Talk:Marija Gimbutas

PLEASE PLEASE CAN SOMEONE EDIT THE ENGLISH
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)

"Trying for some NPOV here"
That's the title User:DreamGuy gives to the following edit:
 * Gimbutas' theories are supported by a number of auhtors in the Neopagan movement, although her conclusions are generally considered highly speculative and unsupported at this time by most scholars.

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)
 * Who would those of you who have read anything by Gimbutas say is Gimbutas' most creditable critic, and what is the basis of his criticism? This is the kind of material that more properly belongs in the entry. --Wetman 05:56, 24 Nov 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)


 * There was no "enforced Time Out" of any sort, and your attempts to bad mouth me everytime I make a correction to an article you contributed to are getting very tired. It is by no means an unsupported personal opinion to point out that her claims of there being a Great Goddess are claims and speculation and not fact. You may have decided she was right, but the archeological community has not. She has theories, and not very well supported ones. Trying to remove language that clarifies that fact is highly biased. The only reason you find them unnecessary is because you disagree with them. And your claims that I have not read books on the topic is yet another in a long series of things you've invented up in your head to give yourself an excuse for disliking someone who is just improving articles you'd rather have stay written the way you made them. DreamGuy 16:24, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * (No problem with this person nor with most of his edits, actually. Pushing a second-hand revisionist-groupie personal point-of-view as "the archaeological community" is unhelpful, even if I were to do it. Absolutely nothing personal. Quotes from Gimbutas might encourage us to think DreamGuy has read her. Her over-the-top statements could easily be taken out of context to discredit her, far more effectively. "She has theories, and not very well supported ones" is fatuous, in the standard meaning of the word. Non one can blame us for wondering what's really up with this? --Wetman 21:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) )


 * what's wrong with this? I have read stuff by Gimbutas, and by critics, and I think it sums it up nicely. She made important contributions, and, later in life, she clearly went for fringy feminist speculation. We should not let that cast a shadow on her "serious" work, but it is undeniable that much of her later work is less than "generally accepted". dab (&#5839;) 09:41, 10 December 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)


 * right. and, what's happened is that there's been a status quo reaction to misrepresent her radical ideas because they're dangerous to the existing order. how many times have we read that story? we can't do this yet. it's too soon. her arguments are too radical. first, there needs to be a reactionary phase. it has to run it's course. then it can be re-examined. so, no, you're not going to find a lot of unbiased source material at the moment. the closest up to now is probably the mallory text that claims she was mostly right, up to the point of being fallible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2014 (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)

Plagiarism and POV concerns
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)
 * Agreed. This article needs major work.  The Jade Knight 06:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This particular issue appears to remain unaddressed. The Jade Knight (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2009 (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)

Correct title ?
The first reference,


 * Gimbutas, Marija 1946. Die Bestättung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit. Tübingen: In Kommission bei J.C.B. Mohr.

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. &mdash; MFH:Talk 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Fleming
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)
 * I don't see how Fleming's view belongs here at all, as it is not directed at Marija's work. It should be deleted from here and moved to a generic article about intepreting Neolitic art. I'm deleting and putting them here in case anyone wants them. Evertype 10:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Andrew Fleming, "The Myth of the Mother Goddess," (World Archaeology 1969) denied that Neolithic spirals, circles, and dots were symbols for eyes; that eyes, faces, and genderless figures were symbols of a female; or that certain of Gimbutas' female figures were symbols of a goddess or goddesses; he described some of the figurines as "cheerful local pornography". His critique, while undoubtedly relevant to Gimbutas's work, is directed at an earlier generation of archaeologists and relates to a different area of Europe."
 * Myself, I think the reference to Fleming should remain, as it illustrates the difficulty of any interpretation. Daniel1Cohen 13:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Marija has her critics. It's fair to cite them. Fleming isn't criticizing her, but something more generic. Evertype 14:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fleming? Seriously?  I don't want to be rude, but he is irrelevant to the work of Gimbutas.  Anyone who dismisses naked figurines as "local pornography" is not a serious critic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.253.176 (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

debuking of debuking

 * the cultures of Old Europe built fortified sites that indicate the presence of warfare.

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)

Vilnius or Wilno
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)
 * The "puppet state" references seem unencyclopaedic to me. -- Evertype·✆ 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Gossiping?
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)
 * I think your aggressive POV on this outweighs the "I don't like it". This quotation should not be removed for the reasons you state. -- Evertype·✆ 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not decide what should go (or not) on wiki and gossiping is not among it. And excerpt should have a meaning, not just for decoration. If you don't like how I expressed myself in this page. Fair enough. But here we should discuss about content in the article. --Dia^ (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What was Gimbutas doing during WW II?
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.


