Shaddow:

Welcome to Wicca101, thank you for joining us tonight, please keep all greetings and conversations in IM until after class.

Thank You

Tonights class is being offered by Red Deer, his topic is Pagan society. before and after the patriarchal revolution.

RED DEER:

Tonight's class is based mainly upon the work of Riane Eisler, as presented in her book "The Chalice & The Blade", with supporting data from several other sources.

What is patriarchy?

no takers?

Shaddow:

rule by males

jesmarc:

the following of the "father system"

Xaphan:

rule of society by the male

Shatten:

Men

RebBelleRose:

male controlled / ruled society

PAniteowl:

didn't know it was a test {G}

Tarotmoon:

I thought we had to be quiet

RED DEER:

lol

Chat Host:

civilization led by men, male deities

badgey:

Patriarchy is a society ruled my the males

RED DEER:

just want some input

RebBelleRose:

lineage traced by the male lines.

RED DEER:

ok...

Tarotmoon:

Oh, that is patriarchy!

Chat Host:

system is slow tonight Red

Carielle:

society which bases the importance of the family on the male... traced by male to male

RED DEER:

Webster defines patriarchy:

1. jurisdiction of the patriarch (please note that, literally, jurisdiction = law by word).

2. a form of social organization in which the father or eldest male is recognized as the head of a family or tribe; descent and kinship being traced through the male line: OPPOSED (my emphasis) to matriarchy

3. government by men: OPPOSED (my emphasis) to matriarchy.

ok, so what is matriarchy?

jesmarc:

mother ruled

Chat Host:

female centered culture

Tarotmoon:

the one and true way?

RED DEER:

yup, and?

Boudica:

mother society

Shatten:

Women

Chat Host:

lol tarot

PAniteowl:

a more practical approach to government {IMHO} G{}

RebBelleRose:

lineage traced through the females & run by females

RebBelleRose:

lol PA

Tarotmoon:

LOL

SongSpring:

Society w/ emphasis placed upon the female, goddesses... and traces lines through the female

RED DEER:

1. a form of social organization in which the mother is recognized as the head of a family or tribe; descent being traced through the mother INSTEAD (my emphasis) of the father (please note that instead literally means in the place of).

2. government by women.

SongSpring:

noted

RED DEER:

Matriarchy is the LOGICAL antecedent to patriarchy... Do you agree? Why? Disagree? Why?

Nestor:

don't total agree

RebBelleRose:

Agree- you know who the mother is- the father... well... :)

Chat Host:

because women have the ability to create life

Annwyn:

disagree by nature of women

Tarotmoon:

Because all life starts with a woman

jesmarc:

but there has to be male input

Nestor:

I think that there were usually role specific functions within societies

Tarotmoon:

make that within a woman

RED DEER:

What was wrong with this statement? {Rhetorical question} It was generated by thinkers home-grown from a patriarchal (or dominator) society. Why "dominator"? Men dominate women,

Shatten:

WHY

Carielle:

Don't totally agree... life is the union, not the domination of one of the other, whether male or female

PAniteowl:

because women were the societal developers, while men developed hunting skills which took them away from he common society more often

RED DEER:

aye, Carielle - we'll get there...

Boudica:

Cause they swing a bigger sword?

SongSpring:

I agree to a point... in the original society the male and the female each had their place... the male being the hunter was responsible for bringing in foods and staple... leaving the female behind...

Tarotmoon:

I like that carie

Carielle:

sorry {G}

Nestor:

and the ability of the sex to perform the role was primary as to who decide what was done

Tarotmoon:

Men were afraid of women.

jesmarc:

but men fed the society

SongSpring:

she was then responsible for the making of laws, etc...

PAniteowl:

agree Nestor

Annwyn:

you are asking though if Matriarchy is the direct opposite of Patriarchy

RED DEER:

whites dominate blacks, the rich dominate the poor, etc, etc, etc...

SongSpring:

the priesthood, etc...

Sylverhare:

Being a true Wiccan dualist, I believe neither is the logical antecedant to the other, neither is necessarily better or more advanced ... just different

Annwyn:

that would give it the same characteristics as patriarchy

Nestor:

Song the male role would also include the active defense of the tribe or clan

RED DEER:

Annie, by the definitions I gave, IT IS

Tarotmoon:

No, men became less important when we became a farm culture and not a hunter culture?

jesmarc:

no, both necessary

Annwyn:

patriarchy is an either or situation... either men or women

SongSpring:

Nestor, at times the female shared in that role... but that is also correct...

