(Summary of the book : „Die Erfindung der Götter“. Essays zur Politischen Theologie.
ISBN 978-3-8370-3272-7 )
The essays explain the history of the religious doctrines which are in reality Political Theology, proclaimed and installed by the first King-Priests , who are Priest-Kings, selfproclaimed by the Chalcolithic cattle- and horse-domesticat- ing, town- and empire-founding, new aristocracy and analyse and explain when and how the throne of the „Mother of all Gods“ was usurpated by the „Father-God“ - „God-Father“ .
For a task of such complexity, an interdisciplinary approach is indispensable, including the following academic disciplines: * Sociobiology and sociology * Zoology and evolutionary biology * Social science *Archeology and paleoanthropology, including the evolution of the australopitheci and the several species of homo * Prehistory * Paleolithic toolculture * Paleomedicine * Paleodemography * Neolithic prehistory and the earliest dynastic history * Ethnology and the so called ethnological anthropology.
The following paragraphs 1. to 9. give a short summary of the contents with a few references to the main lines of arguments presented in the essays:
1. A detailed refutation is exposed of the widespread but untenable assumption and teaching that the primordial social organisation of Paleolithic mankind (homo sapiens) was the „nuclear family“ of „father- mother-child“ (as today) with a primordial father („Urvater“) being the centre, protector, nourisher and therefore „naturally“, patriarch of his pairing family ( III. - the Roman numerals refer to the chapters ), comparable to the Gorilla family.
As modern sociobiology has proved this frequent doctrine as wishful thinking without historic reality, it becomes evident that in Paleolithic times there was , in human consciousness, no idea of a primordial Father in Heaven, just as little as in earthly reality.The essays expose ( chapter I.) that today the assumption of the „primordial father“ is not only falsified by soiobiology , but as well by archeology: For 30.000 years there have existed numerous anthropomorphic sacred sculptures of the „Great Mother of Fertility, Life and Death“ , but no male gods at all and no phallic symbols of fertility during Paleolithic times.
Patriarachal ideology often misinterprets those sacred sculptures and belittles them as „Venus-Idols“ as e.g. the so called Venus of Willemdorf and defame this early „religion“ as nothing more than idolatry. It is obvious, however, that even the famous neolithic „Great Goddess“, sitting on the „Leopard Throne“, excavated in Catal Hüyük (7000 BC) has its origin in the „Great Mother of Fertility, Life and Death“, that had been in the consciousness of Neolithic populations at that time for more than the preceeding 20.000 years.
2. As archeology and, especially, paleodemography have discovered that Paleolithic human communities were sociobiologically composed of 100 to 120 individuals (about 30 mature females with 60 adolescents and children and 30 mature males), the traditional assumptions of group-size and -organisation have to be revised.
3. Moreover archeological studies have revealed that the Paleolithic communities of „hunter-gatherers“ were, in reality, gatherer-hunters, because about three quarters of the food for the cooperative was collected and supplied by the female collective of gatherers and only about 25 to a maximum of 30% by the collective of male hunters. Notwithstanding, many academic scholars still call those ancient communities „hunter societies“, which reveals their ideological bias. and prejudices.
4. Furthermore, paleomedicine has discovered that Paleolithic women only gave birth every four years, due to the inhibition of ovulation during the long lasting lactation (breast feeding), caused by a special gene that humans had inherited phylogenetically from their animal ancestors. (I.) This four-year-interbirth-interval and the long lasting lactation of at least three years were, under Paleolithic life conditions, an immense evolutionary benefit for the survival of the child. Today we know that the still widespread assumption of a continuously pregnant woman with a bunch of children around her and therefore weak, helpless and completely dependent on taking refuge in the „father“, is an ideologic fairy-tale which wants to tell us that the collective of human females (able to supply three quarters of the food) were unable to take care of themselves and their - on average - two children, thus lacking the abilities which even Bonobo females have. (I.) The phylogenetic inhibition of ovulation during lactation has been lost by human females in Neolithic times, as paleomedicine proves.
5. It is important to understand (and draw conclusions) that Paleolithic communities were egalitarian; there was no hierarchy (which is translated as „holy reign“), no domination, no rulers, no chiefs and no warfare violence, as archeology revealed and social science explains. Therefore the Paleolithic division of labour according to gender, i.e. between the female gatherers and the male hunters of a given cooperative, was a collective division of labour and not individual: A woman was not gathering for „her husband“ , and a man was not hunting for „his wife“ as is frequently misunderstood. The collective of women is gathering nutrition for the whole cooperative; her work is public work, not privatized, not domesticated or domesticised Likewise the collective of males hunt for the cooperative as a whole which is composed of the female and the male collectives. „Food- sharing“.
