Introduction
di Elvira Visciola e Alessandra De Nardis
Marija Gimbutas (1921–1994) was one of the most original and countercurrent voices in twentieth-century archaeology. Trained as an archaeologist and linguist, she was able to combine scientific rigor and interdisciplinary vision, proposing a radically new interpretation of prehistoric European civilizations. At the heart of her work is the theory of “Old Europe”: a peaceful, agricultural Neolithic culture, centered on the feminine principle and on an economy of care and reciprocity, which would have been progressively supplanted, with the arrival of the Indo-European populations, by belligerent patriarchal societies.
Through an in-depth analysis of iconographic, symbolic and material finds, Gimbutas has highlighted the centrality of the sacred feminine in the first forms of social and religious organization, opening new paths for the understanding of European cultural genealogies. Her research represents for us a source of methodological and political inspiration: an invitation to reread the past not as a set of fractures and dominations, but as a living archive of other possibilities. This study was born to tell her scientific contribution, the controversies it has aroused and, above all, the legacy it continues to generate in contemporary research and transformation practices.
A VISION FOR THE WORLD: THE LIFE AND WORK OF MARIJA GIMBUTAS
di Joan Marler
published in “Comparative Civilization Review” vol. 33 number 33 article 2 – 10/01/1995
In June 1993, Marija Gimbutas made her last visit to her homeland, Lithuania. From the moment she stepped out of passport control, TV and press cameras were on her side, and a crowd of family and friends gathered around her.
That evening, the television news announced Marija Gimbutas' arrival with great fanfare, and during the two and a half weeks of her stay, there were daily articles in the press, television reports on her lectures and interviews, documentary footage, and meetings with scholars, students, family, and friends.
Marija Gimbutas had returned as a world-renowned scholar to receive an honorary doctorate from Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, where fifty-five years earlier she had begun her studies in archaeology. Now she was being personally honored by President Brazauskas in a splendid ceremony broadcast to the nation. She later returned to Germany for the opening of a magnificent exhibition, SPRACHE DER GOTTIN, at the Women's Museum in Wiesbaden, entirely inspired by her book “The Language of the Goddess” (Harper, 1989). Hundreds of people came from all over Europe to the opening, to celebrate the importance of this work. Thousands more had traveled long distances to see the exhibition in Germany, before it was transferred to Norway.
In 1991, more than nine hundred people gathered at a church in Santa Monica, California to enthusiastically celebrate the publication of Dr. Gimbutas' latest book, “The Civilization of the Goddess” (Harper, 1991).
Although she was frail from years of battling cancer, the enormous love and respect Marija Gimbutas received from these and thousands of other admirers around the world sustained her until her death in Los Angeles on February 2, 1994.
Who was this woman, this tiny scientist, whose prodigious achievements include the publication of over three hundred articles and more than twenty books on European prehistory, published in numerous languages? How is it that such esoteric research could inspire the creative lives of countless individuals around the world, while at the same time creating a storm of controversy in her own field, archaeology?[1]?
Joseph Campbell compared Gimbutas' work to Champollion's deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphics.[2] and Princeton author Ashley Montagu considers his findings as important as Schliemann's excavations of Troy. He writes:
"Marija Gimbutas has provided us with a veritable Rosetta Stone of great heuristic value for future work in the hermeneutics of archaeology and anthropology."[3]. At the same time, however, some colleagues in his field are much more moderate.
FIRST YEARS
Marija Gimbutas lived an intensely creative life, dedicated to scientific achievement. She was sustained throughout her life by a complex flow of cultural, intellectual, and spiritual influences deeply rooted in her identity as a Lithuanian. During the 19th century, a vibrant intelligentsia emerged from the peasantry in Lithuania, spurred by the systematic destruction of national culture during the century of tsarist rule. As the Lithuanian language was banned, Marija’s mother’s family became “book carriers,” risking imprisonment or deportation by smuggling Lithuanian books across the border for distribution through a clandestine network. Education was seen as essential for cultural and political liberation.
Marija's parents, Veronika Janulaityte Alseikiene and Danielius Alseika, were both doctors and active revolutionaries. They founded the first Lithuanian hospital in Vilnius in 1918. It was the first year of independence from Russia. When Marija Birute Alseikaite was born on January 23, 1921, the Vilnius area was suffering from Polish occupation. Marija's childhood home was an important center of political resistance and preservation of Lithuanian culture. Dr. Alseika was not only a doctor, but also a historian and editor of a daily newspaper and cultural magazines. He was also a respected leader in the struggle for independence from Poland.[4].
Dr. Alseikiene was considered a “miracle worker” who restored people’s sight through cataract surgery. She was also a cultural activist who advocated for the preservation of Lithuanian folk art. The best artists, musicians and writers, both traditional and contemporary, often met at her home.