Annwyn:

Matriarchy would be inclusive of all

Shatten:

Both have there importance

SongSpring:

there was an equalization... in society...

RED DEER:

I asked if it's logical to conclude that matriarchal societies PRECEEDED patriarchal ones

Tarotmoon:

no

Xaphan:

yes

Sloka:

Each male/female has a role to play in the scheme of things.

RED DEER:

not by definition, Annie

Shaddow:

yes they did

Annwyn:

thus we might have to {VBEG} use a different term to describe a society that is mother focused

Shaddow:

did

PAniteowl:

not necessarily RD, but yes in some cultures

Tarotmoon:

men ruled in cave times because they hunted

Nestor:

actually Tarot the farming culture require a more organized structure of community defense that a nomadic band

SongSpring:

It is also much easier to trace lineage through the mother, in the openness of society at that time

Chat Host:

I caught that

RED DEER:

Annie, you read too much... I'll get there!

Annwyn:

Yes... but you are asking a WOMAN if it is logical{G}

RED DEER:

lol

Initially, the only way in which a NONpatriarchal society was envisioned came through inverting the dominator paradigm - in other words matriarchy was also dominance oriented, with women dominating men

Nestor:

ye s that is True Song -- you could not always tell who the father was -but you always knew the mother

RED DEER:

This represents a phenomenon labeled by turn of the century and later anthropologists, such as Evans-Pritchard and Fraser, as "Cultural spectacles". In other words, all that one perceives is shaped by one's own (mostly subconscious) cultural norms.

Xaphan:

some still do

Tarotmoon:

agreed nes

Sloka:

There was a time when matriarchy was ruling society. Matter of fact these women were worshipped because of their abilities to perform sex and have the offspring of the Neffelins or sons of

PAniteowl:

also, an ignorance of how childbirth occurred led to the belief that woman only had anything to do with reproduction

Boudica:

Also, it was usual for the woman to out live the husband, raising the son/daughter to carry on the line and inherit

Sloka:

sons of Gods.

RED DEER:

PEOPLE: please slow down some!

PAniteowl:

some men of today still haven't learned that lesson, or we wouldn't need family court {g}

SongSpring:

{ssssssuuussshhhhhhh}

RED DEER:

PA - I disagree about pregnancy, but let's discuss that later.

Annwyn:

go ahead RD

Tarotmoon:

women tend to be better communicators too, so maybe they convinced the men {G}

Chat Host:

a passionate subject

PAniteowl:

ok {g}

RED DEER:

and Boudica - 'twas NOT usual for women to outlive men until the past century...

SongSpring:

go ahead RD

Annwyn:

mortality in childbirth

Sloka:

But either way, is a society happens to be ruled by man then its a patriarchy if it happens to be ruled by women then it is a matriarchy!

jesmarc:

RD, if the mother was the honored, why pass the line on to sons?

RED DEER:

In a culture which only conceives of a supreme god as male, the "Venus Figurines" so common throughout Paleolithic Europe and the Middle East are referred to as CULT figures.

PAniteowl:

many more died in childbirth Boudica ... again ... ignorance of prenatal care

Sylverhare:

yes, but matrilineal doesn't imply matriarchy, it is my view that while many early clans may have been matrilineal actual rule was probably determined by which gender role the society believed to be more important at the time

RED DEER:

in a matrilineal society, they wouldn't... the line would go through females...

Tarotmoon:

again, silver, the hunter versus nurturer

RED DEER:

likely true, Sylver

Winter Birch:

Sylver, the Goddess was the key to their religious beliefs, and so was birth... women were the natural choice for lineage

jesmarc:

that's what I thought... thanks...

Sloka:

What is the importance of these social developments... today we are the by product of these past societal structures.

Nestor:

what I am looking for is clear archeological proof of the proposition that most archaic cultures were matriarchal -- and I have not see that yet

RED DEER:

Edwin Oliver James wrote a book entitled "The CULT of the Mother Goddess" because, of course, mother-worship could NOT have been a fully realized religion. (Don't flay me alive, folks, I'm trying to make a point here {g})

SongSpring:

correction... in a TRUE matriarchal society... some cultures have been known to successfully blend each into one system

Sylverhare:

depends on tribe and time birch, you cant make such sweeping generalities, there were thousands of deities

jesmarc:

Please continue, RD

Winter Birch:

True, Sylver, but the earliest civilizations began with mother or goddess deities...