6. A certain school of ethnology and so called ethnological „anthropology“ is responsable for a great deal of misunderstanding, confusion and misinterpre - tation of Paleolithic (or pre-Neolithic) history. In the essays the fallacies of the ahistoric, even history-hostile, structuralistic ethnology are explained and many of their assumptions refuted, showing the untenability of their method that transfers post- colonial behaviour of „primitive peoples“ carelessly to Paleolithic populations, without the indispensable socio - historical knowledge and analysis. Only the historian is capable of using ethnological material critically. Ethnologists may collect material but are unable to interprete it historically; nevertheless they do so, unfortunately.
7. Based on the updated scientific information, the essays presents stringent arguments supporting the cultural theory that Paleolithic communities, composed of 100 to 120 individuals, organized themselves phylogenetically in consanguineal families ( III.), which at that time were characterized by a unilineal – matrilineal kinship system (VI. and VII.).
Those consanguineal families practised the phylogenetically inherited exogamy ( IV.) by matrilocality (V.): Males leaving their birth-families and joining the consanguineal family of their female sex-partner. I want to stress that this cannot be considered as „matriarchy“ which is a myth and never existed in historic reality. ( XI.) But for communitues with a system of matrilineal descent and matrilocality in practising the exogamy the term matrifocality could be used and applied. In order to escape any kind of ideology, it is of utmost importance to comprehend the aforementioned technical terms of social science, and therefore, they are thoroughly analysed and explained in this essays.
8. In the Neolithic ( VIII.) which ends the Paleolithic, the primordial consanguineal family was undermined and replaced by the pairing family ( III.), characterized by bilinear and patrilinear kinship-systems ( VI. and VII.) like our nuclear family today - changing the primordial exogamy practice from matrilocality to patrilocality. This revolutionary change was due to the epoch-making cognition of biological paternity, which, of course, also led to the idea of the first male god who, at this historic moment, appeared as a fertility god. ( IX. and X.) This first male god was the ityphallic fertility god, who from then on, represented, besides the primordial „Great Mother“ of Fertility, male fertility. The mythological symbol of this male god was the taurus, fertile enough to impregnate a complete herd of cows; the bull was the embodiment of male fertility, and the cattle herdsmen identified themselves with him.
Thus the ancient Paleolithic idea of monogenetic female procreation was corrected and extended to the concept of bigenetic procreation: The phallic fertility god was perceived and mythologized as the fertilizer of the „Great Mother“, and she - of course - was also believed to be the male god ́s mother, who from then on was the „Mother Goddess“ or „Great Goddess“.
As she had to be the mother of the newborn male god, her spouse and impregnator was mythographed as the „taurus of his mother“, her „son-lover“. This myth does not mean that in Paleolithic times there was incest of mother and son, as some authors ignorantly believe. The biologically implanted practice of exogamy shows that in reality there was incest avoidance, hence no endogamy (IV.) between mother and son. In order to make the new myth understandable, the only possibility for the priests to explain how this new fertility god had all of a sudden emerged, was to tell the people that he was born, like all other creatures, to the „primordial mother“, who for a long period of time remained the „Mother of all Gods“, a term still applied to the primordial MOTHER of the Greek pantheon , GAIA. In political reality the earthly incarnation of the fertility god was the king- priest, always with the honorary title „Taurus of the Goddess“; and his kingship was sacredly legalized through the celebration of the „Sacred Marriage“ rite (X), a universal Neolithic cult, which the king realized with the earthly representative of the „Great Goddess“, the high priestress, who in most of the cases was the queen. The holy intercourse made him the „King of the Goddess ́ Mercy“.
9. The essays intends to make clear that, without a precise and detailed application of the abovementioned academic disciplines and their combination, no valid and tenable conclusions can be drawn about social organisation of pre- Neolithic communities. A lack of intellectual accuracy and precision in the use of the terms of social science, as it can frequently be discovered in academic publications, is always the best way to drown unwelcome facts in a mud of thoughts and words in order to maintain interpretations which are ideologically biased, pretending to have explained certain facts and findings by giving misleading pseudo-explanations which are intended to disguise a fallacy. Attempts of this kind are laid bare in great detail in the essays, criticizing several academic publications in which such untenable conclusions have been drawn.