 * She didn't live in Nazi Germany. She was a Lithuanian living in Nazi-occupied Lithuanaia. Lots of Lithuanians lived in Lithuania at the time. She was a college student, and it is doubtful that the Nazis took any notice of her. There is in no way an implication that she was "politically acceptable" to the Nazis.--RLent (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * She lived in Germany fo rmost of the war. Not in Lithuania.  And she undertook her doctoral studies while in Germany, receiving her PhD from Tubingen shortly after the war.  She could hardly have been enrolled in a university if she was not politically acceptable. Al-Nofi (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the article and I agree that, if someone's said it in a reliable source, this criticism should be included (I do seem to remember someone mentioning it in a book of WWII miscellanea). Even had she been an undergraduate in Lithuania, she would have had to meet certain political standards). If it's acceptable to talk about this regarding Paul de Man, it should be here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

→→Why? Paul de Man left Anti Semitic writing. Dr Gimbutas did not. So why would it be acceptable to speculate?

Recent edits on genetics
Being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology - 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.


 * I just reverted an edit from the same IP because it foisted an uncited, partisan, personal condemnation on Paglia's reputation and judgment - presumably because she dares criticise Gimbutas' hobby-horse. Having read the talk-page linked above, I'll revert the remainder of the IP's contributions to this article. The IP's contributions in related articles might be worth a critical look. Haploidavey (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

But Paglia's sophomoric, uncited, partisan, personal invective against Gimbutas' reputation and judgement stands, of course... What has Paglia done to advance human knowledge?


 * If you look at "Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events"], PLoS ONE 2012, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034288 you find "R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." with [3] being "Gimbutas M (1970)  Proto-Indo-European Culture: The Kurgan Culture during the Fifth, Fourth, and Third Millennia B.C. In: Cardona G, Hoenigswald M, Senn A, editors. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans: Papers Presented at the Third Indo-European Conference at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 155–197.". Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in Talk:Haplogroup R-M17 and now also Kurgan hypothesis, this conclusion makes no sense. It's like arguing that modern Indo-Iranian languages not being descended from modern Balto-Slavic (let alone Slavic) languages "does not support, as previously thought", the Indo-European hypothesis: complete straw-man and non sequitur due to anachronistic thought comparable to "if we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". D'oh! Of course nobody in their right mind (i. e., Paleolithic Continuity nutcases obviously do not count) expects a haplogroup typical of modern Slavs in Afghanistan since nobody thinks that modern Slavs are among the ancestors of modern Indo-Iranians! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, I agree that none of this belongs into this article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is better than it used to be
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)


 * That makes sense. After all, the term matriarchy implies merely an inversion of patriarchy, a hierarchical social structure where men are subjugated by women. Instead, she envisioned peaceful, egalitarian societies where women are honoured and accepted as authorities voluntarily but do not rule and see no need to enforce authority using violence.


 * It is important not to straw-man her views in this article but to represent them faithfully. As I have not read her books and am dependent on second-hand portrayals of her views that appear biased – either dismissive or over-zealous – I will refrain from editing this article, but I think it is a bad idea to rely exclusively or even mainly on summaries (whether coming from critics and opponents or supporters and sympathisers), as summaries can only be a source for the views of her recipients, not her own views. Her real views may well be much more nuanced than the way they are usually represented, and it would be to commit an outrageous fallacy to criticise one's own excessive simplification of an opponent's more nuanced views as excessively simplified. That's straw-manning to the point of caricature.


 * For example, while ancient Egypt was no doubt a stratified society, there is no evidence that women had a subordinate status there and instead there is some evidence that they were not at all excluded from any profession. The only exception, that the pharaoh had to be a man, had religious reasons. Even in this case, there are exceptions, although female pharaohs had to assume the role of a man in a ritual sense because the pharaoh was an inherently male concept.


