Flashes on Future lives...?

Discussion in 'Reincarnation Questions' started by nellgavin, Jul 9, 2002.

  1. Jim78

    Jim78 Probationary

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Last edited: May 8, 2021
  2. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    Because the "men would hunt while the so called matriarchal women cared for the home/cave/whatever" is a typically patriarchal and sexist attitude that, like so many other still common imaginations of prehistory, comes from the 19th century where researchers just believed that men did all the work and women stayed at home doing housework and feeding the kids. Findings from prehistory prove that notion wrong.

    Of ocurse these children wouldn't have hunted mammoths but small animals they could realistically hunt given their small size. Hunter-gatherer children still do that today playfully learning everything they need for their adult lives.

    Okay, sorry for interpreting that wrongly. :)

    That doesn't mean that they should be reduced to that! THAT's a sexist attitude to have. True, women can get pregnant but that doesn't mean that they couldn't do other tasks. Also, pregnancy wasn't seen as something profane but as something sacred as biological fatherhood was not known yet. Besides, women for a long time had an age-old knowledge of herbs and plant medicine easying pregnancies and, once the role of men in sex was known, also gathered knowledge of plants that could cause an abortion. Many indigenous women today still have that knowledge. In Europe, such women were burned for their knowledge at the height of Medieval Christianity and were called witches for their "mysterious knowledge".

    Because it would have been a waste of recources. As I told you above, if they were used in a playful manner, it was done by children who were hunting real animals nonetheless. Archery for entertainment only came up once a hierarchy in nobles and poor people had been established such as in China were archery was practised by aristocrats or in Medieval Europe where hunting itself was only allowed for the nobility and the clergy.

    True, you didn't and maybe I misread that but it is commonly thought that the man was the strong hunter who hunted everyday brining food back to his wife at home (I'm exaggerating here but it's not far off from the common misbelief sadly so I was stressing that it wasn't like that). I'm sorry if I misunderstood you!
     
  3. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany

    Oh yeah, they were. :) Tents have been found not only by humans but by Neanderthals as well.



    You did indirectly: "while the so called matriarchal women cared for the home/cave/whatever. They also probably gathered berries. Light work because women are generally naturally physically weaker than men."



    Did I imply or said that it was all peaceful? It certainly wasn't like a hippy commune but violence was NOT common back then. Also, prehistoric time covers a HUGE era. Humans as a species first appeared in the Upper Paleolithic (200,000 - 10,000 BC). Then we have the Mesolithic (10,000 - 6,000 BC) and then the Neolithic (6,000 - 4,000 BC), then the Chalcolithic (4,000 - 3,400 BC) and after that the Bronze Age when the first real wars began. That's some 196,000 years! A lot could have happened in that time!


    It's true that there have been feuds ans skirmishes in the Middle Neolithic (5,000 - 4,500 BC) in which there was a dry period in Europe. But these feuds were few and far between so that era was way MORE peaceful than later periods after the first wars began.



    Yep. Anarchy means "without rulers". ;) And that is not only how humans have managed to live some 200,000 years (so longer than some 5000 years of constant wars somewhere on Earth!) but many indigenous peoples are living without hiearchies to this day. Furthermore, anarchists have managed to live in non-hierarchical societies in Munich, Germany in 1919, the Ukraine in 1919 and in Spain in the 1930s, the largest anarchist community to this day and it functioned! It only didn't last because Franco's fascists brutally murdered these anarchists and destroyed their community as did the communists in the Ukraine and the far-right militias under order of the social democrats in Munich. And small intentional non-hierarchical pockets have sprung up again in recent years.



    But there are still MANY places in which women are underrepresented. Also, there is the wage gap between men and women which IS a part of patriarchy. Also, the US is the only country in the world that doesn't guarantee women maternaty leave when they have a baby! Just because it's more subtle doesn't mean it has vanished. Also, women who enter jobs are often sexually harrassed and on such a scale that it's systemic just like daily racism for instance or transphobia. You yourself might not experience it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
     
    Jim78 likes this.
  4. Jim78

    Jim78 Probationary

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Right so, who looked after the children then? Are you saying mothers didn't and if so can you provide links?

    So its now sexist to say mother's nurtured their babies? Right....

    So your saying being a mother requires no hard work? That's a sexist attitude.

    Findings from prehistory prove there were complex interactions, one can't say what's right or wrong without a DeLorean time machine.