When Marija was ready for formal education, she attended a liberal school along with the children of other Lithuanian intellectuals. It was unthinkable for these children to attend Catholic or Polish schools. Marija also received private education in music and languages and was raised by an extended family that included her brother Vytautas, her cousin Meile and her beloved aunt Julija, also a doctor, who was like a second mother. The vital intensity of that environment fostered dedication to political and aesthetic freedom, intellectual fulfillment and tenacious originality.… From the very beginning, children enjoyed complete freedom. We were free to create our own individuality, although work for our nation and education always came first. We went to the theater and concerts as a natural way of life. Without it, we could not have lived from an early age…"[5].
Lithuania was the last European country to be Christianized, and many ancient traditions were still alive until the 20th century. Marija's exposure to this rich and vanishing heritage was encouraged from an early age.
"… In our house there were fairies… of unbroken pagan tradition. All my servants believed in them. They were real – they spun the thread of human life…"[6].
Although Lithuanian, related to Sanskrit, is one of the most conservative Indo-European languages, the folklore and mythological imagery Marija absorbed as a child reflected not only the Indo-European pantheon of celestial deities, but also a much older connection to the Earth and its mysterious cycles, still alive in the Lithuanian countryside:
"…the rivers were sacred, the forests and trees were sacred, the hills were sacred. The earth was kissed and prayers were said every morning, every evening…".
The balance between male and female powers expressed in folk material found its correspondence in people's everyday lives:
"…Officially the patriarchal system is clearly dominant, but in reality there is a legacy from Old Europe where the woman is the center. In some areas the matrilineal system actually exists, like in my family. I don't think that sons were more important…".
In 1931, Marija’s parents separated and she moved to Kaunas with her mother and brother. Being separated from her father and Vilnius was her first great sadness. When she was fifteen, her beloved father died suddenly, which was a tremendous shock. Afterwards, she withdrew into herself and vowed to follow in her father’s footsteps.… Suddenly I had to think about what I was going to become, what I was going to do with my life. I had been so reckless in sports: I swam for miles, I skated, I rode a bike. I changed completely and I started reading…".
At this point Marija began to live as a passionate scholar. Her father's death ignited in her a deep desire to investigate everything that could be known about ancient origins, especially beliefs about death and prehistoric burial rites. Her mother had a small farm near Kaunas where Marija spent happy summers with plants and animals. Nearby people still worked according to old traditions.
"… The old women used sickles and sang while they worked. The songs were authentic, very ancient. At that moment I fell in love with the ancient because it represented a deep communication and union with the Earth. I was completely fascinated by it. It was the beginning of my interest in folklore…”. Marija immersed herself in the work of Dr. Jonas Basanavicius, her “adoptive grandfather” who collected endangered Lithuanian folk traditions. She was motivated by the knowledge that such important research was part of her personal lineage. Therefore, at the age of sixteen or seventeen, she took part, as the youngest member and the only girl, in ethnographic expeditions to south-eastern Lithuania, to contribute to the preservation of this valuable material. While the boys collected tools, she recorded folk tales and songs. By the time she fled Lithuania as a refugee in 1944, Marija Gimbutas had collected thousands of folk songs and stories, which are preserved in the Vilnius folklore archive.
After graduating with honors in 1938, Marija began studying at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas. In the meantime, major political upheavals were taking place. The Polish occupation ended after the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and Vilnius was liberated. Marija immediately enrolled at Vilnius University and participated in the wave of cultural and educational reforms by the citizens and the new government.
Encouraged by Prof. Jonas Puzinas to study archaeology in both Kaunas and Vilnius, Marija began to develop a complex philosophical approach to Baltic archaeology and prehistory, which was strongly interdisciplinary. She studied ethnology with Jonas Balys, linguistics with Pranas Skarkzius, and history with Antanas Salys, among others. She spent several months recording folk stories of refugees from Belarus arriving in Vilnius. She realized the need to create her own interdisciplinary path.
"… This was my university; this is how I was educated…".
The pioneering spirit of the young generation could not prevent the devastation brought by the Soviet invasion of 1940. Everything they had worked for was destroyed: the Lithuanian government was deposed, universities were occupied by Stalinists, books were burned, and thousands of people were deported to Siberia. As soon as the deportations began, Marija returned to Kaunas and hid in the forest with her mother near their summer house. Many of her family members and close friends were tortured, deported, or killed. Marija joined the underground resistance movement and took part in the Lithuanian Uprising of 1941 that helped push back the Soviet forces. She nearly died several times. Soon after, the horrors of the German occupation began. Amid this chaos, Marija married her fiancé Jurgis Gimbutas.
In June 1942, Marija Gimbutas completed her master's degree in archaeology at Vilnius University, with minors in folklore and comparative philology. Excerpts from her master's thesis, “Life after death in the beliefs of prehistoric Lithuania”, were published in the Kaunas magazine Gimtasai Krastas. She also became pregnant.
In the following year, between illness and the birth of her child during the occupation, Marija published eleven articles on the Balts and prehistoric burial rituals in Lithuania. Her cousin, Dr. Meile Luksiene, describes Marija in this period: “She wrote her first book on funeral practices with one hand and cradled her first daughter Danute with the other. Marija was a person of incredible will and organization. She continued like this throughout her life".
