Matriarchy in Bronze Age Crete

Front matter

~

A Perspettive] from Archaeomythology ~ and Modern Matriarchal Studies

“Joañ Marie Cichon sre-

Contents

List Of FIG Urs ioeie so EA E ERA AT E eias iv IAK Ee Cel AA E E AT S E EE A v Introduction BASEE E E OE E Topic and inquiry questions uence Personal relationship to topic ..sssssssssssssssseessssersese Key definitions icc. ssissatssnissscten sven tosetertete tiie Explanation of capitalization of Goddess Academic significances cssseacsicstStetecsacte eed dazeucsausttedesebustslcbndadiodateseseseielanserathdansslenastbakeseeletieateed xviii SOCIAL significai cë sainesese meinaan aina a aiai aiiai xix Personal and spiritual significance....c.sscssssessscssessessscssecsssssesssssessessscssscsnsssssssssscsssssssnsesneessesss xix COMCUSION PEE EE E T SEAE EER xix

Chapter 1: Literature Review

Women s:Spirituality- merotan ie aiae vabeica cnentwnaseduneok cbcobsbtovcedsbentssieneebutsaters Anthropological, archaeological, and historical evidence for matriarchy....sssssssssssssssssrorsrserereree 2 Archaeological and mythological evidence for Bronze Age Crete as a Goddess-centered SOCIOEY A E E A A E aeansdesbecsesstilaseslescsstedvusdaucasdstesstbtey 3 Archaeological, archaeomythological, and historical evidence for Bronze Age Crete as a Woman-centered societyenniseiiiiiioriiarii avec a EE A i aa iiae 8 Bulle apie. nnana a i e aaa ai 8 Women and/or the Goddess in frescoes, statues, and seals wicsssscsessessesesessesseseessssesessssessseeses 9 Women’s legal rights in marriage, divorce, and property ..cssecsecsessecsecnesnscecnsesseesnseeensssees 11 Archaeologists divided on Crete as a matriarchy wosssessesssessesessecseesesnsesesncsnssesnseseesssnsesesnssnsenes 11 Evidence for, male rUlershipy?isscsccacszeccsettsscashsssateasssatesscs nsdseslerbansghouesdiesipeabsveannoselseatsledtassadondertdorsatoods 14 COMCIUSIOM AEA AEEA E E EET A EE 16 Chapter 2; Methodology sissiiscsiaiicis da disstanicisasvescsiassavcvthstistaxsensbsbidvdsvsiecvsbavenstiacbleletdsdenacedds 17 Archaeomyýythology secsiiescsisccescuccszcassdsvscetivcasuscdecnsebetcedspasosacesoueisendénseuedssnansaals ovsbedosneagdescsnelotesbaeranpaseize 18 Components of archaeomythology: archaeology ..sssssessssssssssessessecsnecsnssnssssssssssesssesseesneenees 19 Components of archaeomythology: mythology w.csssecssecsessessssssessessecssecsnssnsesssssessessessnssneenees 28 Components of archaeomythology: linguistics ....cssssecssessssnsssesssessessscssecsnssnsesssssessesssesnessnesnees 31 Dating system used within this work wo. ccsessecsssecsecsscsessecsssecsecscsnsssessccnsescsnsessescsnsescsnssssesssnseseeseess 32 CONCISO Nna a i a Ea O A e oie aaa Eita 34 The twentieth century debates over matriarchy....ssssecssssessececsecseeesnsesesssessssesnsesesesnseeensesseees 40

Chapter 4: The Mother Goddess of Crete: Interpreting the Archaeological Record, Iconography, and Sacred Sites, Using Cultural Context, Mythology, and Historical