    Did I say the children wouldn't hunt small animals? Nope, I simply said its just as possible women and children acquired those skills as part of their version of sport as it is to say they were all out hunting Mammoths.

    I didn't say women should be reduced to being pregnant, I simply stated a biological fact of life. Of course women could do other tasks and my own prehistoric visions illustrated to me that women had an equally important role as men but that doesn't mean it was the exact same roles. Thats a modern feminist viewpoint.

    Yup, women were also healers back in the day. That's my point exactly. Different roles but equally important.

    So its a waste of resources to use entertainment as a means to acquire skills? Right so...I'll take my daughters easel off of her, after all its a waste of resources. Its much more practical to use it for firewood.

    Your painting a picture of prehistory where girls ( and men ) didn't wanna have fun. It was all hunting and gathering was it?

    How do you know it wasn't like that? Sure, I can believe primitive man letting the little lady tag along on a hunt if she were young and not 'married'. Makes sense because of the possibility of future calamities. But how do know women were out hunting along with the men all the time?

    Women are generally physically weaker than men. That's another fact of life.

    How do you know violence wasn't common? I'm not saying it was a free for all and it was prehistory but don't forget that the populations were spread more thinly. Hard to get into a fight with someone if you never meet them.

    Yes but the only reason anarchists can exist and remain stable, analyse and preach their philosophies is because the hierarchal structures of society allow anarchists to be propped up, giving the freedom to dream of a Utopian paradise where everyone is sitting around, holding each other hands singing We Are The World.

    Its completely unrealistic. Individualistic consensus can only get you so far. People eventually passionately disagree.

    Besides the ideas and outlooks of anarchists are so nebulous, incompatible with each other and scatter shod that they can't even reach a consensus amongst themselves about what they all believe. Luckily, at least in Democratic nations, we can give them breathing room to dream of a better world with 'tangerine trees and marmalade skies'.

    We are not allowed to talk modern politics. I've already answered your last paragraph in another topic and the topic was pulled.

    I just hope the mods realise that talking about anarchists is in direct opposition to politics.
     
    Speedwell and Lia1992 like this.
  5. Jim78

    Jim78 Probationary

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Also Lia. How do Archeologists know that people weren't buried with hunting tools and such to symbolically help provide for them in death.

    Like, "look luv, I can't provide for you anymore, your going to have to provide for yourself."

    Saying there's some arrowheads with some dead women is nowhere near the same as saying all women hunted equally to men.
     
  6. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    Everyone could look after children in those times. You're imagining the modern nuclear family with mother, father & child, that is not how the family structure was at the time:
    biological fatherhood was unknown so the mother's brother(s) took the role of social fatherhood because they were the nearest relative. (Avunculate - Wikipedia, Matrilineality - Wikipedia) The mother's lovers weren't seen as being related.
    As for the links, I have read most of my knowledge from books which are not available in PDF form and are also written in German. Among those are the books by Heide Göttner-Abendroth, the founder of modern Matriarchal studies (to clarify: matriarchy in that field means NOT that women have rules over men - that NEVER existed! The word -arche is used in its original meaning "origin, beginning" like in words such as arche-ology or arche-type) who has spent decades studying egalitarian societies with matrilineal families. Here is a link to her website with her English publications (Books (goettner-abendroth.de)) and the academy she founded for her research field (Matriarchy (hagia.de)). She also has a YouTube channel where she also explains some aspects of her research in English (Dr. Heide Göttner-Abendroth - YouTube). There is also a great interview with her with English subtitles in two parts:

    Heide Göttner-Abendroth Teil 1 Philosophie im Gespräch mit engl. UT - YouTube,
    Heide Göttner-Abendroth Teil 2 Philosophie im Gespräch mit engl. UT - YouTube

    I have found a two PDF versions of two of her English books which I'll provide you in a further post, let's hope that the files aren't too big for the upload. :)

    The book I'm drawing my knowledge about prehistory from is called "The History of Matriarchal Societies and the Emergence of Patriarchy" (Geschichte matriarchaler Gesellschaften und Entstehung des Patriarchats: Band III: Westasien und Europa (Das Matriarchat) eBook: Göttner-Abendroth, Heide: Amazon.de: Kindle Store) which is one of the few available for an e-book. I don't know whether you or someone you know understands German and could read that book. But perhaps, you could do your own research into this topic from the start I gave you. :)

    However, genealogies didn't evolve until Mesolithic and Neolithic times when humans settled into settlements and villages where the population increased so that clans and families could evolve. Before that, the number of people travelling in a group was simply too small to form separate families so actually everyone could take on the role of a mother or father. If the biological mother was out hunting, another woman could take care of the baby until she was back. Children could also turn to every adult if they had a question of a problem.

