Lock up your Daughters: Sex and Violence in Neolithic Europe

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Well, the kinship versus group depends much upon location and environmental factors in general. In terms of burial practices most Neolithic peoples seem to have had multiple stages of burials which are associated with ancestor worship, but in general terms, I think I would have to disagree with you. Though the bones in many cases eventually ended up in a collective burial used by a village or settlement, this was usually after they had spent some time within the family home, either in full beneath the floor, or the skull alone as part of family shrine.

It varies according to site, but in some living accomodation appears entirely unsuited to extended faiy type ,accomodation, being too small in proportion and cellular like in design, suggesting a structuring of society other than waht you suggest was the norm.

The evidence of the extensive studies carried out on the waste left by Palaeolithic and Mesolithic peoples, it is strongly suggested that it was the hunting practices themselves that first led to domestications and the propensity for the hunters to target the largest males prior to breeding. It has been shown, over successive seasons, that this led to a reduction in the size of the wild animals, simply because it was interfering with the natural, wild order of things, and lesser sized, possibly more docile males, that otherwise would not have stood a chance were by default afforded mating rights. By messing with the natural order, they facilitated domestication indirectly. By utilising a single sire, it did institute the required lack of diversity, and some selection did, obviously, take place subsequently, but then again, it depends very much upon the animal in question, and since the purpose of those animals varies, it is not that cut and dried

By the time the Neolithic advances into central Europe they had been breeding animals and cultivating crops for thousands of years, my point is only that they understood the principles involved.

I am not sure what evidence it is that suggests that, most certainly as you point out in the thread that you link to, there is symbolic usage of the bee in any number of cultures, but in comparison, proportionately, with other symbolism, it is a minor feature, and part of a much larger body of beliefs. I think that there is the possibility that you are over interpreting the use of the bee and not taking it into context with the wider body of evidence.

That's just wrong for early Neolithic culture, while they were interested in nature as a whole, the geometric patterns and design features of their settlements strongly indicate the bee was their prime model for ordering of a society.

gain I would not equate Minoan society with a 'bee cult', there is a small amount of bee symbolism, and very little to support that the use of the bee was in any way 'cultish', it is stretching a point. More significantly though, the Minoans were very far removed from the Neolithic. They were a Bronze Age society and not indigenous to Crete, they were colonists arriving some 3000 years or so after the first Neolithic settlers. The thread that you link to, and as I stated in that thread, most of the images that you draw from are idealised images unrelated to the people that first settled in that island, they are reflective of a ruling elite of outsiders that had long ago left farming and their connection with nature behind. So their artistic expression is not, in any shape or form, Neolithic, though they may have romanticised and stylised local artistic themes. Their arrival ended the Neolithic in Crete and by the time most of the illustrations that you use were made, it had been over for a millenia and a half. So, sorry, no comparison, or even relevency to the OP

Well they emerged from the core Neolithic region, and i used them as an example of how ideas and iconography had developed at this period, you want to disregard this, no surprises there, but to state there is little evidence for a Minoan bee cult is again false, i presented plenty of evidence.

To an extent but still cherry-picking. The Minoans were unreservedly patriarchal rulers, this does not mean that women were lesser, but they appear to have been segregated somewhat.

And the evidence for this...?

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

For the majority of human history it has been a matriarchal type setup, under a patriarchal type rule to keep it from completely imploding. The busy bee, I suppose. But humans are just for a greater part the product of there environments, the environments from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic were not the same. For the most part it just random chance, being at the right place at the right time, and if the Neanderthals were at the right place at the right time instead of stuck in mostly a frozen wasteland they would be predominant today. I think they even had bigger brains and if you could survive in ice age Europe you needed to have more then just thick skin.

