![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Much of it reads like a translation, i.e. Lithuglish - certainly not written by a native speaker. Whoever wrote it, was struggling with English articles and prepositions. This is almost always a dead giveaway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
That's the title User:DreamGuy gives to the following edit:
Does this sound like neutrality? Why not actually quote some critics of Gimbutas? -- Wetman 03:46, 24 Nov 2-- Al-Nofi ( talk) 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)004 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like neutrality... It's the showing two sides of the issue, instead of just all these great things somebody thought up about Gimbutas about how she was revolutionary and loved by everyone, which is NPOV and untrue. It's certainly a lot better than not mentioning it at all in the entire article. Yes, quoting critics of Gimbutas would be even better, and so would rewriting a lot of the rest of it, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. Otherwise it's an entire article written solely from a Gimbutas supporter's viewpoint. DreamGuy 04:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
This same User is back, after an enforced Time Out, inserting his unsupported personal opinion in phrases like "her final book The Civilization of the Goddess (1991), which presented an overview of her speculations about Neolithic cultures," and "Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal cultural elements, which she claimed fused to form the classical European societies". In a context of the article Marija Gimbutas, which already specifies these are Gimbutas' views, this is a disservice to the reader, quite as unnecessary as inserting "the alleged Resurrection" into articles on theology. Some quotes from specific ctitics would be useful, but User:DreamGuy has never actually read any of them. -- Wetman 00:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The problem is she had no serious critics. She was the prevailing and most experienced authority in her field. The only people she really "argued" with were the male archeologists who had come decades before her and had interpreted digs according to their own (limited and somewhat sexist) cultural belief systems. It was simply impossible for male archeologists of the previous decades to believe that a woman could be a deity. Gimbutas' evidence and theory were so solid and so well documented that none of her contemporaries really argued with her. Some of them did not like what she had to say because it disrupted what they thought of as the normal nature of things - that god is male. But none of these people had any scientific arguments with Gimbutas. It is astonishing that someone here is trying to create a scientific controversy where there was and is none. Theologists may not like what she found and documented, but scientists can see the evidence for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.253.176 ( talk) 04:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is beyond bizarre to object to the word 'claimed' when talking about an archaeological theory that will never be proved or disproved in the absence of a time machine. Of course these are claims, not hard facts, and for someone objecting to this simple statement to present him/herself as writing from an objective and scientific prespective - and to lambast his/her opponent as being non-objective and non-scientific - is laughable. Perhaps this person should read Popper for basic familiarisation with concepts such as 'claim', 'hypothesis' and 'conjecture'.
Equally absurd is the sweeping assertion "It was simply impossible for male archeologists of the previous decades to believe that a woman could be a deity". Oh, was it really? And not just 'impossible', oh no, 'simply impossible'; for as we know, males have limited imaginations and intellectual capabilities, therefore no mere male could conceive of a female deity. Yes, dear, granted: men are inferior to women; all men, to all women. Oh, wait: men had not had a problem accepting Hera as a goddess, nor Athene, nor any of the others. So take your superior, sexist attitude somewhere else, where it might be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.221.61 ( talk) 11:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please look at this. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this is plagiarized from somewhere. This is not Helga's English. It reads more like the blurb on a book. Danny
This is a very biased article, it hardly touches on the fact that the vast majority of classical scholars dismiss her work almost entirely. Someone reading this would think that she was a respected scholar, whereas she is considered with something close to ridicule in most academic circles. Can someone present the other side of the argument and clean up this article? Fairywings 14:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and it also says nothing. What does "a different way of life of possible" mean? Danny
This statement is ridiculous "the vast majority of classical scholars dismiss her work." Are you an archeologist? Have you studied the record and the artifacts? The people who have a problem with Gimbutas are theologically driven - they have a personal investment in the idea that all gods must be male. Perhaps if you are a "history" professor at Pat Robertson University you might have a problem with Gimbutas' findings. But real scientists have been over and over the "EVIDENCE", the digs tell everything. If you don't know how to do original research in archeology, then don't presume to know what archeologists "believe" about Gimbutas work. Her work is 100% documents and the scientif record is there for anyone with a eyes and a brain to examine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.253.176 ( talk) 05:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The first reference,
seems somehow buggy to me ("Bestättung" does not exist in German AFAIK). Is somebody sure about this orthography ?