    Of course it's not sexist to say mother's nurtured their babies!!! It IS sexist to REDUCE women to their reproductive abilities and motherhood!

    No, I didn't, at least not intentionally. If you have a quote of me implying that, please show it to me so that I can correct my statement. :)

    However, motherhood certainly was less hard work in the sense that mothers always had other women around who could help them as families weren't reduced to one couple back then.
    Sure, we have neighbors, babysitters etc today but today we also have countless mothers abandoned by their partners forced to raise their child(ren) alone possibly with financial difficulties.
    That wasn't the case in prehistory when families were matrilineal.

    The problems with archeology is that the researchers limit themselves by not working interdisciplinary. Most archeologist only view the hard evidence without using other scientific fields like symbols and mythology (which are a vital part of every society as they not only show the society's values but also have a historic core that point to actual historic events. They're NOT just fairytales and stories!). The researchers in Women's studies and Matriarchal studies use interdisciplinary from geography, architecture, archeology, mythology, linguistics, anthropology, sociology to get a coherent picture of how these societies were structured in past and present. You have to remember that these kinds of societies last to modern day and include the Garo and the Khasi in Northeast India, the Yao, Miao and Mosuo peoples in China, the Ainu in Japan, the Minangkabau in Indonesia, the Trobrianders of Melanesia. And we have countless other accounts of peoples who lived like that and in whose cultures remnants of these cultural ways survive.
     
  7. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    No but you did say and I quote: "Are you saying young children hunted Wooly Mammoths as well?" to which I replied. You DID NOT say that children would hunt small animals but you did refer to your previous statement with that question: "There's scientific evidence that women were buried with hunting tools so were children." So your question whether children hunted mammoths sounded like you would assume that children only hunted big animals just because they had hunting tools in their graves. I LOVE to discuss these things with you, I really do :) but maybe we both should not generalize so much when asking these questions as they could be misinterpreted ;)

    Oh, I see what you mean. You're right: they didn't have the exact same roles. It's just that how you framed that statement with the biological fact that made me interpret it as this reductionary statement. You have to remember that just because you don't state something like that directly, sexism just like every discriminating wording in general can also be delivered indirectly, even in a seemingly friendly manner! And given that many men still DO reduce women to being pregnant and nurturing children, we should all be careful not to sound like we do as well. Of course, one shouldn't overdo it an assume a sexist attitude in every sentence but one should always look out for others being accidentally sexist (this of course is true for other discriminatory things as well such as racism or transphobia). That can sadly happen as well even if the person saying it is not a sexist or racist at all! but some sexist notions have been engrained so much into our culture from a past that was very patriarchal so it's hard to get these things behind. This is NOT me labeling you a sexist, far from it, I only want to explain where my mistake came from. :)

    True and we should use science to re-discover those ancient roles that have been buried by the "winners writing history" because there are still so many things that have been buried to frame a certain narrative and erasing the history of so many groups of people!

    That's a different thing with your daughter's example as society was different back then. Again, you're comparing two societies that were fundamentally different. Besides, pure play in children is always way more than just play for play's sake. It prepares children for their later life in a society. Even in animals that is the case such as when kittens playfully attack each other. BUT different societies acquire a different kind of play: children in hunter-gatherer societies play hunting, children in our society play scenarios with police and criminal or even soldiers. Of course, those are not the only forms of play but play always has the intention of learning something, that is the original way of how people learn! Schools are a fairly recent thing, especially for the wider society! There is actually a big movement out there that aims to reform schools or even replace it with other forms of education such as unschooling (What is Unschooling? The Ultimate Guide to Unschooling (happinessishereblog.com)) or places like the Sudbury Valley School (Home | Sudbury Valley School) or the Paideia School (Anarchist Pedagogy in Action: Paideia, Escuela Libre | Alliance for Self-Directed Education, Paideia (paideiaescuelalibre.org) )
     
  8. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    Of course not! I just wanted to say that play culture was different in those societies. :)

    I don't and I never implied that! But that women did hunt, that has been established as a fact.

    Doesn't mean that they can't do similar things with physical training! And given that people were much more physicall active in those days as they didn't have fixed settlements, women likely where physically strong in those days. You can also see from the strain and the wear and tear and abrasion on the bones whether a person has been physically active. For instance, nearly all the people in the prehistoric egalitarian settlement of Çatalhöyük had anatomical alterations of their femur or thighbone that can only come from excessive dancing.

