MARIJA GIMBUTAS᾽S CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARCHAEOLOGY

AND THE REACTIONS WITHIN HER FIELD:

EXAMINING THE BACKLASH AND REASSESSING

HER SIGNIFICANCE AND LEGACY

by

Joan Carol Marler

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

the California Institute of Integral Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy and Religion

with a concentration in Women’s Spirituality

California Institute of Integral Studies

San Francisco, CA

2022
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read MARIJA GIMBUTAS᾽S CONTRIBUTIONS TO

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE REACTIONS WITHIN HER FIELD:

EXAMINING THE BACKLASH AND REASSESSING HER SIGNIFICANCE

AND LEGACY by Joan Carol Marler, and that in my opinion this work meets the

criteria for approving a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy and Religion with a

concentration in Women’s Spirituality at the California Institute of Integral

Studies.

_____________________________________

Mara Lynn Keller, PhD, Chair

Professor, Women’s Spirituality, Philosophy and Religion

_____________________________________

Susan G. Carter, PhD

Adjunct Professor, Women’s Spirituality, Philosophy and Religion

_____________________________________

External Reader, Miriam Robbins Dexter, PhD

UCLA Center for the Study of Women Research Affiliate

© 2022 by Joan Carol Marler
Joan Carol Marler
California Institute of Integral Studies, 2022
Mara Lynn Keller, PhD, Committee Chair

MARIJA GIMBUTAS᾽S CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE

REACTIONS WITHIN HER FIELD: EXAMINING THE BACKLASH AND
REASSESSING HER SIGNIFICANCE AND LEGACY

ABSTRACT

The main purpose of this dissertation is to articulate Marija Gimbutas’s

pioneering contributions to archaeology; to investigate both positive and negative

responses to her theories and interpretations; to assess her scholarly achievements

and legacy as expressions of her unique interdisciplinary scholarship, and her

reevaluation of the roots of European civilization.

My chosen process for researching and writing this dissertation has been

to use an overarching transdisciplinary methodology that draws from multiple

methods employing qualitative approaches to research, informed by feminist

research practices and hermeneutics. The methodological approaches employed in

these investigations do not function separately, but weave together, guiding and

focusing the contents of each chapter.

This work includes data from interviews I have made with Professor

Gimbutas, while we worked together and traveled internationally over a seven-

year period, and with family members and colleagues in the United States and

Lithuania. I have used a broad collection of literature and research materials from

the library and archive of the Institute of Archaeomythology in Sebastopol,

California; from Opus Archives and Research Center on the campus of Pacifica

iv
Graduate Institute near Santa Barbara, California, and from Marija Gimbutas’s

archive at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.

My findings expand the knowledge of nonLithuanian speakers about

Marija Gimbutas՚s Lithuanian cultural background and her contributions to the

preservation of Lithuanian and Baltic culture; her classical training as an

interdisciplinary scholar; her discovery of key ideas that motivated her

formulation of Old Europe as the non-Indo-European “Civilization of the

Goddess”; her concepts of the Kurgan culture and the Indo-Europeanization of

Old Europe; and the continuity of Old European religious patterns as substratum

elements in later historical periods.

This work concludes with an analysis of Marija Gimbutas’s scholarly

legacy that includes, not only results of her excavations and published works, but

her expansion of the interpretive boundaries of archaeology through her

interdisciplinary formulation of the field and methodology of archaeomythology.

Gimbutas actively encouraged collaboration between archaeologists, Indo-

Europeanists, and other scholars within the sciences, arts, and humanities. Her

work has inspired archaeologists, anthropologists, Indo-Europeanists,

philosophers, mythologists, visual artists, poets, writers, and scholars of religious

studies and women՚s spirituality.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My dear mother, Elizabeth Sabelman Marler Paddock, deserves the first

acknowledgement for encouraging me to develop my creative interests in the arts,

poetry, music, dance, and scholarship. I continue to nurture the seeds she planted

within me, so long ago. I am grateful to Joseph Campbell for introducing me to

Dr. Marija Gimbutas in 1985. Her illuminating work and presence inspired the

long, transformative path that led to the production of this dissertation.

The brilliant scholar and professor Dr. Mara Lynn Keller encouraged me

to complete this doctoral work through her wisely insistent guidance. I benefitted

greatly from her erudite leadership and vision as the Chair of my committee.

One year ago, the Goddess scholar and writer Dr. Carol P. Christ, who

was on my doctoral committee, passed into the realm of the Ancestors. I am

honored to have had the opportunity to benefit from her insightful replies to the

progress of my dissertation, rooted in her deep respect for Marija Gimbutas.

It was a true gift to have had two other remarkable scholars on my

dissertation committee: the prolific author, editor, and Indo-Europeanist,

Dr. Miriam Robbins Dexter, who was a graduate student, friend, and colleague of

Professor Gimbutas; and Dr. Susan G. Carter, a dynamic professor and author

whose work has inspired me for years. The thoughtful critiques of my doctoral

work from every member of my committee were always clear, precise, and

followed by the welcomed admonishment for me to “just keep going!”

I also want to thank my dear husband, Dan Smith, for cooking many meals

while I was buried in books. Thank you for nurturing this project so tastefully!

vi
 DEDICATION

This doctoral work is dedicated to Marija Gimbutas and Carol P. Christ

with enduring gratitude.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract .................................................................................................................. iv

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ vi

Dedication ............................................................................................................. vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

Thesis Statement ......................................................................................... 1

Main Inquiry Questions .............................................................................. 4

Objectives of This Study ............................................................................. 5

Personal Standpoint and Connection to This Subject ................................. 5

Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................. 9

Scope and Limits of This Investigation .................................................... 19

Significance of This Study: Academic, Social, Spiritual, and

Personal ..................................................................................................... 21

Academic and Social Significance................................................ 22

Spiritual and Personal Significance .............................................. 22

Conclusion ................................................................................................ 24

Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................ 26

Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Concepts of the

“Evolution” of Social Organization .......................................................... 27

Theoretical Developments within European and American

Archaeology .............................................................................................. 34

Culture-Historical Tradition.......................................................... 36

Processual and Postprocessual Archaeology ................................ 37

Cognitive Archaeology ................................................................. 38

Feminist Theories and Gender Studies in Archaeology ............... 39

Literature Concerning the Life and Work of Marija Gimbutas ................ 40

viii
 Literature Influenced by Marija Gimbutas՚s Scholarship ......................... 42

Literature of the Controversy Concerning Marija Gimbutas’s

Theories and Interpretations ..................................................................... 44

Gimbutas’s Kurgan Theory and Related Discussions .............................. 46

Conclusion ................................................................................................ 47

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................... 50

Transdisciplinary Inquiry .......................................................................... 50

Cultural History and Feminist Hermeneutic Analysis .............................. 54

A Qualitative Approach to Cultural / Intellectual Biography ................... 55

Limitations of the Methodology and Access to Resources ....................... 62

Conclusion ................................................................................................ 65

Chapter 4: Theoretical Developments within North American and

European Archaeology during the Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Early
Twenty-First Centuries ......................................................................................... 66

Prelude: Roots of the Archaeology of Prehistory—The Three-Age

System, Stratigraphic Succession, and Relative Dating ........................... 68

The Nineteenth Century ............................................................................ 70

Evolutionary Archaeology ............................................................ 71

Development of Stratigraphic Excavation and Seriation .............. 74

Marxist Materialist Philosophy ..................................................... 76

Decline of Cultural Evolutionism and the New Definition

of “Culture” ................................................................................... 77

The Twentieth Century ............................................................................. 77

Culture-Historical Perspectives .................................................... 77

Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931) .......................................... 78

V. Gordon Childe (1892–1957) ........................................ 80

The Radiocarbon Revolution ........................................................ 84

ix
 Processual Archaeology ................................................................ 86

Postprocessual Archaeology: Ian Hodder ..................................... 91

Cognitive Archaeology ................................................................. 94

Feminist Theories and Gender Studies in Archaeology ............... 97

The Twenty-First Century......................................................................... 99

New Approaches to Archaeological Theories and Practices ........ 99

The Genetic Revolution in Archaeology .................................... 102

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 102

Chapter 5: Marija Gimbutas’s Life and Work: A Cultural/Intellectual

Biography ............................................................................................................ 106

Part 1.1—Baltic/Lithuanian Historical Lineage: The “Stubborn

Pagans” Who Worshipped the Entire Living World............................... 107

Part 1.2—Primary Orality of Ancient Lithuanian Language and

Folk Culture ............................................................................................ 111

Part 1.3—The Christianization of the Last Pagan State of Europe ......... 114

Part 1.4—Literacy as a Project of the Reformation ................................ 119

Part 1.5—A Century of Tsarist Rule....................................................... 121

Part 1.6—Veronika Janulaitytė Alseikienė and Danielius Alseika ........ 126

Part 2.1—Indelible Influences from Marija Alseikaitė’s Early Life

in Vilnius ................................................................................................. 131

Part 2.2—University Studies in Kaunas and Vilnius .............................. 138

Part 2.3—Fleeing from Lithuania ........................................................... 150

Part 3—Life and Work in the New World .............................................. 152

The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part I: Mesolithic,

Neolithic and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic
Area (1956) ................................................................................. 153

Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art (1958) .................... 155

The Balts (1963) ......................................................................... 156

x
 Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965) ...... 158

The Slavs (1971) ......................................................................... 161

Excavations in Southeastern Europe (1967–1980) ..................... 162

The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe (1974) ........................ 163

The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1982) ........................ 165

The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden

Symbols of Western Civilization (1989) .................................... 168

The Formulation of Archaeomythology ..................................... 169

The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe

(1991) .......................................................................................... 172

The Living Goddesses (1999) ..................................................... 175

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 181

Chapter 6: Responses to Marija Gimbutas՚s Publications .................................. 185

Review of Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit

(1946) ...................................................................................................... 185

Reviews of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe (1956)............................ 186

Reviews of Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art (1958) .............. 191

Reviews of The Balts (1963)................................................................... 192

Reviews of Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe

(1965) ...................................................................................................... 194

Reviews of The Slavs (1971) .................................................................. 197

Reviews of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe (1974) ................. 198

Reviews of The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1982) ................. 202

Reviews of The Language of the Goddess (1989) .................................. 209

Reviews of The Civilization of the Goddess (1991) ............................... 211

Reviews of The Living Goddesses (1990) .............................................. 213

International Events, Publications, Inspirations, and Rebuttals .............. 215

xi
 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 223

Chapter 7: Literature of the Controversy: Critical Publications Concerning

Marija Gimbutas’s Theories and Interpretations ................................................ 225

Archaeology of Prehistoric Religion ...................................................... 236

The Development of Cognitive Archaeology ......................................... 237

The Kurgan Hypothesis and Related Discussions .................................. 245

Gimbutas՚s Kurgan Theory and Ancient DNA Evidence ....................... 251

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 257

Chapter 8: Marija Gimbutas՚s Achievements and Cultural Legacy.................... 258

Reminiscences by Marija Gimbutas’s Colleagues from Lithuania

and Latvia................................................................................................ 259

A Brief Chronology of Marija Gimbutas’s Achievements, 1950–

2021......................................................................................................... 268

The Harvard Years (1950–1963) ................................................ 269

The California Years (1963–1994) ............................................. 270

Final Achievements .................................................................... 273

Key Discoveries of Marija Gimbutas՚s Cultural Legacy ........................ 275

Old Europe as a Peaceful, Long-Lived, Matristic

Civilization .................................................................................. 275

The Old European “Goddess” as a Metaphor for All Life in

Nature .......................................................................................... 276

The Development of Archaeomythology.................................... 277

The Indo-European Kurgan Culture ........................................... 279

The “Collision of Cultures” and the Indo-Europeanization

of Old Europe .............................................................................. 280

The Continuity of Old European Religious Patterns into

Later Cultural Periods ................................................................. 281

Cultivating Interdisciplinary Scholarship ............................................... 283

xii
 Marija Gimbutas’s State Funeral, and Her Interdisciplinary
Conference in Vilnius ............................................................................. 288

Marija Gimbutas՚s Legacy ...................................................................... 289

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 293

Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 299

xiii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Thesis Statement

The main purpose of this dissertation is to investigate Marija Gimbutas’s

scholarly and theoretical contributions to archaeology and interdisciplinary

scholarship; to acknowledge both positive and negative responses to her theories

and interpretations within academia and beyond; to recognize her pioneering

contributions to interdisciplinary scholarship that expand the interpretive

parameters of her field; and to articulate her pioneering legacy.

When the Lithuanian American archaeologist Marija Gimbutas passed

away in 1994, she left a lifetime of archaeological research that includes twenty

published volumes translated into numerous languages, and more than three

hundred articles on European prehistory. Her scholarly work was highly respected

by researchers throughout the world while she was staying within the traditionally

recognized archaeological canon, especially while she was writing about the Indo-

European Bronze Age. But when she turned her attention to an in-depth study of

the religious beliefs, rituals, and symbolism of the Neolithic societies of Europe,

her work ignited an expanding controversy within her field of archaeology.

As a Research Fellow of Harvard’s Peabody Museum, Marija Gimbutas

produced a series of texts that established her reputation as a world-class scholar

of European prehistory. These early publications include The Prehistory of

Eastern Europe, Part 1: Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age Cultures in Russia

and the Baltic Area (1956); Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art (1958);

The Balts (1963); Bronze Age Cultures in Eastern and Central Europe (1965);

1
and The Slavs (1971), which she wrote as a sister volume to The Balts after

becoming professor of European archaeology at UCLA. This intensive research

and writing, combined with her previous classical education, deepened Marija

Gimbutas’s understanding of European prehistory and led to the development of

one of her major theories concerning the ethnogenesis of Proto-(Early) Indo-

European societies.

According to Gimbutas՚s Kurgan hypothesis, nomadic pastoralists from

the steppe regions north of the Black and Caspian Seas imposed a warlike,

patriarchal social system and Proto-Indo-European language and culture onto the

early Neolithic farming societies, over a 2,000-year period, transforming the long-

lived Neolithic societies of Europe. Gimbutas’s “Kurgan hypothesis” (later known

as her “Kurgan theory”) became the explanation favored by many linguists for the

possible location of the Indo-European homeland, whereas some Euro-American

archaeologists were not convinced. 1

In 1963 Dr. Gimbutas accepted a position as professor of European

Archaeology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and in 1967 she

became project director of five major Neolithic excavations in southeastern

Europe (1967‒1980). The appearance of her book, The Gods and Goddesses of

Old Europe, 7000–3500 BC: Myths, Legends, and Cult Images (1974), marked

the beginning of a series of publications focused on the societies, sculptural

imagery, and symbolism of the earliest agrarian communities of Europe that

absorbed her attention for the following two decades. While the publication of

1
Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, 185.

2
The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe was generally appreciated for its rare

collection of Neolithic sculptures, the republication of this book in 1982 as The

Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe signaled a direction that many of Gimbutas’s

archaeological colleagues found unsettling: placing the female in center stage.

This was perceived within her field as ideologically motivated, although

Gimbutas argued that most of the Neolithic anthropomorphic images in her study

area are female. In her view, the rich profusion of highly symbolic female visual

imagery deserved to be properly recognized and studied.

During the second half of the twentieth century, many Euro-American

archaeologists considered an investigation of the symbols, rituals, and beliefs of

prehistoric peoples to be off limits for reputable scientific study. In contrast,

Gimbutas was convinced that it is impossible to adequately understand early

societies without a thorough investigation of the nonmaterial aspects of culture.

Her use of the term “goddesses”2 to refer to the abundance of Upper Palaeolithic

and Neolithic female images; her interpretation of Neolithic Europe as a

“Goddess civilization”; her establishment and utilization of archaeomythology, as

both an interdisciplinary field and methodology, in order to expand the

interpretative boundaries of archaeology; and the enthusiastic responses she

received from “non-archaeologists”—including linguists, artists, poets,

mythologists, writers, scholars, and practitioners of women’s spirituality—further

alienated many of Gimbutas’s archaeological colleagues. The groundswell of

2
In this work I capitalize Goddess—as in Great Goddess, Mother Goddess, the
Goddess—whereas the plural, “goddesses,” is usually not capitalized.

3
enthusiasm for her work that entered the mainstream during the final decades of

the twentieth century triggered a backlash within archaeology that continues to

roil. The articulation of many archaeologists’s ardent concerns and criticisms,

their attempts to shake off Gimbutas’s ongoing influence, and the production of

alternative archaeological interpretations and theories are documented by many

hundreds of reviews, journal articles, monographs, and books. These voices are

woven as leit-motifs throughout a steady stream of archaeological publications

during the concluding decades of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. I

refer to this extensive body of critical commentary, as well as the positive

reception to her work, as the “literature of the controversy.”

Marija Gimbutas’s Neolithic investigations and her Kurgan hypothesis

have been the subject of intense academic and theoretical debates for more than

half a century. Marija Gimbutas has presented a new origin story of Western

civilization that challenges a constellation of beliefs and precepts that make up the

Western worldview. I find it exceedingly compelling to wade into this turbulence

in order to examine Gimbutas’s contributions, to investigate the appreciation as

well as the backlash against it, and to offer my own determination of the

significance and legacy of this extraordinary Lithuanian American archaeologist.

Main Inquiry Questions

The main inquiry questions for this dissertation are as follows: What are

Marija Gimbutas’s scholarly and theoretical contributions to archaeology? What

positive and negative reactions are there to her theories and interpretations? What

4
is the enduring significance and legacy of her work as a lasting contribution to

scholarship within and beyond the discipline of archaeology?

Objectives of This Study

The objectives of this study are (1) to present a cultural / intellectual

biography of Marija Gimbutas for the purpose of identifying key influences that

informed and motivated the development of her major ideas and achievements;

(2) to explore her rationale and use of interdisciplinary methodologies, especially

archaeomythology; (3) to investigate the history of theoretical developments

within European and American archaeology from the late nineteenth through the

early twenty-first centuries, in counterpoint to Gimbutas’s own theories and

interpretations; (4) and to recognize both the criticisms within her field of

archaeology, and the profound appreciation and creative outpouring of exuberant

responses evoked by her original concepts of Old Europe as a peaceful, matristic,

egalitarian civilization of the Goddess. This work concludes with my interpretive

analysis of Marija Gimbutas’s place within the history of archaeology, and the

overall influence and legacy of her transformative pioneering work.

Personal Standpoint and Connection to This Subject

My connection to this subject is influenced by the fact that I worked

closely with Marija Gimbutas during the last seven years of her life (1987–1994)

as her personal editor and authorized biographer. During those years I made

numerous interviews with her and recorded her speaking in various locations in

Western and Eastern Europe and the United States. Working and traveling with

Dr. Gimbutas during those years provided unique opportunities to observe her

5
interacting with her international colleagues and family members in the United

States, Eastern and Western Europe, especially in Lithuania, and to immerse

myself in her life and work. This was especially true while I worked closely with

her to edit her magnum opus, The Civilization of the Goddess (1991).

Before I had the opportunity to meet Marija Gimbutas in 1987, I was

working as a writer, researcher, editor, and radio producer at KPFA in Berkeley,

California, with special interests in prehistoric art and ethnic dance.3 I was also

teaching dance through a college in northern California. I originally heard about

Marija Gimbutas from Joseph Campbell, who said that if he had known about her

work earlier, he would have written much of his work differently. 4 When I found

The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1982) I was stunned by seeing images

for the first time of elegantly stylized sculptures created by the earliest agrarian

peoples of Europe. I was on fire to discover as much as I could about the societies

of Neolithic Europe. I had the opportunity to meet Marija Gimbutas when I

arranged to record a weekend seminar she gave at the California Institute of

Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco in 1987. The following year she received

an honorary doctorate from CIIS the following year. Soon afterward she invited

me to do some editing for her, which led to my working with her on the

manuscript of The Civilization of the Goddess.

3
My first degree was in modern dance and the liberal arts from Mills, a woman’s
college in Oakland, California.
4
I interviewed Joseph Campbell in 1986 for my weekly, hour-long radio
program Voices of Vision on KPFA-FM in Berkeley, California, and later interviewed
Marija Gimbutas for the same program.

6
 Marija Gimbutas did not hide her passion for her subject, and she spoke

openly about her interpretation of Old European cultures as matristic—in which

women were centrally respected—as well as peaceful, art-loving, mature, and

economically egalitarian. Gimbutas interpreted the predominance of female

imagery as expressing sacred concepts of the source and nurturance of life as well

as the processes of birth, death, and regeneration within the great cycles of nature.

Her recognition of the sacredness of the natural world resonates with my own

beliefs and sensibilities. Moreover, I have found her formulation and use of

archaeomythology for the study of prehistoric symbolism so significant that I

founded the Institute of Archaeomythology with several colleagues in 1998 to

collaborate with researchers throughout the world who are also inspired by this

interdisciplinary approach to scholarship. Our intention has been to promote

archaeomythological research and publications.5

Marija Gimbutas’s concept of Old Europe, ca. seventh‒fourth millennia

BC, as the peaceful, non-patriarchal foundation of European civilization—the

“Civilization of the Goddess”—has introduced a radically new view of European

prehistory, which I, and countless others, have found to be transformative. Her

books provide an academic and visual validation for understanding European

origins in a completely new light. It has been especially significant for me to

realize, through her work, that for thousands of years there is no evidence of a

ruling Father God, elite male dominance, or organized warfare in Europe until—

5
The Institute of Archaeomythology (IAM) received its official status as a
501(c)3 nonprofit organization in 2003. The Journal of Archaeomythology is available on
the IAM website (www.archaeomythology.org) as an open-source publication.

7
according to her Kurgan hypothesis—the influx of warlike, patriarchal pastoralists

from the North Pontic-Caspian steppes transformed Old Europe over a 2,000-year

period (ca. 4500‒2500 BC), ushering in the Indo-European Bronze Age. In my

view, Marija Gimbutas’s work presents an indispensable key for understanding

the appearance of stratified, male-dominant societies and the mixture of Old

European and Indo-European elements that continue to exist, with Old European

values and practices forming a cultural substratum in subsequent European

societies.

When the backlash against Marija Gimbutas (against her person and her

work) rose to new heights after her death, I was horrified. Not only was her work

blatantly dismissed, but the profound significance many of us experienced in her

work was lampooned.6 Instead of being miserable, I decided to study the

criticisms in order to understand what is driving the ferocity of the rejection, and

to determine for myself if there was anything accurate in these critiques. As soon

as I made this decision, my energy changed from distress to an engaged interest to

investigate this phenomenon in depth in order to understand why and how the

work of Marija Gimbutas has struck such a powerful nerve within her discipline.

The results of that investigation inform aspects of this dissertation.

Beginning in 1993, then expanded in 1995, the MA and PhD programs in

Women՚s Spirituality were developed at the California Institute of Integral

Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco. Shortly afterward, Professor Mara Lynn Keller

6
See, for example, Eller, Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, and Marler, “Myth of
Universal Patriarchy,” 163–87.

8
invited me to co-teach a series of courses with her through the Women’s

Spirituality Graduate Studies Program, beginning with the course “The Goddesses

of Prehistory,” inspired by the scholarship of Marija Gimbutas. It was deeply

rewarding to be part of this dynamic graduate department, surrounded by brilliant

instructors such as Mara Lynn Keller, Elinor Gadon, Carol P. Christ, Susan

Carter, Charlene Spretnak, Mary Mackey, Rose Wognum Frances, and numerous

other remarkable women. This graduate program at CIIS continues to this day.

My personal standpoint was deeply nurtured and further developed in this rare

and spiritually grounded environment.

Definition of Key Terms

Here I define key terms used in this dissertation:

Archaeomythology. In order to effectively investigate the beliefs, rituals,

and symbolism of Neolithic societies, Marija Gimbutas formulated

archaeomythology as an interdisciplinary approach to scholarship that combines

archaeology with mythology, folklore, the study of symbolism, linguistics,

comparative religion, and other relevant disciplines. This interdisciplinary

approach provides a range of lenses through which to view the complex and

nuanced realms of iconography, rituals, and beliefs. Insights informed by the

knowledge and practices of one discipline can catalyze new dimensions of

understanding for scholars working within other disciplines. 7 Moreover, multiple

7
I have experienced this in action during two international, interdisciplinary
conferences, organized by Marija Gimbutas (in Dublin, Ireland, and Vilnius, Lithuania),
and from intensive discussions following the presentation of papers during symposia in
Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria sponsored by the Institute of Archaeomythology.

9
disciplines can function to correct erroneous assumptions, undetected within a

single disciplinary inquiry.

Essentialism. According to feminist archaeologists Ruth Tringham and

Margaret Conkey, “To essentialize something is to reduce a complex idea/object

to simplistic characteristics, thereby denying diversity and multiple meanings and

interpretations.”8 According to their use of this term, the concept of the Sacred

Source of Life in female forms, associated with the ability of women to give birth

and nurture children, is deemed “essentialist.” The feminist anthropologist

Micaela di Leonardo proposes that this association draws on “the nineteenth

century storehouse of moral motherhood symbolism, stressing women’s innate

identity with and nurturance of children and nature.”9 The charge of essentialism

is central to feminist criticisms of Marija Gimbutas’s interpretations of Goddess

imagery and the matristic social structure of Old Europe.

Nevertheless, this term is not always considered to be negative.

Essentialism can also be used as the appreciation of what is believed to be

essential. Spiritual feminists who speak of a nature-embedded and embodied

women՚s spirituality as essentialist see the natural capacities embodied in women,

especially in relationship to reproduction—while culturally, historically, and

personally diverse—to be a kind of common ground that provides a kinship

among women of various times and places, as well as among females of many

8
Tringham and Conkey, “Rethinking Figurines,” 22.

9
di Leonardo, “Introduction,” 26.

10
species.10 It does not mean that women՚s identity and creative potential are

limited to biological reproduction. In fact, the act of mothering (nurturing) need

not be limited to biological mothers.

Goddess. Marija Gimbutas defines “Goddess”—in terms of her

interpretations of Old European female imagery—in this way: “The Goddess in

all her manifestations was a symbol of the unity of all life in Nature.”11 Gimbutas

further defines Goddess according to various functions within this overarching

“unity,” associated with the sacred Source and nurturance of life, the inevitability

of death, and the regeneration of life. Moreover, she states, “The main theme of

Goddess symbolism is the mystery of birth and death and the renewal of life, not

only human life but all life on earth.”12 This symbolism is often expressed in

hybrid forms, combining human female figures with specific attributes of birds

and animals, as an interspecies mutuality of consciousness. For example, the Bear

Goddess, holding her cub, is akin to a human woman with her child; Bird

Goddesses (in both nurturing and death-wielding aspects) combine the body of a

woman with the mask of a bird. The term “Goddess” used in this dissertation, as

applied to Old European female imagery, is not to be confused with goddesses

known from later periods, such as from the Greek classical period, who function

within a hierarchical, male-dominated, and patriarchal pantheon, complete with

concretized histories and human-like personalities. The Old European Goddesses

10
Keller, “Women՚s Spirituality in Higher Education,” 61–62.

11
Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 321.

12
Ibid., xix.

11
are conceived by Gimbutas as female expressions of cosmic powers intimately

functioning within all of nature and revered within the sacred practices of the Old

European domestic sphere.

Goddess civilization. In Gimbutas’s view, the early agricultural societies

of Old Europe—which were widely linked by dynamic trade routes, with

overarching similarities of beliefs, economies, and social structures—represent a

“true civilization.” She writes, “The generative basis of any civilization lies in its

degree of artistic creation, aesthetic achievements, nonmaterial values, and

freedom which make life meaningful and enjoyable for all its citizens, as well as a

balance of powers between the sexes.”13 Gimbutas considered Old Europe to be a

Goddess civilization because of the great prevalence and persistent presence of

female images within the ritual realm. Gimbutas interpreted the continuation of

women’s rituals and the veneration of goddesses in the popular religiosity of later

patriarchal periods as surviving patterns of deeply embedded Old European

beliefs and practices.

Indo-European / Proto-Indo-European / Indo-Europeanization. “Indo-

European” (IE) is a linguistic term referring to the extensive body of related

languages stretching from Europe into Asia and northern India (now found

throughout the world). “Proto-Indo-European” (PIE) refers to the earliest (proto)

stage of the formation of this linguistic family—the progenitor of the wide variety

of subsequent dialects and related languages that developed over time. Fragments

of this proto-language have been reconstructed from the study of related (cognate)

13
Gimbutas, Civilization, viii.

12
words in different IE languages to determine a lexicon of terms assumed to have

originated in the oldest stratum of IE linguistic development.

Indo-Europeanization refers to the cultural and linguistic transformations

that take place when an Indo-European culture dominates a non-IE culture,

thereby spreading the effects of elite dominance while imposing its IE linguistic

and cultural patterns. In terms of Neolithic Europe, a hybridization took place in

which elements of two diametrically contrasting systems became mixed to various

degrees, with the IE cultural and linguistic influences dominating.14

Kurgan theory (originally Kurgan hypothesis). Linguists have long sought

the location of the homeland of IE speakers. As an archaeologist also trained as a

linguist, Marija Gimbutas combined systematic archaeological and linguistic

research to seek the solution to this problem and to answer the question of how IE

languages spread so quickly and so far, generating numerous daughter languages

in the process. Gimbutas՚s Kurgan theory refers to pastoralists from the north

Pontic steppes who shared a PIE language and culture, whose appearance into Old

Europe between ca. 4500 and 2500 BC resulted in the transformation of Old

Europe and the Indo-Europeanization of the continent. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-

European terminology reflects specific plants, animals, and an array of cultural

elements found in the Volga-steppe region north of the Black and Caspian Seas,

suggesting that area as a likely homeland site for PIE ethnogenesis.

14
Gimbutas, “Collision of Two Ideologies.”

13
 Kurgan is a Turkic loanword into Russian naming the distinctive burial

mounds created and used by the nomadic pastoral tribes originating in the Volga

Basin north of the Caucasus and the Volga Basin.15 Gimbutas used “Kurgan” as a

blanket term to identify these tribes in recognition of the similarities of their

economies, social structure, burials, territorial practices, and use of the horse for

food, transport, and purposes of aggression. Her Kurgan theory posits that during

the second half of the fifth millennium BC, these nomadic steppe people, known

by numerous local names and descriptions, speaking a PIE language, began to

infiltrate into Eastern Europe, bringing their pastoralist economy, patriarchal

social structure, the worship of sky gods, weapons used for territorial aggression,

and the horse. The effects of three extended infiltrations of migrations over two

thousand years caused a “collision of cultures” resulting in the demise of Old

Europe in its previous totality and a hybridization between Old European and

Proto-Indo-European cultural and linguistic elements that has influenced all

subsequent European cultural development. 16

Matriarchy. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term

“matriarchy” is “a form of social organization in which the mother or oldest

female is the head of the family, and descent and relationship are reckoned

through the female line.”17 This definition belies the nineteenth-century theory of

social evolution that associates matriarchy with an earlier stage of development in

15
Gimbutas, “Fall and Transformation of Old Europe,” 353.

16
Gimbutas, Kurgan Culture, xvii–xix, 351–72.

17
Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Matriarchy,” par. 1.

14
which women supposedly ruled over men. In the nineteenth-century view,

emergence of patriarchy was deemed a necessary departure from matriarchy for

the achievement of civilization.

Although it is often assumed that Marija Gimbutas conceived of Old

Europe as a Neolithic matriarchy, in actuality, following the publication of

Goddesses and Gods, she rejected that term in order to avoid the implication that

women ruled over men. Instead, she determined that the sexes were economically

egalitarian, living in socially balanced, reciprocal conditions, in which women

were honored at the center of culture, which she called “matristic.” Gimbutas

writes, “I use the term matristic simply to avoid the term matriarchy, with the

understanding that it incorporates matriliny” (inheritance through the mother

line).18

Old Europe. The Neolithic societies that developed throughout

southeastern Europe, between ca. 6500 and 3500 BC, created distinctive cultural

styles. Nevertheless, in Gimbutas’s view, they represent an interrelated non-Indo-

European civilization, for which she coined the overarching term “Old Europe.”

Old European (OE) societies were the earliest agrarian communities found in the

Balkan peninsula, throughout the Balkans, and the Danube basin region. As

farming spread throughout Europe, Gimbutas later considered the non-Indo-

European cultural levels throughout the continent also to be Old European. In all

cases, OE societies were mixed economies that combined food production and

animal husbandry with hunting, fishing, gathering, and the cultivation of edible

18
Gimbutas, Civilization, 324. Italics in original.

15
plants; there is no evidence of organized warfare or weapons for war until the

appearance of PIE pastoralists from the North Pontic-Caspian steppes. The Old

Europeans developed refined ceramic technologies with prolific production of

pottery and sculpture (both ceramic and stone); and maintained widespread ritual

practices and cosmological orientations primarily focused within domestic

contexts; they also created a linear script utilized on ceramics, figurines, and other

media by the OE societies throughout southeastern Europe.

Prehistory. The term “prehistory” generally refers to the period before

written records, in which the study of early societies relies upon investigations of

human and cultural remains without the benefit of contemporaneous written

documents. In this investigation, I use the term “prehistory” as Marija Gimbutas

used it, which conforms to its general usage within her field.19 Although the Old

European/Danube script appears to be the earliest form of undeciphered writing

system anywhere in the world,20 the transition between “prehistory” and the

historical period is typically dated to the inception of the Sumerian cuneiform

19
While “prehistory” is a commonly used term within the field of archaeology, it
is sometimes considered problematic within a feminist context because it creates a
division between pre-history and history, which is often thought to privilege history as
his-story as the records of male-centered activities. According to Miriam Robbins Dexter
(personal email communication, March 2022), Greek historia means “the act of seeking
knowledge, inquiry” without including the English pronoun “his.”
20
Recent studies of the OE / Danube script indicate that it functioned as signs
and symbols representing ideas, often found on ritual items. See The Danube Script,
edited by Joan Marler; Signs of Civilization, edited by Joan Marler and Miriam Robbins
Dexter; Haarmann and Marler, “Old European / Danube Script,” 31‒48. Note: The term
“Danube” is sometimes used interchangeably with “Old European” in recognition of the
significance of the development of civilization in association with the Danube River.

16
script, and Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions, ca. 3300 BCE—nearly two

millennia after the appearance of the OE / Danube script.

Prehistoric archaeology is the scientific discovery and study of the

material remains created by people from the ancient past before the appearance of

deciphered writing.

Prehistoric periods. The terminology, conventionally used within

archaeology to designate prehistoric human periods, are the Upper Palaeolithic,

Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic (Copper Age), and Bronze Age. It is important

to note that these periods were formulated before the availability of radiometric

and radiocarbon chronology.21 Therefore, within each period, there is not a

consistent representation of socioeconomic and cultural development. The Upper

Palaeolithic period in Europe, also known as the “Old Stone Age” (ca. 50,000–

10,000 BCE),22 is dated from the appearance in Europe of modern humans (Homo

sapiens sapiens, ca. 50,000–45,000 BP, before the present). This long period of

human habitation during the Ice Age is generally typified by the production of

portable sculptures of mammoth ivory, primarily of female figurines, highly

stylized ritual items, micro-lithic industries, increasingly well-crafted tools, and

the astonishingly sophisticated wall-paintings and evidence of ritual activities

within great cave sanctuaries. The beginning of the Holocene (warming period) at

the end of the Ice Age (ca. 10,000 BP) made it possible for human communities to

roam more widely throughout Eurasia. This period of hunter-gatherers, which

21
Bar-Yosef, “Upper Paleolithic Revolution,” 381.

22
Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Paleolithic Period.”

17
preceded the establishment of agrarian settlements, is called the Mesolithic

(“Middle Stone Age”). Marija Gimbutas intensively studied the Neolithic (“New

Stone Age”) societies of southeastern Europe which represent the earliest

horticultural, garden communities in Europe. The general dates for the stable,

long-lived, Early-Late Neolithic societies of southeastern Europe span from the

seventh to the fourth millennium BC. Chalcolithic (also called “Copper Age” or

“Eneolithic”) refers to the use of copper in Old Europe during the last phase of the

Neolithic period. The Bronze Age that followed is named after the discovery and

use of bronze technology (typically an alloy of ca. 88% copper and ca. 10-12 %

tin), later mixed with arsenic for added strength, primarily used for weapons and

tools, as initially found in the Caucasus.23

Religion. The term “religion,” as it appears in this work, refers to

Neolithic religion or prehistoric religion in terms of the sacred beliefs, rituals, and

ceremonies that align communities and individuals with the cycles of life within

the living world. The word “religion,” as used by Marija Gimbutas—and as used

here—does not imply the dogmatic hierarchies and beliefs associated with state

societies, but reflects the sacred, indigenous sensibilities of the early agrarian,

egalitarian societies of Old Europe, as she conceived them. This sense of religion,

23
Britannica, “Bronze Age.” For a 2021 article about the earliest evidence of
metallurgy in the Balkans, with the smelting of copper around 5000 BC and the smelting
of ore containing copper and tin a bit later, see Radivojević and Roberts, “Early Balkan
Metallurgy.” The dates of the development of the Bronze Age in various locations is still
being refined. The beginning of the Bronze Age did not happen at one moment in time. It
was accelerated by the spread of bronze tools and weapons.

18
as articulated by Carol P. Christ, evokes a sense of kinship and interrelationship

between humans and all beings within the web of life.24

Scope and Limits of This Investigation

The archaeological theories, developed by European and North American

archaeologists, as discussed in Chapter 4, provide a background and counterpoint

to Marija Gimbutas՚s archaeological trajectory. The main body of this dissertation

begins with Chapter 5, which provides an overview of Marija Gimbutas’s

personal and professional background—the cultural, aesthetic, and intellectual

contexts that contributed to the development of her life-long dedication to

scholarship. Her intellectual and cultural biography, as summarized here, serves

as an introduction to the influences Marija Gimbutas received from her family and

from her deep cultural lineage in Lithuania. It discusses her classical education,

first as a linguist at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas, then as an

archaeologist at Vilnius University where she also studied folklore, anthropology,

and other fields within the humanities.

After immigrating to the United States, Marija Gimbutas spent thirteen

productive years at Harvard University producing monographs on the prehistory

of Eastern Europe, the European Bronze Age, and other texts. Chapter 5 also

follows her years at the University of California, Los Angeles; her excavations in

southeastern Europe; the appearance of her major publications and the responses

she received. While the reactions by some of her archaeological colleagues

became increasingly critical, a new audience emerged of women, artists, poets,

24
Christ, Rebirth of the Goddess, xvi, 114‒17.

19
mythologists, writers, filmmakers, and many others who were excited to discover

the hidden world of the earliest civilization of Europe. This chapter discusses her

formulation and use of the interdisciplinary research method of

archaeomythology, and her concepts of Old European civilization in which she

places women in center stage because of the profusion of Neolithic female

imagery, and evidence of continual ritual activities within the domestic realms.

Although there are goddesses found in traditional societies throughout the

world, this dissertation stays close to the geographical parameters of the non-

Indo-European societies of Old Europe. Although Gimbutas recognizes a

continuity of Goddess imagery from the Palaeolithic into the Neolithic period, this

dissertation highlights her discoveries within the Neolithic period of Europe,

while acknowledging her perception of the continuity of OE substratum patterns

that have continued over broader geographical areas within Europe during later

patriarchal periods.

The responses and reactions to Gimbutas’s theories and interpretations are

primarily limited to published works by European and North American

archaeologists, and to Indo-European scholars writing during the second half of

the twentieth-century, into the present. Sources of useful information about the

scope of Gimbutas’s scholarly work, and other scholars’ reactions to it, are drawn,

not only from published books, articles, lectures, scholarly discussions, and

reviews, but from my own recordings, transcriptions, and interviews over time.

Gimbutas’s pioneering discoveries have influenced her own field of archaeology

as well as multiple disciplines within the humanities.

20
 Marija Gimbutas focused her interest on the prehistoric period of Europe,

Anatolia, and the Mediterranean region, while her excavations were centered in

southeastern Europe and southern Italy. For this research, I have drawn from

publications that refer to the development of archaeological theories and practices

applied to these regions and to other areas where her influence is discerned. The

publications utilized as sources for this dissertation are limited to works published

in English, or translated into English, written during the mid-nineteenth,

twentieth, and into the twenty-first centuries. Fortunately, the English language

functions today as a lingua franca for most international conferences,

proceedings, and archaeological publications, so the magnitude of the available

literature is extensive. I have had numerous articles and letters translated from

Lithuanian into English by two native Lithuanian speakers.

This dissertation provides multiple areas of departure for further research.

My own future work will examine the broad reactions to Gimbutas՚s scholarship

within and beyond archaeology in more detail, extending the range of voices

discussed in Chapter 7.

Significance of This Study: Academic, Social, Spiritual, and Personal

In my view, this study has implications for a variety of fields including

archaeology, classics, religious studies, and other disciplines within the

humanities and social sciences insofar as the disciplines investigate the origins

and development of human culture, society, civilization, religious beliefs, and

related cosmologies. All the issues discussed in this study have personal

significance for me, and for many others, as well.

21
 Academic and Social Significance

On the academic level, Marija Gimbutas’s scholarship continues to be

debated, criticized, and also celebrated within archaeology, as well as within a

broad range of disciplines within the arts, sciences, and humanities. However, the

pervasiveness of the criticisms, especially within archaeology within the last

twenty years, has tended to eclipse many people’s appreciation for the scholarly

depth of her work. A rigorous, non-biased evaluation of Gimbutas’s pioneering

discoveries within the broader contexts of her cultural inheritance, formal

training, and her intensive academic discipline and productivity is long overdue.

On the social level, Gimbutas has presented an entirely new view of the

foundation of Western civilization. In the final chapter of this dissertation, I argue

that Marija Gimbutas’s interpretation of the long-lived, mature development of

Old European societies in sustainable relationship with the living world

challenges a constellation of assumptions, biases, and beliefs that make up the

Western world view. In The Civilization of the Goddess (1991), Gimbutas writes:

I reject the assumption that civilization refers only to androcratic warrior

societies. The generative basis of any civilization lies in its degree of
artistic creation, aesthetic achievements, nonmaterial values, and freedom
which make life meaningful and enjoyable for all its citizens, as well as a
balance of powers between the sexes. Neolithic Europe was . . . a true
civilization in the best meaning of the word. 25

Spiritual and Personal Significance

The nature of Gimbutas՚s perspective on the spiritual lives of the Neolithic

societies of Old Europe have engendered spiritual insights for many readers,

25
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, viii.

22
including myself. In her view, “This material, when acknowledged, may affect

our vision of the past as well as our sense of potential for the present and

future.”26

Marija Gimbutas’s articulation of the Old European Goddess, as

inseparable from the cyclic realities of the living world, has spiritual and personal

significance for Goddess feminists, Neopagans, Indigenous communities, and all

people throughout the world who celebrate the Sacred Source of Life as animate

within the world, rather than external to it. Moreover, the inescapable reality of

the ecological crisis that is affecting all life on earth is heightening the

significance of the academic, social, spiritual, and personal dimensions of this

study. The ecofeminist philosopher, Charlene Spretnak, asks, “If Eurocentric

cultures have always been alienated from nature, can we ever find our way

beyond the destructive effects of modernity’s war against the biosphere? Do

Westerners have a heritage of a profoundly ecological grounding? Were we ever

whole?”27

Spretnak՚s answer to the last question—because of the work of Marija

Gimbutas—is “a full-bodied yes.”28 In my view, our necessity, as humans, to

rediscover a sense of respect and interconnection with the living world, and with

each other, should not disqualify Gimbutas՚s perspective of Neolithic people՚s

26
Ibid., vii.

27
Spretnak, “Beyond the Backlash,” 401. Italics in original.

28
Ibid. Italics in original.

23
veneration of the cycles of life in female forms, nor should it be dismissed as an

example of “pseudo-history,” as some critics have done.29

As discussed in Chapter 8, Marija Gimbutas՚s life-long achievements and

cultural legacy have contributed a range of pioneering discoveries that

demonstrate academic, social, spiritual, and personal significance for countless

people throughout the world. Her achievements include the recognition of the

agrarian societies of Old Europe as representing a peaceful, non-Indo-European,

matristic, highly developed civilization in which the cycles of the living world

were venerated through the use of thousands of symbolic images in human

(primarily female) and zoomorphic forms. Gimbutas referred to Old Europe as the

“Civilization of the Goddess.” Her achievements also include her recognition of

the mobile steppe pastoralists, she called “Kurgans,” who entered Old Europe

over a 2,000-year period, ca. 4500‒2500 BC. Their incursions resulted in the

transformation of Old Europe through the instigation of elite male dominance,

warfare, and Indo-Europeanization. Nevertheless, Old European ritual patterns

have continued as substratum beliefs and practices into later cultural periods.

Conclusion

The introduction to this study has provided the thesis statement, the main

inquiry questions, the objectives of this study, a discussion of my personal

standpoint and connection to Marija Gimbutas, a definition of key terms, the

scope and limits of this investigation, and my view of the academic, social,

spiritual, and personal significance of this work. Chapter 2 presents a review of

29
See, for example, Townsend, “The Goddess,” 197.

24
some of the literature explored in this dissertation, while Chapter 3 discusses the

methodology utilized throughout this work. Chapter 4 lays out the development of

archaeological theories within North American and European archaeology during

the nineteenth, twentieth, and early twenty-first centuries. Chapter 5, the heart of

this dissertation, discusses Marija Gimbutas’s life and work, as a

cultural/intellectual biography. Chapter 6 continues the discussion by tracing

chronological responses to Marija Gimbutas՚s publications, and Chapter 7,

“Literature of the Controversy,” examines various critiques of Marija Gimbutas’s

theories and interpretations. Chapter 8 concludes the current study by discussing

Marija Gimbutas՚s achievements and cultural legacy. We now move to the

literature review in Chapter 2.

25
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

All publications mentioned in this literature review have played a role in

either the foreground or the background of this dissertation. While most of the

literature presented here is discussed in the text of this work, other literature is

included because it served as a background of Marija Gimbutas’s knowledge

base. She did not develop her theories and interpretations in a vacuum about Old

European art, the religion of the Goddess, and Old European social structure.

Gimbutas was keenly interested in the work of other scholars concerning

European prehistory, religion, and social patterns. She weighed the writings of

others against the most recent scholarship available in order to gain the broadest

foundation for her own interpretations. She was never one to accept prevailing

ideas without submitting them to her own rigorous system of investigation. Her

own ideas and interpretations were developed over time, and some were changed

entirely, such as her decision to use the term “matristic,” instead of “matriarchal,”

to indicate balanced societies that honor women at the center of culture.

This literature review begins with selected examples of nineteenth and

early twentieth century concepts of the development of social organization, ideas

about the establishment of “communal matriarchy,” and the “evolution” of

patriarchy as a prerequisite for civilization expressed mostly by male social

theorists, early anthropologists, classical scholars, mythologists, historians,

psychologists, and historians of religion. While Marija Gimbutas was well aware

of these early concepts, she did not mindlessly project these ideas onto early

human cultures; she was continually refining her concepts based upon her own

26
systematic discoveries. The following section contains examples of theoretical

developments within European and American archaeology from the late

nineteenth through the early twenty-first centuries, which introduces theoretical

similarities and contrasts to the classical training Marija Gimbutas received in

Eastern Europe. The ongoing development of her interdisciplinary, archaeological

perspectives continued to mature after her immigration to the United States. Later

sections discuss theoretical developments within European and North American

archaeology, literature concerning Marija Gimbutas՚s life and work, literature of

the controversy concerning Gimbutas՚s theories and interpretations, and her

Kurgan hypothesis and related discussions.

Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Concepts of the “Evolution” of

Social Organization30

Two years after On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin appeared in

1859, the Swiss jurist and classical scholar Johann Jakob Bachofen published Das

Mutterrecht: Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer

religiösen und rechtlichen Natur [Mother Right: An Investigation of the Religious

and Juridical Character of Matriarchy in the Ancient World] (1861). Drawing

from Greek and Roman myths and classical histories, Bachofen determined that

human society evolved through several universal stages of development from

hunter–gatherers and matriarchal agriculturalists, to finally arrive at patriarchal

30
Carol P. Christ was a member of my dissertation committee until her untimely
death in July 2021. She insisted that I include this section as a recognition of the
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century concepts of social organization and matriarchy
that preceeded the development of Marija Gimbutas՚s scholarship. I am honoring her
request.

27
civilization. In his view, the most primitive stage was signified by nomadic,

communal bands in which everything was held in common, including men’s

unfettered sexual access to women. Bachofen imagined that women became

Amazons and rebelled against this untenable situation and eventually created

monogamous marriage to regulate the sexuality of men within a matriarchal social

structure. In his view, women fought back against male dominance because they

represent a more developed moral presence than men because of their function as

mothers. He wrote:

The relationship which stands at the origin of all culture, of every virtue,
of every nobler aspect of existence, is that between mother and child; it
operates in a world of violence as the divine principle of love, of union, of
peace. Raising her young, the woman learns earlier than the man to extend
her loving care beyond the limits of the ego to another creature, and to
direct whatever gift of invention she possesses to the preservation and
improvement of this other’s existence. Woman at this stage is the
repository of all culture, of all benevolence, of all devotion, of all concern
for the living and grief for the dead. 31

Bachofen emphasized the religious foundation of matriarchy based upon

the maternal mystery inherent in women. He considered it to be “a universal

phenomenon, independent of any special dogma or legislation.”32 This

matriarchy—or gynocracy, as he conceived it—established the art of agriculture

as well as settled, orderly communities, matrilineal inheritance of property, and

the rule of women over men in all aspects of society. Eventually, the men revolted

and established patriarchy in order to free themselves from the control of women

and their earth- and womb-bound, chthonic powers. Bachofen believed that each

31
Bachofen, Myth, Religion, and Mother Right, 79.

32
Ibid., 91.

28
of these social transformations were triggered by a genuine need for different

stages of freedom, which represent the necessary evolution of human society

seeking fulfillment. According to this formula, the establishment of patriarchy,

which limits women’s innate powers, was necessary for the development of

civilization and its subsequent stages of progress.

The North American social theorist and early anthropologist, Lewis Henry

Morgan, lived among the Iroquois to study their social organization. His resulting

publications established him as a pioneer in kinship studies as the first researcher

to discuss matrilineal social structure informed by his own ethnographic

investigations.33 Morgan observed and described the Iroquois practicing

matrilineal descent and living in matrilocal longhouses, which he found to be

harmonious with Bachofen’s descriptions of matriarchal society. 34 In 1877,

Morgan published Ancient Society, in which he presented his formulation of the

three stages of social development, inspired by Darwin’s concept of evolution. In

Morgan’s view, humans are animals which have evolved not only biologically,

but socially—from savagery to barbarism, and finally, to civilization. Their

earliest social structure was communal matriarchy, which evolved into patriarchy,

which was a prerequisite, in his view, for the development of civilization.

Karl Marx was inspired by Morgan’s description, in Ancient Society, of

what he perceived as an early form of communism. Marx made extensive notes

from Morgan’s text, which Friedrich Engels composed into the treatise The

33
See, for example, Morgan, League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee or Iroquois.

34
Ibid.

29
Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in the Light of the

Researches of Lewis H. Morgan, originally published in German in 1884. Engels

also elaborated on Morgan’s three stages of social evolution, incorporating

Bachofen’s ideas of Mutterrecht, and men’s overthrow of women’s rule in the

shift from Mother Right to Father Right. 35

A number of important studies appeared in the early years of the twentieth

century concerning religious practices in the ancient world. In her masterwork,

Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903), the classical scholar Jane

Ellen Harrison combined the study of classical texts, archaeology, and

comparative anthropology to probe beneath the Greek myths and festivals to

discover the deep source and evolution of Greek mythology, ritual patterns, and

women’s ancient mysteries that animated the Greek imagination. Harrison

emphasizes that in the Greek imagination, the shift from matriarchy to patriarchy

resulted in the enshrinement of male superiority: “Man the stronger, when he

outgrew his belief in the magical potency of women, proceeded by a pardonable

practical logic to despise and enslave her as the weaker.”36

In 1927, the social anthropologist Robert Briffault (1876–1948) published

a three-volume work, The Mothers: The Matriarchal Theory of Social Origins, in

which he supports the idea of matriarchy and the social prominence of women

based upon their respected roles as mothers as the earliest stage of social

35
Engels, Origin of the Family.

36
Harrison, Prolegomena, 285.

30
development. Nevertheless, Briffault believed that the rise of patriarchy marks the

development of male maturity, necessary for the achievement of civilization.

Both Robert Briffault and Jane Ellen Harrison were influenced by the

Scottish anthropologist Sir James Frazer (1854–1941), whose exhaustive treatise

on ancient myths, rituals, and religion galvanized the imaginations of countless

poets, artists, and literati. His work, The Golden Bough (1890‒1915), includes

material on matriarchy and the veneration of gods and goddesses. The British

archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans (1851–1941) was aware of Frazer’s use of

comparative methods to reconstruct ancient religion. Evans, who discovered,

excavated, and partially restored the ritual site of Knossos on Crete, drew from

Greek mythology and intensive study of Minoan iconography to reconstruct

Minoan religion and to acknowledge the veneration of a Great Goddess as the

primary deity on Bronze Age Crete. 37

The British poet and classical scholar Robert Graves (1921–1935) also

drew from The Golden Bough, which is reflected in his masterwork The White

Goddess (1948). In it, Graves writes that the White Goddess, who absorbed his

imagination, “is both lovely and cruel, ugly and kind.”38 He concludes with “A

simple loving declaration: ‘None greater in the universe than the Triple Goddess!’

has been made implicitly or explicitly by all true Muse-poets since poetry

began.”39 Nevertheless, Graves subscribes to the belief that this White Goddess

37
Evans, The Palace of Minos (4 vols.).

38
Graves, The White Goddess, 248.

39
Ibid., 492.

31
requires the ritual death of the king. Graves’s belief that the Goddess demands the

ultimate male sacrifice is anathema to Marija Gimbutas’s interpretation of the Old

European Goddess.

In her preface to The Gate of Horn (1948), Gertrude Rachel Levy states

that her Study of the Religious Conceptions of the Stone Age and Their Influence

upon European Thought was not written to prove a theory, but “developed under

the stimulus of continual surprise.”40 Her “surprise” refers to the temporal and

geographical similarities of exceedingly ancient religious customs and motifs

which she traces from Palaeolithic times to the Greek Classical period, from

Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa, and Australia to the Americas. Levy’s

investigations rely upon archaeological and literary sources, which include

abundant references to both Frazer and Briffault. 41 Her title, The Gate of Horn,

refers to the horns of the Mediterranean Goddess as Receiver of the Dead,

typically found at the entrance to megalithic graves in Sicily, Sardinia, and

beyond. She discusses the long trajectory of the Great Mother venerated as the

source of life, death, and rebirth, as well as other imagery, including labyrinthine

designs as pathways and currents of divine energy (especially in African,

Eurasian, and Australian ritual contexts),42 and other motifs that endured on

40
Levy, The Gate of Horn, xii.

41
Levy’s fluency in both research realms was developed through extensive
investigations of archaeological sites (especially in Iraq), and while working as the
Librarian of the Societies for the Promotion of Hellenic and Roman Studies in London.
42
Levy, The Gate of Horn, 50‒52.

32
Crete, mainland Greece, and Asia Minor, influencing the early development of

Western religious ideas and philosophy.

The analytical psychologist, Erich Neumann, studied the primordial image

of the Great Mother as an enduring archetype who has appeared in multiple guises

in the art, rituals, dreams, and the mythology of ancient peoples throughout the

world. Neumann’s major work, The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype

(1955), which is informed by Jungian psychology, incorporates archaeology,

anthropology, ancient literature, and mythology to explore this most ancient

figure, who resides in our psyches as the Mother of us all. While Neumann seems

to exalt the Great Mother, he nevertheless shares the views of Bachofen and

Briffault that matriarchy had to be overcome in order for civilization to begin to

fully develop.

In The Cult of the Mother Goddess: An Archaeological and Documentary

Study (1959), the historian of religion E. O. James discusses archaeological and

textual evidence of the veneration of goddesses throughout the ancient world,

some of which continued into the early Christian period through Marian festivals

and the worship of Mary as the Mother of God. James acknowledges that a

primordial female deity, in manifold aspects, is the earliest expression of divinity

from Palaeolithic times. This earliest deity, as the sacred source of life, became

the archetypal Earth Mother, the Great Goddess with a syncretistic personality,

who has endured for millennia, in all her manifestations, meeting the vital needs

of humanity. While James recognizes progressive changes in philosophical and

religious beliefs and practices over time in myriad cultural settings, he does not

33
promote the prevailing bias that Goddess worship represented a more primitive

stage in human social and theological development.

The prolific British writer and archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes (1910–

1996) marveled at the beauty of Minoan art, the ancient Minoan՚s love of nature,

the prominence of women, and the absence of any indication of a male ruler, or of

war. In her book, Dawn of the Gods (1968), Hawkes suggests that Minoan society

may have been ruled by women, implying a Bronze Age matriarchy, in which

“the occupants of Minoan thrones may have been queens.”43

The next section introduces literature concerning the development of

European and American archaeological theories from the late nineteenth century

to the early years of the twenty-first century. These theoretical developments have

a direct influence on the methods, assumptions, and expectations of

archaeological researchers in the Western world and beyond.

Theoretical Developments within European and American Archaeology

In his introduction to Western European archaeological theory, the British

archaeologist Matthew Johnson states that “theory” provides a way to determine

the relative value of one fact over another. Moreover, the discipline of

archaeology relies on being able to distinguish “good” from “bad” interpretations

of the past in terms of their intellectual credibility.44 However, as archaeologists

Oliver J. T. Harris and Craig N. Cipolla point out in Archaeological Theory in the

New Millennium (2017), “facts” are not static entities; they are never universally

43
Jacquetta Hawkes, Dawn of the Gods, 76.

44
Johnson, Archaeological Theory, 4.

34
agreed upon in terms of their meaning, and cannot be separated from the various

experiences and theoretical understandings people have of the world. 45

Archaeological theories generally determine the range of questions that

are deemed important, even appropriate, to investigate. Between 1967 and 1980,

Marija Gimbutas was project director of five major excavations of Neolithic sites

in southeastern Europe. As project director, she was able to determine research

questions concerning the in situ contexts of figurines, their relationship with other

artifacts, and their association with ongoing human activities. This direction of

inquiry led to a major discovery of the consistent context of the ritual use of

specific Neolithic sculptures in association with the practical activities of grinding

grain and baking bread during the 800 year lifespan of the Sesklo culture village

of Achilleion in Thessaly, Greece (6400‒5600 BC).46 It is doubtful that this clear

association between the ritual use of figurines and ongoing domestic activities

would have been documented during the 1970s if Marija Gimbutas had not

considered the context of each sculpture and associated finds important enough to

be systematically investigated.

Three main theoretical traditions have flourished within North American

and European archaeology, identified as culture-historical, processual (process-

oriented), and postprocessual traditions.

45
Harris and Cipolla, Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium, 2.

46
Gimbutas, “Figurines and Cult Equipment.”

35
 Culture-Historical Tradition

The main contribution of the culture-historical tradition, which originated

in Central Europe during the nineteenth century, was the introduction of the

concept of “archaeological culture” understood as “a set of distinct objects found

in a delimited space and time stemming from a specific people or ethnic group.”47

At the turn of the twentieth century, the German philologist and archaeologist

Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931) attempted to discover the homeland of Indo-

European speakers and to associate them with the ancient tribes living in

Neolithic Germany. Although his ideological motivations to discover the Aryan

ancestors of the German people were highly problematic, the Canadian

archaeologist Bruce Trigger points out in A History of Archaeological Thought

(2006) that Kossinna must nevertheless be recognized as “an innovator whose

work was of very great importance for the development of culture-historical

archaeology.”48

The Australian archaeologist V. Gordon Childe is also associated with a

culture-historical approach. He was the first researcher to present the concept of

archaeological cultures in a nonideological, systematic manner to British

archaeologists, which became “the basic unit for the temporal and spatial ordering

of archaeological data.”49 As discussed in Chapter 4, a culture-historical

perspective posed questions about when, where, and what, while emphasizing the

47
Biehl, Gramsch, and Marciniak, “Archaeologies of Europe,” 28.

48
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 240.

49
Trigger, Gordon Childe, 40.

36
importance of description, typology, and the spread and transformation of

material culture through time and space. 50 This approach was utilized by Marija

Gimbutas in her study of Old Europe, the Kurgan culture, and the movements of

Indo-European pastoralists from the North Pontic steppes into Europe.

