Why are you assuming that goddess-worshipping = matriarchal?![]()
After all, early Israelis worshiped Ashera, and we all know how matriarchal they were...
Why are you assuming that goddess-worshipping = matriarchal?![]()
But what about the Native American tribes, like the Iroquois? Their army/warrior class was male dominated, yet it was the women who were the head of the family. We know from early American settlers that the women made the decisions that governed the tribes. And the Iroquois Nation was a successful military force until the European settlers overwhelmed them. But they were never conquered. So, it has been done in history.xchen08 I don't really think a matriarchal society is possible in the long run at any point in the past. Men are naturally stronger and better suited to warfare, so even in societies where production is mostly in the hands of women, the army/warrior class will almost inevitably be male. All states in the end are based around force of arms, so the ruling class has to be from or be able to dominate the warrior class. Even if a matriarchal society is able to dominate a male army, eventually some general is going to realize his own power and take over. If on the other hand, a matriarchal society is supported by a female army like the hypothetical Amazons, eventually some other society with a more efficient male army will come along and conquer them.
But what about the Native American tribes, like the Iroquois?
However , this role ended with the transition to full scale agriculture , where the role of the male as the labourer comes into play, reversing the position of power.
And when exactly was that? The Eastern woodland tradition had an agricultural society during the colonial period, yet we know from the settlers that the culture was matrilinial. And women were still given the responsibility of handling all agricultural decisions.
After all, early Israelis worshiped Ashera, and we all know how matriarchal they were...![]()
But what about the Native American tribes, like the Iroquois? Their army/warrior class was male dominated, yet it was the women who were the head of the family.
if I may ask (again), what evidence?
Honestly, it's been a while since I read the book, so I cannot state matter of factly what the specific evidence is. I believe she cites achaeological evidence from different temples, and linguistic trends from the Semitic languages through the Indo-European languages of the time. I'm no social anthropologist, so I cannot adequately evaluate the quality of her evidence. And I do know her conclusion are considered a bit radical and not widely accepted.
However, if we assume that the goddess and fertility worship was the norm before the Indo-European invasion, and the society did have a matriarchal bent to it, then there is no reason to assume that an established culture would change without the external influences of the Indo-Europeans.
I guess I'm looking at the Old Testament more as a cultural text than a historic one. I'm looking at it as an insight into an emerging culture (the proto-Hebrews influence by the Indo-Europeans) opposed to a dominant/residual one (the goddess worshipers). Marxist CUutural Theory at its best ;-)