    QUOTE="Jim78, post: 130264, member: 9216"]How do you know violence wasn't common? I'm not saying it was a free for all and it was prehistory but don't forget that the populations were spread more thinly. Hard to get into a fight with someone if you never meet them.[/QUOTE]

    Yes but people DID meet in those days! they were constantly moving over large areas of Europe and exchanging gifts when they met. You can see that because of certain seashells used as jewelry that have been found at places far from the natural habitat of those shells when they were alive. So people must have carried them and exchanged them. We can see this type of gift economy even today in the Kula ring tradition (Kula ring - Wikipedia) (Gift economy - Wikipedia).
     
  9. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    I have written a reply to that remark which I won't publish here because it may be pulled. If you do want to read it, can you contact me privately on this forum or give any other private means of how to contact you? :)
    I LOVE discussing these things with you and I hope you do too. :D
     
  10. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    It seems the PDF file I wanted to send you is too large to upload here. But you can find it on this site, free of charge: Books (goettner-abendroth.de) The name of the book is The Goddess and her Heros.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2021
  11. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    Because people didn't believe that death is permanent like many of us (those who don't believe in reincarnation) do today. Reincarnation was wildly believed in and it makes sense if you look at how people saw the world: they saw that everything routinely comes back: the sun, the moon, the seasons and so they believed that animals and humans come back as well through reincarnation into the same family. Mothers come back as daughters, brothers back as sons. Which is why, in Çatalhöyük for instance graves have been found under the sleeping platforms so that the spirits of relatives could return to the womb empregnating a woman.
    Also, not every triangular tip has to be a spearhead. People love to assume that they were hunting tools and weapons but they could be symbols as well. For instance, the vulva as a triangle is one of the oldest depiction ever to be found in caves which fits with the people seeing the Earth as a living Goddess that births life and so caves are the wombs of Mother Earth and therefor highly sacral places, the first temples if you will.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Jim78

    Jim78 Probationary

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Matrilineal lia, even if it was the norm, which even your link says it doesn't seem it was the norm except with vague indirect evidence in genetic data that women resided with their family not their husbands.

    It doesn't say the husbands weren't involved in raising the child nor does it say that it was irrefutably the mothers brother that cared for the child. It says that the mothers and sisters may have cooperated in the raising their offspring.

    As I said already, there seems to be more complex interactions in prehistoric times than previously thought. I even stated from my own memory of a loose gathering of prehistoric people that they were a group.

    I'd be more willing to digest your viewpoint Lia, if you linked me to scholarly, objective, neutral people instead of biased second wave feminists with an untestable philosophy as it applies to prehistory.

    For instance, Heide say a society must be matriarchal if the senior clanswoman doles out the goods. How does she know this is true in every instance?

    I could just as easily say that a 19th century marriage is matriarchal in nature because the 'goods' ( dowry ) come with the woman not the man.

    Bias is not pure science IMO.

    I don't know German nor does anyone I know. Perhaps you could oblige me by posting examples of translated quotes from Heides book that resonated with you please?

    It seems to me that genealogies evolved naturally over time. Also, because the populations were smaller inbreeding occurred. How do you know everyone took on the role of mother and father? How do you know biological mothers went hunting? I thought you said her brother would look after the baby, now its another woman. That's contradictory no?

    I don't doubt children were supported by other adults, its logical, but where's your proof please?

    You reduced women to reproductive abilities and motherhood. Personally I don't see it as a reduction. I was at the birth of my own daughter and I was stunned. This perfectly formed little person being birthed by her mother. I thought "Its a miracle and it happens every day."

    Being able to form life is no reduction luv. Its for women and gods. Its no reduction, its a profound elevation. You do your own gender a disservice.

    How do you know motherhood was less hard work back then? To me todays single mothers on state payments would have it easier than prehistoric mothers. Thats naive. Your painting a picture of loads of women looking after one baby. Where's your proof families were matrilineal in prehistory?

    I agree, study as many disciplines as possible to recreate a picture of past cultures, yet any recreation using such things as mythology is still just a subjective interpretation of accumulated knowledge.

    Those kind of societies last til the modern era but you can't undoubtedly say they are the exact same societies because you don't know. Neither do I. What can ye do?!

    I should have clarified, apologies. I read of a dig where children were found buried with Mammoth spears.

    https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/paleolithic-burial-sunghir/

    They also state that status seems not to have been based on actions.