The creation of radiocarbon dating transformed traditional archaeological

chronologies, which dramatically influenced the research perspectives of Marija

Gimbutas. In his 1973 book, Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution

and Prehistoric Europe, Colin Renfrew discusses the implications of the new

system of dating that changed the temporal relationships between some cultures,

that could no longer be considered contemporaneous. These changes were

amplified by the discovery and use of dendrochronology (tree ring dating) used to

recalibrate radiocarbon dates.

Processual and Postprocessual Archaeology

During the early 1960s a group of United States archaeologists, led by

archaeologist Lewis Binford, created the “New Archaeology” as a processual

(process-oriented) movement that attempted to create archaeology as a science,

separated from the humanities, modeled on the “hard” sciences such as chemistry

and physics.51

In 1954, the British archaeologist Christopher Hawkes (1905–1992) made

his famous statement about the hierarchy of difficulties in making interpretations

50
Oliver and Cipolla, Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium, 3.

51
See Sally Binford and Lewis Binford, New Perspectives in Archaeology; see
also Lewis Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology.”

37
of economics and sociopolitical institutions in comparison to religious and

spiritual beliefs, which, according to Christopher Hawkes, are the most difficult of

all to interpret.52 Thereafter, many archaeologists became convinced that it was

futile to attempt to reconstruct prehistoric religion and spiritual beliefs in a strictly

scientific manner.

A reaction to the dogmatic positivism of the processual approach began to

arise among archaeologists during the 1980s, causing the British archaeologist Ian

Hodder to coin the term “postprocessual archaeology,” which encouraged

“multivocality” and theoretical diversity.53 At the same time, archaeologists in the

United States began to question the “objectivity” of a deductive approach. In

general, postprocessualism led to vigorous discussions and explored various ways

archaeologists interpret the past.

Cognitive Archaeology

In 1994, the year Marija Gimbutas died, The Ancient Mind: Elements of

Cognitive Archaeology appeared, edited by British archaeologists Colin Renfrew

and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, who recognized that the processualists were not

addressing beliefs and symbolism. Therefore, by conceptualizing “Cognitive

Archaeology,” Renfrew was attempting to renew a neglected aspect of

processualism by utilizing developments from the philosophy of science in order

to bridge this challenging gap.

52
Hawkes, “Archaeological Theory and Method.”

53
Ian Hodder, “Postprocessual Archaeology.”

38
 Feminist Theories and Gender Studies in Archaeology

Feminist archaeologists Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, editors of

the pioneering anthology Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory

(1991), were the first to introduce feminist social theory to archaeological

research in order to promote a recognition of deeply embedded androcratic

assumptions within the history of archaeology.

Examples of revolutionary texts providing a feminist analysis of gender in

archaeological thought, from the last decades of the twentieth century into the

twenty-first, are mentioned here. These texts and others have challenged

regressive attitudes, resulting in new archaeological theories and practices that

celebrate the contributions of women. These include Gender and Archaeology

(1996) by Rita P. Wright; Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige

(1997) by Sarah M. Nelson; Gender and Archaeology: In Pursuit of Gender:

Worldwide Archaeological Approaches (2002), edited by Sarah M. Nelson and

Myriam Rosen-Ayalon; Sexual Revolutions: Gender and Labor at the Dawn of

Agriculture (2002) by Jane Peterson; The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True

Roles of Women in Prehistory (2007) by J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer, and Jake

Page; and Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender, and Archaeology (2008)

by Rosemary A. Joyce.

Feminist social theory and gender studies have challenged the embedded

sexism within archaeology that has limited the number of women working in the

field and led to the disappearance of women in archaeological histories. Feminist

39
archaeologists have called for the identification of women as subjects rather than

objects, and demand the inclusion of gender as fundamental to social reality.

Literature Concerning the Life and Work of Marija Gimbutas

This section is motivated by the following question: What are the primary

personal and intellectual influences that informed Marija Gimbutas’s life as a

scholar, and what are her main achievements and methodological approaches as

chronicled by her published works?

In 1987, Edgar C. Polomé wrote a useful biographical overview of Marija

Gimbutas’s life and work in the festschrift, Proto-Indo-European, the

Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem: Studies in Honor of Marija Gimbutas

(1987).54 My own biographical articles include “The Lifework of Marija

Gimbutas,” in ReVision Journal (1995) and “A Vision for the World” in

Comparative Civilizations Review (1995), published the year after her death. The

Fall 1996 issue of the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion published a special

section of articles dedicated to Marija Gimbutas, organized by Carol P. Christ and

Naomi Goldenberg. This special section, titled “The Legacy of the Goddess: The

Work of Marija Gimbutas,” includes “A Different World: The Challenge of the

Work of Marija Gimbutas to the Dominant World-View of Western Cultures” by

Carol P. Christ; “The Life and Work of Marija Gimbutas,” by Joan Marler;

“Memories of Marija Gimbutas and the King’s Archaeologist,” by Naomi

Goldenberg; “Gimbutas’s Theory of Early European Origins and the

Contemporary Transformation of Western Civilization,” by Mara Lynn Keller;

54
Polomé, “Marija Gimbutas: A Biographical Sketch.”

40
“This Is Where I Found Her: The Goddess of the Garden,” by Frances Stahl

Bernstein; “Beyond the Backlash: An Appreciation of the Work of Marija

Gimbutas,” by Charlene Spretnak; and “Matriarchy and Myth” by Kristy

Colemen.

Other biographical articles from my own research include “Marija

Gimbutas: Tribute to a Lithuanian Legend,” in Women in Transition: Voices from

Lithuania (1998), and “Marija Birutė Alseikaitė Gimbutas,” in Notable American

Women: A Biographical Dictionary (2004). Miriam Robbins Dexter wrote an

insightful summary of Gimbutas’s life and work in Varia on the Indo-European

Past: Papers in Memory of Marija Gimbutas (1997), which she edited.55

The multidisciplinary festschrift titled From the Realm of the Ancestors:

An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas (1997), edited by Joan Marler,

contains the biographical article, “The Circle Is Unbroken: A Brief Biography.”

Two of Marija Gimbutas’s Lithuanian colleagues, featured in Chapter 8,

contributed articles to From the Realm: “Marija Gimbutas in My Life: Some

Reminiscences,” by Gintautas Česnys, and “Marija Gimbutas and the

Archaeology of the Balts,” by Adomas Butrimas. The Stanford geneticist L. Luca

Cavalli-Sforza submitted “Genetic Evidence Supporting Marija Gimbutas՚s Work

on the Origins of Indo-European People.” Another significant article in this

anthology is “The Interface of Archaeology and Mythology: A Philosophical

Evaluation of the Gimbutas Paradigm” by Mara Lynn Keller, in which she

55
Dexter, “Introduction,” 1–5.

41
discusses how Marija Gimbutas՚s scholarship gives rise to “a new understanding

of the (pre)history of Europe and to a new theory of cultural transformation.” 56

The first twenty-five years of publications Marija Gimbutas՚s publications

include: Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit [Burials in

Lithuania in Prehistoric Times] (1946); The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part 1:

Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Balkan Area

(1956); Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art (1958); The Balts (1963);

Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965); The Slavs (1971).

The last twenty years of Marija Gimbutas՚s life were focused on her in-

depth studies of the beliefs, rituals, symbolism, social structure, and Goddess

religion of Old Europe. Her multileveled investigations and publications about

Old European symbolism over those two dynamic decades, chronicle the

development and florescence of her pioneering discoveries, which include the

publications of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe (1974), The Goddesses

and Gods of Old Europe (1982), The Language of the Goddess (1989), The

Civilization of the Goddess (1991), and The Living Goddesses (1999).

Literature Influenced by Marija Gimbutas՚s Scholarship

The poet and prize-winning novelist, Mary Mackey, was so inspired by

Marija Gimbutas՚s magnum opus, The Civilization of the Goddess, that she met

with Gimbutas to ask her permission to write a trilogy based upon her life՚s work.

Gimbutas agreed, and The Earthsong Trilogy was born.

56
Keller, Interface of Archaeology and Mythology,” 381.

42
 The development of the women՚s spirituality movement during the final

decades of the twentieth century gave rise to numerous books and artistic

expressions in various media inspired by Marija Gimbutas՚s publications. A

sample of the published texts that arose during this period, mentioned in Chapter

6, include The Once and Future Goddess by Elinor W. Gadon (1989); Whence the

Goddesses: A Source Book by Miriam Robbins Dexter (1990); Shakti Women:

Feeling Our Fire, Healing Our World by Vicki Noble (1991); Habitations of the

Great Goddess by Cristina Biaggi (1994); and Rebirth of the Goddess: Finding

Meaning in Feminist Spirituality, by Carol P. Christ (1997).

A number of MA and PhD graduates of the Women՚s Spirituality Program

at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco have been directly

inspired by the pioneering work of Marija Gimbutas. The subjects of their

graduate works are presented toward the end of Chapter 6. Here, I will mention

the 2013 doctoral work of Joan Cichon, “Matriarchy in Minoan Crete: A

Perspective from Archaeomythology and Modern Matriarchal Studies.” Cichon

discusses the historical context of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century

literature concerning the meaning of “matiarchy,” followed by a discussion about

the ongoing critical debates that have continued to the present day—and why she

has chosen to use this term. Cichon՚s work is the first dissertation that utilizes

archaeomythology as its primary methodology to investigate the beliefs, rituals,

and social structure of Minoan Crete, which Marija Gimbutas considered to be an

elegant continuity of the Old European religion of the Goddess.

43
Literature of the Controversy Concerning Marija Gimbutas’s Theories and

Interpretations

The life-long scholarship of Marija Gimbutas inspired strong responses on

both sides of the spectrum: enthusiastically positive, and decidedly critical. In the

latter category, the feminist archaeologists Margaret Conkey and Ruth Tringham

published their article “Archaeology and the Goddess: Exploring the Contours of

Feminist Archaeology” in the 1997 anthology Feminisms in the Academy. In it,

they discuss what they see as “deeply problematic issues and implications for

feminist archaeology” in the phenomenon they reductively label as “The Goddess

Movement.”57

Other critical publications include the anthology Ancient Goddesses: The

Myths and the Evidence, edited by British archaeologists Lucy Goodison and

Christine Morris (1998). In their anthology, the Goddess movement and the

interpretations of Marija Gimbutas are discussed as somehow dangerous to

women’s liberation and to the project of feminist archaeology. The critical ideas

articulated in Ancient Goddesses are repeated and elaborated in subsequent

publications, some of which inspired articles in Gimbutas՚s defense, such as:

“Beyond the Backlash: An Appreciation of the Work of Marija Gimbutas” by

Charlene Spretnak (1997); “A Different World: The Challenge of the Work of

Marija Gimbutas to the Dominant Worldview of Western Cultures” by Carol P.

Christ (1997); “The Myth of Universal Patriarchy: A Critical Response to Cynthia

57
Conkey and Tringham, “Archaeology and the Goddess,” 199. Conkey and
Tringham use the word “reductively” to refer to the label “The Goddess Movement.”

44
Eller՚s Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory” by Joan Marler (2006); “Knocking Down

Straw Dolls” by Max Dashu (2006); and “Anatomy of a Backlash: Concerning the

Work of Marija Gimbutas” by Charlene Spretnak (2011).

Regardless of the seemingly relentless criticism of Gimbutas՚s

interpretations of the Old European Goddess religion and civilization, the Greek

archaeologist, Nanno Marinatos, did not hesitate to present her books, Art and

Religion in Thera: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Society (1984) and Minoan

Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993). Marinatos uses a semiotic approach

of internal analysis to decode Minoan religious ideology and material culture. 58

The Archaeology of Cult and Religion, published in 2001, edited by Peter

F. Biehl and François Bertemes, reflects the growing trend among archaeologists

to overcome their reluctance to investigate prehistoric ritual practices and beliefs.

In 2011, an eleven-hundred-page anthology, The Oxford Handbook of the

Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, appeared, edited by Timothy Insoll. Until the

turn of the twentieth century, the subject of ritual and religion in archaeology was

typically avoided by researchers who were concerned about being associated with

the work of Marija Gimbutas. However, according to Insoll, an interest in ritual

and religion has become “a routine part of the focus of archaeological

attention.”59 In my view, this renewed interest in prehistoric ritual and religion

was stimulated by the influence of Marija Gimbutas՚s continued publications

58
Marinatos, Minoan Religion, 11.

59
Insoll, “Introduction,” 1, 3.

45
about Old European beliefs and ritual practices. She dared to break new ground

despite the dominant views of critics within her field.

Gimbutas’s Kurgan Theory and Related Discussions

This section begins with a look at ongoing discussions about the “Indo-

European problem,” especially as they concern progressive developments and

attitudes toward Gimbutas’s Kurgan theory. The publication, In Search of the

Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, by the archaeologist James

Mallory, discusses Gimbutas’s “Kurgan solution” and its longevity.60 Other

publications include Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia (2002),61

Examining the Farming /Language Dispersal Hypothesis (2002);62 and

Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse (2003).63 The Russian archaeologist

Valentin Dergachev presents a detailed examination of Marija Gimbutas’s theory

of the Kurgan migrations in his article, “Two Studies in Defense of the Migration

Concept,” published in Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia (2002).

His article concludes with the definitive statement: “Examine the material and

you can immediately see that Gimbutas was right.”64 My own articles on this

topic include “The Legacy of Marija Gimbutas: An Archaeomythological

60
Mallory uses this term in In Search of the Indo-Europeans, 185.

61
Boyle, Renfrew, and Levine, Ancient Interactions.

62
Bellwood and Renfrew, Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal
Hypothesis.
63
Levine, Renfrew, and Boyle, Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse.

64
Dergachev, “Two Studies,” 108.

46
Investigation of the Roots of European Civilization” (2001) and “The Beginnings

of Patriarchy in Europe: Reflections on the Kurgan Theory of Marija Gimbutas”

(2005).

An indispensible collection of articles written by Marija Gimbutas from

1952 until 1993 are assembled in The Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of

Europe (1997), edited by Miriam Robbins Dexter and Karlene Jones Bley. The

final article written by Gimbutas the year before she died expresses her most

updated perspective on her Kurgan hypothesis, titled, “The Fall and

Transformation of Old Europe: Recapitulation 1993.” Gimbutas requested this

previously unpublished article to be included in this 1997 anthology.

The genetic sequencing of entire human genomes has revolutionized the

use of genetics in archaeology. During the second half of the twentieth century,

archaeologists came to believe that migration was not an acceptable explanation

for culture change. As an example of the revolutionizing effect of the major

discovery of ancient DNA (aDNA) full genome analysis, the massive migration of

people from the North Pontic-Caspian steppes into Old Europe, described in detail

by Marija Gimbutas, dismissed for decades by archaeologists, has been verified.

The significance of aDNA data for the vindication of Gimbutas՚s Kurgan theory

will be discussed in Chapter 7.

Conclusion

This literature review has introduced the following themes: Nineteenth-

and early twentieth-century concepts of the “evolution” of social organization;

theoretical developments within European and American archaeology, including

47
the culture-historical tradition, processual archaeology, postprocessual

archaeology, and cognitive archaeology; feminist theories and gender studies in

archaeology; genetic revolution in archaeology; cultural and intellectual

biography of Marija Gimbutas; literature of the controversy; Gimbutas’s theories

and related discussions, including the sudden vindication of the Kurgan

hypothesis (now Kurgan theory) as the result of recent scientific results of ancient

DNA investigations.

Entries highlighted in this review include Gimbutas՚s major publications

from 1946 to 1999; her three festschrifts; a special issue of the Journal of

Feminist Studies in Religion published in Gimbutas՚s honor; a flowering of

creative work by countless writers, artists, and scholars inspired by Marija

Gimbutas, and articles challenging the backlash against Marija Gimbutas՚s

scholarship.

The bodies of literature listed here—enriched by intensive international,

transdisciplinary inquiries, and scholarly collaborations—have informed and

shaped my research, and have contributed to my working knowledge in the fields

of prehistory, archaeology, mythology, archaeomythology, ancient history,

religious studies, and women՚s spirituality studies. My synthesis of this material,

combined with my original research on the life and pioneering scholarship of

Marija Gimbutas—gathered through discussions and interviews with Gimbutas,

members of her family, and her colleagues—presented as an in-depth study of her

scholarship within this doctoral dissertation, does not exist, in its totality,

elsewhere in academia.

48
 Chapter 3 discusses methodology as it applies to the crafting of this

dissertation work. I discuss my application of transdisciplinary inquiry, the use of

a qualitative approach to cultural history, feminist hermeneutic analysis, and how

my approach to this work is harmonious with Marija Gimbutas՚s interdisciplinary

scholarship.

49
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

My chosen process for researching and writing this dissertation uses an

overarching transdisciplinary inquiry methodology that draws from multiple

methods employing qualitative approaches to research, and informed by feminist

research practices and hermeneutics. This dissertation work utilizes feminist

standpoint theory, which specifies that “knowledge is situated in experience”65

such that each person’s beliefs, assumptions and points of view affect, even

determine, what is appropriate to be studied, how the study is conducted, who can

be a “knower,” and what can and cannot be known. 66 The methodological

approaches employed in these investigations do not function separately, but

weave together throughout the entire study, guiding and focusing the contents of

each chapter.

Transdisciplinary Inquiry

Although Marija Gimbutas spoke frequently about using an

interdisciplinary methodology for her own scholarship and in the approach she

encouraged among her students, it is my sense that what she was doing resembles

a transdisciplinary approach. While multi- and interdisciplinary approaches to

scholarship are additive—in that information from several disciplines are brought

together in order to create a broader range of resources for investigating a

research problem—“transdisciplinary” methodology, as defined by Alfonso

Montuori, professor of transformative inquiry studies at the California Institute of

65
Farnham, Impact of Feminist Research.

66
Harding, Feminism and Methodology, 5.

50
Integral Studies, recognizes that each discipline utilized in the research process

represents specific principles, perspectives, and assumptions affecting the nature,

development, and organization of knowledge. 67 It is therefore necessary to

examine, not only the content, but the underlying assumptions that shape specific

theories and critiques so that the operating paradigms are made explicit.68

Gimbutas spoke about the difficulty scholars have in reaching across the

borders of their disciplines as though each discipline operates in its own world of

terminology, processes, expectations, and ways of knowing. In terms of doing the

research for this dissertation, learning to use the process of transdisciplinary

methodology has helped to stimulate my deeper investigation and understanding

of the beliefs, assumptions, and theories utilized by both Marija Gimbutas and her

archaeological colleagues. I have also become more aware of my own biases,

perspectives, and assumptions in the process. In this way, transdisciplinarity

encourages self-reflection and responsibility for the role of the researcher’s

subjectivity.69 Montuori, therefore, defines transdisciplinary methodology as:

an attitude towards inquiry, informed by certain epistemological

presuppositions, and an effort to frame inquiry as a creative process that
recognizes as central the subjectivity of the inquirer and challenges the
underlying organization of knowledge. 70

67
Montuori, “Gregory Bateson,” 154–55.

68
Ibid.

69
Ibid., 148.

70
Ibid.

51
 One of the suppositions of transdisciplinary methodology, inspired by

Gregory Bateson, is that the decontextualization of information, which has been

common in academia, is an epistemological error. 71 Fragments of knowledge,

atomized into separate bits of information, are scattered across disciplines and

subdisciplines. Even when certain bits are gathered together, their matrix of

meanings is too often lost. In contrast, a transdisciplinary methodology fosters a

contextual, “ecological” approach that recognizes the necessity for perceiving

knowledge within a network of relationships. 72 This approach—which also

acknowledges the necessity of the researcher to integrate a broad range of

knowledge and to discover its intrinsic coherence within the complexity of lived

experience—is in harmony with Marija Gimbutas’s process of empirical,

intuitive, aesthetic, and intimate engagement with Old European symbolism.

While her archaeological colleagues, particularly those who have embraced a

processual approach, often insist upon seeing artifacts as disconnected units unto

themselves, Marija Gimbutas was always seeking to perceive overall patterns of

interconnection. An example of this interconnection is the “tomb as womb” in

which the place of death becomes the place of regeneration.

Montouri’s description of the “inquiry-driven” nature of

transdisciplinarity, in contrast to the “discipline-driven” agenda of academic

disciplines, including archaeology, is directly parallel to Gimbutas’s efforts to

discover an embodied way to investigate the signs, symbols, and images of Old

71
See, for example, Bateson, Mind and Nature.

72
Montuori, “Gregory Bateson,” 153.

52
European art. She began to study the sculptures discovered during her own

excavations by trying to perceive the significance behind their shapes and

patterns. Her assumption was that the patterns and symbols on these sculptures

were not random designs; they were carriers of meaning. “In the beginning, I

couldn’t see anything,” she explained. “None of the literature could help me. I had

to make my own way, little by little. Later on I became passionate to find

more.”73

I noticed that some figurines are winged, some have animal heads, some
have special decorations, some were in the nude, some were clothed. By
the late sixties I could distinguish certain types as expressed in Gods and
Goddesses. . . . At that time regeneration was still not very clear. Now I
see that this is one of the most important functions. Even after the revised
edition, Goddesses and Gods that appeared in 1982, I was still unhappy
with my decipherment. I was always questioning myself—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 items such as seals, stamps and spindle whorls. They had to have
a great meaning.74

It soon became obvious that to adequately find the answers to her research

questions about the meaning and function of Old European imagery, she needed

to extend the operational and conceptual boundaries of her field. As a result,

Gimbutas formulated archaeomythology, which draws from multiple research

disciplines in a way that aligns with Montouri’s descriptions of transdisciplinary

inquiry.

Concerning the process of “inquiry-driven” research, Montouri writes:

73
Interview with Marija Gimbutas in Marler, “The Circle Is Unbroken,” 16.

74
Ibid.

53
 Transdisciplinary inquiry is driven by the inquirer’s agenda, by a question
that emerges through a dialogue between the inquirer’s experience and
passion, the subject of inquiry, and the bodies of knowledge available . . .
it engages disciplinary knowledge and adds to it pertinent knowledge from
a plurality of other disciplines, through the development of a plurality of
perspectives on the same topic, and through a constant interaction with the
inquirer’s context and his or her own lived experience, values, and
beliefs.75

Montouri’s explanation of a transdisciplinary approach presents a new way of

appreciating the richness and “inquiry-driven” potential of archaeomythology.

Cultural History and Feminist Hermeneutic Analysis

Chapter 4 begins by tracing the history of theoretical developments within

European and American archaeology from the late nineteenth through the early

twenty-first centuries. Recognizing that no intellectual process takes place in a

vacuum, I employ cultural history to discern the development of archaeological

ideas within the sociocultural context of the times. This investigation makes use

of historical documents, monographs, anthologies, conference proceedings, book

reviews, interviews, and other significant sources.

The application of feminist hermeneutic analysis in tracing the history of

theoretical developments requires new questions to be asked. For instance, what

intentions do the theories serve? Whose theory is this, and why? What is the

archaeological theory trying to accomplish? What is included and what is

excluded from the operation of the archaeological theory? What ideas are valued

and for what purpose? What is considered useful or anomalous in the functioning

of a theory? Why are Marija Gimbutas՚s theories and interpretations so often

75
Montuori, “Gretory Bateson,” 154.

54
treated as unacceptable by other archaeologists? What beliefs and biases serve to

erase the importance of another scholar՚s work?

A Qualitative Approach to Cultural / Intellectual Biography

Chapter 5 is motivated by the following question: What are the primary

personal and intellectual influences that informed Marija Gimbutas’s life as a

scholar, and what are her main discoveries and methodological approaches as

documented by her published works?

This chapter utilizes the qualitative approach of cultural-intellectual

biography to investigate the personal background and professional history of

Marija Gimbutas. The purpose of this biographical study is not to create a full-

fledged biography, but to identify key influences within the context of Gimbutas’s

life experiences and professional development that informed and motivated major

aspects of her life’s work. This section then traces the development of her major

ideas and the production of her published works in order to articulate her use of

specific methodologies within the complex trajectory of her accomplishments.

This investigation identifies Gimbutas’s use of both traditional archaeological and

her original methodologies within the ongoing process of her interdisciplinary

approach.

The primary sources I use to construct an informed narrative about Marija

Gimbutas’s personal and intellectual biography are drawn from my own research

on her life and work, as well as from narratives published by others.76 This

material includes published works, recorded interviews I’ve conducted with

76
See, for instance, Dexter, “Introduction,” 1–5.

55
Gimbutas and with her colleagues over the years, as well as interviews and

articles recorded and/or published by others. The audio and video recordings

expressively reveal her passionate dedication to her work.77 I agree with Charlene

Spretnak, Carol P. Christ, and Mara Lynn Keller who recognize that “stories of

women’s experience are a rich source of information and knowledge that is

relevant to the process of conducting research.”78

Biographical narratives and the histories of scholarly developments in any

field are not simply a succession of indisputable “facts.” Every telling is, on some

level, a limited construction, since the infinite complexity of lives as they are

lived, and disciplines as they evolve, cannot be captured in totality. Choices must

be made in order to chart a path and to create a cohesive narrative, which is

clarified or distorted through interpretation. My intention in presenting the

biographical context of Gimbutas’s life and work is not simply to repeat the

research I’ve already done, but to discern some of the most significant

experiences that have contributed to the creation of the ontological and

epistemological theories, beliefs, and values that informed her work; to

understand the motivations behind her major research questions; to document

Gimbutas’s primary sources of knowledge that informed her scholarly

77
These resources are contained in the the Marija Gimbutas Library and
Archives of Opus Archives on the campus of Pacifica Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara,
California, and in the library and archive of the Institute of Archaeomythology in
Sebastopol, California.
78
Spretnak, Christ, and Keller, “Aims of Research and the Significance of
Methodology,” 7.

56
discoveries; and to identify what is most original within her contributions to her

field.

Chapter 6 contains published responses to Gimbutas՚s publications, both

positive and negative, presented chronologically, in order to track attitudes and

perspectives expressed over time concerning the appearance of various stages of

Gimbutas՚s scholarship. Chapter 7 represents what I call “the literature of the

controversy,” documented from the mid-twentieth century to the early years of the

twenty-first century. Here are research questions I tacitly consider in terms of the

reviews in Chapter 6, and the critical articles discussed in Chapter 7: Do the

authors of these critiques demonstrate a direct knowledge of Gimbutas’s theories

and publications, or do they primarily quote other critics? Are there repeated

patterns to the contents of these critiques? Is there a repetitive pattern to the

sources that are typically referenced? What areas of Gimbutas’s work are most

often critiqued? Have the appreciations and criticisms changed over time? If so,

how? Most specifically, how have the reviews of Gimbutas’s books reflected,

over time, changing attitudes toward her scholarship and interpretations? What is

most typically addressed within the “literature of the controversy” and what is

seldom or never addressed? What are the overall responses to Gimbutas’s

formulation and use of archaeomythology? What influence has Gimbutas’s

interpretations of Old European symbolism and religion had upon the relatively

sudden interest among archaeologists in the prehistory of religion? How often is

Gimbutas’s work mentioned in this new context, and how?

57
 There is no doubt that Gimbutas’s work struck a nerve within the

archaeological world, and the intensity of the reactions can potentially say as

much or more about the beliefs, biases, and assumptions of the critics than it does

about the veracity of Gimbutas’s interpretations. While many of her colleagues

eschewed an overtly interpretive approach in favor of an assumed “objective,”

scientific stance, Gimbutas did not hide her passion for the investigation of Old

European symbolism, studied within an archaeomythological context. She openly

expressed her deeply felt relational engagement with Neolithic figurines

(comparable to geneticist Barbara McClintock’s “feeling for the organism”79), an

attitude typically considered “womanly” and “non-scientific.”80 It is worth noting

here that Barbara McClintock went on to win the Nobel Prize in Physiology for

her pioneering research on plant genetics. It is precisely Gimbutas՚s intimate,

embodied approach to relational knowledge—combining reason and feeling as

the hallmark of “women’s ways of knowing”81—which is gradually being

incorporated within some academic programs as the result of concerted feminist

efforts.82

Archaeology is undergoing rapid theoretical changes. For several decades,

feminist archaeologists have challenged the discipline from within concerning the

79
McClintock was criticized for her intuitive, wholistic approach to research
until she won the Nobel Prize for her innovative results with corn genetics. See her
biography by Evelyn Fox Keller, A Feeling for the Organism.
80
Rosser, “Feminist Scholarship in the Sciences.”

81
See, for example, Belenky et al., Women’s Ways of Knowing.

82
Spretnak, Christ, and Keller, “The Aims of Research.

58
existence of male bias, sexism, and the mistaken belief that research can ever be

totally objective or value-free. A broad range of attitudes now exist between the

most traditional positivists and the most avant guarde postprocessualists. Some

feminist archaeologists, whose voices are included in this study, are also harsh

critics of Gimbutas’s work, accusing her of “essentialism.” Within this growing

complexity, I assume that a full range of critical voices, to be studied in another

context, can provide a future map for tracking underlying epistemologies in

action.

I adapt the “hermeneutics of suspicion,” formulated by the biblical scholar

Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza,83 in order to identify critiques built upon

androcratic assumptions. And there are many. Now that archaeologists are

jumping on the bandwagon to carve out their own interpretations of prehistoric

religion, there is a crisis of interpretation, especially for those who seek to

maintain a positivist stance by clinging to an “instrumental rationality” for the

purpose of producing exact knowledge.

Hermeneutics, which have generally concerned the interpretation of

religious texts, are now being applied to the interpretation of anything that can be

broadly interpreted as “text,” including Neolithic artifacts. G. B. Madison, in The

Hermeneutics of Postmodernity (1988) defined two contrasting theories of

hermeneutics between what could be called positivistic hermeneutics and

phenomenological hermeneutics.84 The first is an expression of the scientific

83
Schüssler Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone.
84
Madison, Hermeneutics of Postmodernity, 26.

59
method that rejects personal, subjective judgment in favor of the use of

“instrumental rationality” in order to seek exact knowledge. The second approach

assumes that there can be no science of interpretation proven by a “ruthlessly

critical process of validation.” 85 In this view, the most plausible interpretations

cannot be made by simply mastering a specific mechanistic empiricist method.

The researcher must formulate a set of interpretative principles to be used as a

guide to make rational, responsible judgments. The working process, then, is an

art.86 The results must stand up to rational evaluation but cannot be tested in the

positivist sense. On the other hand, proponents of the positivist method insist that

“there should be no significant difference between the empirical sciences and the

humanities and that the hypothetical-deductive method as advocated by positivist-

style philosophers of science is as applicable in the matter of literary textual

interpretation as it is in the physical sciences.”87

The polarity between these two approaches is parallel to that of the

archaeological positivist and processualist approaches in which validation rests

upon objective testability, on the one hand, in contrast to the archaeomythological

interpretations of Neolithic symbolism by Marija Gimbutas, on the other. But

according to feminist hermeneutical theory, all interpretations are influenced by

the standpoint and interests of the interpreter. 88 Therefore, no application of

85
Ibid.

86
Ibid., 29.

87
Ibid., 26.

88
Spretnak, Christ, and Keller, “Aims of Research.”
60
hermeneutics can be value-free or purely objective. Moreover, as Madison and

Montuori point out, in transdisciplinary studies, it is important to recognize that it

is the subjectivity of the interpreter which has methodological primacy. Madison

elaborates: “This is necessary because only the individual, human, conscious,

reflecting subject can be held responsible for what he or she says or does.”89 To

be responsible, then, means to be able to respond by defending one’s position

according to a set of methodological principles. At the same time, the researcher

has an obligation to perceive the subject of study as clearly as possible, on its own

terms; then to interpret these findings accurately, for our own time and place.

Chapter 8 explores the following question: What is the significance of

Gimbutas’s scholarly contributions and legacy within and beyond the field of

archaeology? This chapter utilizes methodologies employed in the earlier

investigations to explore the reception of Marija Gimbutas’s theories and

interpretations in linguistics, the arts, and humanities. This perspective is

combined and contrasted with previous findings within this dissertation in order

to reach a broader view of the impact, influence, and effects of Gimbutas’s life’s

work.

While using a feminist hermeneutic evaluation of the significance of

Gimbutas’s theories, interpretations, and insights, I include myself in this process

as a reflexive, “self-aware lens.”90 Since methodological criteria are needed in

89
Madison, Hermeneutics of Postmodernity, 27.

90
Keller, “Introduction to Women’s Spiritual Ways of Knowing.”

61
order to arbitrate the conflict of interpretations, 91 I discuss the unique process of

Marija Gimbutas’s methodological focus in the form of archaeomythology, as a

valuable lens for the study of the nonmaterial aspects of prehistoric cultures.

Limitations of the Methodology and Access to Resources

As previously noted, the cultural/intellectual biography of Marija

Gimbutas contained in Chapter 5 is not intended as a complete biography. Its

purpose is to discern the origins and developments of her main ideas and theories

within the context of this dissertation. My hermeneutical analysis of the critiques

of Gimbutas’s work from within the field of European and Euro-American

archaeology uses a relatively objective voice to discuss the cultural history of

archaeology. I bring my own subjective agency to bear on my interpretation of

these critiques. These interpretations are influenced, as well as limited, by my

own perspectives, biases, and assumptions.

In discussing Gimbutas’s major intellectual achievements and

contributions to the field of archaeology and to other academic disciplines, I

present my own evaluation of her work. These evaluations are made through the

lenses of my own knowledge, and are subject to the limitations of my

perspectives.

Much of the research conducted in this dissertation examines publications

that refer to the development of archaeological theories and practices related to

the prehistory of Europe, which defines the geographical range and temporal

limits of this study. Since I am not a polyglot, as Gimbutas was, I do not have the

91
Madison, The Hermeneutics of Postmodernity, 27.

62
degree of linguistic access, as she did, to literature in most Eastern and Western

European languages. I primarily use publications in English, which today is used

as a lingua franca within the archaeological world.

Since this study is transdisciplinary, I am not focused within one

disciplinary field, using the lens of only one discipline. My use of archaeology is,

therefore, circumscribed. I discuss the development of archaeological theories in

order to demonstrate their functional counterpoint to Gimbutas՚s unique

development and implementation of archaeomythology.

The “literature of the controversy” spans from the mid-twentieth century

to the present, although some texts are included from earlier periods that contain

theories and ideas that have continued to influence the thinking of later periods. It

is impossible to be entirely inclusive of all works. While I am interested in the

ways Gimbutas’s work has been celebrated in a range of fields within the arts,

sciences, and humanities, this work focuses primarily on the reception of her work

within her own the field of archaeology, and the significance within this field of

her lifelong contributions to scholarship.

Regarding resources for this research, my major access to primary

research materials related to the life and work of Marija Gimbutas is through the

Institute of Archaeomythology (IAM) Library and Archives, that contains all of

the publications, original audio interviews and other recordings I have made of

Marija Gimbutas over the years, as well as a substantial collection of literature

concerning international archaeological developments, Lithuanian history and

culture, and a wide range of literature in numerous disciplines. The conferences,

63
symposia, study tours, and publications organized by the Institute of

Archaeomythology, in collaboration with museums, universities, study centers,

and international colleagues in the region of Old Europe (Romania, Bulgaria,

Serbia, Greece, Italy, Malta, and Anatolia [Turkey]), have contributed

tremendously to the range of resources available for this work.

I have made numerous trips to Lithuania to interview Gimbutas’s family

members and her Lithuanian colleagues, and I have done research in Marija

Gimbutas’s archives in Vilnius, and have had numerous key documents translated

from Lithuanian to English. It has also been very useful to do research in the

Marija Gimbutas Library and Archive at Opus Archives on the campus of Pacifica

Graduate Institute near Santa Barbara, California.

Over the years, I have organized and have taken part (with IAM

colleagues) in international, interdisciplinary, exhibitions, and symposia in

collaboration with museums, academies, universities, and other research centers

through the Institute of Archaeomythology that bear on the work of Gimbutas,

which have been invaluable for my ongoing research. I have also participated in

international exchanges of literature, and, together with IAM colleagues, have

published monographs and proceedings of symposia through the Institute of

Archaeomythology, and have traveled widely to do research in Eastern and

Western Europe, and in Turkey (for ancient Anatolia); however, this aspect of my

research has been curtailed during the past two years due to the COVID-19

pandemic. Nevertheless, in my view, the reach of my research is sufficient for the

topic of my dissertation.

64
Conclusion

After discussing my chosen methodology of transdisciplinary inquiry, the

use of a qualitative approach to cultural history, feminist hermeneutic analysis,

limits of the methodology, and access to resources, Chapter 4 concerns theoretical

developments within North American and European archaeology during the

nineteenth, twentieth, and early twenty-first centuries.

65
 CHAPTER 4: THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN NORTH

AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY DURING THE

NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH, AND EARLY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES

Marija Gimbutas’s interdisciplinary scholarship, her major excavations,

and interpretations of European prehistoric cultures were accomplished within a

fifty-year period from the 1940s until her death in 1994. During those decades,

after the end of the Second World War, archaeologists working in the United

States and Europe initiated new theoretical approaches to archaeological

investigations that set the stage for a flurry of theoretical developments

throughout the twentieth century and beyond. The appearance and implementation

of these archaeological approaches offer a vivid counterpoint to the simultaneous

development of Marija Gimbutas’s archaeological achievements, discussed in

subsequent chapters. The basic assumptions, research goals, interpretative

frameworks, beliefs, and biases operating within the theoretical approaches

discussed in this chapter provide useful insights into the range of both positive

and critical responses to Gimbutas’s life’s work.

Although specific theorists are highlighted in this presentation as

representing particular theoretical developments, their contributions are

inseparably linked with numerous artifactual and technological discoveries,

narratives, dialogues, assumptions, and critiques contributed by countless

unnamed individuals working in a wide range of archaeological and other

disciplinary contexts. While this chapter is organized chronologically,

highlighting some of the basic technological discoveries and theoretical

66
trajectories developing over time, it is important to recognize that embedded

ideas, assumptions, biases, and explicit and nonexplicit concepts about ancient

human societies do not necessarily disappear when new ideas and practices are

introduced. Deeply held beliefs tend to endure until their legitimacy is repeatedly

questioned and countered from multiple directions. Even then, layers of previous

interpretations and underlying assumptions can linger, or are promoted anew, in

the echoes and reframing of subsequent narratives.

The British archaeologist Matthew Johnson states that theoretical criteria

are used to determine “which facts are important and which facts are not worth

bothering with.”92 That is, theories determine the range of questions that are

deemed important, even appropriate, to investigate. Of course, such resultant,

theoretically framed “facts” are never universally agreed upon and cannot be

separated from the experiences and theoretical understandings people have of the

world.93 Johnson continues,

For many positivists, theory is a definable set of propositions that can be

set up and tested against data. . . . In this view, theory is defined quite
narrowly and precisely. It is simply a set of general propositions. . . . [in
which] testability [is] the central criterion of our epistemology. . . . At the
other extreme, all archaeology is theoretical; theory is defined very
broadly.94

92
Johnson, Archaeological Theory, 4.

93
Harris and Cipolla, Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium, 2.

94
Johnson, Archaeological Theory, 176.

67
Archaeologists Michael Shanks and Christopher Tulley adopt the view that the

human subject is primary in research, even for sciences such as archaeology, in

which “theory is throughly subjective.”95

Within these epistemological debates, three main theoretical traditions

have flourished within North American and European archaeology, identified as

culture-historical, processual (process-oriented), and postprocessual traditions.

These have spawned numerous other developments, some of which are discussed

in this chapter.

This chapter begins with a brief prelude presenting the early background

and technological discoveries in archaeology that paved the way for ongoing

investigations. It then traces the history of theoretical developments by North

American and European archaeologists during the nineteenth, twentieth, and into

the twenty-first centuries in order to track basic premises, working assumptions,

methods, and functional parameters operating within various theoretical

traditions, influencing the growth of the archaeology of prehistory. The following

discussion reflects the structure used in the literature review in Chapter 2.

Prelude: Roots of the Archaeology of Prehistory—The Three-Age System,

Stratigraphic Succession, and Relative Dating

Before archaeology developed into a systematic field of inquiry, the

investigation of human antiquities took the form of antiquarianism. Wealthy

European gentleman hired workmen to dig for ancient buried treasure at home

and abroad to enlarge their personal collections of decontextualized artifacts

95
Shanks and Tulley, Social Theory and Archaeology, 212.

68
valued as personal curiosities and as vivid demonstrations of their cultivated

interest in the past.

Antiquarianism was bolstered by the European Enlightenment of the

eighteenth century that promoted the idea of human and technological progress in

terms of a cultural-evolutionary perspective.96 At a time when the seven-day

creation, Noah’s flood, and the biblical short chronology were considered

unrivaled “facts,” early geologists and amateur researchers were increasingly

investigating the earth’s physical features for concrete clues about the actual age

of the earth and how its multiple features were formed. By 1785, the Scottish

geologist James Hutton (1726–1787) had published his landmark text, Theory of

the Earth, where he heretically described the earth as much older than scripture

could measure. He further surmised that the layers of soil that support life result

from continuous cycles of decay and renewal over great spans of time. 97

Observations a century earlier of deposits of marine shells high in the Alps

and beneath the city of Rome initiated the idea of sequential deposits through

time. Hutton’s later study of the stratification of rocks and other materials

established basic principles of chronological investigation as the basis of relative

dating. That is, in each sequence of multiple layers, the lowest levels are assumed

to have been deposited earlier and are therefore older than those above them. The

knowledge of stratigraphic succession, as the foundation of relative dating, made

96
Bahn, “Three Ages,” 264.

97
Bahn, “Uniformitarianism,” 274–75.

69
it possible to determine the temporal sequence of artifacts found in specific

stratigraphic contexts.98

In 1717, the Italian scholar Michel Mercati, who made a careful study of

prehistoric artifacts in the Vatican collection, published a treatise on the concept

of Three Ages of human technical development, in which he organized the lithic

materials and other artifacts in terms of the chronological use of Stone, Bronze,

and Iron technologies, signifying the successive Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron

Age in a specific region. Mercati, who was well-schooled in Enlightenment ideas,

may well have known the work of the Roman philosopher Titus Lucretius Carus

(98–55 BCE), who described the progressive use of hands, fingernails, teeth,

stones, and wood, before the use of bronze and (later) iron tools.99

The Nineteenth Century

The Three Age System was not widely embraced until the 1830s when

Christian Jürgensen Thompsen, curator of the Danish National Museum,

organized its permanent collection of cultural treasures according to the

chronological and typological divisions of Stone, Bronze, and Iron. This system,

continually refined over time, became—and still is—the basis of European

prehistoric chronology.100

The idea that physical processes of the distant past continue into the

present—called uniformitarianism—was elaborated by geologist Charles Lyell

98
Stein, “Principles of Stratigraphic Succession,” 243–44.

99
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 104.

100
Bahn, “Three Ages,” 265–66.

70
(1797–1875) in Principles of Geology (1833). In his view, everything has a

natural cause (such as floods and erosion) that produce slow, long-term physical

changes over space and time that do not require biblical explanation. In this way,

Lyell’s idea that the geological past is much like the natural changes operating in

the present became one of the fundamental concepts of the practice of

archaeology as a science. 101 His lectures and writings had an indelible impact on

the intellectual climate of the mid-nineteenth century by emphasizing the extreme

longevity of transformative changes over vast geological time, thereby dismissing

the biblical seven-day creation. His ideas had a great influence on the work of

several prominent British biologists including Alfred Wallace, Thomas Huxley,

and Charles Darwin. Nevertheless, his concepts were simplistically rigid and his

rejection of cataclysmic change was false. 102

Evolutionary Archaeology

Charles Darwin’s landmark publication, On the Origin of Species (1859),

had a profound and lasting impact upon the conceptual work of European and

American archaeologists. 103 What developed as Darwinian archaeology, or

evolutionary archaeology, assumes that various social processes producing both

change and cultural stability are similar to those of biological evolution.

Therefore, to understand patterns of change in human behavior and organization it

101
Renfrew and Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, 24.

102
Bahn, “Uniformitarianism,” 275–77.

103
Renfrew and Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, 26.

71
became necessary to incorporate both the biological and cultural dimensions into

archaeological investigations.104

The North American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881),

who was strongly influenced by Darwinian evolution, promoted the belief that

indigenous peoples, throughout their histories, were static societies, doomed to

extinction because of biological inferiority. Both he and his British counterpart,

the ethnologist Edward Tylor (1832–1917), author of Primitive Culture (1871),

argued that human societies evolved through predictable stages of savagery and

barbarism before reaching the elevated stage of civilization.105 Morgan’s book,

Ancient Society (1877), which posited an early stage of primitive communism,

influenced the initial ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their formulation

of the ancient development of communism and precapitalist societies.106

The British archaeological theorist, John Lubbock (1834–1913), a close

friend of Darwin, formulated a Darwinian perspective on human nature in his

influential text Pre-Historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the

Manner and Customs of Modern Savages (1869–1913). The term “pre-historic”

was used thereafter to designate the period before written records. Lubbock’s

book, in which he distinguished the Palaeolithic and Neolithic stages of human

development, was exceedingly popular, especially in Britain and North America,

and it was widely used as a textbook for students of archaeology, laying the

104
Shennan, “Darwinian Archaeology,” 58–59.

105
Renfrew and Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, 26–27.

106
Ibid., 27.

72
framework for their professional orientations. Lubbock’s perspective on natural

selection is racist and sexist in the extreme, placing privileged European men at

the pinnacle of biological and cultural development. His version of Social

Darwinism normalized human inequality as the natural consequence of biological

differences, effectively justifying the expansion of political and economic

hegemony by the European and American representatives of “civilization.”107

During the nineteenth century, prehistoric archaeology was touted as a

“rationalist” study of cultural evolution, an intellectual product of the

Enlightenment, based upon the belief in social and moral progress. Ironically,

Lubbock’s version of cultural evolution was in direct opposition to the eighteenth-

century Enlightenment ideal of social equality. Lubbock’s writings reinforced

racist, misogynous power politics at a time when the British Empire was

continuing to expand as the largest global power in history. This was also a period

of systematic genocide of indigenous Americans when their ancient territories

were being vigorously and violently appropriated throughout North America. 108

The earliest essays on “social evolution” were imbued with a Victorian belief

system that equated “evolution” with “progress.” This ideology regarded anyone

other than elite, white, male, Western Europeans, as subhuman—whether they

were women, children, or (supposed) “savages.”109 Lubbock’s version of cultural

evolution linked the concept of prehistory with a doctrine of European biological

107
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 171–76.

108
Ibid., 176–77.

109
Lock and Peters, “Social and Socio-Cultural Systems,” 158.

73
and cultural superiority. His ideas were spread and replicated throughout the

British Empire where they widely influenced the interpretation of archaeological

data.110

The growth of industrialism in both North America and Europe—held

aloft as the prime example of superior social progress—was used to justify

rampant colonial exploitation of indigenous peoples and lands throughout the

world. In the United States, growing evidence of the high cultural level of pre-

Columbian native societies was minimized to maintain the illusion that the

indigenous peoples of the Americas were hopelessly primitive and in need of

being properly civilized. Native peoples of the Americas were erroneously

described as simple, unprogressive, and lacking in dynamism. 111 In Europe,

however, as archaeological excavations uncovered evidence of highly developed

material cultures, the ancient societies producing such artifacts within people’s

home territories tended to be viewed as their own respected ancestors—even

representing a lost Golden Age.

Development of Stratigraphic Excavation and Seriation

In order to trace the evolution of cultural traditions preserved in the

archaeological record, technical means were needed for designating

developmental stages and chronologically ordering groups of artifacts. Inspired by

Homeric legends, Heinrich Schliemann (1822–1890), the German businessman

turned pioneer archaeologist, conducted excavations in Greece and Turkey during

110
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 176.

111
Trigger, “Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian.”

74
the 1870s and 1880s, motivated by his desire to discover Homer’s Troy. In the

process, he implemented the technique of stratigraphic excavation of Troy’s

multilayered mounds or tells and succeeded in finding evidence of the “glory of

the past,”112 regardless of his inaccurate interpretation of the actual cultural

layers. As a complement to the use of stratigraphy as a form of relative dating

(lower is older, higher is younger), the British Egyptologist Flinders Petrie

developed the technique of seriation while working in Upper Egypt at the end of

the nineteenth century. In the absence of stratigraphic contexts, Petrie

meticulously grouped assemblages of artifacts found together in tombs and

arranged them in terms of their stylistic similarities and differences over time, as a

way of determining their relative chronologies. Both seriation and stratigraphic

chronology became widely used as techniques of relative dating. 113

The Swedish archaeologist Gustaf Oscar Montelius (1843–1921)

developed his own version of seriation to construct geographical and

chronological sequences for the collection and classification of artifacts. His

concepts of the evolution of material culture owed little to Darwinism. Instead, he

drew from Enlightenment philosophy and the traditions of Scandinavian

archaeology to insist that prehistoric peoples used their powers of reason to create

technological innovations. He was also a well-known diffusionist, promoting the

112
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 291, 255.

113
Renfrew and Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, 116–17.

75
idea that European cultural development radiated into Europe from the Middle

East in a process referred to as ex orient lux (from the Orient, light).114

Marxist Materialist Philosophy

Karl Marx (1818–1883), who predicted widespread failures of the

promises of capitalist progress, envisioned long-term cultural change, not as an

evolution, but as a dynamic process, rife with social struggles against dominating

elites. He viewed class struggles as endemic to all developmental periods, from

the most primitive modes of production, to the most complex. 115 Marx believed

that societies are primarily determined by economic structures, operating as the

foundational material force. Human beliefs and desires were predicated upon this

material base, but they were also able to influence material factors in a dialectical

and secondary way. According to Marx and Engels, a scientific study of human

societies must focus primarily on material forces. 116 As a materialist philosophy,

Marxism has had a specific appeal to the discipline of archaeology, which relies

upon the material remains of past societies by using an empirical scientific

methodology.

The existence of the dominance of economic elites is often assumed by

Marxist-influenced archaeologists, even when evidence is scanty or nonexistent.

Marxism’s dialectical materialist philosophy assumes that human history is

intrinsically linked with the development of human economic productivity, and

114
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 223–28.

115
Johnson, Archaeological Theory, 92–93.

116
Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto.

76
cultural forces that enable or impede this productivity form the contours of the

rise and fall of social systems. 117 The idea that early societies could be egalitarian

and self-organizing for the common good without being controlled by elite

dominance seemed utopian to many nineteenth- and twentieth-century

researchers. The expectation of elite (male) dominance as a prerequisite for

cultural development is endemic to much Euro-American archaeology to this day.

Decline of Cultural Evolutionism and the New Definition of “Culture”

In Europe during the late nineteenth century, cultural evolutionism was

increasingly challenged due to progressive disillusionment with the supposed

benefits of technological progress. Archaeologists began to shift from cultural

evolutionism to an investigation of prehistoric societies using a culture-historical

approach, seeking evidence of origins, cultural continuity or discontinuity, and

people’s ancient identities. In 1871, Edward Tylor defined the term “culture” in

his widely used book Primitive Culture as “that complex whole which includes

knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and other capabilities and habits

acquired by man as a member of society.”118

The Twentieth Century

Culture-Historical Perspectives

The use of a culture-historical approach became widespread in Europe by

traditional archaeologists, such as Gustaf Oscar Montelius and others (see above)

who came to believe that the cultures of the past can be reconstructed. Such

117
Johnson, Archaeological Theory, 92‒4.

118
Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1; Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 236.

77
reconstructions have been done “in terms of linear sequences of archaeological-

cultural time-space . . . under the strong influence of ethnology and

diffusionism.”119 This approach, which originated in Central Europe during the

nineteenth century, emphasizes the development of knowledge of material culture

in order to understand the cultural development of prehistoric communities. “The

major contribution of this approach was the introduction of the concept of

‘archaeological culture,’ understood as a set of distinct objects found in a

delimited space and time stemming from a specific people or ethnic group.”120

Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931)

In Germany, anthropology developed as a positivist, human-centered

approach combining ethnology and prehistoric archaeology. At the turn of the

twentieth century, the German philologist and archaeologist Gustaf Kossinna

(1858–1931) attempted to trace the ancient tribes living in Germany back to

Neolithic times. His goal was to discover the homeland of Indo-European

speakers as a glorification of German prehistory. In his view, cultural provinces

always correlate with major ethnic groups, while cultural continuity indicates

ethnic continuity.121 Kossinna argued that German people represented the most

racially pure and noble expression of the ancient Indo-European inhabitants of

Germanic lands. He believed that specific landscapes can represent ancestral

119
Minta-Tworzowska, “Between a Community of Inspiration,” 54.

120
Biehl, Gramsch, and Marciniak, “Archeologies of Europe: Histories and
Identities,” 28.
121
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 235–37.

78
roots, memories, and histories that have the power to nurture national identities.

The Canadian archaeologist and ethno-historian Bruce Trigger notes that

Kossinna’s racist views were not different from those of late nineteenth century

archaeologists working in North America, Africa, Asia, and Australia who

considered the indigenous peoples of these regions to be inferior to Europeans. 122

Trigger emphasizes that Kossinna՚s work “marked the final replacement of an

evolutionary approach to prehistory by a culture-historical one.”123

Ideas about the relationship between the land and the community were

deeply influential in the formation of culture-historical archaeology. As the

British archaeologist Julian Thomas tells us, Gustaf Kossinna’s “settlement

archaeological method [promoted] a search backward through time to identify the

origin of the nation and its primordial relationship with the land from which it

sprang.”124 In Kossinna’s view, the discovery of archaeological evidence of

Aryan ancestors on their ancient territory established the right of contemporary

German people to reclaim their ancestral lands. 125 Kossinna’s use of archaeology

to promote his ideological intentions was adopted by the National Socialists in

Germany after his death. For this, and the reality of Kossinna’s racist beliefs, he

has been vilified. Nevertheless, the use of a cultural-historical approach by others

does not automatically signify racist beliefs. As Bruce Trigger points out,

122
Ibid., 236–37.

123
Ibid.

124
Julian Thomas, “Archaeologies of Place and Landscape,” 173.

125
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 235–39.
79
 To many of [Kossinna’s] contemporaries his approach. . . offered a
plausible means to account for the growing evidence of geographical as
well as chronological variations in the archaeological record. Kossinna
must therefore be recognized as an innovator whose work was of very
great importance for the development of culture-historical archaeology.126

V. Gordon Childe (1892–1957)

In 1925 when the Australian archaeologist V. Gordon Childe published

The Dawn of European Civilization, British archaeologist Glyn Daniel described

it as “a new starting-point for prehistoric archaeology.”127 This text, in concert

with his 1929 monograph, The Danube in Prehistory, presented an innovative

synthesis of his extensive investigations of prehistoric sites throughout Europe.

Both books outlined the theoretical basis of his approach at a time when such

discussions were uncommon in archaeological literature.128 Childe did not

conceive the prehistory of Europe in terms of a series of separate sites, typical of

his contemporaries, but as a complex mosaic of dynamic cultures identified by

specific diagnostic artifacts.129

After World War I, Childe introduced the culture-historical perspective to

British archaeologists, who had previously relied on an evolutionary approach.

Childe was the first researcher to present the concept of archaeological cultures

in a systematic, nonideological manner. As a result, the concept of archaeological

cultures was widely embraced as a working tool by British archaeologists. As

126
Ibid., 240.

127
Daniel, Hundred Years of Archaeology, 247.

128
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 242.

129
Ibid., 241–44.

80
Trigger explains in his intellectual biography, Gordon Childe: Revolutions in

Archaeology (1980), the concept of archaeological cultures became “the basic

unit for the temporal and spatial ordering of archaeological data.”130 As

introduced in Chapter 2, a culture-historical perspective emphasizes the

importance of description, typology, and the spread and transformation of

material culture over time and space, while posing questions about their activities,

and when and where people lived. 131

Childe, and other culture-historical archaeologists, identified cultures in

terms of the diagnostic features of their material culture and sought to explain

their origins and cultural changes primarily in terms of diffusion and migration.

He defined an archaeological culture as “certain types of remains—pots,

implements, ornaments, burial rites, house forms—constantly recurring

together.”132 He assumed that an archaeological culture represented a group of

people who shared a common language and way of life whose ethnicity could be

inferred from archaeological data. According to Trigger, “The enduring value of a

culture-historical approach is . . . its ability to trace real lineages of the

development of material culture in the archaeological record.”133 Childe

encouraged the use of technical methods of relative dating of cultural materials to

130
Trigger, Gordon Childe, 40.

131
Harris and Cipolla, Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium, 3.

132
Childe, Danube in Prehistory, v.

133
Trigger, History of Archeological Thought, 313.
81
extend the potential of the culture-historical framework in order to trace historical

relationships over large geographical and temporal periods.

By 1939, Childe had rewritten the third edition of The Dawn of European

Civilization, now reflecting his embrace of Marxism, based on a functionalist

view of material culture. 134 He described Neolithic societies and the urban centers

in the Near East as “revolutionary steps in man’s emancipation from dependence

on the external environment [that] put man in control of his own food-supply.”135

Childe’s Marxism is most apparent in his book What Happened in History (1942),

where he described the economic collapse of the Old World civilizations as

inevitable, in his view, created by the urban revolution.

Childe was positively influenced by the British archaeologist Arthur

Evans, with whom he studied at Oxford; Evans discovered the elegantly

developed Bronze Age culture of Minoan Crete. Methodologically, Evans’s

successful use of “deep stratigraphic excavation” at Knossos (which became an

essential technique for subsequent Aegean studies) informed Childe’s excavation

of the great Vinča tell near Belgrade, and his ongoing investigations of Danubian

prehistory.136

From the late nineteenth century, scholars contended that the major

attributes of civilization had spread to Europe from the Near East by trade or

134
Gathercole, “Childe’s Revolutions,” 36.

135
Childe, Dawn of European Civilization (3rd ed.), 14.

136
Renfrew, “Concluding Remarks,” 128.

82
human migration.137 Childe, who had access to a broad range of archaeological

data, was devoted to understanding the motivations for social development,

although he continued to embrace the concept that major cultural changes were

the result of external influences, such as diffusion. Childe eventually modified his

diffusionist approach to social change by recognizing that Europe had undergone

some indigenous development—in that not all cultural changes were externally

motivated. Nevertheless, he continued to attribute major cultural developments in

Europe to Near Eastern influences.138

Childe’s ideas have been so influential, as well as controversial, that his

concepts continue to be studied and discussed. His terms Neolithic revolution and

urban revolution are used, as well as critiqued, to this day.

Following the work of V. Gordon Childe, archaeologists of prehistory who

adopted a culture-historical approach were increasingly interested in historical

rather than evolutionary problems and sought technological innovations as a

means to study chronological as well as cultural variations.139 In his 1954 work,

Archaeology from the Earth, the British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler (1890–

1976), one of the few British archaeologists to have survived World War I,

utilized military metaphors to identify the most effective tactics for a successful

archaeological field campaign. Between 1921 and 1937, Wheeler perfected the

existing system of using plotted grid squares to excavate vertical sections in order

137
Renfrew and Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, 34.

138
Renfrew and Bahn, “Introduction,” in Archaeology: The Key Concepts, xi.

139
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 290.

83
to study the history of a site, rather than focusing primarily on its the horizontal

features. The squares were separated by balks of soil to maintain their

stratigraphic information. Wheeler imported this technique to India, and it spread

from there to other locations throughout the world.140

The Radiocarbon Revolution

In an effort to make sense out of archaeological data, the use of relative

dating made it possible for archaeologists to imagine that similarities in material

remains indicated direct relationships between groups of people. Eventually, as

the discovery of radiocarbon dating indicated, “the entire chronology of

prehistoric Europe was constructed on false assumptions,”141 eventually rectified

by means of calibrated radiocarbon dating, as discussed below.

In 1949, the American chemist Willard F. Libby announced the discovery

of carbon-14 radiocarbon dating technology, which revolutionized the ability of

archaeologists to understand more accurately the temporal relationships among

artifacts and between ancient societies. It took years, even decades, in some areas,

for enough artifacts and sites to be radiocarbon dated before new chronologies

could be discerned. In his 1973 book, Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon

Revolution and Prehistoric Europe, Colin Renfrew discusses the radical

implications of the new chronology and the collapse of the traditional framework

in which some cultures previously considered contemporary were found to be

hundreds or even thousands of years apart. The development and use of tree-ring

140
Ibid., 294.

141
Renfrew and Bahn, Archaeology, Theories, Methods, 126.

84
dating, dendrochronology,142 refined the accuracy of radiocarbon technology,

pushing the dates of some sites, using calibrated calendar dates, a millennium

further into the past. The assumption that cultural development in Neolithic

Europe was a dim reflection of the high civilizations of the Near East had to be

abandoned when it was discovered that well-developed agrarian societies in

southeastern Europe predated civilization in Mesopotamia by two millennia or

more. This discovery—and the progressive application of calibrated radiocarbon

dating—created a chronological divide that sent shock waves through the

archaeological world, shattering preexisting assumptions about the developmental

relationships between Old World civilizations.