PS: after a quick google, I decided to fix it. — MFH: Talk 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added a quote taken directly from Andrew Fleming's cited article. In my view, this quote indicates that he has a viewpoint that should be regarded with suspicion. I have also pointed out that Fleming's paper (and, I think Ucko's also, but I have not checked this, so have not referred to him) is not directed at Gimbutas's work. Daniel1Cohen 21:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Tacitus Germania ~"they dwel apart when they chose". Bu this is very late observation. Where are the forts from 7 kya? Nasz 09:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Marija was born in Vilnius which is certainly now in Lithuania. Someone has just edited this to Wilno, Poland. I suppose it was Poland in 1921... but is this the recommended format for Wikipedia citations? -- Evertype· ✆ 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when gossiping, even if from an professor should find space on Wiki?
Same goes for a ten lines long totally useless excerpt from "Gimbutas' personal editor". The excerpt cite: "Although it is considered improper in mainstream archaeology to interpret the ideology of prehistoric societies, it became obvious to Marija that [...]" And why it became obvious to her? mah, no a word on it. I'm taking both parts away. If you feel they should restated, please explain you reason to do so. -- Dia^ ( talk) 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
She seems to have had no problems living in Nazi Germany during WW II. This suggests she was politically acceptable to the Nazi regime. Clarification is needed.
→→Why? Paul de Man left Anti Semitic writing. Dr Gimbutas did not. So why would it be acceptable to speculate?
Being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Marija Gimbutas - as I thought, it doesn't appear that this belongs in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 11:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
So contemporary scientific confirmation of Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis is off limits in a section about the Kurgan hypothesis in her bio? Frankly, this sounds like straight anti-science and suppression of evidence.
But Paglia's sophomoric, uncited, partisan, personal invective against Gimbutas' reputation and judgement stands, of course... What has Paglia done to advance human knowledge?
but every time a critic says Gimbutas's views as being were "matriarchical", it says more about the critic than it does about Dr Gimbutas. I took a class from her at UCLA, during the later part of her life, when she is said to have been supporting "radical feminist archaeology". First words she said were "There was no matriarchy. There has never been a matriarchy."
That really needs to be clarified and counterpointed somewhere in the article.
"In Old Europe, the world of myth was not polarized into female and male as it was among the Indo-European and many other nomadic and pastoral peoples of the steppes. Both principles are manifest side by side. The male divinity in the shape of a young man or a male animal appears to affirm and strengthen the forces of the creative and active female. Neither is subordinate to the other; by complementing each other, their power is doubled."
The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, Gimbutas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.17.94 ( talk) 20:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Except it isn't. Not patriarchal is not the equivalent of matriarchal, unless you see things through a patriarchal lens. That is why Dr Gimbutas took such pains and coined her own word "matristic".
Property and inheritance were matrilinear, and goddesses were incorporated into the pantheon. The controversial part of her work is how she extracted evidence (or conjecture as her critics say) of the evidence of the goddess.
The matrilinean nature of property rights is less controversial grounds. Egypt was largely matrilinear. In addition, consider a lesson from her class on the Trojan War. When Odysseus returned from a years and years of war, plus years and years of travel, his wife Penelope was surrounded by suitors. The suitors had besieged the house to marry this middle aged woman, not because of her youth and beauty, but because the property and titles descended through her, not her grown son. You have to consider that a 1000 ships were not launched because of Helen's beauty, but because of her claim to Agamemnon's claim to his station in life. And yet, the male warriors won the field --- not a do what women want culture which is how a matriarchy is largely defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.134 ( talk) 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
When I said it isn't, I meant it isn't. Outranking a husband in esteem or social status does not create a matriarchy. Esteem for age or fertility does not mean matriarchy. Matrilineal property does not mean matriarchy.