To present a verifiable cultural theory with high explanatory value, and because of the necessity to expose the contamination of terms and interpretations, the essays have been structured into eleven chapters (I.-XI.)
I. The patriarchal doctrine of the „Primordial Father“ (Urvater)
Generally, the gorilla and his pairing family was, and often still is, taken as the example for the analogical Paleolithic social self-organisation of homo sapiens. Among others Darwin and Freud did that. In the meantime sociobiology and zoology have proved this assumption as wishful thinking, as untenable: Our genetically closest relative of the great apes is not the gorilla but the chimpanzee and from them, because of their group-size, the pan paniscus (Bonobo).
1. Pan paniscus do not live in pairing families like the gorilla but in consanguineal families (III.).
2. Pan paniscus practise a genetically programmed exogamy (IV.) which is the incest avoidance between close matrilinear kinship, predominantly between mother and son, and brother and sister who have the same mother.
3. The family exogamy is practised with neighbour groups, within the „tribe“, so that family exogamy is combined with tribe endogamy. (IV.) 4. Pan paniscus practise the exogamy by virilocality (virilocal residence) (V.): at sexual maturity, females leave their birth group - their mothers and, repelled by their matrilinear brother ́s sexual approach, they emigrate, attracted by the genetically distant male. 5. Pan paniscus females show a strong bonding and solidarity between each other, even food sharing takes place. The sexuality is based on female choice and the females protect each other against unwanted sexual aggression; if a female cries for help they all will show the male his limits. 6. The result of these findings is that Freud ́s famous thesis of the „Urvater“, presented in 1912 in „Totem und Taboo“, based on Darwin and the gorilla, is no longer tenable and cultural theory has to be revised fundamentally as well as the teachings about the social structure of „ancient society“.
Primordial consanguineal families were groups of 100 to 120 individuals with phylogenetically programmed exogamy and matrilocality, they were egalitarian communities without chiefs where three quarters of the food was supplied by the female collective, the females had the choice of sexuality and four –year- interbirth intervals. All these characteristics disarm the traditional patriarchal doctrines and make a fundamentally new description of the Paleolithic family organisation indispensable.
III. Consanguineal family / pairing family
Sociology defines „family“ as a group of individuals living and working together cooperatively with food sharing. To understand Paleolithic social organisation, the fundamental differences between consanguineal and pairing family have to be conceived:
The consanguineal family is free of sexuality, the purpose of the pairing family (father-mother-child) is sexuality. Both forms are opposite concepts. The consanguineal family is free of sexual relations between members of the same family and sexual mates always belong to different families and do not form a „family“; sexual mates are not working on a private economic account. The consanguineal family has to be differentiated from the „extended“ family which is composed of a few pairing families and is not free of sexual relations within the „extended family“.
Sociobiology shows us that the primordial human family is consanguineal and not a pairing family - as often assumed as a later consequence of the social change that took place in the Neolithic. (VIII. and IX.) The decay of the consanguineal family with its important status of the women and the installation of the pairing family were certainly of male interest. Together with the Neolithic pairing family the high valuation of patrilinear kinship and the patrilocality of exogamy were installed and mythologically symbolized in the Sacred Marriage rite which also sanctified the pairing family. (X.)
IV. Exogamy / Endogamy
These terms of decisive importance for the understanding of communities and societies are, nevertheless, often misunderstood and misused. As we saw, exogamy is incest avoidance and a nature given, phylogenetic heritance of homo sapiens, and not - as the structuralistic school, mislead by C. Levy-Strauss, teaches - a cultural invention of human males. The essay analyses this problem in depth. Exogamy is primarily practised between mother and son, between matri- lineal brother and sister and between matrilineal cousins.
