See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299595827

Marija Gimbutas: Old Europe, Goddesses and

Gods, and the Transformation of Culture

Article December 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 862

1 author:

Ernestine S. Elster
University of California, Los Angeles
13 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ernestine S. Elster on 03 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BACKDIRT

B A C K D I RT 2 0 1 5
COTSEN INSTITUTE OF
ARCHAEOLOGY

Cotsen Institute of Archaeology

University of California, Los Angeles
405 Hilgard Avenue
Box 951510,
ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE COTSEN INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT UCLA
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1510 DECEMBER 2015
www.ioa.ucla.edu

C O T S E N I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H A E O L O G Y AT U C L A

BIG PICTURE
ARCHAEOLOGY
 IN THE SPOTLIGHT

IN MEMORIAM

Marija Gimbutas: Old Europe, Goddesses and Gods,

and the Transformation of Culture

by Ernestine S. Elster1

IN T H E FALL O F 1 9 6 5, UCLA Extension offered a was not easy to argue with or question, especially on
lecture course called The Ancient World before the the subject of her pantheon of prehistoric goddesses
Greeks, with an optional field trip to Greece, Turkey, and gods of Old Europe.
and Israel. Marija Gimbutas, a new professor in the In addition to Marijas contributions to Old World
Department of Indo-European Studies, was very much archaeology (four excavation monographs and the
involved. I took that class and it rearranged my life. fifth forthcoming in 2016, plus 20 volumes and hun-
On our last night on Crete, after visiting dozens of dreds of articles), there is her legacy at UCLA. Marija
sites, the field trip participants formed the Friends of established the Old World Archaeology Laboratory
Archaeology, at the suggestion of Marija and surely in Haines Hall as part of the Museum and Laborato-
encouraged by the plentiful ouzo. With much enthu- ries of Ethnic Arts and Technology, now the Fowler
siasm, the group elected Sandy, my late husband, as Museum, where students had an unprecedented
president of what is now UCLAs oldest active support opportunity to handle and study artifacts from
group, although he clearly announced that he could be Europe, Egypt, and the Near East, most from the Well-
only a figurehead. come Collection and private gifts. Here Rose Lowen-
During the trip, Marija had asked me, Why stein trained a group of docents to present a program
are you in the School of Education when you are so on archaeology for middle schools that was only
interested in archaeology? Only tangentially influ- recently discontinued. The Fowler continues to store
enced by the womens movementremember it was the artifacts in the care of Wendy Teeter. Together
1965I answered, But how could I be an archaeolo- with other faculty, Marija was instrumental in creating
gist? Marija, drawing herself up to her full height, the Interdepartmental Graduate Program in Archaeol-
challenged with, And why not? I am an archaeolo- ogy. When I transferred to Indo-European Studies in
gist! Why not indeed? So I transferred to Marijas 1966, Marija explained that this program was not yet
department. As I was married, with three children, it official but would be approved by the time I was ready
took some time to finish my graduate degree. Sandy to take exams. Subsequently, she worked with Giorgio
and I became friends with Marija. We entertained one Buccellati and others on the founding of the Institute
another other, traveled together, laughed, broke bread, of Archaeology, with Buccellati as its first director.
and drank wine. She and I worked like the devil, Years later, Lloyd Cotsens generous endowment was
agreed and disagreed. I think of her as a warm and announced (Figure 1). Marija and Lloyd were long-
encouraging mentor but also as a formidable oppo- time friends; he admired her energy and supported her
nent when her interpretations were challenged. She commitment to the institutes goals. In 1973 Marija
and an international group of colleagues inaugurated
the Journal of Indo-European Studies, which pub-
1 Cotsen Institute of Archaeology lishes four issues yearly. Finally, with the support of

94 | BACKDIRT 2015
 Figure 1. Marija Gimbutas with
Franklin Murphy (left) and Lloyd
Cotsen (right) at a celebration
honoring these two key supporters
of the Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology. Cotsen Institute
Photographic Archive.