"… This obviously kept me sane. I had a kind of double life. I was happy doing my job; that was what I was for. Life twisted me like a little plant, but my work was continuous in one direction…".
THE ROAD OF TESTS
In 1944, as the Soviet front advanced on Lithuania for the second time, Marija, Jurgis and little Danute again took refuge in their mother's summer house near Kaunas. They also hid two Jewish women, knowing that if discovered they would be executed in public.[7].
When Marija and Jurgis fled on July 8, 1944, to the crowded barge on the Nemunas River, she held her thesis under one arm and Danute in the other. Marija Gimbutas was twenty-three years old.
The rest of the war years were spent in Austria and Germany in desperate conditions. Immediately after the war, Marija enrolled at the University of Tübingen and in 1946 she received her PhD in Archaeology, specializing in prehistory, ethnology and history of religions. Her thesis, which she translated into German, “Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit”, was published in Tübingen the same year.
In 1947, her second daughter, Zivile, was born. Although forced to live in refugee camps, Marija continued her independent research in Tübingen and was able to earn a doctorate from the universities of Heidelberg and Munich. Jurgis earned his doctorate in engineering from the University of Stuttgart and taught engineering in Munich between 1946 and 1948 through the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
By the time the Gimbutas family emigrated to America on March 21, 1949, Marija had published nearly thirty articles on Lithuanian prehistory and had completed research on “Ancient Symbolism of Lithuanian Folk Art”, published in Philadelphia in 1958. In this work the interdisciplinary approach was already evident, as mythology was used to decipher ancient religious symbolism.
Ironically, this and other books by Marija Gimbutas were banned in Lithuania during the Soviet period. “Ancient Symbolism”was secretly circulated for decades and was finally translated and published in Lithuania in 1994.
LIFE IN THE NEW WORLD
The first years in America were difficult, although Jurgis was soon hired in Boston as an engineer. His mother Elena went with them and took care of the children while Maria worked as a maid and did other menial jobs. In the fall of 1949 Maria entered Harvard University. Recognized for her linguistic abilities, she was assigned to translate archaeological publications from Eastern Europe and, shortly thereafter, to write texts on European prehistory.
"… I had such a strong determination that I immediately started doing research. For three years I did not receive any funding. I felt like a person drowning…”. Marija eventually received support from the Bollingen and Wenner-Gren Foundations for the preparation of “The Prehistory of Eastern Europe” (Harvard, 1956), which allowed her to abandon the night shifts that were draining her strength. This was the beginning of a series of grants and prestigious awards that supported her throughout her research.
To produce texts on the prehistory of Eastern and Central Europe for Harvard University, Marija had to have a working knowledge of most of the languages of Eastern and Western Europe, including Romanian. During thirteen years of intensive research, she studied in the original every archaeological report that came into the Peabody Library, “the finest library for archaeologists in the world.” In 1954, her third child, Rasa, was born, and in 1955 Dr. Gimbutas was appointed a Fellow of the Peabody Museum at Harvard, a lifetime honor. The 1954-55 Annual Report to the President of Harvard on the activities of the Peabody Museum states: “Dr. Marija Gimbutas, a researcher in Eastern European archaeology, has completed the first volume of her comprehensive work on the prehistory of that region. Her study of the prehistory of European Russia and the lands along the Baltic coast will be a classic that will remain for many years as an outstanding reference work. … No such synthesis has ever been attempted, even by the Russians, and the whole subject is known to students of prehistory in the rest of Europe only in a fragmentary and confused state… Dr. Gimbutas has also published, in the 1955 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, an article on the “Balti,” which is the most complete account… of the Baltic regions that has ever appeared in print."
THE FRUITFUL YEARS
Most archaeologists specialize in a specific region, rarely have any language training, and are often unable to read archaeological accounts in languages other than their own. Marija Gimbutas was therefore in a unique position to develop an encyclopedia of European archaeology.… The question of the origins of the Indo-Europeans had always been present in my mind. This was a legacy of my early studies in Lithuania. Writing about the Eastern European Neolithic, the Copper and Bronze Ages – between the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Urals – was my field. I have probably read all the existing literature of the 19th and 20th centuries…".
Being also a deep connoisseur of linguistic research on the ethnogenesis of Proto-Indo-European speakers, Marija Gimbutas was the first scholar to connect linguistic research with available archaeological data to identify the homeland of the patriarchal people she called “Kurgan” and to trace their infiltrations into Europe.
"… Linguists talked about Indo-European origins and this influenced me, of course. The origin was the steppe region. This was the first linguistic solution…".