Exogamy is characteristic of the consanguineal family, while endogamy is characteristic of that kind of social organisation which several consanguineal families consider in a broader, not verifyable sense, their „mother organisation“, the group we call the tribe or the clan (as in Scotland), which has to be distinguished from the consanguineal family that lives and works together day by day and knows exactly about the status of kinship between its members. Unfortunately Marija Gimbutas (The Civilisation of the Goddess), an archeologist with deservedly high professional reputation, uses the term „matrilocal endogamy“. „Locality“ is, logically, always connected with the practice of exogamy, indicating the direction of emigration. Endogamy excludes emigration, and therefore the question of „locality“, be it matri- or patri-, does not arise. Gimbutas arrives at her wrong conclusion because she follows uncritically the false doctrine of Levy- Strauss. The royal brother-sister-incest, the disregard of exogamy which we find in dynastic times , has always been a privilege of the king-priest.
The reason is genealogical: It is the daughter of the king who guarantees the pureness of the bloodline of the new prince. She is the „Mother of the King“. ( i.e. the egypt ISIS). So when her brother wants the right of the throne for his son, he has to beget him with his sister. These facts of the case are clearly shown by the early Egyptian uterine rules.
It is explained in the essay why the father-daughter-incest was not avoided by the exogamy of consanguineal families. The reason is found in the unilinearity (VI.) and matrilinearity (VII.) of the Paleolithic kinship system. Also, an explanation is given why, according to the Old Testament, Abraham was allowed to marry his patrilinear sister Sarah in late Neolithic times, about 1500 BC, stating the importance of the fact, that she was „only“ his patrilineal and not his matrilineal sister.
V. Matrilocality / patrilocality
These terms only make sense with respect to exogamy, indicating the local direction of sexual emigration. The question is: Does the sexually mature son have to leave the (consanguineal) birth family or the daughter? As we saw (I.3.) our animal ancestors pan paniscus practise the emigration of the young female, because she is repelled by the sexual smell of her matrilineal brother. Thus she takes refuge in another group where she finds her sexual mates. The rule is „many males“ instead of „best male“! („multi-male- breeding-system“).
Referred to a human consanguineal family we would call this emigration of the female to the male „virilocality“ (she enters the the group of her sexual partner(s) ) or patrilocality (she enters the group where her sexual partner and his father live). The important question to examine is: Did the early humans practise exogamy in the same way as the pan paniscus?
There are stringent arguments that the homo sapiens mothers of the consanguineal families changed the method of the nature given exogamy practice from patri- (or viri-)locality to matrilocality. Here are some arguments due to the importance of this question:
a) The homo sapiens mother was aware of the difficulty and perils of human birth for mother and child and her consciousness was advanced enough to decide that the protection of her daughter was much more important than to keep her son under her care even after he had become sexually mature.. Thus her decision for her daughter, which biologically also meant the certain survival of her genes.(„genetic egoism“).
b) The human mothers, in contrast to the pan paniscus mothers, were able to understand what a grandmother and a grandchild is, and they knew the importance of the grandmother ́s help for the upbringing of their grandchild. In the publication „Current Anthropology“, Vol.34,N.1, Feb.1993,p.551ff the significant positive effect of the matrilineal grandmother for the survival of children has been pointed out. My essay also informs about other scientific studies, that the caretaking of the patrilineal grandmother who is taking care of the child of her daughter-in-law, does not have that positive effect at all but rather a negative one, as statistics reveal.
c) Economic reasons make much more sense for the sober, realistic and economic sense of a Paleolithic woman to not allow her daughter to leave the female gatherer collective. As she knows the economic importance of gathering (three quarters of the food) she would rather rely on the supply of her daughter in her old age than on the game eventually brought by her son.
In short: Her daughter must seem to her a more valuable member of the community than her son. Upon the whole, human mothers would rather exchange their sons for exogamic reasons (fulfilling nature ́s demand) with neighbouring con- sanguineal families belonging to the same tribe, with whom they share a common language, than their daughters who would have to suffer the great perils of birth-giving without their mothers ́ or mother-sisters ́ help. Furthermore: If the brothers and sons of a consanguineal family are exchanged with a neighbouring one, the armed hunters will not only refrain from attacking the community in which their mothers and sisters live, but rather protect them. Thus matrilocality is under all aspects the most intelligent solution for fulfilling the genetic demand of exogamy. Moreover this conclusion suggested by cultural theory finds its historical verification through the universal social institution of the so-called avunculate, which describes the social role of the „mother ́s brother“. The essay explains that the origin and cause of the avunculate (Roman: avunculus = brother of the mother) can only be understood and explained convincingly and free of contradictions with the primordial matrilocality practised between communities with a unilineal-matrilineal kinship system, in which there was no social concept of a „father“ in our modern sense, and therefore the closest male relative of the elder generation was the mother ́s brother. The exogamic young male hunter emigrated from his birth family and associated himself in accordance with the wishes of his mother with that neighbour cooperative in which her brother, being the avunculus of the young hunter, already lived. His uncle will take care of his sister ́s son (like a father in later times) and initiate him as a new member of the hunter collective, living together with a female gatherer collective, a consanguineal family, being a cooperative and life community.