Chancellor Franklin D. Murphy and with sponsorship

from Lithuanian UCLA alumni, the talented Lithu-
anian Vladas Vildiu nas was commissioned to create
The Bird Goddess (1977) in bronze for the Franklin
D. Murphy Sculpture Garden (Figure 2). As Murphy
wished, it was inspired by Marijas interpretation of
birds as of great importance among the sacred animals
in her pantheon of Old Europe.

FROM VILNIUS TO HARVARD

Marija Birute Alseikaite was born in 1921 in Vilnius,
a few years after Lithuania was granted independence
as part of the World War I armistice. Lithuanian
independence had long been threatened by power-
ful neighbors and nationalism; hope for self-rule and
democratic promise were all part of Marijas heritage.
At 17 she graduated from the gymnasium and entered
Kaunas University. From there she participated in
excavations of prehistoric burials, eventually trans-
ferring to the University of Vilnius. Surrounded by
World War II Marija pushed to graduate in 1941,
married in 1942, and a daughter was born the next
year. The family fled west, eventually settling in
Tbingen, where the university reopened soon after
the end of the war. Marija enrolled in the university,
and in March 1946 she defended her thesis on the
prehistory of Lithuania. In 1949 the familywith a
new baby daughterreceived approval to travel to
the United States. Figure 2. The Bird Goddess, bronze sculpture by
Vladas Vildiunas, 1977, in UCLAs Franklin D. Murphy
Marijas first appointment was at Harvard as a Sculpture Garden. Photograph retrieved from the
Peabody Museum research fellow (19501963). She UCLA website.
was later a lecturer in the Department of Anthro-
pology (19621963) and a fellow of the Center for

BACKDIRT 2015 | 95
 Figure 3. Map by Marija Gimbutas illustrating the movements of the Proto-Indo-European-speaking Kur-
gan peoples from the eastern steppes into western Europe. Adapted from Elster 2007.

Advanced Study at Stanford (19611962). Entering THE MOVE TO CALIFORNIA

American academia in the Ivy League, she swiftly Marija became known as the author of a dynamic
established a network of colleagues and friends. She model proscribing the homeland, social structure, and
was an active researcher in the archaeology of the archaeology of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speakers.
Baltic countries, eastern Europe, and the former (For a comprehensive bibliography, see Elster 2007.)
Soviet Union. Her Lithuanian heritage left her with Her first American article, in American Anthropolo-
the conviction that the combined study of historic folk gist, introduced these ideas and the Kurgan culture.
culture, mythology, and ethnology; comparative and (The term kurgan is originally Russian and describes a
historic linguistics; and iconography, symbolism, and burial under a mound.) The region where kurgans are
archaeology would provide a key for the interpreta- numerous, north of the Black Sea and eastward, corre-
tion of both material culture and prehistoric reli- sponded, Marija believed, to the homeland of the not
gion. She believed that while other languages in the yet fully identified language of PIE speakers. A long
Indo-European family had lost their archaic elements, article in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
they survived in Lithuanian because the country was presented her analyses of the archaeology, with maps
far from the crossroads of migrations. These ideas full of arrows illustrating the Kurgan peoples move-
coalesced in her well-received study The Balts. Sub- ments to the west (Figure 3). Proposals identifying
sequently, she applied this multifaceted approach to the PIE homeland, including Marijas, were and still
understanding the symbolism represented by figu- are under constant reevaluation. One of her admirers,
rines, pottery marks, and painted or incised designs the distinguished Harvard linguist Roman Jakobson,
on ceramics from Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites in considered Marija to be underappreciated at Harvard
the Balkans and Greece. and encouraged one of his colleagues at UCLA, Dean