The absence of patriarchy is not matriarchy unless you see everything through a patriarchal lens. Patriarchy has its roots in father rule, and in the cultic status of warrior kings. Mother rule has never extended far enough to evolve into matriarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.134 ( talk) 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
So, you just wanted to confuse the issue? If you follow the ancestral roots, yes the words matriarchy is descended by mother + rule. An archaic definition for a word politically weighted in the world today. Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 ( talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Nuance? More like pointing out false equivalence. Mother rule is not, nor has it ever been, the equivalent of patriarchy, aka, male rule by the state, religion and economic forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 ( talk) 01:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
the goddess thing is controversial, but it's not her place in history. would you expect to go to an encylopedia page for newton and read about his theological views? he wrote a huge amount on the topic. we don't need more ad hominems from thinly veiled creationists like colin renfrew. considering this person's immense contribution to science, this page is really woefully inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 ( talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I am bit worried "the goddess thing is controversial" is a typical way of saying since there are contradictory view points this topic should be avoided. One of the reasons why I like Wikipedia is that it allows many view points, unlike classical logic. It is true that her contribution to "kurgan hypothesis" is also important and it should be given due importance. I think there is also this main-stream opinion that works of Lewis H. Morgan and Fredrick Engels should be excluded but I think this connectivity between different knowledge that exists in Wikipedia is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukidambi ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that this article still pretends the pagan goddess is the sole source of her influence.
Dr Gimbutas was an archaeologist who contributed HUGELY to our understanding of pre-historic Europe.
The Influence section though, cites 3 paragraphs, all on the neopagan movement.
NO. THAT IS NOT THE MAIN INFLUENCE DR GIMBUTAS HAD. SHE WAS A WORLD CLASS ARCHAEOLOGIST AND SCHOLAR AND WE UNDERSTAND MORE BECAUSE SHE WAS A WORLD CLASS ARCHAEOLOGIST.
The kurgan hypothesis and her work as an archaeologist should be given prominence. Neopaganism is a side show.
Sorry for shouting.
An anti-Wiccan just added the words "pseudohistorian" at various places in this article. I deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.134 ( talk) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
should like be updated to his current position that Gimbutas's Kurgan Theory is simply too large to be of use.
A la The Horse, The Wheel and The Language, he argues there is irrefutable widespread evidence of destruction and mayhem but it has to be the result of gangs not infantry so it's not *war as we know it*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 ( talk) 21:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marija Gimbutas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marija Gimbutas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The article sorely lacks a section discussing the speculative and pesudoscientific character of much of this archaeologist's "work". It would even be a clear and worthy example to illustrate, in the "Pseudoscience" article, how ideological prejudices and bias can lead to willing distortion and misinterpretation of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.195 ( talk) 15:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Much of it reads like a translation, i.e. Lithuglish - certainly not written by a native speaker. Whoever wrote it, was struggling with English articles and prepositions. This is almost always a dead giveaway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 ( talk) 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
That's the title User:DreamGuy gives to the following edit:
Does this sound like neutrality? Why not actually quote some critics of Gimbutas? -- Wetman 03:46, 24 Nov 2-- Al-Nofi ( talk) 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)004 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like neutrality... It's the showing two sides of the issue, instead of just all these great things somebody thought up about Gimbutas about how she was revolutionary and loved by everyone, which is NPOV and untrue. It's certainly a lot better than not mentioning it at all in the entire article. Yes, quoting critics of Gimbutas would be even better, and so would rewriting a lot of the rest of it, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. Otherwise it's an entire article written solely from a Gimbutas supporter's viewpoint. DreamGuy 04:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
This same User is back, after an enforced Time Out, inserting his unsupported personal opinion in phrases like "her final book The Civilization of the Goddess (1991), which presented an overview of her speculations about Neolithic cultures," and "Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal cultural elements, which she claimed fused to form the classical European societies". In a context of the article Marija Gimbutas, which already specifies these are Gimbutas' views, this is a disservice to the reader, quite as unnecessary as inserting "the alleged Resurrection" into articles on theology. Some quotes from specific ctitics would be useful, but User:DreamGuy has never actually read any of them. -- Wetman 00:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The problem is she had no serious critics. She was the prevailing and most experienced authority in her field. The only people she really "argued" with were the male archeologists who had come decades before her and had interpreted digs according to their own (limited and somewhat sexist) cultural belief systems. It was simply impossible for male archeologists of the previous decades to believe that a woman could be a deity. Gimbutas' evidence and theory were so solid and so well documented that none of her contemporaries really argued with her. Some of them did not like what she had to say because it disrupted what they thought of as the normal nature of things - that god is male. But none of these people had any scientific arguments with Gimbutas. It is astonishing that someone here is trying to create a scientific controversy where there was and is none. Theologists may not like what she found and documented, but scientists can see the evidence for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.253.176 ( talk) 04:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is beyond bizarre to object to the word 'claimed' when talking about an archaeological theory that will never be proved or disproved in the absence of a time machine. Of course these are claims, not hard facts, and for someone objecting to this simple statement to present him/herself as writing from an objective and scientific prespective - and to lambast his/her opponent as being non-objective and non-scientific - is laughable. Perhaps this person should read Popper for basic familiarisation with concepts such as 'claim', 'hypothesis' and 'conjecture'.