VI. Unilinearity / bilinearity
In academic literature one often finds confusion or ignorance about these terms. Our actual kinship system is defining the descent of a person by bilinearity: A child is always related to his /her mother (matrilineal) and as well to his/her father (patrilineal). It is necessary to conceive that in the historical past there existed (and some still exist) unilineal kinship systems, and it is logical that a unilineal system is always matrilineal. Motherhood is obvious,
There has never been a unilineal system of pure patrilinearity because the mother is always known and never uncertain, whereas the father can be, and often is, uncertain or even unknown. So, wherever we find patrilinearity, we always have a bilinear kinship system.
Kinship between two individuals and a kinship-system have to be well distinguished, and this is done thoroughly in the essay with an analysis of the Roman gen s, which is a relic of the consanguineal family and often misunderstood in its qualities as a social institution. The gens is a group of unilinear kinship within a bilinear kinship-system. The result of misunderstanding this difference will be arriving to wrong conclusions .
VII. Matrilinearity / patrilinearity
As we have seen, patrilinear kinship always presupposes bilinear kinship systems, which did not always exist. Bilinear kinship systems were installed only in later historical time, precisely in the Neolithic (VIII.) as a supplement to the original unilinear kinship system which can only be, and always was, matrilinear, because the mother is never unknown, but „pater semper incertus“, as the Roman lawyers defined it.
For a cultural theoretical analysis of social organisation it is obvious that patrilinearity is always connected with the pairing family. From there the patrilinear thinking may extend f.i. to the Roman gens which is a relic of the Paleolithic consanguineal family which, in Neolithic times, was normatively inverted from the former matrilinearity to patrilinearity, but then within a bilinear kinship system. It is explained in great detail that the gens, which existed aside and next to the Roman pairing family, is not a parent organisation formed by pairing families. This assumption is exposed as a fallacy. The gens is beyond doubt a relic of the Paleolithic consanguineal family to which the bilinear patrilinearity, paternity and patriarchy of the Roman pairing family has been extended.
VIII. Neolithic and prehistory
After the epoch-making step from Paleolithic food aquisition to food production the new Neolithic social organisations changed fundamentally and many of the Paleolithic organisations decayed. I explain four very different modi of the Neolithic which should always be taken into account. The later domestication of bovidic animals (cattle, etc.) as herd animals (about 7000 BC - modus III), is, after the domestication of sheep and goats as house animals in modus II, especially important for the understanding of the "Invention of the Gods". About 4000 BC the plough agriculture followed and the domestication of equidic animals (horse and onager - modus IV). This modus is of utmost importance, because this economic and political era gives rise to the changes of family structure, to the beginning of patrilinearity and hierarchy.
As in modus IV, I define the mentioned era of equidic domestication which was achieved by paternal cattle domesticators, be they pastoral nomads or cattle peasants, the era that gives rise to the militarisation of society, to warfare and conquest, to the „dynastic history“ (IX. u.X.).
Those warriors and first empire-founders used war chariots hitched up to horses (the equid-domesticators north of the Caucasus) or with onagers (the equid- domesticators south of the Caucasus, like the Sumerian conquerers). The aforementioned archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (above IV) writes, that the first Indoeuropean conquerors of Europe (just after 4000 BC) were riders, which reveals a misunderstanding about socio-history. It is clear and beyond doubt that the first warriors came with war-chariots. Only after domesticating horses in the thill and harnessing them to chariots for more than 2.000 years, did humans start to ride them.
The exact differentiation of the different modi of the Neolithic is necesary to make a valid judgement. Even such a qualified historian as Gerda Lerner (The Creation of Patriarchy) has not understood the fundamental social and political difference of animal-husbandry of modus II (sheep and goat) and that of modus III (bovids), which she does not distinguish , thus revealing her shortcomings in Neolithic socio- history. This fact is also confirmed by her erroneous statement that the „sacred marriage“ rite (X.) originated only in Sumerian times (2700 BC) as the famous Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer writes. It has been mentioned before, that this is an untenable statement, because archaelogical reality has shown that the initial phase of the fertility cult of „sacred marriage“ between the „Great Goddess“ on the leopard-throne and the male taurus-fertility-God has been already celebrated in Catal Hüyük in 7.000 BC, as proved by sculptures and artefacts excavated there.
