Tuesday, 9 November 2010

Did Women Once Rule The World

cunnilingus
 
Throughout the 19th and 20th century there was a big controversy about the origins of civilization. Official historians claimed that civilizations started with the Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, while many other people were claiming that civilizations started in the sunken continents like Atlantis in the Atlantic or Mu in the Pacific. And if this is not mad enough, in the 1960s Erich Von Daniken wrote his famous book Chariots Of The Gods, which claimed that civilization was started by aliens from outer space. He wasn’t the first person to write about this, but somehow it was this book that captured the public’s imagination. Official historians have attacked these claims and in the case of Erich Von Daniken managed to completely demolish his arguments. Unfortunately all the claims of sunken lost continents and aliens from space are red herrings that have distracted the public from the real problem with official history.
What the public is told is that in the Stone Age, men, (women are hardly mentioned) were savage brutes, but then suddenly about 5,000 years ago sophisticated civilizations like Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia suddenly appeared out of nowhere. This point was made by the anthropologist Richard Rudgley in his book Lost Civilisations Of The Stone Age, when he wrote.
In both the extraterrestrial and the lost – continent models the basic theory is the same. Lost or hidden civilizations – be they alien or Atlantean – existed before those of Egypt or Mesopotamia and taught the latter everything they knew. The ‘evidence’ for such prehistoric civilizations is provided not by the physical remains of aliens or by the archaeological remains of Atlanteans, as neither, of course, exist. Rather it argued that the astronomical knowledge and the advanced technology of the ancient world obviously could not have been inherited from Stone Age cultures and therefore can only be explained by recourse to Atlantis or aliens. Such views are extremely popular and influential, and this is partly due to public dissatisfaction with the standard academic view that does not explain the origins of civilization in a convincing way.
Rudgely then goes on to explain that civilization didn’t start with the ancient Egyptians or Mesopotamians 5,000 years ago. Archaeologists can trace civilization back as far as 10,000 years ago. This begs the question; if civilization is far older than 5,000 years why aren’t academics writing about this for the general public? Well, one archaeologist did do this and was savagely attacked for doing so. In 1974 the book; Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe written by Marija Gimbutas, was published, which recorded the archaeological finds of the Pre-Egyptian civilizations throughout Eastern and Southern Europe and the Middle East. She was immediately attacked by other academics for writing a popular book, about this, for the public, and she has remained a controversial figure ever since. So what was the problem? Why doesn’t the academic world want the public to know about the civilizations that existed before 3,000 years BC?
As Feminists have pointed out; history is basically his-story. It is the story of man not woman. When historians claim that man created the first civilizations 5,000 years ago they are perfectly correct. What they don’t tell you is that women probably created all the civilisations prior to 5,000 years ago. Up until the 1960s male academics confidently claimed that ‘man’ invented agriculture, but with the rise of Women’s liberation a few academic feminists began to question this. They pointed out that in a hunter/gatherer society it would be women who were gathering plants and therefore it would be women who then had the wit to plant seeds to grow a crop for next year. The problem with this for male academics was that if it were women who invented agriculture, then it would be women who started settled communities that created the first civilizations. This was of course unacceptable, because if you accept this, then you would also have to accept the possibility that women ruled these early civilizations. This is not as incredible as it sounds, because there is evidence that it could be true.
In recent years archaeologists have increasingly found more and more evidence of the possibility of a matriarchal age in the past. Yet we do not hear about this in either the mainstream media or in the alternative press. Yet if what is being discovered now is true, we will have to re-write ancient history and rethink what is the true nature of human beings. This is because what archaeologists are now discovering suggests that in the Stone Age we were not the savage brutes as portrayed in academic speculation or the popular media. We were in fact peace-loving people who worshipped an ancient deity called the Great Mother. Recent archaeological evidence shows that the history of war and violence only began after civilization got started.
The concept that women once ruled the world in ancient times is nothing new. A scholar called J.J Bachofen in the 19th century started it. He brought together all the evidence of matriarchy in ancient times then available, in his book, Myth, Religion and Mother Right He was strongly criticized for this by other scholars who dismissed and discredited his work. Yet in spite of this, his work was to inspire the scholar James Frazer to write his famous book, The Golden Bough. It also influenced Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who publicly praised Bachofen's work. In spite of the condemnation of Bachofen the controversy wouldn't go away. Other scholars in the early 20th century also wrote about matriarchy, like Robert Briffault, Jane Harrison and Dr Margaret Murray. But this argument was kept very much within academic circles. Then in the 1940s the poet Robert Graves wrote his book, The White Goddess, which was the first attempt to bring this argument to the general public, even though it was a very complex book and not an easy read for the average reader. Then on the wave of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s feminist scholars like Merlin Stone in her book; When God Was A Women and Barbara G. Walker in her book; The Women’s Encyclopaedia Of Myths And Secrets, also continued to dig deep into ancient history to find more evidence of matriarchy in ancient times. Eisler kept strictly to feminist dogma and claimed that in the matriarchal age the sexes were equal. After the Second World War archaeologists started to make finds that also supported the idea that there was a matriarchal age in the past. This evidence was again dismissed by academics but feminist writers like Elizabeth Gould Davis were brave enough to directly claim that women did once rule the world. Riane But the biggest change in recent years is from archaeological evidence that supports the ancient Golden Age myth, which has been written about in ancient Greek Legend, by the Taoist Chinese, and even in the Bible in the story of the Garden of Eden, which comes from a Mesopotamian Golden Age legend. In fact most ancient cultures all over the world have a Golden Age myth of some kind.