    As I said, were those children out hunting Woolly Mammoth? Were those women with hunting tools definitely out hunting game too?

    You keep saying motherhood is a reduction of women. You should add 'IMO'. Motherhood is the most profound thing on Earth IMO. It doesn't preclude women from other things. It enhances everyone's lives.

    Most everyone I know love their mothers. The always has been as much matriarchal elements in life as anything else. You just can't see it. Have you got PL memories?

    Why is my daughters example any different? Children hunting small game is hardly a waste of resources. It just means one may have chicken for lunch and mammoth for dinner and the children acquire essential skills.

    Also its a bit silly telling a father children need to be schooled. You might as well point out to me that the sky is blue.

    As for other forms of schooling, why?

    We both said play culture was different. I don't see your point there.

    Women hunting has been established as possibility based on burial sites. I've already linked another source that offers another viewpoint.

    Of course people were tougher. They had to be, but that doesn't mean women were as strong as men.

    Gift economy, barter system, whatever. My point is in a lightly populated world its hard to organise chaos. The fact there was economic interaction doesn't preclude the possibility of conflict. Indeed what saved my group in my prehistoric memory was the fact that we had a hoard. We were in a position to form a truce because we had something they wanted. All it cost was mine and another's lives.

    Contact me with your remark through pm.

    They did seem to believe death isn't permanent which proves my point. Being buried with hunting tools is not necessarily an indication of a hunter.
     
  13. Tinnos

    Tinnos Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2021
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    20
    You can PM on this forum? I want to PM some members here about barely-relevant things that really shouldn't go on the forum, so I'd like to know how. Looked for a link and couldn't find one.
     
    Lia1992 and Jim78 like this.
  14. Jim78

    Jim78 Probationary

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Hi Tinnos.

    Click on the user name you want to pm and in the black box click on 'start a conversation' to your right.

    :)
     
    Tinnos likes this.
  15. Tinnos

    Tinnos Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2021
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    20
    Thank you!
    Edit: the button does not seem to appear for me
     
    Jim78 likes this.
  16. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    Neither for me... :/
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2021
  17. Tinnos

    Tinnos Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2021
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    20
    upload_2021-5-9_10-14-45.png
    Like here's what appears.
     
  18. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    Exactly!
     
  19. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany

    That’s true but that doesn’t mean that it was either one or the other. It could be both as well. But we have to remember that these methods and the findings are not the ultimate findings, as time goes on, we will continue to find evidence that supports or rejects the theory that matrilineal families were the norm.



    I would love to read more details from that memory: where would you say you resided? Europe or somewhere else and if Europe, can you say where? How was your group structured socially, economically? :)
     
  20. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany

    Well, Heide Göttner-Abendroth does refer to the works of other scientists (male and female) as well. Perhaps I could make a list of the ones supporting her theory. :) Also, she spent decades traveling to existing matriarchal societies such as the Mosuo in China and from that and the research of other scientists she developed her theory. Also, it’s not that science is always neutral. Like I said, modern science originate in the 19th century, a time where not only scientists were only male but women were oppressed and forbidden from studying. Only slowly did and still do these patriarchal views and biases go away as science became more objective.


    Many scientists refused (and some still do) that there even was something other than patriarchy once. But instead of proving this, they merely banned the women (and men) from universities who represented that theory. Now, of course, there are some feminist scientists who do take it a bit too far but there mere fact that scientists are feminists doesn’t mean they’re wrong.


    You also have to consider their perspective: everywhere they went, they only found history and prehistory about men and felt that it had nothing to do with them as a woman. So they set out to find their own history just as black people set out to find their or members of the LGTBQ community – all groups of people whose history and contributions had been erased. And to such a world, of course they would come across as biased because there WAS no research dealing with their history! And these women who wrote about women’s history such as Marija Gimbutas (Marija Gimbutas - Wikipedia) paved the way for a science of prehistory that was more inclusionary of women.