Correlates ss cicssiaissessissdensadscersnsseavsaessesaceseadecessosetuveoniencacnalesecesvosocassaseasdsesstiocediesastsdeaesaderses 58 Attributes and iconographic forms of the Minoan Mother Goddess ....s.ssessesseesessssssessessecsnes 65 The pantheon of deities: one Goddess or many? Minoan gods ....cssesssssessessessessesnesssssnsesseese 85 The Minoan Mother Goddess defined 0... essesssesssesssessseesneesssssssessecsneesssecssesssesssessncessessscesseesneesues 92 Conclusions nein a ea a aa aaia eaa aaa a aE a a aaia 93

The controversy surrounding the interpretation of Neolithic female figurines ....sssssssessss.. 95 A new interpretation of Ucko’s ‘sexless’ figurines ....s..sssssessscssesssssssssesssessessecsnessssssessssssesseesscsnes 98 The Ierapetra Snake Goddess iiss scsdiscoscesstcsswscascvea tases ssaeavsns cucsacedsbsas sect deastvensseaybtel disdevescesastessovss 103 THE Early Minoan Periodontists inian a a aaa a iea i

The Goddess of Myrtos The Koumasa I Goddess

The Mochlos Goddess....cssssssesescssssssssscsesssssssssscessssesssssesssssssssscsesssssesesesesesers The Old Palace Period, c. 2100-1700 BC wiscsccssssssssssssssesssssscesees

The New Palace Period, c. 1700-1450 BC wississccsssssscscscscssssvscscscssssesvscscssssescscscssssesescscsseseseecssssess The Snake Goddesses from the Temple Repositories at Knossos The MinOan‘trescOes sscccesttesescussssttscerlesesscsctahetesdetesetouet beetebsseda i i i aiaa iia The fresco in room 14 of Ayia Triadha ....ssssssssssesssssesssssssssreresersesesssssrsrereereeeensnsnsnssrerererersene The frescoes at Xeste 3 at Thera, Akrotiri w.uccssssccscscssscsssesesesssssssssessssssvscssscsssvsvsvsssesese

The Third Palatial and Postpalatial Periods, c. 1450-1070 BC..s.sssssssssssssssessesesssresrsnsnssreesnssesee The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus :s.scss.cscscesscsssiessccsders coicasecattadevcodsttsonencerbssucrtcodeSesbusva snesddeancres The Goddesses with Upraised Arms ...tssssesessssesscsessssssscsssssssessssscssssssssessseseesseasenceseenee

Cörclüsio finissien nanana tusda i i i i

Chapter 6: The Role of Women in Bronze Age Crete: Bull-Leapers, Priestesses,

BüllleapinE sesssussecsscstoscsnassosancssbisedasedcusssvetbevesassbasedeaysdSbaecneatstagnssansostvecdird colon AAAA a EDE RA 154 Women in Minoan frescoes wascssicssscssesttscevasevsciassindence essssinseZeqos rikste rE niea a EA AE aaas 158 Mythology and the position of women in Minoan society ...ssessesseesnesnecssesseesessessecsneeneesses 165 Women’s preeminence in Minoan art sisisi eissernir 170 Glyptic art and what it reveals about women in Minoan society ...ssssssssesssssseseessesresessssesreessss 181

Chapter 7: Models of Rulership: the Paucity of Images of Male Rulers; the Images of

The LilysPrince merri ea i e aves taeda aadtin AE TE SE EE a 195 ii

A Hittite storm god as representative of the Minoan King? ....csssscssecssssesssessessesseesneesses 199

Male figures in spirally wound garment ....c.ssssessesseessecsscssssssssessecsecssessscessesssssesscsscsnesses 205

The Master Impression aaa a haan a AESAAT EEE a AA AENEAS 207

Does a definition of patriarchy apply to Minoan Crete? ....ssssessesssesssesecsnecsssssessessessesssesnsesses 216 Sanday’s, Eisler’s, Gimbutas’s, and Du’s definitions and their application to Minoan

CHOU S Fees sts Sse Basse vtec ccc seat ie A E steep cassntacste Ss teuvacsulte E A E EEE 217 Goettner-Abendroth’s definition of matriarchy at the economic level and its application

to Minoan Crete aes csresscseszactercestuchoasshiiasunspesccinsecessstovevnrsscudeseveyscesaiosstsecasdu KEPE ai ET AER 219 Goettner-Abendroth’s definition of matriarchy at the political level and its application