IX. Sanctification of sexuality
Fertility was always considered to be sacred, as the mentioned sculptures of the „Great Mother“ show us. Sexuality was not yet considered as sacred and it was only sanctified in Neolithic times: The most ancient archaelogical evidence of understanding human sexuality as sacred is a Natufien sculpture of a human couple in holy embrace, artefacted earliest 8500 BC, which was at the time of modus II, the domestication of sheep and goats. This artefact gives us the first indication that something in history had fundamentally changed: The male ́s participation in human fertility, formerly attributed monogenetically to the „Great Mother“ and to the female, had been understood and thus the connection of fertility and sexuality. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that all phallic symbols have their origin from this time on or much later.
During Paleolithic history of the consanguineal family with avunculate, the physiological fact of paternity was not only uncertain because of the free female choice of sexuality, but had also not yet been discovered. The assertion and arguments used by the patriarchal school, that Paleolithic humans „of course knew about physiological paternity“, are analysed in the essay and explained as untenable, even partly as fallacies. I also explain that the universal social institution of the avunculate (in different revised forms still maintained by some ethnological groups) originated because a concept of a „father“ as a begetter did not exist. The conflict between the mother ́s brother as a social „parent“ and the biological progenitor only comes up in Neolithic times, as myths reveal.
The males ́ cognition of their procreative role changed their consciousness and self-estimation fundamentally; and when, about 10..000 years ago, this revolutionary cognition emerged, it spread like lightning over the globe, finally reaching all populations.
This discovery also gave way to the „Sacred Marriage“ , the characteristic mark of the cultural revolution of the Neolithic. The essay also deals with the allegation of the psychoanalyst Ernest Jones (followed by Malinowski) that the ignorance of biological paternity (as it was still found by ethnologists) is not primordial. Jones claims that in Paleolithic times people knew about paternity, but they had repressed this knowledge in order to free the father from his son ́s Oedipus-conflict- hatred by leading it towards his mother ́s brother. This thesis is analysed in my essay, historical errors made by Jones are exposed as well as some fallacies of his argumentation. It can be shown that this „explanation“ an untenable „pseudo explanation“ . Jones does not mention (or know of) the four-year- interbirth interval, a period during which the Paleolithic humans had constant sexual relations with no pregnancies as a result. So how could they come to know that in biological reality sexuality was a necessary cause of pregnancy? The cognition of this biological fact is difficult as long as it is not known (like the visible fact that the moon is a sphere), even more so under Paleolithic life- and kinship conditions.
X. Sacred Marriage
This chapter is the culminating part of the essays. Archaelogical, historical and mythological information about the Sacred Marriage rite are presented and analysed in full detail. The eldest archaelogical evidence, presneting the initial state as a fertility -cult goes back to Catal Hüyük (7000 BC), and the earliest written information is the old Sumerian myth about Inanna, Great Goddess of Heaven and Earth and Fertility and her spouse, the shepherd-king Dumuzi (2700 BC).
I explain how the Sacred Marriage rite originated together with the first bovidic cultures (modus III), characterized by the taurus cult, as in Catal Hüyük, which was a universal cult, celebrated by all populations with bovidic culture, be they nomads or peasants.
The groom of this sacred marriage, the ithyphallic fertility god, is at the origin of this rite. This spouse of the ancient Great Goddess of Fertility started his divine carreer as the „son“ of the Goddess and is always titled the „Taurus of his Mother“.
At this time the Paleolithic „Great Mother“ becomes the „Mother Goddess“ and, as consequently more gods appear, the „Mother of all Gods“. The fact that this first male god was mythographed and perceived as the son and spouse of his mother, the son-lover, does not mean that there had been mother- son-incest in reality, neither at those Neolithic times when the myth originated nor before in Paleolithic history. As we saw, exogamy had always been practised. The son-lover relationship in the myth had the only purpose to explain, where this new born god suddenly came from, and of course he could only have been born by the Great Goddess, mother of all creatures, and therefore the god started his career as her son and grew up to be her spouse and fertilizer.