Annwyn:

And your point RD?

RED DEER:

thank you

Chat Host:

OK All... SETTLE DOWN and allow Red Deer To Make His Point Please!!

RED DEER:

was waiting for the chance to make it

Merlin Stone notes that the most frustrating part of her research is ONLY being able to find sources regarding early female deities in the deepest, darkest stacks and that they are almost totally ignored by mainstream anthropology. For most of a century, Paleolithic cave paintings were interpreted as hunting scenes - magick used to enhance the all important hunt, BUT:

1) the "barbed weapons" are never thrown by the men, nor are they in or even near the animals.

Tarotmoon:

what about the witch hunts RD, where do they fit in?

RED DEER:

2) So, it seems, the question becomes, "Why paint hunting failures, especially since we all know this does NOT make good magickal sense?"

Winter Birch:

much, much later, tarotmoon

RED DEER:

3) If the "barbed weapons" which are supposedly depicted actually ARE weapons, how do we explain that:

a) the Paleolithic paintings preceded the invention of the biserial barb (the type in the paintings) by more than 10 thousand years?

b) the barbs on these weapons are turned the wrong WAY - they point away from the shaft rather than back toward the user)?

c) there is NO representation of vegetation in these paintings?

The answers to these questions are relatively simple - once we remove our patriarchal spectacles. Indeed, however, the questions themselves were long obscured by those spectacles. These so-called weapons are actually representations of VEGETATION - trees to be specific. The angles of the barbs tend to conform quite nicely to those of twigs along a limb - the paintings thereby represent the magickal interconnectedness of ALL life.

Winter Birch:

The fir tree of life?

Chat Host:

{---is pondering that

Winter Birch:

pondering what, chat?

Chat Host:

pondering the pictures as Red Deer has described them now

Nestor:

Red Deer if they are not piercing weapon and rather vegetation ( a point I do not feel has been proven)-- could it not be showing the use of branches to panic and stampede the animal over say a cliff as the NA did with the buffalo

Annwyn:

they look a little like a frond...

agathodaimon:

like a date palm?

Chat Host:

but then why isn't anyone holding them Nestor?

Annwyn:

somewhat Ag

Winter Birch:

There is a culture in the northern climes that have fir trees decorating their pottery... signs of fertility

Annwyn:

But Nes... neither CAN they be proven otherwise

agathodaimon:

signs of the tree of life

agathodaimon:

it is more likely that they depict rockets

Nestor:

that is a good point --and I do not have the answer --but not ready to just assume that they are vegetations separate from the hunting

Chat Host:

did Red get bumped?

agathodaimon:

or projectiles if you prefer

Winter Birch:

Ag, have you been reading Sitchin?

Annwyn:

not sure Chatty

agathodaimon:

not lately

agathodaimon:

but yes

SongSpring:

Red got bumped

Nestor:

well the date palm type limb structure would make a good whipping action

agathodaimon:

it is symbology

SongSpring:

Just restarted the room... RD's name isn't on the list

Winter Birch:

Nestor, the symbols for fertility were weapon like at times

Chat Host:

poor Red

Nestor:

and there by cause the animals to stampede

Annwyn:

The thing is there are other depictions of the hunting scenes that are explicitly just that

Winter Birch:

RD will be back

SongSpring:

yes

Annwyn:

and perhaps the point is not to prove that it IS vegetation...

agathodaimon:

in the other hunting scenes is there vegetation?

Annwyn:

but that we can begin looking from varying viewpoints...

Tarotmoon:

while we are waiting for red, what is silver raven wolf's topic next week?

agathodaimon:

the ones without the "twigs"

Nestor:

yes Winter -- Robert Graves do make use of the Date Palm as one of the symbols in his reconstruction for a vowel associated with live giving/taking

Chat Host:

and so why would these be different if not for a purpose?

Winter Birch:

One of the things I've seen is that the phallic symbols were more barbed and weapon like and the fertility or feminine symbols were of vegetation or life like symbols

Annwyn:

no... and they are not so much of the killing but invoking the spirits of the animals... a kinship with mother godess present... as representation of Nature and again the connection then of life

PAniteowl:

HEY FOLKS I HAVE RD ON THE PHONE ... HE CAN'T GET BACK ON LINE YET ... STILL TRYING

Nestor:

and the invoking would then Annwyn be used for what --either to promote the fertility of the animal or their attraction to the hunters? hmmm- very possible

Annwyn:

it appears a reverence being shown also to the animal that will sacrifice it's life... to give life. actually Nestor both have been indicated

RED DEER:

I guess the P* gods are angry with me tonight... anyway, this is the focus of Eisler's book "The Chalice and The Blade".