    However, I will see what scholarly findings I can find. :)


    You should also know that, while I believe that the majority of her research does make sense, I too find SOME of Heide’s conclusions to be a bit stretched. For instance, she constantly talks in a very binary language without acknowledging that in many indigenous societies there are concepts for sexualities other than heterosexuality or trans or non-binary gender roles (Takatāpui - Wikipedia, Fa'afafine - Wikipedia, Fakaleitī - Wikipedia, Hijra (South Asia) - Wikipedia, Kathoey - Wikipedia, Khanith - Wikipedia, Koekchuch - Wikipedia, Māhū - Wikipedia, Mak nyah - Wikipedia, Mukhannathun - Wikipedia, Muxe - Wikipedia, Winkte - Wikipedia, Akava'ine - Wikipedia, Gender in Bugis society - Wikipedia, Nádleehi - Wikipedia). And in most of these cultures, sexual diversity was common and not frowned upon (Indigenous Sexualities: Resisting Conquest and Translation (e-ir.info) ).

    Also, just because Heide belongs to the generation of second-wave feminists and writes about wmen's history doesn't automatically make her an unqualified writer! Yes, some feminists have exaggerated in how they see history but you shouldn't criticize a work before you have read it. ;)


    So I think that matriarchal studies still has some work to do – it is a relatively new field of study, after all: modern matriarchal studies began in the 1970s.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2021
  21. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany

    Well, she draws from her own experience in visiting matriarchal societies as well as the research of other scientists. The patterns she describes have been found in all matriarchal societies she describes. Of course, individual cultures vary and may also change due to patriarchal pressure that force change upon them but they often resist those pressures in a variety of ways whether they actively fight back or flee from the spread of patriarchal society.


    But you are correct insofar as in prehistory at least where written accounts don’t exist, we cannot know how the social structure was in every case. However with the matriarchal patterns Heide has found in societies across the world it is likely that, given that patriarchy came later as did the discovery of biological fatherhood, matrilineal societies were more common. Doesn’t mean of course that they were totally peaceful as every society has their disputes and individual conflicts but it’s more peaceful in how these conflicts were resolved. So while we can’t see every detailed structure these prehistoric cultures had, from the patterns that do exist we can infer how they were like in many cases if we use interdisciplinary methods including the symbols of colours, paintings, statues etc.



    Oh, I’d love to post quotes. :) Do you have any specific questions where Heide may provide an answer?



    It’s not contradictory because it can be both the brother and another woman, depending on the situation. I didn’t imply that they were doing it all the time. You don’t constantly look after your child every second, do you? You can be away for a while, can’t you? ;)


    The thing is we can’t ever know for sure because family interactions don’t leave direct traces except maybe how long children were breastfed which you can tell from examining the teeth of the children found in graves (research shows they were breastfed until about 7 years which is consistent with the natural average weaning age of children – just a little fun fact ;) )
     
  22. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany

    I’m afraid you misunderstood me again. I didn’t reduce women to reproduction, I meant to explain to you that it was done for a long time in history and it’s still done in some circles and in some cultures. Of course, it’s not a reduction on its own but it is one if it happens socially, that is, viewing women primarily as having the primary purpose to reproduce and care for children inside the house all day (I’m exaggerating here but sadly some people and some cultures don’t!) or seeing them as objects owned by the man for the reproduction of their (in their hope) male offsprings (also something that was done throughout history and is still done in some circles and cultures).


    What I’m trying to say is: just because many women enjoy a relative or good amount of freedom doesn’t mean that it used to be like that or that women in every country have such freedom (a fact that is often a remnant of a more fierce and wider spread patriarchy in history).



    Of course, not loads of women looked after one baby because there were many babies around. And the looking after was more directed at older children than babies although it was (and is) not uncommon in many cultures that more than one woman (the mother) can look after a baby if the mother is out. I didn’t mean to say that say twenty women are hoarding together around a baby making cute noises ;) (another exaggeration to bring a bit of humor in here :) )



    Well, myths, same as legends, don’t come from nowhere. They also reflect social structures of the cultures which creates them giving us valuable insight in how they lived, especially if the culture has an oral tradition and no writing. Also, many myths are recollection of older cultures that have then died out or were absorbed such as the Etruscans, the Cretes, the Pelasgians, the Rhaetian people the Nuragic people on Sardinia. What many people forget is that the authors in antiquity who later wrote about these peoples were much closer to those cultures in terms of how much time had passed than we who find these cultures and have to rely on the accounts of later antiquity writers who write about these peoples also in myth form.
     
  23. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany

    No, not the exact same but that doesn’t mean that these patterns didn’t stay from antiquity till today. Sure they change but their core patterns remain the same.



    I’m afraid you have misread or misinterpreted the mammoth thing: in the grave they found “carefully manufactured mammoth ivory spears” which doesn’t equal that the children have hunted mammoths! Or that they were the ones who had created the spears. Just because the spears were made of mammoth ivory doesn’t mean the child had anything to do with mammoths.