Archaeologists, informed by anthropological methods, worked inductively

and deductively to construct viable chronologies and to write cultural history

while testing, correcting, and refining the spatio-temporal distribution of their

data.143 As calibrated radiocarbon dates of prehistoric sites became available,

archaeologists working within the culture-historical framework were able to

adjust and refine the relationships between cultural systems. While they assumed

that the way of life and ethnicity of specific culture groups could be inferred from

archaeological data, the shift from relative dating to absolute or calendar dating

142
Ibid., 128–29, 134–38; Bristlecone pine, used for tree-ring dating, is found in
the high White Mountains desert in eastern California (Renfrew, Before Civilization, 69).
143
O’Brien, Lyman, and Schiffer, Archaeology as a Process, 29.

85
made it possible to more accurately trace lineages and historical relationships

through time.144

In North America, prehistoric sites were originally assumed to be no more

than 2,000 years old, which reinforced the erroneous assumption that little

significant cultural development could have taken place. During the Great

Depression of the 1930s and 1940s, federally funded New Deal relief projects

promoted important archaeological fieldwork in Tennessee, Alabama, and

Kentucky that began to rewrite the prehistory of the southeastern and midwestern

United States.145 Nevertheless, it took several decades for a chronological

revolution to take place in North America and for the true antiquity and cultural

achievements of Native American societies to be recognized.

Processual Archaeology

Until the 1960s, archaeology was primarily considered a practical

undertaking rather than a theoretical practice, with most of its emphasis on

cultural history. Explanations for cultural change were crafted according to

culture-historical conventions of the migration of people and the diffusion of

ideas.146

In the decades following World War II, a succession of archaeological

theories, informed by the radiocarbon revolution, challenged the evolutionary and

144
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 308.

145
O’Brien, Lyman, and Schiffer, Archaeology as a Process, 5.

146
Binford, “Archaeological Perspectives”; White, “On the Evolution of Socio-
Cultural Patterns,” 239.

86
culture-historical approaches, although both continued to persist. In the United

States, there was a growing restlessness in the field that paralleled the movements

toward change that were challenging cultural patterns throughout society.

Archaeologists became concerned with the underlying logic—the epistemology—

of their discipline, leading to vigorous debates and controversies. 147

During the early 1960s a group of United States archaeologists, led by

Lewis Binford, launched what they called the “New Archaeology,” a behaviorist

and ecologically determinist approach to applying a scientific method, in direct

opposition to what he called the “traditionalist paradigm.” Their intention was to

open archaeology to a broad range of theoretical perspectives, especially in the

historical and social sciences, which led to their embrace of an anthropological

approach to evolution and cultural history. 148

The North American anthropologist Julian Steward (1902–1972) inspired

the New Archaeologists through his explanations of cultural change by drawing

from an anthropological understanding about the workings of living cultures.

Steward highlighted the fact that cultures interact with the environment as well as

with each other. Steward coined the term cultural ecology to refer to cultural

changes resulting from human adaptation to the environment. 149 Independently,

British archaeologist Grahame Clark developed an ecological approach detached

from the “artifact-dominated culture-historical approach of his

147
Renfrew and Bahn, “Introduction,” xi.

148
Hodder, “Introduction,” 1–2.

149
Renfrew and Bahn, Archaeology, Theories, Methods, 35.

87
contemporaries.”150 He argued that many aspects of ancient societies can be

understood by studying how human populations adapted to their environments.

For this he considered collaboration with specialists in other fields to be essential.

Binford’s anthropological archaeology, which modified earlier concepts

from the 1950s, combined systems theory, cultural ecology, and materialist-

oriented evolution.151 His 1962 article, “Archaeology as Anthropology,” opens

with the statement, “American archaeology is anthropology, or it is nothing,” thus

launching processualism.152

This processual (process-oriented) New Archaeology attempted to create

archaeology as a science, separated from the humanities, modeled on the “hard”

sciences such as chemistry and physics. Its stated goal was to study cultural

processes and to contribute to anthropological theory. In order to do so, the basic

notion of culture had to be reconceived in behavioral, systemic, and materialist

terms.153 In order to function more scientifically, processualists sought solutions

to research problems in narrow, technical terms by formulating and testing

deductive propositions embellished by positivist claims of ethical neutrality.

Positivism and successful hypothesis testing, based on “technocratic efficiency,”

required “antihistorical” generalizations about human behavior. 154 This

150
Ibid., 35.

151
Sally Binford and Lewis Binford, New Perspectives in Archaeology.

152
Lewis Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology,” 217.

153
O’Brien, Lyman, and Schiffer, Archaeology as a Process, 37.

154
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 408–9.
88
positivistic approach utilized by the New Archaeologists posited that a statement

or explanation is valid only if it can be generalized and is useful for prediction of

new discoveries, and lends itself to repeated empirical testing to establish

scientific validity. Anomalies to this system of positivistic generalization are

considered empirically untestable statements outside the domain of science.

Logical-positivism considers scientific thought to be superior to other modes of

thinking, while untestable ideas are completely without value. An early critic

referred to the “rather . . . curious status” of this “would-be science . . . situated

among the humanities.”155

Binford, who was hired as a professor of archaeology by the University of

Chicago in 1961, was surrounded by eager graduate students. He called for an

overhaul of archaeology, rejecting the “normative” view of culture with its

emphasis on innovation, diffusion, and migration. 156 But critics of the New

Archaeology decried this “new” approach as no more than the traditional protocol

with the addition of statistical techniques. 157 Nevertheless, Binford achieved a

cult-like following, and Chicago became a hotbed of processual ferment. 158 The

British archaeologist David Clarke referred to this phase—marked by an

155
Renfrew and Bahn, “Introduction,” xi.

156
Lewis Binford, Working at Archaeology, 6.

157
O’Brien, Lyman, and Schiffer, Archaeology as a Process, 45.

158
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 50.
89
intensive, self-conscious striving for theoretical exploration—as the “loss of

innocence.”159

In 1954, the British archaeologist Christopher Hawkes (1905–1992) made

his famous statement—known as his ladder of inference—that ancient

technologies are easier to study than economies; sociopolitical institutions are

more difficult to reconstruct; while religious and spiritual beliefs are the most

difficult of all.160 Binford challenged Hawkes’s statement by declaring that there

is no underlying principle to make the understanding of one subsystem of a

culture system more difficult to understand than another.161 In his influential

article, “Archaeology as Anthropology,” Binford identified “ideotechnic

artefacts,” which “have their primary functional context in the ideological

component of the social system.”162 Nevertheless, processual archaeology

focused primarily on those systems Hawkes considered the most accessible to

archaeology—techniques of tool making, subsistence economies, sometimes

social-political systems—but rarely upon what British archaeologist Colin refers

to as the “cognitive dimension,” including religious practices and spiritual life. 163

At the height of their influence in the 1970s, these young processual

archaeologists proclaimed that the history of archaeology was irrelevant for

159
Hodder, “Introduction”; Clarke, “Archaeology: The Loss of Innocence.”

160
Christopher Hawkes, “Archaeological Theory and Method.”

161
Lewis Binford, “Archaeological Perspectives,” 21.

162
Lewis Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology,” 221.

163
Renfrew, “Towards a Cognitive Archaeology,” 125.

90
understanding the development of the discipline, which they argued was shaped

by the deployment of ever more rigorous forms of scientific method. 164

Postprocessual Archaeology: Ian Hodder

During the 1980s, a growing number of archaeologists began to view the

dogmatic positivism and ecological determinism of the 1960s and 1970s as rigid

and erroneous. In 1985, the British archaeologist Ian Hodder coined the term

“postprocessual archaeology,” spearheading a movement toward an interpretive

approach welcoming “multivocality” and theoretical diversity. 165 Simultaneously,

archaeologists in the United States began to question the “objectivity” of a

deductive approach and to admit that research questions and answers were

influenced by the researcher’s underlying assumptions and social context.

Ian Hodder, the main architect of postprocessual archaeology, presented

the first edition of his book, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to

Interpretation in Archaeology (1986), as a critical alternative to the rigidly narrow

scientism of the processual New Archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s. In

Hodder’s view, archaeology must not be unidirectional; it must embrace diversity,

controversy, multiple meanings, symbolism, even uncertainty. It is more about

asking questions than providing static answers.

By the publication of the second edition of Reading the Past (with Scott

Hutson) in 1991, postprocessualism was focusing more intensively on ways to

interpret material remains as “texts,” drawing from a variety of influences

164
Ibid., xv.

165
Hodder, “Postprocessual Archaeology.”

91
including Marxism, structuralism, idealism, and feminism, which contribute to a

range of multivocal and interpretive perspectives. This approach stimulated

central areas of archaeological debate including the relationship between material

culture and society, the causes of social, economic, and cultural change, and

various ways archaeologists interpret the past, which are in part subjectively

constructed in the present.

Archaeological debates and the generation of new theories are developed

out of the need to solve identified problems. During the final decades of the

twentieth century, archaeological theories, representing wide historical and

geographical perspectives, using different bodies of data, have been exhaustively

critiqued for addressing problem-domains with various degrees of success. As an

example of the antagonistic climate of theoretic debates, the British archaeologists

Norman Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt accused postprocessualists of not

formulating a coherent body of theory and method for interpreting the past, and

for obscuring the genuine gains of a century of archaeological research. 166 While

postprocessual theorists understand that views of the past are “theory-laden,”

Yoffee and Sherratt nevertheless encourage archaeologists to relate to the past as

objectively as possible without manipulating interpretations for their own

purposes.

According to Hodder, no unified postprocessual position has been

presented due to the diverging points of view within this theoretical discipline,

and the necessity for it to remain fluid. But as Bruce Trigger points out,

166
Yoffee and Sherratt, Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?

92
postprocessual archaeologists who are studying social action have consumed a

wide variety of conflicting theories advocated by other social scientists. “There is

little evidence that they have systematically attempted to use archaeological data

to evaluate, improve, and integrate these theories.”167

During the second half of the twentieth century, following Christopher

Hawkes’s famous pronouncement of his ladder of inference, most Euro-American

archaeologists were reluctant to investigate the nonmaterial aspects of European

prehistoric societies for fear of not being taken seriously. Scant attention was paid

to Neolithic symbolism and religious beliefs, much less to Goddess imagery and

the roles of women. Notable exceptions are found among some archaeologists

studying ritual sites around the Mediterranean, such as in Greece, Malta, Turkey,

Egypt, and the Minoan civilization on Crete and Thera.168 Nevertheless, in the

second edition of The History of Archaeological Thought (2006), Trigger

comments that studies of prehistoric beliefs and iconography, such as by

Gimbutas, were carried out only by archaeologists who had no association with

processual archaeology.

Between the 1980s and 1990s, some archaeologists began to consider how

prehistoric people interacted with each other and with the world around them.

This led to the creation of recursive models of social action and considerations of

agency and gender as well as questions about identity and personhood.

167
Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought, 470.

168
See, for example, Nilsson, Minoan-Mycenaean Religion; Marinatos, Art and
Religion in Thera and Minoan Religion; and Gesell, Town, Palace, and House Cult in
Minoan Crete.

93
 The idea of agency—the ability of individuals to act as free agents—has

become virtually ubiquitous in contemporary archaeological theory. Nevertheless,

it has been rejected by some postprocessualists as problematic. Critics have

pointed out that the concept of the individual, which is far from universal, is

present only in some societies, especially modern capitalist ones. 169 In their

article “Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude?”, American and British

archaeologists Marcia-Anne Dobres and John Robb trace the roots and

development of the concept of agency (e.g., personhood, volition, self-

determination, and reasoning) from Greek philosophy to the ideological basis of

Western democracy. In their view, the popular use of the concept of agency has

become “an ambiguous platitude meaning everything and nothing . . . [with] no

consensus about what it actually means.”170 “If agency theory really is to become

useful,” they emphasize, “we must integrate theoretical discourse, archaeological

practice, analytic methodologies, and concrete case studies.”171

Cognitive Archaeology

A year or so before her death, Marija Gimbutas remarked to me, “Renfrew

is writing about religion,” then she gave a hearty laugh, since Colin Renfrew—a

long-time friend, colleague, and processual archaeologist—had become one of her

most vocal opponents. In 1994, the year Gimbutas died, The Ancient Mind:

Elements of Cognitive Archaeology was published, edited by Renfrew and Ezra B.

169
Ibid., 470; Shennan, Genes, Memes and Human History, 212.

170
Dobres and Robb, “Agency in Archaeology,” 3.

171
Ibid., 3–4.

94
W. Zubrow. By that time, it was broadly recognized that the processualists of the

New Archaeology had failed to address beliefs and symbolism, even though

Lewis Binford had mentioned the concept of an “ideotechnic dimension or

subsystem in culture alongside the sociotechnic and the technomic ones.”172 By

this statement, Binford appears to have recognized that ideas, as well as social and

economic factors, influence the development of culture. He and other early

processualists defined culture as “man՚s extra-somatic means of adaptation.”173

No focused effort was made by Binford or his other colleagues to investigate the

beliefs and rituals of early human societies.

Renfrew attempted to revitalize processualism by including the study of

prehistoric thought and symbolism inferred from material remains, while rejecting

the more humanistic, interpretive, hermeneutic approach of the postprocessualists.

He specified that the study of the “ancient mind” is a shorthand for the subject

matter of cognitive archaeology, although no distinction is implied between the

ancient mind and the modern mind. Renfrew does not provide a more explicit

argument for the assumption that the rational scientific mindset of modern

European and Euro-Americans is not to be distinguished from the mindset of

early peoples.

The task of cognitive-processual archaeology, as he explains in The

Ancient Mind, is to focus on “forming structures of inference, in an explicit (and

172
Binford quoted in Renfrew and Zubrow, Ancient Mind, 4.

173
Ibid., 3.

95
in some sense scientific) manner”174 in order to understand how early people used

their minds to examine the ways symbols were used, without the archaeologist

attempting to discern their “meaning.”175 Renfrew emphasizes that cognitive-

processual archaeology makes no distinction between the “ancient mind” and the

modern mind, nor are assumptions made about different categories of thought. In

contrast, Marija Gimbutas’s approach to the study of prehistoric symbolism and

ancient mentalities combined both a rational scientific approach and a

mythological mindset, without projecting modern mentalities upon early people

who experienced the world through an entirely different range of perceptions.

In 1998, the archaeologist John Robb published an article on “The

Archaeology of Symbols” in the Annual Review of Anthropology. In it, he

addresses three traditions that influence the archaeological study of symbols:

processualism, structuralism, and postmodernism. Most importantly, he addresses

the question of whether symbolic archaeology is actually possible, then proceeds

to dismantle Christopher Hawkes’s famous 1954 “ladder of inference,” which is

enshrined in archaeological theory. As Robb explains, Hawkes’s pronouncement

that “symbols are remote, subjective, and archaeologically inaccessible, in

contrast to the “hard” realities of environment, economy, and politics 176 have

discouraged generations of archaeologists from daring to investigate prehistoric

ideas and symbols if they wanted to be taken seriously. But here, Robb boldly

174
Ibid.

175
Ibid., 5–6.

176
Robb, “Archaeology of Symbols,” 330.

96
declares, “Hawkes was wrong. . . . In many ways, the question is not whether we

can find symbols archaeologically, but whether we can find anything cultural that

is not symbolic.”177 In this way, Robb has pried open a door that many have

perceived as forbidden for much too long.

Feminist Theories and Gender Studies in Archaeology

During the mid-twentieth century, the presence of women in the male-

dominated field of archaeology began to grow, as did the gradual recognition that

women actually exist as social beings and have contributed to all periods of

human history. The pioneering anthology, Engendering Archaeology: Women and

Prehistory (1991), edited by feminist archaeologists Joan M. Gero and Margaret

W. Conkey, introduced feminist social theory to archaeological research for the

first time. Recognizing that deeply embedded androcratic assumptions in the

annals of archaeology have erased women’s presence in prehistory, Gero and

Conkey called for an exposure of gender bias in all phases of archaeological

inquiry; the inclusion of gender as a fundamental social construct; the

identification of women as subjects rather than objects; and an investigation of

underlying assumptions about gender and difference. Feminist archaeologists are

increasingly demonstrating that the archaeologies of gender, combined with

feminist reasoning, promote multiple perspectives and an open, generative social

knowledge that is in direct contrast to the closed, categorical knowledge

construction typical of traditional male-centered archaeology.

177
Ibid., 330‒31.

97
 Inspired by the dynamic challenges posed by feminist archaeologists

during the latter decades of the twentieth century, Ian Hodder remarks that “an

awareness of gender issues has led to a rethinking not only of implicit

androcentric assumptions in our theories but also to more general critiques of our

understanding of power, domination and signification.”178 Moreover, “it can be

claimed plausibly that the growth of post-processual archaeology depended on the

growth of feminism and feminist archaeology. But this ‘other voice’ has often

been appropriated and dominated within post-processual archaeology.”179

In answering the question “Why is there no archaeology of gender?”,

philosopher of science Alison Wylie remarks,

Inasmuch as the existing research on gender has established that it is a

socio-cultural construct whose structure and evolution cannot be presumed
to follow a predetermined, “natural” pattern, archaeological inquiry will
have to focus on the particularities of gender constructs, especially their
symbolic and ideational dimensions, in specific contexts. The agenda of an
archaeology of gender thus converges on at least some of the initiatives
associated with critical archaeology and with symbolic and structural
approaches in archaeology. 180

A flood of groundbreaking texts addressing a feminist analysis of gender

in archaeological thought—from the concluding decades of the twentieth century

into the twenty-first century—have broken open new dimensions in

archaeological theories and practices that celebrate the contributions of women.

Examples of these dynamic texts are mentioned in Chapter 2.

178
Hodder, Theory and Practice, 4.

179
Ibid., 187.

180
Wylie, “Why Is There No Archaeology of Gender?”, 49.

98
 The inclusion of feminist social theory and gender studies within

archaeological research challenges embedded sexism and the disappearance of

women from archaeological histories. One would think that the emphasis Marija

Gimbutas has given to women in Neolithic Old Europe would be welcomed

within feminist social theory. In reality, the fact that Gimbutas saw women at the

center of Old European social structure and placed symbolic value on the plethora

of female imagery produced by Neolithic societies, caused some feminist

archaeologists to strongly critique Gimbutas՚s interpretations as “essentialist.”

The nature of these critiques and Gimbutas’s interpretative perspectives are

discussed in Chapter 7.

The Twenty-First Century

New Approaches to Archaeological Theories and Practices

The end of the Cold War in 1990, between the capitalist West and the

communist East, caused a collapse of political and ideological barriers that had

separated Eastern and Western archaeologists and their approaches to theories and

practices for nearly half a century. In 2002, an extensive anthology,

Archaeologies of Europe: History, Methods, and Theories, was published, edited

by the European archaeologists Peter F. Biehl, Alexander Gramsch, and

Arkadiusz Marciniak. The articles in this collection represent the results of the

first pan-European conference held in May 2000 in Poznań, Poland, 181 organized

to stimulate previously rare, open discussions between archaeologists from

181
Conference title: “Archaeologies East–Archaeologies West, Connecting
Theory and Practice across Europe.”

99
Eastern and Western traditions, as well as from Northern, Southern, and Central

European countries, in order to discover how post-Cold War exchange has

influenced the way archaeologists conceive and practice archaeology.

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the common paradigm

of European archaeology was anthropological, in which an anthropological

approach was used to study of human societies in order to interpret archaeological

findings. This relative unity was wrenched into separate trajectories during the

two World Wars, amplified by the severe separation of Eastern and Western

Europe by the Iron Curtain. As discussed in this wide-ranging anthology, released

at the beginning of the twenty-first century, archaeologists from both Eastern and

Western Europe became engaged in critical assessments of regional archaeologies

following the decline of Marxist methodology and the rapid introduction of

Anglo-American influences from West to East (processual, post-processual, post-

modern, feminist, and contemporary theories and methods), following the end of

the Cold War. This has happened in contrast to the widespread use of a culture-

historical approach by traditional archaeologists who believe that the past can be

reconstructed.182 The Polish archaeologist Danuta Minta-Tworzowska explains:

American archaeology is based on its achievements in cultural

anthropology, whereas the European tradition is grounded in history or a
highly developed form of ethnological diffusionism. . . . Traditional
archaeologists, representing cultural-historical archaeology, believed that
the past could be reconstructed, and did reconstruct it in terms of linear
sequences of archaeological-cultural time-space. This archaeology
remained under the strong influence of ethnology and diffusionism. It was

182
Minta-Tworzowska, “Between a Community of Inspiration,” 54.

100
 only then that European and American archaeology represented a common
approach to the past. Following this phase, their roads parted. 183

Another twenty-first century influence that began to move from West to

East is reflected in the anthology The Archaeology of Cult and Religion (2001),

published in Budapest. This collection of articles discusses the growing trend

among Western archaeologists to overcome their reluctance to investigate

prehistoric ritual practices and beliefs and to entertain the possibility that

prehistoric ideology can be adequately reconstructed. Nevertheless, the editors

Peter F. Biehl and François Bertemes acknowledge that many archaeologists do

not want to be associated with the interpretations of Marija Gimbutas.184

After Marija Gimbutas՚s death in 1994, numerous archaeologists felt

encouraged to position themselves a safe distance from Gimbutas՚s work by

repeating the negative critiques about her interpretations. However, the theoretical

landscape has continued to be reconsidered and desconstructed. Even cognitive

archaeology, carefully positioned within the processual tradition, has been

challenged. In Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe (2005), the British

archaeologist Richard Bradley describes a deeply entrenched division between

specialists investigating Neolithic economies—who consider prehistoric religion

as epiphenomenal—and those who study social archaeology. Bradley’s attempts,

and those of others, to establish a viable path between contending methodological

183
Ibid., 53–54.

184
Biehl and Bertemes, Archaeology of Cult and Religion, 14.

101
approaches to the study of nonmaterial aspects of prehistoric societies, especially

prehistoric religion, is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

The Genetic Revolution in Archaeology

The most significant development for archaeology since the discovery of

carbon-14 dating and dendrochronological calibrations concerns the successful

sequencing of ancient human DNA (aDNA) in genetics laboratories in the United

States and Europe. Moreover, geneticists have successfully sequenced entire

human genomes from ancient skeletons, which has made it possible to perceive

patterns of genetic diversity and population changes throughout human history.

Each year the results are ever more refined. As the Danish archaeologist Kristian

Kristiansen states, “We are reaching a new stage in explaining genomic diversity

from prehistory to the present, and in defining population changes and bottlenecks

which can then be compared to other forms of archaeological and historical

evidence.”185 Prehistory is in the process of being rewritten with greater precision

than ever before.

Conclusion

Archaeology has a complex and turbulent history. Nineteenth-century

notions about cultural evolution and biological determinism that bolstered biblical

beliefs and racist distortions, most typically within American, German, and

British archaeology, have given way to a dynamic series of archaeological

theories vying for supremacy. In their introduction to Essential Tensions in

Archaeological Method and Theory (2003), the North American archaeologists

185
Kristiansen, “Towards a New Paradigm?”, 13.

102
Todd L. Van Pool and Christine S. Van Pool address the expanding proliferation

of methodological approaches and archaeological theories. While it is stimulating

to see the variety of perspectives addressing broad empirical issues, the authors

emphasize that the antagonisms and bitter critiques that began during the 1960s

have continued to flare up between various intellectual camps. The authors

suggest that the impact of Thomas Kuhn’s influential Structure of Scientific

Revolutions (1962) may have seeded the erroneous notion that only one

theoretical paradigm can dominate at any one time. They describe the struggles

for supremacy between processualists and postprocessualists and other competing

practitioners as resembling gladiators in a coliseum. For one theory to dominate is

unrealistic, in their view, because there can be no “grand unifying theory” that is

adequate to address all archaeological problems. In this way, theoretical plurality

leads to greater insights, and different perspectives are essential for challenging

weak premises, leading to more viable results.

Due to the influence of postprocessual critiques, archaeological views of

the past are viewed as “theory-laden,” especially by Ian Hodder, and calls have

been made for more balanced approaches appropriate to specific archaeological

questions. Many theoretical stones are being upturned, and key concepts such as

“agency,” and “multivocality” are requiring ongoing scrutiny in order to stimulate

more useful understanding of their meanings and functions.

The development of archaeological ideas during the second half of the

twentieth century includes the appearance and progressive influences of feminist

theories and gender studies that critique the androcratic posture of European and

103
American archaeology and the chronic disappearance of women’s contributions to

the field. Archaeological theory has grown increasingly diverse and complicated

during the twenty-first century. In tracking the overall contours of archaeological

history, it is more accurate to speak today of many archaeologies, which continue

to split into ever more specialized subdisciplines with progressively sophisticated

theoretical models.186 Its structures of thought have become fragmented, but for

some, these developments are nevertheless considered exciting, vibrant, and

vital.187

Publications about archaeological theories from the last decades of the

twentieth into the early decades of the twenty-first century are not only marked by

critical analyses of more than a century of theoretical developments; entrenched

male biases continue to be challenged due to persistent feminist critiques. These

analytical churnings are signs of a creatively turbulent theoretical atmosphere that

challenges encrusted beliefs and assumptions, breaking up and composting old

forms, making way for new ideas and practices and the reconsideration of

previously embedded biases. As a result of the ancient DNA (aDNA) revolution,

many truisms have been proven to be false, opening the way for more essential

research questions. One main assumption that aDNA data has overturned is the

belief that migration is not a viable explanation for culture change. This will be

discussed in the following chapter concerning Marija Gimbutas՚s Kurgan

hypothesis (more correctly now, her Kurgan theory).

186
Van Pool and Van Pool, “Introduction,” 1.

187
Harris and Cipolla, Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium, 1.

104
 The ongoing influences on archaeology and related disciplines due to the

constantly refined capacities of aDNA technologies are causing enormous

developments seemingly overnight. As Kristian Kristiansen remarks, “We are in a

period of theoretical and methodological experimentation and reorientations,

where everything that was ‘forbidden’ research 10-15 years ago are now among

the hottest themes: mobility, migration, warfare, comparative analysis, evolution,

and the return of grand narratives.”188 In the midst of this transformational

ferment, Marija Gimbutas’s “grand narratives” are being recognized anew.

The following chapter discusses Marija Gimbutas՚s life and work, which

explores her lineage as a Lithuanian; her cultural and intellectual inheritance from

her extraordinary family; the richness of her interdisciplinary education; the

horrors of growing up under Polish, Soviet, and German occupation; her escape as

a refugee during the Second World War; and the development of her life as a

scholar and professor in the United States where her work has influenced the

intellectual and creative lives of countless individuals the world over. The

vindication of her Kurgan theory is a posthumous reward for her lifetime of

dedicated scholarship.

188
Kristiansen, “Towards a New Paradigm?”, 14.

105
 CHAPTER 5: MARIJA GIMBUTAS’S LIFE AND WORK: A

CULTURAL/INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY

Marija Birutė Alseikaitė189 was born on January 23, 1921, in Vilnius, the

ancient capital of Lithuania, into a family of intellectuals and cultural activists

who worked diligently for freedom from oppression under extremely turbulent

conditions, who valued education and the preservation of Lithuanian language,

history, and culture. She inherited a complex stream of historical, intellectual, and

spiritual influences, as well as a lifelong dedication to interdisciplinary

scholarship. Her parents, Veronika Janulaitytė Alseikienė and Danielius Alseika,

were both medical doctors and cultural workers who tirelessly supported

Lithuanian independence and the preservation of Lithuanian folklore and folk arts

expressing ancient Baltic spirituality and mythological traditions.

In order to appreciate the complex historical background of Marija

Gimbutas’s cultural inheritance and the multilayered influences that richly

informed her scholarship, this chapter is divided into three parts: Part 1 discusses

key aspects of ancient Baltic history, spiritual beliefs, and the transmission of

ancient Lithuanian language and culture. This is followed by the introduction of

Polish Christianization and Russian domination that stimulated Lithuanian

resistance and ultimately its rebirth.

Part 2 introduces Marija Alseikaitė’s parents who, as trail blazers,

modeled their intensive dedication to medicine, scholarship, and the preservation

189
Alseikaitė, in Lithuanian, indicates Marija’s maiden name as the daughter of
Danielius Alseika. In Lithuania her married surname is Gimbutienė, as the wife of Jurgis
Gimbutas. When the Gimbutas family emigrated to the United States, she became Marija
Gimbutas (using the spelling of her husband’s last name).

106
of Lithuanian language and folk culture as essential contributions to society. From

the time she was a child, her parents encouraged her devotion to education and to

a comprehensive understanding of her cultural lineage. This section introduces

her early life in Lithuania, her indelible experiences of village folk culture and her

unique intellectual inheritance within the epicenter of the Lithuanian Renaissance.

The range and breadth of her interdisciplinary academic training created the

scholarly foundation of her life-long productivity. Part 3 discusses the main

contours of Marija Gimbutas’s professional life in the United States and traces the

development of her theories and methodologies as reflected in her major

publications.

Part 1.1—Baltic/Lithuanian Historical Lineage: The “Stubborn Pagans”

Who Worshipped the Entire Living World

Lithuania was the last European country to be Christianized, and its

ancient pagan traditions were not entirely eradicated by the early twentieth

century. Remote Lithuanian villagers preserved traditional cultural patterns with

ancient Baltic roots expressing an enduring spirituality inseparable from people’s

intimacy with the living world.

Lithuanians, Latvians, and Old Prussians belong to a linguistic and

cultural lineage of Indo-European speakers, known as Balts, located east of the

Baltic Sea. During the third millennium BCE, the Baltic tribes began to coalesce

into a complex synthesis of Indo-Europeanized groups with an Old European

(non-Indo-European) cultural and linguistic substratum. The Balts, therefore,

represent a vital mixture of warlike Indo-European and primarily peaceful Old

107
European cultural features. As Marija Gimbutas explains, “The Indo-European

patriarchy is diluted here by Old European elements of matriliny, matrilocality,

matricentrality.”190

While Indo-Europeanized societies are typically stratified, the Balts, in

their early stages, practiced a communal system, inherited from Old European

agrarian customs in which village land belonged to the entire community. In the

first century AD, the Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote that the “Aisi” (a Baltic

group) patiently cultivated crops, venerated the mother goddess, and wore boar

masks for protection. Most of the early chronicles were written by Christian

missionaries who did not understand the native tongue. One text referred to the

Balts as “stubborn pagans.”191

Their steady cultural development was interrupted in AD 1202 when the

Christian Knights of the Sword (a branch of the Templar Order), founded by the

German Bishop of Riga, sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, began a relentless

campaign for their subjugation and Christianization. 192 This led to the

establishment of a unified feudal state during the thirteenth century. Although

warrior leaders gained privilege and status in their feudal roles, the most isolated

Lithuanian communities continued their agrarian customs in traditional ways. 193

The Old Prussians (western Balts) were exterminated by the Teutonic Knights

190
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, 349.

191
Gimbutas, Balts, 25.

192
Žukas, First Lithuanian Book, 3.

193
Samalavičius, Outline of Lithuanian History, 11.

108
during the thirteenth century. Today, only the Lithuanians and Latvians still exist

as direct descendants from the ancient Baltic tribes. 194

These “stubborn pagans” refused to allow Christians to have access to

their sacred groves and springs because they believed these holy places would be

contaminated by their presence. 195 In AD 997, when Vojciech, the bishop of

Prague, attempted unsuccessfully to convert the eastern Balts, he and his

followers became martyrs when they camped in a sacred forest.196 Around AD

1075, the Archbishop Adam of Bremen described the “Baltic heathens” as “ruddy

of face, and long-haired,” living in inaccessible swamps, and added that “they will

not endure a master among them.” Moreover, they “cruelly persecute” Christian

missionaries.197 In the early thirteenth century, the Bishop of Paderborn wrote:

They honor forest nymphs, forest goddesses, mountain spirits, lowlands,

waters, field spirits and forest spirits. They expected divine assistance
from virgin forests, wherein they worshipped springs and trees, mounds
and hills, steep stones and mountain slopes―all of which presumably
endowed mankind with strength and power.198

A century later, a description in the Chronicon Prussiae of 1326 states: “They

worshipped the entire creature-world instead of God, namely: the sun, moon,

194
Vėlius, World Outlook of the Ancient Balts, 8.

195
Gimbutas, Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art, 58.

196
Samalavičius, Outline of Lithuanian History, 13.

197
Gimbutas, Balts, 25.

198
Ibid., 192.

109
stars, the thunder, birds, even the four-legged animals including toads. They also

had holy groves, sacred fields, and waters.”199

For the Lithuanians who tenaciously held on to the Old Religion, the

entire cosmos was perceived as alive with Spirit, and traditional village people

lived their lives in intimate interaction and communion with the powers of the

living world. Snakes were worshipped as sacred and it was utterly forbidden to

harm them in any way.200

People’s tendency to anthropomorphize powers of the living world

promoted a sense of kinship with these potencies, expressed by a wide range of

deities. For example, Saulė, the Great Sun Goddess who drives her blazing chariot

across the sky, was celebrated at the summer and winter solstices. As Gimbutas

tells us, “The farmer’s life was regularly patterned by prayers to Saulė at sunrise

and at sunset, for all fieldwork was entirely dependent on the sun’s

beneficence.”201 The Earth was honored as Žemyna, the Great Mother (from

žemė, “earth”), who was venerated from Neolithic times; offerings were made to

her in gratitude for life. According to Gimbutas, “There were no festivals in

villages during which the earth deity, Žemyna, was not venerated.”202 On the

Indo-European level, Perkūnas, the Thunder God, impregnated Earth with the

199
Ibid., 179.

200
Informal discussion with Marija Gimbutas, Topanga, CA, 1988.

201
Gimbutas, Balts, 201.

202
Ibid., 192.

110
first thunderstorms of spring.203 Sacred oak trees were consecrated to him, while

linden trees were sacred to Laima, the Goddess of Fate. Medeinė (from medis,

‘tree’) is the Lithuanian Goddess of the Forest. Gimbutas notes, “No one was

permitted to cut trees in the sacred forests, to fish in sacred springs, or to plough

in sacred fields, which were . . . guarded by ‘tabu.’”204

Part 1.2—Primary Orality of Ancient Lithuanian Language and Folk

Culture

From the time she was a child, Marija Alseikaitė understood that every

aspect of traditional Lithuanian village life was interwoven with proverbs,

prayers, incantations, verbal formulas, myths, and legends. Magical tales teemed

with supernatural beings and miraculous happenings. 205 This enormous verbal

treasury was originally preserved entirely by human memory, transmitted through

a continual circulation of telling, listening, absorbing, and retelling over countless

generations. The long trajectory of this orality was created and passed down by

people totally unfamiliar with writing; linguists identify such an oral tradition as a

“primary orality.”206 Although it is often assumed by scholars that literacy is

superior to orality, words spoken within an oral tradition have the power of magic

203
Trinkūnas, Of Gods and Holidays, 211.

204
Gimbutas, Balts, 193.

205
See Vaskelis, “Folklore in Lithuanian Literature,” I, par. 3.

206
Ong, Orality and Literature, 6.
111
and action that produce powerful and beautiful verbal performances of high

artistic and human worth. 207

The Lithuanians and Latvians sang for all occasions, and work, rituals,

prayer, and daily life were intertwined. As a youth Marija Alseikaitė witnessed

elderly women laboring in the fields using sickles and singing while they worked.

In writing about the ancient songs, the daina, Gimbutas emphasized that their true

significance cannot be separated from the land. 208

Many of the lyrical songs that have survived from antiquity use metaphors

from nature: A mother in sorrow might become a cuckoo, for example, whose

bird voice represents the sound of her weeping. The historian of literature

Rimvydas Šilbajoris explains, “Death is omnipresent, as is the beauty of things

that grow and die in nature, dreams of love and life appear as a lyrical dialogue

with trees, flowers, animals, and waters.”209

According to folklorist Bronius Vaškelis, “Folksongs are rich in

diminutives, terms of endearment, onomatopoeia and epithets.”210 The

extraordinary, expressive capacity of the Lithuanian language results from the fact

that Lithuanian preserved grammatical archaisms similar to those in Sanskrit. 211

Šilbajoris remarks that its ancient nature is revealed by its exceedingly complex

207
Ibid., 14, 32.

208
Gimbutas, “Introduction: Antiquity of the Daina,” 11.

209
Šilbajoris, Short History, 14–15.

210
Vaskelis, “Folklore in Lithuanian Literature,” I, par. 1.

211
I am grateful to Miriam Robbins Dexter for this explanation.

112
morphological structure making it a perfect vehicle for expressing nuanced

descriptions of all aspects of the natural world. Also, as Šilbajoris points out, there

are “multiple distinctions in degrees of affection conveyed by a rich and complex

system of melodious diminutives” making Lithuanian “quintessentially a poetic

language.”212

It is important to mention an ancient women’s ritual of incantation known

as sutartinės, which combines the singing of poetic lyrics with meditative

movement in a complete syncretic form. 213 The songs are frequently composed of

onomatopoeic words as magical, codified formulas resembling an endless

repetition of mantras. The sounds of the sutartinės are said to resemble the voices

of swans and cranes, reflecting the “otherworld.” Women would visit the fields in

the springtime to perform rituals for the Earth. There, they would move in a

solemn dance around the eldest woman, reciting incantations to awaken the

generative powers of the Earth. 214 At sunset during harvest time, women would

put down their sickles, turn toward the sun and sing a sutartinė to thank the sun

for the day. Then they would sit with their hands folded looking at the sun,

rocking back and forth, bowing to the sun, and singing.215 The women who

practiced and preserved the ancient sutartinės from antiquity were associated with

Laumės, goddesses of fertility and fruitfulness. Christians, however, demonized

212
Šilbajoris, Short History of Lithuanian Literature, 11–13.

213
Račiūnaitė-Vyčinienė, Sutartinės, 53.

214
Ibid., 50, 78, 85.

215
Račiūnienė-Vyčinienė,” Archaic Lithuanian Polyphonic Chant.

113
these women as witches, which eventually caused this ancient ritual practice to

die out.216 Between the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, there is

documentation in Lithuania for the torture and burning at the stake of women

accused of witchcraft.217

Part 1.3—The Christianization of the Last Pagan State of Europe

In the thirteenth century, the powerful Duke Mindaugas rose to power as

the protector and as the founder of the Lithuanian nation.218 After a particularly

successful battle in AD 1236, Mindaugas gained the distinction of being the first

conqueror of the German “warrior monks”—the Livonian Brothers of the

Sword.219 Hungry for power, Mindaugas agreed to be baptized as a political

maneuver in order to be crowned king of Lithuania by the Pope in 1253. His wife,

sons, and “many pagans” were also baptized. He stated his intention to baptize the

entire nation, and he built the first Catholic cathedral in Vilnius. After eight years

of relative peace and stability, Mindaugas was the most important Baltic ruler of

the time. He reverted to paganism after his wife’s death and repelled further

attacks by the Teutonic Order, before being killed in 1263. His remaining son,

who eventually took power, suppressed the spread of Christianity and revived

paganism throughout the country. 220

216
Račiūnaitė-Vyčinienė, Sutartinės, 80.

217
Jakštas, “Lithuania to World War I,” 89.

218
Venclova, Vilnius, 24–25.

219
Jakštas, “Lithuania to World War I,” 46.

220
Ibid., 48–49.
114
 In the fourteenth century, Gediminas, the Grand Duke of Lithuania (who

ruled from 1316–1341), refused to be baptized and was a champion of paganism.

The Russian Ukranian dramatist Nikolai Gogol called Gediminas “the great

heathen” with the stature of a giant:

This wild figure, who didn’t know Scriptures and bowed before pagan
gods, did not change the customs or the old style of rule among any one of
the peoples he conquered. He left everything as it had been, confirmed all
privileges, firmly ordered the rulers to observe human rights, and caused
no destruction anywhere in his path. 221

Gediminas is considered the founder of the city of Vilnius, built in a deep

valley with holy springs and groves, surrounded by a great forest, at a time when

the Renaissance was just beginning in Europe. Vilnius Cathedral stands to this

day on the site where Gediminas had a prophetic dream, interpreted by a pagan

high priest as revealing the sacred place to establish his city, where 600 years later

Marija Alseikaitė was born. After performing the necessary rituals to the gods,

Gediminas had a wooden castle built; a brick castle tower later attributed to him is

the oldest surviving structure in Vilnius.222 Over the centuries, invading powers

have always flown their flag on Gediminas’s castle tower as a sign of occupation.

According to the Lithuanian poet Tomas Venclova, the Teutonic Knights

considered Lithuania as “an empire of barbarism, of primeval darkness: Europe’s

subconscious that had to be enlightened, controlled, and punished. . . . What the

Knights saw as heroic deeds, the Lithuanians considered brazen robbery and

221
Venclova, Vilnius, 28.

222
Ibid., 25–26.

115
murder.”223 The Lithuanians were one of the very few ancient peoples on the

continent who held on to their ancient language, beliefs, and practices in the face

of continual attacks; the battles with the Knights only strengthened their

determination to resist obliteration. These “stubborn pagans” passed on their

tenacious fortitude for hundreds of years.

The Lithuanian Grand Duchy became famous throughout Western Europe

for continually fighting off the military invasion of Christian Knights, joined by

an influx of Crusaders attracted by the heroic challenge to defeat the intractable

heathens.224 As Venclova points out, “There have not been many conflicts in

Europe comparable in length and tenacity to the war between the two powers,

which lasted some two hundred years.”225 According to tradition, Gediminas died

in battle fighting the Teutonic Order and his ashes are buried next to Vilnius

Castle. The history of this protracted war is deeply rooted in the Lithuanian

consciousness.226

Toward the end of the fourteenth century, the prolonged warfare, mutual

hatred between the warring cultures, and the ongoing destruction of people and

lands became impossible for the Lithuanians to sustain without risking the

complete loss of their pagan state to their Christian enemies. Seeing a huge

opportunity to enlarge its sphere of influence, Poland hatched a plan following the

223
Ibid., 34–35.

224
Jakštas, “Lithuania to World War I,” 56.

225
Venclova, Vilnius, 35.

226
Ibid.

116
death of the Polish King Louis in 1382. Gediminas’s grandson, Jogaila, was

offered the Polish crown if he would marry the young Polish princess Jadwiga

(Hedwig), convert to Christianity with his family, and annex the Lithuanian state

to the kingdom of Poland. After secret negotiations and much internal drama,

Jogaila accepted these terms in 1385, laying the groundwork for the future Polish-

Lithuanian Commonwealth. 227 With the stroke of his pen, Jogaila delivered

Lithuania to the Polish Catholics in order to become the King of Poland. In turn,

Poland and Lithuania would work together for mutual support.

In 1387, Jogaila issued a proclamation that all Lithuanians must convert to

Catholicism. He traveled to Vilnius with Polish and Lithuanian noblemen,

including his cousin Vytautas, Gediminas’s grandson, who accepted baptism to

gain personal power. There, in Gediminas’s holy city, Jogaila proved his

allegiance to Christianity by abominating his own sacred lineage. He destroyed

the main pagan sanctuary, extinguished the holy fires, and killed the sacred

snakes. He also ordered a new, larger cathedral built on the same site as the one

built by Mindaugas. He and Vytautas then forced the baptism of the Vilnius

population by driving them into the Neris River in droves228—a typical example

of conversion by the sword.

Jogaila went on to establish the Vilnius Bishopric—with a Polish Bishop

and Polish clerics—complete with generous plots of land, houses, and monetary

support within the city and in surrounding villages. Moreover, every parish priest

227
Jakštas, “Lithuania to World War I,” 58–59.

228
Venclova, Vilnius, 37; Jakštas, “Lithuania to World War I,” 59.

117
was given the resources to build himself a tavern. These lavish gifts―that

continued well into the future—created a privileged class of clergymen who

controlled enormous wealth. In this way, the Catholic Church became well

established in Lithuania and new cathedrals continued to be built in Vilnius on

ancient sacred sites. But even with its wealth and power, the Church was not able

to extinguish the beliefs and practices of the Old Religion that continued as the

central fabric of village life.229 This resulted for some time in a “peculiarly

peaceful coexistence of paganism and Christianity.”230 Due to the antagonism felt

by many Lithuanians toward the Poles, Jogaila returned to Warsaw leaving

Vytautas to rule Lithuania from Vilnius, as Grand Duke, for the next forty years.

These two cousins successfully formed a united military front to defeat the

rampant incursions of the Teutonic Order. By the time of his death in the early

fifteenth century, the Lithuanian aristocratic state led by Vytautas the Great had

reached its broadest expansion as a geopolitical entity that stretched from the

Baltic to the Black Sea.

In 1569, Poland and Lithuania formally became a commonwealth that

lasted for two centuries. The flag of the Commonwealth combined images of the

Polish Eagle and the Lithuanian Pagan Knight. Nevertheless, Jogaila treated

Lithuania as inferior, whereas Poland was considered to be more regal and more

sophisticated—influenced by its Christian identity and by Western civilization

and Enlightenment ideas. The upper-class Lithuanians in Vilnius imitated Polish

229
Jakštas, “Lithuania to World War I,” 59–60.

230
Žukas, The First Lithuanian Book, 5.

118
manners and preferred to speak Polish. Many forgot their mother tongue

altogether, even though they considered themselves to be Lithuanian. The

Lithuanians who rejected their own language and culture adopted the unfounded

belief that their ancestors originated in Rome. In this way they imagined having

noble roots, even superior to the Poles. The villagers in the hinterlands continued

their traditional ways, although they often chose one of their sons to become a

priest in order to be educated and participate in a more privileged life. Polish was

spoken in Vilnius and among the clergy, Latin was spoken in church, while

Lithuanian was preserved primarily in the villages.

Part 1.4—Literacy as a Project of the Reformation

In the thirteenth century, the pagan state of Lithuania, which had no

written language, was using Latin, Old Slavonic, and German for written

communication.231 The initiative to publish the first book in Lithuanian language

was fueled by the Protestant Reformation and first accomplished by the Protestant

pastor Martynas Mažvydas, “a man of humanist Renaissance culture.”232 His

landmark publication, Katekizmuso prasti žodžiai [The Simple Words of

Catechism], produced in 1547,233 was intended to persuade Lithuanians to learn

to read and to favor Protestant Christianity. In this book, Mažvydas acknowledged

231
Žukas, First Lithuanian Book, 1.

232
Koženiauskienė, Martynas Mažvydas, 10.

233
Šilbajoris, Short History of Lithuanian Literature, 19.
119
that the peasants prefer their pagan customs, so he emphasized that their pagan

female deities are “opposed to the male Christian God.”234

The project of Christianizing the pagans was slow and cumbersome work.

As Ong points out, “Changes in religious practices come into being in an

essentially formulaic and thematic noetic economy. . . fitting the traditions of the

ancestors.”235 Moreover, “For an oral culture learning or knowing means

achieving close, emphatic, communal identification with the known.”236

Therefore, Protestants from the early seventeenth century began to use lyrics from

Lithuanian songs—even those venerating sacred trees—set to the melodies of

hymns, to persuade Lithuanian villagers to accept the new faith. 237 The printing

of books in Lithuanian led to the standardization of the language, the expansion of

the lexicon, and the establishment of new meanings for already existing words. 238

A cultural divide began to form between the old oral culture with distinctive

verbal variations between remote villages, and the trajectory toward standardized

literacy and classical education inspired by Enlightenment concepts from the

West.

The first important literary work published in Lithuanian is Metai [The

Seasons], written by the Protestant pastor Kristijonas Donelaitis between 1765

234
Žukas, First Lithuanian Book, 22.

235
Ong, Orality and Literature, 42.

236
Ibid., 45.

237
Trilupaitienė, “Hymn Melodies,” 384.

238
Lukšaitė, “First Lithuanian Book,” 32–33.

120
and 1775. This epic work depicts a romanticized version of rural life as a vehicle

for instilling Christian morality expressed through “humility, piousness, patience,

and fidelity,” against a background of the new urban civilization encroaching

from Western Europe.239 Donelaitis encodes these moral points through

descriptions of nature and the lives of animals and birds. The upward circling of

the crane, for instance, was meant to signify “that God’s majestic will / Is

wonderous even in the gleeful voice of birds.”240

Part 1.5—A Century of Tsarist Rule

In 1795, Russian soldiers defeated the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,

and both Lithuania and Poland were swallowed by the Russian Empire. More than

a century of Tsarist domination began in which all ethnicities were expected to

speak Russian and to adopt the Russian mentality. Lithuanian was considered a

dying language, a relic from the past supposedly spoken only by backward,

uneducated peasants.

During the mid-nineteenth century, a groundswell of resistance to Russian

occupation arose among Lithuanians, Poles, Byelorussians, and other

nationalities, who refused to relinquish their cultural identities to Russia. A series

of uprisings took place that were intensified by the nationalist zeitgeist moving

throughout Europe entwined with demands for freedom from domination. The

Tsar brutally crushed these rebellions.

239
Šilbajoris, Short History of Lithuanian Literature, 21–22.

240
Ibid., 23.

121
 After the 1863 uprising that began in Warsaw, a dedicated effort was

made by the Russian administration to control the Poles, Lithuanians, and other

ethnic groups who refused to be broken by previous draconian methods. After the

first revolutionary government was formed in Vilnius, a vicious Governor

General (nicknamed “The Hangman”) was dispatched from Moscow to defeat the

idealistic rebels with the gallows, “while crows hovered over their corpses in the

forests near Vilnius.”241 From 1864 to 1904, as a further punishment, the Tsarist

regime banned Lithuanian books published in Roman script. 242 Lithuanian books

and newspapers could only be published and distributed in Russia if the language

was written in Cyrillic script, in order to bring the Lithuanian population further

into the Russian sphere.

The minority of Lithuanians who equated their ancient language with their

cultural identity tenaciously resisted these edicts by publishing Lithuanian books

in Latin script in East Prussia, smuggling them across the border into Russia for

clandestine distribution, and setting up secret underground schools. This practice

became a life and death issue because, if “book carriers” were caught, they were

shot, arrested, imprisoned, or banished to hard labor camps in Siberia, and their

illicit materials were burned. 243 Numerous members of Marija’s close and

extended family were book carriers; her parents were each thrown out of school

for distributing this forbidden literature.

241
Venclova, Vilnius, 137–40.

242
Samalavičius, Outline of Lithuanian History, 113.

243
Sužiedēlis, “Booksmugglers.”

122
 The first illicit books smuggled into Russian-controlled Lithuania were

Christian texts promoted by Catholic clerics to enhance the conversion of

Lithuanians to Christianity. But the ban on non-Cyrillic literature and Lithuanian

education intensified ethnic sentiments, stimulating intense resistance from the

new intelligentsia. The development of the Lithuanian intelligentsia was not an

elitist phenomenon, but a grassroots development from the peasant class of

farmers who were strongly provoked by the Tsarist regime’s systematic attempts

to crush their identity and to extinguish the Lithuanian language.244

At the time when only a handful of people were dedicated to solving this

problem, Jonas Basanavičius (1851–1927)—who was raised in a Lithuanian

farming family steeped in rich folkloric traditions—became a physician,

statesman, and pioneer of the national revival. Basanavičius was a member of the

first generation of intelligentsia that arose during the second half of the nineteenth

century.245 He became closely connected with Marija Alseikaitė’s family and had

a profound and lasting influence on her development.

As an act of resistance against Tzarist policies, Basanavičius founded the

first non-Christian clandestine Lithuanian periodical in 1883, Auszra [Lith. Aušra,

Dawn]―published in Tilsit, East Prussia (Lithuania Minor)—that was smuggled

into Russian Lithuania. By encouraging readers to appreciate the rich antiquity of

the Lithuanian language, history, and folklore, and stressing the necessity to

provide their own education―so as not to adopt Russian or Polish

244
Stražas, “Lithuania 1863–1893.”

245
Senn, Jonas Basanavićius, 3–14, 74–75.

123
identity―Auszra played a significant role in Lithuania’s cultural rebirth.246

Basanavičius’s efforts were not only focused on stimulating self-determination,

but also on engendering the recognition of the ancient spiritual core and

indigenous cultural values whose rich origins survived among the common

people.247 By the time Basanavičius moved to Vilnius during the Russian

occupation, he was personally connected with the first two generations of writers

who recognized the remarkable poetic and spiritual nature of the language and

what it transmitted. They began to express a spirit of nostalgia for the ancient

ways.

The first romantic poem in Lithuanian literature, “The Forest of

Anykščiai,” written in 1859 by Antanas Baranauskas, begins as a hymn of praise

for the beauty and life-force of nature.248 It then becomes a lament for the

eradication of a beloved pine grove near the poet’s native village, as a metaphor

for the calamities of history. Baranauskas decries the deliberate destruction of the

ancient, sacred groves in order to drive the pagan gods away, and he praises the

country people who preserved their native language and rich spiritual culture. 249

This work marks the first reference in Lithuanian written poetry to nature as the

source of human spiritual wealth, to the “unspeakable lyricism” of folk poetry,

246
Puzinas, “Dr. Jonas Basanavičius.”

247
Stražas, “Lithuania 1863–1893.”

248
Baranauskas, “Anykščių šilelis.”

249
Šilbajoris, Short History of Lithuanian Literature, 28.
124
and to the loss of psychic harmony due to the destruction of nature’s

equilibrium.250

The symbolist writer Jonas Mačiulis-Maironis (1862–1932) is considered

the undisputed bard of the Lithuanian national awakening. In 1895, he wrote

Pavasario balsai [The Voices of Spring] in which he describes the landscape,

rivers, forests, and birds of his beloved country with deep and complex emotions

as a vehicle for expressing symbolic ideas.251 Liudas Gira (1884–1946) and

Vincas Krėvė (1882–1954) were writers who “turned to the sources of oral

tradition with the intent of grasping the spiritual traits of the Lithuanian national

character.” 252 Gira imitated folksongs, while Krėvė used stylistic devices from

magical tales, songs, and legends in his poetic narrative, Legends of the Old

People of Dainava (1912) and other works.253 As a young girl, growing up in

Vilnius, at the epicenter of the Lithuanian renaissance, Marija Alseikaitė read all

of these nineteenth- and early twentieth-century writers and was steeped in the

poetic capacity of her ancient language to transmit an intimate relationship with

the powers of the living world.

The dedicated writers, publishers, students, book carriers, and

underground teachers, who risked their lives to foster the preservation of

Lithuanian language and culture, recognized at the eleventh hour that their ancient

250
Ibid.

251
Ibid., 30, 32.

252
Vaskelis, “Folklore in Lithuanian Literature,” III, par. 4.

253
Ibid.

125
language and traditional lifeways represented treasures of their ancestral lineage

that were rapidly disappearing. The ongoing impacts of their turbulent history and

their tenacious dedication to preserve this irreplaceable heritage was transmitted

to Marija as her cultural inheritance, which was amplified and keenly focused by

the intensive dedication of her parents, who devoted themselves completely to

intellectual development, cultural liberation, and impassioned service as

physicians and cultural workers even before Marija was born.

Part 1.6—Veronika Janulaitytė Alseikienė and Danielius Alseika

Marija’s mother, Veronika Janulaitytė, was born in 1883 as the youngest

of nine surviving children (originally thirteen) on a Lithuanian farmstead not far

from the town of Šiauliai in northern Lithuania during the time of Russian

domination. Shortly after she was born, her father died, leaving her mother to

raise the children on her own. Veronika and her sister Julija were determined to

learn to read, which was highly unusual for girls, especially under conditions of

poverty. But by the force of their will and with help from two of her elder

brothers, Juozas Janulaitis (who became a priest) and Augustinas Janulaitis (a

radical socialist who became a well-known law professor), she and Julija learned

to read Lithuanian, Russian, German, Polish, and Latin. Augustinas was involved

in anti-Tsarist activities and smuggled forbidden publications during the press ban

period. He was evicted from school, later arrested, imprisoned, and barely

escaped being exiled to Siberia. During their student years, Veronika and Julija

fearlessly joined Augustinas’s radical activities by printing and putting up anti-

Tsarist proclamations and distributing banned books. As students, the Russian

126
gendarmes often searched their small flat. Veronika was thrown out of high

school for distributing forbidden literature. 254

Veronika then studied medicine in Vienna, Austria, and Berne,

Switzerland, where she attended lectures by Lenin, Trotsky, and other

revolutionaries. Berlin was a hotbed of radical activity where she became

interested in issues of women’s liberation. There she met the well-known Prussian

Lithuanian poet, philosophical writer, and theosophical mystic Vydūnas, who

prophesized the tremendous disasters that were to come. 255 Years later he made a

memorable impression on Marija, who was deeply inspired by his writings.

In 1908 Veronika Alseikienė earned her doctorate in ophthalmological

medicine at the University of Berlin, cum laude. She specialized in the latest

treatment for trachoma and cataract surgery and was the first Lithuanian

ophthalmologist, and the first woman, to earn a medical diploma abroad. In order

to practice medicine in Russian-occupied Lithuania, however, she had to pass her

medical exam in the Russian language. In 1909 she earned her Russian diploma

and began to surgically treat trachoma and to perform early cataract operations for

which she became famous as a “miracle worker” for restoring people’s sight. Her

254
Janulaitytė-Alseikienė, “Reminiscences.” In September 1995, I was staying in
Vilnius with Marija Gimbutas՚s brother, Vytautas Alseika, son of Veronika Alseikienė,
while gathering material for Gimbutas՚s biography. Vytautas walked into the room where
I was working with a handwritten, unpublished manuscript in Lithuanian, which was
given to him by his mother, who had begun to write about her life. He told me that I
needed to have this for Marija՚s biography. I had no intention of taking the original
document, but I asked if it could be translated into English. Several days later, he brought
me a version in English, translated by Austeja Ikamaite.
255
Ibid.

127
sister Julija earned her medical degree in dentistry and stomatology, treating

diseases of the mouth.256

Marija’s father, Danielius Alseika, graduated in 1910 from the Medical

Faculty of Dorpat University. That same year, he and Veronika were married, and

in 1913 he became an ear, nose, and throat specialist by studying in Vienna where

they lived together. That same year, their son Vytautas was born.

At the outset of World War I, Danielius Alseika was conscripted by the

Russian Imperial Army to work as a doctor at the East Prussian front where there

were many casualties. Veronika Alseikienė moved to Vilnius with little Vytautas

to work as an oculist with the Red Cross and in several military hospitals. In the

fall of 1915, German troops captured Vilnius, marking the end of 120 years of

Russian occupation of Lithuania. 257

In Vilnius life was in chaos, making it impossible for Veronika to live and

work with a small child, so she moved to Voronezh in western Russia where

many Lithuanian intellectuals were gathered. She attended to war victims, while

living with her sister Julija, who worked as a surgeon and stomatologist. Veronika

left Vytautas with Julija and traveled to Minsk to work as an oculist for the

northwestern region of the front where she performed hundreds of eye surgeries.