96 | BACKDIRT 2015
I N M E M O R I A M Marjija Gimbutas

Worth, to recruit her. Marijas marriage dissolved in

1963, and in 1964 she moved to Los Angeles to con-
tinue her career at UCLA.
Marija flourished in the relative informality of the
UCLA academic community, which she spoke of as
more accessible and lively compared to Harvard. As
professor of European archaeology and Indo-Euro-
pean studies and, starting in 1966, curator of Old
World archaeology for the Museum and Laboratories
of Ethnic Arts and Technology, she regularly offered
lecture courses and graduate seminars in Neolithic
and Bronze Age Europe and in Baltic and Slavic folk-
lore and mythology. A charismatic personpopular
with students, full of charm, generous, and hospi-
tableshe settled in the Santa Monica Mountains
community of Topanga with her daughters, ivile and
Julie. She hosted (often at home) visiting scholars
and student seminars; served on countless commit-
tees and editorial boards; taught; published hundreds Figure 4. Ernestine Elster, Colin Renfrew, and Marija Gimbutas
(from left to right) in 1986 at the publication celebration for
of book reviews and articles and dozens of books; the first volume of the Sitagroi excavations. Personal archive
lectured widely; accepted fellowships, awards, and of the author.
honors; participated in and organized conferences;
and traveled annually to Europe and countries behind tive recovery, Marija could focus on the kind of report-
the Iron Curtain. ing that she did so well: a descriptive, thorough, and
confident synthesis.
OBRE, SITAGROI, AND ANZA
Marija and Colin Renfrew planned excavations at
Around the time of her arrival at UCLA, counterpart Sitagroi, Greece, during his visiting professorship at
funds, administered by the Smithsonian Institution, UCLA in 1967, before Marija left for Obre to conduct
became available. After organizing meetings with the first field season. She had earlier visited Saliagos,
Alojz Benac during an earlier trip, Marija received in the Cycladic Islands, which Renfrew and John
counterpart funds for a joint project with Benac and Evans were excavating. Marija and Colin were a good
the Zemaljski Museum in Sarajevo to start excavations pair: there was mutual respect and they admired each
at Obre, Bosnia, in the summer of 1967. Because the others knowledge and energy. In July 1968, Colin
UCLA team wished to recover a quantitative sample opened the first of three seasons at Sitagroi, in which
and Benac was unused to the kind of strategy that this I was much involved (Figure 4), with a permit from
required (such as sieving and flotation), the codirec- the British School of Archaeology and funding from
tors decided to open two adjacent areas, separate but the NSF and British sources. Marija was still involved
equal. It is interesting to compare the reports. Both at Obre but traveled to Sitagroi for part of each sea-
are thorough and present a tremendous amount of son (Figure 5). Both Marija and Renfrew had as one
data. Benacs large team opened a wide area, reveal- goal to obtain as many samples as possible from clear
ing impressive structural remains, which provided an archaeological contexts for radiocarbon dating. The
important picture of village layout. The UCLA team 29 dates were many more than heretofore had been
focused on a smaller excavation and on maintaining a obtained from any other site in Europe and resulted
carefully controlled stratigraphy. Samples were taken in a reevaluation of Greek and Balkan chronology
for radiocarbon analysis as well as for the quantita- vis--vis Troy and the ancient Near East, which caused
tive study of pottery, lithics, bone tools, ground and a mini revolution of controversy and reassessment.
polished stone, and both zoological and botanical Marijas long interest in the ubiquitous figurines from
remains. The American approach literally fills in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites in Greece and the Bal-
economic picture: what the villagers ate, planted, kans was particularly excited by Sitagrois remarkable
herded, hunted, gathered, and traded and the crafts corpus. Renfrew and she organized a Sitagroi semi-
they practiced and how these changed over time. With nar, to which Jean Deshayes, director of the French
Eugene Sterud in charge in the field and his quantita- excavation at Dikili Tash (a chronologically compa-