    As for the the section about the status (“the evidence at Sunghir suggests that individuals didn’t necessarily acquire a status through their actions. Something else may have determined their position within their communities and how they were eventually treated in death.”) according to Heide Göttner-Abendroth it may have been lovers who were buried exceptionally beautifully or the love for a child if it’s a child that was buried, so the emotional closeness people had to these dead persons.



    I have already replied above about the reduction of women in the section that include the sentence: “I meant to explain to you that it was done for a long time in history and it’s still done in some circles and in some cultures.”



    Sadly, I don’t have PL memories although it was somehow always clear to me that people do reincarnate even when I hadn’t yet heard about the word reincarnation. It just seemed logical to me. The best evidence of a past life I have is my huge interest in Chinese writing system that I had from a very young age which lead to my interest in first the Chinese and later Japanese culture. But I don’t have any memories of such lives.
     
  24. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany

    No, children hunting small game isn’t a waste of resources, that’s not what I meant. I mean archery as in shooting something else than small or big game you can eat like a tree or a marked spot. Like, it wasn’t done for PURE entertainment like shooting an arrow for the sake of shooting an arrow, if you get what I mean. :)



    Sure, that is a bit silly and I didn’t wanted to tell THAT children need education but that the way we educate our children might be wrong like forcing them to learn things they don’t want to learn. Why do you think pupils rebel in school or refuse to participate or say that school is stupid? The truth is we don’t educate our children because they should know stuff. THAT they could do very well on their own just like we adults can read books or watch documentaries or else. The goal is to prepare children for the workforce. It’s not a coincidence that school became open for all, often with a coercion to school children just as the industrial revolution began because it provided a place of recruitment for the industry and helped the economy.



    Perhaps the point was redundant and I didn’t see yours previously…sorry about that. :)



    Oh, perhaps I’ve missed it. Was it on this thread? If so, I’m gonna look out for it. :)



    True and I never wanted to imply they were. I just meant that they weren’t weak enough to not participate in hunting.




    I’ve taken a screenshot of Heide’s book “The Way to an Egalitarian Society” (which you can find as a PDF if you google “Heide Göttner-Abendroth The Way to an Egalitarian Society PDF”) with what she has to say about the gift economy and how it limits the rise of conflict.




    Like Tinnos I can’t find the start a conversation button… :/



    True. You’re right about that. :)
     
  25. Jim78

    Jim78 Probationary

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Lia1992 and Tinnos. Send Tinkerman a profile post. He'll fix your pm button for you.
     
    Tinnos likes this.
  26. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    Ok :) Thank you!
     
  27. Lia1992

    Lia1992 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Germany
    Here are the screenshots from the The Way to an Egalitarian Society:
     

    Attached Files:

    Jim78 likes this.
  28. Jim78

    Jim78 Probationary

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    No your right Lia. It doesn't have to be one or the other, but you were making claims as if they were definate facts of the past and they simply aren't.

    Finding evidence to fit the theory and finding evidence to support the theory are two different things.

    I only have snippets of one day and as I said it was a gathering. We had a 'prehistoric party'. But I can tell you that the two leaders of that group, myself and another sacrificed ourselves after the first attack to save everyone else and the other was a woman.

    The way I see it primitive people were a collective of people working together playing to each others strengths. It wasn't matriarchal or patriarchal, it was both genders working together for the good of everyone.

    But Heide still has an untested theory and so far all you've supplied is confirmation bias not facts.

    Just because men were involved in sciences doesn't mean you can just swing the pendulum the other way and show Diana Muldaur astride a horse and say 'That's the way things were!"

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(film)

    I try to be as objective as possible in everything but you should spread your wings a bit IMO and try to find sources other than those with confirmed agendas.

    Actually when I learned about prehistory it was about both sexes. It had to be or I wouldnt have understood where civilisation sprang from.

    Women deserve history, they deserve their place in history. I've a great admiration for women. But its irresponsible to white wash history. Besides....behind every great man there's a woman. I had a fiance throughout the Civil War in my last life and you've no idea what a huge support she was...just by being her. Or my tenth century wife Gormflaith, intelligent, beautiful and completely and utterly ruthless. Women of the past formed their own niches and trailblazed in their own ways. You underestimate them as being shrinking violets IMO.

    I never underestimate women.

