Jump to content

Talk:Matriarchy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Matriarchy studies

I have found that there appears to be a surviving school of feminist anthropology, headed by Heide Göttner-Abendroth. Frau Göttner-Abendroth has organized two "World Congresses on Matriarchy Studies" in the 2000s. I am not sure whether this should be a standalone article or a section in this article. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"The prefix ama is used for greek female warriors, the amazons, in Africa and among the mosuo society, having the same meaning: In the language of the Moso the word Ama has the meaning Mother. This is a striking analogy to the name of the warlike Amazons. Well-fitting to this the Berbers in North Africa, which had been matriarchal in the past, call themselves Amazigh in their own language. Because of this we reason that the very ancient word Ama has the meaning »Mother« in its narrow sense. In the figurative sense it stands for »Matriarchal Culture."

This has got to be one of the most tendentious pieces of faulty reasoning I have ever seen. If it is a typical example of Heide Gottner-Abendroth's scholarship I am most emphatically unimpressed. ---Roxana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.218.244 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Discussion moved from User talk:Viriditas

My editing the Matriarchy page was not an experiment, though the first couple edits were misdone. In my most recent edit, I looked at the patriarchy page to see its top definition and applied it to matriarchy. I fail to see how this is a problem. Kayanami (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history for patriarchy[1] you will notice that it is not a stable article; In other words, the lead section is undergoing active edits and has changed from day to day. This is why we treat each article on its own merits and do not simply copy what we see on one article at a specific time and modify an already stable article. If you would like to propose a change on the talk page, do so, but this lead has been stable for a while now and does not require any duplication from a separate topic. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the method in which Matriarchy is stabilized? Kayanami (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Kayanami, I'm not sure what you are asking. A "stable" topic is an article that does not change very much over time. That's not to say we can't improve it. We certainly can, and should. Let's review your edits. The lead currently reads as follows:

Matriarchy (or gynecocracy) refers to a gynecocentric form of society, in which the leading role is taken by the women and especially by the mothers of a community.[1]

You changed this to:

Matriarchy describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of women and girls are dominant over those of men and boys.[2]

Kayanami, that's quite a change and isn't accurate. Then you made a second change, and modified your previous statement to read:

Matriarchy is a social system in which the mother is head of the household, having authority over men and children. Matriarchy also refers to a system of government by females, and to the dominance of women in social or cultural systems. It may also include title being traced through the female line.[3]

Your most recent version is an improvement over your original change, but it duplicates information in the next paragraph and adds the notion of dominance, which was not present in the original. If you want to make further changes, please find good sources to use. Do you have a specific reference in mind? Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchy is stated with a notion of dominance, therefore it stands to reason that Matriarchy would have the same characteristic. Both are power structures determined by gender. Kayanami (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Kayanami, please do some research and find sources for your assertions, rather than using your reasoning to copy separate articles and draw conclusions from them. Also, please read this article before editing it. To address the notion of "dominance" in terms of matriarchy, you may be interested in reading the article on Riane Eisler, as she is one author among many who argues against the very idea. There is an article on her idea, the dominator culture, but it is poorly written. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I read the wiki entry for Riane. It would seem that she believes in partnership where neither male nor female rules over each other, rather than female dominance/matriarchy. Kayanami (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
There are many, many proposed definitions. I just took a look at Verónika Bennholdt-Thomsen's (Bielefeld University). She writes: "Lastly, it is worthwhile mentioning what the experts on matriarchy or non-patriarchal relations accentuate: The search [for a matriarchy] does not imply inverting the common reality, changing it for the domination of the other sex, in this case domination by women. The matriarchal structure, by definition, excludes this type of power relations." Tom DeMott writes, "What Bennholdt-Thomsen is implying is that according to her definition of matriarchy, men and women share equal amounts of power."[4] Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
If that is what she believes, then good for her. She has far more trust in human nature than I do, it seems. And by human I mean that which affects both males and females...including the capability for corruption by power. Of course, I doubt we will see eye to eye on this. If you wish to discuss it on my talk page, I would be interested. Kayanami (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Matriarchy in the Animal Kingdom.