Even today its mostly about were you are, and there was much more violence once farming started becoming popular then there was when it was hunter gatherer societies and groups. The fact remains that violence and village on village raids have only escalated from then on, today we know them as Wars, even the world wars are just that on a larger scale, in bigger more complex villages. We call them cities or city states or governments and such, its all merely the same interests and instincts to survive and thrive which was leading on the first farming villages to protect themselves or raid other villages. And today the same is going on albeit on a larger and more complex scale, no longer do we raid other villages for there potatoes or land or women or even men. But we have giant corporate entities and other such complex systems of getting business done.

Ritual, the game of survival is put into ritual embed into the genes over generations, then put into practice as instinct. That's what for the majority all those gods were created for, you know the gods of war, the goddesses of the harvests and everything and anything in between, at one time there were practically gods for little nuance of daily life in said civilization. And today? Well today we go about our rituals daily without even being aware of it. So no negative on that part! the sex and violence has not gotten less as civilized people like to think it has escalated much more from the neolithic period, contentiously and steadily ever increasing. But its nature, like a growing organism its bound to swallow up other nearby organisms as it expands, it was practically unavoidable, practically fate.

And women folk, well by ritual over generations they have given up there so called power to other entities, entities such as societies and religions and ideologies, in some ways expanding on those primal energies and urges but also completely cutting them off in other ways. The bee symbology may just be symbology but it works, and symbology has worked for all of history. But I don't know, they say when there is less masculinity around the females tend to become more male like and masculine, and if that is true then the reverse would be true when there is less femininity around the males tend to become more feminine. And looking around well, no comment. But I think one day some of these females and feminazis will be growing a mustache if there not careful.

All of history practically, and today's age, well things are changing once again, and once again people are stuck and looking in the past when the present is in constant motion all round them, some say things are getting more tight knit others say that like the galaxies everything is slowly moving away from each other, merely perspectives which change daily, but for me. At least today! I got to go with the second and the universe reflects it also. Tomorrow however I may change my mind. So who knows maybe one day many many generations from now men and women will be completely different animals, I mean much more then they are now. And who know eh KilgoreTrout maybe one day some thousands of years from now somebody will look back and think on why exactly there society ended up the way it is now and write a book about it.

However i still don't get your point on the comparison of the two mass graves? What you getting at? You saying that it really was Helen of troy which launched a thousand ships. And not the lucrative trade routes involved, the many slaves they would get from the war, the complete annihilation of a competitive societal and commercial rival, and the thriving of another at its downfall, and lets not forget the many other spoils of war. I mean sure women were important, but do you think any dudes is going to go through all of that even in the outset of raiding a neighboring village risk death, and much more for some girl? Not really sure what your getting at, but like I said female kind long ago traded some things for the protections of the whole be it village or city or society, and things are constantly changing on that end. There are rituals and there are rituals, some you see on TV daily.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


very interesting article and viewpoints thanks

reply to post by 727Sky


best avatar EVER

These people realized that there was nothing shameful about a woman representing the home. It's your HOME for godsakes! What could be more important. These men wanting to take care of and provide for their woman, the bearer and nurturer of LIFE ITSELF, was the very reason for gathering into these settlements...because in greater numbers, it was increasingly more possible to protect and provide for the WOMEN! Oh yeah, these guys were not dumb. They knew that after a long day of working or hunting and stressing about bills, there is nothing like a nice soft warm female to cuddle up to and forget about the cold hard world for a while... They would do anything to keep their women happy and safe and healthy, just like any good man today would!

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Would you have massacred an entire village to acquire (your woman)?

Happened all the time, back in the day.

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31: 17–18

See also: rape of the Sabine women, though admittedly we don't know if the Sabine men were actually massacred. Bronze Age, too, but times and customs changed very slowly in those days, as you know.

And, supposing that you had, what do you think the basis of your relationship would be?

Oh, the usual, I suppose.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1 Timothy 2:12

So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. Judges 19:25-28

Of course there truly were times and places when societies were fundamentally matriarchal (there still are, in places like Mustang in Nepal and Minangkabau in West Sumatra) but I imagine they were generally the exception rather than the rule, even in the Mesolithic.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
It varies according to site, but in some living accomodation appears entirely unsuited to extended faiy type ,accomodation, being too small in proportion and cellular like in design, suggesting a structuring of society other than waht you suggest was the norm.