EO MinOanl Crete: E A A lavenansendes AA, 231 Goettner-Abendroth’s definition of matriarchy at the social level and its application to

Mingan Crete meteren die secstecsspiiavenascucesecesccbelcvsvesbevessaudytectesuguelupetesluseiattecesbedeouesssvenstesebeouts 234 Goettner-Abendroth’s definition of matriarchy at the spiritual level and its application

£G. Minar Crete E E E AAE 237 Conclusion: based on Goettner-Abendroth’s definition of matriarchy, Minoan Crete was

a-matriarchal society «sissscscstecectscvaslchvetseseadecehsavsonssnsovancasusenseuelscedensduassveisuesosuindpdocoadicenssvaluaneaboneey 238

REPELENCES ssscvssceissdadececetsaradoscsosssensgsdgsstehstealosdashessusoussbesensndedossasnvoassendeesuosseenlengnsavosssansovede 241 iii

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

List of Figures

The Ierapetra Snake Goddess....s.sssssssssessssscsssssssscssssscssssssssssssncasssssasssssensaseseaenseseesee The Mochlos Goddess (on right). The Malia Goddess (on left) Small Snake Goddess, Temple-Palace of Knossos wussscssesssesneereersees Large Snake Goddess, Temple-Palace Of Knossos u.sesssssesssssesseeseeese Shells, flying fish and argonauts ....ssessscssessecssecsscssssssssessesssesneeseesnees Goat with kid (on left), and cow with calf (on right) Faience dre sses:-ssccssesseietaskssiiectecsiaaslecestasevslitnetlcssioionedetose aaia a iiaeia Front of Ayia Triadha sarcophagus Back of Ayia Triadha sarcophagus

Side panel of Ayia Triadha sarcophagus with two Goddesses being pulled by

1a a ET OERIEN 141 Goddesses with Upraised Arms ....cccsssssssesssssecscsesssssssscsssessscssssscasssssesssssesssseseneneens 146 Bull-leaper or ‘Taureador’ Fresco wisssssssessssssssessssssscssssscsssessstesssscatesssescsssessseessesseneens 154 Clanmother, Priestess, or Goddess (‘La Parisienne’) from the Campstool

EVOSCO P E RESNE O 172 Fresco of Goddess descending from the sky wsscssssesssssessesssessecsessseesssssessssssesseessees 174 iv

Preface

First and foremost I wish to acknowledge my beloved parents, Marie Szymanski Cichon and John Edward Cichon, now both deceased, who fostered in me a great love of learning, and the understanding that few things in life are more important than an education. It was from my father that I also acquired my love of archaeology.

I am most grateful to my mentor, Dr. Mara Lynn Keller, for her unceasing counsel, encouragement, and support over the years. Also unfailing in their support have been my family members: my husband Nikolaos Kornaros, my sister, Alexandra Cichon, and my nephew Jade Cichon-Kelly. The encouragement of all my friends has also contributed greatly to the completion of this work.

To Marija Gimbutas, Heide Goettner-Abendroth, the scholars of modern matriarchal studies, the scholars of Women’s Spirituality, and Aegean archaeologists working in the field for the last one hundred years, I owe a huge debt of gratitude for laying the foundations upon which this work is built.

Finally I wish to honor my ancestors, especially the women.

Introduction

Topic and inquiry questions

In this work I look at the issue of the role of the Goddess,’ women, and matriarchy in Bronze Age Minoan’ society and answer the question: was Bronze Age Crete a matristic, matrilineal, matriarchal, gylanic, egalitarian, gender diarchic, or patriarchal society, based on the definitions of those terms by Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, Peggy Reeves Sanday, Heide Goettner- Abendroth, Shanshan Du, and Gerda Lerner? I begin with the hypothesis that Minoan Crete was a matriarchal society as defined by Heide Goettner-Abendroth. However, I also consider that my investigation might prove that such was not the case, and that another form of social, economic, political, and spiritual organization might better describe Bronze Age Crete—thus my consideration of Gimbutas’s, Eisler’s, Sanday’s, Du’s and Lerner’s terms and definitions.