Needs info on bugs & animals, like ants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, great caution should be used when extending terms describing human political/cultural practices to animal behavior... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topics for expansion

  1. North America - Elements of matriarchy in the Iroquois nation
  2. Belize - City of Pacbitun - Remains of royal Mayan women
  3. Brazil - Tapuyas tribe. Claims of women fighting alongside the men, but speaking a different language
  4. Crete - Need to determine research status of Minoan civilization
  5. El Salvador - "Place of Women", Cihuatan
  6. Mali - City of Timbuktu - Dashu claims the city was founded by Baktu, a woman
  7. Pakistan - Evidence from the Indus Valley Civilization
  8. Peru - Caral
  9. Turkey - Status of Çatalhöyük

Help requested. --Viriditas 23:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Southwest Region of North America Zuni, Hopi and Laguna Pueblo Indians. This is very well known, and it's exclusion from this article shows very little research was done on this topic. -- 07:10, 23 April 2010 69.237.70.128
I don't know that it would be feasible or useful to try to list every single known matrilineal society on this article. AnonMoos (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


Amazon, Amazigh, Berbers

Berbers call themselves Amazigh --the words ama and berbers have the same root. http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\semham\brbet&first=241 187.21.142.164 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's by no means certain that the words Amazon and Amazigh are connected -- but even if they were, the matter should be discussed mainly on the Amazon article (not here), and it wouldn't affect the fact that the most plausible accepted origin of the word "Berber" is from Greek Barbaros Βαρβαρος "barbarian" (i.e. "person whose language sounded to Greek ears indistinguishable from repetitions of the syllable bar"). AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
No, because I could provide sources. Good ones. 187.21.142.164 (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The link above is to a kind of "hyper-Nostratic" site (see Sergei Starostin), following a certain Russian tradition of "lumping" rather than "splitting" linguistic stocks, and being boldly speculative in constructing long-range etymologies. Even if such ideas were more broadly accepted in the scholarly community than they actually are, the relevance to matriarchy (the actual topic of this article) would be minimal... AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no proof at all that this word comes from greek because they call other non greek civilizations of bar, bar. As it´s said on this forum, why didn´t they call other civilizations as bar, bar, such as the egyptian, sumerian, kurds...etc? http://www.kabylia.info/etymology-word-%E2%80%9Cberber%E2%80%9D
The Greeks used the word Βαρβαρος to refer to absolutely everybody who didn't speak the Greek language. The word was borrowed into Latin as barbarus, which the Romans used to refer to everybody who didn't speak either the Greek or the Latin languages, and/or everybody who came from outside the Roman empire and/or everybody who was conspicuously uninfluenced by Greco-Roman culture. The name stuck as a specific exonymic ethnonym in only a few cases due to historical accidents, presumably... AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

contradiction in the lead

The basque people are from spain....

especially among indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa,[9] such as those of the Basques, Minangkabau, Mosuo, Berbers or Tuareg.

I'd like to second the point that the Basques are neither African nor Asian. The Basques live between Spain and France and are therefore Europeans. To correct the above correction, the Basques I have known would also deny being Spanish or French. They're just Basque. cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.104.123 (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest comments on highly-speculative etymologies

First off, the claimed Amazon-Amazigh etymological "connection" is quite unlikely to be true according to the accepted principles of scientific linguistics, and it is certainly not claimed to be true at the Amazons article (in fact, it's given a rather dismissive brief glancing mention there). Its ONLY relevance for this article is if prominent theorizers about Matriarchy claim it to be valid. If it is not true that prominent theorizers about Matriarchy claim it to be valid, then it should be removed from this article immediately.