BACKDIRT 2015 | 97
 I N M E M O R I A M Marjija Gimbutas

rable nearby site; Treuil et al. 2004), was invited, season. The Yugoslav team, under the Garaanins,
along with his crew. Marija spoke about the figurines established a separate but equal dig. Eugene Steruds
and her interpretation (Figure 6). Deshayes and his responsibility to the Obre publication was consider-
students were thoughtful, the Sitagroi team had many able, and he chose not to continue as field director
questions, and Renfrew was clearly skeptical. How- during the second season, in 1970, which exposed
ever, Marija was certain of her interpretations and Early Neolithic levels. Its corpus of figurines and pot-
elated by the richness and variability in the assem- tery was of particular interest to Marija. She found
blage. Work at Sitagroi closed after the study season a subsistence pattern based on the domestication of
plants and animals at all three sites, with specialist
crafters, trade or exchange of raw materials, and only
limited hunting and gathering. Many classes of pottery
and figurines of humans and animals, both natural and
schematic, were recovered at all three sites and were
ubiquitous at two. These sites underlined the meaning
of Old Europe, only to be strengthened once the earth
was moved at Achilleion in Thessaly, which turned out
to be Marijas dream excavation.

ACHILLEION AND SCALORIA CAVE

Achilleion is a low mound in the eastern plain of
Thessaly near the town of Farsala in Greece. It had
been explored by Dimitrios Theochares, who reported
evidence of aceramic levels. This intrigued Marija,
because such a finding suggested that the lowest levels
of the mound would contain a prepottery settlement.
In none of the excavation squares was this expectation
fulfilled, however. Marija wrote frankly in the excava-
tion monograph that the earliest levels represented
a full-fledged Neolithic culture with proto-Sesklo
pottery. In synergasia with Theochares at Achilleion
work began in the summer of 1973 and continued in
1974, although the Greek political situation truncated
Figure 5. Marija Gimbutas (left) in 1968, overseeing an excavation
unit at Sitagroi. Personal archive of the author. both seasons. Nevertheless, excavations revealed
a rich sequence of Sesklo painted pottery from the
of 1970, leaving Marija with an impressive corpus of Early to Middle Neolithic, plus an extensive database
more than 200 figurines, which she published in the of floral and faunal remains, significant evidence of
first Sitagroi monograph. They formed an important architecture, and the ubiquitous tools of bone and
part of her thesis on an Old Europe pantheon of gods stone. The obsidian indicated trade exchange down
and goddesses. the line with with those who controlled this resource
The radiocarbon measurements indicated that on the Cycladic island of Melos. Also recovered were
Middle Neolithic occupation at Sitagroi and Obre hundreds of figurines in context, which Marija pub-
partly overlapped, but the Early Neolithic was not well lished fully in the excavation monograph. Marija had
represented. Marija hoped to rectify this with another long been persuaded that the nonrealistic shape and
excavation, and by the time the second season at modeling of the so-called Vinca figurine heads repre-
Sitagroi was under way, in 1969, Marija and Milutin sented facemasks. Among the Achilleion finds were
and Draga Garaanin (in cooperation with the Stip several that fit this category, including a tiny mask
Museum) were awaiting a permit to open an Early set on a stand (Figure 7). Because of these hundreds
Neolithic site south of Skopje. Eugene and Anna of figurines, the economic data, and considerable
Sterud, veterans of Obre, worked at Sitagroi for a few comparanda from her own and other chronologically
weeks, until a telegram with the permit arrived. All analogous sites, she believed that her ideas on the
lodged in the hamlet of Anza; Sterud set up the field- existence of an Old Europe and its prehistoric cult had
work, as he had done at Obre, and directed the first incontrovertible support.

98 | BACKDIRT 2015
Figure 6. The seminar in Sitagroi village in 1968, presented by Marija Gimbutas and attended by members of
excavation teams from both Sitagroi and Dikili Tash. Personal archive of the author.