I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean, I was referring to burial practices in the part that you quoted... Anyway, to respond to what you posted, in the early Neolithic, most of the houses are pretty much the same, they are of a rounded shape, in some regions in the Levant, these were later replaced by rectangular buildings, and that practice spread to the Anatolian plain, in places, but the adoption was largely based on population sizes. It is much more economical, and conservative of resources to build square or rectangular houses, and often those considerations seem to have been a factor. While I agree that a few follow a cellular structure, it is not necessarily by design, rather necessity seems primary.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
By the time the Neolithic advances into central Europe they had been breeding animals and cultivating crops for thousands of years, my point is only that they understood the principles involved.

Well of course they did, that goes without saying, but there is no suggestion of endogamy being practiced in the Neolithic, which would be the key indicator of humans adopting selective breeding practices, as my OP suggests, all sign point to marriage, or mating, being exogamus.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
That's just wrong for early Neolithic culture, while they were interested in nature as a whole, the geometric patterns and design features of their settlements strongly indicate the bee was their prime model for ordering of a society.

As I have stated, very few of the settlements adopted the 'design' that you have referred to, your sources must be very limited for you to have gained that perspective. There is no such indication for that to be the case.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
Well they emerged from the core Neolithic region, and i used them as an example of how ideas and iconography had developed at this period, you want to disregard this, no surprises there, but to state there is little evidence for a Minoan bee cult is again false, i presented plenty of evidence.

No, you presented your interpretation, and the evidence was not representative of the whole. It is widely known that the Cretian used honey as part of their embalming processes, as did the Spartan kings, and the Myceneans and like the Egyptians it is possible that they had beliefs that the bees were carriers of souls. That the bee and honey, are related to rituals associated with death is roughly, without question, but it was only a part not a cult on it's own, much in the same way as it was in Greece as part of Zeus worship, however the primary focus remains the god/son, be it Zeus or a variation there of. There is plenty of evidence of goddess worship also, but none of it can be associated with the bee, other than in the respect that women are usually the preparers of the dead in most cultures, and in frescos, from Minoa, that show death processionals, the priestesses are seen carrying or pouring what can be assumed to be mead or oil for embalming purposes. None of this indicates a seperate cult, and certainly not one the focuses on bees as the central form, the central form, as elsewhere is death and rebirth, as it is in any society that has evolved from a fertility cult as the Minoan's had.

Besides, in quantities, the depictions of bees are far outnumbered by bulls, by birds, lilies, lions, there are even more octopus depictions than bees. Your theory in isolation may seem valid, but against the big picture, it has little basis.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
And the evidence for this...?

In terms of patriarchy, the throne was held by a man, all the representations of offerings or supllication to a throned figure, be they god or king, are male. For segregation, the frescos, all depict the females sat in groups seperate from the men, or of women in groups alone, no men at all. There is no strict demarcation between the sexes, but there is still physical seperation. Although the women usually take the foreground in such frescos, which led earlier archaeologists, such as Arthur Evans, to assume veneration of women, in my opinion it as likely simply means that they were valued and protected. As I said, segregation does not necessarily mean lesser.

Another point supporting women in a reduced role in Minoan Crete, in terms of their contribution to the economy, are the tablets that record workers names. All men. So either women didn't work, or more likely, their work was only contributory to the man, be it father or spouse.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

For the majority of human history it has been a matriarchal type setup, under a patriarchal type rule to keep it from completely imploding. The busy bee, I suppose. But humans are just for a greater part the product of there environments, the environments from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic were not the same. For the most part it just random chance, being at the right place at the right time, and if the Neanderthals were at the right place at the right time instead of stuck in mostly a frozen wasteland they would be predominant today.