Despite the fact that authorities acknowledge that women played an important role or roles in Minoan society, and that the preeminent Minoan deity was female, there is a gap in the scholarly literature regarding the role of women and matriarchy in Minoan Crete. The debate over whether or not Bronze Age Crete was a matriarchal society continues to be heated and unresolved, and thus it is the intention of this study to advance the discussion toward a more complex, detailed, and certain conclusion.

To answer my overarching question, was Minoan Crete a matriarchal society? I first consider several preliminary questions: Was a Mother Goddess worshipped as the preeminent deity of Bronze Age Crete, and if so, was Crete therefore a Goddess-centered society as well? Was Bronze Age Crete a woman-centered society? Finally, is there evidence for matriarchal or matrilineal/matrilocal customs in the archaeomythological record of Minoan Crete?

As the last sentence indicates, the methodology employed in this work is archaeomythology, the discipline founded by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas in the late twentieth century, and encompassing the fields of archaeology, mythology, linguistics, folklore, and history. It is described in detail in Chapter 2, Methodology.

To answer the first question that I have identified above: was a Mother Goddess the primary Cretan deity, and was Crete a Goddess-centered society?, I begin by carefully defining the term Mother Goddess. I do not limit the role of the Mother Goddess, as many do, simply to fertility,

1 My explanation of the capitalization of the word Goddess is found later in this chapter. In brief, it is based on several factors: she was the primary deity of Bronze Age Crete, and my understanding that although she has many manifestations, she was one Goddess.

? while I have continued to use the term ‘Minoan’ in this work to refer to Bronze Age Cretan society, I, along with many others, would like to find an alternative appellation. The term is a misnomer. King Minos, if he did indeed exist, lived several thousand years after the foundation of the first temple-palaces on Crete, and several hundred after Bronze Age Cretan civilization had been amalgamated into the Indo-European civilization that followed it. Moreover, as shall be discussed later in this work, it can be argued that only important women are present in the archaeological and archaeomythological record. Continuing to use the term ‘Minoan’ predisposes our thinking and limits our understanding. A number of scholars have come forward with alternative names for ‘Minoan’ Crete. Of those, Ariadnian seems the most appropriate to me at this point in time. For an understanding of why I favor the designation Ariadnian for Bronze Age Crete, see Cichon 2016: 78-99.

vi birthing, or nursing. In my definition, the Minoan Mother Goddess also embodies power and protection within all of Nature, mediates between life, death and rebirth, between the known and unknown, and is a manifestation of all the powers of Nature and the cosmos.

A review of the archaeological and scholarly literature reveals that most authorities agree that Crete was a Goddess-centered society. It is important to underscore this agreement because, as cultural historian Riane Eisler has noted, when a male god is worshipped as the primary or sole deity, men are in charge; and, where religions are Goddess-centered, the societies tend to have a female-centered social order.

Religions in which the most powerful or only deity is male tend to reflect a social order in which descent is patrilinear (traced through the father) and domicile is patrilocal (the wife goes to live with the family or clan of her husband). Conversely, religions in which the most powerful or sole deity is female tend to reflect a social order in which descent is matrilinear (traced through the mother) and domicile is likewise matrilocal (a husband goes to live with his wife’s family or clan).?

Eisler’s view is further substantiated by the work of anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday in her study of one hundred and fifty-six societies (to be discussed later in detail).

While there is agreement among scholars that Crete was a Goddess-centered society, authorities differ as to whether they define the Minoan Goddess as a Mother-Goddess, and whether they believe there was one Minoan Goddess or many. The various definitions of the Minoan Goddess and the issue of whether she was one or many are dealt with at length in this work.