There she found 4,000 refugees from Lithuania in dreadful conditions, so she

arranged fundraisers and set up a hospital for them with equipment donated by the

Red Cross. After successfully treating many high-ranking officers (1916–1917),

256
Ibid.

257
Ibid.

128
she requested to have her husband moved from the East Prussian front to Minsk

so they could be together. He was soon appointed chief doctor at a military

hospital in Minsk, where they set about organizing a committee to help the

refugees. 258

During the 1917 Russian revolution, riots broke out along the front not far

from Minsk, and many Russian soldiers deserted, while several thousand

Lithuanian refugees, who tried to leave, were caught in open fields at the German

military border. Veronika appealed to the German military authorities to allow

them to pass but was refused, until she convinced them that, under such extreme

conditions, the refugees would soon become ill and would likely spread an

epidemic to the German soldiers. Miraculously, her request was granted after a

strategic call to Berlin; the refugees were allowed to pass through the otherwise

impenetrable front lines to return to Lithuania. Refugees in other areas along the

front came down with typhus and died.259

Dr. Danielius Alseika and Dr. Veronika Alseikienė established the

Lithuanian Sanitary Aid Association with several dedicated colleagues, later

including Dr. Jonas Basanavičius. When news reached them that a formal

declaration of Lithuania’s independence had been signed by Basanavičius and

other dignitaries in Vilnius on February 16, 1918, Dr. Alseikienė obtained

permission from a high-ranking German doctor (whom she knew from their

student days in Berlin) to allow them to fill seventeen railroad cars with medical

258
Ibid.

259
Ibid.

129
equipment from their two hospitals, which they had purchased by collecting

donations. They arrived to Vilnius by train with all the supplies in July 1918, but

no one was there to assist them, so they quickly located an abandoned house and

transferred all of the equipment there at their own risk. This was how the first

Lithuanian hospital and outpatient polyclinic began in Vilnius, after they recruited

a number of the best Lithuanian specialists to join them. 260

Not long thereafter, the German Empire collapsed, the Bolsheviks flooded

into Vilnius, followed by Polish troops who ran them out. And so began a new

stage in the ongoing conflict over the fate of Vilnius, as the ancient capital was

passed back and forth from one invader to the next, with their national flags

hoisted above Gediminas’s tower. Once again Vilnius was captured by the

Bolsheviks who handed it over to the Lithuanian government, hoping to garner

influence toward annexation. 261 Several months later, in October 1920, Polish

troops returned, pushed the Lithuanian government out, and declared the Vilnius

area as the Polish buffer state of “Central Lithuania,” squeezed between

independent Lithuania and the Soviet Union. The entire Lithuanian government

and embassies moved to Kaunas in free Lithuania, which began to function as its

provisional capital. The Vilnius area was absorbed into Poland and the boundary

between the free Lithuanian state and the Vilnius area was closed to Lithuanians

by the Polish authorities for the next twenty years.

260
Janulaitytė-Alseikienė, “Reminiscences.”

261
Venclova, Vilnius, 171.

130
Part 2.1—Indelible Influences from Marija Alseikaitė’s Early Life in Vilnius

On January 23, 1921, while Danielius Alseika was visiting the United

States to gather financial support from Lithuanian émigrés to assist his cultural

work in Vilnius, Veronika gave birth to their daughter, Marija Birutė Alseikaitė.

A few months later, Veronika took baby Marija to the seaside town of Palanga

and dipped her in the water of the Baltic Sea, not far from the hill shrine dedicated

to Queen Birutė, mother of Gediminas’s grandson, Vytautas the Great. According

one version of the legend, Birutė, Marija’s namesake, had originally been a

priestess who maintained the sacred fire in veneration of the pagan gods, and was

a goddess herself.

Marija described herself as a beloved child surrounded by her extended

family that included her brother Vytautas (who became a journalist, publisher,

and film critic), her cousin Meilė (who later transformed the Lithuanian

educational system), and aunt Julija (who was like a second mother), who

practiced dentistry within their large apartment, not far from the hospital. Marija’s

mother held a successful ophthalmology practice within their double apartment,

accessed by the public through a separate entrance. Marija’s father worked on his

cultural and political writings at night after managing the hospital during the day.

Marija would often tiptoe out of her room and crawl into his lap, where she

learned to read while he edited his publications. 262

262
Marija Gimbutas, personal conversation with Joan Marler, Topanga, CA,
1988.

131
 Danielius Alseika was the primary leader of Lithuanian resistance to

Polish occupation in the Vilnius region and was frequently persecuted, arrested,

and threatened with deportation by the Polish authorities who considered him to

be an enemy of the state. The Secretariat of the League of Nations intervened to

prevent his deportation.263 In the midst of this atmosphere of ongoing struggle,

the finest traditional and contemporary writers, artists, and activists would gather

in their apartment.264 Marija recalls,

I had the opportunity to get acquainted with writers and artists such as
Vydūnas, Vaižgantas, even Basanavičius, who was taken care of by my
parents. When I was four or five years old, I would sit in Basanavičius’s
easy chair, and I would feel fine. And later, throughout my entire life,
Basanavičius’s collected folklore remained extraordinarily important for
me.265

Dr. Jonas Basanavičius (1851–1927), Marija’s “adopted grandfather” who

was the first to sign the Lithuanian Declaration of Independence in 1918, was a

towering figure within Marija Alseikaitė’s extended family, and for all

Lithuanians.266 He was a noted physician, folklorist, scientist, founder, and

tireless promoter of the Lithuanian Scientific Society,267 and a highly respected

263
KULTURA, Center for Regional Cultural Initiatives, “Danielius Alseika.”

264
Marija Gimbutas, personal conversation with Joan Marler, Topanga, CA,
1988.
265
Lukšaitė, “Susitikimas ՙSantaros-Šviesos,՚” 7. Translation by Indre
Antanaitis-Jacobs.
266
If Jonas Basanavičius had not devoted years of his life toward Lithuania’s
liberation, inspiring others to join him, the Declaration of Independence would not have
existed and the present Lithuanian state that required legal precedent for its establishment
after the fall of the Soviet Union might not exist today.
267
Originally named the “Lithuanian Learned Society.”

132
cultural leader, known as the ‟Patriarch of the Lithuanian Renaissance.ˮ 268

Although Basanavičius died when Marija was only six years old, his dedication to

the preservation of ancient Lithuanian folkloric traditions and his lifelong

contributions to science and social development remained a lasting influence

throughout her life.

Marija’s exposure to Lithuania’s rich but vanishing heritage was

encouraged from an early age and as a child, she was passionate about folklore.

She would run down into the basement of her parents’ hospital to spend hours

with the elderly women who peeled potatoes while they told her countless

folktales and sang the ancient songs from their childhood; she insisted that the

village girls who cared for her must all do the same. Marija recalled being shown

the patterns of frost on the windows while being told that Laima had been there

writing her fate on the glass. “In our house were the Fates, the witches of a

continuous pagan tradition. They were real―spinning the thread of human

life.”269

Marija’s parents were sophisticated intellectuals who valued folkloric

traditions without being “believers.” But for the servants who told Marija

hundreds of stories, the ancient deities were alive and real: Žemyna, Mother Earth,

must be protected in the spring when she is pregnant; Medeina is honored as the

Protector of the Forest; women working in the fields would put down their tools,

268
See Senn, Jonas Basanavičius: The Patriarch of the Lithuanian National
Renaissance.
269
Personal communication by Marija Gimbutas to Joan Marler, September 12,
1989; Marler, “Circle Is Unbroken,” 9.

133
turn toward Saulė, as Mother Sun, and sing a prayer of gratitude as she

disappeared over the horizon; Gabija, the Hearth Fire, must be carefully put to

sleep each evening, lest she arise at night to move around the house leaving a trail

of fire; Laima’s sister Giltinė, the White Death Goddess, takes the form of a snake

whose tongue exudes a deadly poison. When Marija was a child these, and other

deities, were still evoked in remote communities through songs, stories, dances,

and daily and seasonal rituals. She recalled, “The rivers were sacred, the forest

and trees were sacred, the hills were sacred. The earth was kissed and prayers

were said every morning, every evening.”270 In this way, their cosmic powers

were respected as sacred in a vital relationship with the human community.

In the countryside, Marija observed the village people working the soil,

seeding, and harvesting in their traditional ways.

The old women used sickles and sang while they worked. The songs were
very authentic, very ancient. At that moment I fell in love with what is
ancient because it was a deep communication and oneness with Earth. I
was completely captivated. This was the beginning of my interest in
folklore.271

Marija’s parents were founders of Kultūra, the educational society of the

Vilnius Lithuanians, with her father as its chairman. When Marija was ready for

formal education, they organized a liberal school for her and other Lithuanian

children, because it was unthinkable for them to attend Polish or Catholic schools.

In 1938, Marija Alseikaitė published the article “Mano Mokyklai” [For my

school], describing her experience of attending this Lithuanian school a decade

270
Marler, “Circle Is Unbroken,” 9.

271
Ibid.

134
earlier, which had a lasting effect upon her attitude toward formal education. She

recalls the joy she felt walking to school with her parents on the very first day,

prodding them to hurry. Besides grammar, arithmetic, and other necessary

subjects, the children created plays, recited poetry, sang, danced, and acted. She

wrote, “The fact that today I am interested in music, art, and folklore with all my

heart, I am grateful not just to my nature, but mostly to my little school because

every day it inspired and awakened and upheld in me that love of the arts.”272 She

emphasized that this well-rounded program, so loved by the children, contained a

pedagogical system that was fed by practice. The inner motivation to work and to

learn that came from her parents was amplified and formalized in that wise and

spirited school environment that she internalized, which lasted throughout her life.

She also received private tutelage at home in multiple languages and studied and

performed classical piano. The vital intensity and support from her home

environment promoted a devotion to political and aesthetic freedom, intellectual

achievement, and a tenacious originality. Marija recalls, “From the very

beginning the children had total freedom. We were free to create our own

individualities, although work for our nation and education always came first. We

went to the theater and to concerts as a natural way of life.”273

From the time she was a child, Marija was intimately bonded with Vilnius

as her sacred city, although the daily realities under Polish occupation were

continually harsh for Lithuanians. Nevertheless, the city of Vilnius was vibrantly

272
Alseikaite (Gimbutas), “Mano Mokyklai,” par. 1.

273
Interview with Marija Gimbutas by Joan Marler, 1988.

135
saturated with history, resonant with layers of meaning, myth, and spirit that filled

her with awe and joyful fascination. She explored every narrow alley and

courtyard of the Old City with its medieval maze of streets and architectural

treasures. After each historic invasion and multiple fires over the centuries, new

and more impressive palaces and churches were built. The cosmopolitan Jesuits,

who arrived during the sixteenth century, founded what became Vilnius’s historic

university with its labyrinth of inner courtyards. They promoted education and

science as an antidote to the Reformation, encouraging the expression of ideas,

dialogue, and cultural diversity. The Jesuits brought a highly theatrical Baroque

style, which is colorful and capricious, that spread through the city over the

remnants of Renaissance structures, blending with earlier styles.274 The

originality of the Vilnius Baroque style inspired Marija’s imagination. As the poet

Tomas Venclova wrote, “Its facades undulate and dissolve in air; its romantic

towers rise toward heaven; its buildings mirror each other; and the churches glide

through the valley like a fleet of steamships.”275

According to Venclova, the city’s architecture shapes the space, and the

space shapes the life and character of its people, which certainly applied to

Marija. She was bonded with the ancient city of Vilnius and had a special love for

the SS Peter and Paul Church as her secret “art monument,”276 where she would

274
Venclova, Vilnius, 82, 84, 68–69.

275
Ibid., 69.

276
Personal communication from Marija Gimbutas to Joan Marler, Topanga,
CA, 1989.

136
disappear to commune with its 2,000 historical and mythological sculptures that

cover every surface within the whiteness of its Baroque interior. In numerous

other churches and cathedrals, angels playfully gesticulate and form mise en

scènes that inspired her imagination. As though speaking about Marija herself,

Venclova notes, “The citizens of Vilnius are known for their vivaciousness, and

almost all speak several languages.”277

The Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin described Vilnius of the early

twentieth century as an excellent example of heteroglossia—the dynamic

mingling of different cultures, languages, voices, and religions that prevents

intellectual and spiritual stagnation. 278 Marija was quite aware of the ancient

culture groups that endured alongside the Lithuanians from at least the Middle

Ages: the Ruthenians, Belarusians, Poles, Russians, Moslem Tartars, the Jews,

and the Karaites (representing the oldest pre-Talmudic Judaism). Moreover, for

several hundred years, until the Second World War, Vilnius (Vilna) was the most

important center of Jewish culture in the world, representing half of the city’s

population.279 Marija was fascinated by the spiritual dynamism within this old-

world maze of streets, with its magnificent Great Synagogue of “Lithuania’s

Jerusalem,”280 around which many of her mother’s ophthamological patients

277
Venclova, Vilnius, 45–46.

278
Ibid., 10–11.

279
Ibid., 16–20.

280
Napoleon uttered this term in the spring of 1812 after he threw out the Tsar
from the Bishop’s Palace and moved in himself for nineteen days (see Venclova, Vilnius,
111–16).
137
lived and worshipped. Marija’s cosmopolitan orientation was nurtured within the

multidimensional realities of Vilnius.

Part 2.2—University Studies in Kaunas and Vilnius

In 1931, when Marija was ten years old, her mother made the fateful

decision to move from Vilnius to Kaunas, the provisional capital of Lithuania,

with Marija and her brother Vytautas. Although Dr. Alseikienė had a thriving

ophthalmology practice in Vilnius, her health had suffered from the continual

stress of living under Polish occupation, and she wanted the children to be

educated in free Lithuania. To be separated from her father who remained in

Vilnius was the first great shock of her life. At that time, Vilnius and Kaunas were

in two separate countries whose political relationship was antagonistic. Marija

hated living in Kaunas, and it was extremely difficult to visit her father―without

being smuggled across the border in a farmer’s wagon―because the inhabitants

of free Lithuania were restricted from obtaining visas to enter the Polish

occupation zone. A greater shock came in 1936 when her beloved father suddenly

died. Following his death, Marija turned inward into a depressive tailspin. In an

attempt to find her balance, she recalled that her father had encouraged her to

become a scholar within the humanities rather than to study medicine as he had

done, so she vowed to fulfill his wishes to contribute something of value to the

world.281

281
From Marija Alseikaité’s letter to Jurgis Gimbutas, translated by Austeja
Ikamaitė.

138
 In preparation for university studies, Marija Alseikaitė studied multiple

Eastern and Western European languages, literature, and history at Aušra

Gymnasium in Kaunas.282 While still a gymnasium student, she participated in

ethnographic expeditions to southeastern Lithuania where she sat with village

women and recorded their stories and the lyrics of their ancient songs. These

expeditions, and many others, were organized by the Lithuanian Folklore

Archives in Kaunas, directed by the respected folklorist and ethnographer Dr.

Jonas Balys, who later became Marija’s professor of ethnology and folklore.283

Marija Alseikaitė graduated with honors in 1938 from Aušra Gymnasium,

then enrolled at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas to study Indo-European

philology. She wanted to understand how Lithuanian could be related to Sanskrit.

She began by taking all of the historical courses available concerning Indo-

European/ Baltic linguistics within the Faculty of Humanities, including the

history of the Lithuanian language, historical grammar, dialectology, Prussian

language, as well as Slavic studies. One of her linguistic professors was Dr.

Pranas Skardžius who earned his PhD in Leipzig in 1929 with a celebrated

dissertation on Slavic loan-words in Old Lithuanian. Marija Alseikaitė also

282
A European gymnasium is a high-level secondary school providing advanced
courses to prepare students for university entrance. Aušra Gymnasium is named after the
publication founded by Dr. Jonas Basanavičius in 1883 that was smuggled into the
Russian-dominated regions of Lithuania to foster the rebirth of Lithuanian consciousness.
Aušra Gymnasium has been renamed after Marija Gimbutienė.
283
Vidutis, “Lietuvių žemdirbystės.” In order to maximize the range of folkloric
collections, Dr. Balys organized collection projects in village regions throughout
Lithuania between 1935 and 1944. By the time he left Lithuania as a refugee in 1944, the
Lithuanian Folklore Archives contained 400,000 folkloric entries classified and preserved
in the Kaunas Archives.

139
studied comparative linguistics and Baltic and Slavic languages with Professor

Antanas Salys, who undertook advanced linguistic studies at the University of

Hamburg and earned his doctorate in Baltic, Slavic, and Indo-European studies at

the University of Leipzig (1929). 284 Professor Salys was appreciated by his

students as a thorough and demanding teacher whose “high standards stimulated

able students and called forth the very best in them.”285 She also studied history

with Ignas Jonynas and Leval Karsavinas, and ethnology and folklore with Juozas

Baldžius as well as Jonas Balys. 286

Adomas Butrimas, Pro-Rector of Vilnius Academy of Arts, states that

during her university years, Marija Alseikaitė “formulated principles of a complex

investigation into Baltic prehistory which included linguistic, mythological and

ethnological studies.”287 Her success in this approach concerning a paper she

presented at Vilnius University is illustrated in a letter written on November 7,

1941, to her fiancé Jurgis Gimbutas:

I want to burst. I read my article on “The Continuity of the Curonian

Culture According to Burial Practices.” . . . Unexpectedly, Dr. Puzinas
remarked that the paper was a good one—original—with so much new
material so colorfully presented and well written, that it is hard to
understand how such a paper could be written in such a short time. I

284
Both Professors Skardžius and Salys were directors of the Institute of the
Lithuanian Language in Vilnius in 1941. Professor Salys remained director until 1944
when he, Professor Skardžius, and many other professors fled Lithuania with their
families as refugees in advance of the second Soviet invasion.
285
Benson, “In Memoriam—Anthony Salys,” par. 3.

286
Butrimas, “Marija Gimbutas and the Archaeology of the Balts,” 32.

287
Ibid.

140
 turned red with joy. I feel I have made progress and have created
something new for our young science. 288

Marija Alseikaitė’s excellent work in these courses was noticed by

Professor Jonas Puzinas, who encouraged her to expand her view to an

interdisciplinary focus by studying archaeology. It was his intention to select the

most promising students and to train them in the latest scientific archaeological

methods in order to cultivate the next generation of professional Lithuanian

archaeologists. Marija accepted Puzinas’s invitation to study archaeology and was

fascinated by the excavations he organized at early Lithuanian burial sites. Her

interest in the Indo-Europeans continued to grow and, to honor her father’s

memory, she developed a burning desire to study all that could be known about

ancient burial rituals and folkloric beliefs concerning death and rebirth within Old

Lithuanian traditions.

Jonas Puzinas was the first scientifically trained archaeologist belonging

to the earliest generation of scholars who developed in independent Lithuania

(1918–1940). He studied European prehistory, comparative linguistics, and

classical archaeology at the University of Heidelberg (1930–1934) where his

doctoral dissertation discussed prehistoric research in Lithuania up to 1918 and its

effect upon Lithuanian cultural identity. 289 Puzinas’s subject was encouraged by

his doctoral professor in Heidelberg, Dr. Ernst Wahle, who promoted the new

288
Letter F154-8 from the Marija Gimbutas archive at Vilnius University
Library Manuscripts Department (Fund No. 154), as quoted in Butrimas, “Marija
Gimbutas and the Archaeology of the Balts,” 32. Letter translated by Adomas Butrimas.
289
Dainauskas, “Jonas Puzinas.”

141
approach to prehistory as an historical science to be understood as cultural

history.290 Wahle, who had a background in Indo-European studies, theorized that

the Indo-European homeland is in the East, in dangerous opposition to the Nazi

propaganda of a Nordic homeland. 291 He also pioneered the use of “landscape

archaeology” as the scientific study of environmental factors influencing the

settlements of prehistoric populations.

As the foremost archaeologist in Lithuania—awarded the Order of

Vytautas the Great by the nation’s president Antanas Smetona—Professor

Puzinas introduced the first systematic study of archaeology that laid the scientific

foundation of the discipline, including its periodization, the latest excavation and

dating techniques, and the use of Lithuanian archaeological terminology, which

he developed in collaboration with the noted linguist Dr. Antanas Salys, another

of Marija’s professors. Puzinas’s habilitation work was published as a textbook in

1938, arduously studied by Marija Alseikaitė, in which he assembled,

summarized, and interpreted data from a range of excavations from 1928 through

1938, and created the first chronological outline of the prehistory of Lithuania.292

290
Dr. Ernst Wahle was influenced by the culture-historical approach developed
by Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931) with whom he studied in Berlin. Wahle distanced
himself from Kossinna’s radical ideas and his uncritical assumption that archaeological
materials are always equated with ethnicity (Trigger, History of Archaeological Thought,
235–40). Wahle transmitted the use of a culture-historical approach to his student Jonas
Puzinas, separated from Kossinna՚s onorous ideological overtones. The nonideological
usefulness of the culture-historical approach to archaeology was then transmitted by
Puzinas to his student Marija Alseikaitė.
291
Wahle’s theory that the Indo-European homeland was in the East was
opposed by Nazi ideologues of the Third Reich, who considered his viewpoint an attack
on the idea of a “Nordic race.” See Gildhoff, “Ernst Wahle,” par. 5.
292
Dainauskas, “Jonas Puzinas.”
142
 Professor Puzinas’s courses, which Marija attended, included a wide range

of lectures including the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, their mixture with

indigenous inhabitants of the Baltic region, and the importance of linguistic

studies in association with archaeological data to help determine their origin,

range of movement, and interaction with other culture groups. His courses often

included fieldtrips to historical sites and excavations (mostly burials), and to

museum exhibitions of archaeological finds meticulously curated by Puzinas

himself. He stressed the importance of being ready to revise, even cherished

theories, according to the most recent scientific developments. 293

Marija was encouraged to develop her own approach to prehistoric studies

and to combine a rigorous and systematic investigation of archaeological finds

studied within the context of specific burials and habitation sites. Puzinas pointed

out differences in lifestyle practices within specific bioregions, noting patterns of

stasis, movement, and interactions with other peoples over time as reflected in

archaeological as well as linguistic evidence (such as plant names, loan words,

place names, names of lakes and rivers, terms for social relationships, etc.),

indications of artifact production, trading activities, and evidence of warfare as

well as peaceful co-existence.

In-depth studies of the prehistory of Lithuania, as presented by Professor

Puzinas, enriched by lectures by other specialists with whom Marija was

studying, provided an ideal laboratory for the application of Lithuanian philology,

comparative Indo-European linguistics, the study of ancient documents, the

293
Butrimas, “Marija Gimbutas and the Archaeology of the Balts,” 32.

143
influence of various landscapes on cultural development, and evidence concerning

people’s beliefs and ritual practices as reflected in Lithuanian folklore, compared

over various regions. As an example of the significance of landscapes, long before

the ancient forests of the Baltic region were cut down, the early Balts preserved

archaic cultural and linguistic patterns due to their seclusion in the forests,

removed from major migration routes. 294

The accumulated results of the folkloric collections assembled by Dr.

Jonas Balys, director of the Lithuanian Folklore Archives in Kaunas (1935–1944)

contributed valuable information to archaeological and ethnographic knowledge,

utilized by Marija. During his extremely active tenure, Dr. Balys organized

collection projects throughout Lithuania of oral folklore to preserve and study as

many regional variants of folkloric types as possible. By the time he emigrated to

the West in 1944, more than 400,000 items of oral folklore were housed and

classified at the archives. Careful analyses were made of all items to indicate how

diverse and numerous various types have been over time and space.

“Comparisons of data could then be made between regions in Lithuania and also

with other countries. From these facts conclusions could be reached regarding the

spread of folklore beliefs and customs, even their indigenous character.”295

In late August 1939, Nazi Germany and the USSR joined forces by

signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Nonaggression Pact that contained a secret rider

allowing these previously antagonistic states to divide a large part of Europe into

294
Gimbutas, Balts, 43.

295
Vidutis, “Jonas Balys,” par. 2.

144
their own spheres of interest. After a series of clandestine negotiations, Lithuania,

Latvia, and Estonia ended up in the Soviet sphere, and on September 1, 1939,

Germany invaded Poland, initiating World War II. On September 19, the Soviets

captured Vilnius, ending Poland’s grip on the Vilnius region. In an attempt to

manipulate Lithuania into his own hands, Stalin turned Vilnius over to Lithuania,

although his hidden plans were to make Lithuania part of the USSR. While

leaving Vilnius, the Red Army stole whatever it could, including precious

archives that were carted off to Minsk.296

The sudden liberation of Vilnius after twenty years of Polish domination,

preceded by more than a century of Tsarist domination, seemed too good to be

true. Tomas Venclova reports that the young Zionist Menachem Begin, who had

arrived in Vilnius (Vilna) from Warsaw, described the situation:

The passionate dream of this small nation. . . has suddenly been fulfilled—
and what is more, in a truly incredible way. . . Lithuania, which had been
previously reborn in its struggle against Moscow, has been given the city
of its dreams by that very same Moscow! But the Lithuanians don’t
completely trust the purity of their benefactor’s intentions.”297

Nevertheless, most Lithuanians enthusiastically embraced the liberation of

Vilnius, especially Marija, who was ecstatic to be able to return to her beloved

city. The provisional government in Kaunas immediately made plans to return to

Vilnius.

Vilnius’s historic university, which had been operated by the Poles during

their occupation, was closed on December 15, 1939, for reorganization. The

296
Venclova, Vilnius, 182–84.

297
Ibid., 185.

145
Polish faculty, staff, and student body were dismissed. Vilniaus Universitetas was

recreated with faculty and students from Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas

with Lithuanian as its official language. The entire Faculty of Humanities of

Vytautas Magnus University and other Faculties were transferred from Kaunas to

the capital.

The new academic term began on January 22, 1940, and all of Marija’s

professors were transferred to the newly reorganized Vilnius University. Professor

Puzinas was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, where he established

and chaired the Department of Archaeology. 298 Marija continued to study with

her professors from Kaunas, as well as studying Lithuanian history with Professor

Ignas Jonynas, who stressed the importance of using primary sources for

historical research, which strongly influenced her future scholarship and

teaching.299 She also studied cultural history and philosophy with Professor Levas

Karsavinas, chair of the Department of Universal History.300

298
Wikipedia, s.v. “Jonas Puzinas.”

299
Ignas Jonynas was a historian and Lithuanian diplomat who worked with the
League of Nations to negotiate the dispute over the Vilnius Region during the 1920s. He
helped to form a new generation of Lithuanian historians and raised their level of
professionalism. Jonynas critically analyzed primary sources and dismissed secondary
sources—thus helping to rid Lithuanian historiography of mistakes, medieval legends and
myths, foreign biases, and stereotypes (Wikipedia, s.v. “Ignas Joynas,” “Works,” par. 1).
300
According to his biographer, P. Lasinskas, Professor Karsavinas “was a
medievalist, philosopher, and cultural historian, who left a bright mark on Lithuanian
science and culture. He contributed a lot to the development of philosophical thought in
Lithuania, to the development of Lithuanian scientific, especially philosophical,
terminology. In his historical writings and philosophical works, he examined the essential
issues—the development of culture, the state and society, the issues of faith and
worldview” (Lasinskas, Levo Karsavino fenomenas, cited in Lazauskaitė, “Lev
Karsavin,” par. 2).

146
 Due to the increasing devastation caused by the war, refugees from remote

villages in Byelorussia began flooding into Vilnius. Marija understood that the

ancient folkloric traditions they embodied would be threatened by urban life and

the loss of their traditional lifeways, so she spent precious time over several

months with the displaced families, while continuing her formal studies, gathering

songs and stories from their rich oral tradition. “This was my own university; this

was how I trained myself.”301

Marija’s father had been an active member of the board of the Lithuanian

Science Society founded in 1907 by Dr. Jonas Basanavičius, which contained the

extensive collections of Lithuanian folklore, folk arts, and numerous volumes of

scientific works in a range of subjects that Basanavičius and dedicated colleagues

had assembled during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. For Marija

this library and archives contained cultural treasures that represented her cultural

lineage. This collection had been closed in 1938 by the Polish regime, but by

1940, the Society’s holdings were incorporated into the newly formed Lithuanian

Academy of Sciences. Its museum was divided into the departments of

ethnography, archeology, history, and natural sciences. One of its aims was to

systematically compile both contemporary scientific and theoretical literature in

the fields of philology and humanities to provide sources for research into

Lithuanian language, literature, and literary science. Its archives contained a

collection of 50,000 folk songs, folktales, and other examples of Lithuanian oral

301
Personal recollection by Marija Gimbutas in Marler, “The Circle Is
Unbroken,” 10.

147
folklore.302 Marija spent countless hours in the bitterly cold rooms absorbing the

knowledge contained in these collections as though everything there had been

collected for her.303

In the early summer of 1940, Marija’s boyfriend, Jurgis Gimbutas,

accompanied her to southeastern Lithuania, to Dzukija, to record the texts of

dainos (traditional songs) sung by an elderly woman from her repertoire of more

than three hundred songs. Marija considered such “great singers” to be “the last

bards of Lithuania, the chief transmitters of its heritage from past ages into the

twentieth century.”304 These songs, Marija later wrote, cannot be separated from

their environment: “The woman, reaping oats with a sickle, sang in a full

voice. . . . As the woman sang, the earth seemed to move and breathe hope,

together with the daina’s three-tone melody and simple rhythm.”305

While returning from their idyllic journey, where Jurgis photographed

numerous traditional village houses for his own research, they observed that the

sky was suddenly filled with war planes. Marija and Jurgis hurried back to find

Vilnius overrun with Soviet troops. In the midst of the young generation’s pioneer

spirit, Soviet troops invaded Lithuania on June 15, 1940. The Lithuanian

government was deposed, the universities were closed down or taken over by

302
For more details about the Lithuanian Scientific Society, see the 2008
Scientific Library webpage via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine,
https://web.archive.org/web/20080318001440/http://www.llti.lt/en/bibliot.htm.
303
Interview with Marija Gimbutas by Joan Marler, Topanga, CA, 1988.

304
Gimbutas, “Introduction: Antiquity of the Daina,” 11.

305
Ibid.

148
Stalinists, and thousands of people―whole families, mostly from the

intelligentsia―were arrested and deported to Siberia. Marija gathered the research

for her thesis on Lithuanian burial rites and returned to Kaunas to take refuge with

her mother.306

The Soviet occupation was followed by the disastrous German occupation

that ravaged the multicultural inhabitants of Lithuania, especially the vibrant

Jewish population. To find some sense of stability in the midst of this roiling

horror in 1941, Marija and Jurgis decided to elope. After they returned to Kaunas,

she and her mother did their best to hide Jurgis from the Germans who were

abducting young Lithuanian men to work in their wartime factories. They also hid

a Jewish lady and her daughter from certain death, while aware that Lithuanians

found protecting Jews would be shot.307

To maintain some sense of sanity in the midst of this agonizing nightmare,

Marija focused her attention on the completion of her thesis, “Life After Death in

the Beliefs of Prehistoric Lithuania.” With encouragement from her professors,

she earned her Master’s degree in archaeology in June 1942, in spite of the war,

with secondary studies in folklore and comparative philology. She became

pregnant with their first daughter while continuing to write articles about the Balts

and prehistoric burial rituals in Lithuania. Sections of her Master’s work were

published that same year in the journal Gimtasai Krastas [Native Land].308

306
Interview with Marija Gimbutas by Joan Marler, Topanga, CA, 1988.

307
Ibid.

308
Gimbutienė, “Pomirtinio gyvenimo įsivaizdavimas.”

149
 Marija gave birth to their first child, Danutė, the following year and

continued her research and writing as much as possible under extremely stressful

conditions. Her cousin, Dr. Meilė Luksienė, described Marija writing her first

book about burial practices with one hand, while rocking her daughter with the

other. “Marija was a person of incredible will and organization. This was a

phenomenon that continued throughout her entire life.”309 Marija recalled: “That

clearly kept me sane. I had something like a double life . . . that was why I

existed. Life just twisted me like a little plant, but my work was continuous in one

direction.”310

Part 2.3—Fleeing from Lithuania

In July of 1944, in advance of the second Soviet invasion, Marija, Jurgis

and baby Danutė squeezed into a crowded barge on the Nemunas river to begin

their journey to Austria, the only direction possible at that time. By the time they

boarded a train with forged passports, Marija had published more than twenty

articles on ancient Lithuanian and Baltic traditions that informed her future work.

Most of her professors also left Lithuania with their families to become refugees,

instead of risking the real possibility of being sent to Siberia or to a hard labor

camp.311

309
Joan Marler, interview with Dr. Meilė Luksienė in Vilnius, 1997.

310
Marler, “Marija Gimbutas: Tribute to a Lithuanian Legend,” 118.

311
Professor Les Karsavinas refused to leave Vilnius because of his dedication
to his scholarship and to his archive. He was arrested, his archive was stolen, and he was
transferred to the “Abyss” camp in far northern Siberia where he died.

150
 The young family took refuge in Vienna, Innsbruck, then Bavaria, where

she continued to expand her dissertation under wartime conditions. As soon as

World War II ended in 1945, Marija Gimbutienė was one of the first students to

enroll at Tübingen University in the French occupation zone. By the spring of

1946, after translating her dissertation into German, she earned her doctorate in

archaeology combined with ethnology, mythology, and the history of religion.

Her doctoral work, “Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit”

[Burials in Lithuania in the prehistoric time], was published in Tübingen that

same year. Jurgis arranged for her book to be published and distributed among the

Lithuanian refugees who had purchased enough copies to pay for the printing

costs.

One year after receiving her doctorate, their second daughter, Živilė, was

born. Marija continued independent research at Tübingen and did postgraduate

research at Heidelberg and Munich universities. Eventually, the young family

moved to Munich, into the American occupation zone, to have the best chance of

finding an American sponsor. While they waited in an American-run refugee

camp, Marija Gimbutienė worked on the manuscript of her book on ancient

symbolism in Lithuanian folk art, a subject that was virtually unknown to

Westerners. She wrote several articles during that time that appeared in

Lithuanian cultural journals, including “The Tombstones of Lithuania Minor,”312

312
Marija Alseikaitė Gimbutienė, “Mažosios Lietuvos antkapiniai paminklai,”
Aidai 7, no. 19 (1946).

151
“The Concept of Death and Soul of Lithuanians,”313 and “The Ancient Lithuanian

Religion.”314 Jurgis completed his doctorate in engineering at the University of

Stuttgart and taught engineering through the United Nations Relief and

Rehabilitation Administration.315

Part 3—Life and Work in the New World

In 1949, the Gimbutas family received sponsorship to immigrate to the

United States.316 Jurgis found a job as an engineer in Boston, which he

maintained until he retired. Marija worked at odd jobs in the Boston area until she

presented herself at Harvard, where she worked as a researcher, translator, and

writer with no pay from 1950 to 1963, except for several research grants. In 1954

their third daughter Rasa was born, and in 1955 Dr. Gimbutas was honored as a

Research Fellow of the American School of Prehistoric Research at the Peabody

Museum of Harvard University. Between 1950 and 1963, she produced several

major publications there which were well received among scholars of European

prehistory. In 1956, her monograph, The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part I:

Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic Area

313
Marija Alseikaitė Gimbutienė, “Mūsų protėvių pažiūros i mirti ir sielą.”
Tremties Metai (1947).
314
Marija Alseikaitė Gimbutienė, “Senoji lietuvių religia.” Aidai 1, no. 57
(1953).
315
Marler, “A Vision for the World,” 5.

316
When the Gimbutas family entered the United States in 1949, Marija began to
use her husband’s last name “Gimbutas” (with the masculine ending) instead of
“Gimbutienė,” meaning “the wife of Gimbutas” in Lithuanian.

152
(1956) was published by Harvard’s Peabody Museum, which she considered to be

“the best library for archaeologists in the world.”317

The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part I: Mesolithic, Neolithic and

Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic Area (1956)

In her introduction to The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Gimbutas states

that the purpose of this monograph is to present a comprehensive summary of

archaeological research, conducted from 1852 to 1955 in Eastern Europe, from

the post-glacial era to the end of the Chalcolithic period. In order to reconstruct

the picture of Eastern European prehistory, she drew from all existing excavation

reports, articles, and monographs in their original languages concerning

archaeological work done in Poland, the former East Prussia, Lithuania, Latvia,

Estonia, Finland, White Russia (Bielo Russia), Russia, the Ukraine and the

northern Causasus. In her introduction, she writes,

My chief task has been to date the various archaeological monuments, to

revise the distribution of cultures from the point of view of geography and
chronology, and to present their essential features. [. . .] In writing this
study, the author hopes to overcome the political and language barriers
which continually retard the growth of knowledge of European prehistory
as a whole. 318

In The Prehistory of Eastern Europe Marija Gimbutas described the

physiography of the vast research area, its environmental conditions, general

cultural developments in terms of intrinsic connections between different

environments, and various cultural changes, as well as economic and other

317
Personal reflection by Marija Gimbutas told to Joan Marler, 1989.

318
Gimbutas, Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 3.

153
conditions affecting prehistoric cultural development. She noticed that within the

Volga Basin collective burials were abandoned in favor of pit-graves covered

with stone cairns that represented the earliest kurgan mounds. When calibrated

radiocarbon dating was finally available, these distinctive burial monuments were

determined to have appeared around 4500 BC.

While Gimbutas was quite aware of the variety of specific names given by

excavators to sites in numerous locations, she intentionally highlighted the wide-

spread similarities of these burial practices over thousands of kilometers by

designating a name for the people who created and used these burials. She

introduced the term “Kurgan culture” (named after their burial mounds) in 1956

as a blanket term for the mobile, warlike, patriarchal Proto(early)-Indo-European

pastoralists occupying the steppe zone north of the Black Sea and Caucasus

Mountains.319 According to Gimbutas, the Kurgan culture, or Kurgan tradition,

located over a broad geographical region, is a phenomenon of the steppes which

developed after the domestication of the horse.

In 1956, Marija Gimbutas presented a paper at the International Council of

Ethnological Sciences in Philadelphia about the traumatic changes that took place

in Europe which, she explained, were due to the war-like incursions by steppe

people from the east. Radiocarbon dating was not yet available, so her

chronologies were too low. But during the 1966 Indo-European Conference in

Philadelphia, she was able to present a Kurgan chronology revised for the fifth

319
Gimbutas, Introduction to Kurgan Culture, xvii.

154
and fourth millennia BC.320 “Radiocarbon technology and dendrochronology (tree

ring counting) tremendously impacted my understanding of when the first Kurgan

incursion into central Europe occurred. I promptly abandoned my earlier belief

that drastic changes commenced in Europe in the 2nd millennium BC.”321

Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art (1958)

Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art, published in 1958 by the

American Folklore Society in Philadelphia, is dedicated to Gimbutas՚s mother,

Veronika Alseikienė, who avidly promoted the preservation of Lithuania’s

traditional arts and folklore. Marija Gimbutas began to collect material for this

text while she was a student in Lithuania. She continued to develop this work

during her years as a refugee, while doing postdoctoral research at the universities

of Tübingen, Heidelberg, and Munich, before settling in Boston.

Lithuania was the last European country to be Christianized and many

ancient pagan traditions were still alive into the twentieth century. Lithuanian folk

symbolism, which can be traced to the lifeways of the earliest agriculturalists, was

richly preserved in the oral tradition of village people through songs, stories, and

verbal metaphors. Their vibrant symbolism was transmitted in elegant weavings,

as well as in wood carvings displayed on houses and on a variety of tools and

utensils. This book focuses primarily on the beautifully ornamented wooden

poles, erected throughout the landscape, containing ancient symbols expressing

people’s beliefs in the sacredness of life. As Gimbutas writes in her introduction,

320
Ibid., xvii–xviii.

321
Ibid, xviii.

155
these Lithuanian monuments “rose from the earth, as the folksong had risen, as

various customs had risen, out of religious beliefs that challenged definition

through artistic creation.”322 In her view, these ancient symbols belong to a single

religious system “expressing the spirit of a folk which was drawing its elixir of

life from roots firmly set in the soil.”323

Marija Gimbutas took every opportunity to preserve Lithuanian heritage

from her position as an immigrant to the United States from the Soviet occupation

of Lithuania. She contributed ongoing articles to a number of Lithuanian

publications, was elected president of the Association for the Advancement of

Balkan Studies (AABS), and managed to visit her beloved mother and other

relatives and colleagues during the height of the Cold War by arranging lectures

in Russia and Lithuania through academic channels. 324 In 1960 she lectured in

Moscow as an exchange scholar at an Orientalist Congress where she arranged a

secret meeting with her mother for the first time since 1944. When she returned

home from Moscow, she received the Outstanding New American Award from

the World Refugee Committee and the Boston Junior Chamber of Commerce for

her tireless work assisting Lithuanian émigrés.

The Balts (1963)

In 1961, Marija Gimbutas was honored as a Fellow of the Center for

Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University which made it

322
Gimbutas, Ancient Symbolism, 1.

323
Ibid., 3.

324
Marler, “Circle Is Unbroken,” 14.

156
possible for her to spend a year at Stanford completing her book about the Balts,

her ancient ancestors.325 This book was published in London in 1963 in the

Ancient Peoples and Places series, edited by the British archaeologist Glyn

Daniel.

The ancient Balts are the ancestors of the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Old

Prussians who settled on the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea in prehistoric

times.326 Gimbutas’s history of the Baltic tribes covers their linguistic and historic

background, their Indo-European and pre-Indo-European origins, their religion,

society, and development, until the establishment of the Lithuanian state in the

thirteenth century CE. Following its original English publication in 1963, The

Balts has been translated into Italian, German, Portuguese, Latvian, and

Lithuanian. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Lithuanian translation of The

Balts has been regularly taught in Lithuanian schools.

In 1963, the same year The Balts was published, Dr. Marija Gimbutas left

Harvard after thirteen years to accept the position of professor of European

Archaeology at the University of California, Los Angeles. According to her

colleague, the Estonian American Indo-Europeanist, Professor Jaan Puhvel,

Marija Gimbutas’s arrival at UCLA “meant the proximity and participation of the

one person who was, even then, revolutionizing the study of East European

archaeology and was laying the groundwork of a new synthesis of the Indo-

325
Gimbutas, Balts, 11.

326
Ibid., 21.

157
European question.”327 These two colleagues intensively collaborated, “trying to

conceptualize a unified field of Indo-European study—one that would bring

together. . . archaeology, linguistics, philology, and the study of non-material

cultural antiquities.”328 They intensively worked together to establish the

Graduate Interdepartmental Program of Indo-European studies.329

Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965)

In 1965, Marija Gimbutas’s enormous tome, Bronze Age Cultures in

Central and Eastern Europe, was published by Mouton in The Hague. Her stated

goal in producing this major work was to define the “formation, distribution,

continuity, and expansion or disintegration” of the Early, Middle, and Late

Bronze Age cultures of Central and Eastern Europe excavated within fifteen

countries over the previous century. 330 No comprehensive survey and evaluation

had previously been attempted, and many of the sources were inaccessible to

Western scholars due to linguistic and political barriers. The manuscript was

primarily completed during her years at Harvard with the assistance of various

colleagues and the generosity of archaeologists and institutions throughout

Central and Eastern Europe. After the success of The Prehistory of Eastern

Europe, this work on the Bronze Age was awaited with enthusiasm. Numerous

327
Recollection by Dr. Jaan Puhvel, Memorial Service for Marija Gimbutas,
Fowler Museum of Cultural History, UCLA, March 3, 1994.
328
Ibid.

329
Marler, “Circle Is Unbroken,” 13.

330
Gimbutas, Bronze Age Cultures, 20.

158
reviews appeared in German publications, as well as Lithuanian, British, and

American scholarly journals. This major work—with 681 pages of text and 94

pages of plates—was published in 1965 before the availability of carbon-14

dating. This meant, unfortunately, that the dating system used in the book is no

longer up-to-date; and yet, the majority of the work is still immensely valuable for

its integration of this vast array of scholarship.

In the foreword to Bronze Age Cultures, Marija Gimbutas expressed her

disappointment—after more than a decade of extensive research and writing—to

be presenting this enormous work without the benefit of the new technology of

radiocarbon dating.331 She understood that when Bronze Age sites throughout

Central and Eastern Europe were eventually dated, her monograph would be

chronologically obsolete. Nevertheless, she could not wait.

The eventual availability of radiocarbon dates, especially those calibrated

by the use of dendrochronology, had a tremendous impact upon her understanding

of Neolithic and Bronze Age chronologies. In her introduction to The Kurgan

Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe: Selected Articles from

1952‒1993,332 Gimbutas recalls, “I promptly abandoned my earlier belief that

drastic changes commenced in Europe in the 2nd millennium BC. During the

331
Ibid., 1.

332
I am grateful to Miriam Robbins Dexter and Karlene Jones-Bley—former
graduate students, as well as friends and colleagues of Marija Gimbutas—for producing
the complete collection of her articles, The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization
of Europe (1997), published as the Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph no. 18
by the Institute for the Study of Man, Washington, DC.

159
1966 Indo-European Conference in Philadelphia, I presented a Kurgan

chronology revised for the 5th and the 4th millennia BC.”333

The wide distribution of Bronze Age Cultures ensured Marija Gimbutas’s

reputation as a world-class scholar of the Indo-European Bronze Age which is

typified by evidence of a nomadic pastoral economy, chieftain burials, territorial

aggression, warfare, the ongoing production of weapons, and the widespread use

of the horse as a means of transport. Years later, she recalled, “All of these

weapons, the continual warfare, and chieftains were making me ill. I was glad to

be finished with the Bronze Age.”334 By the time this massive text was published,

she had turned her attention toward an in-depth study of the earliest agrarian

societies that preceded the appearance of the Bronze Age in Europe.

Marija Gimbutas had read every available, published excavation report of

Neolithic settlement sites in Eastern Europe, as summarized in The Prehistory of

Eastern Europe (1958). Moreover, she had traveled extensively throughout

Southeastern and Central Europe, meeting with colleagues and studying the

excavated materials in museums throughout the region. She was captivated by the

enormous quantities of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic sculptures, elegant

ceramics, and countless other expressions of Neolithic material culture

accumulating in museums throughout the region. Excavation reports often did not

record the specific locations of these artifacts within the excavations, especially

333
Gimbutas, Introduction to Kurgan Culture, xvii–xviii.

334
Personal recollection by Marija Gimbutas as told to Joan Marler, 1989.

160
ritual items and figurines, and they had rarely been studied as culturally

significant.

During these highly productive years—while teaching at UCLA, traveling

and lecturing internationally, and writing for numerous scholarly publications—

Marija Gimbutas produced The Slavs, as a companion volume to The Balts in the

Ancient Peoples and Places series, published in 1971.

The Slavs (1971)

In her preface to The Slavs, Marija Gimbutas credits her impulse to write

this book to the Russian American linguist Professor Roman Jakobson, who

invited her to speak about the prehistory of the Slavs in 1958 during his “Slavic

Peoples and Cultures” course at Harvard University, where they were friends and

colleagues. She dedicated this book to him on the occasion of his seventy-fifth

birthday in 1971.335

This work traces the earliest development of the Slavs before the

establishment of the Slavic States in the ninth and tenth centuries AD. Gimbutas

writes,

The story of how the original Slavs erupted from a small nuclear territory
to spread over large tracts of Europe is one of the most remarkable in the
early history of peoples. . . . The challenge of evaluating the tremendous
amount of literature in the numerous Slavic languages, containing
conflicting views on the problem of the Slavic homeland, was akin to a
long trip through a jungle. Whether or not I have succeeded in locating it
with the aid of the available archaeological and linguistic data, future
scholars will judge.336

335
Gimbutas, The Slavs, 12.

336
Ibid.

161
 Excavations in Southeastern Europe (1967–1980)

Between 1967 and 1980, Professor Gimbutas served as the project director

of five major excavations of Neolithic culture sites in the former Yugoslavia,

Greek Macedonia, Thessaly (Greece), and southern Italy: the Starčevo and Butmir

settlements in Bosnia; the Neolithic site of Sitagroi in the former Yugoslavia,

Greek Macedonia, with Colin Renfrew; the Starčevo and Vinča settlement at

Anza near Štip, former Yugoslav Macedonia; the Sesklo culture settlement of

Achilleion in Thessaly (Greece); and the excavation of the Scaloria cave

sanctuary near Manfredonia, southeastern Italy. These excavations were

sponsored by a number of major foundations in collaboration with UCLA,

Sheffield University, Genoa University, and local museums in Obre (Bosnia) and

Anza (Macedonia).337

As project director she required her team to carefully notate the discovery

context of each specific artifact and to save everything that had been created by

human hands for detailed study. This process was particularly fruitful at the

Sesklo culture site of Achilleion in Thessaly. 338 The two hundred sculptures

found at Achilleion were documented as to their specific settlement contexts in

association with other features, which contributed substantially to Gimbutas’s

interpretations of their functions. Gimbutas reports, “In spite of the relatively

small area excavated at Achilleion, the number of figurines found there exceeds

the total recovered from all other contemporary Neolithic sites in Greece. The

337
Polomé, “Curriculum Vita of Marija Gimbutas.”

338
Gimbutas, Winn, and Shimabuki, Achilleion, 171.

162
high incidence of sculptures at Achilleion most probably is due to methods of

recovery and identification.”339

By the 1970s, two decades after the development of radiocarbon dating,

three hundred radiocarbon dates were determined for Neolithic and Chalcolithic

(Copper Age) sites in Neolithic Europe. The implementation of this technique was

revolutionizing earlier chronologies and overturning previous assumptions that

the cultures of Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europe were pale reflections of

civilization in the Near East. Moreover, the use of dendrochronology was refining

radiocarbon dates to more accurately express genuine calendar dates, extending

some cultures back an additional millennium. 340 As Gimbutas points out, the most

important aspect of this chronological reassessment “has been to demonstrate the

antiquity of European prehistoric culture, and its autonomous growth as the equal

rather than the dependent of Near Eastern cultural evolution.”341

The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe (1974)

Gimbutas coined the term “Old Europe” to indicate the non-Indo-

European, egalitarian, farming societies of Neolithic Europe. Inspired by the

wealth of Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultural material—including around 30,000

sculptures of clay, marble, bone, copper, or gold known at that time from 3,000

Old European sites in Southeastern Europe342—and by her excavations in

339
Gimbutas, “Figurines and Cult Equipment, 171.

340
Gimbutas, Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, 7000–3500 BC, 14.

341
Ibid., 15.

342
Ibid., 11.
163
Southeastern Europe—Marija Gimbutas produced The Gods and Goddesses of

Old Europe, published in 1974, in the midst of her excavation at Achilleion. As

she recalls, “Gods and Goddesses was a result of five years of thinking, written in

three months, which was too fast. It was a sturm birth.”343

This work presents hundreds of Old European sculptural images

previously unknown in the West, selected from thousands of existing images in

order to demonstrate the most representative examples, not necessarily the most

beautiful. A stated purpose of this book is to introduce “the spiritual

manifestations of Old Europe” and to demonstrate the mythological richness of

the long-lived, autochthonous cultures comprising the earliest civilization of

Europe.344 In her introduction to Gods and Goddesses, Gimbutas writes,

Mythological imagery of the prehistoric era tells us much about the

humanity—its concepts of the structure of the cosmos, of the beginning of
the world and of human, plant and animal life, and also its struggle and
relations with nature. It cannot be forgotten that through myth, images and
symbols man comprehended and manifested his being.345

During the process of finalizing the publication details with Thames and

Hudson Publishers in London for The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, Marija

Gimbutas emphasized that she wanted Goddesses to appear first in the title

because the anthropomorphic imagery from Old Europe is primarily female. The

publisher stated emphatically that such a title would be improper, that the term

Gods had to be first. At that time, she was too busy with her excavations to

343
Marija Gimbutas interview in Marler, From the Realm of the Ancestors, 16.

344
Gimbutas, Gods and Goddesses, 13.

345
Ibid.

164
object.346 This text refers not only to male “Gods,” but to numerous female

images as “Goddesses,” described primarily in terms of their symbolism within

the great cycles of Birth, Death, and Regeneration. It is possible to assume that

this 1974 text did not generate ideological resistance among her colleagues due to

the appearance of “Gods” first in the title. Moreover, her definition of the

“Civilization of Old Europe,” introduced in this book, is presented “in recognition

of the collective identity and achievement of the different cultural groups of

Neolithic-Chalcolithic southeastern Europe.”347 The concept of the “Civilization

of the Goddess,” used later as the title of her magnum opus, introduced by

HarperSanFrancisco, was still a decade and a half into the future.

The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1982)

In 1982, the University of California Press republished Marija Gimbutas’s

1974 text as The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500–3500 BC, Myths and

Cult Images, honoring her initial intention to have the term Goddess first in the

title. Thames and Hudson republished the book, as well, with the change of title.

In her preface to the new edition, Gimbutas explains that the new archaeological

material excavated in southeast Europe during the previous decade strengthened

her view that Old Europe was characterized by “worship of a Goddess incarnating

the creative principle as Source and Giver of All.” 348 As she had stated in other

writings and in her presentations, most of the Old European anthropomorphic

346
Personal communication by Marija Gimbutas with Joan Marler, 1987.

347
Gimbutas, Gods and Goddesses, 17.

348
Gimbutas, Goddesses and Gods,” 9.

165
imagery is female. In this new preface, Gimbutas recognizes the function of the

male element, both human and animal, as representing “spontaneous and life-

stimulating—but not life-generating—powers.”349 She explains the change of

word order in the title as an expression of this basic priority and the prevalence of

female forms.

Gimbutas goes on to clarify that the term “Old Europe” refers to the

peaceful, agricultural, egalitarian, matrifocal culture that predated the influx of the

patriarchal, stratified, pastoral, mobile, and war-oriented Proto-Indo-European

society that arrived in waves between 4500 and 2500 BC from the Russian steppe.

The imposition of a radically different stratified, war-oriented social structure and

religious system created “a mélange of the two mythic systems, Old European and

Indo-European.”350 The articulation of these ideas made them vivid in the minds

of readers, constellated in high relief from that moment forward.

From the time of the publication of The Goddesses and Gods of Old

Europe in 1982 to the appearance of The Language of the Goddess in 1989,

Marija Gimbutas published more than fifty articles in English, French, and

Lithuanian languages. Her numerous review articles, published in the Quarterly

Review of Archaeology, and other publications, reflect an ongoing scholarly

engagement with her international colleagues demonstrating her affinity with the

multiple subjects of their publications. In some cases she celebrates the papers

being presented—such as by her graduate student, Shan Winn’s 1981 production

349
Ibid.

350
Ibid.

166
of Pre-writing in Southeastern Europe: The Sign System of the Vinča Culture, ca.

4000 BC.351 In other instances, she delivers an erudite challenge, such as to Colin

Renfrew’s Anatolian hypothesis, as presented in his 1987 text Archaeology and

Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins.352

The subjects of other reviews written by Marija Gimbutas concern

publications about European prehistory of Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe; the

earliest copper mines in the central Balkans; the Sesklo culture as the earliest

Neolithic settlement in Europe; megalithic tombs of Western Europe; Studies in

Baltic Amber; and Gimbutas’s review of Art and Religion in Thera by Nanno

Marinatos. Other articles by Gimbutas during this period discuss discoveries from

her own excavations, while a growing number of articles focus on the religion and

social structure of Old Europe, and the Goddess of Old Europe. 353

For the first time, during the 1980s, Marija Gimbutas՚s articles began to

appear in women-centered publications. For instance, her article, “Women and

Culture in Goddess-Oriented Old Europe,” appeared in the 1982 anthology, The

351
See Gimbutas, “Sign System of Old Europe.”
352
See Gimbutas, “Accounting for a Great Change,” 334‒37; see also
Gimbutas՚s reply to Renfrew in Current Anthropology 29, no. 3 (June 1988): 453‒56.
Colin Renfrew’s hypothesis, rejected by most Indo-Europeanists, was constructed as the
opposite of Gimbutas’s Kurgan hypothesis. In his view, Indo-European language and
culture was spread into Europe by Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, making Old Europe
Indo-European from its inception. According to Miriam Robbins Dexter (pers.
communication), Renfrew ignores the Proto-IE lexicon, which does not have a large
vocabulary for agriculture, although it has a rich vocabulary pertaining to pastoralism.
See Martin Huld’s appendix in The Kurgan Culture, “The Vocabulary of Indo-European
Culture.”
353
For a list of Gimbutas՚s published articles, including her numerous reviews,
see Marler, “Bibliography of Marija Gimbutas,” 611‒25.

167
Politics of Women’s Spirituality, edited by Charlene Spretnak; “Vulvas, Breasts

and Buttocks of the Goddess Creatress: Commentary on the Origins of Art” was

published in 1983 in Creative Woman Quarterly; and Gimbutas’s articles, “The

Worldview of the Culture of the Goddess,” “Witches,” and “Snakes” appeared in

Vicki Noble’s journal Snake Power (1989). After receiving an honorary doctorate

from the California Institute of Integral Studies in 1988, an excerpt of her address,

“The Culture of the Goddess and the Rise of Androcracy,” was published that

same year in the journal ReVision (Vol. 11, no. 2).

In addition to the burgeoning interest among women in Marija Gimbutas՚s

scholarship, she was invited to the Vatican to present her article, “The Pre-

Christian Religion of Lithuania,” where she lectured to a large auditorium of

Cardinals for the celebration of La Christianizzazione della Lithuania. She was

given an audience with the Pope, and the Vatican published her article on

Lithuanian pre-Christian religion in 1989.

The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western

Civilization (1989)

The same year that her Vatican article appeared, The Language of the

Goddess was published by Harper & Row. This beautifully illustrated text

introduced a wealth of Neolithic imagery not previously included in The

Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. Its vivid presentation of Neolithic ceramics

and elegantly stylized sculptures expresses a wide range of mythological imagery

that had a strong influence on visual artists, as well as poets, writers,

mythologists, and others working within the humanities. Simultaneously, critics

168
who did not know what to make of the spontaneous popularity of this text outside

the parameters of traditional archaeology soon began to express their concerns.

There were multiple dismissals of this text in the press, but very few

serious discussions of Gimbutas՚s theories. Hundreds of articles appeared in

journals and periodicals about the phenomenon of Goddess worship, the rise of

the Women՚s Spirituality Movement, the profusion of new artistic expressions,

and meaningful personal stories mixed with jocular criticisms and not so subtle

caricatures. Some articles were syndicated through well-oiled networks of central

and regional newspapers throughout the United States, Canada, Eastern and

Western Europe, Japan, and Korea—that amplified people՚s awareness of the

work of Marija Gimbutas and the enormous influence she was having, especially

for women, artists, poets, mythologists, and writers.

This wildly expanding phenomenon took Gimbutas by surprise. She

commented that she had no idea that her work would be meaningful for women,

or for anyone outside the world of archaeology. 354 But as her own colleagues

began to step away, she was embraced by an enthusiastic public who were eager

to express their appreciation.

The Formulation of Archaeomythology

In order to adequately study the wealth of symbolic artifacts from her own

excavations and from museum collections throughout southeastern Europe,

Marija Gimbutas found it necessary to expand the parameters of her discipline to

include an interdisciplinary focus, which she called archaeomythology. This field

354
Marler, Circle Is Unbroken, 20.

169
includes archaeology, comparative mythology, folklore, linguistics, comparative

religions, and other disciplines appropriate to specific areas of research. Through

the application of her methodology of archaeomythology, Gimbutas began to

recognize the main themes of Old European ideology through detailed analyses of

a multitude of symbols and images through a variety of disciplinary lenses. In this

way she began to discover their intrinsic order. 355 Gimbutas explains,

I know what I have done is not fantasy, and that is my satisfaction. This is
the only thing I work for, to come to a moment where everything clicks
together from all sides—archaeology, mythology, folklore, linguistics—all
are saying the same thing. This is it. 356

Throughout her career, Gimbutas stressed the importance of being

interdisciplinary. She encouraged academic specialists in various fields to step

outside the limitations of their own disciplines in order to benefit from the

scholarship developed within other traditions. For this reason she was motivated

to collaborate with her colleagues, Edgar Polomé and Roger Pearson, to establish

the interdisciplinary Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES) in 1973.

In The Language of the Goddess, Gimbutas writes, “Mythologists on their

part have ignored the rich archaeological sources in spite of enormous

possibilities they provide. It is hoped that this work will open avenues to folklore

treasures as another source for reconstructing prehistoric ideology. Further

research should yield a rich harvest.”357

355
Ibid., xv.

356
Ibid., 20.

357
Ibid., xviii.

170
 Marija Gimbutas reached out to the well-known mythologist Joseph

Campbell to invite him to write the foreword to The Language of the Goddess.

After reading her manuscript, he immediately agreed, and expressed regret that

they had not met each other years before. He stated that if he had known about her

work years earlier, he would have written some of his own work very

differently.358

In his foreword to The Language of the Goddess, Joseph Campbell

compares the significance of Marija Gimbutas’s interpretations of Neolthic

symbolic artifacts to Champollion’s decipherment of the Rosetta Stone. He

continues:

Marija Gimbutas has been able, not only to prepare a fundamental

glossary of pictorial motifs as keys to the mythology of that otherwise
undocumented era, but also to establish . . . the main lines and themes of a
religion in veneration, both of the universe as the living body of a
Goddess-Mother Creator, and of all the living things within it as partaking
of her divinity.359
One cannot but feel that . . . that there is an evident relevance to the
universally recognized need in our time for a general transformation of
consciousness. The message here is of an actual age of harmony and peace
in accord with the creative energies of nature which for a spell of some
four or more thousand prehistoric years anteceded the five thousand of
what James Joyce has termed the “nightmare” (of contending tribal and
national interests) from which it is now certainly time for this planet to
wake.360

358
Joseph Campbell in conversation with Joan Marler, San Francisco, 1986. See
Marler, “Joseph Campbell, The Mythic Journey,” 56‒61.
359
Campbell, “Foreword,” xiii.