This is untrue (as bolded). There is much evidence to suggest that the Paleaolithic peoples had a great sense of time and place. They visited the same sites regularly, and if you look at cave art, it served a communication and co-ordination function that enabled disparate groups to co-ordinate their efforts. The key to our survival as a species has been rapid adaptation to environmental changes, and in the case of the transition from Paleaolithic to Mesolithic, this was as much to do with our symbiotic relationship with the animals that were hunted. Their patterns changed, so the way in which they were hunted had to change. In turn, the animals had adapted to the changes in climate and environment. The Neaderthals, despite their larger brains, were perhaps less able to adapt, reducing their numbers and forcing them to join with AMM, a situation which clearly benefited both sides.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Happened all the time, back in the day.

As I concluded in my OP though, why the difficulty in 'telling it how it is'. After all, we have pretty much accepted that the Kurgan cultures, later, did a fair amount of raping and pillaging...the Golden Horde obviously...and so many before, during and after...why the reluctance to acknowledge that Neolithic immigrants, or bands of horny pastorialists may have been similarly inclined to take what wasn't offered up to them on a plate. Could it be that we are quite happy to accept that sort of behaviour of Northern marauders, but suggesting that the same kind of behaviour could originate from peoples of the Near East is verging on taboo?

Originally posted by Astyanax
Of course there truly were times and places when societies were fundamentally matriarchal (there still are, in places like Mustang in Nepal and Minangkabau in West Sumatra) but I imagine they were generally the exception rather than the rule, even in the Mesolithic.

Although the thread seems to have been taken by many to be about patriarchy/matriarchy, that was not the premise at all. I am aware that both existed. In those terms however, the Mesolithic seems to be entirely egalitarian, the women and men had seperate roles in the vast majority of cases, but their contribution was of equal weight. The exception may be the areas around Denmark, Skateholm and the such like, but given the choatic nature of the environment during the Holocene Optimum/Atlantic Period, rising water levels, combined with land rises, that is pretty much to be expected, competition for food resources necessitated high levels of aggression, but otherwise, particularly in Central Europe, life in the Mesolithic was pretty sweet.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout



People often confuse matriarchal with egalitarian. Even many of the "matriarch" examples are just examples of egalitarian societies. I haven't seen any hardcore evidence of a true matriarch ever existing, where men were the equivalent of slaves as women were/are in true patriarchal societies.

Either way this is an interesting post topic so thanks for sharing.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

in the early Neolithic, most of the houses are pretty much the same, they are of a rounded shape, in some regions in the Levant, these were later replaced by rectangular buildings, and that practice spread to the Anatolian plain, in places, but the adoption was largely based on population sizes. It is much more economical, and conservative of resources to build square or rectangular houses, and often those considerations seem to have been a factor. While I agree that a few follow a cellular structure, it is not necessarily by design, rather necessity seems primary.

I could dig out about 15 or 20 examples from the articles sourced here, from the earliest period onwards, even when the units are circular the overall complex is cellular.

www.exoriente.org...

but there is no suggestion of endogamy being practiced in the Neolithic, which would be the key indicator of humans adopting selective breeding practices, as my OP suggests, all sign point to marriage, or mating, being exogamus

This paper suggested otherwise.


genealogyreligion.net...

As I have stated, very few of the settlements adopted the 'design' that you have referred to, your sources must be very limited for you to have gained that perspective. There is no such indication for that to be the case.

My sources are good, as is my background in art analysis, i say there's every indication, but each to their own i guess.

