NOTES Introduction 1. See, e.g., Guthrie (1967, 101–3), in the case of Artemis; Farnell ([1896–1909] 1977, 1:179–204), in the case of Hera. 2. See, e.g., Spretnak (1978), Dexter (1990), Baring and Cashford (1991), Sjöö and Mor (1991), Downing (1992), and O’Brien (1993). 3. See Rigoglioso (2009, xx) for a brief discussion of contradictory views regarding the utility of such an approach. 4. For the classical exposition of matriarchy (one that is interesting but in many ways problematic from a feminist viewpoint), see Bachofen ([1861] 1897), portions of which can be found in English translation in Bachofen (1973; [1861] 2005). For a recent critique of theories of matriarchy, see Eller (2000). For a counter response to Eller, see Dashu (2000) and Marler (2005). 5. Papers from First World Congress on Matriarchal Studies: http://www. second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/1st_congress_submenu.html; Web site of the Second World Congress on Matriarchal Studies: http:// www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com; Web site of A (M)other- world Is Possible conference: http://www.motherworldconference.org/; Web site of the International Conference on the Gift Economy: http:// www.gifteconomyconference.com/. 6. See, e.g., papers in Goettner-Abendroth (2009) and those available on the Web sites mentioned in n5. 7. This theory received yet another confirmation in the summer of 2007 by the Mount Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project, which uncovered evi- dence of the worship of a pre-Olympian deity in the archaeological layers under an altar to Zeus on the summit of Mount Lykaion in Arcadia in Greece (Wilford 2008). 8. Although controversy surrounds Gimbutas’s methods and conclu- sions, (e.g., Goodison and Morris 1998; Hayden 1993; Meskell 1995; Tringham and Conkey 1998), the viewpoint I adopt is in accord with those of archaeologists and other scholars who are verifying and expand- ing on various aspects of Gimbutas’s theories (e.g., Nikolov 2009; C.-M. Lazarovici 2008; G. Lazarovici 2008; Dergachev 2007; Yakar 2007, 1997; Brukner 2006; Christ 1996; Keller 1996; Spretnak 1996). Like 210 NOTES these scholars, I find that Gimbutas’s theories have tremendous heuris- tic utility for the interpretation of not only archaeological artifacts, but also iconography, mythological motifs, and historical texts. I believe that, because prominent classics scholars such as those cited earlier indepen- dently held to similar theoretical views, the assumption of an early matri- archal substratum in Greece, upon which my analysis is based, is built on firm, if not conclusive, footing. 9. Also of interest is Hwang’s (2005) comprehensive analysis of the par- thenogenetic aspect of an early East Asian goddess, Mago, in which she observes the similarities between this deity and the Virgin Mother god- desses of Greece and elsewhere. 10. The notion sometimes proffered that indigenous spiritualities, whose paradigms may be in accord with those of the pre-patriarchal Europeans, embrace strictly abstract rather than personified images of great cosmic forces (e.g., the “Great Spirit”) may be misinformed. Mann, a scholar who is also Native American, for example, notes (2000, 302–3), “At least as regards the Iroquois, the now familiar ‘Great Spirit’ is bogus dialect, the minstrel version of Native religions. Instead, Iroquoian Creation was awash in multiple Creators, female as well as male, animal as well as spirit.” The idea of a “Great Spirit” was, she says, conjured by “self- designated Friends of the Indians bent on describing ‘their Indians’ ’ so- called progress in civilization.” Chapter 1 In the Beginning: Chaos, Nyx, and Ge/Gaia 1. Since the names Ge and Gaia are both used in ancient Greek texts to denote the Earth Goddess, I will use the conjoint Ge/Gaia to refer to this deity. 2. Readers accustomed to using Graves (1960) as a source of Greek myths may wonder why I do not include discussion of Eurynome as an early parthenogenetic goddess, as he does in his so-called “Pelasgian Creation Myth” (27–30). This is because in fact there is no evidence in any of the ancient texts that Eurynome was parthenogenetic. Graves’s intuition that early Greek goddesses were parthenogenetic seems correct, but his details in this case are incorrect. 3. The problem of Orphism’s authenticity and antiquity has been a hotly disputed area in the field of Greek religion (see, e.g., Guthrie [1952] 1993, 69–147). Presumed fragments of Orphic myth have been collected in a compilation known as the Rhapsodies, which, when taken together, pre- sent a semi-coherent theogony. No indisputable evidence indicates a pre- Hellenistic origin for Orphism, but numerous indirect indicators in the works of Pindar, Empedocles, and Herodotus, and, later, Plato suggest that its myths were known much earlier (Burkert 1985, 297–98). I thus refer to Orphic material throughout this book with the assumption that, like the Hesiodic and Homeric material, it reflects a mixture of authentic archaic beliefs and androcentric theological invention. NOTES 211 4. The theory of wind impregnation of animals was accepted by Aristotle (History of Animals 6. 