Equally absurd is the sweeping assertion "It was simply impossible for male archeologists of the previous decades to believe that a woman could be a deity". Oh, was it really? And not just 'impossible', oh no, 'simply impossible'; for as we know, males have limited imaginations and intellectual capabilities, therefore no mere male could conceive of a female deity. Yes, dear, granted: men are inferior to women; all men, to all women. Oh, wait: men had not had a problem accepting Hera as a goddess, nor Athene, nor any of the others. So take your superior, sexist attitude somewhere else, where it might be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.221.61 ( talk) 11:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please look at this. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this is plagiarized from somewhere. This is not Helga's English. It reads more like the blurb on a book. Danny
This is a very biased article, it hardly touches on the fact that the vast majority of classical scholars dismiss her work almost entirely. Someone reading this would think that she was a respected scholar, whereas she is considered with something close to ridicule in most academic circles. Can someone present the other side of the argument and clean up this article? Fairywings 14:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and it also says nothing. What does "a different way of life of possible" mean? Danny
This statement is ridiculous "the vast majority of classical scholars dismiss her work." Are you an archeologist? Have you studied the record and the artifacts? The people who have a problem with Gimbutas are theologically driven - they have a personal investment in the idea that all gods must be male. Perhaps if you are a "history" professor at Pat Robertson University you might have a problem with Gimbutas' findings. But real scientists have been over and over the "EVIDENCE", the digs tell everything. If you don't know how to do original research in archeology, then don't presume to know what archeologists "believe" about Gimbutas work. Her work is 100% documents and the scientif record is there for anyone with a eyes and a brain to examine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.253.176 ( talk) 05:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The first reference,
seems somehow buggy to me ("Bestättung" does not exist in German AFAIK). Is somebody sure about this orthography ?
PS: after a quick google, I decided to fix it. — MFH: Talk 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added a quote taken directly from Andrew Fleming's cited article. In my view, this quote indicates that he has a viewpoint that should be regarded with suspicion. I have also pointed out that Fleming's paper (and, I think Ucko's also, but I have not checked this, so have not referred to him) is not directed at Gimbutas's work. Daniel1Cohen 21:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Tacitus Germania ~"they dwel apart when they chose". Bu this is very late observation. Where are the forts from 7 kya? Nasz 09:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Marija was born in Vilnius which is certainly now in Lithuania. Someone has just edited this to Wilno, Poland. I suppose it was Poland in 1921... but is this the recommended format for Wikipedia citations? -- Evertype· ✆ 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when gossiping, even if from an professor should find space on Wiki?
Same goes for a ten lines long totally useless excerpt from "Gimbutas' personal editor". The excerpt cite: "Although it is considered improper in mainstream archaeology to interpret the ideology of prehistoric societies, it became obvious to Marija that [...]" And why it became obvious to her? mah, no a word on it. I'm taking both parts away. If you feel they should restated, please explain you reason to do so. -- Dia^ ( talk) 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
She seems to have had no problems living in Nazi Germany during WW II. This suggests she was politically acceptable to the Nazi regime. Clarification is needed.
→→Why? Paul de Man left Anti Semitic writing. Dr Gimbutas did not. So why would it be acceptable to speculate?
Being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Marija Gimbutas - as I thought, it doesn't appear that this belongs in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 11:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
So contemporary scientific confirmation of Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis is off limits in a section about the Kurgan hypothesis in her bio? Frankly, this sounds like straight anti-science and suppression of evidence.
But Paglia's sophomoric, uncited, partisan, personal invective against Gimbutas' reputation and judgement stands, of course... What has Paglia done to advance human knowledge?
but every time a critic says Gimbutas's views as being were "matriarchical", it says more about the critic than it does about Dr Gimbutas. I took a class from her at UCLA, during the later part of her life, when she is said to have been supporting "radical feminist archaeology". First words she said were "There was no matriarchy. There has never been a matriarchy."
That really needs to be clarified and counterpointed somewhere in the article.