 * Even in traditional Middle-Eastern societies, which we think of as quintessentially patriarchal, reality is more complex. It is only young, unmarried women who have a low status. As women are married and bear children, they continue to advance in status with age until a point when they can even outrank their husbands in influence. I have been told that this is especially so in the Caucasus and ironically it is modern, Western influence that have caused a gradual disappearance of this phenomenon of high-status old women. (Age being associated with high status and authority also contributes to the tendency to inflate one's own age in traditional societies, which is especially well-known from the Caucasus although there are other factors at play there.) This is literally a matriarchy! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2014 (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)
 * Except it isn't. Yes, it is. I wrote: "As women are married and bear children, they continue to advance in status with age until a point when they can even outrank their husbands in influence." You missed that crucial point, which made me add the comment "This is literally a matriarchy", as it is literally mothers who "rule", not any kind of women.
 * Ancient Egypt is a better example for a society that appears to have been egalitarian; there is no evidence for a patriarchal structure, neither for a matriarchal one. The Pharao was necessarily male only for cultic reasons, but otherwise it appears that every position in society could be occupied by a person of any gender. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:20, 27 November 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)


 * You still don't understand. I said literally – "matriarchy" translates literally as "rule by mothers" – as opposed to rule by women in general. Mother rule is literally a matriarchy (as opposed to the usual definition of matriarchy as rule by women, which would literally be gynarchy). I know that mother rule is not the same as matriarchy despite the etymology, that's why I said literally! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (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)


 * No. I merely wished to point out that this interesting real-world phenomenon, which is usually overlooked as it is more subtle, ironically happens to fit the term "matriarchy", literally understood, much better than the usual conception as "rule by women", not specifically mothers. I wonder if that's why the term was chosen in the first place, if scholars were aware of the phenomenon in the first place, but I don't know the history of matriarchy research well enough. Matriarchy does suggest that matriarchy was indeed once literally understood and was conflated with gynæcocracy only later. Certainly there is a lot of room for different conceptions of society that, for different authors, could fall under the label, and it makes sense to me that Gimbutas would have a more nuanced view on the matter than most of her opponents. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:41, 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)


 * But I haven't claimed that it is! The gender-flipped equivalent of patriarchy is female institutional dominance and oppression of men, i. e., gynæcocracy, which next to nobody seriously argues for either for the past, present or future. And Gimbutas was indeed at pains to point out that she avoided the term matriarchy precisely because people tend to see it as the gender-flipped counterpart of patriarchy, i. e., gynæcocracy, instead of its original literal meaning. So people should avoid the term too when discussing her views. It's a strawman that (some of) her opponents still attack again and again (I just had to remove it from Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, where it stood unchallenged for years). This is the precise point that the original poster made. Gimbutas's vision of Old Europe was an egalitarian society, right in tune with her – and probably 99.9% of all feminists' – ideal of a future society.
 * Do I need to spell it out for you in more simple terms?
 * Matriarchy (original meaning, i. e., mother rule): arguably a real phenomenon (ironically even in some societies superficially perceived as patriarchal, which was my whole point). (Possibly what Gimbutas was getting at with matristic.)
 * Matriarchy (modern meaning, i. e., gynæcocracy): a pure strawman virtually nobody seriously advocates, for any culture or time period (including the future); and considering that fact, that a society based on women's rule and male oppression is a chimera, pure fiction, the term in that meaning is not particularly useful and what really confuses the issue.
 * Patriarchy (androcracy): common. As the parallel formation suggests that patriarchy and matriarchy are mirror images, patriarchy deserves to be renamed, but since the terms are so entrenched now, Gimbutas's apparent solution to rename "matriarchal" in the original sense into "matristic" makes more sense. In any case, to be precise, #2 and #3 are both what confuses the issue.
 * This, and nothing else, is what I'm saying. I think we're not actually disagreeing here, even. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

gimbutas' contribution is her undisputed kurgan hypothesis
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)
 * What exactly links Renfrew to creationism? His Anatolian hypothesis is not pseudoscientific (only – IMHO – wrong). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Lewis H. Morgan and Fredrick Engels
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.


 * You are correct that we should absolutely not downplay her contributions to the archaeology of prehistoric Europe, only because some of her – or other people's – interpretations of the evidence she collected are exaggerated and dubious. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just eliminated NPOV references
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)

David Anthony's criticism
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040204135051/http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/Gimbutasbio to http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/Gimbutasbio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606092451/http://www.opusarchives.org/gimbutas_overview.shtml to http://www.opusarchives.org/gimbutas_overview.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing information (discussion of the pseudoscience)
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)
 * Gimbutas's academically rejected work is discussed in the article's reception section (Marija_Gimbutas). That said, the article's lead should provide a summary of the article's contents, but it currently does not. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)