An early version of his “Kurgan Hypothesis” was presented in 1956 at the International Congress of Ethnological Sciences in Philadelphia and constituted an important starting point for all subsequent research in both fields.[8]. A further development of her hypothesis, with a revised chronology, was presented ten years later at the Third Indo-European Conference, also in Philadelphia. After decades of academic debate, Marija Gimbutas's thesis on the Kurgan invasions and subsequent hybridization of the indigenous European population was confirmed by independent research by Stanford geneticist Dr. L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza.
"Prehistory of Eastern Europe” was well distributed and Dr. Gimbutas was soon recognized internationally as a rising star. With numerous grants, she began to travel and lecture throughout Western and Eastern Europe. Her magnetic presence and passionate search for meaning stimulated a lively exchange of ideas with colleagues around the world. Friendships were formed during those years that continued throughout her life.
Although Marija Gimbutas lived and worked for forty-five years in America, the preservation of Lithuanian heritage was always of paramount importance to her. In Boston she helped establish a Sunday school for the teaching of Lithuanian language and culture, which all three of her daughters attended, and both she and Jurgis were very active in promoting the artistic life of the Lithuanian community. Later, Marija Gimbutas played a leading role in the advancement of Baltic studies and was a member of the editorial board of the journal “Metmenys, Ponto-Baltica and Comparative Civilizations Review”, in addition to other publications. He has also collaborated with “English Encyclopedia”, the quarterly journal of archaeology, and was editor of the Eastern European archaeology section of theEncyclopedia Britannica. The connection with her family in Lithuania has always been of great importance. In 1960 Marija Gimbutas gave a lecture in Moscow at an Orientalist Congress to see her mother for the first time after 1944. In 1969 she was an exchange professor with the USSR through the American Academy of Sciences and returned to Lithuania in 1981 on a fellowship.
In 1960 Marija Gimbutas received theOutstanding New American Award from World Refugee Committee and Boston Junior Chamber of Commerce. The following year she was chosen from among forty high-level scholars for a residency at Stanford University in California as a fellow of the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences. She spent that glorious year working on the volume “Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe” (Mouton, The Hague, 1965).
"… My health at Harvard wasn’t the best. I worked too much and was exhausted. Coming here has perked me up…".
In 1963, Dr. Gimbutas accepted a position at the University of California at Los Angeles, left her husband, and moved to California with her daughters. That same year, her book “The Balts” appeared in the series “Ancient Peoples and Places” and a parallel work, “The Slavs”, was sponsored by theAmerican Council of Learned Studies.
Marija Gimbutas remained at UCLA as a professor of archaeology until her retirement in 1989. During those years of intense activity she collaborated with Dr. Jaan Puhvel in founding theInstitute of Archaeology, a program of Indo-European studies and Graduate Interdepartmental ProgramDr. Gimbutas was a professor of European Archaeology, taught Baltic and Slavic studies (including language, mythology and folklore), Indo-European studies, and was curator of Ancient World Archaeology at the Cultural History Museum of UCLA. She continued to write articles for numerous professional publications and encyclopedias, and was an editor for the “Journal of Indo-European Studies” and other publications and participated annually in international conferences and symposiums.
Above all, Marija Gimbutas was an inspiring teacher who actively encouraged the emerging careers of many young archaeologists and linguists. She insisted that her students develop an interdisciplinary approach, which was highly unusual in these fields.
Although Marija Gimbutas was primarily known as a world-renowned scholar of Baltic and Slavic prehistory and the Indo-European Bronze Age, her experiences as a field archaeologist, between 1967 and 1980, were essential for the detailed development of her research on the Neolithic cultures of Europe.
In 1967-1968, Dr. Gimbutas became project director for excavations of Neolithic sites in Yugoslavia and Macedonia, sponsored by the Smithsonian Institute with a Humanities Endowment Award. This marked a major turning point in his career. He returned home to receive the prestigious Los Angeles Times Woman of the Year Award.
During those years of intense travel, excavation, lectures, research and writing, Marija Gimbutas visited almost every museum in Eastern Europe. Thousands of artifacts from Neolithic excavations spoke of an ancient aesthetic completely different from the Bronze Age weapons caches and burials of dominant males described in her previous books. Although there were technical reports, there was nothing in the literature to explain what she was seeing.… I came to a point where I had to figure out what had happened in Europe before the Indo-Europeans arrived. It was a very gradual process. I didn’t know then that I would be writing about Neolithic religion or the Goddess. I was just trying to answer that question. During my excavations I realized that there was a culture that was the opposite of everything that was known about Indo-European culture. This led me to coin the new term “Old Europe” in 1968…".
