Posted on

Quest for the Mother Goddess

Could it Be the Most Ancient of All?

Carved representations of mother goddesses have been around for a long time. In fact, some recent discoveries are dated even by orthodox academic archaeology to over 35,000 years ago. Indeed some scholars like Atlantis Rising Magazine columnist Michael Cremo (co-author with Richard Thompson of Forbidden Archaeology, The Hidden History of the Human Race) cite published documentation for such figurines dating to many thousands of years before orthodox science says such a thing was possible.

In Spring of 2020, archaeologists working in Amiens, France uncovered a beautifully carved figure dating to 23,000 years ago. Said to be the work the tool-making Gravettian culture, the 1.57-inch carving is made of chalk (https://www. archaeology.org/issues/375-2003/artifact/8450-artifact-france-gravettian-venus-figurine).

In 2009 Russian archaeologists in Zaraysk uncovered goddess carvings said to be of modern quality, but near mammoth bones which were dated to 21,000 to 22,000 years ago.

Another example of the type is the Willendorf Venus discovered in 1908, and thought to be as old as 30,000 years. Far older, is a figurine recovered in 2008 from Hohle Fels Cave in southern Germany. Generally believed to be at least 35,000 years old—and possibly much older—the artifact is considered by current orthodoxy to be the oldest known example of figurative art ever found. But is it? According to Cremo, the Berekhat Ram figurine found in 1981 in the Golan Heights of Israel with accompanying stone tools was in a layer of basalt that is between 250,000 and 280,000 years old. (Atlantis Rising Magazine #100, July/August, 2013, “The Berekhat Ram Figurine,” Michael Cremo)

So, Cremo wondered, who could have made the figurine? If we accept the idea that humans like us did not exist 200,000 or more years ago, then the Berekhat Ram figurine must have been made by some human ancestors, such as the hominids Neanderthal or Homo erectus. But this would require attributing intellectual abilities to such creatures that many archeologists normally attribute only to Homo sapiens, who, the textbooks say, acquired such abilities less than 100,000 years ago. Such considerations, says Cremo, have caused some scientists to propose that the Berekhat Ram object does not actually bear any signs of human work and therefore cannot be called a figurine. They say that any marks on the object are the result of strictly natural forces. That solves the problem, for them. But, Cremo points out, archeologists Francesco d’Errico and April Nowell did a detailed study of marks on the Berekhat Ram object and concluded that grooves on the object, were the product of “intentional engraving.” (https://www. cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal/article/new-look-at-the-berekhat-ram-figurine-implications-for-the-origins-of-  symbolism/ 38E696614B4407D8626 F5BBAF8E47C28) Another example cited by Cremo is a figure brought up in 1889 from 300 feet deep in a clay deposit near Nampa, Idaho. According to official reports from the United States Geological Survey, the layer belongs to the Glenns Ferry Formation and is about 2 million years old.

No matter when it began, archaeology clearly shows, that since the dawn of human history humans have worshiped goddesses representing fertility, and other feminine attributes. By the time of the ancient Greeks the theme had been much refined, but even Venus de Milo still fits the primeval archetype.

Below are articles from our back issues that connect very directly to this content.
Available for purchase and download.

Issue #100
Debating the Berekhat Ram

from the Member’s Archive
Debating the Berekhat Ram