Up until recently modern academics have rejected these legends as pure myth. Not only do they sound too good to be true, but recorded history shows a different story. It seems that the further you go back in history the more brutal and violent men seem to behave. For instance, to see gladiators fighting to the death as a sport as in the Roman games would be unacceptable in every society today. So archaeologists and scholars have assumed that people in pre-historic times must have been even more brutal than people in historic times. The only findings that contradicted this was paleolithic cave art, found in France and Spain, which was so well executed that it undermined the belief that Stone Age people were ignorant brutes. In fact archaeologists at first refused to believe that these paintings could possibly made by Stone Age people, and it was only modern dating techniques that convinced them. Also the number of feminine images found in both Stone Age and Neolithic sites showed that Stone Age people might have other things on their mind than violence. But academics dismissed these finds as being part of a fertility cult and never took them seriously. During the second half of the 20th century, archaeologists dug more and more into Neolithic sites and too much feminine imagery was being discovered, to be lightly dismissed. They began to find evidence that turned the idea that we were brutal savages in pre-historic times, on its head.
In the 1960s an archaeologist called Mellaart led a team to excavate a site in Anatolia in Turkey. This site turns out to be the oldest city ever discovered. Called Catal Huyuk it goes back over 9,000 years. What was discovered goes against all assumptions archaeologists have about people living in Neolithic times. They couldn't find any fortifications to defend the city or any weapons of war. Neither could they find signs of violence committed on people buried in graves. It was also a city full of feminine imagery to the degree that Mellaart was forced to say that the people worshipped the Ancient Great Mother.
So unsettling was these discoveries that the Turkish Government closed the site down for thirty years and the academic world chose to ignore the implications of these finds. The prevailing view was that warrior tribal leaders who conquered other tribes, and then had to build fortifications to defend themselves, created the first civilizations. So to have the oldest city ever discovered that didn't have any fortifications, weapons of war or signs of violence greatly contradicted this theory. As in many cases in science when new facts opposed a very popular and fashionable theory then it was the facts that were ignored until enough facts are produced to make the fashionable theory totally untenable. So most academics chose to ignore completely these finds except one archaeologist, Mariji Gimbutas, who was brave enough to challenge the accepted wisdom of the academic world. She was to say boldly. -
Archaeologists and historians have assumed that civilization implies a hierarchical political and religious organization, warfare, a class stratification, and a complex division of labour. This pattern is indeed typical of androcratic (male dominated) societies such as Indo-European but does not apply to the gynocentric (mother/women-centred) cultures. The civilisation that flourished in Old Europe between 6500 and 3300 BC and in Crete until 1450 BC enjoyed a long period of uninterrupted peaceful living which produced artistic expression of graceful beauty and refinement, demonstrating a higher quality of life than many androcratic classed societies.
The late Marija Gimbutas was digging in another Neolithic site in Achilleion, Thessaly in Greece and also found artefacts of feminine imagery and no sign of violence and warfare. In her books and scientific papers she highlighted the Neolithic findings that archaeologists had made at Lepenski Vir and Vlasac in Northern Yugoslavia, as well as the Neolithic findings by Soviet scientists in Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, and the Western Ukraine. Western archaeologist had made similar finds in Crete, Cyprus, Thera, Sardinia, Sicliy and Malta. All showed peaceful societies that worshipped the Great Mother. Yet archaeologists chose to ignore these findings, because they contradicted the belief of the time that male warrior leaders started civilization. It was only Gimbutas who was brave enough to take these finds seriously and she became a very controversial figure.
Other archaeologists also made similar finds. In the excavation of the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan going back 7,000 years, again archaeologists could find no signs of violence or weapons of war. This was a very advanced civilization with running water to all homes, and even a sewage system. The town planning of these towns and cities was far in advance of the Egyptian and Roman cities thousands of years later and only equaled in the 19th century in the western world. What was disturbing for the archaeologists was that they couldn’t find any large palace for the ruler, or even rich and poor houses; it seems to have been an egalitarian society. As in Catal Huyuk the people worshipped Goddesses.
The same is true of Caral in Peru, the oldest city ever discovered in South America, going back 5,000 years. Given the violent history of later South American civilizations, with mass human sacrifice, archaeologists expected to find the same thing. But no matter how hard they looked they couldn't find any evidence of human sacrifice, warfare, fortifications or any other indication of violence. They finally had to conclude that this civilization existed in peace for thousands of years. It seems that Caral wasn't just an isolated city, as archaeologists found trading goods at this site from all over South America, demonstrating it was the centre of a vast trading network that covered most of the continent. This suggested that not only did Caral live in peace, but this was true for the whole of South America at the time, as the complete defenceless of the city, suggests they had no fear of attack from any other people on this continent.