The Sacred Marriage rite was celebrated in political reality between the king- priest and the earthly representative of the „Great Goddess“, her high priestress, head of the temple, who in most cases was the queen (and often sister of the king). The rite legitimated the reign of the king and made him in fact a „King of the Goddess ́ Mercy“. The Sacred Marriage was of great political interest in the ruling class: The king and the aristocracy then also sanctified the pairing family which was installed at that time, establishing the new role of the father. With the decay and dissolution of the consanguineal family and it ́s replacement by the pairing family which is the characteristic family form of the paternal society, the theological family organisation as well had to be changed, and the myths show us exactly, what had changed in the esrthly social organisation. Since the sanctification of male sexuality we observe a steady mythographic reduction of the importance of female fertility and of the divine role of the goddess. Corresponding to her devaluation we find a continuously higher valuation of male fertility and procreation on their way to monogenetic qualities, symbolized by the phallus and the taurus. This cultural normative inversion of the divine roles of the female and the male is exposed in great detail and is historically dated, as we know the emergence of the corresponding myths. Finally, after centuries, the king-priest, the male dominator and the mytho- graphers, the high-priests who are in the beginning always part of the highest aristocracy, promote the male god to the status of the pantheon- chief and the creator, not only of the child but of everything.
In concordance with the growing hierarchic role of the king, the male god becomes the chief of the pantheon, he usurpates the ancient (Leopard-) throne of the „Mother of all Gods“ who had been his mother and is now converted to his daughter. (The egyptian Hathor shows this process very clearly). So the goddess ́ son and fertilizer in a first step becomes her begetter and procreator of her children and after that „The Father of all Gods“, and finally even the creator of the world.
An unideological, socio-historic interpretation of the ancient (pre- Sargonic!) Sumerian myths, as well as of the myths of the „Ancient Empire“ of pharaonic Egypt, supply us with sufficient evidence that the cratogonic myths precede the cosmogonic ones, which in the past has often been erroneously considered vice versa.
It is obvious that it was political reality that led the ancient Sumerian mythographers to compose the „Emesh and Enten Myth“ (predecessor of the Kain and Abel myth): The divine order according to the Sumerian myth is: „The shepherd is thy Lord“ and he has the god-given right to dominate and rule over the peasant. (In social reality the „sheperd“ is the cattle- herdsman). This primal political reality, sanctified by a cratogonic myth, later leads to the new devine order: „The Lord is thy Shepherd“. This is part of the cosmogonic myths, after the Lord, the Dominator, the King, had been promoted to the creator of the world after he had become the heavenly Lord, he maintained his role as the pastoral master and dominator, and his adorers had to submit, alledgedly protected, well taken care of, like a herd of sheep that had to do what the pastoral dominator told them. The process of reduction of the ancient importance of the Great Goddess in the divine hierarchy started with - what I call - the „Ishtarisation“ of Inanna, the Sumerian „Goddess of Heaven and Earth“ and of the Sacred Marriage rite. This Ishtarisation starts with the military conquest of all Sumerian towns by the Semitic-Akkadic conquerer Sargon I. (about 2250 BC) and is with ever increasing power continued by the semitic-amoritic conquest of Babylon and Mesopotamia (Hammurabi, 1700 BC) and reaches its peak in 1100 BC with the Semitic-Aramaic king Nebukadnezar I. of Babylon. At this time the horrible Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish is written: The cruel babylonian war god Marduk is praised in this myth for having killed the ancient „Mother of all Gods“, Mammu-Tiamat. („She who bore them all“) who was at that time defamed as the primordial mother of chaos.
Marduk, because of his annihilation of Tiammat, is promoted pantheon-chief and „King of all Gods and Goddessess“. The myth delightfully describes:
„He smashed her head with his club and trampled down and crushed underfoot her womb“.
According to this myth at least the material of Tiamat ́s corpse is useful: It serves Marduk as „matter“ to create the world. Another version of this male hybris, we find in Egyptian mythology: When the ancient phallic god of fertility Atum was mythographically promoted to the position of pantheon-chief and boss of the „Eighthood“ of gods, he was also promoted to be the creator-god who had his origin in himself, not born by a mother. But Atum still procreated the world with his phallus, his sperm.