The remoter etymological claims come from somewhat problematic "ultra-Nostratic" websites (as discussed above), and even if they were on firm linguistic footing, (which they are NOT), they really have no particular relevance to the subject of matriarchy (which is supposed to be the actual topic of this article). Furthermore, there is not a symmetry of required sources -- you're the one who is adding disputed material to the article, so you're the one who is required to provide sources for it, but if the material is actually irrelevant to the article, I am not generally required to provide sources proving its irrelevance. AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but IAM OFFERING sources! You simply say they are not good ones...
  1. Britannicca is now cited as a solid source on which Tiamat is cleary linked to the Bible and considered a pagan influence (to say the least)
  2. A major scholar is linking AMA, amazons, berbers and Mosuo matriarchal cultures (they all refer to mother); Tiamat (click and check) is also cited on its own article as ama or mother (and as you know Walter B is a major archeologist)
  3. Tiamat or mother of life is the personification of the ocean or salty waters...and also a serpent
  4. So, her influence is not only as a serpent but also as a ama (mother) of life, ocean...and Mary means ocean or salty water or love
What do you mean by "the material is actually irrelevant to the article"? Tiamat is goddess of major biblical influence on Eve, the serpent and Mary. Goddesses are a starting point for any and all matriarchal analysis, so is the bible, religion, pre history, etimology and matriarchal societies (such as the amazons, berbers and mosuos) --and they all have the word ama in common. 187.21.142.164 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Dude, the common (but by no means invariable) association of the syllable [ma] with the concept of "mother" across various languages has a lot to do with extralinguistic factors (see article Mama and papa), and is by no means an indicator of etymological connections between words in different languages in the ordinary usual sense. Meanwhile, we could debate about super-Nostraticism vs. the consensus of mainstream linguistics, but I'm afraid that what's really NOT open to legitimate dispute here is that etymologies of any words — other than "matriarchy", "gene(co)cracy" etc. themselves — are only relevant to this article if prominent theorizers about matriarchy consider them to be valid and significant. Any and all etymologies which are not considered to be valid and significant by prominent theorizers about matriarchy must be instantly removed from this article, according to general Wikipedia policies. Therefore it doesn't necessarily matter what Sergei Starostin thought, unless he was a prominent theorizer about matriarchy, or unless his work was made use of by prominent theorizers about matriarchy. AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noted that this nonsense was still present in the current article revision. Apparently has been since April?? This article definitely needs more eyes. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

imgs

Images on Matriarchy are not dubious at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.128.77 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Cybele from Anatoli ais named after Rhea/ Cybele --and both are considered worshiped goddess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.128.77 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potnia_Theron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.128.77 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Goddess 187.21.128.77 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Two imgs to ilustrate whta is written on the article itself: that Bachoffen, Esler, Gerda and all archeologists cited have found on their researches: a goddess worship from neolithic to ancient civilizations; these imgs ilustrate not only the first paragraphs of this article but also many others such as Walter Burkert, mother goddess, cybele, çataulhuik, potnia theron...etc.66.36.251.192 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You want the Goddess movement article. This article is about a hypothetical form of society, not about goddesses. The Goddess movement associated goddess worship and matriarchy. It was a type of radical feminist movement in the 1980s and 1990s. It has very little to do with a serious discussion of matriarchy. The images just illustrate goddesses, they do not illustrate the hypothesis that these goddesses have anything to do with matriarchy. It's basically clip art intended to push a certain point of view. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noted that the images were only the tip of the iceberg. The article has really gone down the drain since I last looked at it. I removed the whole bunch of pseudo-etymologies related to goddesses and Amazons. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all

Goddess movement is not related here at all. Those renowned scholars cited they all raise the goddess issue to prove their theories --it´s NOT related to feminism. You are trying to diminish, and I can see the hystory of editions (your name since the beggining), matriarchy existence.

"The goddesses of Greek polytheism, so different and complementary," Walter Burkert has observed, in Homo Necans (1972) 1983:79f, "are nonetheless, consistently similar at an earlier stage, with one or the other simply becoming dominant in a sanctuary or city. Each is the Great Goddess presiding over a male society; each is depicted in her attire as Mistress of the Beasts, and Mistress of the Sacrifice, even Hera and Demeter".
This phrase shows the relation a major archeologist is doing to prove the existence of matriarchy. 187.21.128.77 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Don´t make a point and delete reliable sources --tiamat and its etymology are related to mother on the article itself (see: walter burkert), as much as the etymology of mother (on wikipedia itself). 187.21.128.77 (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
And all scholars cited believe Tiamat´s death as a an example of how occured the shift from matriarchy to patriarchy --there are four sources cited. 187.21.128.77 (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Besides, why not cite Burkert´s, and why not cite tiamat´s death, python´s death and all its sources (including many scholars)? 187.21.128.77 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this etymology --riginating from the Sanskrit matrika and mata; Ma, Mam or Mammy is used in Ireland and Northern areas of the UK; it is also used in some areas of the US.-- isnot to consider? You have matriarchy and motehr related. 187.21.128.77 (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You are copying from another article with no attribution, please seee Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia as that is actually a copyright violation. Specifically, you are copying from Mother, the section on synonyms and translations. That isn't sourced, and Wikipedia can't be used as a source. There's nothing there to suggest that has anything to do with the etymology of matriarchy. I found this, but there should be other sources: Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy By Peggy Reeves Sanday says "Such considerations lead me to propose that matriarchy he redefined in terms of cultural symbols and practices associating the maternal with the origin and center of the growth processes necessary for social and individual life. There are etymological grounds for shifting the definition of matriarchy in this direction. The root matrix from the Latin mater, means "mother, nurse; origin, source." The -arclyy suffix, which can he traced to the Greek word arxi or arche (apx?)), also refers to origin or source. Liddell's Greek-English Lexicon (1961:252) lists wo definitions for archc, one focusing on origins and the other on political power. According to the first definition, arche is defined as "beginnings origin; lay a foundation; source of action; from the beginnings from the firsts from of old; the original argument; first principle, element; practical principle of conduct; principles of knowledge" The second meaning defines archc as "first place of power, sovereignty; empire, realm; magistracy, office." The first meaning applies to adat Minangkabau, while the second with its implied emphasis on hierarchy, rule, and control does not." Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