After their serendipitous reacquaintance (both

were at Harvard in the 1950s) at a conference in
northern Italy in 1972, Santo Tin of the University
of Genoa invited Marija to visit sites on the Italian
Tavoliere Plain. She noted that the shapes and incised
or painted surface designs of the Neolithic pottery
were reminiscent of Old Europe pottery. Tin had
explored the lower chamber of Scaloria Cave in 1965
and knew from an earlier reports of the archaeology of
the upper chamber. In close cooperation, Marija and
Tin initiated the bilateral Tavoliere Expedition, which
included two excavations: Lagnana da Piede (with
James Mallory as field director; Mallory 1989)one
of the hundreds of villaggio trincerati (entrenched
villages)and Grotta Scaloria in 19781979 (Figure
8). In the latter, human remains representing some
300 years were recovered from the upper chamber,
along with pottery, stone and bone tools, and evi- Figure 7. A small clay figurine
mask and stand recovered
dence of fire. Tin described the findings in the lower at Achilleion in 1973.
chamber as representing a cult of water. Based on Adapted from Elster 2007.
the calibrated dates and the variability in pottery,
the cave was thought to be in use between 6500 and
3500 B.C.E. In 1980, in Manfredonia, Marija, Sndor
Bknyi, and I, together with students and volunteers,
studied, tabulated, drew, and photographed materials
from the cave. A preliminary report of the first season
was published by the field supervisors, but Grotta
Scaloria was the only excavation that Marija did not
publish fully before her death in 1994. When I visited

BACKDIRT 2015 | 99
 Figure 8. Marija Gimbutas
in 1978, outside of the
entrance of Scaloria Cave.
Personal archive of
the author.

her at UCLA Medical Center toward the end and we tion surrounding her pantheon of gods and goddesses,
talked about her life, she smiled and said: Good, but was at first met with muted interest. But the geogra-
promise me that you will see Scaloria published. I phy and economy, if not the social organization, have
promised, and it is forthcoming in the spring of 2016 been accepted. The Lost World of Old Europe: The
(Elster et al. forthcoming). Danube Valley, 50003500 BC is the title of a large
illustrated volume and catalog to an exhibition in New
OLD EUROPE
York of artifacts loaned from Romania, Bulgaria, and
At conferences, in journals, and in Gods and God- Moldova. In his well-received publication The Horse,
desses of Old Europe 60003500 BC: Myths, Legends the Wheel and Language: How Bronze Age Riders
and Cult Images (1974), using voluminous data sets from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
from dozens of prehistoric sites, Marija introduced (2007), David Anthony uses the term Old Europe to
the culture of Old Europe: Neolithic and Chalcolithic describe what he calls a proto-civilization: Neolithic
southeastern Europe, centered in Greece and the Bal- and Chalcolithic Europe and the Balkans before the
kans but extending east and west to the Adriatic and Bronze Agea description that would have satisfied
Black Seas. Ceramics included highly polished vessels, Marija.
with lively bi- or polychrome painting, or with white
THE PANTHEON
infilling enhancing the incised or excised designs,
easily taken as products of accomplished potters. Also Marija named the small sculptures of humans and ani-
in these assemblages were seals (pintaderas), human mals and identified them as representing a prehistoric
and animal figurines, and ornaments of shell and cult of goddesses and gods of Neolithic and Chal-
boneartifacts representing technology and symbol- colithic Europe and the Balkans. In one fell swoop,
ism. Marija described Old Europe as a wide region of she brought the variability of Neolithic art front and
agricultural settlements with a social organization. She center, a lasting contribution that has produced some
observed occupation over millennia with debris build- fascinating work, unraveling decades of goddess schol-
ing up over time, forming the mounds (magoulas, or arship (Talalay 2000), enlarged now with a very new
tells) described in the literature. She further postu- critique (Lesure forthcoming). A polyglot and prodi-
lated the absence of strife because of the paucity of gious scholar, Marija had remarkable command of the
identifiable weapons and fortified settlements and the data. combined with a brilliant ability to synthesize
overwhelming presence of figurines that she identi- and create an entire pantheon. Gods and Goddesses
fied as female and indicative of a peaceful matrifocal (1974), with the title reversed for the second edition
social structure. Old Europe is one of Marijas most in 1982, was followed in 1989 and 1991 by the large
original contributions, which, because of the conten- goddess volumes (Gimbutas 1989, 1991). Further,