It is widely known that the Cretian used honey as part of their embalming processes, as did the Spartan kings, and the Myceneans and like the Egyptians it is possible that they had beliefs that the bees were carriers of souls. That the bee and honey, are related to rituals associated with death is roughly, without question, but it was only a part not a cult on it's own, much in the same way as it was in Greece as part of Zeus worship, however the primary focus remains the god/son, be it Zeus or a variation there of. There is plenty of evidence of goddess worship also, but none of it can be associated with the bee, other than in the respect that women are usually the preparers of the dead in most cultures, and in frescos, from Minoa, that show death processionals, the priestesses are seen carrying or pouring what can be assumed to be mead or oil for embalming purposes. None of this indicates a seperate cult, and certainly not one the focuses on bees as the central form, the central form, as elsewhere is death and rebirth, as it is in any society that has evolved from a fertility cult as the Minoan's had.

Besides, in quantities, the depictions of bees are far outnumbered by bulls, by birds, lilies, lions, there are even more octopus depictions than bees. Your theory in isolation may seem valid, but against the big picture, it has little basis.

Mionoan religious practise changed post-Thera eruption, thats when the concern with the aquatic theme becomes prominent, it isn't present in the ruins of Thera, and neither is the slightest suggestion of a Son God or Zeus.

The importance of the Bee Goddess is widely recognized, you simply choose to minimize the importance,








Even in scenes were the Goddess and her attendings are going from flower to flower gathering saffron, they would still have been understood as acting like bees.








I'd never suggest the male role wasn't important in their society, the cult of the Bull existed side by side with the cellular patterns within the Goddess shrines at Catal Hoyuk.

But obviously we are not going to generally agree and so i shall leave you to your understanding of Neolithic peoples being murderous rapists.

I'm sorry but, they find things, and to analyze this, one could come up with a list of many possibilities, probabilities are more of a slant than a reality, its really just a list of possibilities.

Yet, they all concluded something from the data. That is not scientific.

Lets see, graves of women and children found in the home and men's were outside that boundary. The conclusion being, women were important and prominent in the village.

Well, one other possibility is that women and children were kept in hearth and home as oft is the case in backwards countries, and there may even be mass murders that took place, where they were murdered. They could have been treated as cattle, for all we know. Unless there are writings to the contrary, the placing of the skulls has different possible answers.

Why would they definitely proclaim one and still think they're scientists.

Its not an opinion game.

Also, farming didn't emerge then, its been around for ever so much longer, and that fact alone, that we're being lied to in our history, the Bosnia pyramids are ancient, there were phonecian scapels that they used in brain surgery in our time, that were over 60 000 years old. So this crapola is not acceptable in a modern world, to be lied to is simply not acceptable.

The whole thing takes on a new slant and puts other possibilities on the list when you factor that civilizations and technology including food production has been going on for ages longer, possibly millions of years.

www.rabbithole2.com...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Copper Coin from Illinois, over 200,000 years old
This rendition of a coin-like object, from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface.



According to the information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits containing the coin are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old...

A coin, yet they weren't farming? Get real!

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Hi Kilgore,
The real trasition in central/eastern Europe was the arrival a rigid stratified society, with the arrival of the pastoralists from the steppes. Before their arriaval society in Europe was very egalitarian, with decidedly communal model, with no signs of a "ruling" class. But after the arrival of the pastoralists, a ruling elite class makes it's appearance, and the polishedd stone axe was the symbol of the ruling class, and authority.
I have read an interesting take on the idea, the new group of people brought with them new ideas, the wheel, a standardized product, axes new animals and plants and they were decidedly more warlike, than the previous people .
They superimposed their rule on the new villiages they encountered, if their was no resistance then the transition was smooth, but if there was resistance then the violence was extreme, with all the men being killed, and the women being made slaves.
Oh and that artist's rendition of an early herdsman is one of the most rediculous things I've ever seen, really a loincloth, textile manufacturing has deep roots in Europe, spindle whorls have been found that are as old as the nd of the last ice age. I would expect thtat the person depicted would be mostly fully clothed, for protection against the sun, wind and biting bugs.

reply to post by Astyanax

So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. Judges 19:25-28

You realize they were sodomites?

They wanted to rape the visiting man.

The above happened instead

These good for nothing men were put to the sword for the murder of the woman.......