To ejaculate, Atum had to masturbate, he was the first masturbation-god we find in mythology. He is mythographed as monogenetic and the role of the female goddessess of his pantheon is to serve the chief. The myth tells us that the goddesses give the chief god „a hand“ at masturbation. Uterus and female fertility were eliminated; the goddesses served as „handywomen“, as underlings.. This strange creation myth reveals to us the state of mind of the priestly mythographers and the ruling pharaonic males at that time, when we duely analyse their Political Theology. This abstruse myth was reflected by the political reality: The honorary title of those Egyptian princesses who, because of their royal bloodline, were qualified to give birth to a future pharao, was in identification with the goddessess who had given Atum a hand at creation:
.„ Hand of Atum“ . Obviously the sperm had risen to the priest’s head. Finally, the Egyptian nobility found this kind of theology as disgusting as we do, and pharao and priesthood realized the awkwardness of this phallic and masturbating creator. Atum was withdrawn, demoted and replaced by the old Memphis town-god Ptah Tatenem as chief of the pantheon and creator of the world, who emerged on his own, without being born by a woman. Ptah created „by heart“, meaning by word, mentally and without the embarrassing phallus, which once, thousands of years before, had led the male to the divine level. The male mind as master and dominator of the female matter, the later connection of „mater“ and „materia“, as the Romans will make it clear in their language, has its historical roots here.
With the promotion and higher valuation of the male the ancient rite of the „Sacred Marriage“ gradually changed. The assistant and fertilizer of the Great Goddess becomes the Great God procreating himself monogenetically and the goddess becomes his sexual „hierodule“, a kind of holy whore, and whatremains of the once so sacred marriage rite is the so-called temple prostitution.
The male warrior societies, equid domesticators, dominators, are accustomed that animals, slaves, subjects and finally even their own wives, render full obedience, and of course a horse warrior does not fear anything more than an „unbridled“ woman.
In the essay I tried to trace the „footprints“ of the steps the phallic fertility god, the bridegroom of the Sacred Marriage, left on his long way to become the creator god, the kind of god that is still adored today by all monotheistic „religions“, which correctly all should be named „ Political Theology“.
XI. Patriarchy / matriarchy
These terms, as well as „mother-right“, „father-right“, „matrifocality“ and others, are analysed in the last chapter of the essay. „Matri-archy“ (mother dominator) in the sense of mirroring „Patri-archy“ (father dominator) lacks historical reality.
The myth of a matriarchal and Amazonian female military warfaring against males has been revealed as created by the patriarchal Greek society as an intended ideology in order to claim the Greek „reign of the father“ as justified and lawful. It is evident that females never did to males and societies, what males did to them.
As there was no hierarchy there was no matriarchy in Paleolithic times. Hierarchy and warfare go together, and neither existed before the males created and institutionalized domination by inducing social inequality and the individual division of labour in the newly founded towns. And this domination was, from birth on, patriarachal. Hierarchy and patriarchy are two sides of the same coin. What existed in Paleolithic reality was a matrilocal, matrilinear and often consequently matrifocal social organisation of humans.
Those communities, structured in consanguineal families and exogamic cooperatives, were based on equality of the individuals, and a natural authority of a person could only be based on age and experience, on consensus and convincing argument, never on domination.
The conclusion , like drawn by the historian J.J. Bachofen and often by self- proclaimed „feminists :
„When there was no patriarchy in Neolithic time, there must have been matriarchy“, is a fallacy, like saying: „When the colour is not black it must be white“. A similar mistake is often made by patriarchally biased scholars (like Henry Maine) who state:
„Where there is matrilinearity, there also has to be patrilinearity“.
We have seen (under VII.) that this fallacy is due to ignorance of what unilinearity of kinship - systems is.
It is hard to understand why selfproclaimed „feminist“ authors often make such (fruitless) efforts to prove the existence of female, Amazonian warfaring societies in history and that females are as good , and cruel, soldiers as men. Why do they want women to suffer from the same deformations and loss of humanity which military man selected about 6.000 years ago?
The important question that remains for me, is not „why did human males oppress females as soon as the new social organisation allowed it“, but: „Why did females loose the capacity of bonding and solidarity (which we already find with the pan paniscus females) and allowed their isolation, the privatisation of their economic role, the domestication of their labour and their submission to the males?“
But this is a different question to be dealt with as soon as the „ Invention of the Gods“ is understood and paternal monotheism rejected as a non –religion and stigmatized as pure „Political Theology“ .