360
Ibid., xiv.

171
In this spirit, Gimbutas encourages us to “draw energy and strength not from

periods of cruelty and destruction, but from earth-centered and life-reverencing

cultures.”361

The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe (1991)

In 1991, Marija Gimbutas’s magnum opus, The Civilization of the

Goddess, was published by HarperSanFrancisco in an elegant format as the sister

volume of The Language of the Goddess. This publication brings together the

major themes of Gimbutas’s life’s work in one large volume. It begins with an

explanation of the spread of agriculture from Anatolia into Europe, and the spread

of Neolithic societies from Thessaly throughout Southeastern and Central Europe.

Neolithic farmers moved from Anatolia to the new world of the Balkan

peninsula during the seventh millennium BC with their domesticated plants,

animals, tools, and Neolithic knowledge. They successfully adapted and thrived in

this new ecosystem by applying their millennia-old knowledge of plant cultivation

and animal husbandry. Community life flourished through mutual cooperation in

the agrarian endeavor. This major text describes sequential Neolithic development

in Southeastern and Central Europe, Northern Europe and in the Adriatic and

Central Mediterrean regions, and in far Western Europe. When Marija Gimbutas

created The Civilization of the Goddess it was the only text of its kind to present

the full range of Old Europe as the foundation of European civilization.

Marija Gimbutas՚s description of the maturation of European civilization

in East-Central Europe, 5500–3500 BC, illustrates the high culture that developed

361
Gimbutas, “Culture of the Goddess,” 26.

172
in this region as a result of several millennia of peaceful living. She considered

the earliest agrarian societies of Old Europe not only to be non-Indo-European,

but also egalitarian, highly artistic, and peaceful. She defined Old Europe as “a

true civilization in the best meaning of the word.”362

At its florescence, during the fifth and early fourth millennia BC, the Old

Europeans constructed large towns with spacious houses and temples with

multiple rooms and stories; skilled artisans produced elegant ceramics and

weavings; the earliest metallurgists did not produce weapons, but an array of

symbolic images skillfully crafted, not only in stone and well-fired clay, but in

copper and gold. Moreover, a flourishing network of trade routes existed that

circulated items such as obsidian, shells, marble, copper, and salt over hundreds

of kilometers.363

Gimbutas presents her concepts of the religion of the Goddess and

discusses the development and widespread use of the linear signs and symbols she

refers to as a sacred script. In her discussion of Old European social structure, she

draws evidence from burial evidence, habitation patterns, ceramic miniatures of

temples and workshops showing women՚s activities, and thousands of female

images as the basis for her concept of the centrality of women in OE society. She

explains why she no longer uses the term “matriarchy,” which typically implies a

top-down rule by women. In order to avoid this implication, Gimbutas prefers to

362
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, viii.

363
Ibid., 118.

173
use the term “matristic” and even “gylanic,” to express an egalitarian balance of

powers between the sexes. 364

This book concludes with a discussion about the Kurgan invasions from

the North Pontic-Caspian steppes that transformed the face of Europe over a

2,000-year period. During this time Old European language, culture, social

systems, and life-ways were transformed from a balanced egalitarian system to

patterns of elite male dominance and warlike disruptions of previous long-term

stability.

Gimbutas points out that not all Old European cultural patterns were

destroyed. Some lived on in the peripheral areas of Europe and especially in the

Aegean region from which developed the Minoan culture on Crete until its demise

around 1450 BC. She writes,

In some areas of Europe, a coexistence of two separate cultural systems is

traceable for nearly a millennium, particularly in northern Europe. The
familiar European culture of the Bronze and Iron Ages and of later history
is an Indo-Europeanized culture dominated by Indo-European language
and social structure, except in some areas where Old European cultures
persisted (Crete and the Aegean islands, western Anatolia, Etruria, Iberia,
and Pictish Scotland). But even in areas dominated by Old European
language and culture, the Old European traditions remained as a
substratum. Of the different aspects of Old European culture that survived,
it is the religious elements, myths, and symbols that endured longest. 365

Marija Gimbutas was working on the manuscript of what would become

The Living Goddesses until a few days before her death in 1994. Miriam Robbins

364
Eisler, Chalice and the Blade, 105. The term “gylany” was coined by Riane
Eisler, incorporating gy- (from the Greek root gyne, woman) and an- (from andros, man),
linking both with the letter “l” from the Greek verb lyen or lyo, meaning to resolve or set
free.
365
Gimbutas, “The Fall and Transformation of Old Europe,” 372.

174
Dexter kindly accepted the daunting task, requested by her daughter, Živilė

Gimbutas, of editing and supplementing this final book. The first part of the book

is well illustrated, but as Dexter explains in her “Editor’s Preface,” Gimbutas had

planned to have numerous illustrations for the second part, but they had not been

assembled by the time she passed away, so the second part has remained

unillustrated. Some critics have seized upon this imbalance, but there was no

imagery available to bridge the gap. Nevertheless, the book՚s second section

contains important new material, which Dr. Gimbutas had intended.

The Living Goddesses (1999)

The first section of this book, “Religion in Prepatriarchal Europe,” begins

with a presentation of anthropomorphic images of goddesses and gods rendered in

both realistic, stylized, and highly schematic forms. The emphasis on exaggerated

body parts, the use of both human and animal masks, the engraving of symbolic

designs on specific areas of female bodies, and the combination of male and

female attributes within a single sculptural figure suggest complex metaphoric

imagery arising from Old European sacred sensibilities. Zoomorphic sculptures of

bears, deer, and other animals, sometime engraved with patterns and rendered as

vases, lamps, or libation vessels, speak of people’s relationship with animals that

may be linked with ritual activities and mythic associations. Human sized pig

masks, possibly worn in ceremonies, and sculptures of pigs and stylized human

female sculptures with their bodies impressed with grain indicate ritual

relationships with grain and with the animals that sustained the human population.

175
Gimbutas emphasizes that sculptures of Neolithic pregnant goddesses have been

found associated with both pigs and grain.

Gimbutas refers to the thematic elements found in Old European symbolic

imagery that are associated with the repeated cycles of the living world: winter,

the time of death and decay, is followed by the appearance of new life in spring,

that matures to the time of harvest, then dies again to await regeneration. In

Gimbutas’s view, sculptures of mothers nursing their babies wearing bear or bird

masks express not only a special intimacy between the human and animal worlds,

but also the acts of nurturing new life.

Where many researchers see only individual, disconnected images in

archaeological finds, Gimbutas perceived complex associations of a broad range

of sculptures, ceramics, tombs, burial practices, temples, and ritual equipment

that, in her view, reflected people’s relationships with the cyclic patterns of the

living world. She interprets the wide range of dynamic images created in

numerous styles and media as expressing aspects of the life-cycle: symbols of

life-giving and the sustaining of life, as well as symbols of death and the

regeneration of life.

This first section of the book also discusses the creation and use of signs

and symbols that were used as early as Palaeolithic times on cave walls and on a

range of early sculptures. During the time of Old Europe, signs and symbols

blossomed into a fully formed script. As Gimbutas explains, the Old European

script signs are not random markings; they appear in rows or clusters, with several

different signs following one another. These are linear, abstract signs that are

176
elaborated by strokes or dots creating more than one hundred modified signs.

They are found inscribed on the bodies of figurines, on special plaques and

vessels, on spindle whorls, and on various other ceramic items, some of which

were found in religious contexts.366

Gimbutas discusses the influence of Old European literacy into later

cultural periods, such as the development of Cypro-Minoan signs, Minoan Linear

A, and other scripts. She emphasizes,

The phenomenon of linear script among the Old Europeans confirms the
very early roots of symbolic and abstract thinking. . . . Old European script
suggests that the intellectual heritage of Western Civilization goes much
farther back than we have previously acknowledged, to the ancient
goddess worshipers who could think both symbolically and abstractly. 367

In his 1997 article, “Writing in the Ancient Mediterranean: The Old

European Legacy,” the linguist Harald Haarmann articulates specific variants of

cultural continuity of Old European elements into later periods. He notes that

writing, that has been interrupted, is characterized by repetitive continuity, in

which “typical features of a once elaborated pattern are repeated at intervals.”368

Haarmann goes on to explain, that after the Indo-European intrusions,

the Old European script did not vanish altogether, even though it
temporarily lost its social functions. . . . [during] the third millennium BC,
the use of linear signs was resumed, together with other traditions, in the
Cyclades. . . . Writing reemerged in Minoan Crete as early as the middle
of the third millennium BC.369

366
Gimbutas, Living Goddesses, 48–49, 54.

367
Ibid., 54.

368
Haarmann, “Writing in the Ancient Mediterranean,” 109.

369
Ibid.

177
 According to Haarmann, the earliest evidence for writing in Bronze Age

Crete is Linear A, which is older than the earliest appearance of Cretan

hieroglyphics. Therefore, “it can be reasonably asserted that linear writing in the

Cretan context is a reflection of the working of repetitive continuity in the sphere

of Old European cultural influence; rather than a secondary device, a kind of

simplified writing derived from hieroglyphics.”370

The rest of this well-illustrated chapter includes sections about the “tomb

as womb,” Old European temples, sacred stone and wood ceremonial centers, and

a discussion about matrilineal social structure as mirrored in religion and myth.

Gimbutas writes,

The reconstruction of the pre-Indo-European social structure of Old

Europe is possible if various sources from different disciplines are used:
linguistic, historical, mythological, religious, archaeological (especially
the evidence from cemeteries and settlements). Evidence from these
disciplines shows that the Old European social structure was
matrilineal. . . . In all of Old Europe, there is no evidence for the Indo-
European type of patriarchal chieftainate. 371

Part 2 of The Living Goddesses discusses the Indo-European invaders who

infiltrated Old Europe between the mid fifth and the mid third millennia BC, who

represented a completely different social structure and ideology from the societies

of Old Europe. Their sustained Indo-European contact resulted in an

amalgamation between these two opposing systems that changed the face of Old

370
Ibid., 110; Further information about the Old European script into later
cultural periods can be found in Haarmann, Early Civilization and Literacy in Europe,
31–96; Marler and Dexter, Signs of Civilization; Marler, The Danube Script. See also
Haarmann’s Foundations of Culture, about the construction and transmission of
knowledge (95–123), and Writing as Technology and Cultural Ecology.
371
Gimbutas, Living Goddesses, 125.

178
Europe but did not totally eradicate all that had existed before. Gimbutas writes,

“Old European religion and customs remained a strong undercurrent that

influenced the development of Western Civilization.”372

This section focuses on evidence of Old European religious patterns that

continued throughout the Bronze Age, into the Early Historical Period, and into

Modern Times.373 In discussing the continuity of these Old European

undercurrents, Gimbutas included new material not found in her earlier texts.

Rich examples of the continuity of Old European traditions in southern

Europe begin with a discussion of the Minoan religion on Crete that extended to

the island of Thera. Minoan ritual life includes the appearance of temple

complexes, worship in cave sanctuaries and peak sanctuaries, evidence of specific

cult equipment, the ritual of bull-leaping (related to the Old European veneration

of the bull in association with death and regeneration), evidence of the continuity

of Old European goddesses and gods, burial rites, and the fall of the Minoan

culture.374

The Minoan culture flourished for several hundred years. It had deep roots

in Old Europe and Old Anatolia, evidenced by its artistic creativity, its theacentric

social structure, and its symbolism which celebrated life and nature.375 “With the

fall of the Minoan culture, the last of the Old European-Anatolian civilizations

372
Ibid., 129.

373
Ibid.

374
Ibid., 131–48

375
Ibid., 149.

179
disappeared. But the Minoans and other Old European cultures would strongly

influence the ancient world: an influence that has lingered through the modern

era.”376

Other examples of Old European continuity in the area of southern Europe

are found in Greece during the Mycenaean Bronze Age, into the Classical era

through the Eleusinian Mysteries, and from evidence of hybridization of specific

deities; the continuity of non-Indo-European indigenous elements among the

Etruscans in Italy were eventually influenced by Greek contacts; and in northern

Spain and southern France, the Basque culture continued their indigenous

religious beliefs and practices. 377

The final presentation of Old European continuity concerns examples in

central and northern Europe, beginning with the Celts from central Europe,

Britain, and Ireland in which both Old European and Indo-European deities

comprise the Celtic pantheon. Nevertheless, the Old European undercurrents are

very strong.378

This presentation of the continuity of prehistoric, non-Indo-European

elements into historical eras is discussed in relation to the Baltic region of Marija

Gimbutas’s own ancestors. It is fitting to conclude this discussion of Old

European continuity, and this chapter concerning her life and work, with her own

words:

376
Ibid., 150.

377
Ibid., 130.

378
Ibid., 186.

180
 We can see that the Baltic pantheon remarkably preserves an almost
complete Old European family of goddesses and gods. Neither the
presence of the Indo-Europeans nor the five centuries of intensive war
between paganism and Christianity exterminated the oldest layer of Baltic
beliefs. Best preserved are the goddesses, who were life and birth givers,
healers, protectresses of households and communities, bringers of earth
fertility, death messengers, and life regenerators. Until recently, people
kissed Mother Earth as if she were a human mother, in the morning and in
the evening, before Christian prayers were said. ... Sadly, many residues of
past ages were wiped out rather suddenly. ... The snake, the symbol of life
energy for millennia, has finally vanished from homes and house
foundations. The Lithuanian sorrowful god—the old vegetation god—still
sits calmly supporting his chin with his hands at farmsteads, in forests,
along roads, or in chapels, wondering if regeneration is still possible. 379

Conclusion

As the first part of this chapter indicates, Marija Gimbutas’s personal life

and cultural lineage had a profound impact upon her development as a scholar.

The powerful vitality that flowed through her, which her cousin Meilė described

as “volcanic,” seemed to arise from a great depth carrying ancestral knowledge

that animated her Baltic roots. She had many guides: from the “stubborn pagans”

of her Baltic past who worshipped the entire living world; to the village women

who preserved and transmitted hundreds of traditional songs through the resilient

strength of their memories; to Dr. Jonas Basanavičius, her adopted grandfather,

who understood the extreme importance of collecting and preserving the

Lithuanian songs and folklore that expressed the soul of their culture before every

glimmering fragment was gone. She understood that Basanavičius devoted his life

to gathering the seeds of knowledge into archives to be planted into the future—

believing that fertile ground could still be found, even during the darkest, most

379
Ibid., 213.

181
destructive periods. Every writer, poet, artist, historian, cultural worker, and seer

who communed with Marija as a child left her with indescribable gifts; and her

parents, whose dedication to promoting what was most life-affirming in the midst

of one horror after another, who knew how to struggle with all their powers for

what is most essential, loved her unconditonally. Even after her father died, she

knew that both he, and her mother, believed in her blazing potential, even when

she had to leave for another world in the midst of chaos.

This blossoming child who grew into a powerful woman scholar brought

all of her gifts to the new world where she created her own path by giving herself

impossible tasks. Her decision to meticulously study and decode more than one

hundred years of excavation reports from Eastern Europe, which she studied in

their original languages, gave her an X-ray vision into the cultures of the past. It

was there that she perceived cultural patterns and continuities, which required

both a detailed perception and a simultaneous overview of the interaction between

cultures within specific ecological contexts. She understood that the world she

was studying revealed patterns of relationships, that were never simply collections

of disconnected objects. In her meticulous investigation of pastoralists from the

Volga-Caspian steppes, she traced contrasts and similarities of excavated finds

that spoke to her of the congealing of ritual practices into the creation and use of

burial mounds for the memory and veneration of powerful males. She adopted the

name “kurgan” (the Turkic loan-word used in Russian for burial mound), as a

blanket term for the various groups of people who moved through the steppes

replicating their elite male social structure, material culture, and warlike activities,

182
leaving rows of mounded burials behind them. In this way, she traced their paths

to Old Europe and saw what happened when they began their outmigrations up

the Danube valley and beyond, leaving the destruction of ancient habitation sites

in their wake. She continued to refine her observations and further discoveries for

decades.

Marija Gimbutas repeated the process of investigating more than a century

of excavations of later Bronze Age sites until she could no longer tolerate the tons

of weapons, further evidence of chieftains, elite male dominance, and warfare.

The monographs she produced at Harvard opened new worlds for Western

scholars who were not familiar with the archaeology of this geographical area of

central and eastern Europe due to linguistic and political barriers. Those were

gifts she left behind for others when she turned her attention to an indepth study

of cultures she named as Old European, which represent a complete contrast to

the warrior tribes of the steppes. And so, for the remainder of her life, Marija

Gimbutas relished the beauty, the stability, peacefulness, and tremendous

production of ritual items, elegant ceramics, and sculptures from Neolithic Old

Europe that rival the work of our finest modern artists. When she was writing

about weapons, warfare, and chieftains, she was hailed as a great scholar, but

when she began to speak about the function of female sculptures as sacred

images—especially when she began using the G-word, “Goddess”—she collided

with the archaeological champions of the Western world view.

Chapter 6, which follows, is a chronological examination of responses to

Marija Gimbutas՚s published books, produced over half a century. The purpose of

183
the time her doctoral dissertation was published in 1946, while the Gimbutas

family was still residing in the French occupation zone in Germany, to the

publication of Gimbutas՚s posthumous text, The Living Goddesses in 1999, edited

and supplemented by Miriam Robbins Dexter.

184
 CHAPTER 6: RESPONSES TO MARIJA GIMBUTAS՚S PUBLICATIONS

The purpose of Chapter 6 is to trace the range of responses, in a

chronological manner, by both academic and nonacademic reviewers of Marija

Gimbutas’s major publications, from 1946 until 1999, in order to observe how

these published reviews, both positive and negative, change or remain consistent

over time. I am especially interested to see how the reviewers respond to

Gimbutas’s change of focus from her earlier research on traditional archaeological

themes—as exemplified by The Prehistory of Eastern Europe (1956) and Bronze

Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965)—in contrast to her later

publications on the symbolism and religion of Old Europe. The first reviews were

written by Lithuanian emigrés who fled Lithuania in 1944 in advance of the

second Soviet invasion. These scholars and their families were living in refugee

camps in the French occupation zone following World War II. They were eager to

read and comment on Marija Gimbutas՚s newly published dissertation on

prehistoric burial sites from their home country of Lithuania.

Review of Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit (1946)

Marija Gimbutienė՚s doctoral work, “Die Bestattung in Litauen in der

vorgeschichtlichen Zeit” [Burials in Lithuania in the prehistoric time], was

published in Tübingen in 1946. The Lithuanians who congregated in refugee

camps during and after the war included notable scholars, writers, and

intellectuals who were eager to read new research about their homeland and to

support the continuation of Lithuanian scholarship. At least half a dozen reviews

of Marija Gimbutienė’s book appeared in Lithuanian publications produced

185
within the French and American occupation zones. One review is presented here.

The review “Nauja Moksline Studija” [New scientific study], published in the

Lithuanian periodical Ziburiai (Light) states, “It gives us joy to have this first

scientific work that originated from the society of refugees.”380 The reviewer

comments on the author’s careful investigation of different types of burials and

her use of archaeological and folkloric data and philological and historical

methods to reach various conclusions about the origin, religion, and eschatology

of their Baltic ancestors. “This part of the work is very interesting and attractive

not only for specialists, but that is also a very risky part. Such questions haven’t

been explored by any of the scientists of prehistory.”381 The reviewer adds that if

conditions were normal, they would have many discussions about the

eschatological view of the ancient Lithuanians and her interpretation of several

burial elements. Needless to say, their conditions as refugees at that time were far

from normal.

Reviews of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe (1956)

In her introduction to The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Gimbutas states

that the purpose of this monograph is to present a comprehensive summary of

archaeological research, conducted from 1852 to 1955 in Eastern Europe, from

the post-glacial era to the end of the Chalcolithic period. In order to reconstruct

the picture of Eastern European prehistory, she drew from all existing excavation

reports, articles, and monographs in their original languages concerning

380
A. S., “Nauja Moksline Studija,” 34. Translation by Austeja Ikamaite.

381
Ibid.

186
archaeological work done in Poland, the former East Prussia, Lithuania, Latvia,

Estonia, Finland, White Russia (Bielo Russia), Russia, Ukraine, and the northern

Caucasus. In the Introduction, she writes,

My chief task has been to date the various archaeological monuments, to

revise the distribution of cultures from the point of view of geography and
chronology, and to present their essential features. [. . .] In writing this
study, the author hopes to overcome the political and language barriers
which continually retard the growth of knowledge of European prehistory
as a whole. 382

The Prehistory of Eastern Europe was well-distributed and reviews

poured in, not only from English speaking countries, but from Eastern and

Western Europe, published in Lithuanian, German, Polish, Hungarian, Russian,

Spanish, Swedish, Czech, and Italian. Scholars were uniformly grateful for what

they considered an erudite work of synthesis, the first comprehensive and

accessible survey of the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic societies of the

eastern half of the European continent. A reviewer from the University of

Montreal comments that

prehistorians who know only the Western languages will be most grateful
to her for having collected, analyzed and presented . . . very important data
from those countries where linguistic and political barriers make it
difficult for us to follow the most recent developments. . . . The amount of
data presented makes this volume a gold mine. 383

In a similar vein, Professor Gutor Gjessing, from Oslo University, adds,

The author’s acquaintance with the immense, and difficult to access

archaeological literature is impressive, and her taxonomic system really
brings order into this enormous material. On the whole, Dr. Gimbutas
demonstrates an admirable command of a vast and complex material, and

382
Gimbutas, Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 3.

383
Smith, review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 356‒58.

187
 her book certainly will prove to be one of the most important contributions
to European archaeology during recent years. 384

The archaeologist Stuart Piggott, from the University of Edinburgh,

writes,

The comparative inaccessibility of the area itself, exacerbated by modern

political conditions, and the language difficulties presented to the average
Western scholar, have rendered our knowledge lamentably
imperfect . . . nothing comparable in scope or treatment to Gimbutas’s
work has hitherto been attempted. We are deeply in her debt. 385

Dr. Jonas Puzinas, who was Marija Gimbutas՚s Professor of Archaeology

in Kaunas and Vilnius Universities, emphasizes the unique importance of this

work, including her presentation of previously little-known Neolithic and Copper

Age cultures in the Ukraine and southern Russia. He especially welcomes her

discussion of the origin of the Indo-European societies and the implications of

their westward cultural expansion. 386 Other scholars comment on Gimbutas’s use

of linguistic paleontology combined with archaeology, history, and ethnology to

identify the Indo-European speaking pastoralists she named as “Kurgans,” who, in

their westward movement out of the steppe region north of the Black Sea,

influenced dramatic changes in existing Neolithic societies. 387

The question of how Indo-European languages spread so quickly and so

far, and the question of the location of the homeland of Proto-Indo-European

384
Gjessing, review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 33–34.

385
Piggott, review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 608–9.

386
Puzinas, “A New Study: The Prehistory of Eastern Europe,” 26–28.

387
Smith, review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 357.

188
speakers were subjects well-known and discussed among linguists. The concept

of the mixture of two distinct cultural and linguistic systems (the indigenous Old

Europeans and the in-coming Indo-Europeans), identified by Gimbutas՚s use of

both archaeology and linguistics, was an uncommon approach that had surprising

results. Piggott comments,

Somewhere in all this maze of potsherds and stone and copper implements
there lies, as Gimbutas perceives, the archaeological story behind the
linguistic emergence and early development of the Indo-European group
of languages. She is not afraid of saying so, nor of indicating some
attractive possibilities in correlation, and one hopes she will develop this
theme in her later volumes. 388

In the British journal Antiquity, another scholar notes that this work

provides “a well-balanced exposition of the present state of prehistoric research in

Eastern Europe. Where Dr. Gimbutas՚s own theories are expressed, they are

clearly acknowledged as such.”389 But a reviewer in the American Slavic and East

European Review writes more critically:

The extent and value of the material evidence collected in this book is
undeniable. The conclusions, however, should be treated with caution,
even when they are in keeping with generally accepted methods of
archaeology. Reading such a survey one is more aware of this problem
than when using specialized works of more limited scope where it is
customary to accept the authority of a specialist. 390

Robert W. Ehrich, editor of Relative Chronologies in Old World

Archaeology, remarks,

388
Piggott, review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 609.

389
Ozanne, review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 291–92.

390
Lozinski, review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 141–43.

189
 For anyone interested in the prehistory of this area, Dr. Gimbutas has
performed a monumental service. She has not only winnowed a
tremendous mass of not easily available published data in a variety of
languages, the diversity of which has up to now been a barrier to
comprehensive treatment, but she has also presented well illustrated,
characteristic and recognizable assemblages as cross-sections of given
periods and cultures along with maps of their geographic distributions.
This is the first extensive coverage of the archaeology of the whole East
European Plain.
In a work of this magnitude there are, of course, bound to be areas
of disagreement with specific points of interpretation. Some unevenness,
furthermore, is unavoidable because of the very slight amount of
information available concerning some large regions as compared with
certain intensively studied smaller districts. These, however, are minor
matters, for the author has presented an impressive bibliography for each
section.391

Erich concluded by affirming that this work “is a well-organized, intelligible, and

massive approach to the archaeology of Eastern Europe. It is indispensable both

as an introduction and as a survey. Dr. Gimbutas is to be congratulated.”392

In a handwritten letter on University of California Department of

Anthropology letterhead, dated October 29, 1957, the anthropologist Alfred L.

Kroeber expressed his appreciation for Dr. Gimbutas՚s “important synthesis and

interpretation” of Prehistory of Eastern Europe. “This kind of work may not

make a great public splash, but it is literally aere perennius: by the time it is

ՙsuperceded,՚ its content will have become incorporated in the permanent body of

science. This is the greatest reward we can earn.”393

391
Ehrich, review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 68–9.

392
Ibid., 69.

393
Kroeber, handwitten letter to Dr. Marija Gimbutas, October 29, 1957. A copy
of this letter resides in the library of the Institute of Archaeomythology.

190
Reviews of Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art (1958)

Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art, published in 1958 by the

American Folklore Society in Philadelphia, is dedicated to Veronika Alseikienė,

Marija Gimbutas՚s mother, who avidly promoted the preservation of Lithuania’s

traditional arts and folklore at a time when many ancient traditions were rapidly

disappearing. Lithuanian folk symbolism, which can be traced to the lifeways of

the earliest agriculturalists, was richly preserved in the oral tradition of village

people through songs, stories, and verbal metaphors. This book primarily focuses

on the ornamented wooden poles, erected in memorable locations throughout the

landscape, containing ancient symbols reflecting people՚s beliefs in the sacredness

of life.

The reviews of this book are uniformly positive, recognizing the author՚s

unique knowledge and relationship with the subject. A contributor to the Russian

Review considers Ancient Symbols in Lithuanian Folk Art to be a valuable

contribution to the field of folkloric research in which Gimbutas’s presentation

and interpretations are “scholarly, sound, and interesting.”394 The reviewer notes

that Lithuania adopted Christian symbolism without discarding the ancient pagan

imagery, resulting in “a strange mixture of heathen and Christian symbols. . . . In

the national resistance movement against the encroachment of Russia, Poland, and

Prussia, the national spirit of Lithuania relied as a source of strength upon the

preservation of its ancient pagan symbols which have survived to this day.”395

394
Fueloep-Miller, review of Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art, 73.

395
Ibid.

191
 A reviewer for the Journal of American Folklore writes, “except for a

small volume by Baltrusaitis, I believe there is nothing in English on the folk art

of the Lithuanians.”396 The reviewer goes on to say,

Marija Gimbutas has drawn extensively on her own wide experience in

Lithuanian and eastern European archaeology as well as . . . evidence of
philology too, as when she discusses the symbolic association of the snake
with life and vitality. In Lithuanian both words have the same root. This
volume makes available a large body of material which would be difficult
if not impossible for the average folklorist to locate. The bibliography is
not only excellent for folk art but is probably the best single bibliography
for Lithuanian folklore in general. 397

Reviews of The Balts (1963)

The ancient Balts are the ancestors of the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Old

Prussians who settled on the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea in prehistoric times.

Gimbutas’s history of the Baltic tribes covers their linguistic and historic

background, their Indo-European and pre-Indo-European origins, their religion,

society, and development, until the establishment of the Lithuanian state in the

thirteenth century CE. Following its English publication in 1963, The Balts has

been translated into Italian, German, Portuguese, Latvian, and Lithuanian. Since

the fall of the Soviet Union, the Lithuanian translation of The Balts is regularly

being taught in Lithuanian schools.

Professor Jonas Puzinas, who reviewed The Balts for The Baltic Review in

1964, comments that the problems of Baltic antiquity have been researched by

Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Swedish, German, Polish, and Russian

396
McPherron, review of Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art, 85.

397
Ibid.

192
archaeologists, linguists, historians, and historians of religion. “Yet until now we

have not had a general survey on the Balts. This gap has been filled by Dr. Marija

Gimbutas.”398 He acknowledges that some problems remain unsolved because the

author had to adjust her material to the limitations of the Ancient Peoples and

Places series.399

Marija Gimbutas՚s friend and colleague Carl-Axel Moberg, professor of

archaeology at Göteborg University, Sweden, penned a review of The Balts in the

British journal Antiquity. He began by praising her beautifully presented folkloric

research, her broad background, and “her valuable work in making the results of

modern East European research on prehistory more easily accessible to us.”400

While he expresses appreciation for her summary of recent research in Soviet

Russia, he is critical of her general formulation of Baltic culture. In his view, “The

Balts is written in the spirit of Kossinna, the Altmeister of the German

Siedlungsarchäologie. . . . The ՙmethod՚ is the same all over the field, only the

nationalistic frame of reference changes from Germanic to Slavonic to Baltic.”401

Professor Moberg rejects labels identifying prehistoric “nations” that are assumed

to be linguistically and culturally homogeneous—an approach that is common in

Central European literature on prehistory. Nevertheless, he concludes, “The

398
Puzinas, “An Important Survey of Baltic Antiquity,” 57–62.

399
Ibid.

400
Moberg, review of The Balts, 241–43.

401
Ibid., 242.
193
personal touch given to it by a distinguished scholar, faithful to her original

environment, should be appreciated.”402

In reviewing The Balts for The Slavic Review, the Lithuanian professor

Konstantinas Avižonis, from the University of Kansas, acknowledges that the

origins of the prehistoric Balts, and their material and spiritual culture at the dawn

of history are discussed “in a convincing manner.” However, “in discussing the

spiritual culture of the early Balts the author may have exaggerated somewhat the

extent of symbolism in their pagan religion.”403 Nevertheless, he adds, “This

book is the result of protracted, painstaking, and scrupulous research . . . the best

available and the fullest account in English on the subject.”404

Reviews of Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965)

Marija Gimbutas did most of her work on her Bronze Age book while she

was still at Harvard. It was published by Mouton in The Hague in 1965 when she

was already at UCLA. She was disappointed that radiocarbon dates were not

available for the sites she discussed in this book, which made the chronology of

this phenomenal work obsolete by the time it was published. Nevertheless, it was

well received because no other comprehensive text on Bronze Age cultures in

Eastern and Central Europe had previously been produced.

The British archaeologist Colin Renfrew, who later would co-direct the

excavation of the Neolithic site of Sitagroi in Greek Macedonia with Marija

402
Ibid., 243.

403
Avižonis, review of The Balts, 131–32.

404
Ibid.

194
Gimbutas (1968–1969), had recently earned his PhD in archaeology in 1965 when

he penned a review of Bronze Age Cultures in the British journal Antiquity. His

detailed examination of Gimbutas’s monograph begins by affirming “she has

boldly set about synthesizing a coherent picture out of the confused and complex

material which several generations of European scholars have mercilessly

Balkanized. Her achievement . . . is remarkable: probably no one else alive could

have undertaken it.”405

In a response to material in the text concerning Gimbutas՚s Kurgan theory,

Renfrew politely states,

In many ways it is a powerful theory, for there are widespread

discontinuities in the cultural record at the end of the south-east European
Chalcolithic which could be explained by this means. But some will prefer
to regard it at present simply as a useful and stimulating suggestion, and
students will have to be warned of what is old and accepted in this book,
[and] what new and controversial. 406

Renfrew concludes his article with the following praise: “All things

considered, Dr. Gimbutas’s new survey is an astonishing achievement, and one

which would have been impossible without an encyclopaedic knowledge and a

considerable facility with more than a dozen languages. Its publication is a

considerable event in the study of European prehistory.”407

In the 1966 anonymous review of Gimbutas’s Bronze Age Cultures, titled

“Bronze-Agers,” which appeared in London՚s Times Literary Supplement, Marija

405
Renfrew, review of Bronze Age Cultures, 64.

406
Ibid.

407
Ibid., 66.

195
Gimbutas՚s book is described as “a major work of synthesis of a type not

previously undertaken . . . away from the narrow confines of national archaeology

to a contemplation of prehistoric culture . . .[in order] to observe the entire

canvas.”408 The reviewer found the lack of carbon-14 dates in this monograph

easier to accept than Gimbutas՚s concept of “the Kurgan culture upon the

subsequent prehistory of Europe.” Nevertheless, the reviewer concedes: “Whether

one agrees or disagrees with her interpretations, the material is set before us with

commendable fullness of documentation.”409

A review article in Mankind Quarterly by the Christian theologian

Herman L. Hoeh states that the long cultural sequence of the Bronze Age that

Professor Gimbutas describes is typified by an emphasis on warfare, weapons

industries, abundant consumption of alcohol, and mass burials of bludgeoned

victims, with parallels to recent European history. 410 Hoeh further comments:

This monograph challenges several long-accepted conclusions. The

history of central Europe is for once presented in a clear continuous
sequence. . . . For its depth and breadth, this volume deserves immediate
reading. It is bound to be the basis for a new view—and a sometimes
painful review—of European origins.411

408
Times Literary Supplement, “Bronze-Agers,” 1126.

409
Ibid.

410
Hoeh, review of Bronze Age Cultures, 125.

411
Ibid., 126.

196
Reviews of The Slavs (1971)

Marija Gimbutas was encouraged to write The Slavs by the Russian

American linguist Roman Jakobson, to whom this book is dedicated.412 This work

traces the earliest development of the Slavs before the establishment of the Slavic

States in the ninth and tenth centuries AD. As with The Balts, The Slavs was

primarily reviewed by university professors in scholarly publications who

reviewed its contents according to the range of their academic specialties. All

reviewers acknowledged Gimbutas՚s mastery of the subject and the extreme need

for her up-to-date treatment of the prehistory and early history of the Slavs.

A reviewer from Indiana University states that Professor Gimbutas

has used an enormous literature in various Slavic languages by the

combined use of the archaeological, linguistic, and historical data in
presenting us with a reliable over-all picture of the Slavs’ early culture,
their social structure and their religion. Her survey of Slavic religion . . . is
the best among the more recent ones. 413

A reviewer from Columbia University remarks, “Professor Gimbutas deals

admirably with the many controversies and problems of early Slavic

culture. . . . [She] must be heartily congratulated for tackling a large and difficult

subject and for successfully producing a basic sourcebook for pre-Christian Slavic

history.”414 However, as another reviewer comments, “Reaction to this volume

depends to a great extent on one’s individual interests. Archeologists will find it

informative and stimulating. Historians, however, will regard it as overly

412
Gimbutas, The Slavs, 12.

413
Oinas, review of The Slavs, 128–30.

414
Farkas, review of The Slavs, 877‒78.

197
speculative and sluggish reading because of its minutiae.”415 Other primarily

positive reviews of The Slavs appeared in the Russian Review416 and the Journal

of Baltic Studies.417

Reviews of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe (1974)

Inspired by the wealth of Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultural material—

including around 30,000 sculptures of clay, marble, bone, copper, or gold known

at that time from 3,000 Old European sites in Southeastern Europe 418—and

especially by her excavations in Southeastern Europe—Marija Gimbutas

produced The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, published in 1974 in the midst

of her excavation at Achilleion. Her stated purpose in this book is to introduce

“the spiritual manifestations of Old Europe” and to demonstrate the mythological

richness of the long-lived, autochthonous cultures comprising the earliest

civilization of Europe.419 Her definition of the “Civilization of Old Europe,” is

presented “in recognition of the collective identity and achievement of the

different cultural groups of Neolithic-Chalcolithic southeastern Europe.”420

Reviews of Gods and Goddesses, published primarily in scholarly

journals, appeared internationally in French, Swedish, Lithuanian, and English

415
Strong, review of The Slavs, 759.

416
Vucinich, review of The Slavs, 95.

417
Dunn, review of The Slavs, 51.

418
Ibid., 11.

419
Gimbutas, Gods and Goddesses, 13.

420
Ibid., 17.

198
languages. In the British journal Antiquity, archaeologist Andrew Fleming

acknowledges “this is the first time that the fascinating figurine art of the Balkan

Neolithic and Copper Ages has been treated extensively and in English.”421 He

congratulates Gimbutas for presenting “such a varied and exciting body of

material, which represents a truly enviable amount of research.”422 The historian

of religion, Mircea Eliade, wrote, “This splendidly illustrated book brings

together an archaeological documentation hardly found elsewhere.”423 He adds

that a recognition of the continuity of Old European ritual heritage “may help the

historian of religions to master his innate methodological inhibitions with regard

to the validity of comparison between archaic or folkloric traditions and

ՙhistorical՚ ones.”424

An excerpt from an extensive review article in the Lithuanian journal

Metmenys by the professor of religion Ralph L. Slotten states, “Gimbutas

extended and revolutionized our ability to conceive the world view of the

Europeans earlier than that of the Greeks. The roots of the Minoan and

Mycenaean civilizations can now be perceived.”425

421
Fleming, review of Gods and Goddesses, 246.

422
Ibid.

423
Eliade, review of Gods and Goddesses, 183–85.

424
Ibid.

425
Slotten, “Marijos Gimbutienės Darbai Lyginamosiose Religiju Studijose”
[The Contribution by Marija Gimbutienė to the Studies of Comparative Religion], 61.
Translator unknown for this brief excerpt from Lithuanian into English.

199
 A review of Gods and Goddesses by Robert K. Evans in the

Anthropological Quarterly further elaborates,

Professor Gimbutas has produced a unique book on the figurine art and
symbolic representation for south-east Europe during the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic periods. She has gathered together an extremely large body of
data from the archaeological record and incorporated it with a provocative
interpretative scheme based on contemporary and historical south-east
European myth, folk-lore, and folk-religion. The book as a whole is a
significant contribution to the developing appreciation for the Neolithic-
Chalcolithic cultural achievement in south-east Europe. . . . Certainly the
most controversial part of this book will be the interpretation of the
figurines and symbols as representing particular mythical and/or religious
concepts and deities . . . the subject of extensive debate in the near
future.426

James D. Muhly, then professor of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at

the University of Pennsylvania, questions the new chronology and comments on

the subjective aspects of some of Gimbutas’s interpretations. Nevertheless, he

emphasizes that “the superb illustrations alone (over four hundred) . . . make this

book indispensable.”427

The North American archaeologist Homer Thomas’s review in

Archaeology states, “Professor Gimbutas gives us an excellent summary of [Old

European] development. . . but I feel certain she will encounter scholars who have

quite other views on these matters. Studies of this type are much needed.”428

Articles by other archaeologists are not so gracious. The classical

archaeologist Steven Diamant, writing in Classical World, who states his

426
Robert K. Evans, review of The Gods and Goddesses, 59–60.

427
Muhly, review of the book The Gods and Goddesses, 616.

428
Homer L. Thomas, review of Gods and Goddesses, 464.

200
preference for the method and conclusions of archaeologist Peter Ucko, adds,

“For whatever value the book may have as a collection of otherwise inaccessible

material, it is of little real worth to the specialist, and virtually none to an

unsuspecting reading public.”429

In a review in the American Journal of Archaeology, the author writes, “I

strongly disagree with the thesis of this book, [and] find its methodology faulty. . .

. Emphatic statements replace reasoned argumentation, and alternatives are not

explored. . . . From a scholar of Prof. Gimbutas’s stature we should have received

something better.”430

In Library Journal, the United States archaeologist James M. Adovasio

remarks, “While many scholars will find Gimbutas’ interpretations far exceed the

parameters of the available archaeological data, this book is profusely illustrated

so the specialist can judge the ‘proofs’ for himself. Her thesis should be hotly

debated.”431 A contributor to the Journal of Baltic Studies writes,

Although the author is able to make some use of ancient literary sources
and of folklore, she must rely primarily on the clues provided by
nonliterary archaeological evidence. . . . Thus her conclusions are
inevitably somewhat speculative and hypothetical, and a skeptic could
always claim that she over organizes and over interprets her evidence.
However, her interpretations, though sometimes daring, are never
unreasonable. This risk is involved in any effort to penetrate the
prehistoric mind.432

429
Diamant, review of Gods and Goddesses, 48–49.

430
Banks, review of Gods and Goddesses, 156–57.

431
Adovasio, review of Gods and Goddesses, 1388.

432
Reynolds, review Gods and Goddesses, 225.

201
Reviews of The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1982)

Marija Gimbutas’s 1974 text of Gods and Goddesses was republished in

1982 as The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500–3500 BC: Myths and Cult

Images. She explains in her preface to the new edition that her view about the

centrality of woman in society and “worship of a Goddess incarnating the creative

principle as Source and Giver of All”433 was strengthened by the new

archaeological material excavated in southeast Europe during the previous

decade. Moreover, as she explained many times, most of the Old European

anthropomorphic imagery is female, which explains the change of word order in

the title. She recognizes the function of male imagery as representing

“spontaneous and life-stimulating—but not life-generating—powers.”434

Marija Gimbutas՚s articulated rationale for changing the word-order in the

title struck a bell that resonated in nearly all of the resulting reviews. An

anonymous writer in Theology Digest focuses exclusively on this point: “The

change in the title brings out more clearly the dominance of women in society and

worship during the period from 6500 to 3500 BC.”435

A reviewer in Utne Reader flippantly notes, “This fiery old European

archaeologist, who has dedicated her life to retrieving the sculpted and incised

433
Gimbutas, Goddesses and Gods, 9.

434
Ibid.

435
Theology Digest, unsigned review of Goddesses and Gods, 171.

202
female figure, finally convinced the publishing world after a decade that

ՙgoddesses՚ belonged first in the title.”436

It is fascinating to see the extent to which some reviewers employ various

degrees of scholarly prerogative to project their own beliefs, assumptions, and

interpretations onto Marija Gimbutas՚s published works, thereby sending their

own ideas into the world. Writing in The American Rationalist, a reviewer notes

that Gimbutas’s “candid and clear writing proves the women ՙlibbers՚ to be right,

[that] in the pre-historical days matriarchy . . . was culturally long the rule before

being displaced by patriarchy. That is why her book title has the word ՙgoddess՚

before ՙgods.՚”437 This same writer erroneously conflates Old European evidence

with classical Greek remains of “phalli on sculptures near temples and on hermes

used as signposts on the roads and before the doors of houses,”438 in order to

claim that Dr. Gimbutas’s “splendidly honest and scholarly book” proves that

“sex worship is one of the master keys unlocking the mystery of religion.”439

Writing in Studia Mystica, Cal State Professor Mignon Gregg reviews key

areas of Goddesses and Gods, highlighting Gimbutas’s concept of Old Europe as

a genuine civilization before the rise of Mesopotamia, whose cultural and spiritual

manifestations influenced the development of Minoan Crete and the florescence

of classical Greece. Gregg points out that Gimbutas was not the first scholar to

436
Utne Reader, unsigned review of Goddesses and Gods, par. 1.

437
Katz, review of Goddesses and Gods, par. 4.

438
Ibid., par. 5.

439
Ibid., par. 8.

203
argue for the existence of Goddess religion and matriarchal civilization, but

instead of relying upon textual evidence, her great contribution is her use of

archaeological evidence. “Her work, which is profusely illustrated and elaborately

documented, should put the issue of the existence of a Goddess-oriented

civilization beyond question.”440 Gregg criticizes Gimbutas’s supposed assertion

that “the matriarchal culture” was peaceful and egalitarian as unsupported, or that

“matriarchal cultures” were all alike. He considers Gimbutas’s “sweeping”

assertion that Old Europe was “savagely destroyed” as far too simplistic. “At the

very least, we must ask whether there was not something about matriarchy which

called forth this assault on the Goddess.”441 Gregg noted, however, the

tremendous implication that patriarchy was not a natural evolution out of a more

primitive matriarchy. “The past was denied, discredited, and forgotten by the

victorious new social order. Patriarchy rewrote history to claim for itself the

Divine, the origin of life, and the emergence of civilization. We now have an

opportunity to recover the past―and ourselves. A whole new field is opening

up.”442

Marija Gimbutas used the term “matriarchy” in both The Gods and

Goddesses of Old Europe and in The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, but

thereafter, she refused to use it again in order to avoid the erroneous association

440
Gregg, review of Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, par. 11.

441
Ibid.

442
Ibid.

204
many readers have, to this day, that matriarchy implies the rule of women over

men, in the same way that men subjugate women in patriarchy. 443

In his review of The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe in California

Magazine, published by the University of California, the North American author

and cultural critic Greil Marcus comments, “This magnificent and accessible

work of scholarship by Professor Marija Gimbutas of UCLA defines the contours

of a civilization unknown to the general public.”444 He notes that many of the

sculptures and pottery art depicted in her book are “shockingly modern in form …

that testify to the flowering of a complex culture organized around the

apprehension of a life spirit rather than the hegemony of gender.”445 Marcus

concludes by stating, “there is also the sense of exhilaration a reader can gain

from the work of a scholar who has plunged into unknown territory and returned

with unimaginable treasures.”446

The North American journalist Richard Nilsen, contributing to The

Chronicle Whole Earth Catalogue, writes that Marija Gimbutas’s excavations

“are exciting an entire generation of women (and some men, too), because her

research shows that early Europeans worshipped goddesses and were matrifocal,

443
It is significant that the interpretation of “matriarchy” promoted by the
German cultural scholar Heide Goettner-Abendroth, and the anthropologist Peggy Reeves
Sanday, closely resemble the balanced social structure of Old Europe as described by
Marija Gimbutas. See Goettner-Abendroth, Societies of Peace; Sanday, Women at the
Center; and “Moral Authority of the Maternal,” 80-7.
444
Marcus, “Myth and Reality,” p. 1.

445
Ibid.,

446
Ibid.

205
in stark contrast to subsequent European history.”447 He notes that the “strangely

evocative” Neolithic art displayed in her texts are inspiring artists today and are

“zapping their humanity (and divinity) across seven millennia [providing] a

unique window into European prehistory.”448 Nilsen emphasizes the burgeoning

category of new books dealing with the Goddess and feminist spirituality, many,

of which, “owe their historical underpinnings to Marija Gimbutas’ literal

spadework.”449

One book reviewed in the same section of the The Chronicle Whole Earth

Catalogue is The Chalice and the Blade (1987) by Riane Eisler, who drew from

Gimbutas՚s Old European discoveries and Kurgan theory to formulate her concept

of the Dominator and Partnership Models. The reviewer, Stephanie Mills, writes,

“This is an exciting time in our culture. More pieces of the puzzle of history are

coming to hand, especially the puzzle of how and why men came to dominate

women—and the earth.” Eisler proposed the new term “gylany,” which Gimbutas

embraced as a viable replacement for matriarchy. This neologism combines Gy,

derived from the Greek root gyne (woman) with an derived from andros (man),

linked with l to signify that woman and man are linked rather than ranked. 450

An erudite review written by a London scholar for the journal Mentalities

comments on the cultural as well as temporal significance of Gimbutas’s

447
Nilsen, “European ՙHerstory՚: When Women Were Goddesses,” par. 1.

448
Ibid., par. 4.

449
Ibid., par. 2.

450
Eisler, Chalice and the Blade, 105.

206
definition of pre-Indo-European Old Europe and her focus on the symbolism and

iconography of the Neolithic farmers of the region. According to the author

Robert C. Reed, the dichotomy Gimbutas presents between the regenerative,

mythopoeic female imagery and the “cataclysmic gods” of the Indo-European

pantheon serves as “a valid ordering and conceptual device” that provides a focus

for the reader.451

Yet to the degree it actually applies to the prehistoric people in question—

their psychological orientation, spiritual sensibilities, social patterning—is
another matter. The book is highly inductive when not assertively
subjective, and as such is “about” the development of the interpretation
rather more than it is about the Old Europeans. The insights offered in a
work of this sort are only as useful or thought-provoking as the zeal,
knowledgeability, imagination, and rhetoric of the author. Yet in all these
respects Gimbutas’s performance rates high. 452

In Reed’s view, Gimbutas’s comparative process invites circular

inference, although he considers her commitments

refreshing in a field in which interpretation is too often cautious in the

extreme, or amounts to platitudes. . . . Yet as it stands the almost
theological approach tells us as much, or as little, about the Old Europeans
and their beliefs as we are inclined to make of it. 453

Jacques Leslie, who is a former Los Angeles Times foreign correspondent,

had a hard time imagining a book less likely to become a sensation than

Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, with its “wooden prose and esoteric subject

matter.” Nevertheless, he concedes that Gimbutas’s ideas “have kindled an

interest in archaeology among an unlikely amalgam of artists, feminists and other

451
Reed, review of Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, par. 2.

452
Ibid.

453
Ibid., par. 5.

207
spiritually oriented people who find in her work confirmation of some of their

most cherished beliefs.”454

A beautiful, full-color photograph of Marija Gimbutas standing in her

garden in Topanga Canyon, surrounded by fruit trees and flowers, accompanies

Leslie’s article. She is softly smiling and looking straight into the camera with a

quiet dignity. The caption reads: “Marija Gimbutas’ theories have brought her a

loyal following among artists and feminists, but lowered her standing among her

peers.”455 While most scholars, according to Leslie, were not impressed by her

interdisciplinary approach, “feminists with a spiritual orientation, who found

wisdom and solace in goddess-oriented mythology, embraced her as a heroine. To

them, the book offered hope that their ideals―including harmony between the

sexes, reverence for nature and existence without warfare―were not just

theoretical possibilities but realities of past societies.”456

Leslie bolsters his point of view by mentioning a review in the periodical

Choice, published by the Association of College and Research Libraries, in which

Goddesses and Gods is considered disappointing and rife with unsupported

assumptions throughout the text. Instead of studying only the material aspects of

culture, respected by her colleagues, Gimbutas “drew on bodies of knowledge not

usually associated with archaeology, notably folklore and mythology” for which

454
Leslie, “Goddess Theory,” 22.

455
Ibid., 23.

456
Ibid., 24.

208
she “is unquestionably well-equipped.”457 He notes that Gimbutas՚s lavishly

illustrated books are inspiring artists working in a wide range of media—painting,

sculpture, photography, printmaking, theater performance and dance. “In some

ways,” Leslie muses, “the controversy reflects a classic conflict between science

and art.” He goes on to state that scholars who think that archaeology is legitimate

only to the degree that it is grounded in science, Gimbutas՚s “grandiose claims”

are too far-fetched even to merit consideration, while she considers her colleagues

too passionless, too unintuitive, too alienated from nature to understand the

prehistoric past.458

Leslie admits that he considers Gimbutas’s theories to be “suspect,

conceivably flatly wrong, yet they resonate far more than her colleagues’ arid

treatises. Whether or not the world she describes existed, her advocates feel as if

they’ve glimpsed it, and long for its return.”459

Reviews of The Language of the Goddess (1989)

From the time of the publication of The Goddesses and Gods of Old

Europe in 1982 to the appearance of The Language of the Goddess in 1989, a

critical mass of converging forces erupted into the public sphere. Themes

appearing within the reviews of Marija Gimbutas՚s previous publications,

especially since the 1974 publication of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe,

expanded exponentially, representing the incandescent expansion of the second

457
Ibid., 23–24.

458
Ibid., 26.

459
Ibid.

209
wave of feminism and the progressive challenging of patriarchal norms within

women’s life experiences. The growth of the Women՚s Spirituality movement

during the 1970s and 1980s was enriched by the meaningful discovery of the

Goddess in the lives of countless women and men, in North America, Europe,

Australia, and beyond. Positive international reviews of Gimbutas՚s works were

produced during this period in Romania, Costa Rica, Lithuania, Italy, Denmark,

Netherlands, Dominican Republic, and Panama, in the languages of the countries

represented.

The publication of The Language of the Goddess in San Francisco by

Harper and Row, in 1989, brought a wealth of Neolithic imagery to the West,

seen by countless readers for the first time. The vivid presentation of finely

produced Neolithic ceramics and anthropomorphic and zoomorphic sculptures

expressing a wide range of mythological imagery had an inspiring influence on

artists in all media, as well as poets, writers, mythologists, and others working

within a range of disciplines. Critics who objected to the spontaneous popularity

of this text outside of the parameters of traditional archaeological fields expressed

their viewpoints.

As mentioned in Chapter 5, there are few serious critiques of Gimbutas’s

theories, while there are many articles about the phenomenon of Goddess

worship, the rise of the women՚s spirituality movement, the profusion of new

artistic expressions, and meaningful personal stories mixed with jocular criticisms

and not-so-subtle caricatures. Articles were produced by the hundreds in various

journals and in a broad range of periodicals. These responses, some of which were

210
syndicated through well-oiled networks of major and regional newspapers,

amplified people՚s awareness of the work of Marija Gimbutas and the enormous

influence her work was having.

Reviews of The Civilization of the Goddess (1991)

In 1991, The Civilization of the Goddess, Marija Gimbutas՚s magnum

opus, was published by HarperSanFrancisco as an elegant sister volume to The

Language of the Goddess (1989). While her 1989 text introduces

archaeomythology in order to formalize an interdisciplinary method for studying

Old European symbolism, The Civilization of the Goddess functions as a

distillation of her life’s work. Such a comprehensive, pan-European text had

never been previously attempted. This major text introduces the Neolithic

societies of Old Europe, their economy, social structure, religion, the development

of the earliest script (used primarily for ritual purposes), and the collapse of Old

Europe as the result of repeated invasions of patriarchal Indo-European tribes

from the North Pontic‒Caspian steppes. As with Gimbutas’s earlier texts, reviews

of The Civilization are mixed, reflecting the intellectual disposition of the

reviewers.

In a 1992 book review published in Psychological Perspectives, the

Jungian therapist Connie Zweig writes,

The Civilization of the Goddess by Marija Gimbutas . . . is the culmination

of the life work of an extraordinary archaeologist, whose ideas have
rewritten history and can potentially rewrite the future. Gimbutas’s earlier
works launched the Goddess movement. In fact, much of the recent
thinking about feminine spirituality, earth-centered religion, and
partnership is rooted in her landmark work. Through thirty years of
meticulous research and a radical reframing of archaeological findings,
Gimbutas has repainted our picture of the origins of civilization.

211
 To understand the decline of the goddess cultures and the rise of
the patriarchy is to understand that social, political, and religious forms are
ever-changing. Our ways of living today, which seem so carved in
concrete, are actually transitional. And our view of “progress” needs to be
reevaluated in light of all we now know. 460

In the March 8, 1992 Sunday section of The Blade (Toledo, Ohio), Fred

and Sally Vallongo presented their book review, titled “Women Turn Spotlight on

Their Idyllic Past.”

Dr. Marija Gimbutas, professor emeritus of European archaeology at

UCLA, has published two books on her work in ancient matriarchies. Her
first book, The Language of the Goddess. . . became the boulder thrown
into a quiet pond; the waves of controversy haven’t subsided yet. Dr.
Gimbutas struck at the heart of Eurocentric assumptions by exploring its
prehistory (7000–2500 BC). . . . Drawing from her own archaeological
work and that of others in Yugoslavia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania,
Moldavia, and the western Ukraine, as well as Mediterranean sites, Dr.
Gimbutas took a giant leap and included information from comparative
folklore and mythology.
Dr. Gimbutas’s results have been received with everything from
open scorn—including serious questioning of her methods and facts—to
welcome relief that someone has broken the boundaries of time and
looked further into the past. Her new book, The Civilization of the
Goddess . . . continues the process and, no doubt, the controversy.461

In a review of The Civilization of the Goddess published in the Journal of

the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (1994), Michael Herity, Dean of Celtic

Studies at University College Dublin, wrote:

Archaeology is today enjoying some reaction against the more extreme

skepticism of the New Archaeology. We might look with some hope
towards an emerging Cognitive Archaeology; if Positivism drives, it will
creep; if scientific optimism, it will run or even soar. In a liberal world,
truly interested in a broad range of ideas about humanity, this book will be
widely read . . . it is bound to be influential in the Humanities and may

460
Zweig, review of The Civilization of the Goddess, 163.

461
Fred Vallongo and Sally Vallongo, “Women Turn Spotlight on Their Ancient
Past,” pars. 6, 7, 8, 10.

212
 help to bring the debate about the nature of prehistory to a new level of
maturity.462

In the Books section of the March/April 1993 issue of MS Magazine, the

cultural historian Charlene Spretnak wrote,

As Baring and Cashford note, what Heinrich Schliemann did for Troy,
Marija Gimbutas has done for the Neolithic era of “Old Europe,”
unearthing the treasures of a culturally rich and advanced culture of
societies that flourished between 7000 and 3500 BCE.
In The Civilization of the Goddess . . . Gimbutas draws together
her pioneering work of several decades to present essential aspects of
European history that have not previously been treated on a pan-European
scale. . . . Gimbutas’s text is clear and specific; unfortunately, admirers
and critics alike have sometimes transformed her findings into a version
resembling a Neolithic paradisiacal Disneyland. 463

Reviews of The Living Goddesses (1990)

For several years before she died, Marija Gimbutas was working on her

last book, which summarized her work on the religious symbolism of Old Europe

while adding new material concerning the continuity of Old European religious

beliefs and practices into later, patriarchal periods. After Gimbutas’s death in

1994, Miriam Robbins Dexter agreed to edit and supplement the unfinished

manuscript, which was published in 1999 by University of California Press.

The linguist, Edgar Polomé, editor of the Journal of Indo-European

Studies, penned this review for the University of California Press:

The quintessence of decades of research. . . . [The Living Goddesses]

excellently illustrates the various manifestations of the Goddess in the
Minoan world and in ancient Greece, among the Etruscans and the
Basques, in Celtic, Germanic, and Baltic religion. . . . For sure, the ideas
of Marija Gimbutas about the “Old European” civilization are

462
Herity, Review of Civilization of the Goddess, 167.

463
Spretnak, “Books” review of The Civilization of the Goddess, 63.

213
 controversial, but they are built on strong arguments and valid bases,
which make it indispensable for her dissident colleagues to take heed of
her writings.464

Soon after The Living Goddesses appeared in the spring of 1999, an

anonymous author responded in the Kirkus Reviews calling this work

another contribution to the much-ballyhooed theory of matriarchal

prehistory, by the late feminist pioneer Gimbutas (Archaeology/UCLA).
Gimbutas built a career around her controversial claims that before Indo-
European warriors invaded around 4400 b.c. [sic], “Old Europeans” from
Ireland to Italy enjoyed an agrarian, peaceful, goddess-worshiping
existence. Their aesthetic standard was higher than that of other cultures of
the period, with sophisticated architecture, complex linear language, and
advanced farming techniques. Their religious rituals centered on birth and
regeneration, with female reproductive images occupying prominent roles.
Many archaeologists have criticized Gimbutas’s techniques and
interpretations, noting that she reads more into the physical evidence than
is supportable. Are all circles eggs, for example, and is every triangle a
pubic image? . . . The book is well written, and much credit must be given
to editor Dexter (a lecturer in women’s studies at UCLA), for tying
together Gimbutas’s last works in an eloquent manner. Full of intriguing
possibilities, but Gimbutas’s work is too wedded to theory and ideology,
rather than to archaeological evidence, to be ultimately persuasive. 465

The archaeologist Lauren Talalay from the University of Michigan wrote

an exceptionally long review published in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review on

October 5, 1999. Excerpts are included here:

The archaeologist most closely linked with the “Goddess Movement” is

indisputably Marija Gimbutas, whose prodigious publication record
includes three major books on the Goddesses of Neolithic Europe and the
Mediterranean . . . Anyone familiar with these books knows that they have
never rested comfortably on the shelves of academia. Although
Gimbutas’s beliefs in an early matrilineal/focal society, throughout what
she terms “Old Europe” (Pre-Indo-European culture), have been embraced
by many grassroots feminists as the authoritative scholarly voice on the
topic, her reception among academic archaeologists has been less than

464
Polomé, Untitled endorsement for The Living Goddesses, par. 1.

465
Kirkus Reviews, unsigned review of The Living Goddesses, par. 1.

214
 favorable, running the gamut from apathy and annoyance to disdain and
bitter controversy.466
Unfortunately, The Living Goddesses is a single-minded,
essentializing, and largely unrigorous sweep through the mythology and
folklore of prehistoric, historic, and modern Europe and the
Mediterranean.467 . . . Although Gimbutas never intended to be the
“Grandmother of the Goddess Movement” (as she was recently dubbed),
this book will probably be well-received by a popular and perhaps
undergraduate audience. The style is easy, and a useful glossary appears in
the back. The book will find a smaller academic audience and the lack of
references in the text suggests that this was not the proposed audience. 468
Even though this book does not represent a final leap forward for
Gimbutas, it will continue to fuel the ongoing debate about ancient
Goddesses, the origins of matriarchy, and the role of patriarchy in
prehistory. Gimbutas was one of the first prehistorians to attempt a
systematic disentangling of early symbolism, spirituality, and the Mother
Goddess in Europe and the Mediterranean. Flawed as her work was, the
response, principally from feminist audiences, created a literature and art
of its own. In the last few decades the Goddess has become a rich and
controversial topic in fiction, feminist literature, performance art, and film.
The Great Goddess is not, however, so alive and well within the walls of
the academy, and the history of that resistance deserves attention.469

International Events, Publications, Inspirations, and Rebuttals

People՚s wide ranging responses to Marija Gimbutas՚s discoveries and

interpretations have become an international phenomenon. This section

acknowledges significant responses to her life՚s work beyond the appearance of

individual reviews.