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Could it be that we are quite happy to accept that sort of behaviour of Northern marauders, but suggesting that the same kind of behaviour could originate from peoples of the Near East is verging on taboo?

I really wouldn't know the answer to that. If such an almost-taboo exists, I've never been aware of it. Then again, I hail from a somewhat different culture, in a different part of the world, so perhaps I've missed something that would be obvious to a Westerner.

Although the thread seems to have been taken by many to be about patriarchy/matriarchy, that was not the premise at all... the Mesolithic seems to be entirely egalitarian, the women and men had seperate roles in the vast majority of cases, but their contribution was of equal weight... particularly in Central Europe, life in the Mesolithic was pretty sweet.

Sure. And might have been even sweeter in the Upper Paleolithic, if the extravagance of time and resource they were able to devote to artistic activity is anything to go by.

I really don't have a position in these patriarchy/matriarchy debates, but the position of women in UP societies seems to have been relatively privileged compared to what came down later.

reply to post by LadyofGlass


Couldn't agree more.

Thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
I could dig out about 15 or 20 examples from the articles sourced here, from the earliest period onwards, even when the units are circular the overall complex is cellular.
www.exoriente.org...

I'm confused, none of the articles in the journal that you link to refer to architectural or even construction of settlements...did you post the wrong link? The vast majority of those articles are about microlith dispersal???

Even so, the settlements that they mention in those articles support what I have said, and strongly contradict your theory, with the possible exception of Ain Ghazal and Ain Darat, but as I have already pointed out, those settlements in the Levant reflect settlements in crisis, and were abandoned soon after they began to cluster in on themselves. Others referred to, such as Nehal Zehora, are Yamoukian sites, which are generally identified with round houses evenly arranged around a central courtyard, with paved streets radiating from a central point of collective activity. Not remotely 'cellular'. Similarly, Jerf el-Ahmar, Gilgal I, Ghwair I. They largely all belong to pre-pottery cultures that are characterised by that settlement structure and round houses. Kazane Hoyuk, also mentioned in the links you provide, is of the Halaf period...circular houses, reasonably easily spaced around a central outdoor work area, the gardens of the dwellers, and penned animals, which tend to belong to each household unit, rather than collective, running around the outside of the settlement. Elsewhere in the articles, Salibiya IX, and Bawwab el-Ghazal are mentioned, again in relation to microlith deposits and works, these are Natufian sites, and largely temporary, not settlements at all, Dhra' is early Bronze Age.

I don't know, either you have linked to the wrong site, or you didn't read the material...I suspect the latter, either way, it strongly contradicts the basis of your argument, and supports mine.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
This paper suggested otherwise.
genealogyreligion.net...

Again, you seem to be confused, that article and the paper it links to, supports the notion of exogamy quite explicitly so.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
My sources are good, as is my background in art analysis, i say there's every indication, but each to their own i guess.

They may be good sources, it is just that your comprehension of them seems to be lacking. Your background is irrelevant unless you plan to submit your CV for verification.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
Mionoan religious practise changed post-Thera eruption, thats when the concern with the aquatic theme becomes prominent, it isn't present in the ruins of Thera, and neither is the slightest suggestion of a Son God or Zeus.

Actually, the aquatic theme is dominant pre-Thera and post-Thera. The Octopi motif was popular around the time of the eruption and continued on after, possibly reflective of the production of it’s dye. Elsewhere, in the frescos contemporary to all the ones that you have posted, the acquatic theme is prominent, there is the fresco of the flying fish, fish on ceramics, squids on jugs and of course, famously, in the so called ‘Queen’s bathroom’ with it’s Dolphins and other fish. All contempory with the ‘evidence’ of your claimed ‘bee cult’.

Apollo (the son) was of course, originally, associated with the Dolphin and Dionysus, son of Zeus, is found in depictions from the earliest strata at Knossos, etc, etc.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
The importance of the Bee Goddess is widely recognized, you simply choose to minimize the importance,

Where and by whom, is it ‘widely recognised’?