Between 1968 and 1980 Marija directed four more major excavations in southeastern Europe:
- 1968-1969 – Karanovo Hill and the Early Bronze Age, circa 5000-2000 BC at Sitagroi, Greek Macedonia;
- 1969-1971 – the settlement of Starcevo and Vinca, 6300-5000 BC in Anza, Macedonia;
- 1973-1975 – Sesklo Hill at Achilleion, near Farsala, Thessaly, Greece, circa 6500-5600 BC;
- 1977-1980 – the cave sanctuary of Scaloria near Manfredonia, south-eastern Italy, 5600-5300 BC
It became apparent that very little research was being done by other scholars on the radical changes that had taken place in Europe after the appearance of Indo-European influences. Therefore, in 1979 Marija organized the first interdisciplinary conference on the “Transformation of European and Anatolian Culture, 4500-2500 BC”, held in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia. This conference, and others that followed, were created to stimulate new research on the radical change in economic, religious and social structures that occurred between the 1989th and XNUMXrd millennia B.C. The second international conference was held in Dublin, Ireland, in XNUMX. The third, “The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe”, was held in Vilnius, Lithuania, in honor of Dr. Gimbutas after her death in 1994.
DECIPHERING
Although it is considered improper and unscientific in traditional archaeology to interpret the ideology of prehistoric societies, it became obvious to Dr. Gimbutas that every aspect of the Old European system reflected sophisticated religious symbolism. She believed it was impossible to understand Neolithic cultures without recognizing this. It was not enough to measure vessel typologies or date stratigraphic layers. Marija Gimbutas was determined to decipher the intrinsic patterns of mythological imagery that could reveal the internal cohesion of this symbolic system. The long process of deciphering began.
"… At first I couldn't see anything. Luckily, I started deciphering and from tiny fragments I began to piece it all together. None of the sources could help me. I had to work my way through it on my own, little by little. Later, I became passionate about finding out more.
I noticed that some of the figurines were winged, some had animal heads, some had special decorations, some were naked, some were dressed. By the late 1974s I was able to distinguish some typologies, as indicated in “Gods and Goddesses,” published in XNUMX.[9]. At that time, the Bird Goddess was quite clear to me because she is so typically anthropomorphic, with wings and a beak. The other type, also symbolically related, was the snake woman with serpentine limbs. This was also not so difficult to recognize. But some of the other types still remained an enigma to me.
At that time, regeneration was not yet very clear. Now I understand that this is one of the most important functions. Even after the revised edition, “Goddesses and Gods,” published in 1982, I was still dissatisfied with my decipherment. I always wondered: what are these symbols, what are these signs engraved or painted on sculptures, not only on figurines, but on a variety of models of temples, thrones and hundreds of other objects such as seals, stamps and spindle whorls. They must have had great meaning.
“Gods and Goddesses” was the result of five years of thoughts, written in three months, all too quickly. It was a birth.
One day in 1974, while I was in the Netherlands at the “Institute for Advanced Study” in Wassenaar, I was sitting there organizing the materials from my excavations at Anza, Macedonia, and I decided to start deciphering (the script). So, just like a child, I started copying the signs from the objects. I started with the Bird Goddess and made a list of the signs found on the objects associated with her. As far as possible, I checked the contexts – how these objects and figurines were found: whether they were together or not and which signs were found on both. For example, are the V or the chevron associated with parallel lines or with a certain number of dots or meanders? Eventually it became clear to me that there are groups of symbols that go together and that must have certain meanings.
Through this study I began to understand that the V, or chevron, which is a double or triple V, is almost inseparable from the Bird Goddess. This is her distinctive sign, which could indicate her name or her insignia. So if a very crude figurine has nothing but a V, it could represent a Bird Goddess or some votive figurine dedicated to the Goddess. But in many cases, the figurines were richly engraved and you can easily see how this group of symbols intertwine. In my upcoming book, “The Language of the Goddess,” I have a whole section on the Bird Goddess and her symbols.
The Bird Goddess may be a spring bird or a bird of prey, associated with autumn or winter aspects. The owl, for example, appears in bird form and as a hybrid between a woman and an owl, often associated with megalithic tombs. She often appears as a Goddess carved on a slab in passage tombs such as at Knowth in Ireland. This Goddess of Death and Regeneration is associated with the vulva, breasts, necklaces and labyrinthine designs.
The next object to decipher was the serpent and all the other animals associated with the Goddess, both in her life-giving and death-giving aspects. So, as you can see, it is a long job. I will never finish it, of course. At the moment I think I have deciphered at least 2/3 or 3/4 of it. So it is not quite finished yet…”.
INTERVIEW
Joan: During the years of deciphering, was there anyone with whom you shared your ideas?
Maria: With whom? Humans? Scholars? No one, absolutely no one. No one was interested in what I was doing. No one understood.
Joan: And the mythologists?
Maria: Sometimes, yes, but we mainly talked about Lithuanian mythology, not archaeology.
Joan: Not with Greimas, Lévi-Straus or Eliade?
Maria: I knew them but they had no knowledge of archaeology because it was difficult for them to find information. It was scattered in thousands of articles without any synthesis. From which books could they learn something about the symbols or images of the goddesses? There were no publications, apart from a few catalogues here and there. During the period of my research there was not a single person with whom I discussed this material. People are detached from folklore. European mythologists and folklorists look for analogies in Australia or Africa, but to decipher the European material one must understand the local folklore.