100 | BACKDIRT 2015

I N M E M O R I A M Marjija Gimbutas

Marija tabulated, correlated, and deciphered the she synthesized evidence from historical linguistics,
many incised or painted markings and designs on archaeology, mythology, and folklore. Her thesis was
pottery, figurines, and pintaderas as an Old Europe that the PIE Kurgan culture was patriarchal, warlike,
proto-script linked to the pantheon. The nature of pastoral, and horse breeding and lacked a pantheon,
the pantheon, the proto-script, and its widespread whereas Old Europe was matriarchal, peaceful, and
influence diachronically and synchronically are all agricultural and had a pantheon. She viewed the
presented in a series of articles and in the richly illus- meeting of these two groups as catastrophic and
trated volumes. They are written in full confidence, transforming Old Europe. Its florescent Chalcolithic
without any of the ambiguity that often surrounds the culture was annihilated, and in its wake were the
discussion of cultic practice in prehistory. seeds of the Indo-European patriarchal society and
Colleagues were at first mute when she offered the languages, social structure, and proclivity for war
her daring interpretations of the role of the ubiqui- that we observe today. Indeed, the end of the Chal-
tous clay figurines and the proto-script. Here was one colithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age
of the leading scholars of prehistoric southeastern in Greece and the Balkans present dramatic changes
Europe, with enormous control of an international in the material record (sites burned, abandoned, and
database, publishing her ideas on a prehistoric so on). Marijas explanation for this transformation
pantheon and its role in religion and symbolism, an of culture was challenged, but recent work by David
agenda with which prehistorians at that time were Anthony (2010) recognizes her research with respect
most reluctant to engage. Her vision was furthermore and presents a more nuanced and detailed evaluation
expressed in a kind of storytelling, even though it of the transformation.
focused on excavations and hard data; the prehis- What some archaeologists find especially galling
toric world was presented in a powerful narrative, is that Marijas model of female control (Old Europe)
complete and unquestionable. Archaeologists had being replaced by male control (Indo-European) had
difficulty accepting Marijas interpretation of Old enormous influence. Marija Gimbutas is a name long
Europes matrifocal social organization and the known and respected beyond archaeological circles;
longue dure that she postulated for the pantheon. the goddess volumes were both beautifully produced
Prior to her lectures and publications, the figurines and accessible to a wide audience, thus hers has been
had been reported on, but this was received solely by the voice of authority. Still, the critique is fair, because
the archaeological community. The supreme irony, in prehistory, just as in modern history, social control
not lost on some of her critics, is that Marija forced and negotiation of power were much more ambiguous
her constituency to deal with this materialif first as than would be allowed by claiming that matriarchy
a critiqueat a critical moment in social history. Her was simply usurped by patriarchy. Further, recognition
writings coincided with the rise in feminist thought of this ambiguity is more likely to advance the study of
and famously intersected with popular culture, a prehistory populated with individuals of all ages and
borne aloft by a group of feminists who found in sexes rather than just two in a gendered duality. Femi-
her writings what they had sought, proof that God nist archaeologists have particular problems with what
was a once woman and that women were once in may be perceived as the hijacking of feminist inter-
charge, or at least equal partners with men. Reviews ests in the past and their harnessing to a particular
by archaeologists of the first goddess volume were interpretation, which they find both poorly supported
critical; with its reprinting, they remained critical but by the evidence and problematic in its implications for
became increasingly analytical. Scholars of prehistoric feminist theorizing.
religion embraced her work, as did some feminists. There are also problems with the version of
See Lesure (2011; forthcoming) for a clear, current, womanhood that the goddess interpretation offers.
and concise review of decades of goddess studies and First, it is a unitary vision of women that conflicts
an approach to interpreting these figurinesweighing with much of recent feminist theorizing, which instead
context and comparisonsthat holds much promise. emphasizes the differences among women as much as
their collective differences from men. Second, it is a
THE TRANSFORMATION
OF CULTURE vision of women concentrating on biology (sexuality,
reproduction, and motherhood), which historically the
Marija published on the Kurgan culture, the PIE womens movement has seen as limiting. Admittedly
speakers, and their homeland in a series of data-rich, in the goddess version, biological aspects of woman-
intellectually provocative papers and articles in which hood are glorified and considered a source of power,

