2001/01/01 by Kathryn Rountree · 34 citations
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Maritime and Coastal Archaeology #Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation #Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies #Appropriation #Prehistory #Relation (database) #Politics #Sociology #Archaeological evidence #History #Anthropology #Archaeology #Law #Political science #Philosophy #Epistemology
paper · doi:10.1080/13537900123321
published in Journal of Contemporary Religion 16(1), 5-27 (Taylor & Francis)
openalex publication_date 2001/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
Feminist archaeologists and others have criticised the Goddess movement, and Marija Gimbutas in particular, for producing 'Golden Age' theories about the past, claiming that there is no convincing archaeological evidence that Old Europe was universally peopled by matrifocal, peaceful, egalitarian societies who worshipped a Great Goddess. Goddess feminists are accused of appropriating and mythologising the past to serve their contemporary political agenda. This paper considers such criticisms and argues that archaeologists, too, can be shown to have agendas of their own in relation to the past. Following a theoretical discussion, the issues of appropriation and colonisation are considered with respect to Malta's neolithic 'Temple Culture', and the agendas and activities of Goddess feminists in relation to it. The discussion is based on recent anthropological fieldwork in Malta.