The overwhelming evidence of these finding have made more modern academics wonder if Mariji Gimutas might be right after all. Some are now supporting her like Richard Rudgley in his book Lost Civilizations Of The Stone Age, and his TV series Secrets Of The Stone Age. So what are the implications of these findings?
As Richard Rudgley points out, 95% of our existence as humans is in pre-historic times. Yet we know little about this time; it is only from the tools, paintings and carvings found in excavations that we can get an understanding of what life must have been like then. All carved and painted images of human beings found in the Stone Age are overwhelmingly images of women. What Marija Gimbutas shows is that most of these images celebrate the whole process of birth. It seems in prehistoric times menstruation, the vagina, the sexual act, giving birth, and breast-feeding, were seen as something divine, holy and sacred. This is in contrast to historic times where menstruation became taboo and unclean in many societies. The sex act also becomes sinful and dirty. It was also claimed that children were born in sin because they were born of women. Even breast feeding become shameful; even in our modern world many women will still not breast feed in public as they are made to feel ashamed for doing this.
This is supported by the findings of Gimbutas who showed that the downfall of many of the peaceful Goddess civilizations was caused by violent patriarchal tribes invading them. So it suggests that it was the invention of war that ended the last Golden Age. The new rulers behaved like Mafia bosses in imposing a reign of terror on the people to control them, and started a protection racket that was in effect the first taxation. This made the rulers very wealthy and forced poverty onto the people. They now had to not only to work to feed and shelter themselves, but they had to work to feed the new rulers and their armies, as well as build them palaces and fortifications and make arms and luxury goods. The new rulers encouraged men to no longer respect women and make them their slaves.
This is clearly seen in the contrast between the findings of the Neolithic age, where we see a predominance of feminine images, and no evidence of warfare and violence and the later Iron Age where we find more than anything else images of war, violence and the glorification of kings, rulers, conquest and wealth. Archaeologists studying the Iron Age also find graves where people have clearly been put to death through violence. We also have the first myths of the hero who conquers other nations, as well as male gods who begin to lay down strict laws and punish those who dare to disobey them.
Now evidence of matriarchy doesn't only come from the past; the shocking fact is that the general public is completely unaware that there are many matriarchal communities that have survived until the present day. The biggest is the The Minangkabau people in Western Sumatra and numbers about 4 million people. It is the largest and most stable matriarchal community in the world today. In China there are also matriarchal communities. In India there is a region called Kerala, which was matriarchal and has a reputation of being a well run, stable and prosperous area. There is evidence of matriarchal communities that survived in Africa up until colonial times. There are even American Indian tribes that are still matriarchal. The Basque people of France and Spain were matriarchal in historic times, but were finally destroyed by the Inquisition and the medieval witch-hunts.
There are legends that the Czech people were matriarchal up until the sixth or seventh century. It seems that after Libuse, the last matriarchal ruler, had died there was a patriarchal take over. In this legend, the women fought back, led by two women warriors called Vlasta and Sarka. After a very long and vicious war the men finally won and created a patriarchal state. I have been told that there are over 150 matriarchal communities all over the world but you never hear about this in either the mainstream or alternative media.
