writing when society was so easy and so very difficult to interpret.
Reading this book was a lot like reading a book being promoted on Fox News or written by Rush Limbaugh. It also reminded me of the singlemindedness of a creationist Evangelical going after Darwinism. It was completed oriented at going after "the other." In the Fox News/Rush example, the other would be the Liberal. With the Creationist, the other is the evolutionist. With Cynthia Eller, the other was the "feminist matriarchialist."
At first, I was determined to get the other side of the story. I researched a number of articles that did just that. It responded point by point to Ms. Eller's various arguments. But then I realized that I really don't know which side is true. Probably truth lies somewhere in between. There probably was no Universal Matriarchial civilization in prehistory, but there undoubtedly were pockets of Goddess-centered culture. The bottom line is I just don't know. I do not have enough background knowledge or prior information or schema to determine who is doing the best research and who is not. With politics or religion, I would be on better, firmer ground. Though even then, especially with the latter, the ideas would be very subjective. With the minutia of prehistory, I am clueless. I just don't know. But, I can identify bias when I see it, and Ms. Eller's book is extremely bias. I also believe that whether or not Eller's assertions are correct or not, there is a Goddess culture arising in the twenty-first century that will not be in disspute despite what is determined as accurate prehistory.
My problem with this book is two fold. First, it makes assertions that the universal Goddess myth is false, while at the same time, reminding us that there is too much left to subjective interpretation in prehistory. In other words, we just don't know. Like a good right-winged book, it bunches up all the wrong thinking people in a single category. But the number one culprit in Ms. Eller's view was Marija Gimbutas. The other "feminist matriarchialists" just followed suit. Yet while making the assumption that Gimbutas' theories might be all wrong because they can't be proven, she also makes the assumption that they are indeed all wrong. But that too cannot be proven. We just don't know. Prehistory is a guessing game. There is no written record.
My second problem with this book is that it is on ADF's reading list without a book of the counter position also being there. I respect ADF's focus on research. I respect its frustration with the fuzzy bunny mentality of basing belief soley
on the subjective whims of the dedicant. We need to be in touch with reality. We need to know what history tells us. But with prehistory, much is still unknown and there are various interpretations. I see ADF as having a bias towards Cynthia Eller's point of view and that troubles me. It is good to question standard beliefs, but it is not good to throw one
myth out for another. The Universal Goddess Myth may be faulty. But I think it is also faulty to believe that the
Goddess and her culture were absent from prehistory. We need both positions represented in the ADF reading list. We
need to be able to take the latter position without being acccused of fuzzy bunnyhood or some other Druidic heresy. I'm glad I had a chance to read this book. I would recommend it to others with the reservation that they should take its
ideas with a grain or even a barrel of salt. It is a very biased book written about another bias with which it disagrees. It is a pot accusing a kettle of premeditated blackness.
It was due to this uncertainty about response that I delayed so long in posting this review. Even now I am uncertain exactly how I will respond or put into words my feelings about this book. It most definitely is about feelings. It is about opinions. It is about interpretation and bias, action and reaction. It is about prehistory, that ambiguous period of time before the creation of writing when society was so easy and so very difficult to interpret.
Reading this book was a lot like reading a book being promoted on Fox News or written by Rush Limbaugh. It also reminded me of the singlemindedness of a creationist Evangelical going after Darwinism. It was completed oriented at going after "the other." In the Fox News/Rush example, the other would be the Liberal. With the Creationist, the other is the evolutionist. With Cynthia Eller, the other was the "feminist matriarchialist."
At first, I was determined to get the other side of the story. I researched a number of articles that did just that. It responded point by point to Ms. Eller's various arguments. But then I realized that I really don't know which side is true. Probably truth lies somewhere in between. There probably was no Universal Matriarchial civilization in prehistory, but there undoubtedly were pockets of Goddess-centered culture. The bottom line is I just don't know. I do not have enough background knowledge or prior information or schema to determine who is doing the best research and who is not. With politics or religion, I would be on better, firmer ground. Though even then, especially with the latter, the ideas would be very subjective. With the minutia of prehistory, I am clueless. I just don't know. But, I can identify bias when I see it, and Ms. Eller's book is extremely bias. I also believe that whether or not Eller's assertions are correct or not, there is a Goddess culture arising in the twenty-first century that will not be in disspute despite what is determined as accurate prehistory.
My problem with this book is two fold. First, it makes assertions that the universal Goddess myth is false, while at the same time, reminding us that there is too much left to subjective interpretation in prehistory. In other words, we just don't know. Like a good right-winged book, it bunches up all the wrong thinking people in a single category. But the number one culprit in Ms. Eller's view was Marija Gimbutas. The other "feminist matriarchialists" just followed suit. Yet while making the assumption that Gimbutas' theories might be all wrong because they can't be proven, she also makes the assumption that they are indeed all wrong. But that too cannot be proven. We just don't know. Prehistory is a guessing game. There is no written record.
My second problem with this book is that it is on ADF's reading list without a book of the counter position also being there. I respect ADF's focus on research. I respect its frustration with the fuzzy bunny mentality of basing belief soley
on the subjective whims of the dedicant. We need to be in touch with reality. We need to know what history tells us. But with prehistory, much is still unknown and there are various interpretations. I see ADF as having a bias towards Cynthia Eller's point of view and that troubles me. It is good to question standard beliefs, but it is not good to throw one
myth out for another. The Universal Goddess Myth may be faulty. But I think it is also faulty to believe that the
Goddess and her culture were absent from prehistory. We need both positions represented in the ADF reading list. We
need to be able to take the latter position without being acccused of fuzzy bunnyhood or some other Druidic heresy. I'm glad I had a chance to read this book. I would recommend it to others with the reservation that they should take its
ideas with a grain or even a barrel of salt. It is a very biased book written about another bias with which it disagrees. It is a pot accusing a kettle of premeditated blackness.