After defining the term Mother Goddess, I survey, analyze, discuss, and (re)interpret the archaeological artifacts, the shrines, and the religious iconography, as well as a wide range of archaeological and archaeomythological studies and interpretations, to develop in detail the criteria by which to identify a Mother Goddess, given the architecture and iconography of Minoan Crete. I then go on to discuss the methodology of archaeologists Geraldine Gesell, Marija Gimbutas, Nanno Marinatos, Marina Moss and others working in the field of Minoan religion in order to determine their criteria for recognizing the Goddess. Their views as to whether there is just one Minoan Goddess or many are presented as well. Thus Chapter 4 establishes and expounds upon the criteria by which I propose to distinguish the Minoan Mother Goddess.

Chapter 5 presents the iconographic evidence for the existence of a Mother Goddess in Crete beginning with the Neolithic and continuing through to the end of the Bronze Age. Each item—fresco, figurine, piece of pottery, seal, sealstone, or ring—is discussed in detail in order to ascertain how it fits the criteria I developed (in the previous chapter). I conclude that the Mother Goddess, as I have defined her, is primary in Minoan Crete for a period spanning some five thousand years c. 6500-1070 BC, that Minoan Crete is a Goddess-centered society, and that gods are relatively few and mostly appear late on the scene.

vii

As for my second question, was Minoan Crete a woman-centered society?, although most authorities will concede that Crete was a Goddess-centered society, they will not agree that it was a woman-centered one as well. Unfortunately, there is no way to empirically prove a belief system—a belief in the centrality of women; or to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that matriarchy existed in Minoan Crete. I believe I have constructed a case that is plausible and well substantiated.

Since the written language for this time period has not been definitively deciphered, and such written records as exist are small in number, the evidence for a woman-centered society consists primarily of archaeological evidence, artifacts, and architecture: artistic representations such as frescoes, figurines, seals and rings, alongside the remains of temple-palaces, towns, tombs, and residences. Mythology and history provide clues as well. I examine this evidence in Chapter 6, and conclude that a plausible and highly probable case for a central role for women in Minoan Crete can be made. Chapter 7 reinforces the argument that women were central by looking at the paucity of male ruler images in Bronze Age Crete; it examines those images that have been pointed to by authorities as possible candidates for such a role; and deconstructs the arguments for male rulership.

Regarding my third question: is there evidence for matriarchal or matrilineal/matrilocal customs in Minoan Crete, Chapter 8 provides extensive archaeological evidence as well as mythological and historical data for just such customs. Having answered in the affirmative to my three query questions, I conclude in Chapter 8 that based on the evidence presented in that chapter and the previous four chapters, a plausible, and compelling case can be made for declaring that Minoan Crete was a matriarchal society based on Heide Goettner-Abendroth’s and modern matriarchal studies’ definitions of the term.

Personal relationship to topic

I have long had a fascination with Bronze Age Crete. It stems from my first trip to Crete in 1987 when I spent a week visiting sites as a student in the six-week summer program of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. Listening to archaeologists lecturing on the sites we were visiting, I kept asking myself, yes, but what was the life of the people of that society really like? Such questions came to me, I believe, as part of my previous training as an historian of social history. Indeed that was the reason why I was attracted to the new field of social history. It sought to answer the questions I was asking: how were the people living; not just the kings and aristocrats, but everyone and most especially the women. Unfortunately, the archaeologists I studied with that summer of 1987 could not or would not explore the issues of women and men, gender relations, religion, and social life in Minoan Crete. So I was left to wonder.

For the last thirty years I have wondered and studied and read. I also had the opportunity of participating in an archaeological survey on Crete. Thus this work arises out of my studies, my inquiry, my work with archaeologist Barbara Hayden at the Vrokastro (Iron Age) site of eastern Crete, my repeated visits to Cretan sites and museums, and the many months I have spent visiting and exploring the island. It also arises out of my long-standing feminism and my immersion in the Women’s Spirituality movement for the last twenty-five years. Finally, it viii is a product of my interest in and study of Goettner-Abendroth’s work and the work of other scholars in the field of modern matriarchal studies.