Joan: You described how your work with Bronze Age material has been well received…
Maria: That was accepted archaeology. It had nothing to do with religion or symbolism. All archaeologists described swords, daggers, axes, horses, graves and all that. So what I wrote about the Bronze Age was clear to every archaeologist: chronology, typology, that's all. Even the Indo-European problems were not far from the thinking of that generation. When my work on symbolism suddenly appeared, they did not know how to react.
Some reviews of “Gods and Goddesses” were very superficial. At first it was not noticed that it was a decipherment of religion – at least the beginning of a decipherment. But it was said (by Colin Renfrew) that it was a very useful collection of images.
When it appeared “The language of the Goddess” the reaction was much stronger, especially from artists. Archaeologists, after having been in this so-called “New Archaeology”, where everything has to be based on scientific methods, cannot accept any interpretation of religion. For them it is not academic to say something. They are afraid of the establishment, they are afraid of their colleagues. So this is a very particular situation. It is ridiculous, actually. Now we can only laugh, but on the other hand there is a wonderful reaction to my books especially from artists, people who have insight and who are interested in spirituality: historians of religion and mythologists like Campbell, or Eliade or Greimas. They read all my books but shortly before they died. It is a pity that there was no time to start a discussion. I would have liked to talk to them when they had this material in their hands. But that did not happen. At least I am grateful that I met Campbell again shortly before his death. The great scholars of our century were, unfortunately, already old.
Joan: Campbell always said that if your work had been available earlier, he would have written some things very differently.
Maria: Yes. He said he had neglected the goddesses because there was no way to learn more about them. And that is true, I understand. It took me 30 years to get there and that was my fate. Because I was teaching at UCLA, I had the opportunity to dig in the Balkans and find so many figurines. Because of my education, I have always been interested in mythology and folklore; they were already in my heart. It was a wonderful coincidence to receive such great offers. And so it was.
Joan: What was it like to dig up these figurines and hold them in your hands?
Maria: I remember noticing that some of them were engraved and wondering what it meant – and that another figurine had a headdress while another had a skirt or was naked. I kept wondering what they meant. Old Europe was a completely different time. You had to take a different point of view to understand the symbols. Then it becomes very interesting. If you don't, these signs are sometimes ugly or enigmatic and nothing more.
Joan: In "Goddesses and Gods” you are referring to the Indo-European Earth Goddess.
Maria: Again, if you study Indo-European mythology the Earth Goddess is present everywhere. She was probably inherited from the previous religion.
Joan: At that time did you realize that it probably belonged to the Old European layer?
Maria: No, I didn't know that.
Joan: So your understanding of the difference between the Old European matriarchal system and the Indo-European patriarchal one was not yet clear at that time.
Maria: Not at that time, no. It was a very gradual development. It took time and more data. We have no evidence of a pure Indo-European religion without the influence of the substratum. What we know of comparative Indo-European mythology are collections of myths of Scandinavian, Celtic, Roman, Greek and other sources. They are all mixed. Before my deciphering of the two systems, it was impossible to know what was Indo-European and what was not. Now I would say, of course, that Mother Earth is Old European, certainly yes.
Joan: And from a linguistic point of view? Can you say…
Maria: For linguists it is not clear. They are confused and it is a very slow process. That is why I have organized these Indo-European conferences, precisely for this problem – to bring together linguists and archaeologists to understand what is Old European and what is Indo-European. The best linguists have a good understanding of the Old European substratum and the Indo-European elements, but not enough has been done. Of course, many names of goddesses have already been deciphered. Nobody says that Athena is Indo-European or that Artemis is Indo-European.
There are many short articles on the subject, but no systematic work. I would like a good scholar to sit down and spend 10 years discovering the oldest non-Indo-European term in religious terminology. Those related to spinning and weaving, for example, are not Indo-European. So, it is not that difficult.
Joan: Who were the first to react to your work on the Goddess?
Maria: They were artists, anthropologists, mythologists, but not archaeologists. Some of my good friends simply dropped out and I lost touch with them. From my colleagues I felt mostly silence.
Joan: Did it bother you that they drifted apart?
Maria: No, because it is absolutely understandable, as you can see. They don’t think it is possible to talk about religion. “There is no evidence. No evidence. Where is the evidence?” There is such clear evidence. But for these people it is not academic, because how can it be proven? I am not surprised at all by this reaction. It is quite normal.
But I know that what I have done is not fantasy and that is my satisfaction. That is the only reason why I work, to arrive at a moment when everything fits together from every side – archaeology, mythology, folklore, linguistics – they all say the same thing. That is all. What do I care about what a person who has no experience in this field, no training or interest says.
Joan: "The civilization of the Goddess” is basically a summary of your life’s work. Have you published everything you wanted to say?
Maria: Of course not. I always feel like the work is unfinished. There is so much more that could be said. However, “The civilization of the Goddess” will be used more and more because there is no alternative. What else can you use if you want to teach the European Neolithic? What? For a while this will be the only textbook. But it is too heavy, too thick.