187.21.128.77, you are pushing very dubious content here. Trying to contort the evidence into the appearance that Walter Burkert is a supporter of matriarchy theories is rather a rather bold enterprise. Yes, the Chaoskampf has been cast in terms of matriarchy vs. patriarchy. This is a classic case of speculative fringe scholarship, and it can certainly be discussed here, but it needs to be done properly.

Your etymological excurses do not really deserve commentary. Suffice it to say that the "MA means mother" thing is discussed at Mama and papa. Beyond this, I see nothing of value.

Regarding Tiamat, two of your sources simply confirm that Tiamat is associated with the underground river/ocean. This is completely undisputed. The "life-mother" etymology is attributed to a 19th century work, this may be a notable factoid for the Tiamat article, but it is perfectly unclear what this is supposed to have to do with matriarchy. This isn't a list of mythological creatures called "mother" of something. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter Burket, Savage Energy"Another historical interpretation of the myth, given by Bachofen but envisaged already by Wclcker, has, through Engels, endeared itself to Marxist historians:76 the Lemnian crime as memory of prehistoric matriarchal society. The progress of research in prehistory, however, has left less and less space for matriarchal society in any pre-Greek Mediterranean or Near Eastern civilization. Indeed Hypsipyle did not reign over men—which would be matriarchy—the men have simply disappeared; and this is not a matriarchal organization of society, but a disorganization of patriarchal society, a transitional stage, a sort of carnival—this is the reason why the Lemniads were an appropriate subject for comedy. Social order is turned upside down just to provoke a new reversal, which means the re-establishment of normal life."(p.77)
And some of this quote could be included:"22 Matriarchy in the true sense has not been shown to have existed anywhere in Aegean or Near Eastern prehistory, and to this extent, in spite of Bachofer, mythology and Engcls orthodoxy, it plays no role in the history of Greek religion, even if the position of the woman in Minoan Crete was different from that in th< Greek polis. The role of goddesses and the temporary dominance of women in ritual and myth is to be explained in a different way, structurally and psychologically; cf. S. Pembroke, 'Women in charge: the function of alternatives in early Greek tradition and the ancient idea of matriarchy1. Journal of the Warburg and Courlautd Institutes 30 (1967) 1-35; HN 42; 80." from Greek religion: archaic and classical By Walter Burkert, John Raffan, p.351. He's mentioned, but in a way that implies his opinions were the opposite of what they seem to be. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That´s very good --it simply shows that Walter Burkert agrees with a goddess worship (and citation is on the first paragraph of matriarchy article)
"The goddesses of Greek polytheism, so different and complementary," Walter Burkert has observed, in Homo Necans (1972) 1983:79f, "are nonetheless, consistently similar at an earlier stage, with one or the other simply becoming dominant in a sanctuary or city. Each is the Great Goddess presiding over a male society; each is depicted in her attire as Mistress of the Beasts, and Mistress of the Sacrifice, even Hera and Demeter".
This is what matters.If his opnion is that matriarchy didn´t exist doesn´t matter --what matters is that if ancient cvilizations based male power or patriarchy in religion --scholars there are who believe that also we can easily see that a goddess worship was not only the mother of all deities but the mother of any god that appeared later(Zeus, Apollo, Marduk). She (the goddess), according to Burkert, "presided a male society" (sic) but other authors come and say that this male society dereived from the death of all these goddesses --they new gods came and killed this goddess and they started a male society. And everything, for ancient and pre historic comes from religion. 187.21.128.77 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked as a sockpuppet