2.559b–60a), and was referenced by Homer (Iliad 16.149–51, 20.223–25), Virgil (Georgics 3.271–76), Aelian (On Animals 4.7), Pliny (Natural History 8.67, 4.35), Plutarch (Table-Talk 8.1.3), and others. 5. Aristophanes’ reference is also in contrast with Orphic frag. 70 (in Guthrie [1952] 1993, 138), which credits Cronus with fashioning the divine egg from which Phanes was born. However, as mentioned previously, frag. 129 (in Guthrie, 139) still places Nyx/Night preceding Cronus in the cosmo- gonic lineage. It states, “above all others it was Cronus whom Night reared and cherished.” Thus, even if Cronus were responsible for the egg out of which Phanes emerged, Nyx/Night still enjoyed precedence and primacy of position. 6. Phanes resembled in every way the legendary first bisexual human beings as described by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium (189d–90c). Such beings were said to have been born of the moon (190b), which was always understood by the Greeks to have been a goddess, either Selene or Artemis. Thus in Plato’s story, as well, the progenitor of the bisexual being was rendered female. 7. Translation by E. D. A. Morshead, in Oates and O’Neill (1938, 1:234). 8. Such ancient beliefs contrast with what I propose are later, patriarchal sto- ries such as that recounted by Hesiod (Works and Days 60–95, 176; Theogony 570–616), in which Zeus made the present race of men from iron, and in which humanity originally consisted of one sex, the male. In Hesiod’s blatantly misogynistic account, the first woman, Pandora, was supposedly made out of clay and given to man as a punishment by the gods. In this conception, woman is thus materially different from naturally born men. In the Timaeus, Plato similarly states that the first humans were males. He relates, “all those creatures generated as men who proved themselves cowardly and spent their lives in wrong-doing were transformed at their second incarnation into women” (90e–91a, 1925, trans. Lamb). However, in the Symposium (189d–90c) he refers to another probable ancient belief that humans originally included a hermaphroditic strain, which Zeus cut in two as a result of humanity’s rebelliousness toward the gods. 9. The Danaids’ status as priestesses of Demeter and Persephone may be sur- mised from Herodotus (2.171), who says they brought from Egypt to Argos the Thesmophoria, a mystery festival dedicated to these two goddesses. Their status as priestesses of Athena may be surmised by the fact that one of the Danaids founded a temple to Athena on Rhodes (Herodotus 2.182). I return to this aspect of their story in chapter 5. Chapter 2 Athena/Neith/Metis: Primordial Creatrix of Self-Replication 1. For a full discussion of the predominance of Neith during the early and very late dynastic periods, see Sayed (1982). 2. Ancient Saïs is now modern Sa el-Hagar, earlier named Ha-Nit, a name that indicates its connection with Neith/Nit (Hagan 2000, 48). 212 NOTES 3. See, e.g., Lhote (1959, figs. 35, 48; 1963, 23, fig. 27). In these rock paint- ings, human figures wear horns (or crescent moons?), and oxen are often depicted with attributes above their horns such as large crescents studded with oxhide disks. Lhote confirms that these are religious symbols. 4. Hathor assumed the following characteristics of Neith: she was imaged as a cow; came to represent the entire sky; and, as the autogenetic “mother of the light,” birthed herself as the first act of creation and subsequently produced Shu and Tefnut. She is also described as “the great cow that gave birth to Re.” See Budge ([1904] 1969, 1:428–38) for a comprehensive discussion of Hathor. Hollis (1994–95, 49–50) also affirms that Hathor adopted many of Neith’s characteristics. However, Neith’s primary char- acterization was as autogenetic creatrix (which I argue that she retained down to the Graeco-Roman period). In contrast, Hathor, who also retained the identity of “mother of the god,” came to be defined in terms of her relationship to the god as mother, wife, or daughter, rather than as sovereign in her own right. I argue this represents an ontological demotion of the Great Goddess. 5. The claim of Neith’s primacy of position in creation is not documented until the Nineteenth Dynasty (c. 1224 B.C.E.), when it appears on the stone sarcophagus of King Merneptah, and the only text for the story of Neith as the creator of all appears quite late, in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods (c.