In 1993, a major exhibition, “Sprache der Gӧttin,” was produced by the

Frauen Museum in Wiesbaden, Germany. All three floors of the museum were

466
Talalay, review of The Living Goddesses, par. 1.

467
Ibid., par. 2.

468
Ibid., par. 12.

469
Talalay, review of The Living Goddesses, pars. 14, 15.

215
filled with elegantly crafted images, expertly reproduced from illustrations

featured in The Language of the Goddess. Hundreds of people assembled in the

courtyard for the opening, traveling from as far away as Norway, not only to see

the exhibition, but to see and hear Marija Gimbutas, herself, who make several

presentations as part of this memorable celebration. Before arriving in Wiesbaden,

she and I were in Vilnius where she was embraced by the entire nation, and was

given an honorary doctorate at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas. And now,

the year before she passed away, she was celebrated by this exquisite exhibition at

the Frauen Museum in her honor. During the following eighteen months,

thousands of people came from all over Europe to experience the exhibition.

During this celebratory event, three young women arrived who had earned

their doctorates in archaeology at Tübingen University in the Department of

Prehistoric Archaeology where Marija Gimbutas earned her degree in 1946. They

walked by her photograph every day in the hallway of their department, where it

hangs among portraits of other graduates, mostly men. For this occasion, Sibylle

Kästner, Viola Maier, and Almut Schülke, arranged to interview Dr. Gimbutas for

an article recognizing the small number of women who graduated as

archaeologists from Tübingen University. Their interview, “From Pictures to

Stories,” is published in the 1998 anthology, Excavating Women: A History of

Women in European Archaeology. The authors comment that in Germany,

Gimbutas՚s interdisciplinary approach has engendered challenging discussions

about new methods of interpreting material remains in archaeology. 470

470
Kästner, Maier, and Schülke, “From Pictures to Stories,” 280‒81.

216
 As Gimbutas՚s publications about Old European symbolism and the

Goddess began to appear, the growing enthusiasm from mythologists, artists,

poets, and people in a variety of fields within the humanities, especially women,

took Gimbutas by surprise. She commented that she had no idea her work would

be meaningful for women or for anyone outside the world of archaeology. But as

her own colleagues began to step away, she was embraced by an enthusiastic

public who were eager to express their appreciation. 471 While Gimbutas had no

idea that her work would be meaningful for people outside of academia, there are

many examples of the expansion of people՚s comprehension of its value.

Five years after the publication of The Goddesses and Gods of Old

Europe, the cultural historian, Riane Eisler, published The Chalice and The Blade

(1987), which brought key tenets of Gimbutas՚s work to a global audience. Her

book was translated into numerous languages and widely distributed. Gimbutas՚s

concept of Neolithic Old Europe as balanced, egalitarian, and peaceful, with a

matristic social structure, is a perfect example of Eisler՚s partnership model. This

model stands in direct contrast to the male-dominant, horse-riding, warlike

pastoralists from the North Pontic-Caspian steppes who infiltrated into Europe

over two millennia, breaking up the civilization of Old Europe. The contrast

between these two social systems provided the basis for Eisler՚s partnership and

dominator models, which can be utilized as a way of recognizing the social

dynamics of human cultures from any period and any geographical region.

Gimbutas recognized that the cultural shock of repeated invasions over

471
Marler, “Circle Is Unbroken,” 20.

217
two thousand years, from the mid fifth to the mid third millennia BC precipitated

a wide range of external and internal cultural changes that transformed the face of

Europe. In order to understand how human societies are formed, how they

maintain themselves, even over long periods of time, and how drastic change can

happen to disrupt previously stable cultural systems, Riane Eisler created the field

of study she calls “cultural transformation theory.” 472 The “collision of cultures”

between the Old European and the Indo-European systems makes a vivid

laboratory for the implementation of Eisler՚s “cultural transformation theory.”

There are numerous examples of ways that Gimbutas՚s life-long

scholarship has influenced new thinking and creative initiatives. The writer Starr

Goode, from Santa Monica, California, was inspired to produce the cable TV

series “The Goddess in Art” after meeting Marija Gimbutas in 1986. The series

concluded in 1991, after she produced the world premier of The Civilization of the

Goddess. Goode՚s TV series explored the legacy of the most ancient traditions of

artistic expression, and the resurgence of feminist spirituality in contemporary art.

Her interviews preserve the voices and presence of Marija Gimbutas, Riane

Eisler, Elinor Gadon, Miriam Robbins Dexter, Mayumi Oda, Chris Castle, and

other artists, poets, writers, and scholars who have greatly enriched our

contemporary cultural development. 473

472
Eisler, Chalice and the Blade, xx.

473
See Goode, “The Goddess in Art TV Series,”
http://www.starrgoode.com/TVSeries.html.

218
 Such cultural enrichment is also been expressed by the establishment in

1993 of the graduate studies program in Women՚s Spirituality at the California

Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco. This program, initiated by

the art historian Elinor Gadon, as its first director, featured courses inspired by the

work of Marija Gimbutas, taught by Carol P. Christ, Mara Lynn Keller, Susan

Carter, Joan Marler, and Riane Eisler, featuring such offerings as “Goddesses of

Prehistory: An Archaeomythology,” “Marija Gimbutas: A Vital Controversy”;

and “Women at the Center.” The MA and PhD Women’s Spirituality programs

continue to be offered to graduate students to this day. Samples of graduate works

inspired by the scholarship of Marija Gimbutas, created by MA and PhD students

at CIIS, most of which are available through ProQuest, include the following

diversity of topics:

1997: Susan Carter, MA—“Mirror of Many Moons: Reflection on the

Use and Meaning of the Mirror throughout History: Instrument of
Goddess Culture, Tool for Patriarchal Female Distortion, and
Catalyst for Women’s Reclamation” (ProQuest 1400748);

2000: Eahr Joan, MA—“Re-Genesis: A Mother-Line Archive of

Feminist Spirituality” (ProQuest 1398189);

2000: Tricia Grame, PhD—“Life into Art, Art into Life: Transformative
Effects of the Female Symbol on a Contemporary Woman Artist”
(ProQuest 9992390);

2001: Susan G. Carter, PhD—“Amaterasu-o-mi-kami: Past and Present.

An Exploration of the Japanese Sun Goddess From a Western
Feminist Perspective” (ProQuest 3004465);

2002: Valgerdur H. Bjarnadottir, MA—“The Saga of Vanadis, Volva,

and Valkyrja: Images of the Divine from the Memory of an
Islandic Woman” (ProQuest 1407334);

2006: Anne Key, PhD—“Death and the Divine: The Cihuateteo, Goddess
in the Mesoamerican Cosmo-vision” (ProQuest 3177317);

219
 2013: Mary Beth Moser, PhD—“The Everyday Spirituality of Women in
the Italian Alps: a Trentino American Women’s Search for
Spiritual Agency, Folk Wisdom, and Ancestral Values” (ProQuest
3560748);

2013: Joan Marie Cichon, PhD—“Matriarchy in Minoan Crete: A

Perspective from Archaeomythology and Mother Matriarchal
Studies” (ProQuest 3606922);

2015: Margaret Lynn Mitchell, PhD—“Saint Brigid of Ireland: A

Feminist Cultural History of Her Abiding Legacy from the Fifth to
the Twenty-first Century” (ProQuest 3712702);

2017: Elisabeth Sikie, PhD—“A Modern Soul Retrieval: Recovering

Female European Wisdom Traditions and a Lost Indigenous
Ancestral Consciousness of Deep Relations” (ProQuest
10280303).

Marija Gimbutas continues to inspire a growing body of scholarship that

builds upon her work. The following publications, from 1987 to 1991, have

enriched the spiritual and intellectual fields of study in women’s spirituality,

religious studies, and women’s sacred arts. These include, among others, The

Once and Future Goddess by Elinor W. Gadon (1989); The Heart of the Goddess

by Hallie Iglehart Austen (1990); The Heroine’s Journey by Maureen Murdock

(1990); Shakti Women: Feeling Our Fire, Healing Our World by Vicki Noble

(1991); Through the Goddess: A Women’s Way of Healing by Patricia Reis

(1991); and The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image, by Anne Baring and

Jules Cashford (1991).

In 1991, The Civilization of the Goddess by Marija Gimbutas was

published by HarperSanFrancisco. The poet and novelist Mary Mackey was so

taken by reading it that she decided to meet with Marija Gimbutas to ask

permission to write a series of novels based upon her magnum opus. During a

wide-ranging conversation about all aspects of Old Europe, Mackey asked

220
Gimbutas what she imagined the poetry of Old Europe to have been like.

Gimbutas replied, “I՚m a scholar. I don՚t imagine. That՚s your job.” 474 Permission

granted. Between 1993 and 2016, Mackey created The Earthsong Trilogy: The

Year the Horses Came, The Horses at the Gate, The Fires of Spring, and the

prequel, The Village of Bones, novels based upon The Civilization of the Goddess.

The ongoing production of publications inspired by Gimbutas continued

through the 1990s. These texts include Whence the Goddesses: A Source Book by

Miriam Robbins Dexter (1990); Women՚s Mysteries: Toward a Poetics of Gender,

by Christine Downing (1992); The Well of Remembrance: Discovering the Earth

Wisdom Myths of Northern Europe, by Ralph Metzner, with a foreword by Marija

Gimbutas (1994); Habitations of the Great Goddess by Cristina Biaggi, with

foreword by Marija Gimbutas (1994); Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 12,

no. 2. Special issue in honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Carol P. Christ and

Naomi R. Goldenberg with articles by Carol P. Christ, Naomi R. Goldenberg,

Joan Marler, Mara Lynn Keller, Charlene Spretnak, and Frances Stahl Bernstein

(1996); Rebirth of the Goddess: Finding Meaning in Feminist Spirituality, by

Carol P. Christ (1997); “The Interface of Archaeology and Mythology: A

Philosophical Evaluation of the Gimbutas Paradigm” in The Pomegranate:

Journal of Pagan Studies 5 by Mara Lynn Keller (1998).

In 1997, the 659-page international, interdisciplinary anthology, From the

Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, was

published, edited by Joan Marler. As the result of this publication, a two-day

474
Mackey, “A Conversation in the Desert,” 573.

221
conference took place at the National History Museum, Washington, DC,

sponsored by the Smithsonian Associates. The main presenters of this conference

were invited by the Lithuanian Ambassador, Alfonsas Eidintas, to make a

presentation in honor of Marija Gimbutas at the Lithuanian Embassy. The

following year, a sold-out conference, “From the Realm of the Ancestors: The

Language of the Goddess,” took place at Fort Mason in San Francisco, co-

produced by Mara Lynn Keller and Joan Marler of CIIS.

In 2004, Starhawk and director Donna Read produced the video

documentary Signs Out of Time: The Life and Work of Marija Gimbutas, which

was narrated by Olympia Dukakis. This documentary was well distributed

throughout the United States, Europe, and in over 100 universities and colleges

around the world, introducing thousands of people to the life and work of this

remarkable Lithuanian American archaeologist.

In 2005, the sculptor, multimedia artist, and scholar Cristina Biaggi edited

The Rule of Mars: Readings in the Origins, History and Impact of Patriarchy,

which elaborated and built upon on different aspects of Gimbutas’s scholarship.

In the meantime, the criticisms against Marija Gimbutas continued. In 2000, the

artist and scholar Max Dashu wrote a rebuttal to Cynthia Eller՚s Myth of

Matriarchal Prehistory in defense of Marija Gimbutas, titled “Knocking Down

Straw Dolls.” This was followed by Kristy Coleman՚s rebuttal, “Matriarchy and

Myth,” published in 2001. In 2006, Joan Marler weighed in by writing, “The

Myth of Universal Patriarchy.” Charlene Spretnak produced two important

articles in defense of Marija Gimbutas: “Beyond the Backlash: An Appreciation

222
for the work of Marija Gimbutas” in From the Realm of the Ancestors (1997), and

“Anatomy of a Backlash: Concerning the Work of Marija Gimbutas” in the

Journal of Archaeomythology.

In 2011, the Journal of Archaeomythology produced a special volume for

Gimbutas՚s ninetieth birthday with seventeen international contributors. In 2014,

an international, interdisciplinary conference was held in Rome at the Casa

Internazionale delle Donne to honor Marija Gimbutas twenty years after her

death. In 2021, a three-day international, interdisciplinary online symposium was

presented by the Association for the Study of Women and Mythology (ASWM) in

collaboration with the Institute of Archaeomythology to celebrate Marija

Gimbutas՚s centennial year.

Conclusion

This chapter began by featuring a selection of reviews of Marija

Gimbutas՚s major publications, primarily by academics in archaeology and by

authors from a variety of disciplines, to give a sense of the range of responses

over time to Gimbutas՚s published works. Academic responses have generally

been positive toward Gimbutas՚s more traditional works, while her interpretations

of Neolithic arts and evidence of early beliefs and rituals have triggered

criticisms, especially among archaeologists. The final section of this chapter

focuses on ways that her life՚s work has inspired new scholarship and creativity

beyond the parameters of archaeology, especially within the world of women՚s

spirituality and in the context of international events created in Gimbutas՚s honor.

223
 Marija Gimbutas had no idea that her life-long devotion to archaeology

and to interdisciplinary scholarship would inspire the creative lives of so many

people working in a wide range of disciplines. She deserved the appreciation she

received, and the resonance of her scholarship continues.

The following chapter examines some of the criticism that Gimbutas՚s

pioneering work has inspired over the years. Chapter 7 discusses what I call

“literature of the controversy.”

224
 CHAPTER 7: LITERATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY: CRITICAL

PUBLICATIONS CONCERNING MARIJA GIMBUTAS’S THEORIES AND

INTERPRETATIONS

Within the trajectories of multiple theoretical developments, a

phenomenon arose across the archaeological spectrum of voices criticizing the

theories and interpretations of Marija Gimbutas. These voices have been

progressively documented since her publications began to appear during the

1950s, as presented in Chapter 6. In order to adequately investigate this

phenomenon, especially as it has developed within Gimbutas՚s own discipline of

archaeology, I found it necessary to gain an understanding of the theories,

underlying assumptions, and biases within European and Euro-American

archaeology, as introduced in Chapter 4, that may have influenced these

responses. As the enthusiasm for Gimbutas’s work accelerated, especially within

disciplines other than archaeology, the voices of writers intensified who

articulated critical reactions to Gimbutas՚s work. This chapter tracks the trajectory

of attitudes that lead toward what has become known as the “archaeology of cult

and religion.”

The monographs Gimbutas produced during her years at Harvard,

concerning the prehistory of Eastern Europe and cultures of the European Bronze

Age, reflect recognizable scientific procedures. Academic scholars from Europe

and North America were unanimous in their recognition of the value of the broad

range of archaeological data she collected, analyzed, and presented that were

previously inaccessible to Western scholars due to the effects of two world wars,

225
the ongoing cold war, and formidable linguistic barriers. Commenting on the

significance of Gimbutas’s enormous monograph, Bronze Age Cultures in Eastern

and Western Europe (1965), Colin Renfrew states that Gimbutas’s achievement is

remarkable, and “probably no one else alive could have undertaken it.”475

Nevertheless, his following statement, as mentioned in Chapter 6, presaged the

controversy that was to come: “In many ways it is a powerful theory, [but]

students will have to be warned of what is old and accepted in this book, what

new and controversial.”476

Marija Gimbutas’s in-depth research into these Neolithic and Bronze Age

societies gave rise to the development of her Kurgan theory, as discussed in

Chapters 5 and 8, that combine archaeology and linguistics, seeking to determine

the ethnogenesis of Indo-European speakers and to explain the demise and Indo-

Europeanization of the Neolithic societies of southeastern and central Europe (and

ultimately the rest of Europe, parts of Asia, and India).

After World War II, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, archaeologists

in Britain and the United States began to reject the concept of culture change due

to the migration of populations, which is central to Gimbutas’s explanation of the

transformation of Old Europe. Moreover, archaeologists, who were attempting to

be strictly scientific, were reluctant to accept investigations and interpretations of

the religious activities, symbolism, and beliefs of prehistoric peoples because such

475
Renfrew, review of the book Bronze Age Cultures, 64.

476
Ibid.

226
interpretations defy the process of testing that is fitting for mathematical

calculations and the formulation of empirical scientific proofs.

It was precisely during this time that Gimbutas turned her attention to a

dedicated investigation of the agrarian societies of Old Europe that absorbed the

final decades of her life. Her focus was not only on the long-lived habitation sites

and material cultures of Neolithic societies that flourished in Southeast and

Central Europe between the seventh and the fourth millennia BC; she also

investigated the symbolic significance of burials, remarkable ceramic

developments, thousands of figurines, and rich evidence of ritual activities and

long-distance trade practiced by these Neolithic populations.

Marija Gimbutas determined from her own excavations as project director

of Neolithic sites in southeastern Europe between 1967 and 1980, from numerous

excavations by others, as well as from her ongoing studies of the abundant

material preserved in museum collections throughout Europe, that the stable,

long-lived societies of Old Europe were peaceful, matrifocal/matristic, and

economically egalitarian. In the texts she produced between 1974 and 1991,

including her posthumous publication in 1999 of The Living Goddesses, she

described Old European religious beliefs and practices as centered around the

veneration of the generative powers of the living world, expressed in myriad

female forms. In her view, the Neolithic symbolism of the early agrarian

communities of Old Europe reflects the cyclic patterns of life-giving, death-

wielding, and regeneration within all of Nature. She used the term “Goddess” as a

metaphor for all life in Nature as the Sacred Source of existence. She determined

227
that Old European beliefs and customs that were subordinated by Indo-European

conquests persisted as substratum patterns into later patriarchal periods.

The publication of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe (1974) elicited

appreciation from both archaeologists and scholars in other disciplines for the

wealth of Neolithic sculptural material made available to Western readers for the

first time. After expressing his unadulterated appreciation, one scholar concluded

by commenting that “the most controversial part of this book will be the

interpretation of the figurines and symbols as representing particular mythical

and/or religious concepts and deities . . . the subject of extensive debate in the

near future.”477

In 1985, the University of Malta sponsored an international conference on

the subject of “Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean.” The

proceedings were published the following year, edited by the prominent Maltese

archaeologist Anthony Bonanno.478 One of the papers in this collection is by

archaeologist Brian Hayden who was not an invited presenter, is titled: “Old

Europe: Sacred Matriarchy or Complementary Opposition?” In it, Hayden

strongly challenges Gimbutas’s views on several fronts by stating that Old Europe

was not a peaceful utopia, and at its climax, was “undoubtedly hierarchical,

aggressive, and competitive.”479 He emphases that snakes and pillars, which

Gimbutas associates with Goddess imagery, actually represent phallic, masculine

477
Robert K. Evans, review of Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, 59–61.

478
Bonanno, Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean.

479
Hayden, “Old Europe: Sacred Matriarchy,” 27.

228
forces, which, in his view, she does not adequately consider. Hayden states that

while the number and quality of Old European female figurines seem to indicate

that “women could and undoubtedly often did hold high status . . . there appear to

be no societies where women’s status exceeds that of men”; and, he adds, in

traditional societies “men hold the critical reins of power,” which they are

unwilling to relinquish.480

In general, Hayden’s message was that Gimbutas’s interpretations of the

Great Goddess and her images are exaggerated, “lack methodological rigor,” and

are “excessively subjective.”481 Marija Gimbutas, who was an invited presenter in

the September 1985 Malta conference, refused to have her paper included in the

publication with Hayden’s paper because she considered his paper, which

included a slew of other negative remarks (read in absentia at the conference by

Colin Renfrew), to be personally insulting. The conference was sharply divided

between Gimbutas’s friends and colleagues who supported her, and those who

tacitly, or openly, seemed to agree with Hayden. 482

The Jungian therapist George B. Hogenson takes issue with Gimbutas’s

interpretation of the Goddess-centered world of Old Europe in his article, “The

Great Goddess Reconsidered: Recent Thinking about the ‘Old European Goddess

Culture’ of Marija Gimbutas” (1991). Hogenson argues that the idea of Old

Europe as a “non-hierarchical, gender neutral, peaceful, and ecologically sound

480
Ibid., 26.

481
Ibid., 28.

482
Cristina Biaggi, personal communication, June 2002.

229
world view” is “a contemporary anachronism based on late twentieth century

idealizations”—a “matriarchal utopianism”—which disguises a “far more

problematic, religio-mythic system.”483 Since the Old Europeans domesticated

not only plants but animals, he argues, they must have castrated bulls to control

the genetics of the herds. “It is not hard to speculate,” Hogenson writes, “that the

domestication of cattle would lead to the emergence of a castrated priesthood as a

human extension of this breeding process.”484 He goes on to imagine that Old

European male figurines without displayed genitalia “are quite possibly

representations of a castrated priesthood or even of a castrated god.”485 In

addition, Hogenson is critical of Gimbutas’s Kurgan theory and her interpretation

of the Kurgans as “hierarchical, misogynist, warlike, and ecologically

destructive.”486 In his view, the Old European / Kurgan dichotomy “is really a

venue for a wider debate over the nature of European civilization.”487 He

continues:

One way of thinking about my criticism of Gimbutas is to say that the

culture of the Goddess, as she reconstructs it, in no way provides us with a
vision of wholeness, because it moves toward a castration of masculine
energy in both men and women. Indeed, the social system built up in Old

483
Hogenson, “The Great Goddess Reconsidered,” 6, 13, 18.

484
Ibid., 23.

485
Ibid., 16.

486
Ibid., 5.

487
Ibid., 6.

230
 Europe may well have been as exploitative and as patriarchal in practice as
its successors in Greek, Roman or modern European culture. 488

It is true that the Old European‒Kurgan (Indo-European) dichotomy

provides an opportunity for a wider debate over the nature of European

civilization, especially since Hogenson seems to be concerned about the culture of

the Goddess leading to the castration of masculine energy; but he need not be

afraid. Although only three to five percent of Neolithic sculptures appear to be

male, Gimbutas does not ignore male imagery and describes a quietly seated male

image with his exposed phallus from the late sixth millennium BC Sesklo culture

in Thessaly, and she acknowledges the strong, seated male holding his erect

phallus from the Dimini culture in northern Greece, ca. fifth millennium BC. Of

the males with erect phalluses, Gimbutas writes,

[These] portrayals of ithyphallic, youthful, strong men, as well as bull-

men and goat-men dating from the fifth millennium BC in the
Balkans. . . . are fertility diamones whose function is to magically help the
Earth Maiden rise from the underground in spring, or to stimulate life
powers in general, particularly the growth of plants. 489

Her archaeomythological interpretation combines archaeological evidence of

numerous images of “ithyphallic, youthful, strong men” with mythological

descriptions of fertility diamones engaged in spring rituals stimulating the

generative powers of the life force.

488
Ibid., 24.

489
Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 181, 178.

231
 Concerning the nature of European civilization, Gimbutas explains that

there is no physical evidence in Old Europe of patriarchal patterns of exploitation

or aggression before the Indo-Europeanization of Old Europe.

Archaeologists and historians have assumed that civilization implies a

hierarchical political and religious organization, warfare, a class
stratification, and a complex division of labor. This pattern is indeed
typical of androcratic (male-dominated) societies such as Indo-European
but does not apply to the gynocentric (mother/woman-centered) cultures
[of Old Europe].490

The feminist archaeologists Margaret Conkey and Ruth Tringham

published their article, “Archaeology and the Goddess: Exploring the Contours of

Feminist Archaeology,” in the 1997 anthology Feminisms in the Academy. Their

ideas were developed as the basis of a course they presented by the same name at

the University of California, Berkeley. In it, they discuss what they see as “deeply

problematic issues and implications for feminist archaeology” in the phenomenon

they “reductively” label as “The Goddess Movement.”491 The authors discuss the

history of feminist inquiry and gender studies, as well as features of the Goddess

movement that they consider most problematic, such as “essentialist” ways that

archaeological data are supposedly used and interpreted by Marija Gimbutas “and

her followers.”492

Conkey and Tringham՚s article is riddled with distortions and

exaggerations that create a convenient platform for attacking Marija Gimbutas՚s

490
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, viii.

491
Ibid., 199.

492
Ibid., 200.

232
interpretations. For instance, they repeat the notion stated by others that the values

or attributes of goddesses are “subsumed under some form of ՙfertility՚ or other

biological function, perpetuating an equation of women with nature”; moreover,

“Goddess advocates and scholars. . .portray a so-called fertility religion, that is

really just a euphemism for ritual sex.”493 Concerning the subject of fertility,

Gimbutas has stated many times that fertility is only one aspect of the cycle of

life-giving, death-wielding, regeneration, and renewal, as the fundamental and

underlying unity of Nature that the Goddess represents. She writes, “The Goddess

is rather than transcendent and therefore physically manifest.”494

In their article “Rethinking Figurines: A Critical View from Archaeology

of the Gimbutas, the ՙGoddess՚ and Popular Culture,” these feminist

archaeologists define essentialism as a way of reducing a complex idea—of

women, men, society, history, or objects—“to simplistic characteristics, thereby

denying diversity and multiple meanings and interpretations.”495 They ask, “How

would a feminist archaeological treatment of the prehistory of Europe . . .

proceed?” They reply, “In contrast to the essentialized prehistory of Old Europe

as written by Gimbutas . . . an engendered prehistory envisages women as

thinking and acting people who affect the course of prehistory.”496 In other

493
Conkey and Tringham, “Archaeology and the Goddess,” 207.

494
Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 316.

495
Tringham and Conkey, “Rethinking Figurines,” 22.

496
Ibid., 219.
233
words, these two scholars project a feminist interpretation of women’s roles onto

prehistory based on late twentieth-century secular feminist theory.

In contrast, Gimbutas does not impose a political position for women or

men but assumes instead that women and men functioned in an egalitarian system

for the benefit of the entire community. Furthermore, Gimbutas investigates

Neolithic female imagery in terms of visual metaphors of sacred concepts that

guided Neolithic communities, which is an entirely different focus than to

concretize female images into rigid interpretations that carry modern assumptions

of power that exclude the spiritual and symbolic dimensions of human experience.

The anthology Ancient Goddesses, edited by the British Aegeanist Lucy

Goodison and the British archaeologist Christine Morris, published in 1998,

features a photo of the post-Minoan Poppy Goddess in an orant posture on the

cover in front of the sea, illuminated by the setting sun. As I looked through its

contents, while visiting the British Museum, shortly after the anthology was

published there, a stark realization came over me. It was four years after the death

of Marija Gimbutas, the gloves of the critics had come off, and women who

consider themselves to be feminist archaeologists were making a frontal challenge

to Marija Gimbutas and the Goddess movement. The book’s subtitle is “The

Myths and the Evidence.”

In their introduction, Goodison and Morris state their intention for this

anthology “to bridge the gap between two camps” of an intense controversy about

the idea of “an original Mother Goddess in prehistory,” in order “to see in what

ways this book interrupts, underscores or reshapes those narratives” that they

234
perceive to be “authoritarian” and “fundamentalist.”497 Yet, despite their stated

intention of bridging an ideological gap, they dismiss the Goddess movement and

the interpretations of Marija Gimbutas as somehow dangerous to women’s

liberation and to the project of feminist archaeology. They declare: “Just as

matriarchy is patriarchy in reverse, so too, the Goddess curiously reflects the

monotheistic God of Christianity. Their biologically essentialist vision is one

which they share with the reactionary forces who have always opposed the

emancipation of women.”498

Are we to suppose, from the statements above, that it is dangerous for

women to experience a closeness with Nature, much less an experience of the

sacred within the natural world? The monotheistic God of Christianity is the

opposite of Gimbutas՚s definition of Goddess in all her manifestations as “a

symbol of the unity of all life in Nature.”499 The ecofeminist philosopher

Charlene Spretnak states, “Gimbutas used the term ՙGoddess՚ to refer to the

diverse visual and folkloric imagery of metaphor and symbol, behind which lies a

complex of concepts expressing an awareness of embeddedness, participatory

consciousness, and the immanence of the sacred.”500 Spretnak quotes Marija

Gimbutas as saying, “The multiple categories, functions, and symbols used by

497
Goodison and Morris, Ancient Goddesses, 6.

498
Ibid., 14.

499
Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 321.

500
Spretnak, “Anatomy of a Backlash,” 37.
235
prehistoric peoples to express the Great Mystery are all aspects of the unbroken

unity of one deity, a Goddess who is ultimately Nature herself.”501

Archaeology of Prehistoric Religion

Prehistoric religion was discussed by early archaeologists such as Arthur

Evans, Martin Nillson, Jacquetta Hawkes, Geraldine Gesell, and, more recently,

Nanno Marinatos. However, after World War II, the “new archaeology” made a

radically empiricist turn away from considerations of prehistoric beliefs. Marija

Gimbutas was one of the first postwar archaeologists to systematically investigate

Neolithic symbolism and religion.

During the second half of the twentieth century, many archaeologists were

reluctant to investigate the nonmaterial aspects of prehistoric societies for fear of

being criticized. The emphasis upon developing more scientific, strictly empirical

approaches to the practice of archaeology, codified by processualism, solidified

this trend. Marija Gimbutas challenged these prevailing theoretical schools by

insisting that it is not possible to understand prehistoric societies without

investigating their beliefs, rituals, and symbolism. Her interpretations of Neolithic

figurines and social structure have received a positive reception by some

archaeologists, but more so by mythologists, religious historians, artists, poets,

and others involved in the contemporary women’s spirituality movement. This

phenomenon seems to have provoked a crisis for some archaeologists, who do not

want to be associated with Gimbutas due to her affirmative use of Goddess

terminology and her reception by the Goddess movement. On the other hand, an

501
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, 223.

236
increasing number of archaeologists are beginning to investigate the subject of

religion in prehistory because it can no longer simply be ignored. Gimbutas’s

work has opened the door to the religious and spiritual dimensions of prehistoric

societies. Some European and American archaeologists have recently become

motivated to overcome their reluctance to investigate prehistoric beliefs, and it is

not unusual now for archaeologists to embrace the study of “cult and religion” on

their own terms, which opens a new dimension to the literature of the controversy.

While some researchers recognize that an interdisciplinary approach is

necessary, others hold firm to positivist scientific methodologies used for

studying material artifacts as their primary research focus. Yet, the study of

symbolism continues to challenge the limitations of empiricism and materialism.

The Greek archaeologist Nanno Marinatos also turned away from the anti-religion

taboo in her books Art and Religion in Thera (1984) and Minoan Religion (1993).

In these texts, Marinatos uses a semiotic approach of internal analysis to decode

Minoan religious ideology and material culture. 502

The Development of Cognitive Archaeology

In 1994, the British archaeologists Colin Renfrew and Ezra B. W. Zubrow

published their volume, The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive

Archaeology.503 By that time, it was broadly recognized that the processualists of

the New Archaeology, who attempted to be strictly scientific, had failed to

address beliefs and symbolism, even though Lewis Binford—one of the main

502
Marinatos, Minoan Religion, 11.

503
Renfrew and Zubrow, eds., The Ancient Mind.

237
architects of processualism—had mentioned the concept of an “ideotechnic

dimension or subsystem in culture alongside the sociotechnic and the technomic

ones.”504 By this, Binford appears to have recognized that ideas, as well as social

and economic factors, influence the development of culture, although he and other

processualists defined culture as “man՚s extra-somatic means of adaptation.”505

According to Colin Renfrew, “cognitive archaeology” was formulated in order to

study “past ways of thought as inferred from material remains.”506 He specified

that the study of the “ancient mind” is a shorthand for the subject matter of

cognitive archaeology, although no distinction is implied between the ancient

mind and the modern mind. An important component of the cognitive-processual

approach is to set out to examine the ways in which symbols were used without

attempting to ascertain their meaning. 507 Renfrew continues,

As in the conduct of all scientific inquiry, it is not the source of the insight
which validates the claim, but the explicit nature of the reasoning that
sustains it and the means by which the available data can be brought into
relationship with it. . . . validation rests not upon authority but on
testability and on the explicitness of the argumentation. . . . In the light of
recent developments in the philosophy of science, moreover, it can no
longer be asserted that “facts” have an objective existence independent of
theory. Facts modify theory, while theory is used in the determination of
facts, and the relationship is a cyclic (but not a circular) one. 508

504
Binford, quoted in Renfrew, “Towards a Cognitive Archaeology,” 4.

505
Ibid., 3.

506
Renfrew, “Towards a Cognitive Archaeology,” 3.

507
Ibid., 5–6.

508
Ibid., 6, 10.

238
 Renfrew does not provide a more explicit argument for the assumption

that the rational scientific mindset of modern European and Euro-Americans is

not to be distinguished from the mindset of early peoples. As we have seen,

Gimbutas’s approach combined both a rational scientific mindset and a

mythological mindset, without projecting modern mentalities upon early people

who perceived the world through an entirely different range of perceptions.

Just as processual archaeology was being accepted by numerous Euro-

American archaeologists, Marija Gimbutas’s publications concerning Old

European symbolism appeared, beginning in 1974. As previously acknowledged,

her books received positive responses by some archaeologists, but were primarily

embraced by artists, poets, mythologists, and women who were galvanized by the

unveiling of an ancient world in which female sacred imagery was squarely at the

center of Neolithic culture. During the 1980s, the British and American post-

processualists, led by Ian Hodder, made their first attempts to address prehistoric

beliefs. Colin Renfrew, attempted to “revitalize” processualism by including the

study of prehistoric thought and symbolism, inasmuch as it might be inferred

from material remains, while rejecting the interpretive, hermeneutic approach of

the post-processualists.509

The Archaeology of Cult and Religion, published in 2001, edited by Peter

F. Biehl and François Bertemes, is a testament to the growing trend among

archaeologists to overcome their reluctance to investigate prehistoric ritual

practices and beliefs. The editors of this anthology acknowledge that many

509
Renfrew and Zubrow, Ancient Mind, 3–11.

239
archaeologists have “an overriding fear that their work will be . . . equated with

Marija Gimbutas’s work on prehistoric figurines and the so-called ‘Mother-

Goddess-Movement.’”510 Although the editors state they have no intention to

provide a definition for pre- and protohistoric religion, a main purpose of this

anthology is to lay the groundwork for a consistent theoretical framework,

grounded in facts, in which the processes of analysis and interpretation of cultic,

ritual, and religious data are identical to procedures used to investigate the

material aspects of society (including social complexity, trade, exchange, etc.).

The contributors, who draw from culture-historical, processual, and post-

processual perspectives, discuss representations and imagery, conceptions of cult

places, mortuary practices, studies of material culture, and how cult, ritual, and

religion can be recognized within archaeological data. Although there is no

recognition of archaeomythology, the editors acknowledge the usefulness of

incorporating analogous perspectives from ethnology, sociocultural anthropology,

religious studies, and psychology. They emphasize that each artifact is conceived

of “as a closed find unto itself . . . a contextual structure replete with meaningful

attributes.” 511 In contrast, Gimbutas emphasizes the importance of the cultural

context of each artifact within a larger system of meaning.

In Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe (2005), the British

archaeologist Richard Bradley states that there is “a fundamental disagreement

510
Biehl and Bertemes, Archaeology of Cult and Religion, 14.

511
Ibid., 14–17.

240
over the feasibility of conducting any kind of cognitive archaeology.”512 In

contrast to the optimism expressed by the editors of The Archaeology of Cult and

Religion, Bradley observes the continuity of a deeply entrenched division between

specialists investigating Neolithic economies—who consider prehistoric religion

as epiphenomenal—in contrast to those who study social archaeology. He

attempts to integrate these diverse approaches by demonstrating that in the earliest

agrarian societies of Europe the practical patterns of daily life were inseparably

intertwined with religious symbols and ritual activities which often escape the

attention of more strictly empiricist and social-materialist archaeologists.

Examples of the conflation between the practical activities of daily life

and ritual activities include the practical storage of grain in special pits, and

vessels or structures that resemble tombs. Bradley informs us that the burial of the

seed can be seen as analogous to the burial of the dead, creating the metaphor of

death and regeneration, which in some places can be traced over thousands of

years. Although Marija Gimbutas wrote extensively about the metaphor of “death

and regeneration” and “tomb as womb” for the rebirth of life and its continuity

over time,513 Bradley makes no mention of Gimbutas whatsoever. Although he

must be aware of her work, her publications do not appear in his bibliography.

The anthology, Cult in Context: Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology

(2007), edited by David A. Barrowclough and Caroline Malone, contains forty-

four papers presented during the interdisciplinary conference, “Explorations into

512
Bradley, Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe, 193.

513
See, for example, Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 151–57, 187–275.

241
the Conditions of Spiritual Creativity in Prehistoric Malta,” held at Magdalene

College, Cambridge, in 2006. While a number of papers concern various aspects

of the megalithic temple culture on Malta, the contributions also include

discussions of ritual sites throughout Eurasia, Japan, Africa, and Central America.

The wide array of subjects includes ritual behavior, symbolism, votive objects,

figurines, temples, tombs, and burial practices. The editors stress the central

importance of developing an integrated approach to archaeology in which ritual

sites, cult equipment, and the larger social and physical ceremonial contexts are

studied together to foster a new form of holistic research. The intention of this

work is to stimulate the refinement of theories and methods for recognizing,

recovering, and interpreting cult, ritual, and religion, in a more refined and

inclusive context. In contrast to the progressive erasure of Marija Gimbutas in

recent archaeological texts, she is actually mentioned in several contributions

within this anthology. The British researcher Robin Hardie, in her article “Gender

Tension in Figurines in SE Europe,” suggests that if there were less divisions in

Neolithic societies between the domestic and public spheres, and if horticultural

societies were, indeed, “the most socially and sexually egalitarian in the world,”

then “some elements of Gimbutas’s perspective were not entirely fantastic.”514

Hardie notes that archaeologists have “struggled to identify new perspectives” on

figurine research but have made only “marginal progress” due to, what she calls

“the PG syndrome—post-Gimbutas.” Moreover, “transgressing” this syndrome

514
Hardie, “Gender Tension,” 82.

242
“could be professionally hazardous.”515 In his article, “Ritual and Cult in Malta

and Beyond,” the Colin Renfrew continues his belittling of Gimbutas’s work and

her colleagues, by taking a direct swipe at those of us who are involved in

women’s spirituality studies:

As any of us that visit Malta—or indeed Çatalhöyük—realize we may be

buttonholed at any time by devotees of the Great Earth Mother. They may
have linked up with devotees of the Chalice and the Blade. If you are
skillful you may escape what I now recognize as a Neo-Californian cult,
but it does require some skill. Their interpretive tradition is certainly a
compelling one.516

In 2011, an eleven hundred-page anthology was produced that, a decade

earlier could have been unthinkable. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of

Ritual and Religion, published by Oxford, edited by Timothy Insoll, includes

contributions by more than sixty archaeologists from throughout the world. In her

article, “Gender and Religion in Archaeology” (in this volume), Sarah Milledge

Nelson acknowledges that as late as the 1980s when gender was first being added

to the archaeological agenda, “most archaeologists were leery of the topic of

religion . . . [which was] almost taboo.”517

The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion is an

indication of the rapid pace of interest in ritual and religion which, according to

its editor, Timothy Insoll, has now become “a routine part of the focus of

515
Ibid.

516
Renfrew, “Ritual and Cult in Malta and Beyond,” 8–13.

517
Nelson, “Gender and Religion in Archaeology,” 197.

243
archaeological attention” and “has entered the mainstream.”518 This hefty volume,

which covers a broad chronology of global sites, broadens the boundaries of

archaeological theories and practices by drawing from anthropology,

ethnography, history, and religious studies to explore methodologies, technical

approaches, and ways to identify and understand evidence of cult, ritual, and

religion and their multiple contexts. The Estonian scholar Tönno Jonuks states,

“In the only clearly formulated theoretical approach in the Baltic countries—

archaeomythology—Marija Gimbutas has been the most important figure.”519 He

refers to archaeomythology as a “school” that has influenced the study of Baltic

religion. Several other entries mention Gimbutas in thumbnail references that

dismiss her as a cult figure of the Goddess movement. The Handbook is divided

into six sections that discuss “elements and expression” (e.g., monumentality,

landscape, myth and folklore, cosmogony, death, ideology, gender and religion,

and rites of passage, among other topics); prehistoric European ritual and religion;

religion and ritual in world prehistory; religion and cult in the old world; the

archaeology of world religions; and the archaeology of indigenous and new

religions. Insoll expresses the hope that archaeologists, who tend to view

“material residue” as static, will begin to interpret people’s beliefs and ritual

practices in more fluid, dynamic, and active ways.

The growing body of literature that can be included in “the archaeology of

cult and religion” is important because it indicates a significant impact that

518
Insoll, Oxford Handbook, 1, 3.

519
Jonuks, “The Archaeology of Baltic Regions,” 882.

244
Gimbutas’s theory about Old European religion and the Goddess has had within

her own field of archaeology. While many of her colleagues reject her theories

and conclusions, some are beginning to establish their own theories and

interpretations of religion in prehistory. Interestingly, the methods being

employed in this burgeoning effort, do not yet incorporate concepts of prehistoric

people’s spiritual relationships with the natural world, nor is archaeomythology

utilized as a method of investigation. In brief, while archaeology has become

increasingly multidisciplinary, it has yet to come to terms with the mythological

belief systems of the ancients.

The Kurgan Hypothesis and Related Discussions

Marija Gimbutas’s Kurgan hypothesis has been at the center of scholarly

debates for more than half a century. 520 Gimbutas considered the homeland of

Proto-Indo-European speakers to be most likely in the Volga-steppe region north

of the Black and Caspian Seas, and she traced their incursions into Europe over

two millennia. In her view, these incursions resulted in the devastation of the Old

European civilization and the Indo-Europeanization of the continent including

parts of Asia and beyond. In 1987, the American linguist and co-editor of The

Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES), Edgar C. Polomé, wrote that Marija

Gimbutas’s contribution to Indo-European scholarship “will remain a basic point

of departure for all future research.”521

520
Marler, “Beginnings of Patriarchy in Europe,” 53–76.

521
Polomé, “Foreword,” 11.

245
 Throughout its fifty-year history, JIES, which Marija Gimbutas cofounded

in 1973, has continually contributed new scholarship on all aspects of Indo-

European studies, including discussions about the ethnogenesis of Indo-European

speakers and Gimbutas՚s Kurgan hypothesis. In 1980, two issues of JIES—vol. 8,

nos. 1 & 2, 3 & 4—were devoted to the transformation of European and Anatolian

cultures as a result of two thousand years of Kurgan influences.522 In 1985, vol.

13, nos. 1 & 2 of this journal was devoted to various aspects of her Kurgan

hypothesis. Within this issue, T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov proposed an

alternative hypothesis, situating the Proto-(Early) Indo-European (PIE) homeland

in Anatolia. Their article was followed by Gimbutas’s detailed critique of their

proposition.523

The North American archaeologist David Anthony, whose steppe

excavations continue to provide new data on the peoples Gimbutas identified as

“Kurgans,” has produced significant publications on this subject. 524 In a 1986

article in Current Anthropology, “The ‘Kurgan Culture,’ Indo-European Origins,

and the Domestication of the Horse: A Reconsideration,” Anthony discusses

multiple aspects of the Kurgan hypothesis according to detailed considerations of

migration, the impact of horse domestication, the ecological environment of the

steppe, and the results of numerous excavations in the steppe region of south

Russia. His article is followed by comments from high-profile archaeologists

522
Gimbutas, “Introductory Remarks,” 193–96.

523
Gimbutas, “Primary and Secondary Homeland.”

524
See, for instance, Anthony, Horse, the Wheel, and Language.

246
Peter Bogucki, Eugen Comşa, Marija Gimbutas, Borislav Jovanović, J. P.

Mallory, and Sarunas Milisaukas. This article and others525 provide revealing

snapshots of prevailing discussions about Gimbutas’s Kurgan hypothesis

expressed in a broad range of professional publications.

Other publications weighing in on this significant debate include several

important anthologies, including Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia

(2002);526 Examining the Farming /Language Dispersal Hypothesis (2002);527

and Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse (2003).528 The Russian

archaeologist Valentin Dergachev presents an in-depth examination of Marija

Gimbutas’s hypothesis of the Kurgan migrations in his article, “Two Studies in

Defense of the Migration Concept,” published in Ancient Interactions: East and

West in Eurasia. His article concludes with the assertion: “Examine the material

and you can immediately see that Gimbutas was right.”529 As this section

indicates, her work has been appreciated as well as challenged, by various

linguistic and archaeological colleagues.

In 1987, Marija Gimbutas’s colleague and rival, the British archaeologist

Colin Renfrew, published Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-

525
See Anthony, “Archaeology of Indo-European Origins.”

526
Boyle, Renfrew, and Levine, Ancient Interactions.

527
Bellwood and Renfrew, Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal
Hypothesis.
528
Levine, Renfrew, and Boyle, Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse.

529
Dergachev, “Two Studies in Defense of the Migration Concept,” 108.

247
European Origins, in which he presents a hypothesis that contradicts Gimbutas’s

Kurgan hypothesis. In Gimbutas’s view, Old Europe was non-Indo-European

until the arrival of Indo-European speakers from the North Pontic‒Caspian

steppes. According to her interdisciplinary research over forty years, these two

groups represent diametrically opposed languages, social structures, economies,

belief systems, and mythological systems. In her Introduction to The Kurgan

Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe, Gimbutas writes that the clash

between these two systems over a 2,000-year period, ca. 4500–2500 BC, led to

the transformation of Old Europe.

These changes marked the transition from matrilineal to patrilineal order,

from a learned theocracy to a militant patriarchy, from a sexually balanced
society to a male-dominated hierarchy, and from a chthonic goddess
religion to a Indo-European sky-oriented pantheon of gods. Research into
Indo-European origins cannot be separated from the study of mythology
and religion, or from linguistic research into the cultural substratum of
Europe. In each area of Europe, linguists continually uncover substratum
languages. An assumption that the earliest European agriculturalists were
Indo-European speakers is totally unacceptable. 530

In direct contrast to the research and conclusions of Marija Gimbutas,

Colin Renfrew posited Anatolia as the homeland of Proto-Indo-European

speakers, proposing that Early Neolithic farmers, moving in a “wave of advance,”

out of Anatolia, rather than from the Pontic Steppe region, brought their Proto-

Indo-European language with them as they moved into Europe.

As mentioned earlier, a major text, published in 1989, In Search of the

Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, by the archaeologist James

Mallory, presents a carefully detailed, erudite analysis of the full range of Indo-

530
Gimbutas, Introduction to The Kurgan Culture, xviii.

248
European theories and debates, including a definitive statement about Gimbutas’s

“Kurgan solution,” confirming the reasons for its longevity. He writes,

The Kurgan solution is attractive and has been accepted by many

archaeologists and linguists, in part or in total. It is the solution one
encounters in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Grand Dictionnaire
Encyclopédique Larousse. It describes Indo-European expansions in a
framework congruent with expectation, and perhaps most importantly, it
derives the Proto-Indo-Europeans from the Pontic-Caspian region. . . . One
might at first imagine that the economy of argument involved with the
Kurgan solution should oblige us to accept it outright. But critics do
exist.531

After carefully considering every linguistic argument concerning

Renfrew՚s Anatolian hypothesis, Mallory concludes the following:

I would argue that the cumulative weight of these arguments indicates that
any attempt to tie the initial Neolithic colonization of Europe to the spread
of the earliest Indo-Europeans is really not congruent with either the
linguistic or archaeological evidence and, indeed, does not even provide
the economy of explanation which should have been one of its major
attractions. Anatolia is the wrong place at the wrong time and migrations
from it give the wrong results. A brave run, perhaps, but Renfrew՚s
solution is not a convincing one. 532

Regardless of the overall acceptance of Marija Gimbutas՚s Kurgan

hypothesis, primarily by linguists (which includes the Indo-Europeanization of

Old Europe), many archaeologists continued to ignore and outright reject her

concepts. David Anthony՚s discussion about migration in terms of Gimbutas՚s

Kurgan hypothesis (briefly mentioned above) is significant. As he explains,

before 1960, archaeologists often utilized migration as an explanation for culture

change. But during the 1960s, with the development of the “New Archaeology,”

531
Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, 185.

532
Ibid., 181.

249
and the adoption of scientific theories of human behavior, archaeologists began to

prefer internal causes to explain culture change and to reject migration as a

possible solution. “Archaeologists discarded the faceless migrating horde as a

usually imaginary and substantively worthless explanation. . . . While turning

away from migration, western archaeologists retained the faceless horde as a

negative image, as if migration could be conceptualized only in this way.”533

Gimbutas՚s Kurgan hypothesis conformed perfectly in the minds of critics

with the rejected image of the faceless horde of migrating people. In this way, her

hypothesis was rejected in its entirety by many archaeologists without seriously

considering the validity of Gimbutas՚s arguments. A cartoon-like story developed

of the faceless horde of warriors on horseback raiding into the peaceful Goddess-

cultures of Old Europe with weapons drawn, slashing and burning long-lived

culture centers. For many of Gimbutas՚s colleagues, this story was considered too

dramatic to be taken seriously. Many critics who do not bother to read her work

have considered her Kurgan Hypothesis, as well as her concepts about the Old

European Goddess, to be absurd. Students were often told not to trust her

scholarship, which was considered outdated and not to be read. Even the

archaeologist Ian Hodder, director of the high-profile excavation at Çatalhӧyük,

admitted in an interview that he had not read the work of Marija Gimbutas since

he was an undergraduate. 534

533
Anthony, “Migration, Ancient DNA, and Bronze Age Pastoralists,” 1–2.

534
Marler, “Interview with Ian Hodder,” 16.

250
Gimbutas՚s Kurgan Theory and Ancient DNA Evidence

In 2015, an article appeared in the journal Nature titled “Massive

Migration from the Steppe Was the Source for Indo-European Languages in

Europe.” Wolfgang Haak and thirty-eight other geneticists and archaeologists

signed the article. They write, “Genome-wide analysis of ancient DNA has

emerged as a transformative technology for studying prehistory, providing

information that is comparable in power to archaeology and linguistics. These

results provide support for a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European

languages of Europe.”535 This article has been followed by a landslide of further

articles documenting the results of ongoing ancient DNA (aDNA) evidence which

indicate that Marija Gimbutas՚s Kurgan theory (no longer an hypothesis) has been

vindicated, as declared by Colin Renfrew in 2017. Moreover, more and more fine-

grained genetic evidence has come to light that illuminates information about the

effects of the Kurgan invasions that Gimbutas described from her detailed

research, without the benefit of a sophisticated genetic technology.

Vigorous applications of ancient DNA research have made it possible for

geneticists to trace the movements of prehistoric populations and to determine, in

minute detail, the spread of genetic influences within specific geographic regions

over time. Well-preserved skeletons found within Kurgan burial mounds are

progressively being used for ancient DNA analyses. These mounds mark the paths

taken by Yamnaya pastoralists five thousand years ago during Gimbutas’ third

wave of invasions from the steppe region north of the Black and Caspian Seas

535
Haak et al., “Massive Migration from the Steppe,” 1.

251
into southeastern and central Europe, and eastward into Asia. The steppe

pastoralists are assumed to have spoken the earliest (proto) form(s) of a language

family known as Indo-European. According to Gimbutas՚s Kurgan theory, the

invasions of people from the steppes actually took place over 2000 years

representing the imposition of a completely different social and ideological

structure, resulting in a multitude of external and internal cultural transformations

over time.

The appearance of hundreds of elite male burials, the use of horses,

weaponry, warfare, abrupt changes in burial customs, the collapse of many

hundreds of ancient Old European habitation sites, evidence of genetic mixtures

between Old Europeans and incoming people from the steppes, resulted in

physical and cultural hybridization, changes in beliefs, language, material culture,

and the imposition of patriarchal social structure. These changes were

documented for decades by Gimbutas’s interdisciplinary scholarship.

Colin Renfrew, Senior Fellow of the McDonald Institute for

Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, delivered the first Marija

Gimbutas Memorial Lecture at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago on

November 8, 2017. During his lecture, titled “Marija Rediviva, DNA and Indo-

European Origins,” Renfrew stated:

Marija Gimbutas had a detailed knowledge of the archaeology of

prehistoric Europe and of the Neolithic cultures of “Old Europe” with
their rich iconography of goddesses and gods, which she viewed as
overwhelmed at the onset of the Bronze Age by the Kurgan invasions—
incursions of nomadic pastoralists from the steppe lands, north of the
Black Sea. This she saw as the key impetus which brought Old Europe to
an end and which introduced to Europe a new population speaking early
Indo-European languages. Her Kurgan invasion theory was viewed with

252
 reservations by several scholars, yet recent work on ancient DNA has
given strong support to her views and brought them back into
prominence.536

After promoting his “Anatolian hypothesis” for several decades—in direct

contrast to her “Kurgan invasion theory”—Renfrew stated, during his 2017

lecture, that Marija Gimbutas was vindicated!

In a groundbreaking 2018 monograph, Who We Are and How We Got

Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past, the Harvard

geneticist David Reich states that ancient DNA data provides evidence that in the

society of Yamnaya pastoralists (one of the pastoralists of the steppes Gimbutas

called Kurgans), “power was concentrated among a small number of elite males.”

Moreover, as Reich states, “It is clear that there were extraordinary hierarchies

and imbalances in power at work in the expansions from the steppe.”537

[I]n this period, it began to be possible for single males to accumulate so

much power that they could not only gain access to large numbers of
females, but they could also pass on their social prestige to subsequent
generations and ensure that their male descendants were similarly
successful. This process caused the Y [male] chromosomes that these
males carried to increase in frequency, generation after generation, leaving
a genetic scar that speaks volumes about past societies.538

Now that Marija Gimbutas՚s Kurgan migration theory and her descriptions

of the destruction caused by the invaders from the steppes are shown to have been

correct, after being rejected for decades my many Euro-American archaeologists,

we might assume that Gimbutas՚s findings will be respected once again. Instead,

536
Renfrew, “Marija Rediviva,” par. 1.

537
Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here, 238‒40.

538
Ibid., 241.

253
some scholars have reacted with alarm. In a 2022 article, David Anthony

mentions the “uneasy question of whether Gimbutas was right”; furthermore, he

“pleads for a processual approach to migration quite different from the single-

event, conquest model of Gimbutas.”539 Single event? As Anthony well knows,

Gimbutas describes the invasions of steppe people happening in three main

incursions over 2,000 years, not as one single, simplistic event. Anthony accuses

her of painting an image of “a wave of faceless warriors, an invasion . . . which

began in one unitary culture and subjugated another unitary culture.”540

Unfortunately, by turning the complexity of her theory into a cartoon, he is

repeating an old caricature used to discredit her. In his view, her “mistake” was

not that she insisted that major changes that took place in Europe resulted from

the influx of Proto-Indo-European speakers from the steppes. Anthony declares

that “her shortcomings were in theory and interpretation.”541 To answer the

bolded heading in his article—“Was Gimbutas right?”—he states that it would be

an exaggeration to do so, even though he recognizes that no one else has

presented a viable explanation about why and how it happened. 542

Nevertheless, Anthony recalls that Gimbutas “organized and synthesized

large bodies of archaeological evidence from across Eastern Europe and she

presented these syntheses in monographs that opened the door to this region’s

539
Anthony, “Migration, Ancient DNA, and Bronze Age Pastoralists,” 55.

540
Ibid., 65.

541
Ibid., 71.

542
Ibid.

254
prehistory for many grateful followers, including me.”543 Moreover, he writes, “I

would never have thought it possible to penetrate the archaeology of Eastern

Europe had it not been for this pioneering English-language synthesis, which

opened the door.”544

In a 2021 roundtable event—“Marija Gimbutas: A Magnificent

Vindication”—organized by the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA to

commemorate Gimbutas՚s centennial year, Anthony describes how he gave a

presentation at the University of Texas in which he criticized Marija Gimbutas՚s

work while she was sitting next to him. Afterward, she kissed him on both cheeks

and said she was glad that someone will carry on the work! Instead of being

annoyed, she focused on their common goal by encouraging him in his work. And

yet, after her vindication by aDNA evidence, Anthony is reluctant to recognize

her accomplishment. In this way, the backlash against a dynamically brilliant

woman archaeologist continues.

In 1998, an anthology about the history of women in European

archaeology was published with the title, Excavating Women. The well-known

archaeologist John Chapman wrote a biographical sketch of Marija Gimbutas

titled “The Impact of Modern Invasions and Migrations on Archaeological

Explanation.” He begins in a very positive way by saying, “Gimbutas was one of

the most productive and wide-ranging scholars of European prehistory of this

543
Ibid.

544
Anthony, Horse, the Wheel and Language, 495, note 5.

255
century.”545 After giving a brief summary of her life in Lithuania during the war,

he states that “she married her German husband,” not bothering to notice that

Jurgis Gimbutas is Lithuanian, not German. He goes on to say,

Gimbutas clearly believed Hitler՚s Germany was the lesser of two evils. It
is difficult to assess the degree to which Gimbutas tacitly accepted Nazi
aims; suffice to say that, in spite of the German occupation . . . she
recommenced her MA studies in 1942 and was awarded the degree later
that year.546

After the Gimbutas family fled to Vienna, in the only direction possible,

Chapman states that she received her doctorate at Tübingen University during the

Nazi regime where “important pre-war research on the Aryans took place.” 547 The

truth is that she enrolled after the war when Tübingen was in the French

Occupation Zone, and she was in no way enamored with the Nazis! Chapman

concludes his article by suggesting that the reason she wrote so much about the

Mother Goddess, regeneration, and fertility, is because her own fertility was

waning.548

Marija Gimbutas not only set a very high academic standard, she

exemplified a high humane standard as well. She did not harbor petty

resentments, but remained focused on nurturing common goals of cooperative

scholarship. She was aware that sophisticated techniques, such as advanced DNA

analysis, would be available to future researchers that were not available to her.

545
Chapman, “Impact of Modern Invasions,” 296.

546
Ibid., 299.

547
Ibid., 300.

548
Ibid., 310.

256
She encouraged hundreds of students and colleagues by writing countless

endorsements, inviting their participation in conferences, and more. She

considered her scientific work to be part of a chain of theories and discoveries in

which researchers stand on each other’s shoulders. She emphasized that it is

important to support each other in the most generative ways possible.549

Conclusion

Any scholar who deviates from accepted norms risks being criticized, but

in Gimbutas’s view, it is necessary to be willing to risk being misunderstood and

criticized in order to break new ground. Critics can hang on to negative opinions

that have served useful purposes of one kind or another as part of the ongoing

drama of what is considered acceptable. The surprising results of ancient genetic

developments in which Gimbutas՚s Kurgan migration theory was vindicated has

provided a useful demonstration of how what is considered true or untrue in

academia can change overnight.