BACKDIRT 2015 | 101

 I N M E M O R I A M Marjija Gimbutas

which has to be better than the androcentric version, duced and filmed by a Canadian documentarian, was
which sees them as limiting and a source of weak- premiered at a conference held at UCLA, cosponsored
ness. Nonetheless, most feminists, including feminist by UCLAs Center for the Study of Women. There is
archaeologists and scholars in other fields, would be no doubt that her ghost has indeed cast a long and
reluctant to return to an understanding of women deep shadow.
defined largely as wives and mothers, even if this
allowed them to be goddesses. REFERENCES
I think these critiques are quite important, but Anthony, D. W. 2010. The Rise and Fall of Old Europe. In The
what also comes through in some of the critical Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley 5000-
articles is a certain anger with Marijas refusal to back 3500 BC, edited by D. W. Anthony and J. Liu, pp. 29-57.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
down or to see the wrongheadedness of her goddess
theories. Her critics were impatient because she did Elster, E. S. 2007. Marija Gimbutas: Setting the Agenda. In
Archaeology and Women: Ancient and Modern Issues,
not realize that she was not advancing the cause of edited by S. Hamilton, R. D. Whitehouse, and K. I.
feminism. However, Marija was a product of her Wright, pp. 83120. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
generation and education, and she hardly noticed the Press.
change in social thought, which took decades to be Elster, E. S., J. Robb, E. Isetti, and A. Traverso (editors). Forth-
adopted and understood. Marija was paradoxical in coming. The Archaeology of Grotta Scaloria: Ritual in
Neolithic Southeast Italy. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute
a sense: when archaeologists disagreed with her con- of Archaeology Press.
cerning the homeland of the PIE speakers, the Kurgan
Gimbutas, M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess. London:
culture, the proto-civilization, or the destruction and Thames and Hudson.
transformation of Old Europe, she responded in an . 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of
academic fashion, pointing out the critics errors and Old Europe. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
introducing new evidence and arguments; she did not Gimbutas, M. 1999. The Living Goddesses, compiled and
back down. But with the pantheon, she believed her edited by Miriam R. Dexter. Los Angeles: University of
critics to be not only wrong but also guilty of personal California Press.
jealousy. Such an uneasy interpretation of criticism left Lesure, R. G. 2011. Interpreting Ancient Figurines: Context,
her rather vulnerable, and I think it was difficult for Comparison, and Prehistoric Art. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
her to refuse the outpouring of enthusiasm and sup-
. Forthcoming. Comparative Perspectives in the Interpre-
port, and indeed adoration, from the goddess groups.
tation of Prehistoric Figurines. In The Oxford Handbook
In the last years of her life, Marija seemed to regard of Prehistoric Figurines, edited by T. Insoll. Oxford:
all her archaeological challengers and critics with Oxford University Press.
great equanimity, for she had moved on to her final Mallory, J.P. 1989. Lagnano Da Piede I: An Early Village in the
abiding interest, archaeo-mythology and the respect- Tavoliere. Origini 13: 193-290.
ful audience of new age feminists, folklorists, and Talalay, L. 2000. Review Article: Cultural Biographies of the
mythologists. Great Goddess. American Journal of Archaeology 104
(4): 789-792
Marijas death brought about a virtual industry
Treuil, R. (ed.). 2004. Dikili Tash. Village prhistorique de
of memorials in newspapers and scholarly journals; a
Macdoine Orientale I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961-
joint memorial was held at the Fowler by the Institute 1975). Publies sous la direction de Ren Treuil. BCH
of Archaeology and the Indo-European Studies and supplment 37. Athens: cole Franaise dAthnes.
Slavic Studies Departments. In Lithuania, an extraor-
dinary two-day state funeral was held in Vilnius and
in Kaunas, where a main thoroughfare was renamed
in her honor. In the autumn of 1997, a conference
was held at the Pacifica Graduate Institute to honor
her work with the goddess groups, and the University
of California Press posthumously published an edited
volume of her last writings (Gimbutas 1999). Initiated
before her death, a video documentary of her life, pro-

102 | BACKDIRT 2015

View publication stats