Shaddow:

this is not Reds day {G}

Nestor:

that could more like fit with some of the sceens --yes

RED DEER:

it was up until 9:20 PM {g}

Annwyn:

{{{{Red}}}}}

Winter Birch:

Blessings, RD... and welcome back.

Shaddow:

:) Red

RED DEER:

Rather than the control-laden term matriarchy, Eisler refers to partnership societies as "gylanic" (gy=female, l=connected and an=male). Typical patriarchy she labels "dominator". We may see that a matriarchal society would, by its very definition, also be a dominator society as well.

Let's look at what the archaeological record has to offer... In prepatriarchal societies (Catal Huyuk, Cucuteni, Hacilar, Minoan Crete, Petresti, Varna) we consistently find that:

1) cemeteries demonstrate equalitarian treatment of female and male persons (equal distributions of wealth between their graves).

2) there was a division of labor, but without identifiable sexual superiority or dominance.

3) there was an ABSCENCE of:

a) imagery of killing and war,

b) large caches of weaponry, and

c) fortifications (the latter two only began to appear AFTER the first incursions of war-like patriarchal nomads).

Winter Birch:

{women just don't have time for those things,,,}

Nestor:

objection Mr Speaker -- some of the Cretan fresco so show naval ships in their sceens

RED DEER:

There was a dramatic lack of blood (animal and human) sacrifice - typical of sacrifices were fruits, flowers and grains.

I believe they were TRADING ships, Nestor.

Nestor:

in all likely hood Minoan palace civilizations of Linear A type were protected by a dominating naval force

RED DEER:

and, the Minoans were the LAST hold-out of non-patriarchal societies... they had begun to learn to defend themselves...

Annwyn:

the changes had already begun elsewhere

Nestor:

but would agree that there is much less emphasis on violence and war than in the Mycenaean Linear B type society

RED DEER:

And, worship of the Goddess permeated ALL aspects of life: unlike the huge temple complexes of patriarchal civilizations, shrines tended to be scattered among the living spaces of the populace.

Tarotmoon:

like wiccans

RED DEER:

So, let's also look at the anthropological data...

Gylanic societies are still with us, for the short-term at least. The !Kung of the Kalahari basin are a shining example of such. No one knows just how long they have flourished in an environment where no other culture has survived. But survive they do. And in the midst of one of the worlds harshest climates, with what outsiders perceive as EXTREMELY limited nutritional resources, they exist as a gentle, peaceful people absorbed in the world which surrounds them.

And of chimpanzees - our nearest relatives - we may find recent documentation that while aggressive males (usually young post-adolescent ones) fight to determine who will mate with a female, the female in question often leaves the scene in the middle of things with an older, friendlier and more 'sensitive' male to - guess what - mate. Further, because NO male chimpanzee will attack an infant within sight of adult females, mothers have been photographed giving their infants to these 'sensitive' males with whom they have mated to use as shields when an aggressive male threatens them.

Tarotmoon:

LOL

PAniteowl:

{VBG}

RED DEER:

Perhaps these chimp mating behaviors help us to understand some aspects of the patriarchal revolution. If you don't get to bed the female by dominating you opponent in wooing her, then

Nestor:

agreed that the !Kung are a very unique society and do fit the pattern which is described but I find that to generalize from this example is beyond the scope of the data

RED DEER:

bed the female by dominating HER.

Nestor - are you disagreeing with the idea that formerly societies were partnership or that they were matriarchal?

agathodaimon:

they were partnerships of course

Tarotmoon:

ever notice how close in spelling BET and BED are?

Nestor:

disagree that we have sufficient data to claim either proposition although I do feet that the partnership based on functional of roles was more likely

Annwyn:

the need to work together was necessary for survival

Chat Host:

that seems true to me too Ann

RED DEER:

just wanted to be sure, because I'm NOT proposing that matriarchy was the antecedent to modern culture...

This might be especially true as, among chimps and humans, at least - females have the audacity to choose a mate rather than simply accept the 'victor'.

Annwyn:

women sitting at home in the cave waiting would not utilize one half of the work force... not good business{G}

Nestor:

and I think we need to really discuss at what level a culture becomes a civilization

Chat Host:

{g}

RED DEER:

However, once 1/2 of the species was dominated by the other, the need for new conquests arose. Enter rape & pillage, feudalism, slavery, etc. This transition is clearly documented

Annwyn:

yep

RED DEER:

in the Old Testament -

agathodaimon:

when people learn trades and specialize culture is formed

RED DEER:

could we finish with this before that discussion Nestor?