My work can be divided into two parts: research into the patriarchal culture of the Indo-Europeans and an exploration of what was before them – the matrifocal culture of Old Europe. For the latter I have devoted twenty-five years and it is not enough. I need much more time. At least I can summarize my knowledge and express myself without hesitation. I used to say “maybe” and “probably” and now I say what I see. It is time to publish more books, but the Goddess or God will not allow me to do so.
Joan: Before you presented your work on Old Europe, prehistory was obscure to most of us. But now that the door is open, filled with life-affirming images, it cannot be closed.
Maria: Yes, the doors are open now and I am so happy to have been part of this revolutionary period. I am really surprised to see how many people are interested in my work. It is a joy. It is possible to die now. To have this answer at the end of my life is a great gift.
Joan: Your work has been identified with the feminist movement. Have you ever looked for evidence to support feminist theories?
Maria: Never! Never! The only thing for me was to find the truth. I didn't do this work because women supported me. Absolutely not. No one supported me. Only me, myself.
Joan: So you didn't start with an ideology.
Maria: Absolutely not! It's a shame that readers are now associating me with the feminist movement or some ideology.
Joan: How would you prefer to be considered?
Maria: As a scientist. As an archaeologist. Of course, I need the support of women. Their response was a revelation to me. A big surprise. Because until the last moment I was so involved in my work that I didn't realize how strong the feminist movement is. Or receptive. Or how intelligent women are. I didn't really think much about the reaction. I did my job.
THE CONTROVERSY
There is no doubt that Marija Gimbutas's work has struck a nerve in academia, with wide implications both within and outside of academia. The intensity of criticism from certain quarters speaks volumes about the bias of the critics as much as it does about the work in question. Here is a brief overview.
Anthropologists have long recognized five useful categories for describing cultures: technology, economics, social organization, religion, and symbolism. These categories were introduced into archaeology by Grahame Clark in his “Archaeology and Society” (1939) and simplified into economics, sociology and ideology by Gordon Childe in “Piecing Together the Past” (1956). These categories represent “difficulty hierarchies” in which ideological interpretations of religion and symbolic culture are considered problematic, if not downright inappropriate for scientific consideration.
The "New Archaeology”, which gained traction in the 60s, narrowed the acceptable scope of interpretation to socio-economic concerns, dictated by a presumed “objectivity” and from a scientific materialism. When Marija Gimbutas chose to investigate Neolithic symbolism as a means of understanding Old European cultures, she broke the prevailing taboo against ideological interpretation. Moreover, she did not hide her passion for the subject, an attitude typically considered feminine and decidedly “unscientific"[10]. By refusing to work within established models, it has been accused of failing to “no methodology".
Marija Gimbutas's broad, interpretive approach is viewed with skepticism within a discipline that has become increasingly specialized, whose followers insist on “looking through the telescope backwards"[11]. According to her, “Interdisciplinary research requires the scholar to consider the problem with a completely different mental approach, which means learning to assemble data with the aim of seeing all the details at once, in situ"[12].
"Marija did not just preach multidisciplinarity, she practiced it.,” recalls Martin Huld, a linguist who studied with Dr. Gimbutas at UCLA. “Although she despised the sterility of “New Archaeology” when it was really new, it was not because she was uncomfortable with hard science; it was because laboratory techniques by themselves could not tell the whole story… Marija’s multidisciplinary approach is the only valid way to approach the problems of prehistory."[13]. According to archaeologist Michael Herity, most archaeologists approach methodology with “a series of boxes… a formal arrangement of evidence and a limited deduction, typical of the standard monograph”. He describes many researchers as “sheep on their knees” that keep well within the flock. “Of course, Marija has a methodology”, he adds, “but not a box method"[14].
Marija Gimbutas was both a field archaeologist, which requires enormous patience for detail, and a “synthesist.” One of her great achievements was to absorb data from thousands of monographs to present, for the first time, an overview of the art, religious symbolism, and social structure of Neolithic Europe. The very breadth of this vision required a shorthand, a summary of a summary, which made it impossible to describe every step toward a particular conclusion. This is a common point of criticism. A huge work of synthesis, such as “The Civilization of the Goddess”, cannot have the detailed characteristics of a monograph – which by definition is limited in scope. Marija Gimbutas’s prodigious output of over three hundred articles, however, amounting to nearly two thousand pages of scholarly text, reveals an encyclopedic mastery of a vast amount of material and provides a detailed expression of her developing ideas.
Researchers are often reluctant to venture beyond their comfort zones because new ideas must withstand the inevitable scrutiny of insensitive judges. It is dangerous to jeopardize originality, but innovation never comes from the repetition of accepted formulas.
Many attempts have been made to categorize and dismiss Dr. Gimbutas's work as post-Childian, feminist, or old-guard establishment—and therefore not feminist enough. Her work has even been called “sexist” by Brian Fagan in his review of “The Civilization of the Goddess in Archaeology” (March/April 1992). This article provoked a wave of indignant reactions from several prominent scholars who rejected his charges, calling them more offensive than enlightening.
