Re: bronze age weapons

On 28 Feb 2006 10:01:28 -0800, in sci.archaeology, Day Brown wrote:

I've not seen anyone post a report on the forensic exam of the Varna
"chieftan". The notion was proposed in "The Prehistory of Sex" by
Taylor. That would explain the presence of the gold penis sheath better
than any other theory I know of.

Ok, but the fact that the sheath was buried in the ground point down could
have something to do with fertilising the earth, and would suggest that
the skeleton was indeed male.

What both the femmonazis and the social conservatives miss was that it
was *sex* which was used to maintain the peace. Neither of them want to
think about that. But those of us who know anything about the
psychology of men can understand how a warlord proposing a raid on a
place where the men had all regularly gone to get laid in "fertility
rite", would regard it with all the enthusiasm of going to burn down a
whorehouse.

The point Doug makes about polypod Vikings scratching is relevent, and
relates to the even more ancient tradition of the Sauna, in which the
heat on the skin was sufficient to kill body lice, while the thermal
mass of the host was sufficient to survive for a long enough time.

Not this Doug, I haven't commented on that.


But what seems to have killed off the tradition of 'fertility rites'
was the increased speed of Roman roads, such that a man with the clap
could arrive in town, whereas before, the rigors of travel were such
that one needed to be in perfect health to survive.

Matriarchy worked better in those thinnly populated rural areas with
small communities, in which the witches had close personal contact with
everyone, and was able to control the transmission, not only of STDs,
but other pathogens. But as the cities grew, this personal contact was
lost, there were brothels and other women offering sexual services- who
were not under the care and control of the witch health services.

So- of course, in the cities, the Christian mysogeny made more sense.
And it would have worked, if monogamy was perfectly practiced. But
alas, we are where we are, and with HIV need new solutions.

I dont read every word Doug or anyone else says, so I often dont
respond, and often dont bother.

And it shows. It makes life a lot easier if you don't try to respond to
people who point out where you are wrong.

I dont have time, nor do very many of
us, to repond to every challenge of every point of every post. Timothy
Taylor mentions transvestite Balkan chieftains, and since then, I've
seen a Discovery channel interview with one such dyke.

I dunno about the dykes you know Doug.

I didn't comment on lesbians, just your use of the word 'dyke'.

The ones I know are more mature,
and dont let any man elicit a feeling of anger no matter what he calls
them. The superior dont bother with responding to the sneers of the
inferior since they dont need the support of the latter to maintain
their position.

<Virtually all archaeologists who study prehistory know that there were
ceremonial axes such as the ones you describe above. There were also
real
axes, used to chop trees and almost certainly in hunting and fighting.>
Let's be precise here by your own definition. What they have is
*artifacts*. In this case, the artifacts are of such thin gold that
they are useless as weapons, and are made in the same shape as
butterfly icons which are also seen on pottery with icons of the
crysalis in the same era.

The oral tradition recorded in myth suggests that the
crysalis/butterfly is an allegorical message about rebirth from an
apparently dead form. Logically, the holder of the gold wand is a
cleric, just as Christian clerics hold the Cross.

There are *no* images of such double bitted axes being used on victims
such as we see in later eras when the warrior class took over. So-
while it may be a double bitted axe in *your* eyes, many of us would be
more interested in what the artifacts meant to those who made and used
them.

Again, I didn't comment on double-bitted axes. Nor do I disagree with the
last part of your sentence.


I frankly dont care what the femmonazis have to say, and dont bother
responding to criticisms of what you, or anyone else think their
position is.

Nor did I comment about femmonazis [sic].

By the use of the term, you seem to think that matriarchy
is just as tyrannical as patriarchy. Which suggests a lack of
familiarity with male/female instinct. The latter are more emotionally
adaptable, and in a patriarchic system, will operate by patriarchic
rules just like Maggie Thatcher did.

Rather, I refer you to the Maitreyasamiti Texts in Tocharian A, in
which we see the Gautimid Queen in conversation with the living Buddah.
And here again, it aint what is there, but what aint there... a total
lack of all the ostentatious language we see associated with
patriarchic Oriental potentates. Buddah is not like Moses, laying down
the law. The two of them engage in polite dialogue, and at the end,
agree to consult with the monks at Sibushi.