Originally posted by Kantzveldt

This signet-ring is from Tiryns, a major Mycenaean city on mainland Greece and dates post-Thera. Although it is difficult to see in the colour version, if you check it out in black and white, the figures are lion-like, beneath their reptilian cloaks. Tiryns was very much, stylistically, influenced by Crete, but the same can be said vice versa. The lion is highly emblematic of Mycenaean culture though.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt

I don’t see the connection with this one...perhaps you could explain why you posted it???

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
Even in scenes were the Goddess and her attendings are going from flower to flower gathering saffron, they would still have been understood as acting like bees.

Are bees known for their habit of collecting saffron? Saffron is an extremely important crop economically, and as a crop, it was under the dominion of goddesses. Beyond that, you are seriously reaching.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
I'd never suggest the male role wasn't important in their society, the cult of the Bull existed side by side with the cellular patterns within the Goddess shrines at Catal Hoyuk.

No, you said the males were just ‘drones’. It is no surprise that the bee should be recognised for it’s role in plant propagation, and as that was part of the female world that that the bee should be associated with the feminine, and with motherhood in general, as she is with Demeter, but that does not detract from the lack of evidence to support your cult theory, that is completely outweighed by evidence to suggest the contrary.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
But obviously we are not going to generally agree and so i shall leave you to your understanding of Neolithic peoples being murderous rapists.

That is not my premise, and it is somewhat banal of you to imply that it is. The OP referred to the Neolithic experience in Central Europe, and currently, evidence of such massacres as those I have detailed, is limited to that region. Your inability to recognise the distinction between Neolithic and Bronze Age culture is in itself telling, and your insistence at pimping your ‘bee cult’ theory entirely irrelevant in the context of the OP, so yes, agreement given the diffuse arguments that you present, is difficult.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

I don't know, either you have linked to the wrong site, or you didn't read the material...I suspect the latter


Again, you seem to be confused


They may be good sources, it is just that your comprehension of them seems to be lacking


Your inability to recognise the distinction between Neolithic and Bronze Age culture is in itself telling

Undermine-Weaken-Violate


Assert-Strenghten-Dominate

reply to post by Kantzveldt


I think the OP is referring to an earlier time period when the transition was made from hunting/gathering to agronomy. You are correct about Bee Goddesses. www.spirithillswinery.com... This is a very good site for information about what you are saying. I did not find any pictures of 'honeycombed' structures, but it makes sense there might have been some. I find it comfusing that you are arguing apples and oranges with so vast a time difference in cultures.

As for rape, it is about power. As with all cultures rapists exist, to say they represent a culture is most likely incorrect. Almost all conquerors have also been rapists. There are murderers and rapists in every culture throughout history.

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
Undermine-Weaken-Violate


Assert-Strenghten-Dominate

I apologise if you found my argument to be such, I was hurried and had to return to work, I perhaps should have softened my phrasing, however, my points remain, and as stated the sources that you provide contradict your argument, but in my haste to respond, I was inconsiderate as to your feelings.

As Iamschist points out, Bee Goddesses were aspects of the overall pantheon and belief system, both in the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic, through to the Bronze Age, but that does not reflect a dedicated cult to Bees, merely an understanding of their role and importance as a part of the whole, but more importantly, it bears no relationship to the content and premise of this thread. We are all, these days, only too aware of the devastation that our intensive farming practices has had on the bees, and that is perhaps more relevant to the context of this thread, as it corresponds with the premise of using force to overcome and control nature.

I had, at the time you posted, starred and flagged your thread, as I have with many of your other threads, I enjoy your presentations, however, they do not add to the topic that I sought to discuss here. It was your decision to bring those arguments here, and my responsibility to point out why they are irrelevant, and where they lack substance in respect to the topic at hand, but I apologise if I was overly aggressive in doing so.