The final section of this dissertation, Chapter 8, offers a discussion about

Marija Gimbutas’s life-long achievements and vital aspects of her legacy.

549
Personal recollection from a discussion with Marija Gimbutas, 1989.

257
 CHAPTER 8: MARIJA GIMBUTAS՚S ACHIEVEMENTS AND

CULTURAL LEGACY

The culminating chapter of this dissertation discusses Marija Gimbutas՚s

scholarly achievements as the result of her lifetime of dedicated scholarship. We

will begin where she began, in her motherland of Lithuania. Marija Gimbutas՚s

dedication to the preservation of Lithuanian culture, and her ongoing

encouragement of other Lithuanian scholars, are important aspects of her cultural

legacy.

When Marija, baby Danutė, Jurgis, and his mother Elena fled from Kaunas

in 1944, squeezed into a crowded barge on the Nemunas River as the Red Army

advanced toward Lithuania, Marija did not know if she would ever see her mother

and other family members again. It took years before they were able to carefully

communicate in truncated messages without triggering retaliation from the Soviet

overlords. After settling in the United States, Marija and Jurgis Gimbutas were

active members of the Lithuanian community; they helped to establish a

Lithuanian Saturday School for the education of their daughters in Lithuanian

language and culture with children of other émigré families; they assisted new

arrivals, especially other scholars who had also escaped the Soviets, to find work,

shelter, and to continue their professional lives, if at all possible. During her

productive years at Harvard and later at UCLA, it was especially significant for

Marija Gimbutas to arrange permission to travel and lecture in the Soviet sphere

as an exchange scholar in order to return to Lithuania on several occasions.

258
 In June 1993, Marija Gimbutas returned one last time to visit her

motherland, newly liberated in 1991 after nearly half a century of Soviet

domination. I had the honor of accompanying her on this historic visit and writing

about this breathless experience, so as to give a taste of the jubilance expressed by

the entire nation for her return. From the moment we emerged into the lobby of

the Vilnius airport, the TV cameras were rolling, press cameras were clicking, and

throngs of family and friends swept us into their embrace. 550

That evening the television news exclaimed that Marija Gimbutienė had
arrived. Throughout the two and a half weeks of our visit, there were daily
articles in the press, television coverage of her lectures and interviews,
documentary filming and meetings with scholars, students, family, and
friends. She received an honorary doctorate at Vytautas Magnus
University in Kaunas and was personally honored by Algirdas Brazauskas,
the president of the Republic. 551

The following section highlights the recognition of Marija Gimbutas՚s

significance within Lithuania by scholars who grew up there during the Soviet

occupation (1944–1991). They speak here of how meaningful it was to meet her

when she received rare permission to lecture in Vilnius during the Cold War. She

seeded their memories with forbidden knowledge and smuggled in copies of her

books. A noted archaeologist from Latvia also shares his recollection of meeting

Dr. Gimbutas in Riga during the Soviet period in 1965.

Reminiscences by Marija Gimbutas’s Colleagues from Lithuania and Latvia

In Marija Gimbutas’s festschrift, From the Realm of the Ancestors, the

physical anthropologist Dr. Gintautas Česnys, former Dean of the Medical

550
Marler, “The Circle Is Unbroken,” 7.

551
Ibid.

259
Faculty of Vilnius University, wrote, “The name of Marija Gimbutas . . . was

forbidden in Lithuania during my childhood and youth. One had no possibility to

know Marija’s works for they were buried in dark special book depositories of

Lithuanian libraries.”552 In 1969, as an assistant professor in the Department of

Anatomy, Histology, and Embryology at the Medical Faculty of Vilnius

University, Dr. Česnys had the opportunity to do research in the foreign reading

hall of the Lenin Library in Moscow where, to his amazement, he discovered her

books, Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art and The Balts.

I was very surprised by her bold synthesis of archaeological, historical,

linguistic, mythological, and even anthropological data. With a unique
multidisciplinary approach, she drew an ethnogenetic picture of the Balts,
in general, and the Lithuanians, in particular. The richness of the specific
factual examples from Lithuanian folk art and their comparison with
analogous phenomena in other ancient cultures were quite impressive. 553

During the Soviet occupation of Lithuania, books by Marija Gimbutas

were forbidden to be read without special permission from the KGB, the Soviet

state security police. Following brief visits to lecture in the USSR during the

1960s, in 1969 Marija Gimbutas gained special permission through the American

Academy of Sciences to lecture as an exchange professor with the USSR in

Lithuania, then in 1981 she returned for three months on a Fulbright fellowship.

In the spirit of her family lineage of “book carriers,” Gimbutas smuggled in

clandestine copies of Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art and The Balts.

552
Česnys, “Marija Gimbutas in My Life,” 26.

553
Ibid., 26–27.

260
Both texts were laboriously translated and shared with upmost secrecy. The

Lithuanian literary critic, Vytautas Kubilius, recalls,

With what passion we passed around her book, Ancient Symbolism of

Lithuanian Folk Art, translating it in secret, searching for the persistent
roots and a new trust in our nation’s cultural patterns. Lithuanian art,
music, and literature were slipping away from us due to Soviet ideology.
In the work of Marija Gimbutas we came to understand that our own folk
art preserved a symbolism thousands of years old, from the earliest
agrarian layer. . . . The poetic expression of the earth as the source of a
nation’s vitality, so strong in Lithuanian and exodus poetry, came from
this ancient tradition: the earth as the mother of all varieties of life. 554

Česnys describes his first meeting with Marija Gimbutas in 1981 in

Vilnius during a conference on “The Problems of Baltic Ethnogenesis and Ethnic

History” at the Institute of History, Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. After

delivering his paper Česnys recalls, “An elegant lady came up to me, introduced

herself, commended me for the report, and said that she rejoices at the rebirth of

Lithuanian ethnic anthropology.”555 That “elegant lady” was Marija Gimbutas,

who then invited him to take part in the World Congress of Anthropologists and

Ethnologists in Chicago. Unfortunately, Česnys was not given permission by the

Soviet authorities to travel to the United States because he was considered to be

an “enemy of the people,” due to the fact that in 1940, when Česnys was a small

child, his father, who was a schoolteacher, had been deported to Siberia where he

starved to death.556

554
Excerpt from the speech delivered on June 11, 1993, by Vytautas Kubilius
during the ceremony for Marija Gimbutas’s honorary doctorate at Vytautas Magnus
University in Kaunas, Lithuania, recorded by Joan Marler, translated by Indre Antanaitis.
555
Česnys, “Marija Gimbutas in My Life,” 27.

556
Ibid.

261
 In 1988, Česnys met Marija Gimbutas again when she lectured on the old

mythology of the Balts, sponsored by the Union of Lithuanian Artists. He wrote,

“The lecture was very dynamic and was particularly meaningful since

expectations of our national rebirth were beginning to stir in the depth of

Lithuanian society at that time.”557

Marija Gimbutas understood quite well the cultural, educational, and

personal damage that people were enduring under the Soviet system. It was a

deliberate decision on her part to encourage the professors in the humanities,

especially those working in folklore and mythology. The Lithuanian folklorist,

Norbertas Vėlius, recalls the importance of her lecture in Vilnius:

Before Marija there was a view that Lithuanian mythology was primitive,
that we did not have holy places, that we did not make images of gods,
that we worshipped only the primitive forces of nature. . . . She began to
see which part of the old religion and mythology of Lithuanians and the
Balts was inherited from the Indo-Europeans. Old European mythology
was not known . . . Marija initiated that new classification of the pantheon
of our most important gods and mythical beings.558

Vėlius emphasized how he profoundly appreciated Marija’s protective

outlook for Lithuanian education, especially the humanities, which had been

stifled by the Soviets.

We were not allowed to write about it. Mythology was not a welcome
course of study. . . . She tried to encourage and strengthen me and the
other researchers. During her lectures she made the impression that we
were important scholars of the community. She raised the status of the
scholars of mythology and archaeology. She acted as our guardian. When
she came the second time and lectured at Vilnius University, the
authorities were very restrictive and made it so that we could not

557
Ibid.

558
Norbertas Vėlius, quoted in Marler, “The Circle Is Unbroken,” 14.

262
 participate. . . . They did not want to let us through. Marija demanded that
everyone who wanted to listen to the lecture be let in to hear it. 559

Recognizing how difficult it was for Lithuanian scholars to take part in

conferences outside of the Soviet sphere, Marija Gimbutas invited Gintautas

Česnys, the Lithuanian archaeologist Rimutė Rimantienė (Marija Gimbutas’s

university classmate in Kaunas and Vilnius), and Adomas Butrimas to take part in

an international conference she was organizing in Ireland, with all expenses paid.

The conference, “The Transformation of European and Anatolian Cultures, 4500–

2500 BC” took place at University College Dublin, Ireland, September 15–21,

1989. Due to the liberating influence of perestroika, these Lithuanian scholars

were granted permission to travel for the first time to the West to take part in this

conference. Marija Gimbutas and Michael Herity, Dean of Celtic studies,

University College Dublin, warmly greeted them upon their arrival at Shannon

Airport. Česnys recalls,

The constellation of world-class Indo-Europeanists such as Edgar C.

Polomé, Martin E. Huld, James P. Mallory, Jaan Puhvel, Elizabeth Barber,
and many others, made an enormous impression on us. Also, the sincere
appreciation of Marija by the members of the conference was so great that
many people gathered in Dublin because of Marija’s personality, talent,
and radiance. Only then did I understand what a great scholar she was.
Though being ill, she was happy to be surrounded by so many colleagues
and friends.560

After the interdisciplinary conference she had organized in Ireland, Marija

Gimbutas expressed her desire to organize the next meeting of Indo-Europeanists

in 1994 “in the land of the ancient Balts.” At first that seemed impossible because

559
Ibid.

560
Česnys, “Marija Gimbutas in My Life,” 27–28.

263
“everything was at the helm of Moscow.” 561 They did not know then that the

Soviet Union was soon to collapse.

Gintautas Česnys offers his personal reflection about the influence Marija

Gimbutas had in his life, through “her personality, her devotion to science, and to

her motherland. [She was] a multidisciplinary talent, and her broad range of

interests educated me as a human being.”562 He continues,

The essential strength of her interdisciplinary work of synthesis has

inspired me to continue to perfect myself. And finally, her theory about
the wave-like spread of the Indo-Europeans throughout Europe has been
useful in my professional life as a physical anthropologist: it has made me
look more broadly when solving the ethnogenetical problems of the Balts
from an anthropological viewpoint. 563

The archaeologist, art historian, and previous rector of the Vilnius

Academy of Arts, Professor Adomas Butrimas, noticed that “Marija Gimbutas

was never far from the affairs of Lithuania. She maintained personal contacts with

colleagues and with the people of Lithuania and deeply honored her nation’s

history, its language, and its myths.”564

According to Butrimas, “It is significant to note that during the first

fourteen years after World War II, not one monographic study on Baltic

prehistory appeared in Lithuania or Latvia.”565 In contrast, he points out that the

561
Ibid.

562
Ibid., 30.

563
Ibid.

564
Butrimas, “Marija Gimbutas and the Archaeology of the Balts,” 34.

565
Ibid., 33.

264
first five books by Marija Gimbutas, including her doctoral dissertation, were

devoted to Baltic prehistory and cultural history. 566 Butrimas also mentions that

during the first thirteen years after her graduation from Vilnius University (1942–

1955), Marija Gimbutas published nearly fifty articles in Lithuanian, German, and

English on Baltic archaeology and cultural history. “Clearly, her productive

scientific life during that time was mostly concerned with Baltic prehistory—

especially the burial practices of the Balts during the Iron Age, ancient Baltic and

Lithuanian religion, and the symbolism of Lithuanian folk art.” 567 He adds,

The Balts remains, to this day, the best information available on the Balts,
from their appearance on the Baltic coast to the emergence of the
Lithuanian state in the thirteenth century AD. This book not only
represents the material culture of the Balts but also includes a large
chapter on their ancient religion. It is still used in Lithuanian schools as
“required reading” since we have no other text that presents Baltic
prehistory, language, and mythology in such a complete and concentrated
manner.568

Butrimas further states that the extensive reach of Marija Gimbutas’s studies at

the University of Vilnius—of Baltic archaeology, linguistics, history, ethnology,

folklore, and ancient religions, combined with her knowledge of Eastern

European languages—made it possible for her to investigate the wide territories

of east-central Europe, before focusing on her comprehensive study of the

Neolithic period.

566
Ibid. Butrimas refers to the following publications: Die Bestattung in Litauen
in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit [Burial in Lithuania in Prehistoric Times] (1946);
Prehistory of Eastern Europe (1956); Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art (1958);
Rytprūsių ir Vakarų Lietuvos priešistorinės kultūros apžvalga [A Survey of Prehistory of
East Prussia and Western Lithuania] (1958); and The Balts (1963).
567
Ibid.

568
Ibid., 33–34.

265
 In his article published in From the Realm of the Ancestors (1997),

Butrimas shared a letter written by Marija to her husband Jurgis Gimbutas on

November 3, 1941, where she wrote: “Perhaps I will continue with the same

scientific topic until my dissertation because something new can only be

discovered after a long life with your chosen subject.”569 Butrimas added, “It was

not by accident that her 1946 doctoral dissertation at Tübingen University was

Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit [Burial in Lithuania in

Prehistoric Times]. Such was the beginning.”570

Butrimas notices that after 1955, Marija Gimbutas published more than

seventy articles on Baltic archaeology and cultural history in the journal Aidai, in

Lietuvių enciklopedija, Lietuvių dienos [Lithuanian Days], Encyclopedia

Britannica, Metmenys, Lituanus, Slavic Review, Myth in Indo-European

Antiquity, The Journal of Indo-European Studies, The Mankind Quarterly,

Quarterly Review of Archaeology, and Encyclopedia of Religion. 571 He

concludes, “When Marija Gimbutas presented her theories on the Kurgan culture,

the migrations of the Indo-Europeans, and the civilization of Old Europe (ca.

6500–3500 BC), she made a deep impact on the thinking of her time and became

a Magna Mater on Indo-European and Old European studies.”572

569
Ibid., 33; Letter from Marija Gimbutienė to Jurgis Gimbutas (1941) accessed
and translated by Adomas Butrimas from the Vilnius University Manuscript Department,
Vilnius, Lithuania, 1996.
570
Ibid.

571
Ibid., 34.
572
Ibid.

266
 Concerning Marija Gimbutas, the Lithuanian sociologist, cultural

historian, and literary critic Vytautas Kavolis wrote,

She was the only scientist in the twentieth century who succeeded in
finding and researching a civilization that was not yet known. She
summarized the abundant excavations in the Balkans in her substantial
works on the civilization of ancient Europe, gave it a name, and was able
to decipher its language. Thanks to her extraordinary erudition, Marija
Gimbutas was able to discover traces of a lost world and the fact that in
the Neolithic, women played a much more important role than they were
attributed to in history.573

The celebrated Professor Dr. Ēvalds Mugurēvičs, a senior member of the

Latvian Academy of Sciences, and a specialist in the Latvian Iron Age and

medieval archaeology from the Latvian History Institute in Riga, met with Marija

Gimbutas on three occasions between the 1960s and 1980s. They exchanged

publications and spoke together in two languages: Russian and Latvian. The gift

of her book, Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlicher Zeit [Burial in

Lithuania in Prehistoric Time], and various articles, served Professor Mugurēvičs

as important sources on burial practices in Lithuania for his own research. He

writes,

I remember M. Gimbutienė as an outstanding scholar who used her talent,

her amazing capacity for work, and her organizational abilities to study
and promote questions relating to the prehistory of the Baltic peoples at
such a level and on such scale as no archaeologist from the Baltic region
had managed to do before. After the Baltic States regained their
independence, I proposed that Prof. Dr. Marija Gimbutienė be awarded the
title of Foreign Member of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, which was
accepted by a meeting of the academy in 1993. 574

573
Kavolis quoted in Plioplys, “Professor Marija Gimbutas,” 9.

574
Mugurēvičs, “Remembering Dr. Marija Gimbutienė,” 6.

267
 Professor Mugurēvičs recalls that The Balts was not only translated into

Italian (1967) and German (1983 and 1991); “M. Gimbutienė supplemented her

book on the Balts with the most recent literature and illustrations, and published it

in her native language under the title Baltai priešistoriniais laikais.”575 In 1992,

The Balts was translated into Portuguese as Os Baltas: Historia da origem dos

antigos Prussianos, Lituanos e Letonianos. In 1994, The Balts was also translated

into Latvian and published as Balti aizvēsturiskajos laikos with a foreword by the

Latvian archaeologist, Dr. Ilze Loze. 576

The following section discusses the development of Gimbutas’s

scholarship and achievements from the beginning of her work at Harvard’s

Peabody Museum until her centennial year, celebrated by UNESCO in 2021.

A Brief Chronology of Marija Gimbutas’s Achievements, 1950–2021

After the end of World War II, Marija Gimbutas earned her doctorate in

archaeology at the University of Tübingen in 1946. After three years in refugee

camps, the Gimbutas family received sponsorship to immigrate to the United

States. They settled in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1949. After working several

months at menial jobs, Marija Gimbutas presented herself at Harvard in 1950 with

her newly published doctoral dissertation. She was recognized as someone with a

classical Eastern European education, who was knowledgeable about Eastern

European prehistory, who could speak and write up to sixteen European

languages. Dr. Gimbutas was given a small desk in the basement of the Peabody

575
Ibid., 6.

576
Ibid., 6–7.

268
Library and was expected to make translations of articles for the other professors

and was told not to expect to receive any money. She agreed and began to work

right away in what she considered to be the best library for archaeologists in the

world.577

Marija Gimbutas’s major achievements are summarized here in three

sections, from the time she began working at Harvard’s Peabody Museum until

she moved to California in 1963 where she accepted a professorship at the

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The third section, “Final

Achievements,” begins with her death in 1994, and concludes with the

acknowledgement of her centennial year by UNESCO in 2021.

The Harvard Years (1950–1963)

• 1950–1955: Performed research for The Prehistory of Eastern Europe

with support from the Bollingen and Wenner-Gren Foundations;

• 1954: Gave birth to her third daughter, Rasa;

• 1955: Elected Research Fellow of the Peabody Museum, a lifetime

honor;

• 1956: Published The Prehistory of Eastern Europe through the

American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard
University, with support from the Green Fund;

• 1956–1960: Awarded a National Science Foundation Senior Post-

Doctoral Fellowship for research and writing of Bronze Age Cultures
in Eastern and Central Europe;

• 1958: Published Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art via the

American Folklore Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with support
from the Bollingen and Wenner-Gren Foundations;

577
Personal communication from Marija Gimbutas to Joan Marler, Topanga,
CA, 1988.

269
• 1958: Received grant-in-aid from the American Philosophical Society
for ongoing research;

• 1960: Designated an Exchange Scholar with the USSR and Hungary,

sponsored by the American Academy of Sciences and the Inter-
university Committee, Bloomington, Indiana;

• 1960: Received the Outstanding New American Award for assisting

Lithuanian refugees, from the World Refugee Committee and the
Boston Junior Chamber of Commerce;

• 1961–1962: Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the

Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, for the completion of The
Balts;

• 1963: Published The Balts in the British series “Ancient Peoples and
Places” (London: Thames and Hudson), sponsored by the American
Council of Learned Societies;

• 1962–1963: Served as Lecturer, Department of Anthropology, Harvard

University.

The California Years (1963–1994)

• 1963–1989: Served as Professor of European Archaeology, UCLA;

• 1966–1989: Served as Curator of Old World Archaeology, Cultural

History Museum, UCLA;

• 1965: Published Bronze Age Cultures in Eastern and Central Europe

(The Hague: Mouton & Co.);

• 1967: Received the Humanities Endowment Award for studies of the

European Neolithic period;

• 1967–1968: Served as Project Director of Neolithic excavations at

Obre, Bosnia, conducted by UCLA and the Sarajevo Zemaljski Muzej,
sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution;

• 1968: Became an Exchange Professor with the USSR, sponsored by

the American Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C.;

• 1968: Awarded the Los Angeles Times “Woman of the Year Award”;

• 1968–1969: Served as Project Director (with Colin Renfrew) of the

Neolithic site of Sitagroi at Photolivos near Drama, Greek Macedonia,

270
 conducted by UCLA and Sheffield University, sponsored by the
National Science Foundation;

• 1969: Received permission to lecture as an Exchange Professor in the

USSR, as granted by the American Academy of Sciences;

• 1968–1972: Received grant from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation for

studies of Neolithic figurines and ritual pottery from southeast Europe;

• 1969–1971: Served as Project Director of the Neolithic site of Anza,

Macedonia, conducted by UCLA and Štip Muzej, sponsored by the
Smithsonian Institution;

• 1970: Awarded grant-in-aid from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for

study of the radiocarbon and dendrochronology of Old Europe;

• 1971: Published The Slavs in the British series “Ancient Peoples and
Places” (London: Thames and Hudson), sponsored by the American
Council of Learned Societies;

• 1973: Cofounded and served as the European archaeology editor of the

Journal of Indo-European Studies, Washington, DC;

• 1973–1974: Served as a Fellow of the Netherlands Institute for

Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences;

• 1973–1975: Served as Project Director of the Neolithic excavation of

the Sesklo culture site of Achilleion, near Farsala, Thessaly, Greece,
conducted by UCLA, sponsored by the National Science Foundation
and the Samuel H. Kress Foundation;

• 1974: Published Obre and Its Place in Old Europe, Marija Gimbutas,
ed., Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnische-Herzegowinischen
Landesmuseums, Band IV, Heft A, Zemalski Muzej Bosne i
Hercegivine, Sarajevo;

• 1974: Publication of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe (London:

Thames and Hudson; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press);

• 1977–1980: Served as Project Director of the Neolithic excavation of

the Scaloria Cave sanctuary near Manfredonia, southeastern Italy,
conducted by UCLA and Genoa University, sponsored by the
University Expeditions Program and the Samuel H. Kress Foundation;

271
• 1979: Organized the first international interdisciplinary conference on
“The Transformation of European and Anatolian Culture, 4500–2500
BC,” Dubrovnik, Croatia;

• 1981: Awarded a Fulbright Fellowship and a USSR Exchange Scholar

title; lectured at Vilnius University in Lithuania;

• 1982: Published The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (London:

Thames and Hudson; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press);

• 1982: Awarded the Ahmanson Foundation grant in support of Sacred

Images and Symbols of Old Europe, which became The Language of
the Goddess;

• 1983: Received a Samuel H. Kress Foundation grant in support of

research and writing of Sacred Images and Symbols of Old Europe,
which became The Language of the Goddess, and to support the
excavation of the Scaloria cave sanctuary, southwestern Italy;

• 1986: Published Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in

Northeast Greece, Vol. 1, edited by Colin Renfrew, Marija Gimbutas,
and Ernestine S. Elster. Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (University of
California, Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology);

• 1987: Honored with the festschrift, Proto-Indo-European: The

Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem: Studies in Honor of Marija
Gimbutas (Washington, DC: The Institute for the Study of Man).

• 1988: Awarded an Honorary Doctorate at the California Institute for

Integral Studies, San Francisco;

• 1989: Published The Language of the Goddess (HarperSanFrancisco),

supported by the Ahmanson Foundation and the Samuel H. Kress
Foundation;

• 1989: Organized the second international conference, “The

Transformation of European and Anatolian Cultures, 4500–2500 BC,”
University College Dublin, Ireland.

• 1991: Published The Civilization of the Goddess

(HarperSanFrancisco);

• June 11, 1993: Received Honorary Doctorate as Marija Birutė

Alseikaitė Gimbutienė at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas,
Lithuania.

272
• 1993: Voted Foreign Member of the Latvian Academy of Sciences.

Final Achievements

• February 2, 1994: Transitioned into the realm of the ancestors, Los

Angeles, California;

• May 7–8, 1994: Marija Birutė Alseikaitė Gimbutienė/Gimbutas

honored with state funeral in Vilnius University’s St. John’s Church.
After an auto procession from Vilnius to Kaunas, she was buried next
to her mother in Petrašiūnai Cemetery in Kaunas, with a ceremony
attended by more than one thousand people;

• September 1–7, 1994: Memorialized at the third international

conference: “The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe—In
Memoriam Marija Gimbutas” in Vilnius, Lithuania, with support by
the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, Open Society Fund, Lithuania,
and A. Richard Diebold, Jr.;

• 1997: Publication of The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-

Europeanization of Europe—Marija Gimbutas’s entire collection of
articles on this subject, written between 1952–1993—edited by
Miriam Robbins Dexter and Karlene Jones-Bley. It appeared as
Monograph no. 18 of the Journal of Indo-European Studies
(Washington, DC: Institute of the Study of Man);

• 1997: Publication of From the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology

in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Joan Marler (Manchester,
Connecticut: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends).

• 1997: Memorialized in Varia on the Indo-European Past: Papers in

Memory of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Miriam Robbins Dexter and
Edgar C. Polomé. Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph 19
(Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man).

• 1999: Posthumous publication of The Living Goddesses, edited and

supplemented by Miriam Robbins Dexter (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press)

• November 8, 2017: Honored at the first Marija Gimbutas Memorial

Lecture at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, featuring
Professor Colin Renfrew’s presentation, titled “Marija Rediviva: DNA
and Indo-European Origins.” This talk provided a formal vindication
of Gimbutas’s Kurgan theory.

273
 • January 23, 2021: UNESCO celebrated Marija Gimbutas’s 100th
birthday; she was honored throughout her centennial year by events in
numerous locales, especially in Lithuania, the United States, and Italy.

• July 16‒18, 2021: Celebrated by the symposium “Wisdom Across the

Ages, Celebrating the Centennial of Archaeomythologist Marija
Gimbutas,” sponsored by the Institute of Archaeomythology and the
Association for the Study of Women and Mythology (ASWM).

• September 1, 2021: Featured in “Goddesses and Warriors,” an

international exhibit of archaeological discoveries at the National
Museum in Vilnius;

• September 23–24, 2021: Honored by an International Scientific

Conference, “The New Old Europe,” National Museum of Lithuania,
Vilnius.

This list of memorable achievements by Marija Gimbutas provides an

acknowledgment of some of the highlights of her remarkable life following her

immigration to the United States in 1949: her productive years at Harvard’s

Peabody Museum, including her publications, grants, fellowships, and travels as

an Exchange Scholar with the USSR (including Lithuania and Hungary); her

dynamic years as Professor of European Archaeology and Curator of Old World

Archaeology at UCLA; her excavations in southeastern Europe and her

subsequent publications; her organization of international, interdisciplinary

conferences, and receipt of two honorary doctorates. Gimbutas’s final

achievements conclude with her state funeral in Vilnius, the international,

interdisciplinary conference in her honor at the University of Vilnius in 1994, and

celebratory events for her 2021 centennial, including a scientific conference and

special exhibition in her honor at the National Museum of Lithuania in Vilnius.

The following section presents a review of Marija Gimbutas՚s scholarly

achievements, highlighting key discoveries that are central to her cultural legacy.

274
Key Discoveries of Marija Gimbutas՚s Cultural Legacy

Old Europe as a Peaceful, Long-Lived, Matristic Civilization

Marija Gimbutas coined the term “Old Europe” in recognition of essential

similarities shared by the earliest Neolithic farming communities that developed

throughout southeastern and central Europe from the seventh to the fourth

millennia BC. Although each Neolithic society has its own name, individual style,

and recognizable features, Gimbutas used the overarching term “Old Europe” to

signify that these highly developed agrarian societies were non-Indo-European,

linked by commonalities of symbolism, religion, economy, social structure, and

technological development with no weapons created for warfare. Settlements

were primarily built on open terraces near water sources, not in defensible

locations for protection against attack.

The societies of Old Europe were connected by extensive trade networks

through which they circulated items such as obsidian, shells, marble, copper, and

salt over hundreds of kilometers. 578 At its florescence, during the fifth millennium

BC, the Old Europeans constructed large towns with well-built, spacious houses

and temples with multiple rooms and stories; skilled artisans produced large

quantities of weavings and elegant ceramics with advanced kiln technologies for

making thin-walled, high-fired, and exquisitely decorated ritual vessels. These

578
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, viii; Haarmann, Mystery of the
Danube Civilization, 79‒87.

275
Old European ceramics were so refined that their artistry would not be matched

by later societies for thousands of years. 579

Old Europe developed the earliest metallurgy, not for the production of

weapons, but for an array of symbolic images skillfully crafted in copper and

gold.580 The inhabitants of Old Europe also produced a sophisticated system of

linear signs and symbols with a high level of abstraction, a “linear script”

representing essential concepts as the earliest form of writing. Script signs were

engraved on ceramics as single or multiple signs, in deliberate arrangements on

spindle whorls and plaques, and painted or engraved on female sculptures.581

Thousands of human and zoomorphic sculptures in a wide range of styles,

portable altars, offering vessels, and temple models indicate a dedicated focus on

ritual activities within the domestic realm.

The Old European “Goddess” as a Metaphor for All Life in Nature

For Marija Gimbutas, the existence of thousands of Old European female

sculptures, human–animal hybrids, male images that stimulate life energy, and

female/male androgynous sculptures 582 reflected peopleʼs vibrant participation in

579
Gimbutas, “Fall and Transformation of Old Europe,” 351.

580
For a 2021 article about the earliest evidence of metallurgy in the Balkans,
with the smelting of copper around 5000 BC and the smelting of ore containing copper
and tin a bit later, see Radivojević and Roberts, “Early Balkan Metallurgy.”
581
See Winn, “Danube (Old European) Script,” 126‒41; Paul, “Origin and
Evolution of Neo-Eneolithic Signs,” 129‒39; Haarmann and Marler, “Old
European/Danube Script,” 30‒48; Lazarovici, “Symbols and Signs of the Cucuteni-
Tripolye Culture,” 65‒93; Videiko, “Signs and Sign Systems of the Trypillia Culture,”
179‒86; Merlini, “Evidence of the Danube Script,” 53‒60.
582
Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 183.

276
ongoing ritual activities related to the meaningful realities of their cultural lives.

Gimbutas came to understand that people՚s deeply held beliefs about the

interrelated web of life and their place within it provided the source of this ancient

imagery that functioned for thousands of years as “a cohesive and persistent

ideological system.”583 She considered the main themes of Goddess symbolism to

be the mystery of birth, death, and the renewal of life on earth and in the entire

cosmos. She interpreted signs of dynamic motion in Old European art to represent

the vitality of regeneration within the natural world, expressed by “whirling and

twisting spirals, winding and coiling snakes, circles, crescents, horns, sprouting

seeds and shoots.”584 Ceramics were marked with meanders, undulating patterns,

and spirals that seem to express the interconnection of all things, in dynamic

harmony and balance. Gimbutas՚s interpretation of the worldview of Old

European agriculturalists is in harmony with the ecological perception expressed

by twentieth- and twenty-first century deep ecologists who recognize the

fundamental interdependence of all phenomena while acknowledging that all life

forms, including humans, are embedded within—and dependent upon—the

cyclical processes of the living world. 585

The Development of Archaeomythology

In order to adequately investigate the beliefs, rituals, and symbolism of

Neolithic societies, Gimbutas found it necessary to extend the operational and

583
Ibid., xv.

584
Ibid., xix.

585
Capra, Web of Life, 6; Spretnak, Relational Reality.

277
conceptual boundaries of her field to include an interdisciplinary focus. She

therefore developed archaeomythology as both an interdisciplinary field and a

methodology586 that includes archaeology, mythology, folklore, linguistics,

comparative religions, and other appropriate disciplines. This approach provides a

range of lenses through which to view the complex and nuanced realms of

iconography, rituals, beliefs, and symbolism of prehistoric people. Insights

informed by the knowledge and practices of one discipline can catalyze new

dimensions of understanding for scholars working within other disciplines. 587

Moreover, multiple disciplines can function to correct erroneous assumptions,

undetected within a single disciplinary inquiry.

While a multidisciplinary approach to scholarship is not a unique concept,

archaeomythology is distinguished by synchronic and diachronic research

informed by the following assumptions: “Sacred cosmologies are central to the

cultural fabric of all early societies; beliefs and rituals expressing sacred world

views are conservative and are not easily changed; many archaic cultural patterns

have survived into the historical period as folk motifs and as mythic elements

within oral, visual, and ritual traditions.”588 Moreover, symbolic artifacts

586
Mara Lynn Keller, “Archaeomythology as Academic Field and
Methodology,” 7‒37.
587
I have experienced this in action during two international, interdisciplinary
conferences, organized by Marija Gimbutas (in Dublin, Ireland, 1989, and Vilnius,
Lithuania, 1994), and from fruitful discussions following the presentations of
international, interdisciplinary papers during symposia in Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria
sponsored by the Institute of Archaeomythology.
588
Marler, “Introduction to Archaeomythology,” 2.

278
“represent the grammar and syntax of a kind of meta-language by which an entire

constellation of meanings is transmitted.”589 Through the application of

archaeomythology, Gimbutas began to recognize the main themes of Old

European ideology through analysis of their symbols and images, and the

discovery of their intrinsic order.590

The Indo-European Kurgan Culture

While intensively studying 100 years of excavation reports from the

middle of the nineteenth century until 1955, Marija Gimbutas identified the

development of the “Kurgan culture” in the Volga basin, dated between 5000 and

4500 BC. Her use of this blanket term—named after their distinctive burial

mounds—“does not represent the evolution of a single group of people, but rather

several groups of steppe peoples differing spatially and diachronically . . . sharing

a common tradition.”591 She noticed that this tradition is associated with a specific

type of pit-grave burial covered with a kurgan mound that became the typical

burial monument of the steppes. These burials are linked with evidence of

mobility, horse riding, animal herds, weapons, warfare, insignia, and other

symbols of elite male dominance. 592 Gimbutas intentionally used the terms

“Kurgan culture” or “Kurgan tradition” to identify the creators of rows of kurgan

mounds with diagnostically similar contents found over thousands of kilometers

589
Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, xv.

590
Ibid.

591
Gimbutas, Prehistory of Eastern Europe, 3.

592
Gimbutas, “The Fall and Transformation of Old Europe,” 353‒54.

279
between the Middle Volga basin, the Ural Mountains, the Caucasus Mountains,

and the Don and lower Dnieper River basins. After the Kurgans reached the

Dnieper basin, ca. 4500–4300 BC,593 Gimbutas discerned, from the excavation

reports, how and where they began their first incursion into Neolithic Europe. She

points out “there are several types of evidence that allow us to trace the

movements of the Kurgans westward: the appearance of Kurgan tombs, the

abandonment of Old European settlements, and the disruption of long-lasting

traditions in pottery and architecture.”594

The “Collision of Cultures” and the Indo-Europeanization of Old Europe

Marija Gimbutas refers to the sequential arrival of Proto-Indo-European

steppe tribes into Old Europe as a “collision of cultures” that took place during

the 2,000-year period of the Indo-Europeanization of Old Europe. She describes

this complex transformative process as analogous to the European conquest of the

American continent. According to her discoveries, “This period saw three Kurgan

thrusts into east-central Europe: at ca. 4400‒4200 BC, at ca. 3600‒3400 BC, and

at ca. 3000‒2800 BC,”595 resulting in the destruction of hundreds of ancient Old

European cultural sites that had achieved a florescence of high cultural

development during the fifth millennium BC. The first incursion alone resulted in

the destruction of the great Karanovo-Gumelniţa, Varna, Vinča, and Butmir

cultures during the height of their cultural development. At other sites, the

593
Ibid., 354.

594
Ibid., 360.

595
Ibid.

280
changes were more gradual, taking centuries to transform.596 Gimbutas writes,

“Archaeological evidence, supported by comparative Indo-European linguistics

and mythology, suggests a clash of two ideologies, social structures and

economies perpetrated by trauma-inducing institutions.”597

Processes of destruction and hybridization between the previously stable

and flourishing civilization of Old Europe and the incoming Kurgan tribes from

the steppes, who worshipped male sky gods,598 resulted in an amalgamation

between Old European and Indo-European cultural systems, with the imposition

of a patriarchal social system that glorified male dominance and warfare.599

The Continuity of Old European Religious Patterns into Later Cultural

Periods

Marija Gimbutas was convinced that it is not possible to fully understand

subsequent European cultural development without recognizing the effects of the

“collision of cultures.” Indo-European language, beliefs, and social structure

predominated after this transition, but they did not eradicate the deep roots of Old

European beliefs and customs everywhere. Old European religious patterns

596
Ibid., 352.

597
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, 352.

598
Ibid., 399.

599
Marija Gimbutas did not live to see the extraordinary genetic developments
that confirmed her Kurgan theory. Moreover, ancient DNA evidence indicates the
disappearance of Old European male populations, the incorporation (abduction) of OE
women into the households of the steppe invaders, and the rapid spread and domination
of the Y chromosome genetics of the male populations from the steppes. See Reich, Who
We Are and How We Got Here, 238‒41.

281
endured as substratum elements into later patriarchal periods creating a strong

undercurrent that influenced the development of Western civilization. 600

There are many examples of the continuity of Old European elements into

later cultural periods. The most remarkable example developed in Minoan Crete,

which Gimbutas considers to be the most direct continuity of Old European

religion, social structure, and elegant expression of ritual life. Joan Cichon՚s 2013

doctoral dissertation, “Matriarchy in Minoan Crete: A Perspective from

Archaeomythology and Modern Matriarchal Studies,” offers an excellent

presentation of this most remarkable continuity. Not only was the Goddess

worshipped in temple complexes, but in sacred caves and on peak sanctuaries in

the open air, surrounded by the natural beauty of the landscape.

The Mycenaeans were inspired by the Minoans to continue aspects of their

ritual lives; deep Old European roots survived into the Greek Classical period to

manifest as the sacred rituals of the Eleusinian Mysteries. The continuity of non-

Indo-European indigenous elements continued with numerous cultural inflections,

such as among the Etruscans and in the Basque culture of northern Spain and

southern France, where their indigenous beliefs and practices continued.601 All

parts of Europe and the Mediterranean area, even in remote villages, have their

own expressions of strongly preserved Old European undercurrents that remain in

some ways to this day.

600
Gimbutas, Living Goddess, 129.

601
Ibid., 130.

282
Cultivating Interdisciplinary Scholarship

As discussed in Chapter 5, Dr. Gimbutas began her tenure at UCLA in

1963, where she collaborated with her Estonian colleague Professor Jaan Puhvel

to develop the Graduate Interdepartmental Program in Indo-European studies.

Throughout her years at UCLA, she emphasized the importance of

interdisciplinary studies.

The exchange of information between archaeologists, linguists,

mythologists, physical anthropologists, and students of ancient history has
much to contribute. It should create intellectual bridges. Much work is still
done in isolation. One of the reasons for this is that interdisciplinary
research requires the scholar to view the problem with an entirely different
mental focus, which means learning to assemble the data with a goal of
seeing all details at once, in situ.602

This statement provides a view of Marija Gimbutas’s own mental focus

while doing interdisciplinary research as part of the legacy she passed on to her

students. In her view, without integrating the courses taught in various disciplines,

it is difficult to expect students to understand the different demands and

approaches used in fields other than their own. 603 In order to implement this

approach, the Graduate Interdepartmental Program that Gimbutas and Puhvel

developed required students to study Indo-European linguistics combined with the

study of archaeology and mythology.

Gimbutas understood the importance of creating opportunities beyond the

classroom for students and scholars to participate in professional conferences in

which their interdisciplinary work would be presented and discussed. She,

602
Gimbutas, “Introductory Remarks,” 194.

603
Ibid.

283
therefore, organized three international, interdisciplinary conferences for this

purpose in which her PhD students were invited to give papers—including James

Mallory, Martin Huld, Karlene Jones-Bley, Miriam Robbins Dexter, and Angela

Della Volpe. The first international interdisciplinary conference on “The

Transformation of European and Anatolian Culture, 4500–2500 BC” took place in

Dubrovnik, Croatia/former Yugoslavia in 1979; the second international

conference, “The Transformation of European and Anatolian Cultures, 4500–

2500 BC,” took place at the University College Dublin, in Ireland in 1989; and

the third international conference, “The Indo-Europeanization of Northern

Europe,” took place in 1994 in Vilnius, Lithuania.

The proceedings of these conferences were published in the Journal of

Indo-European Studies (JIES), which Marija Gimbutas cofounded with Edgar

Polomé and Roger Pearson in 1973; she served as its first archaeological editor. It

was always her intention for this interdisciplinary scholarly journal to publish

articles by linguists, archaeologists, mythologists, and scholars in other relevant

disciplines to encourage them to read each other’s works and to be in dialogue. In

Gimbutas’s view, knowing how to come out of scholarly isolation to become

collaborative is essential for the success of interdisciplinary scholarship.

The following comments are from several of Marija Gimbutas’s

colleagues, associated with JIES, who recognized and appreciated the pioneering

significance of her contributions to interdisciplinary scholarship. Winfred P.

Lehmann, professor emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Germanic

Languages, University of Texas at Austin, offered these words:

284
 Much of the impetus for . . . advances in our knowledge of the early
peoples who gave Europe its political and cultural distinction in the
millennia surrounding the beginning of our era we owe to Marija
Gimbutas. The results of Gimbutas’s own investigations, as well as those
sparked by her, are readily available in The Journal of Indo-European
Studies. . . a journal to which Indo-European scholarship owes a great
deal.604

A. Richard Diebold, Jr., emeritus professor from the Department of

Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, writes:

To Marija Gimbutas we owe much. For the first time, with the formulation
of her Kurgan Hypothesis in the 1950s, a full century and more after the
prehistoric glottogenesis of the Indo-European languages and the
ethnogenesis of their speakers first became burning and illusive issues, we
have a defensible hypothesis that heuristically links linguistic and
archaeological knowledge. . . . [for which] the unenviable burden of
(dis)proof must fall upon the critics and sceptics.605

Diebold continues: “What I wish to emphasize here is Gimbutas the

polyglot! . . . it is most significant that Marija Gimbutas is bilingual in the

technical languages of Linguistics and Archaeology.” And, as he points out, “This

is no mean feat. [. . .] there exists a chronic alienation between prehistorically

(especially anthropologically) oriented archaeology and those historical

comparative linguistic ventures that are concerned with (P)IE prehistory”; in his

view, “mutual contempt” depicts this climate, resulting in “intellectual trench

warfare.”606 Diebold adds, “Let us be grateful for an Indo-Europeanist who can

address both camps, and for her role in founding a forum—the pages of The

604
Lehmann, “Linguistic and Archaeological Data,” 72–73.

605
Diebold, “Linguistic Ways to Prehistory,” 19.

606
Ibid., 19–20.

285
Journal of Indo-European Studies—where parties from both camps can freely

communicate, if not always agree.”607

The philologist Edgar C. Polomé, emeritus professor, University of Texas

at Austin, comments in his introduction to Marija Gimbutas՚s festschrift, Proto-

Indo-European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem:

It is perhaps the greatest achievement of a scholar like Marija

Gimbutas . . . to realize with pride and satisfaction that her work has made
a deep impact on the thinking of her time and has renewed her own
discipline: the problem of the Indo-Europeans will continue to be
discussed for many decades to come, but the coherent picture that Marija
Gimbutas has provided of their migrations and of the peoples and
civilizations of ancient Europe with which they were confronted will
remain a basic point of departure for all future research.608

The scholar and academic editor Dr. Susan Nacev Skomal adds a

fascinating comment that reveals the complexity of the interdisciplinary

scholarship that Marija Gimbutas was always working to promote. Skomal writes,

The archaeological pursuit of the mytho-linguistically preserved Proto-

Indo-European (PIE) speaking cultures of Europe and Asia has been
largely inspired . . . by the scholarship of Marija Alseikaitė
Gimbutas. . . . It is her contention that the linguistic transformation of the
European continent by PIE-speaking peoples implies socio-cultural
repercussions which should be manifest in the material remains available
to archaeologists. Yet the current reconstructions of PIE culture and
society, which are based to a large degree upon the linguistic,
mythological and historical data available for historical speakers of Indo-
European dialects, have rarely been systematically compared to
archaeological samples to test “recorded” human behavior. The question
therefore arises as to whether the artefactual data are compatible, and how
they may best be integrated for use in the reconstruction of prehistoric
Indo-European society.609

607
Ibid., 20.

608
Polomé, “Foreword,” Proto-Indo-European, 11.

609
Skomal, “Introduction,” Proto-Indo-European, 12.

286
 Marija Gimbutas’s in-depth investigations of more than 100 years of

archaeological reports for her monographs on The Prehistory of Eastern Europe

and Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe are examples of her

work to bridge the gap between the mytho-linguistically preserved evidence of

PIE-speaking cultures in Europe and archaeological evidence of the sociocultural

changes that led to the Indo-Europeanization of Europe. The archaeologist

Christopher Hawkes offered an article in Gimbutas’s 1987 festschrift with the

title, “Archaeologists and Indo-Europeanists: Can They Mate? Hinderances and

Hopes,” which implies that this endeavor is only beginning. Hawkes seems to

consider Gimbutas’s efforts to be ahead of her time. 610 But Gimbutas is a pioneer

who asked new questions, who framed essential dialogues, who set the stage for

future investigations. According to the Turkish archaeologist Jak Yakar, Marija

Gimbutas’s systematic, interdisciplinary approach enabled her to deal with

difficult regional problems covering a wide range of topics that became highly

debated concerning European and Anatolian prehistory.611

These [topics] included the evaluation and interpretation of data pertaining

to prehistoric religion, patterns of settlement and their socio-economic
aspects, questions of cultural diffusion through population movements,
and the impact of intensive regional interactions on local cultures. Her
perseverance in pursuing difficult and controversial questions. . . made
Marija Gimbutas a widely respected and much sought after scholar in her
field.612

610
Christopher Hawkes, “Archaeologists and Indo-Europeanists: Can They
Mate?”, 203.
611
Yakar, “Did Anatolia Contribute to the Neolithization of Southeastern
Europe,” 59.
612
Ibid.

287
Marija Gimbutas’s State Funeral, and Her Interdisciplinary Conference in

Vilnius

On February 2, 1994, Marija Gimbutas passed into the realm of the

Ancestors. According to her wishes, her ashes were placed in an owl urn to

represent regeneration; she was honored with a two-day state funeral at Vilnius

University’s St. John’s Church on May 7. Before her ashes were ceremonially

carried out of the church the following day, Dr. Gintautas Česnys and others were

asked to say some words of farewell. In The Realm of the Ancestors he writes,

I noted that the grand personalities of a small nation come to light only
against a worldwide background. This is the case with our great
Lithuanian American archaeomythologist, Marija Gimbutas. Now she has
returned and belongs to us: a small sand grave on the bank of the Nemunas
River, piles of books, and the powerful fluttering of Goddess’s wings over
the ancient land of the Balts and all of Europe. 613

On May 8, traffic was stopped in Vilnius so that Marija Gimbutas’s ashes

could be transported with mourners in a car caravan to the Petrašiūnai Cemetery

in Kaunas. After the procession arrived, she was buried next to her mother,

Veronika Janulaitytė Alseikienė, attended by more than 1,000 people.

On September 1–7, 1994, the international, interdisciplinary conference,

“The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe‒In Memoriam Marija Gimbutas”

was held at Vilnius University, with presentations from the fields of physical

anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, ethnology, mythology, and philosophy.

Česnys writes,

This conference was a significant event in the scientific and cultural life of
Lithuania. It had a spirit of academic, international and human cooperation

613
Česnys, “Marija Gimbutas in My Life,” 29.

288
 that was so characteristic of Marija Gimbutas. The results of the
conference shed light on the processes that transformed the culture of
ancient Northern Europe into the Indo-European world, especially in the
circum-Baltic area. The publication of the conference proceedings are an
important contribution to multidisciplinary work in Indo-European
studies.614

Marija Gimbutas՚s Legacy

New approaches to scholarship are often met with challenges, and

researchers can be reluctant to venture beyond the parameters of their disciplines.

It requires courage and vision to risk originality, to see new possibilities and to

integrate them into a coherent and compelling whole, into an entirely new theory.

Innovation never comes from the repetition of accepted formulas.

Marija Gimbutas was both an excavator—which requires tremendous

patience and appreciation of detail—and a synthesist who incorporated data from

countless primary sources. She perceived Old Europe as a peaceful, non-Indo-

European civilization whose symbolism and ritual activities were intrinsically

intertwined with people՚s organic world view in which the Sacred Source of Life

was venerated in female forms representing “the unity of all life in Nature.”615

January 23, 2021, marked Marija Gimbutas՚s 100th birthday. The

significance of Marija Gimbutas՚s life՚s work was recognized by the United

Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), whose

mission is “to contribute to the building of a culture of peace, the eradication of

poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education,

614
Ibid., 30.

615
Marija Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 321.

289
the sciences, culture, communication, and information.”616 In this way, UNESCO

respected Marija Gimbutas՚s pioneering discoveries and honored her throughout

2021 as one of the “eminent personalities who have helped shape the civilization

we share by contributing to the mutual enrichment of cultures for universal

understanding and peace.”617

During her entire centennial year, she was celebrated by conferences,

symposia, special publications, exhibitions, and an array of other events in her

honor in Eastern and Western Europe and the United States. Gimbutas՚s gifts to

present and future generations provide a new origin story of Western civilization

in which Old Europe is shown to have been peaceful, egalitarian, matristic, highly

artistic, and focused on the activities that sustain and regenerate life. Gimbutas՚s

research indicates that European civilization did not begin with male dominance,

warfare, and the loss of kinship with the Earth as the inevitable human condition.

The continuity of Old European patterns into later cultural periods indicates

people՚s tenacity in maintaining ancient practices that engender a sense of kinship

between human communities and an abiding respect for all forms of life.

616
United Nations Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth.
“UNESCO,” par. 2.
617
Announcement by Asta Junevičienė, Secretariat of Lithuaniaʼs National
UNESCO Commission, concerning the inclusion of Marija Gimbutas in the official list of
significant memorial dates during the 40th session of UNESCOʼS General Assembly.
The inclusion of the 100th anniversary of Marija Birutė Alseikaitė-Gimbutienė/Gimbutas
was supported by the National UNESCO committees of Latvia and Germany, and by
Pacifica Graduate Institute in the USA. A copy of this letter was sent to Marija
Gimbutas՚s daughter, Živilė Gimbutas, who translated excerpts of the letter into English,
which she sent to me with a copy of the formal letter, dated November 20, 2019.

290
 Marija Gimbutas՚s lifelong dedication to scholarship offers the first

systematic overview of the art, religious symbolism, and social structure of

Neolithic Europe. Her published works provide a detailed chronicle of the

disciplined development of her original scholarship by using multiple lenses of

interdisciplinary archaeomythological inquiry.

Her most well-known publications include The Gods and Goddesses of

Old Europe (1974), republished as The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe; The

Language of the Goddess (1989), which is a study in archaeomythology; The

Civilization of the Goddess (1991), a distillation of her life՚s work; and The Living

Goddesses (1999), a synthesis of her earlier work, including new material about

the continuity of Old European patterns into later cultural periods as expressed

through myths and folklore.

A major aspect of Marija Gimbutas՚s legacy, which is too often

overlooked, is her concept of “the collision of cultures” that took place over a

2,000-year period, between the mid-fifth and the mid-third millennia BC. During

this time, the long-lived cohesive civilization of Old Europe was broken into a

series of hybrid societies as a result of the relentless influence of Indo-European

steppe traditions. Gimbutas describes the resulting transition as one “from

matrilineal to patrilineal order, from a learned theocracy to a militant patriarchy,

from a sexually balanced society to a male-dominated hierarchy, and from a

chthonic goddess religion to a Indo-European sky-oriented pantheon of gods.”618

618
Gimbutas, Kurgan Culture, xviii.

291
 In her view, it is impossible to understand the subsequent development of

European societies without recognizing the continuity of Old European patterns

that have continued to exist as substratum elements into later patriarchal periods.

All Indo-Europeanized people carry these cultural layers in which deeply rooted

aspects of an ancient earth-based spirituality that may appear to be lost, can

spontaneously arise like an underground stream, carrying ancient knowledge and

resonance of our inseparable kinship with the living world that was central to Old

European, and indigenous, sensibility.

When Marija Gimbutas began to publish her books containing hundreds of

Old European symbolic images and anthropomorphic sculptures, many people

involved in the arts experienced powerful responses as though deeply hidden

perceptions within them were awakened. Spontaneous expressions within the

visual arts, poetry, and the creation of sculptural works inspired by Neolithic

female imagery began to appear. The enormously creative responses inspired by

Marija Gimbutas՚s scholarship took her completely by surprise. In the article “The

Artistic Legacy of Marija Gimbutas,” published in From the Realm of the

Ancestors, the art historian Gloria F. Orenstein explains:

Marija Gimbutas has inspired the creation of an entirely new repertoire of

female imagery in art, through no intention on her part. In fact, this
response came as a complete surprise to her. . . . The symbols, glyphs and
forms that Marija revealed in her books spoke directly to women artists of
the 1970s and 1980s, leading to the development of a revolutionary
transformative movement in feminist art, often referred to as the Goddess
Art Movement. . . . The wealth of cross-cultural knowledge provided by
Marija Gimbutas has enriched the creative, mythic and symbolic
imaginations of contemporary women artists who speak, sculpt, paint,
draw, and write in literally a new language. . . . Perhaps the most
fundamental teaching we have received from Gimbutas՚s archaeological
legacy is that the Goddess represents Cosmic Creation, Procreation

292
 (fertility) and Cultural Creation integrated in one holistic concept. . . . [Old
European] women were simultaneously creators of culture and biological
procreators, with no separation of these functions. It was a non-dualistic
participation in the realm of the sacred. 619

Conclusion

This culminating chapter highlights the development of Marija Gimbutas՚s

key discoveries as central to her cultural legacy. These include her interpretation

of Neolithic Old Europe as a peaceful, long-lived, matristic, non-Indo-European

civilization; her recognition of the significance of female imagery in the ritual

activities and social structure of Old European populations; the Old European

“Goddess” as a metaphor for the source of all life in Nature; Old European male

imagery functioning to stimulate the life force during seasonal cycles of death and

rebirth within the natural world;620 her recognition of realistic and stylized

sculptural images combining both female and male sexual attributes 621;

Gimbutas՚s naming of the warlike, male dominant tribes of the Volga-Ural (north

Caspian) and North Pontic steppe regions as the Kurgan culture; her recognition

of the “collision of cultures” as the result of 2,000 years of infiltrations of warlike

pastoralists from the North Pontic-Caspian steppes into Europe resulting in the

Indo-Europeanization of Europe; and the continuity of Old European practices

into later cultural periods.

619
Orenstein, “The Artistic Legacy of Marija Gimbutas,” 457, 459, 460, 461.

620
Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 180.

621
Ibid., 183, fig. 283.

293
 Colin Renfrew wrote the following words as a tribute to Marija Gimbutas

at the conclusion of her obituary in the Independent of London, February 23,

1994: “She was a figure of extraordinary energy and talent. The study and the

wider understanding of European prehistory is much the richer for her life՚s

work.”622

Gimbutas՚s former graduate student and colleague, Ernestine Elster, adds:

“Marija Gimbutas was an innovator and a pathfinder; the number of major ideas

that she advanced created the impulse and agenda for intense research of these

ideas and publication of major volumes.”623

L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Professor Emeritus, Department of Genetics,

Stanford University, California, visited Gimbutas at her home in Topanga, CA,

not long before her death. He states,

Her theories may not all survive—scientists who want to be sure to be

always right should make no theories at all. But she has contributed in an
important way to the study of human history, and I believe that she has
given very valuable contributions which are here to stay. 624

British author, artist, and prehistorian Michael Dames writes,

In Gimbutas՚s Old Europe, the sacred is believed to emanate from the

holiness of matter. She describes a holistic world in which deities may
appear in human, animal, bird or insect form, or in any combination of
these. Far from the “monstrous chimerae” of later ages, these hybrids
epitomize an egalitarian eco-theology. With the help of human midwives,
such deities—versions of the Great Mother—incorporate into themselves
the extremes of chaos and death, before giving birth to the cosmos and all
its life-forms. … Gimbutas chose to operate within the academic milieu.

622
Renfrew, “Obituary: Marija Gimbutas,” par. 11.

623
Elster, “Marija Gimbutas: Setting the Agenda,” 108.

624
Cavalli-Sforza, “Genetic Evidence Supporting Marija Gimbutas՚s Work,”
100.

294
 From the start, her approach was subversive for she employed the
available techniques, not to amplify the parochialism of Western culture,
but to gain access to a truly Other World—to be studied on its own
terms.625

Marija Gimbutas was acutely aware that the potential for knowledge is

vast and what any individual can comprehend and contribute within one lifetime

is extremely limited. Professor Michael Herity from University College Dublin

commented that she possessed a “humility in the face of the evidence” that caused

her to continually revise her own conclusions based upon the most current data. 626

She perceived her work as a beginning, not an end, and knew that many younger

scholars will stand on her shoulders. According to Michael Dames, “Her work

reminds us that the thirst for explanation should not cause our ability to be in the

presence of what is essentially timeless to atrophy. . . . Such rapport cannot be

rushed.”627

In closing I offer my own hermeneutic analysis of the significance and

legacy of Marija Gimbutas’s embodied scholarship on the origins of European

civilization. Her life-long scholarship and pioneering interpretations of Old

European beliefs, symbolism, and social structure function as a profound

contribution to the recognition of the earliest civilization of Europe. Without her

pioneering, archaeomythological research on Neolithic symbolism, and the Old

European “religion of the Goddess”—as controversial as it is for many Euro-

625
Dames, “Gimbutas Gift,” 47.

626
Recorded conversation with Michael Herity by Joan Marler, Topanga, March
15, 1992.
627
Dames, “Gimbutas Gift,” 48. Italics in original.

295
American academics—the subject of prehistoric beliefs, ritual, and religion would

not be vigorously debated within the discipline of archaeology as it is today. The

significance of Gimbutas՚s concept of the “collision of cultures”—between the

long-lived, peaceful, matristic, highly developed Old European civilization, and

the cultural and linguistic impact of the warlike, patriarchal Proto-Indo-European

invaders from the North Pontic-Caspian steppes—has yet to be fully recognized

within archaeology. Nevertheless, this aspect of her work provides an invaluable

key to an understanding of the cultural development of all subsequent Indo-

Europeanized societies.

Marija Gimbutas՚s scholarly discoveries, theories, and the application of

archaeomythology deserve to be more fully studied and incorporated into future

archaeological scholarship. It is a good sign that some younger colleagues within

her field are recognizing the necessity to investigate the non-material aspects of

prehistoric societies, to ask new questions, and to have the courage to investigate

both the unknown and what has simply been forgotten. It is gratifying to see the

work of seasoned scholars, such as the world-class linguist and social scientist,

Harald Haarmann, furthering Gimbutas՚s legacy through multiple works

concerning the significance of Old Europe; the development of its writing system;

and evidence of non-Indo-European (Old European) words, concepts, and

Goddesses within the Greek classical period. 628

As Marija Gimbutas has emphasized, the Indo-Europeanization of Old

Europe resulted in the development of a seemingly indelible template of male

628
See, for example, Haarmann, Roots of Ancient Greek Civilization.

296
dominance, warfare, and subjugation of women and the earth, which continues to

manifest in our time. As a prime example, Russia՚s unprovoked attack on Ukraine

with the intention of obliterating its peaceful culture (causing its population to

take up arms to resist) is taking place at this very moment on the ancient land

where the Old European Cucuteni-Trypillia culture was eventually destroyed by

warriors from the North Pontic-Russian steppes roughly 5,500 years ago. Now,

the buried remains of these magnificent sites in Ukraine between the Dniester and

Dnipro/Dnieper rivers are threatened by tanks and bombs. These culture sites

include more than thirty “megasites” with dwellings in circular arrangements,

covering between 100 to 400 square hectares, which developed from the late fifth

to the mid fourth millennium BC with as many as 2000 houses. 629

The belief that warfare and male dominance are inevitable, even after

5000 years, rejects the ancient knowledge of people throughout the world who

understand that the sustainability of human life and the life of our planet require a

recalibration of human values. For most of human history people have lived, by

necessity, in responsive relationships with the living world and with each other.