Scope and limitations of the study

This investigation focuses on Minoan Crete in the Bronze Age. While there is some discussion of the Neolithic period in Crete, and Cretan Neolithic artifacts, my consideration of the Neolithic is not nearly as comprehensive as that of the Bronze Age. Even though concentrating on the Bronze Age, this is not a comprehensive discussion of all the images and artifacts of that era. While I am well-versed in the vast array of archaeological artifacts and imagery across Crete from the Neolithic to the Classical Greek era, and have highlighted many of the key images that represent the major attributes of the Goddess(es) and the key social-spiritual roles of women in Bronze Age Crete, I have not included all of them.

I myself have not excavated in Crete, but as much as is possible I have worked with the site reports of those who have conducted the excavations. I have, moreover, visited most, if not all, of the sites discussed in this work, and viewed the artifacts examined in this study in the museums of Crete.

I have considered, but have not treated in a comprehensive way, Minoan gods or royalty. In my view, there is a small amount of evidence for a youthful god from the Neolithic onward. However, the imagery of gods in Minoan Crete is a small fraction compared to the imagery of the Goddess. Thus I chose not to focus on gods nor do a comprehensive discussion of them. As for Minoan royalty, I do not believe that Minoan Crete had kings or queens or an aristocracy. My Chapter 7 addresses the issue of the lack of ruler iconography in Crete, especially iconography of a priest-king. Nor does my research lead me to believe that there was a Minoan queen. Rather, I find evidence for councils of consensus facilitated by women elders of the society. The works of Marina Moss and Nanno Marinatos can provide those interested with an extensive treatment of Minoan gods and royalty.°

Although a part of archaeomythology, linguistics does not figure prominently in this study. This is partially because I myself am not a linguist, and partially because the written records such as we have for Minoan Crete are small in number, and there is as yet no agreement on their decipherment. I do however reference a small amount of linguistic information in this work.

Related to this issue of the lack of written records and the lack of consensus over how they are to be deciphered is the issue of social relations. There is little evidence regarding social relations in Minoan Crete because there are no written records. Thus we must learn what we can about this extremely important topic from the archaeological artifacts alone, especially the iconography, which of course is subject to interpretation.

I realize this work would be enhanced by the inclusion of more illustrations, and I would have liked to illustrate it extensively. However, I am limited by the photographs I myself was able to take (or borrow) given the difficulty of obtaining permission to publish photographs from those who hold the copyright.

5 Moss 2005; Marinatos 2010.

ix

The state of the art of archaeology in Crete is yet another limitation of this study. I have carefully addressed the complexity of the scholarly debate, but in many cases that debate is unsettled. For example, as I detail in my Methodology Chapter and elsewhere in this work, scholars are not agreed about the date of the Thera eruption, nor are they agreed as to how or when Greeks from the mainland, the Mycenaeans, arrived in Crete.

Related to this issue of the unsettled nature of the scholarly debate is the understanding that our knowledge about Minoan Crete is limited. We have access to only a fraction of what once existed, and new information, through chance finds or new excavations, could change what we know at any moment.

Within these limitations I have tried to present a well-balanced picture of Minoan Crete in the Bronze Age, and address both the pro’s and con’s of issues—not just the side which supports my own view. I believe I have been thoughtful and reasonable.

Finally, what I see as strengths, some might view as limitations: feminism, woman-centeredness, ecofeminism, an interest in the Goddess traditions of the world, my partiality to the theories and worldview of Marija Gimbutas, my use of the discipline of archaeomythology as my methodology, and my decision to use the term matriarchy, a term that is often misunderstood, and the definition of matriarchy as given by modern matriarchal studies.