Tarotmoon:

The whole thing is sick... we should just realize we are both equally important

Nestor:

sure Red Deer -- really enjoying your class

RED DEER:

that is the whole point Tarotmoon when Yahweh REFUSES Cain's offerings of fruit and grain (ie, good old Goddess sacrifices) and accepts Abel's blood sacrifice. The end result is that Cain kills Abel (sort of providing Yahweh's blood sacrifice) but is still marked as a sinner - most probably secondary to his gylanic leanings.

BTW, I interpret this as a cultural tale - of two tribes sharing the same place rather that as two individual brothers. I believe that we should read into this story that the problems facing pagans and the world in general today are NOT of purely Christian origin. They are the problems which HAD to arise

agathodaimon:

agreed

RED DEER:

from the radical shift in consciousness brought about by the concerted effort of all patriarchally dominated religions, whether mono- or poly-theistic. A shift from centeredness, linkage and universal interconnectedness to CONTROL. To quote Eisler, this represents "the process whereby the human mind was, sometimes brutally and sometimes subtly, sometimes deliberately and sometimes unwittingly, remolded into the new kind of mind required by the [patriarchal] shift in our cultural evolution. It was a process that... entailed enormous physical destruction that continued well into historic times. As we can still read in the Bible, the Hebrews, and later also"

Nestor:

Red Deer --could that not be seen rather as a shift for a hunting/gathering culture to a more stabilized agricultural society

Tarotmoon:

control is truly the key word here

RED DEER:

and later the Christians and the Muslims, razed temples, cut down sacred groves and smashed Pagan idols...

Nestor:

then there is greater need of control of resources and peoples role functions

Annwyn:

also that there became excess...

RED DEER:

Nestor - why would a shift to pastoralism ---} aggressiveness, warfare and dominance?

Tarotmoon:

people got bored?

Nestor:

because 1) crops must be protected and harvested and stored --provide a target for raiders

Tarotmoon:

Like the puritans, who went after the "witches"?

RED DEER:

I disagree... in early agricultural societies, there was more abundance of natural resources (nutrition, at least) than the world now experiences... People then had more 'spare time' than they do now. But if there was a time BEFORE raiders, thieves and brigands, the need for protection would NOT exist.

Tarotmoon:

and i think they used that time to sit around and think of evil, domineering things

PAniteowl:

hmmmm ... wait ... what about inherent behaviors? Personality profiles were and are valid! ... A small group would have it's own unique personality ... Larger groups would then tend to herd mentality

Nestor:

but if I am a nomadic tribe passing by an un-organized agricultural community I might be very tempted to help myself to their food stores

RED DEER:

which is why fortifications and amassed weaponry are found among the last gylanic cultures Nestor...

Potatoetoe:

women, and water mostly water often first

Annwyn:

especially if there means of providing were more efficient than your own...

Nestor:

but to assume that the nomadic tribes were always patriarchal may not be a valid assumption

Annwyn:

in hunter gatherer situations... about 60% of the food was provided by women and children... from the gathering and killing of SMALL animals.

Nestor:

look at the famous Amazons of the steps

RED DEER:

I didn't say patriarchal and you brought up that they would steal

Potatoetoe:

perceptions of what is property

RED DEER:

you forget... I've shifted the paradigm FROM patriarchal vs matriarchal TO dominator vs gylanic

Nestor:

yes that is a trait we find in many cultures --the attempt to control their own events to suit their own immediate needs

Annwyn:

it is suggested that those that first started these RAIDS were from the hunter gatherer from the north... that had not transitioned into an agricultural society

Nestor:

that would be in line with the archeological record Annwyn

RED DEER:

further comments?

Nestor:

ok Red Deer -see your point if you shift from the pat vs mat to the dominator vs gylanic paradigm

Nestor:

it would fit the evidence better

Chat Host:

that paradigm seems to make better sense

RED DEER:

OK, so back to the quote... (I'll start with the beginning of it)

RED DEER:

"It was a process that... entailed enormous physical destruction that continued well into historic times. As we can still read in the Bible, the Hebrews, and later also the Christians and Muslims, razed temples, cut down sacred groves and smashed Pagan idols. It also entailed massive spiritual destruction. Not only book burnings, but the burning and persecution of heretics. "

Chat Host:

all in an effort to control?