    You can't look at modern humans, whether they are primitive or not, and definitively say that that society had not evolved over time. As I said, to my memory there was a more balanced approach. There had to be for survival. Sacrifice the figureheads, man/woman. There was no gender conflict nor a delineation of gender stereotypes to my mind, but there was, out of practical necessity, people utilising their own strengths.

    The only question I have for Heide is why she thought rebelliousness was a good enough reason to go in the complete opposite direction instead of objectively analysing findings?

    Where would the prehistoric mothers go? The pub? Mothercare? I don't see the justification here.

    I know, baby teeth. So are you saying the brother stayed at home for seven years breastfeeding while the mother went out and hunted?

    It wasn't done for a long time in history. As I said there were powerful women in history and humble farmers wives just as there were powerful men and humble farmers. Women weren't reduced to reproduction, its just they are the ones that get pregnant. Besides women helped out around farms too just as inclined noble women manipulated the systems in which they lived.

    You keep placing modern outlooks on the past.

    That's not entirely men's fault though. It was just the way life was in the past.

    No your right, myths and legends have to come from somewhere but you can't rely on them to paint a clear picture of life in the past. Here's an example of the distortion of history through myth from my own PL memories and its only from 1000 years ago:

    http://reincarnationforum.com/threads/what-is-a-king.8487/

    How do their core patterns remain the same and how do you know this. If the entire historic record and worlds creations were lost people in a thousand years would simply assume that gay marriage has always been the norm. That wouldn't make it fact.

    No but it does equate that it is representative of mammoth hunting. That was my point. It seems to be representative. I assume that's why the archeologists said that they may not have acquired status through action. Which indicates it probably wasn't about honouring great hunters no?

    Obviously people had rich emotional lives back in the day too. But Heides' making suppositions.

    What brought you to a reincarnation forum?

    You know I used modern sport as an example not a fact. Cage fighting and boxing are today's gladiator bouts but that doesn't mean the killing of Christians in the ring nowadays.

    The only thing I hated about school is that they mostly didn't engage my brain. It was mostly just memorising stuff. That's why I lost interest in school. I agree schooling is flawed but children need structure and discipline and a broader education. In second level here anyway they can then pick and choose some subjects.

    Well...when I was in prison a riot broke out in another wing and all the screws ran like hell to suppress it. All male. Trailing far behind was this tiny little female screw and I looked on and thought "What the EFF is she going to do when she gets there?" Just saying...

    But even gift economies need hierarchal structures. Even if its just dependent on a woman's utterances.

    Its still about politics.

    Besides, even if it happens to primitive modern tribes one can't say morality was identical in prehistory. Even modern primitive humans evolve.

    Besides, as I said what I remember about my own PL memories was that that group was required to sacrifice its male and female figureheads. So even prehistoric people seem to have engaged in some form of politics. Your still describing a hippy commune to me.
     
    Lia1992 likes this.
  29. Polaris8

    Polaris8 Senior Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    380
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Jim, Thanks for sharing the info I will look into this. A friend of mine bought for me as a Christmas present an Ancestry test. The reason being I was raised as an only child and never knew my birth dad. So I grew up not knowing my dad side of the family. Anyway I found out that my DNA is 56 percent England, Wales, Northern England, 33 percent Ireland, Scotland - Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, German and 11 percent, Sweden. I learned that my Ancestry goes back to the Viking and Celtic period.

    Also I found info on my Dad translated now :( and that I have three half siblings. 2 sisters and one brother. If we were raised together as kids I would have been the oldest.
    We are just starting to get to know each other so only time will tell. However I had that dream years before I knew any of this. So it just goes to show that within the soul body is were all of our Akashic records are stored. As I understand it our DNA has much of our info on the past lives we have lived on the physical plane. However in general our present personality and lower ego being expressed in the present life usually does not have memory of this. Which is why its important to access this info within the casual/soul body. Because each time we incarnate we receive a new physical, astral and mental body each time with no memory of the past. It is only in the soul body that keeps records of our many incarnations within the lower worlds of duality.

    Again thanks for sharing.

    P.
     
    Jim78 likes this.
  30. Jim78

    Jim78 Probationary

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    That's no problem Polaris.

    You got me thinking about Fionn Mac Cumhaill, the children of Lir and such. Stories I haven't heard since childhood.

    It was very pleasant. Brought a little magic back to me so thanks!

    You have Celtic blood in you? Do you think your dream was a representation of a PL or an ancestral memory? Interesting to speculate on.

    Nice to hear about your siblings. :)

    I personally don't believe our PL memories are physical. I believe they lie within energy.
     

Share This Page