Key definitions

I turn now to the definitions and key terms as used in this study. In this work I shall be considering several definitions of matriarchy, that of anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday and of philosopher Heide Goettner-Abendroth, as they might be applied to Minoan Crete; as well as archaeomythologist Marija Gimbutas’s definition of the terms matristic and matrilineal; cultural historian Riane Eisler’s definitions of gylany and partnership society; and anthropologist Shanshan Du’s definitions of gender equalitarian societies. These are discussed in detail in the following pages. I will also consider again Gerda Lerner’s definition of patriarchy. It may be that one or a combination of these definitions best fits Bronze Age Cretan society.

In a paper presented at the Sixteenth Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association in 1998 entitled ‘Matriarchy as a Sociocultural Form: An Old Debate in a New Light,’ Sanday, specifically using the word matriarchy, argues that it is a construct ‘based on gendered divisions in the sociocultural and cosmological orders. [emphasis added] Rejecting the usual definition of matriarchy as the opposite of patriarchy, Sanday asserts that matriarchy ‘has never been theorized in and of itself.” She goes on to explain:

I suggest that the term matriarchy is relevant in societies where the cosmological and the social are linked by a primordial founding ancestress, mother goddess, or archetypal queen . . . the archetypal qualities of feminine symbols do not exist solely in the symbolic realm but are manifested in social practices that influence the lives of both sexes, not just women. These practices involve women (usually in their roles as mothers) in activities that authenticate and regenerate ..., that nurture the social order. By this definition, the ethnographic context of matriarchy does not reflect female power over subjects . . . but female power . . . to conjugate—to knit and regenerate social ties in the here-and-now and in the hereafter.

Sanday concludes:

In a strongly tradition-based society ultimate authority does not rest in political roles but in a cosmological order. If this cosmological order pivots around female oriented symbols and if this order is upheld by ritual acts coordinated by women whose social salience is also grounded in this order we can speak of matriarchy.’

Sanday says that in order to determine whether or not a society is a matriarchy we must also ask the following questions:

Which sex bears the symbolic and social burden for conjugating the social universe? Which sex is imbued naturally or socially with the reproductive powers that recharge the sources of supernatural fecundity? What is the gender of the dominant symbols tying the archetypal to the social? How do males and females complement one another in the political arena and how is this arena tied to the cosmological order?”

In addition to her definitions of matriarchy and patriarchy, Sanday also defines the notion of diarchy as ‘a complementary relation between the sexes; here she uses Janet Hoskins’s definition, one ‘of shared powers and oscillations in control, structured by a doctrine of interdependence and mutuality. ™ However, Sanday rejects the term diarchy as appropriate for the Minangkabau people of Western Sumatra (about whom she has conducted extensive field research), and she ends her article by noting that: ‘Considerations of matriarchy, patriarchy, or diarchy should not be about which sex rules but how gender is represented in archetypal scenarios and reflected in social practices.”

Since 1998 Sanday has reiterated and further elaborated her definition of matriarchy in two different publications: Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy, published in 2002, and an article ‘Matriarchal Values and World Peace: the Case of the Minangkabau,’ in the 2009 anthology Societies of Peace, edited by Heide Goettner-Abendroth. In these works, Sanday, who has spent twenty years studying the matriarchal society of the Minangkabau of Western Sumatra, declares that we must abandon our idea that matriarchy means women’s control of political power and substitute for it the understanding that matriarchy emphasizes ‘the role of maternal symbols in webs of cultural significance. ™® She proposes that matriarchy be redefined in terms of ‘cultural symbols and practices associating the maternal with the origin and center of the growth processes necessary for social and individual life.[emphasis in original]’“

xi

Sanday reserves the term matriarchy for ‘structures highlighting maternal symbols and meanings. ™ She believes that the maternal symbols and meanings of the Minangkabau (described below) evolve from the fact that the Minangkabau people are guided by the proverb ‘Growth in nature is our teacher.’ In nature, all that is born in the world comes from the mother. Moreover, the growth of all living beings, from rice to children, must be nurtured; thus nurturance, by both females and males in Minangkabau society, is key.