This is *NOT* some kind of femmonazi tyranny, but a typically female
search for consenses. Characteristic as well, the brothels in Kucha
were owned by the city. In effect, the Gautamid queen is a madam.

As for Timothy Taylor:

Yvonne Marshall The Prehistory of Sex: Four Million Years of Human
Sexual Culture. By Timothy Taylor. Bantam/Fourth Estate: 1996. Pp.
353. $23.95, 18.99.

In this Wide-ranging Survey of sexual behaviour in human history,
Timothy Taylor argues, in opposition to sociobiologists, that human
sexuality must be understood as primarily cultural rather than biological.
To him, the diversity of sexual practices in prehistory indicates that
human sexuality is as much a social activity as a reproductive necessity.
Combine this with an attempt to account for the origins of patriarchy,
and one might reasonably expect a good read. But all is disappointment.

Just because a book is written for a general audience does not mean it is
excused from meeting the requirements of good scholarship. As the
successes
of Stephen Jay Gould's many books demonstrate, good scholarship sells
widely. Although we cannot all aspire to such pinnacles of achievement,
adequate referencing of source material, especially when it is contentious
or poorly known, and the development of a coherent, theoretically informed
argument, constitute a good start.

But Taylor neglects these basic requirements, offering instead a series of
anecdotal comments that lack authority and fail to develop ideas in any
meaningfulway. This is evident from page four where, sandwiched between
titillating speculations aboutwhether Otzi, the Iceman, still has semen
preserved in his body and, if so, whether it is resides in his scrotum or
rectum, we are informed that early hominid females had large clitorises
while males "had vanisbingly small penises". Thankfully this alarming
situation was sorted out in the course of human evolution and the
"clitoris
reduced in size, while the penis grew dramatically larger". Such riveting,
if dubious, assertions promises a rollicking good story. But, typically,
Taylor has little more to tell us and his tossed salad of anecdotes
eventually becomes boring.

In pursuit of his objective "to challenge the sociobiologists" Taylor
provides summaries of theories he intends to take issue with and quotes
extensively from authors he wishes to criticize. But, ironically, without
a well developed argument of his own, this has the effect of promoting
sociobiological ideas to the reader: his thumbnail sketches of other
people's theories seem comparatively convincing placed alongside
his own. Similarly. his attempts to promote feminist perspectives have
the opposite effect because he clearly does not understand the literature
on sex, gender and sexuality and cannot even use these concepts
consistently, never mind make an original contribution.

What's more, relevant work by feminists is ignored or commented on only
briefly. One example is the work of Adrienne Zihlman and Nancy Tanner,
who suggested in 1976 that {he first artefact was probably a bag invented
by women for carrying plants and babies. Yet Taylor seems to claim this
idea for himself: "I believe that the invention of the baby-sling was
the single most crucial step in the evolutionary development toward larger
brains." Just one more immaculate conception.

In the same way, Marie Louise Sorenson, an archaeologist well known
for her work on prehistoric clothing, is never mentioned despite
Taylor's frequent use of the idea that clothing transformed sexual
relations. Such omissions are numerous. Epitomizing Taylor's
failings is the bizarre interpretation he offers for the image
portrayed on a silver-gilt horse harness and reproduced as the
cover illustration. In this image, a seated man is shown
copulating with a woman astride his lap. Another woman holds in
one hand a vessel and in the other a plant that hovers over or
between the couples heads. This scene is usually described as a
sacred marriage, and I agree with Taylor that this interpretation
takes a fair degree of licence. But his own assertion that "it
seems clear that the man is being seduced, even raped", made on
the basis that the man must be drugged and the plant obscures his
view of the woman, is simply ridiculous.

The challenge to sociobiology presented by the archaeological evidence
of past human sexuality informed by feminist theory is not only real,
but also has the potential to transform our understanding of what sex,
gender and sexuality mean in human terms. To find it reduced to a
series of facile, unfounded assertions is enraging. One can only
hope that a more intelligent treatment will appear quickly.

Yvonne Marshall is in the Department of Archaeology, University of
Southampton, Highfield, Southampton 5017 1BJ, UK.
--
Doug Weller --
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk


.