The most common form of denial is erasure. After a lifetime of important contributions to archaeological literature, Marija Gimbutas is not mentioned once in Bruce Trigger's ambitious text, “A History of Archaeological Thought"(1989).
Archaeologist Kristina Berggren of the Swedish Institute for Classical Studies in Rome commented: “It is sound scientific practice to consider an interpretation valid until it is falsified and replaced by a new and better one. Marija Gimbutas's critics have not done this. On the contrary, the opposition against her has been very emotional and often very violent. … Her interpretation of prehistoric symbolic language is still as valid as ever and places her among the true scientists. My work would not have been possible without her"[15].
In a review of “Civilization” published on “Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland”, Vol. 122 (1994), Michael Herity wrote: “Archaeology is currently enjoying a certain reaction against the more extreme skepticism of the New Archaeology. We might look with some hope to an emerging Cognitive Archaeology; if positivism prevails, it will creep in; if scientific optimism prevails, it will spread or even explode. In a liberal world, truly interested in a wide range of ideas about humanity, this book will be widely read. … it is bound to have an influence on the humanities and may help bring the debate about the nature of prehistory to a new level of maturity".
Marija Gimbutas was deeply aware that the potential for knowledge is vast and that what an individual can understand and contribute in a lifetime is extremely limited. She possessed a “humility in the face of trials”[16] which led her to continually revise her conclusions on the basis of the most recent data. She saw her work as a beginning, not an end, and she knew that many young scholars would be riding on her shoulders. As Colin Renfrew wrote in his obituary for Marija Gimbutas published in “The Independent”, Cambridge, England: “He was a figure of extraordinary energy and talent. The study and wider understanding of European prehistory is much richer because of his life's work.”. Marija Gimbutas is deeply missed by all who knew and loved her. As her colleague Edgar C. Polome wrote in his festschrift of 1987, “There are no words to describe the depth of feelings that bind this great scholar to her disciples and this great woman to her numerous friends and admirers."[17].
NOTES
[1] This is a reference to Peter Steinfels' article, “Idyllic Theory Creates Storm“, published on February 13, 1990 in New York Times in the Scientific section.
[2] Foreword by Joseph Campbell to “Language of the Goddess” by Marija Gimbutas (Harper, 1989), page XIII.
[3] Letter dated November 28, 1993 to Joan Marler from Ashley Montagu.
[4] The Secretary General of the League of Nations intervened in 1924 to prevent Danielius Alseika from being expelled from the Vilnius area by the Polish occupation forces.
[5] All Marija Gimbutas quotes in this article are from interviews recorded by Joan Marler between 1987 and 1993.
[6] Marija’s parents were refined intellectuals who appreciated popular beliefs without being “believers.” For the servants, however, who told Marija hundreds of stories, pagan deities were real.
[7] Conversation of September 23, 1994 with Jurgis Gimbutas.
[8] See Preface by Edgar C. Polome in “Proto-Indo-European: The Archeology of a Linguistic Problem – Studies in Honor of Marija Gimbutas”, edited by Susan Nacev Skomal and Edgar C. Polome, Institute for the Study of Man, Washington, DC, 1987: 10-11.
[9] In the first edition of this book, Thames and Hudson refused to allow the word “Goddesses” to be the first word in the title. The second edition, published in 1982, mirrored Marija’s original title: Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe.
[10] You see "Feminist Scholarship in the Sciences: Where Are We Now and When Can We Expect a Theoretical Breakthrough” by Sue V. Rosser in Feminism and Science, edited by Nancy Tuana, Indiana University Press, 1989: 3-11.
[11] Commentary by Andrew Sherratt recorded September 1989 by Joan Marler, Dublin, Ireland.
[12] "Introductory Remarks” by Marija Gimbutas, from the Proceedings of the Second Conference on “Transformation of European and Anatolian Culture 4500-2500 BC”, Dublin, Ireland, 15-19 September 1989. Published in “The Journal of Indo-European Studies”, Autumn/Winter 1989: 194.
[13] From a letter of September 20, 1994 from Martin Huld to Joan Marler.
[14] Conversation with Michael Herity recorded March 15, 1992 by Joan Marler.
[15] From “Beware of the Mother!” by Kristina Berggren, article for “From the Realm of the Ancestors: Essays in Honor of Marija Gimbutas,” edited by Joan Marler (Knowledge, Ideas & Trends, Inc. 1996).
[16] Michael Herity, Op. cit.
[17] From “Marija Gimbutas, A Biographical Sketch” by Edgar C. Polome, from Proto-Indo-European: 377-378.
ORIGINAL TEXT
Excerpt from the article:
Joan Marler – “A Vision for the world: the life and work of Marija Gimbutes” – in Comparative Civilizations Review – Vol. 33 – Number 33 – Fall 1995 – Article 2 – International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations.
Translation and iconographic research Elvira Visciola.