Minangkabau society is matrilineal and matrilocal. Sanday maintains that, ‘Maternal symbols related to origin and center ramify through the Minangkabau social universe.” Bundo Kanduang, the mythical queen mother, is at the center of the Minangkabau world and that title, Bundo Kanduang, is also applied to senior Minangkabau women in their ceremonial roles. In Minangkabau society women oversee access rights to ancestral property, and all families trace their origins to a founding ancestress. Senior women are equated with the central pillar of the house which is considered its origin, navel, and ritual center. In adat (meaning local custom or tradition) ceremonies, which are at the crux of village social life, women are more involved than men. It is the women who fulfill adat. It is their ceremonial activities, and their devoted commitment to raising children according to adat, that ensures the stability of tradition. Minangkabau villages are known as ‘mother,’ and the cultural focus on maternal origin and center is even evident in songs which place the mother at the center of emotions.

Although women are at the center, Sanday stresses that there is balance in male and female relations and both must be nurturers for society to remain stable and for growth to continue. As she writes in ‘Matriarchal Values and World Peace’:

matriarchal values grow out of a social philosophy in which the emphasis is on cooperation ... matriarchy is not about ‘female rule,’ but about social principles and values rooted in maternal meanings in which both sexes work together to promote human well-being."®

In contrast to Goettner-Abendroth (the next theorist to be discussed) Sanday calls her approach ‘particularistic’—she is not a believer in evolutionary stages, rather she holds that institutions such as matriarchy are the consequence of the blending and interaction of complex structures within cultures.”

German philosopher and feminist Heide Goettner-Abendroth, who has spearheaded the modern matriarchal studies movement, has also resurrected and redefined the term matriarchy—independently of Sanday. Goettner-Abendroth has spent her lifetime studying matriarchies both in their socio-cultural and historical contexts. Pointing out, as does Sanday, that the Greek word arché has a double meaning, ‘beginning’ as well as ‘domination,’ Goettner- Abendroth argues that matriarchy should be translated as ‘the mothers from the beginning.’ Her ‘explication’ of matriarchy is more than a simple definition, for her goal is to set out the deep structure of matriarchal society; provide a structural definition that can form the xii basis of a comprehensive theory on matriarchal societies to be used and developed by other researchers in the field of matriarchal studies; and to provide a hybrid methodology that is multidisciplinary. Indeed, Goettner-Abendroth has created a new paradigm which she calls the ‘matriarchy paradigm.’ ‘The central tenet of this paradigm is that women have not only created society and culture over long periods of human history, but that all subsequent cultural developments originated there and are based on these societies.’

What Goettner-Abendroth calls the deep structure of matriarchal societies refers to four levels of society: the economic, social, political, and cultural (including worldview and spirituality). At the level of economics, matriarchal societies, which are usually, but not always, agricultural societies, practice a subsistence economy that achieves local and regional self-reliance. Land and houses belong to the clan in the sense of usage rights, while private ownership of property and territorial claims are unknown concepts. There is a vivid circulation of goods along the lines of kinship and marriage customs. The system of circulation prevents the accumulation of goods by one individual or clan, as the ideal is distribution rather than accumulation. ... In economic terms, matriarchies are known for their perfectly balanced reciprocity. For that reason I define them as societies of economic reciprocity. [emphasis in original]”

At the social level, matriarchal societies are founded on motherhood and are based on the clan.

People live together in large kinship groups that follow the principle of matriliny, that is, relatedness based on the mother’s line. The name of the clan, and all social honours and political titles, are inherited from the mothers. A matri-clan consists of at least three generations of women, plus the directly related men.”

Such societies are also matrilocal, with women remaining in the maternal home permanently and husbands moving there. Marriage between clans is either achieved through en mass marriages between clans or individual choice. What is important is that ‘in this way, a society without hierarchies is shaped, one that sees itself as an extended clan. Therefore, I define matriarchies as non-hierarchical, horizontal societies of matrilineal kinship. [emphasis in original]’*