Our modern sense of estrangement from kinship with the web of life is our

downfall—but we have not always lived this way. The greatest gift we have been

given from the life-work of Marija Gimbutas is no less than a new origin story of

Western civilization that the florescence of Old Europe represents. The cultivation

of egalitarian societies of peace, and the nurturance of an abiding love and respect

629
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, 101‒11, 458‒59; Videiko and
Rassmann, “Research on Different Scales,” 24‒26.

297
for the living world that we are rapidly destroying, is not simply utopian, it is

utterly essential.

To conclude this chapter, I recount a vivid dream I had shortly after Marija

Gimbutas died. In the dream she told me that she is now in the realm of the

Ancestors. Then she spoke in a fierce voice, saying: YOU MUST REMEMBER

US! I was shaken awake with the distinct feeling that this dream was not only for

me.630

Marija Gimbutas՚s life՚s work not only celebrates the phenomenal

existence of Old Europe as the foundation of European civilization; it is sounding

an alarm bell. In The Civilization of the Goddess Gimbutas wrote, “We must

refocus our collective memory. The necessity for this has never been greater as

we discover that the path of ‘progress’ is extinguishing the very conditions for life

on earth.”631

630
Marler, From the Realm of the Ancestors, 5.

631
Gimbutas, Civilization of the Goddess, vii.

298
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adovasio, J. M. Untitled review of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe,

7000–3500 B.C.: Myths, Legends and Cult Images, by Marija Gimbutas.
Library Journal 99 (May 15, 1974): 1388.

Adovasio, J. M., Olga Soffer, and Jake Page. The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the
True Roles of Women in Prehistory. New York: Harper Collins, 2007.

Alseikaite (Gimbutas), Marija. “Mano Mokyklai.” Translated by Indre Antanaitis-

Jacobs. Vilniaus Žodis (November 25, 1938), 5.

Anthony, David W. “The Archaeology of Indo-European Origins.” The Journal of

Indo-European Studies 19, no. 3–4 (Fall/Winter 1991): 193–221.

Anthony, David W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age
Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2007.

Anthony, David W. “The ‘Kurgan Culture,’ Indo-European Origins, and the

Domestication of the Horse: A Reconsideration.” Current Anthropology
27, no. 4 (August–October 1986): 291–313.

Anthony, David W. “Migration, Ancient DNA, and Bronze Age Pastoralists from
the Eurasian Steppes.” In Homo Migrans: Modeling Mobility and
Migration in Human History, edited by Megan Daniels, 55–78. Albany:
SUNY Press, 2022.

A. S., “Nauja Moksline Studija.” Ziburiai 22 (June 1946): 34. Unpublished

translation by Austeja Ikamaite.

Austen, Hallie Iglehart. The Heart of the Goddess: Art, Myth, and Meditations of
the World’s Sacred Feminine. Berkeley, CA: Wingbow Press, 1990.

Avižonis, Konstantinas. Review of The Balts, by Marija Gimbutas. Slavic Review

24, no. 1 (March 1965): 131–32.

Bachofen, J. J. Myth, Religion, and Mother Right. Translated by Ralph Manheim.

Bollingen Series 84. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973. First
published in 1861 as Das Mutterrecht: Eine Untersuchung über die
Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur
[Mother right: An investigation of the religious and legal nature of
matriarchy in the ancient world]. Stuttgart: Krais and Hoffman.

Bahn, Paul. “The Three Ages.” In Archaeology: The Key Concepts, edited by
Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, 264–68. London: Routledge, 2005.

299
Bahn, Paul. “Uniformatarianism.” In Archaeology: The Key Concepts, edited by
Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, 274–75. London: Routledge, 2005.

Banks, Elizabeth Courtney. Review of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe,
7000–3500 B.C.: Myths, Legends and Cult Images, by Marija Gimbutas.
American Journal of Archaeology 79, no. 2 (April 1975): 156–57.
https://doi.org/10.2307/503902.

Bar-Yosef, Ofer. “The Upper Paleolithic Revolution.” Annual Review of

Anthropology 31 (2002): 363–93.

Baranauskas, Antanas. “Anykščių šilelis” [The Forest of Anykščiai].

http://www.antologija.lt/texts/17/main.html.

Baring, Anne, and Jules Cashford. The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an
Image. New York: Arkana, 1991.

Barrowclough, David A., and Caroline Malone. Cult in Context: Reconsidering

Ritual in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2007.

Bateson, Gregory. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press, 2002.

Belenky, Mary Field, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldgerger, and Jill
Mattuck Tarule. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self,
Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Bellwood, Peter S., and Colin Renfrew, eds. Examining the Farming/Language
Dispersal Hypothesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, University of Cambridge, 2002.

Benson, Morton. “In Memoriam—Anthony Salys.” Lituanus 19, no. 1 (Spring

1973). http://www.lituanus.org/1973/73_1_01.htm.

Bernstein, Frances Stahl. “This Is Where I Found Her: The Goddess of the
Garden.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 12, no. 2 (Fall 1996):
99–120. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25002290

Biaggi, Cristina, ed. The Rule of Mars: Readings on the Origins, History, and
Impact of Patriarchy. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends,
2005.

Biaggi, Cristina. Habitations of the Great Goddess. Manchester, CT: Knowledge,

Ideas, and Trends.

Biehl, Peter F., and François Bertemes, eds. The Archaeology of Cult and
Religion. Archaeolingua 13. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2001.

300
Biehl, Peter F., Alexander Gramsch, and Arkadiusz Marciniak. “Archaeologies of
Europe: Histories and Identities. An introduction. In Archaeologies of
Europe: History, Methods and Theories, edited by Peter F. Biehl,
Alexander Gramsch, and Arkadiusz Marciniak, 25–31. Munster:
Waxmann Verlag, 2002.

Binford, Lewis R. “Archaeological Perspectives.” In New Perspectives in

Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine,
1968.

Binford, Lewis R. An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar Press,

1972.

Binford, Lewis R. “Archaeology as Anthropology.” American Antiquity 28,

(1962): 217–25.

Binford, Lewis R. Working at Archaeology. New York: Academic Press, 1983.

Binford, Sally, and Lewis R. Binford, eds. New Perspectives in Archaeology.

Chicago: Aldine, 1968.

Bjarnadottir, Valgerdur H. “The Saga of Vanadis, Volva, and Valkyrja: Images of

the Divine from the Memory of an Islandic Woman.” PhD diss., California
Institute of Integral Studies, 2002 (ProQuest 1407334).

Bonanno, Anthony, ed. Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient

Mediterranean. First International Conference on Archaeology of the
Ancient Mediterranean, University of Malta, 2–5 September, 1985.
Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner 1986.

Boyle, Katherine V., Colin Renfrew, and Marsha Ann Levine, eds. Ancient
Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, 2002.

Bradley, Richard. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. London:

Routledge, 2005.

Briffault, Robert. The Mothers: The Matriarchal Theory of Social Origins. New
York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1963. Abridged by G. R. Taylor (from original
1927 edition).

Butrimas, Adomas. “Marija Gimbutas and the Archaeology of the Balts.” In From
the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas,
edited by Joan Marler, 32–35. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and
Trends, 1997.

Campbell, Joseph. “Foreword.” In The Language of the Goddess by Marija

Gimbutas, xiii–xiv. San Francisco: Harper, 1989.

301
Canan, Janine, ed. She Rises Like the Sun: Invocations of the Goddess by
Contemporary American Women Poets. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press,
1989.

Carter, Susan Gail. “Amaterasu-o-mi-kami: Past and Present. An Exploration of

the Japanese Sun Goddess From a Western Feminist Perspective.” PhD
diss., California Institute of Integral Studies, 2001 (ProQuest 3004465).

Carter, Susan Gail. “Mirror of Many Moons: Reflection on the Use and Meaning
of the Mirror throughout History: Instrument of Goddess Culture, Tool for
Patriarchal Female Distortion, and Catalyst for Women’s Reclamation.”
Master’s thesis, California Institute of Integral Studies, 1997 (ProQuest
1400748).

Capra, Fritjof. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Undestanding of Living Systems.
New York: Anchor Books, 1997.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca. “Genetic Evidence Supporting Marija Gimbutas’s Work

on the Origins of Indo-European People.” In From the Realm of the
Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Joan
Marler, 93–102. Manchester, CT.: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Česnys, Gintautas, “Marija Gimbutas in My Life: Some Reminiscences.” In From

the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas,
edited by Joan Marler, 26–31. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and
Trends, 1997.

Chapman, John. “The Impact of Modern Invasions and Migrations on

Archaeological Explanation: A Biographical Sketch of Marija Gimbutas.”
In Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology,
edited by Margarita Diaz-Andreu and Marie Louise Stig Sorensen, 295–
314. London: Routledge, 1998.

Childe, V. Gordon. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1929.

Childe, V. Gordon. The Dawn of European Civilization. London: Kegan Paul,

1925.

Childe, V. Gordon. The Dawn of European Civilization, 3rd ed. London: Penguin
Books, 1939.

Childe, V. Gordon. What Happened in History. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin

Books, 1942.

Christ, Carol P. Rebirth of the Goddess. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley, 1977.

302
Christ, Carol P. “‘A Different World’: The Challenge of the Work of Marija
Gimbutas to the Dominant Worldview of Western Cultures.” In From the
Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas,
edited by Joan Marler, 406–15. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and
Trends, 1997.

Christ, Carol P., and Naomi R. Goldenberg, eds. “The Legacy of the Goddess, the
Work of Marija Gimbutas.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 12,
no. 2, 1996. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i25002279.

Cichon, Joan Marie. “Matriarchy in Minoan Crete: A Perspective from

Archaeomythology and Modern Matriarchal Studies.” PhD diss.,
California Institute of Integral Studies, 2013. ProQuest (3606922).

Claassen, Cheryl, and Mary Carolyn Beaudry, eds. Exploring Gender Through
Archaeology. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press, 1992.

Clarke, David L. “Archaeology: The Loss of Innocence.” Antiquity 47, no. 185
(1973): 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0003461X.

Coleman, Kristy. “Matriarchy and Myth,” Religion 31, no. 3 (2001): 247–63.

Conkey, Margaret W., and Ruth E. Tringham, “Archaeology and the Goddess:
Exploring the Contours of Feminist Archaeology.” In Feminisms in the
Academy, edited by Donna C. Stanton and Abigail J. Stewart, 199–247.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995.

Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. “Marija Gimbutas: A Magnificent

Vindication.” Online roundtable recorded October 22, 2021; uploaded
November 2, 2021. YouTube video, 1:32:22.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6Q2fSaBZI.

Dainauskas, Jonas. “Jonas Puzinas. Rinktiniai Rastai—Selected Works.” Lituanus

30, no. 3 (Fall 1984). http://www.lituanus.org/1984_3/84_38.htm.

Dames, Michael. “The Gimbutas Gift.” In From the Realm of the Ancestors: An
Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Joan Marler, 47–49.
Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Daniel, Glyn. A Hundred Years of Archaeology. London: Duckworth & Co.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

London: John Murray, 1859.

Dashu, Max. “Knocking Down Straw Dolls: A Critique of Cynthia Eller’s The
Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory.” Feminist Theology 13, no. 2 (2005):
185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0966735005051947.

303
Dergachev, Valentin. “Two Studies in Defense of the Migration Concept.” In
Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia, edited by Katie Boyle,
Colin Renfrew, and Marsha Levine, 93–112. Cambridge, UK: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, 2002.

Dexter, Miriam Robbins. “Introduction.” In Varia on the Indo-European Past:

Papers in Memory of Marija Gimbutas, edited by M. R. Dexter and E. C.
Polomé, 1‒5. Washington, DC: Institute of the Study of Man, 1997.

Dexter, Miriam Robbins. Whence the Goddesses: A Source Book. New York:
Pergamon Press, 1990.

Dexter, Miriam Robbins, and Karlene Jones-Bley, eds. “Forward.” In The Kurgan
Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe, by Marija Gimbutas,
xiii‒xv. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1997.

Dexter, Miriam Robbins, and Edgar C. Polomé, eds. Varia on the Indo-European
Past: Papers in Memory of Marija Gimbutas. JIES Monograph 19.
Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1997.

Diamant, Steven. Review of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, by Marija
Gimbutas. Classical World 70, no. 1 (September 1976): 48‒49.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4348584

Diaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Marie Louise Stig Sorensen, eds. Excavating

Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology. London:
Routledge, 1998.

Diebold, A. Richard. “Linguistic Ways to Prehistory.” In Proto-Indo-European:

The Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem, edited by Susan N. Skomal and
Edgar C. Polomé, 19‒71. Washington, D. C.: Institute for the Study of
Man.

di Leonardo, Micaela. “Introduction.” In Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge:

Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era, edited by Micaela di
Leonardo, 1–48. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

Dobres, Marcia-Anne, and John Robb. “Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or

Platitude?” In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and
John Robb, 3–17. London: Routledge, 2000.

Downing, Christine. Women՚s Mysteries: Toward a Poetics of Gender. New

York: Crossroad, 1992.

Dunn, Stephen P. Review of The Slavs, by Marija Gimbutas. Journal of Baltic

Studies 5, no. 1 (Spring 1974): 51.

304
The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Bronze Age.” In Encyclopaedia
Britannica, online edition. Last updated May 6, 2021.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Bronze-Age.

The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Paleolithic Period.” In

Encyclopaedia Britannica, online edition. Last updated September 30,
2021. https://www.britannica.com/event/Paleolithic-Period.

Ehrenberg, Margaret. Women in Prehistory. London: British Museum

Publications, 1989.

Ehrich, Robert W. Review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, by Marija

Gimbutas. Archaeology 12, no. 1 (1959): 68–69.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41663646.

Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.

Eliade, Mircea. Review of The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, by Marija
Gimbutas. History of Religions 1, no. 2 (1976): 178–85.

Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won’t
Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon Press, 2000.

Elster, Ernestine S. “Marija Gimbutas: Old Europe, Goddesses and Gods, and the
Transformation of Culture.” Backdirt, December 2015, 94–102.

Elster, Ernestine S. “Marija Gimbutas: Setting the Agenda.” In Archaeology and

Women: Ancient and Modern Issues, edited by Sue Hamilton, Ruth D.
Whitehouse, and Katherine I. Wright, 83–120. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press, 2007.

Engels, Friedrich. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. [First
published 1884.] Translated by Ernest Untermann. Chicago: Charles H.
Kerr and Co., 1902.

Evans, Robert K. Review of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000 to
3500 BC: Myths, Legends and Cult Images, by Marija Gimbutas.
Anthropological Quarterly 48, no. 1 (January 1975): 59–61.

Evans, Sir Arthur. The Palace of Minos (4 vols.). London: MacMillan, 1921–
1935.

Farnham, Christie. The Impact of Feminist Research in the Academy.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989.

Farkas, Ann. Review of The Slavs, by Marija Gimbutas. Slavic Review 31, no. 4
(December 1972): 877–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2493771.

305
Fleming, Andrew. Review of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000 to
3500 BC: Myths, Legends and Cult Images, by Marija Gimbutas. Antiquity
48, no. 191 (September 1974): 246.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00058129.

Frazer, Sir James. The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic and Religion. London:
Wordsworth Reference, 1993.

Fueloep-Miller, Rene. Review of Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art, by

Marija Gimbutas. Russian Review 18, no. 1 (January 1959): 73–75.
https://doi.org/10.2307/126248.

Gadon, Elinor W. The Once and Future Goddess. New York: Harper and Row,
1989.

Gathercole, Peter. “Childe’s Revolutions.” In Archaeology: The Key Concepts,

edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, 35–39. London: Routledge, 2005.

Gero, Joan M., and Margaret W. Conkey, eds. Engendering Archaeology: Women
and Prehistory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1991.

Gesell, Geraldine C. Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete. Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology 67. Göteborg: P. Åströms Förlag, 1985.

Gilchrist, Roberta. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. London:

Routledge, 1999.

Gildhoff, Christian. “Ernst Wahle: Curriculum Vitae.” Translated by Anette

Philipp. In Propylaeum: Specialized Information Service Classics,
accessed June 21, 2022. https://www.propylaeum.de/en/curriculumvitae.

Gimbutienė, Marija Alseikaitė. “Mažosios Lietuvos antkapiniai paminklai” [The

Tombstones of Lithuania Minor]. Aidai 7, no. 19 (1946): 108‒09.

Gimbutienė, Marija Alseikaitė. “Mūsų protėvių pažiūros i mirti ir sielą” [The

Concept of Death and Soul of Lithuanians]. Tremties Metai (1947).

Gimbutienė, Marija. “Pomirtinio gyvenimo įsivaizdavimas proistoriniais laikais

Lietuvoje” [Life after death in the beliefs of prehistoric Lithuania].
Gimtasai kraštas 5 (1942): 1–11.

Gimbutienė, Marija Alseikaitė. “Senoji lietuvių religija” [The Ancient Lithuanian

Religion]. Aidai 1, no. 57 (1953): 4‒12.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Accounting for a Great Change.” Review of Archaeology and

Language by Colin Renfrew (1987). London Times Literary Supplement
(June 24‒30, 1988), 714.

306
Gimbutas, Marija. Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art. Philadelphia:
American Folklore Society, 1958.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Anza, ca. 6500‒5000 BC: A Cultural Yardstick for the Study
of Neolithic Southeast Europe.” Journal of Field Archaeology, 1, no. 1–2
(1974): 26‒66. https://doi.org/10.1179/jfa.1974.1.1-2.27.

Gimbutas, Marija. The Balts. Ancient Peoples and Places 13. London: Thames
and Hudson, 1963.

Gimbutas, Marija. Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. The
Hague: Walter de Gruyter, 1965.

Gimbutas, Marija. The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Gimbutas, Marija. “The Collision of Two Ideologies.” In When Worlds Collide:

The Indo-Europeans and the Pre-Indo-Europeans, edited by T. L. Markey
and John A. C. Greppin, 171–79. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, 1990.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Chronology.” In Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in

Thessaly, Greece, 6400‒5600 BC, edited by Marija Gimbutas, Shan Winn,
and Daniel Shimabuku, 23–31. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,
University of California Los Angeles, 1989.

Gimbutas, Marija. “The Culture of the Goddess and the Rise of Androcracy.”
ReVision 11, no. 2 (Fall 1988): 23‒26.

Gimbutas, Marija. Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit

[Burials in Lithuania in Prehistoric Time]. Tübingen: Siebeck and Mohr
Verlag, 1946.

Gimbutas, Marija. “The Fall and Transformation of Old Europe: Recapitulation

1993.” In The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe:
Selected Articles from 1952 to 1993, edited by Miriam Robbins Dexter
and Karlene Jones-Bley: 351–72. Journal of Indo-European Studies
Monograph 18. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1997.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Figurines and Cult Equipment: Their Role in the

Reconstruction of Neolithic Religion.” In Achilleion: A Neolithic
Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400‒5600 BC, edited by Marija
Gimbutas, Shan Winn, and Daniel Shimabuki, 171‒227. Los Angeles:
Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, 1989.

Gimbutas, Marija. The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000 to 3500 BC
Myths, Legends and Cult Images. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974.

307
Gimbutas, Marija. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500–3500 BC:
Myths and Cult Images. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Introduction: The Antiquity of the Daina.” In Green Linden:

Selected Lithuanian Folksongs, edited by A. Landsbergis and C. Mills,
11‒24. New York: Voyages Press, 1964.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Introduction.” In The Kurgan Culture, edited by Miriam

Robbins Dexter and Karlene Jones-Bley, xvii–xix. Washington, DC:
Institute for the Study of Man, 1997.

Gimbutas, Marija, ed. “Introduction: The Transformation of European and

Anatolian Culture 4500–2500 BC and Its Legacy, Part I.” Journal of Indo-
European Studies 8, no. 1–2 (1980): 1–2.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Introductory Remarks: ‘The Transformation of European and

Anatolian Culture 4500–2500 BC.’” Journal of Indo-European Studies 17,
nos. 3–4 (Fall/Winter 1989): 193–96.

Gimbutas, Marija. The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe:

Selected Articles from 1952 to 1993, edited by Miriam Robbins Dexter
and Karlene Jones-Bley. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph
18. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1997.

Gimbutas, Marija. The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper and
Row, 1989.

Gimbutas, Marija. The Living Goddesses, edited and supplemented by Miriam

Robbins Dexter. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Gimbutas, Marija, ed. Neolithic Macedonia 6500–5000 BC. Los Angeles:

Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, 1976.

Gimbutas, Marija, ed. Obre and its Place in Old Europe. Sarajevo: Bosnisch-
Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums, 1974.

Gimbutas, Marija. “The Pre-Christian Religion of Lithuania.” In La

Cristianizzazione della Lituania: Atti del colloquio internazionale di
storia ecclesiastica in occasione del VI centenario della Lituania
Cristiana, (1387–1987), Roma, 24-26 giugno 1987, edited by Paulius
Rabikauskas, 13‒25. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989.

Gimbutas, Marija. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part 1: Mesolithic,

Neolithic, and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic Area.
Boston: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,
1956.

308
Gimbutas, Marija, “Primary and Secondary Homeland of the Speakers:
Comments on the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov Articles." The Journal of Indo-
European Studies 13, nos. 1‒2 (Spring/Summer 1985): 185‒202.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Proto-Indo-European Culture: The Kurgan Culture during the

Fifth, Fourth, and Third Millennia BC.” In Indo-European and Indo-
Europeans: Papers Presented at the Third Indo-European Conference at
the University of Pennsylvania, edited by George Cardona, Henry M.
Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn, 155–98. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1971.

Gimbutas, Marija. “The Sign System of Old Europe, 5500‒4000 BC.” Review of
Pre-writing in Southeastern Europe: The Sign System of the Vinča
Culture, ca. 4000 BC, by Shan Winn (1981). Quarterly Review of
Archaeology 5, no. 2 (June 1984):11.

Gimbutas, Marija. The Slavs. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.

Gimbutas, Marija, ed. “The Transformation of European and Anatolian Culture

4500–2500 BC and Its Legacy, Part II.” Journal of Indo-European Studies
8, nos. 3–4 (1980): 231–414.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Women and Culture in Goddess-Oriented Old Europe.” In

The Politics of Women’s Spirituality: Essays on the Rise of Spiritual
Power within the Feminist Movement, edited by Charlene Spretnak, 22–
31. New York: Anchor Books, 1982.

Gimbutas, Marija. “‘The Worldview of the Culture of the Goddess,’ ‘Witches,’

and ‘Snakes.’” In Snake Power: A Journal of Contemporary Shamanism,
46, 47, 56‒7. Oakland, CA: Motherpeace Institute, 1989.

Gimbutas, Marija. “Vulvas, Breasts and Buttocks of the Goddess Creatress:

Commentary on the Origins of Art.” Creative Woman Quarterly 6, no. 4
(Fall 1983): 8–11.

Gimbutas, Marija, Shan Winn, and Daniel Shimabuku, eds. Achilleion: A

Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400–5600 BC. Los Angeles:
Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, 1989.

Goettner-Abendroth, Heide, ed. Societies of Peace: Matriarchies Past, Present,

and Future. Toronto: Inanna Publications, 2009.

Goode, Starr. “The Goddess in Art TV Series with Starr Goode.” Last accessed
March 26, 2021. http://www.starrgoode.com/TVSeries.html.

Goodison, Lucy, and Christine Morris. Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the
Evidence. London: British Museum Press, 1998.

309
Grame, Tricia Anne. “Life into Art; Art into Life: Transformative Effects of the
Female Symbol on a Contemporary Woman Artist.” PhD diss., California
Institute of Integral Studies, 2000. ProQuest (9992390)

Graves, Robert. The White Goddess. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1948.

Gregg, Mignon. Review of The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: Myths and
Cult Images, by Marija Gimbutas. Studia Mystica 7, no. 4 (1984).

Haak, Wolfgang, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Swapan

Mallick, Bastien Llamas, Guido Brandt et al. “Massive Migration from the
Steppe Was a Source for Indo-European Languages in Europe.” Nature
522 (2015): 207–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14317.

Haarmann, Harald, ed. Early Civilization and Literacy in Europe: An Inquiry into
Cultural Continuity in the Mediterranean World. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 1996.

Haarmann, Harald. Foundations of Culture: Knowledge-Construction, Belief

Systems and Worldview in their Dynamic Interplay. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 2007.

Haarman, Harald. Indo-Europeanization—Day One: Elite Recruitment and the

Beginnings of Language Politics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.

Haarmann, Harald. Interacting with Figurines: Seven Dimensions in the Study of

Imagery. W. Hartford, VT: Full Circle Press, 2009.

Haarmann, Harald. The Mystery of the Danube Civilization: The Discovery of

Europe՚s Oldest Civilization. Wiesbaden: Marixverlag, 2019.

Haarmann, Harald. Writing as Technology and Cultural Ecology: Explorations of

the Human Mind at the Dawn of History. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011.

Haarmann, Harald. Roots of Ancient Greek Civilization: The Influence of Old

Europe. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co., 2014.

Haarmann, Harald. “Writing in the Ancient Mediterranean: The Old European

Legacy.” In From the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of
Marija Gimbutas, edited by Joan Marler, 108‒121. Manchester, CT:
Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Haarmann, Harald, and Joan Marler. “Marija Gimbutas, A Visionary՚s Legacy.”

Journal of Archaeomythology 10 (Spring 2021): 4‒20.

310
Haarmann, Harald, and Joan Marler. “The Old European / Danube Script, Ancient
Literacy in Neolithic and Copper Age Europe.” In Scriptura Mundi,
Writings of the World, edited by Rossen Milev, 30‒48. Sofia, Bulgaria:
Balkan Media, 2014.

Hardie, Robin. “Gender Tension in Figurines in SE Europe.” In Cult in Context,

edited by David A. Barrowclough and Caroline Malone, 82–9. Oxford,
UK: Oxbow Books, 2007.

Harding, Sandra, ed. Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 1988.

Harris, Oliver J. T., and Craig N. Cipolla. Archaeological Theory in the New
Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives. London: Routledge, 2017.

Harrison, Jane Ellen. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908.

Hawkes, Christopher. “Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions

from the Old World.” American Anthropologist 56, no. 2 (April 1954):
155–68. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1954.56.2.02a00660.

Hawkes, Christopher. “Archaeologists and Indo-Europeanists: Can They Mate?

Hindrances and Hopes.” In Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a
Linguistic Problem—Studies in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by
Susan Nacev Skomal and Edgar C. Polomé, 203–15. Washington, DC:
Institute for the Study of Man, 1987.

Hawkes, Jacquetta. Dawn of the Gods. New York: Random House, 1968.

Hayden, Brian. “Old Europe: Sacred Matriarchy or Complementary Opposition?”

In Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: First
International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean,
University of Malta, 2–5 September 1985, edited by Anthony Bonnano,
17–30. Amsterdam: B. R. Gruner, 1986.

Herity, Michael. Review of The Civilization of the Goddess, by Marija Gimbutas.

Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 122 (1994): 165–67.

Hodder, Ian, ed. Archaeological Theory Today. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press, 2011.

Hodder, Ian. “Introduction: Contemporary Theoretical Debate in Archaeology. In

Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, 1–14. 2nd ed.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2017.

Hodder, Ian. “Postprocessual Archaeology.” Advances in Archaeological Method

and Theory 8 (1985): 1–26.

311
Hodder, Ian. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in
Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Hodder, Ian. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in

Archaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Hodder, Ian. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London: Routledge. 1995.

Hodder, Ian. “Women and Men at Çatalhöyük.” Scientific American (January

2005), 76–83.

Hoeh, Herman L. Review of Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe,
by Marija Gimbutas. Mankind Quarterly 7, no. 2 (October–December
1966): 125.

Hogenson, George B. “The Great Goddess Reconsidered: Recent Thinking about

the ‘Old European Goddess Culture’ of Marija Gimbutas.” The San
Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal 10, no. 1 (1991): 5–23.

Huld, Martin. “The Vocabulary of Indo-European Culture.” In The Kurgan

Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe: Selected Articles from
1952 to 1993, edited by Miriam Robbins Dexter and Karlene Jones-Bley,
373‒93. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1997.

Insoll, Timothy. “Introduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of

Ritual and Religion, edited by Timothy Insoll, 1–5. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 2011.

James, E. O. The Cult of the Mother-Goddess: An Archaeological and

Documentary Study. London: Thames and Hudson, 1959.

Jakštas, Juozas. “Lithuania to World War I.” In Lithuania 700 Years, edited by
Albertas Gerutis and translated by Algirdas Budreckis, 43–144. New
York: Manyland Books, 1969.

Janulaitytė-Alseikienė, Veronika. “Reminiscences.” Unpublished manuscript,

translated by Austėja Ikamaitė.

Joan, Earh Amelia. “Re-Genesis: A Mother-Line Archive of Feminist

Spirituality.” Master’s thesis, California Institute of Integral Studies, 2000
(ProQuest 1398189).

Johnson, Matthew. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell, 1999.

Jonuks, Tönno. “The Archaeology of Baltic Regions.” In The Oxford Handbook

of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, edited by Timothy Insoll, 877–
91. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.

312
Joyce, Rosemary A. Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender, and
Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson, 2008.

Kästner, Sibylle, Viola Maier, and Almut Schülke. “From Pictures to Stories:
Traces of Female PhD Graduates from the Department of Prehistoric
Archaelogy, University of Tübingen, Germany.” In Excavating Women: A
History of Women in European Archaeology, edited by Margarita Díaz-
Andreu and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, 266–94. London: Routledge.

Katz, Bernard. Review of The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. The American
Rationalist (n.d.).

Keller, Evelyn Fox. A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara
McClintock. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1983.

Keller, Mara Lynn. “Archaeomythology as Academic Field and Methodology:

Bridging Science and Religion, Empiricism and Spirituality.” In Vol. 1 of
Myths Shattered and Restored: Proceedings of the Association for the
Study of Women and Mythology, edited by Marion Dumont and Gayatri
Devi, 7‒37. Albuquerque, NM: Women and Myth Press, 2016.

Keller, Mara Lynn. “Gimbutas’s Theory of Early European Origins and the
Contemporary Transformation of Western Civilization.” Journal of
Feminist Studies in Religion 12, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 73–90.

Keller, Mara Lynn. “The Interface of Archaeology and Mythology: A

Philosophical Evaluation of the Gimbutas Paradigm.” In From the Realm
of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by
Joan Marler, 381–98. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends,
1997.

Keller, Mara Lynn. “Introduction to Women’s Spiritual Ways of Knowing,

Womanist-Feminist Methodologies, and other Liberatory/Transformative
Methodologies.” Unpublished article, Women’s Spirtuality Program,
California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco.

Keller, Mara Lynn. “Women՚s Spirituality and Higher Education.” In

Foremothers of the Women՚s Spirituality Movement, Elders and
Visionaries, edited by Miriam Robbins Dexter and Vicki Noble, 55‒64.
Amherst, NY: Teneo Press, 2015.

Key, Anne., PhD. “Death and the Divine: The Cihuateteo, Goddess in the
Mesoamerican Cosmo-vision,” PhD diss., California Institute of Integral
Studies, 2006 (ProQuest 3177317).

Kirkus Reviews. Unsigned review of The Living Goddesses by Marija Gimbutas.

April 1, 1999. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/marija-
gimbutas/the-living-goddesses/.
313
Koženiauskienė, Regina, ed. Martynas Mažvydas and Old Lithuania. Vilnius:
Pradai, 1998.

Kristiansen, Kristian. “Towards a New Paradigm? The Third Science Revolution

and Its Possible Consequences in Archaeology. Current Swedish
Archaeology 22, no. 1 (2014): 11–34.
https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2014.01.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1960.

Kultura, Center for Regional Cultural Initiatives. “Danielius Alseika.”

http://samogitia.mch.mii.lt/KULTURA/alseika.lt.htm

Lazarovici, Cornelia-Magda. “Symbols and Signs of the Cucuteni-Tripolye

Culture.” Journal of Archaeomythology 4 (Winter 2008): 65‒98.

Lazauskaitė, Jurgita. “Lev Karsavin.” Vilnius Gate, last updated 2017.

http://www.vilnijosvartai.lt/personalijos/levas-karsavinas/.

Lehmann, Winfred. “Linguistic and Archaeological Data for Handbooks of Proto-

Languages.” In Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic
Problem, edited by Susan N. Skomal and Edgar C. Polomé, 72‒87.
Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.

Leslie, Jacques. “The Goddess Theory.” Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 11,
1989, 22–26.

Lesure, Richard G. “The Goddess Diffracted: Thinking about the Figurines of

Early Villages.” Current Anthropology 43, no. 4 (August–October 2002):
587–610. https://doi.org/10.1086/341529.

Levine, Marsha Ann, Colin Renfrew, Katherine V. Boyle, eds. Prehistoric Steppe
Adaptation and the Horse. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, 2003.

Levy, G. R. The Gate of Horn: A Study of the Religious Conceptions of the Stone
Age, and Their Influence upon European Thought. London: Farber and
Farber, 1948.

Levy, G. R. Religious Conceptions of the Stone Age and Their Influence upon
European Thought. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963.

Lock, Andrew, and Charles R. Peters, “Social and Socio-Cultural Systems.” In

Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution, edited by Andrew Lock and
Charles R. Peters, 157–64. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1999.

314
Lozinski, B. Philip. “Marija Gimbutas, The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part I.
Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic
Area.” American Slavic and East European Review 17, no. 1 (1958): 141–
43. https://doi.org/10.2307/3004323

Lubbock, John. Pre-Historic Times: As Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the

Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. 6th ed. London: Williams and
Norgate, 1912 [1869].

Lukšaitė, Ingė. “The First Lithuanian Book and the Period of Formation of the
New Culture Trait-Complex.” In Martynas Mažvydas and Old Lithuania,
edited by Regina Koženiauskienė, 31–57. Vilnius: Pradai, 1998.

Lukšaitė, Ingė. “Susitikimas ՙSantaris-šviesos՚ Jubiliejinėje Konferencijoje

Vilniaus Universitete” [Meeting ՙSantaris-light՚ Jubilee Conference
Vilnius University] Liaudies Kultūra [Folk Culture], no. 2 (1994): 7‒11.

Mackey, Mary. “A Conversation in the Desert.” In From the Realm of the

Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Joan
Marler, 572–74. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Mackey, Mary. The Fires of Spring. New York: Penguin Group, 1998.

Mackey, Mary. The Horses at the Gate. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,

1995.

Mackey, Mary. “Reading Too Much Into Fiction.” Chicago Tribune, February 21,
1995.

Mackey, Mary. The Village of Bones: Sabalah’s Tale. New York: Lowenstein
Associates, Inc., 2016.

Mackey, Mary. The Year the Horses Came. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1993.

Madison, Gary Brent. The Hermeneutics of Postmodernity. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 1988.

Mallory, James P. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and

Myth. London: Thames and Hudson, 1989.

Marcus, Greil. “Myth and Reality.” California Magazine, June 1982.

Margolis, Jon. “Goddesses and Wolves Drove Males to Vote for Republicans.”
Op-ed, Chicago Tribune, January 30, 1995.

Marinatos, Nanno. Art and Religion in Thera: Reconstructing a Bronze Age

Society. Athens: Mathioulakis, 1984.

315
Marinatos, Nanno. Minoan Religion: Ritual, Image, and Symbol. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1993.

Marler, Joan. “The Beginnings of Patriarchy in Europe: Reflections on the

Kurgan Theory of Marija Gimbutas.” In The Rule of Mars: The History
and Impact of Patriarchy, edited by Cristina Biaggi, 53–76. Manchester,
CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 2005.

Marler, Joan. “Bibliography of Marija Gimbutas.” In From the Realm of the

Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Joan
Marler, 611‒25. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Marler, Joan. “The Circle Is Unbroken: A Brief Biography.” In From the Realm
of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by
Joan Marler, 7–25. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Marler, Joan, ed. The Danube Script: Neo-Eneolithic Writing in Southeastern

Europe. Exhibition catalogue. Brukenthal National Museum, Sibiu,
Romania. Sebastopol: Institute of Archaeomythology, 2008.

Marler, Joan, ed. From the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of
Marija Gimbutas. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Marler, Joan. “Interview with Ian Hodder.” In Journal of Archaeomythology 3,

no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2007): 14–24.

Marler, Joan. “Interview with Marija Gimbutas.” In From the Realm of the
Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Joan
Marler, 18‒21. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Marler, Joan. “Introduction to Archaeomythology.” ReVision 23, no. 1 (Summer

2000): 2–4.

Marler, Joan. “Joseph Campbell, The Mythic Journey.” Yoga Journal (November-
December 1987): 56‒61.

Marler, Joan. “The Legacy of Marija Gimbutas: An Archaeomythological

Investigation of the Roots of European Civilization.” In Le radici prime
dell’Europa: Gli intrecci genetici, linguistic, storici, edited by Gianluca
Bocchi and Mauro Ceruti, 89–115. Milan: Bruno Mondadori, 2001.

Marler, Joan. “The Life and Work of Marija Gimbutas.” Journal of Feminist
Studies in Religion 12, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 37–51.

Marler, Joan. “The Lifework of Marija Gimbutas: A Vision for the World.”
ReVision 17, no. 3 (Winter 1995): 41–48.

316
Marler, Joan. “Marija Birutė Alseikaitė Gimbutas.” In Notable American Women:
A Biographical Dictionary, Completing the Twentieth Century, edited by
Susan Ware and Stacy Braukman, 234–36. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 2004.

Marler, Joan. “Marija Gimbutas: Tribute to a Lithuanian Legend.” In Women in

Transition: Voices from Lithuania, edited by Suzanne LaFont, 113–32.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.

Marler, Joan. “The Myth of Universal Patriarchy: A Critical Response to Cynthia

Eller’s Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory.” Feminist Theology 14, no. 2
(2006): 163–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0966735006059510.

Marler, Joan. “A Vision for the World: The Life and Work of Marija Gimbutas.
Comparative Civilizations Review 33, no. 33 (1995): Article 2.

Marler, Joan, and Miriam Robbins Dexter, eds. Signs of Civilization: Neolithic
Symbol System of Southeast Europe—Proceedings of the international
symposium “Signs of Civilization,” May 25–29, 2004, Serbian Academy of
Sciences and Arts, Novi Sad. Sebastopol, CA: Institute of
Archaeomythology, 2009.

Marx, Karl, and Fredrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto.[Unabridged reprint

of the 1888 Edition.] Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books, 2020.

McPherron, Stase P. Review of Ancient Symbolism in Lithuanian Folk Art, by

Marija Gimbutas. Journal of American Folklore 73, no. 287 (January–
March 1960), 85–86.

Merlini, Marco. “Evidence of the Danube Script in Neighboring Areas: Serbia,

Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, and the Czech Republic,” edited by Joan
Marler, 53‒60. In The Danube Script: Neo-Eneolithic Writing in
Southeastern Europe. Exhibition Catalogue: Brukenthal National Museum
and the Institute of Archaeomythology. Sebastopol, CA: Institute of
Archaeomythology, 2008.

Merriam-Webster, s.v. “Matriarchy (n.).” Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed

January 12, 2021. http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/matriarchy.

Metzner, Ralph. The Well of Remembrance: Rediscovering the Earth Wisdom

Myths of Northern Europe. Boston: Shambhala, 1994.

Milev, Rossen, ed. Scriptura Mundi: Writings of the World. Sofia: Balkan Media,
2014.

317
Minta-Tworzowska, Danuta. 2002. “Between a Community of Inspiration and the
Separateness of Archaeological Traditions.” In Archaeologies of Europe:
History, Methods and Theories, edited by Peter Biehl, Alexander
Gramsch, and Arkadiusz Marciniak, 54–64. Münster: Waxman.

Mitchell, Margaret Lynn, Ph.D. “Saint Brigid of Ireland: A Feminist Cultural

History of Her Abiding Legacy from the Fifth to the Twenty-first
Century.” PhD diss., California Institute of Integral Studies, 2015
(ProQuest 3712702).

Moberg, Carl-Axel. Review of The Balts, by Marija Gimbutas. Antiquity 38, no.
151 (September 1964), 241–43.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00031094.

Montuori, Alfonso. “Gregory Bateson and the Promise of Transdisciplinarity.” In

Cybernetics and Human Knowing 12, no. 1–2 (2005): 147–58.

Morgan, Lewis Henry. The League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee or Iroquois.

Rochester, NY: Sage and Bros., 1851.

Morgan, Lewis Henry. Ancient Society. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1877.

Moser, Mary Beth, Ph.D. “The Everyday Spirituality of Women in the Italian
Alps: a Trentino American Women’s Search for Spiritual Agency, Folk
Wisdom, and Ancestral Values.” PhD diss., California Institute of Integral
Studies, 2013 (ProQuest 3560748).

Mugurēvičs, Ēvalds. “Remembering Dr. Marija Gimbutiene: Foreign Member of

the Latvian Academy of Sciences.” Journal of Archaeomythology 7
(2011): 5–7.

Muhly, J. D. “Marija Gimbutas: The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, 7000 to
3500 BC: Myths, Legends and Cult Images.” American Historical Review
80, no. 3 (June 1975), 616–17.

Murdock, Maureen. The Heroine՚s Journey: Woman’s Quest for Wholeness.

Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publications, 1990.

Nelson, Sarah Milledge. “Gender and Religion in Archaeology.” In The Oxford

Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, edited by Timothy
Insoll,195–207. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Nelson, Sarah M. Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 1997.

Nelson, Sarah M., and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon. In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide

Archaeological Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002.

318
Neumann, Erich. The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype. Bollingen
Series 47. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.

Nielsen, Joyce McCarl, ed. Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in

the Social Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990.

Nilsen, Richard. “European ‘Herstory’: When Women Were Goddesses.”

Column, The San Francisco Chronicle Whole Earth Catalog, March 29,
1989.

Nilsson, Martin P. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek

Religion. New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1928.

Noble, Vicki. Shakti Women: Feeling our Fire, Healing Our World. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Noble, Vicki. Snake Power: A Journal of Contemporary Shamanism. Oakland,

CA: Motherpeace Institute, 1989.

O’Brien, Michael, R. Lee Lyman, and Michael B. Schiffer. Archaeology as a

Process. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005.

Oinas, Felix J. Review of The Slavs, by Marija Gimbutas. Slavic and East
European Journal 16, no. 1 (Spring 1972): 128–30.
https://doi.org/10.2307/306494.

Oliver, J. T. Harris, and Craig N. Cipolla. Archaeological Theory in the New

Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives. London: Routledge, 2017.

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literature. 30th Anniversary ed. London: Routledge,
2002.

Orenstein, Gloria A. “The Artistic Legacy of Marija Gimbutas.” In From the

Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas,
edited by Joan Marler, 457–469. Manchester, CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and
Trends, 1997.

Osborne, Lawrence. “The Women Warriors.” Lingua Franca, December/January

1998. http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9712/nosborne.html.

Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Matriarchy,” OED.com.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/115017?redirectedFrom=MATRIARCH
Y#eid (Login required).

Ozanne, Audrey F. Review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part I:

Mesolithic Neolithic and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic
Area, by Marija Gimbutas. Antiquity 32, no. 128 (1958): 291–92.

319
Paul, Iliu. “About the Origin and Evolution of Neo-Eneolithic Signs and Symbols
Seen in the Light of Some Discoveries from the Parpatho-Danubian
Area,” edited by Joan Marler and Miriam Robbins Dexter, 129‒39. Signs
of Civilization: Neolithic Symbol System of Southeast Europe. Proceedings
from the International Symposium, “Signs of Civilization,” Serbian
Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi Sad, Serbia, May 25‒29, 2004.
Sebastopol, CA: Institute of Archaeomythology.

Peterson, Jane. Sexual Revolutions: Gender and Labor at the Dawn of

Agriculture. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002.

Piggott, Stuart. Review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part I: Mesolithic,

Neolithic, and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic Area, by
Marija Gimbutas. American Anthropologist 60, no. 3 (June 1958): 608–9.

Plioplys, Audrius V. “Professor Marija Gimbutas and Those Indo-Europeans.”

Draugas News (December 2017): 8‒9.

Polomé, Edgar C. “Curriculum Vita of Marija Gimbutas.” In Proto-Indo-

European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem—Studies in Honor of
Marija Gimbutas, edited by Susan Nacev Skomal and Edgar C. Polomé,
379–83. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1987.

Polomé, Edgar C. “Marija Gimbutas: A Biographical Sketch.” In Proto-Indo-

European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem—Studies in Honor of
Marija Gimbutas, edited by Susan Nacev Skomal and Edgar C. Polomé,
375–96. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1987.

Polomé, Edgar C. “Foreword.” In Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a

Linguistic Problem, edited by Susan N. Skomal and Edgar C. Polomé, 10–
11. Washington, DC.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1987.

Polomé, Edgar C. “Marija Gimbutas: A Biographical Sketch.” In Proto-Indo-

European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem—Studies in Honor of
Marija Gimbutas, edited by Susan Nacev Skomal and Edgar C. Polomé,
375–96. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1987.

Polomé, Edgar C. Untitled back-cover endorsement of The Living Goddesses, by

Marija Gimbutas. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Poruciuc, Adrian. Prehistoric Roots of Romanian and Southeast European

Traditions, edited by Joan Marler and Miriam Robbins Dexter.
Sebastopol, CA: Institute of Archaeomythology, 2010.

Puzinas, Jonas. “Dr. Jonas Basanavičius, Founder of Aušra.” Lituanus:

Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences 23, no. 3 (Fall 1997).
http://www.lituanus.org/1977/77_3_01.htm.

320
Puzinas, Jonas. “An Important Survey of Baltic Antiquity.” The Baltic Review 28
(December 1964): 57–62.

Puzinas, Jonas. “A New Study: The Prehistory of Eastern Europe.” Lituanus 4,

no. 13 (1957): 26–28.

Račiūnienė-Vyčinienė, Daiva. “The Archaic Lithuanian Polyphonic Chant

Sutartinė.” Lituanus 52, no. 2 (Summer 2006).
https://www.lituanus.org/2006/06_2_03%20Vyciniene.htm.

Račiūnaitė-Vyčinienė, Daiva. Sutartinės: Lithuanian Polyphonic Songs. Vilnius:

Vaga, 2002. https://www.lituanistika.lt/.

Radivojević, Miljana, and Benjamin W. Roberts. “Early Balkan Metallurgy:

Origins, Evolution and Society, 6200–3700 BC.” Journal of World
Prehistory 34 (2021): 195–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-021-
09155-7.

Reed, Robert C. “Marija Gimbutas, Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe.”

Mentalities 2, no. 1 (1983).

Reich, David. Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New
Science of the Human Past. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Reis, Patricia. Through the Goddess: A Woman՚s Way of Healing. New York:
Continuum, 1991.

Renfrew, Colin. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European

Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Renfrew, Colin. Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric

Europe. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973.

Renfrew, Colin. “Cognitive Archaeology.” In Archaeology: The Key Concepts,

edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, 41–45. London: Routledge, 2005.

Renfrew, Colin. “Concluding Remarks: Childe and the Study of Culture Process.”
In The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe, edited by David R. Harris, 121–
33. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Renfrew, Colin. “Marija Rediviva, DNA and Indo-European Origins.” The Marija
Gimbutas Memorial Lecture at the Oriental Institute, November 8, 2017.
https://oi.uchicago.edu/article/lecture-colin-renfrew-marija-rediviva-dna-
and-indo-european-origins. Video available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmv3J55bdZc.

321
Renfrew, Colin. “Obituary: Marija Gimbutas.” Independent (London, UK),
February 23, 1994. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-
marija-gimbutas-1395840.html.

Renfrew, Colin. “Old Europe or Ancient East? The Clay Cylinders of Sitagoi.” In
Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic Question, Studies
in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Susan Nacev Skomal and Edgar
C. Polomé, 339–74. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.

Renfrew, Colin. Review of the book Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern
Europe, by Marija Gimbutas. Antiquity 42, no. 165 (1965): 64–66.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00033901

Renfrew, Colin. “Ritual and Cult in Malta and Beyond.” In Cult in Context, edited
by David A. Barrowclough and Caroline Malone, 8–13. Oxford, UK:
Oxbow Books, 2007.

Renfrew, Colin. “Towards a Cognitive Archaeology: Material Engagement and

the Early Development of Society.” In Archaeological Theory Today,
edited by Ian Hodder, 124–45. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2017.

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice.
2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 1996.

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn, eds. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. London:
Routledge, 2005.

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. “Introduction.” In Archaeology: The Key

Concepts, edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, xi–xiv. London:
Routledge, 2005.

Renfrew, Colin, Marija Gimbutas, and Ernestine Elster, eds. Excavations at

Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, Vol. 1. Los Angeles:
Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, 1986.

Renfrew, Colin, and Ezra B. W. Zubrow. The Ancient Mind: Elements of

Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1994.

Reynolds, Stephen. Review of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, 7000 to
3500 BC: Myths, Legends, and Cult Images, by Marija Gimbutas. Journal
of Baltic Studies 6, no. 2–3 (Summer/Fall 1975): 225–26.

Robb, John E. “The Archaeology of Symbols.” Annual Review of Anthropology

27 (1998): 329‒46.

322
Rosser, Sue. “Feminist Scholarship in the Sciences: Where Are We Now and
When Can We Expect a Theoretical Breakthrough?” In Feminism and
Science, edited by Nancy Tuana, Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1989.

Samalavičius, Stasys. An Outline of Lithuanian History. Vilnius: Diemedis

Leidykla, 1995.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy.

Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2002.

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist

Biblical Interpretation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.

Scientific Library. “Scientific Library” (webpage). March 18, 2008.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080318001440/http://www.llti.lt/en/bibliot.
htm.

Senn, Alfred Erich. Jonas Basanavičius: The Patriarch of the Lithuanian

National Renaissance. Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Partners,
1980.

Shanks, M., and C. Tulley, Social Theory and Archaeology. Oxford: Polity Press.

Shennan, Stephen. “Darwinian Archaeology.” In Archaeology: The Key Concepts,

edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, 58–63. London: Routledge, 2005.

Shennan, Stephen. Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology

and Culture History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2002.

Sikie, Elisabeth, Ph.D. “A Modern Soul Retrieval: Recovering Female European

Wisdom Traditions and a Lost Indigenous Ancestral Consciousness of
Deep Relations.” PhD diss., California Institute of Integral Studies, 2017
(ProQuest 10280303).

Šilbajoris, Rimvydas. A Short History of Lithuanian Literature. Vilnius: Baltos

Lankos, 2002.

Sjӧӧ, Monica, and Barbara Mor. The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the
Religion of the Earth. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1987.

Skomal, Susan Nacev. “Introduction.” In Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology

of a Linguistic Question, Studies in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by
Susan Nacev Skomal and Edgar C. Polomé, 12–18. Washington, DC:
Institute for the Study of Man.

323
Skomal, Susan Nacev, and Edgar C. Polomé, eds. Proto-Indo-European: The
Archaeology of a Linguistic Question, Studies in Honor of Marija
Gimbutas. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.

Slotten, Ralph L. “Marijos Gimbutienės Darbai Lyginamosiose Religiju

Studijose” [The contribution by Marija Gimbutienė to the studies of
comparative religion]. Metmenys 31 (1976): 39–65.

Smith, Philip E. L. Review of The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, by Marija

Gimbutas. L’Anthropologie 66, no. 3–4 (date unknown): 356–58.

Sommers, Christina H. “The Flight from Science and Reason.” The Wall Street
Journal, July 10, 1995.

Spretnak, Charlene. “Anatomy of a Backlash: Concerning the Work of Marija

Gimbutas.” Journal of Archaeomythology 7 (2011): 25–51.

Spretnak, Charlene. “Beyond the Backlash: An Appreciation of the Work of

Marija Gimbutas.” From the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in
Honor of Marija Gimbutas, edited by Joan Marler, 399‒405. Manchester,
CT: Knowledge, Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Spretnak, Charlene. “Books.” Untitled review of The Civilization of the Goddess.

Ms. Magazine 3, no. 5 (March/April 1993), 63.

Spretnak, Charlene, ed. The Politics of Women՚s Spirituality. Essays on the Rise
of Spiritual Power within the Feminist Movement. New York: Anchor
Books, 1982.

Spretnak, Charlene. Relational Reality, New Discoveries of Interrelatedness that

are Transforming the Modern World. Topsham, ME: Green Horizon
Books, 2011.

Spretnak, Charlene, Carol P. Christ, and Mara Lynn Keller. “The Aims of
Research and the Significance of Methodology: With Attention to
Women’s Spirituality.” Unpublished paper, Women’s Spirituality
Department, California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, n.d.

Starhawk. Signs Out of Time: The Life and Work of Marija Gimbutas.
Documentary. Directed by Donna Read. San Francisco: Belili
Productions.

Stein, Julie K. “Principles of Stratigraphic Succession.” In Archaeology: The Key

Concepts, edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, 243–47. London:
Routledge, 2005.

Steinfels, Peter. “Idyllic Theory of Goddesses Creates Storm.” New York Times,
February 13, 1990, C1, C12.

324
Stražas, A. S. “Lithuania 1863–1893: Tsarist Russification and the Beginnings of
the Modern Lithuanian National Movement.” Lituanus: Lithuanian
Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences 42, no. 3 (Fall 1996).
https://www.lituanus.org/1996/96_3_03.htm.

Strong, John W. Review of The Slavs, by Marija Gimbutas. American Historical

Review 79, no. 3 (June 1974): 759–60.
https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/79.3.759-a.

Sužiedēlis, Simas. “Booksmugglers.” In Encyclopedia Lituanica, Vols. I–VI.

Boston: J. Kapočius, 1970–1978.
http://www.spaudos.lt/knygnesiai/knygnesys.en.htm.

Talalay, Laren. Review of The Living Goddesses, by Marija Gimbutas, edited and
supplemented by Miriam Robbins Dexter. Bryn Mawr Classical Review,
October 5, 1999. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999.10.05/.

Theology Digest. Unsigned review of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, by
Marija Gimbutas. Autumn 1974 (vol. 22, no. 3): 3.

Theology Digest. Untitled, unsigned review of The Goddesses and Gods of Old
Europe, Summer 1982 (vol. 30, no. 2): 171.

Thomas, Homer L. Review of The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000 to
3500 BC: Myths, Legends, and Cult Images, by Marija Gimbutas.
American Anthropologist 78, no. 2 (1976): 464.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1976.78.2.02a01470.

Thomas, Julian. “Archaeologies of Place and Landscape.” In Archaeological

Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, 167–87. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2012.

Times Literary Supplement. “Bronze-Agers.” December 1, 1966, 1126.

Townsend, Joan B. “The Goddess: Fact, Fallacy and Revitalization Movement.”

In Goddesses in Religions and Modern Debate, edited by Larry W.
Hurtado, 179‒203. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.

Trigger, Bruce G. “Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian.”

American Antiquity 45, no. 4 (1980): 662–76.
https://doi.org/10.2307/280140.

Trigger, Bruce G. Gordon Childe: Revolutions in Archaeology. London: Thames

and Hudson, 1980.

Trigger, Bruce G. A History of Archaeological Thought. Expanded 2nd ed.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

325
Trilupaitienė, Jūratė. “Hymn Melodies in Martynas Mažvydas’ Books.” In
Martynas Mažvydas and Old Lithuania, edited by Regina Koženiauskienė,
363–87. Vilnius: Pradai, 1998.

Tringham, Ruth. Review of The Civilization of the Goddess, by Marija Gimbutas.

American Anthropologist 95 (1993): 196–97.

Tringham, Ruth, and Margaret Conkey. “Rethinking Figurines: A Critical View

from Archaeology of Gimbutas, the ‘Goddess’ and Popular Culture.” In
Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence, edited by Lucy
Goodison and Christine Morris, 22–45. London: British Museum Press,
1998.

Trinkūnas, Jonas. Of Gods and Holidays, the Baltic Heritage. Vilnius: Tvermė,
1999.

Turner, Kay. Beautiful Necessity: The Art and Meaning of Women՚s Altars.
Thames & Hudson, 1999.

Tylor, E. B. Primitive Culture. London: John Murry, 1871.

Ucko, Peter. “The Interpretation of Prehistoric Anthropomorphic Figurines.”

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland 92, no. 1 (January–June 1962): 38–54.

Ucko, Peter. “Mother, Are You There?” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6,

no. 2 (1996): 300–4.

United Nations Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth. “UNESCO:

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.”
Accessed June 22, 2022. https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/2013/08/unesco-
united-nations-educational-scientific-and-cultural-organization/.

Utne Reader. Unsigned review of The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, by
Marija Gimbutas. January/February 1989.

Valgerdur, Hjordis Bjarnadottir. “The Saga of Vanadis, Volva, and Valkyrja:

Images of the Divine from the Memory of an Islandic Woman.” Master’s
thesis, California Institute of Integral Studies, 2002 (ProQuest 1407334).

Vallongo, Fred, and Sally Vallongo. “Women Turn Spotlight on Their Idyllic
Past.” The Blade (Toledo, Ohio), March 8, 1992.

Van Pool, Christine S., and Todd L. Van Pool. “Introduction: Method, Theory,
and the Essential Tension.” In Essential Tensions in Archaeological
Method and Theory, edited by Todd L. Van Pool and Christine S. Van
Pool, 1–4. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003.

326
Vaskelis, Bronius. “Folklore in Lithuanian Literature,” Lithuanian Quarterly
Journal of Arts and Sciences 36, no. 4 (Winter 1990).
http://www.lituanus.org/1990_4/90_4_06.htm.

Vėlius, Norbertas. The World Outlook of the Ancient Balts. Vilnius: Mintis, 1989.

Venclova, Tomas. Vilnius: A Personal History. Riverdale-on-Hudson, NY: Sheep

Meadow Press, 2009.

Videiko, Mikhail. “Signs and Sign Systems of the Trypillia Culture (5400‒2750
BC).” Signs of Civilization: Neolithic Symbol System of Southeast Europe,
edited by Joan Marler and Miriam Robbins Dexter, 179‒86. Sebastopol,
CA: Institute of Archaeomythology.

Videiko, Mykhailo, and Knut Rassmann. “Research on Different Scales: 120

Years of Trypillian Large Sites Research,” edited by Johannes Müller,
Knut Rassmann, and Mykhailo Videiko, 17‒28. London: Routledge.

Vidutis, Ričardas. “Jonas Balys, Lietuvių žemdirbystés papročiai ir tikéjimai.”

Lituanus 33, no. 4 (Winter 1987).
https://www.lituanus.org/1987/87_4_07.htm.

Vucinich, Wayne S. Review of The Slavs, by Marija Gimbutas. Russian Review

32, no. 1 (January 1973): 95.

Wheeler, Mortimer. Archaeology of the Earth. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press, 1954.

Wikipedia, s.v. “Jonas Puzinas.” Last modified September 24, 2020, 06:18.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Puzinas.

Wikipedia, s.v. “Ignas Joynas.” Last modified August 21, 2020, 07:07.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Puzinas.

Wilson, David. The New Archaeology. New York: New American Library, 1974.

Winn, Shan M. M. “The Danube (Old European) Script: Ritual Use of Signs in
the Balkan-Danube Region c. 5200‒3500 BC,” edited by Joan Marler and
Miriam Robbins Dexter, 49‒62. Signs of Civilization: Neolithic Symbol
System of Southeast Europe. Proceedings from the International
Symposium, “Signs of Civilization,” Serbian Academy of Sciences and
Arts, Novi Sad, Serbia, May 25‒29, 2004. Sebastopol, CA: Institute of
Archaeomythology.

Winn, Shan M. M. Pre-writing in Southeastern Europe: The Sign System of the

Vinča Culture, ca. 4000 BC. Calgary, AB: Western Publishers.

327
Wright, Rita P. Gender and Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996.

Wylie, Alison. “Why Is There No Archaeology of Gender?” In Engendering

Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and
Margaret W. Conkey, 31–54. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1991.

Yakar, Jak. “Did Anatolia Contribute to the Neolithization of Southeast Europe?”

In From the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija
Gimbutas, edited by Joan Marler, 59‒69. Manchester, CT: Knowledge,
Ideas, and Trends, 1997.

Yoffee, Norman, and Andrew Sherratt, eds. Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the
Agenda? Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Žukas, Saulius. The First Lithuanian Book and Its Cultural Context. Vilnius:
Baltos Lankos, 1996.

Zweig, Connie. Untitled review of The Civilization of the Goddess, by Marija

Gimbutas. Psychological Perspectives 26, no. 1 (1992): 163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00332929208408923.

328
 ProQuest Number: 29324835

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2022 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA