 Lord Colin Renfrew |
 Marija Gimbutas |
We are placing here a passage about the skirmish between the defenders of Marija Gimbutas and the long attempt to discredit her Kurgan Thesis, taken from the introduction to our forthcoming book, The Countercurrents of Prehistory, which has a chapter relevant to her ideas in “Priestesses and Warriors.” The Introduction begins with a quotation.
All empty souls tend to extreme opinion. It is only in those who have built up a rich world of memories and habits of thought that extreme opinions affront the sense of probability. Propositions, for instance, which set all the truth upon one side can only enter rich minds to dislocate and strain, if they can enter at all, and sooner or later the mind expels them by instinct.—William Butler Yeats
Ever since the important publications of UCLA archeologist Marija Gimbutas on the Kurgan Culture and Old Europe there has been a rift between the male establishment and feminists. In fact, the origins of Europe and Europeans have been hotly debated for two hundred years. The Nazi Aryan controversy only threw fuel on the fire. After Gimbutas suggested the civilization of Old Europe was peaceful and matristic, and the thousands of female figures she unearthed were cult objects, her professional judgement and scholarly credentials were questioned.
“Getting adopted by the goddess movement,” says Elisha Daeva, “was terrible for her career… spirituality and academia don’t mix.”[1] In 1975, when Gimbutas turned from East European and Slavic studies to excavating sites in Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria, she parted company with her colleagues. “They deemed her conclusion that Old Europeans worshiped a goddess ‘unscientific’,’ said Daeva. Leading the charge against Gimbutas was Colin Renfrew, also known as Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Disney Professor of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, co-author of the standard archeology textbook in the English-speaking world, founding director of the munificently endowed McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and a commissioner for English Heritage. And author of 60 books: one was titled, simply, Prehistory.
Gimbutas’s claim that women and their values were in the ascendancy of early European societies did not go over well with the upper echelons of global patriarchy. She had to be discredited. And she was. “Marija’s large body of impeccable work proved that war and male dominance were not natural and universal…it attacked the very foundation of Western society,” says Daeva.[2] Never mind there were about 1000 female figurines found for every male one.
“She was one of the most prolific archaeologists of all time,” says Daeva. She presented at hundreds of international conferences and wrote several books, plus 350 articles translated into many languages.”[3]
Renfrew was something of a friendly enemy. He visited Gimbutas in 1986, when she was undergoing painful cancer treatments and told her everything she stood for “will be swept away” when his own book came out. In that book (Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins), he presented his opposing idea that the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans was in Asia Minor, not the steppes of Central Asia. It became known as the “Anatolian hypothesis,” and Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn pushed it as hard as he could. These gentle folk bore no relation to Gimbutas’s marauding horsemen. They were in Anatolia 2000 years before the Kurgan people existed, and propagated their language and farming techniques by peaceful migration and diffusion.
The ”Anatolian hypothesis” held sway for many years. It became a trend to dismiss Gimbutas as a feminist fad, even to mock her. Renfrew had control over the Cambridge archeological journal Antiquity and pressured others in the field to ignore her, particularly after her death, when she could not fight back. Gradually, however, holes began to appear in the “Anatolian hypothesis.” Incoming DNA evidence weighed heavily against Renfrew. Ancient DNA consistently supported Gimbutas’ Kurgan thesis.[4]
In 2017, Lord Renfrew was invited to give the First Marija Gimbutas Memorial Lecture at the Oriental Institute in Chicago. His remarks included a sort of concession admitting that he had been wrong (or at least only partly right) and Gimbutas was “magnificently vindicated.” Gimbutas was “triumphantly” prescient about ancient DNA studies, which supported her “Kurgan hypothesis.” This was renamed “Yamnaya hypothesis” to avoid a term Gimbutas had popularized since 1965.[5]
Ancient DNA from skeletons started coming into use by archeologists in 2010. Lord Renfrow in his lecture named three pivotal DNA studies from 2017 on that persuaded him of Gimbutas’ perceptiveness and grudgingly awarded the palm of victory to her.[6] Renfrew died in 2024.
[1] Elisha Daeva, Before War: On Marriage, Hierarchy, and Our Matriarchal Origins (Middletown: True Story, 2023), p. 93.
[2] Ibid, pp. 93-94.
[3] Ibid, p. 94.
[4] Charlene Spretnak, “Anatomy of a Backlash: Concerning the Work of Marija Gimbutas,” The Journal of Archaeomythology 7 (2011), pp. 30-34.
[5] First Marija Gimbutas Memorial Lecture, The Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures, intro. remarks by Dr. Audrius V. Plioplys, Lord Colin Renfrew, “Marija Rediviva: DNA and Indo-European Origins,” Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Nov. 8, 2017, YouTube, March 14, 2018, available at https://youtu.be/pmv3J55bdZc?si=V3ArWn0eN7lzu4as. Cf. Daeva, p. 99.
[6] All showcased the work of David Reich at Harvard and appeared in Nature magazine with literally hundreds of co-authors listed. The three landmark articles were W. Haak et al, “Massive Migration from the Steppe Was a Source for Indo-European Languages in Europe, Nature 522 (2015), pp. 207–211; I. Lazaridis et al, “Genetic Origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans,” Nature 548/7666 (2017), pp. 214-18.; I. Olalde, et al, “The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe,” Nature 555 (2018), pp. 190-96.
Fakka
23 February, 2025 at 3:39 am
It is true that the Kurgan Hypothesis, or rather that part of it with migration, has been confirmed, although studies from 2017-2018 seem to complicate this position, arguing that migration was in both directions and that its scale is much smaller than previously thought. But the military invasion part of it is still controversial.
The main criticism was generally correct. Her numerous claims are trivially difficult to verify, and her attempt to recreate a “Metalanguage” is an attempt by science to become a fantasy. Her arguments about matrilineal are also controversial. She only makes them based on the centrality of the “Goddess.” Well, she thinks that there’s a goddess everywhere and that ANY FIGURINE is a DEITY. Which is very stupid, because she rejects any other meanings, for which she was criticized (deservedly).
Now, using anthropological data, we understand that social organization is very flexible, and moving away from the one-line social evolutionary paradigm that came from Beethoven (matriarchy was first), we understand that other societies could have very flexible systems of kinship, social organization, etc. This can be seen in modern hunter-gatherer societies. The same Baantu 5000 years ago were patrilineal (Judging by linguistic analyses), etc.
But I agree that some of the criticism was overly expressive. However, the problem here is not patriarchy. Another baseless accusation. The main criticism came from Feminism.
Donald Yates
23 February, 2025 at 2:07 pm
I don’t think I would call anything Gimbutas did stupid. It’s your prerogative to critique her achievements, though. If the figurines are not deities (goddesses) what are they and why are there hardly any males. A rose by any other name is still a rose. I think you meant to say Bachofen (Johann Jakob, Swiss legal studies professor).
Fakka
24 February, 2025 at 5:08 am
No men? Or they do exist, simply because of the authority of scientists like her, even very controversial statuettes are interpreted as female by default, even if their gender segregation is ambiguous. But what if the male figurines could be made of another material (for example, wood, since there were gods of vegetation) because the material itself was symbolic? But what if the triangle or the “V” sign did not mean a pubic triangle and had no sacred meaning? Let’s call each stick a phallus) But what if wavy lines and zigzags are abstract creativity, like children who draw their first drawings? Yes, you can go on indefinitely. But Gimbutas had no such thoughts in her head. thoughts. And now we are reaping the fruits of fanaticism, the power of authority in science, when Researchers of matriarchy, the cult of the Goddess, etc., by default, will interpret any figure exclusively as female and as a Goddess. Although the breadth of creativity and meanings is multifaceted. It’s just thinking out loud. You don’t have to answer. We all choose what to believe in, and Gimbutas chose it too.
Jeanette
29 December, 2025 at 6:41 pm
Good news! There’s more DNA evidence supporting Gimbutas’ work.
The neolithic settlement, Çatalhöyük, was matrilocal proving “women played a more prominent role in the Stone Age society than previously believed. In addition to documenting the skeletons’ maternal connections, the researchers note that female infants children in Catalhoyuk were buried with five times more grave goods than their male counterparts.”