Note that this IP, editing here and under a slightly different IP address in April, has been blocked as a sockpuppet -- another one from the stable of those blocked last year at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackiestud/Archive. At least 5 socks so far, so editors should try to keep an eye out for more. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  1. Do you agree with an etymology subtitle? As for the third editor minor disagreement, I´ve included Britannia.com citation. So this is no longer an issue;
  2. As for the images --thy are cited on the article and they are related to the goddess worship (from Neolithic, pic on the right side to ancient civilizations, pic on the left side);
  3. I used not only many scholars Google Books but many wikipedia internal links (tiamat´s; mother´s etymology, etc);
  4. A citation from Burkert was deleted (why?) --"goddess presiding a male society";
  5. A citation even from Modern Matriachal Studies (linking the word ama with mother); this link (not to say etymology itsalf!!) is on mother wikipedia under "translation and synonymous" of the word mother (this was also deleted);
  6. The etymology of mother is not to consider (can we delete the etymologyy of "pater"?)?! Almost all articles have an etymology subtitle;
  7. The other editor, out of nothing, simply included an "unreliable source" tag on tiamat´s article --did he read the book, based on what did he includ this tag? Apparentely out of his own mind --can he prove tiamat´s etymology is not "mother of life"? A goddess who gives birth to all deities, who is the mother of all goddesses and gods is the basis, is basic ancient mythology; there are no news about that (http://www.sheila-t-harty.com/DeMythologizing%20Religion%20with%20Joseph%20Campbell.doc) 187.21.128.77 (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (note- this editor was blocked as a sock puppet of Jackiestud} Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. Why do we need an etymology section? If we do, then it needs to use properly sourced etymologies, not other Wikipedia articles, which you seem to think can be used as sources, and certainly not an etymology of Tiamat that no modern scholar seems to accept.
  2. This is not an article on goddess worship.
  3. There's no reason to use Burkert unless we cite his opinion on matriarchy, certainly not an out-of-contet excerpt.
  4. I don't see the relevance of the etymology of mother. This isn't an article on mother. I note that the etymology section of Patriarchy has no etymology in it, by the way.
  5. Editors are not here to prove or disprove anything. One late 19th century author disagreeing with modern scholarship on Tiamat's etymology is not a reliable source here.
Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymology (Lorynote)

Ok, but I offered new ones, new sources; you yourself mentioned the dispute (see Yangshao article), although also poiting the fact that the majority believes they were a matriarchal system. As I said if you started the article with by stating there is/was no whatsoever a matriarchal system, this is denied by the sources (Elam has a Cambridge source!!; I added two other sources for Yangshao, although chinese museums, historians dont´t dispute. A Cambridge source for Elam suffices to deny the first paragraph. And besides pre historians dind´t have a society like ours, and we can´t take computers to Greece and say they were not whatsoever smart or educated because computers didn´t exist; as much as we can´t say they were not whatsoever a matriarchy because women didn´t rule their society the way we today (nowadays) define ruling, leadership or patriarchy. How can you maintain within an article two oposite claims whicc, even worse, diminishes a such an important civilization such as Elam? Lorynote (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Lorynote (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