"In Old Europe, the world of myth was not polarized into female and male as it was among the Indo-European and many other nomadic and pastoral peoples of the steppes. Both principles are manifest side by side. The male divinity in the shape of a young man or a male animal appears to affirm and strengthen the forces of the creative and active female. Neither is subordinate to the other; by complementing each other, their power is doubled."
The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, Gimbutas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.17.94 ( talk) 20:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Except it isn't. Not patriarchal is not the equivalent of matriarchal, unless you see things through a patriarchal lens. That is why Dr Gimbutas took such pains and coined her own word "matristic".
Property and inheritance were matrilinear, and goddesses were incorporated into the pantheon. The controversial part of her work is how she extracted evidence (or conjecture as her critics say) of the evidence of the goddess.
The matrilinean nature of property rights is less controversial grounds. Egypt was largely matrilinear. In addition, consider a lesson from her class on the Trojan War. When Odysseus returned from a years and years of war, plus years and years of travel, his wife Penelope was surrounded by suitors. The suitors had besieged the house to marry this middle aged woman, not because of her youth and beauty, but because the property and titles descended through her, not her grown son. You have to consider that a 1000 ships were not launched because of Helen's beauty, but because of her claim to Agamemnon's claim to his station in life. And yet, the male warriors won the field --- not a do what women want culture which is how a matriarchy is largely defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.134 ( talk) 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
When I said it isn't, I meant it isn't. Outranking a husband in esteem or social status does not create a matriarchy. Esteem for age or fertility does not mean matriarchy. Matrilineal property does not mean matriarchy.
The absence of patriarchy is not matriarchy unless you see everything through a patriarchal lens. Patriarchy has its roots in father rule, and in the cultic status of warrior kings. Mother rule has never extended far enough to evolve into matriarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.134 ( talk) 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
So, you just wanted to confuse the issue? If you follow the ancestral roots, yes the words matriarchy is descended by mother + rule. An archaic definition for a word politically weighted in the world today. Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 ( talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Nuance? More like pointing out false equivalence. Mother rule is not, nor has it ever been, the equivalent of patriarchy, aka, male rule by the state, religion and economic forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 ( talk) 01:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
the goddess thing is controversial, but it's not her place in history. would you expect to go to an encylopedia page for newton and read about his theological views? he wrote a huge amount on the topic. we don't need more ad hominems from thinly veiled creationists like colin renfrew. considering this person's immense contribution to science, this page is really woefully inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 ( talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I am bit worried "the goddess thing is controversial" is a typical way of saying since there are contradictory view points this topic should be avoided. One of the reasons why I like Wikipedia is that it allows many view points, unlike classical logic. It is true that her contribution to "kurgan hypothesis" is also important and it should be given due importance. I think there is also this main-stream opinion that works of Lewis H. Morgan and Fredrick Engels should be excluded but I think this connectivity between different knowledge that exists in Wikipedia is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukidambi ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that this article still pretends the pagan goddess is the sole source of her influence.
Dr Gimbutas was an archaeologist who contributed HUGELY to our understanding of pre-historic Europe.
The Influence section though, cites 3 paragraphs, all on the neopagan movement.
NO. THAT IS NOT THE MAIN INFLUENCE DR GIMBUTAS HAD. SHE WAS A WORLD CLASS ARCHAEOLOGIST AND SCHOLAR AND WE UNDERSTAND MORE BECAUSE SHE WAS A WORLD CLASS ARCHAEOLOGIST.
The kurgan hypothesis and her work as an archaeologist should be given prominence. Neopaganism is a side show.
Sorry for shouting.
An anti-Wiccan just added the words "pseudohistorian" at various places in this article. I deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.134 ( talk) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
should like be updated to his current position that Gimbutas's Kurgan Theory is simply too large to be of use.
A la The Horse, The Wheel and The Language, he argues there is irrefutable widespread evidence of destruction and mayhem but it has to be the result of gangs not infantry so it's not *war as we know it*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 ( talk) 21:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marija Gimbutas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marija Gimbutas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The article sorely lacks a section discussing the speculative and pesudoscientific character of much of this archaeologist's "work". It would even be a clear and worthy example to illustrate, in the "Pseudoscience" article, how ideological prejudices and bias can lead to willing distortion and misinterpretation of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.195 ( talk) 15:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)