Of course, many Mother Goddess figurines have been found at the site as well.
ancient-dna-reveals-that-men-moved-in-with-their-brides-families-in-this-neolithic-settlement
Fakka
19 January, 2026 at 2:13 am
How does this confirm Gimbutas’ claims? Interregional migrations were the same, which suggests that men and women migrated equally outside the settlement. In the village itself, where the number could be up to 800 people, there was probably matrilocality, it is true. But no more. It wasn’t a big settlement. If anything, it’s like a lot of Neolithic societies show patrilocality. Here are a number of studies[1-3][6].
There is also an assumption that Neanderthals (at least some) had patrilocality or patrilinearity[4].
So there’s a lot that Gimbutas doesn’t confirm. As well as her mania for Goddesses or a peaceful past[5].
References:
1. Was descent in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe patrilineal or bilateral?
2. Megalithic tombs in western and northern Neolithic Europe were linked to a kindred society.
3. Social and genetic diversity in first farmers of central Europe.
4. Genetic insights into the social organization of Neanderthals.
5. The world’s oldest-known promontory fort: Amnya and the acceleration of hunter-gatherer diversity in Siberia 8000 years ago
6. When does matriliny fail? The frequencies and causes of transitions to and from matriliny estimated from a de novo coding of a cross-cultural sample
Donald Yates
19 January, 2026 at 2:35 pm
Your references aren’t references but I’m posting your messages though they seem unsupported and repetitive. People are entitled to believe whatever they want to.
Elisha Daeva
21 January, 2026 at 3:13 pm
You can go on with your hypotheticals all day long, but they make no sense.
Gimbutas was a multidiscplinary scientist and expert and her conclusions were backed up by 50 years of research and 1000s of digs. Yours are just coming from your own insecurity.
No one has actually been able to disprove anything she said.
The V for vulva is attested based on a V as a stand in in the vulva area of thousands of figurines.
There is no evidence in any culture anywhere in the world that makes male representations out of a different material than female. Sorry.
Kate Gladston
13 April, 2025 at 4:41 pm
It’s always good to see when facts vanquish fantasies and misrepresentations. Truth, I believe, is powerful and tends to pop up into plain view: sooner or later,
LauRose Felicity
23 August, 2025 at 5:11 pm
The comments above prove the truth of the saying, “The victor writes the record”. Is Gimbutas “unscientific”? According to whom? For centuries, all archeological studies were conducted by men, as women were excluded from universities and opportunities to publish scholarly writing. By definition, a woman’s interpretation of archeological artifacts was not an expert opinion, because women could not be experts, learned or scientific. I have gone to many of the major museums in the U.S. with archeological exhibits. Almost every female figure is a “maid” or servant. Because by male scientific opinion, women were servants, mothers or whores. Along comes Maria Gimbutas and has the audacity to redefine the meaning of archeological artifacts which show nearly inescapably female significance. The “V”, which often has a cleft as well as the v shape, cannot be a vulva. Perhaps even the Sheela Na Gig of Ireland who displayed her vulva held open by her hands is being erroneously interpreted. And the female figure cannot be a deity. None of the thousands of patterns, both three dimensional and flat that may be interpreted as sanctifying females. Beings who perform the most holy of acts: the creation of life. The real outrage, of course, was that Gimbutas had the nerve to say there is another interpretation of physical data beyond the inescapable male “expert” opinion. Horrors. And now, even when her version of the Kurgan invasion have been proven by physical science (DNA), she is still vilified.
Fakka
19 January, 2026 at 2:20 am
I’m sorry, of course, but no. Her main critics were not only men, but also women. If you take the time to study this, you will quickly come to this conclusion. The main criticism is based on her scientific method and her interpretations. Any “V” symbol is a pubic triangle for her. Zigzag, circle (uterus), etc. This is a very strange method of studying history. She was criticized for this very thing. The DNA only confirmed the direction of the genetic migration, which she proved to be right about. At the moment, this hypothesis has been modified and called the Steppe hypothesis. Followers of this hypothesis do not fully agree with Gimbutas. Before blaming men, it would be worthwhile to at least study the criticism in detail.
Donald Yates
19 January, 2026 at 2:38 pm
I don’t see any references to critical literature. Extreme, but as said before, people are entitled to believe whatever they want to.