RED DEER:

According to Jung & Kerenyi, to Frazer and to others, humans typically generate a mythos capable of both justifying and sustaining the prevalent social milieu. Thus, perhaps, not only the structure, but also the systems of (even Pagan) patriarchal religions - to paraphrase Jean Baker Miller - arise because the need to dominate and control is primarily a function of powerLESSness. Power of others is dangerous - control them or they will control you. This is, however, a non-sequitor in human development. The more powerful one is FOR ONESELF, the less needy one becomes of limiting and restricting others.

Tarotmoon:

Oh yes red deer

RED DEER:

Please note that on the one hand, Miller refers to (problematic) power as CONTROL (hierarchic power, symbolized by the patriarchal pyramid), while on the other hand she refers to power (for oneself) as LINKAGE (relational power, the power of the Goddess' circle).

To bring this to closure, I'd like to give my opinions of what bearing this all has for modern Wicca and Paganism. Much of the hierarchical, dominator model persists as we try to rewrite our mythos and its symbolism, back to what we believe to have been earlier forms. For me

: no rigid, hierarchical organization,

: no division into groups based on ranking, and

: no inner and outer circles.

Rather:

:we are all the god/dess/es' children with different strengths and weaknesses,

: we may all learn from each other (what to be and what not to be)

: ANY religious dogma/structure/mythos which seeks to separate us into dominant and dominated is inferior and dangerous

: ALL is sacred - every breath, every act, every being and every thing

Chat Host:

sounds almost socialistic

RED DEER:

: BUT that does not mean that I have to agree with my brothers' & sisters' views, or even LIKE my brothers and sisters...

Tarotmoon:

No, I think that is a beautiful thought Red

RED DEER:

well that wraps it up... the P* lines failed to keep me from finishing {g}

if y'all will bear with me, I've references on macro that I'll input quickly for the logs...

PAniteowl:

Great class Red {g}

RED DEER:

thanks, TM

Eisler, Riane: The Chalice & The Blade; 1987, Harper.

Shaddow:

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ Red Deer }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

RED DEER:

Campbell, Joseph: The Masks of God - Primitive Mythology; 1959, Viking.

Campbell, Joseph: The Mythic Image; 1974, Princeton University.

Duerr, Hans: Dreamtime - Concerning the Boundary Between Wilderness and Society; 1985, Basil Blackwell.

Frazer, James G: The Golden Bough; 1981, Avenel.

Gimbutas, Marija: Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe; 1987, UCal Press.

Gimbutas, Marija: Language of the Goddess; 1989, Harper.

Gimbutas, Marija: Civilizations of the Goddess; 1991, Harper.

C Jung & C Kerenyi: Essays on a Science of Mythology; 1963, Princeton University.

Leakey, Mary D: Africa's Vanishing Art; 1083, Doubleday.

Leakey, Mary D: Tanzania's Stone Age Art; July 1983, National Geographic.

Mellart, J: Catal Huyuk; 1967, McGraw Hill.

Miller, Jean B: Toward a New Psychology of Women; 1976, Beacon.

Sakallerakis & Sakallerakis: Drama of Death in a Minoan Temple; February 1989, National Geographic.

Chat Host:

Great Class Red Deer, problems and all! Thank you!

RED DEER:

Santillana and von Dechend: Hamlet's Mill - An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission through Myth; 1969, David R Godine.

It was my pleasure... sorry for all the mess...

Tarotmoon:

It made it all the more interesting, Red

Chat Host:

just made it more of an adventure!

Boudica:

thanks for an interesting class, Red Deer, will have to reread this one...

Nestor:

RD -- I note that jaqueta hawks said the real flower of the growth of the Aegean civilizations occurred in the period of time when both your dominate and more egalitarian cultures were

PAniteowl:

{g} aye Red ... kept up the suspense

Shaddow:

thanks for another great class Red

Nestor:

mixed rather than one holding control --what are your thoughts?

Tarotmoon:

I liked the give and take ...

Potatoetoe:

ambilateral societies best

Nestor:

Red Deer that was one of the best Wiccan 101 classes ever-- really thought provoking and well handled

RED DEER:

Well, that's hard to define Nestor... the greatest volume of archaeological data (due to the technical sophistication of the cultures involved) comes from circa 3500 BCE down... whereas the flowering of truly gylanic cultures preceded the 3500 BCE date. and, thanks!