One could add the fact that patriarchy´s origin is religious, from a GOD´s belief the hebrews developed their social structure; it´s widely known they hated the Canaanite goddess Asherah. Lorynote (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Besides misrepresenting what the Yangshao article actually says in your edit summary and ignoring what the sources say, your mention of "matriarchy itself is the subject of a debate" is irrelevant: the debate over Yangshao isn't whether matriarchy exists, but whether Yangshao burial practices imply any sort of kinship structure, matrilineal, patrilineal, or bilineal. This is in contrast to the other societies mentioned in that section, which do have well-attested matrilineal or matrilocal components. Since the section specifically states "attested", Yangshao doesn't belong there. Ergative rlt (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, those burial, rituals, cults unveil much more about these civlization that one can ever imagine (and you know that). At least this is the thesis of all cited authors, from major scholars such as James Frazer, Bachofen, Walter Burket, Margaret Mead, Gimbutas, Riane Esler, Mellart...They all investigate religion, archeological sites and so forth. For you to have an idea, the first cited book, as far as could check, deals with body strength to justify men´s leadership (and even saying it´s "inevitable")! Iam for religion and burials instead of strenght --what about you? Can you imagine a man alone in the jungle trying to kill a cat, a dog, a bull? A man alone can´t do that; this man would need a lot of help, technology, knife, lance.....Lorynote (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
...which is a complete non sequitur. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Iam also for etymology --Israel means REAL ISIS; Genesis means the GENS of ISIS; http://www.resurrectisis.org/ Lorynote (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That's just nonsense etymology. And the Israelites, or some of them, worshipped Asherah. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
So, you expect us to believe that terms derived from ancient Hebrew and Greek can have their etymology revealed by near-anagrams in modern English? Or that anagrams, which are a product of writing systems, can have any bearing on the languages involved? That's not even wrong. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, almost a sin! They hated Asherah, very badly. According to Burkert, Potnia Theron, Isis and Asherah are but names of the very same goddesses --just like Virgin Mary has dozens of titles, ancient goddesses have many names. Lorynote (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lorynote -- You obviously have no special experience in ancient languages, and repeating an oversimplified version of some of the more extravagant theories of Raphael Patai and/or Merlin Stone really does nothing useful to improve this article. If you want to be able to deal with ancient Semitic language-group etymologies in any valid way, then you must become very familiar with the Hebrew etc. alphabets and triconsonantal roots (among other things). Repeating the names of Egyptian gods in their Greek form (where a word-final -s usually means Greek nominative singular case morphology, and does not correspond to anything in the original Egyptian-language name) does nothing to impress anyone with your etymological prowess. If there was any influence of Egyptian religion on Israelite religion before ca. 300 B.C., it was NOT mediated through the Greek language. These are just some of the factors which make your more far-reaching assertions dubious... AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lorynote: It's been a long while since I last heard "etymologies" that were dafter than these. Sorry, no place on WP for such bollocks. Trigaranus (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It was just a comment; I myself have no doubt Israel means Real Isis (no doubt at all). For me it has the same root of Africa --meaning goddess IFRI (or CAVE), from the afra people who worshipped this goddess; Venice because of the goddess Venus. So this is no anagram --it´s etymology and its historicla/religious context. There are 'many examples of countries and its names. I never said I was planning to include that on WP...I simply love this site because it opened my mind tremendously. Lorynote (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, the word "real" comes from adding a Latin adjective suffix onto the stem of the Latin word res "thing". How could the Latin language have exerted any influence on the Hebrew of the 10th century BCE when the Romans/Latins/Italians had no meaningful presence in the eastern Mediterranean until the 2nd century BC (about 800 years later), and during the great majority of their independent history, the ancient Israelites/Jews were not particularly a maritime people (in fact the Kingdom or Persian province of Judah usually didn't have a seacoast)? If you don't understand basic factors of linguistic and historical plausibility, then it would be wise for you to refrain from going wild in adding highly speculative etymologies to Wikipedia articles... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


And by the way there a lot of people who believe hebrews are egyptians; if you google a simple hebrews egyptians, you will see this: http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&client=firefox-a&hs=RQ2&rls=org.mozilla%3Apt-BR%3Aofficial&q=hebrews+egypt&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
And here you can compare both myths: http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm Lorynote (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Your first link is just to Google searching for anything with both Hebrews and Egypt in it, which is useless, the second is indeed a comparison showing the differences, but not suggesting at all that the Hebrews were Egyptian. The fact that you have no doubt about these strange ideas about etymology simply shows your problems. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, just a link; you can do that search by yourself --hebrews were egyptians. Goddess IFRI and Venice are strange ideas? Not at all In Venice the people of VENETO worshipped goddess Reitia, which also gave birth to the Venetic language. All of it came from this goddess. And this is all very easy to be found if you google it; these are common sense. Lorynote (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Paphlagonia

Veneto or Hueneto is latim form of Venus; and includes sumerian "w" (daughter) and anu (sky). http://www.google.com.br/search?q=Paphlagonia+venus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:pt-BR:official&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorynote (talk • contribs) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Venus is latin - there is no other latin form of Venus. Please stop rambling about female goddesses - they are irrelevant to the topic. Matriarchy is a system of social and political organization - not a religious one. Lots of cultures have had female goddesses - that does not make them matriarchies. A matriarchy would be a matriarchy and have a male god. What you are talking about has no connection to the topic. So please stop. This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article, not for personal musings.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matriarchy/Archive_2&oldid=457637213"