So if we are looking for a conspiracy, we have to wonder why all these facts have been kept concealed and covered up for so long. From the time when Bachofen first put forward the idea that there once was a matriarchal age in the past, it seems that the establishment have worked very hard to conceal this fact, to the degree of destroying archaeological evidence. In Malta there is a very large Neolithic Goddess temple. The first archaeology done on this temple was by a Roman Catholic priest. His effort included rubbing off important and irreplaceable wall paintings from the temple walls. Then he dug up the temple floor and took away all archaeological evidence, which has now mysteriously disappeared. When palaeontologists in the 19th and early 20th century began to find statues of ‘fat ladies’ in Stone-Age excavations they were dismissed as simply ‘fertility symbols’, of no importance, and thrown away. So the knowledge of these carvings might have been lost forever had not other academics in the art world taken an interest in them. It was art connoisseurs who collected them and preserved them, for science.
This behaviour is not unusual; when the Christian Church or the state of Israel finances archaeological excavations in Israel what they find fits in with what is written in the Bible. But excavations carried out by universities who do not have any affiliation to the Christian Church or the state find something completely different. For instance in the homes of ordinary Jews of two thousand years ago and older they find statues of Goddesses. The evidence is that the ordinary people of Israel were still worshipping the Goddess Asherah up until the Roman occupation. But archaeologists funded by Christians or Zionists do not find these Goddess statues.
Suppression of evidence to do with matriarchy and Goddess worship is commonplace in recorded history. Dr Margaret Murray did research on the witch-hunts in medieval Europe. What she discovered wasn't that the witch-hunts were started by hysteria as commonly believed. It was a ruthless campaign by the Christian Church to destroy a Goddess religion that still existed among the peasant class.
Going back even further when both the Christian Church and later on the Moslems became state religions, the first thing they did was to destroy as much as possible all ancient knowledge. The great library of Alexandria was destroyed both by the Christians and Moslems. As feminist academics have pointed out, their main targets have been Goddess Temples and female scholars of the time. It seems that from then on all evidence of a matriarchal age in the past has been suppressed or destroyed.
The reason for this is not hard to work out. If people in the last matriarchal age were worse off than people in historic times there wouldn't be a problem. Rulers in historic times could point to the fact that people are better off under their rule than people in the ancient past. But if the opposite is true, then there is a real problem. If it becomes general knowledge that people in our matriarchal past were better off than people even today then that would become political dynamite. People then would ask the obvious question, "would we all be better off if we had a similar society to the one we had in Neolithic times?" That is to say; a society that respects feminine values of love and peace rather than masculine values of competition, aggression and violence. This could create a worldwide social revolution that would greatly undermine the power of our present ruling elite.
So the ruling elite does have a very good reason to suppress and destroy these facts. Graham Hancock recently has attempted to get archaeologists interested in the possibility that there are ancient cities under the sea that were flooded by the melting of the ice of the last ice age. He was greatly puzzled that these archaeologists showed no interest in this. But if the ruling elite are aware that more than likely these ancient cities were ruled by women, they would have a very good reason to not want archaeologists poking about these sites. Finding indisputable proof that women did once rule the world is political dynamite and could start a political revolution that would sweep away the power of our present ruling establishment.

Youtube Videos

Signs out of Time - Marija Gimbutas Part One



Why We Need Women To Rule Our World by x-Fred


Why We Need Women To Rule Our World; Part Two by x-Fred

No comments:

Post a Comment