Debunk—The Goddess: Power, Sexuality, and the Feminine Divine by Shahrukh Husain
The goddess of a religion may be absorbed into new theologies as demons, monsters, dragons, and serpents, which are usually described as dwelling in the darkness and depth of the primordial waters. Probably the first goddess to suffer this fate was Tiamat of ancient Sumer. By the time that Akkadian had taken over from Sumerian as the main spoken language of Sumer, in the 2nd millenium BC, the goddess Tiamat had been transformed from a devoted mother into an evil breeder of dragons. This new depiction helped to justify humanity’s allegiance to Marduk, who as her enemy became defender of the right. Similarly, each night, the sun god Ra fought Apophis, the dragon of chaos, who was harboured by the goddess Nuanet in her watery abyss.
The Indo-Europeans made a virtue of the slaughter of dragons, pitting gods of light and sky against these reptilian monsters. In the 3,000-year-old Indian sacred text, the Rigveda, Indra mutilated the mighty dragon Vritra, at the same time assaulting Vritra’s mother Danu with a deadly weapon so that her “vital enery..ebbed away.” In Greek myth, Apollo killed Python, the oracle of Delphi. The struggle of the consistent, light, male deity, representing goodness, against the changeable, dark, female divinity continued into the monotheistic religions.
Source: The Goddess: Power, Sexuality, and the Feminine Divine by Shahrukh Husain. Pg. 47.
This is incorrect misinformation. Lets break it down: The source of the post, the image, and all its claims.
As always lets look at where this information is coming from. The author is Shahrukh Husain.
She has her Bachelor’s in Arts from the School of Oriental & African Studies University of London. No particular subject given, Class of 1979. [1]
Her fellowships were: Brunel University London 2007-08 and London College of Fashion 2003-05. Does not say what she worked on specifically during those fellowships. [2]
Author: Fiction, Non-fiction, Screenplays. For both adult and child audiences. Her adult fiction, published by Virago, can be described as reworked myths reflecting a universal theme of modern relevance.
“Modern relevance” is a huge red flag basically an excuse (or explanation) for undisclosed historical inaccuracies.
Psychoanalytic psychotherapist. Specialized in Transcultural work.
Advisory role to parliament (guessing UK) for topics on marriage, race, religion, and language.
▪️Inferences on Author Credentials
No reference to study of Assyriology (Tiāmat), Egyptology (Naunet), Classics (Python), or Religious Studies (Vedic/Hinduism); nor any ancient language enough to speak historically accurately about Goddesses from varying cultures that some how all carry the same theme.
Most likely not a voice of authority on Ancient Religion to write a scholarly level book that makes these claims. It would be slightly different if this was a book of collecting reputable sources to present but this book is not that. Its a proposition paper, in other words it sets out to prove something.
Unless you feel studying ‘Orientalism’ at the B.A level is sufficient [Hint: It’s not] and somehow being an advisor to parliament on topics including religion is qualification for a book of this nature [Hint: It’s not]
Just from what I can see in Google Books preview, this book is a collection of various very old sources discussing divine feminine and archtypes along with her own conclusions. A lot of it is based on things such as venus figures and ……Jung archtypes.
Old sources in and of themselves should not be thrown away because of age, I'll use old ones myself. However, new information should always be consulted and if you are going to write a BOOK about the topic, using such old sources despite the plethora of new ones is ridiculous.
This is full of extremely old questionable claims. For example, the Royal Tombs of Ur indicating the worship of a “supreme fertility Goddess.” The dates of these claims are all before 1940; except one from 1974, and its not even a claim— just a date in which an archeological site was discovered.
If I’ve learn anything by studying ancient religions from actual academic sources its that any Jung approach to ancient religions will be highly inaccurate without fail. Every single book on Mesopotamian religion by them is full of inaccuracies. Jungian psychoanalysts can stop pretending they have the credentials to interpret Ancient Religions— especially Mesopotamian, non-"western", and pre-history in my experiences. A western psychologist slapping “X Archtype” onto every single damn culture is, dare I say, colonialist as hell. Not all cultures have the same concept of motherhood, it is going to be different throughout cultures both living and dead. Making any archtype of “motherhood” is completely obsolete.
And here we have the “Wicca Burning Times” bullshit. “Based on worship of a single universal Goddess for several millennia until it was eroded in the 4th millennium BC.” How convenient that the several millennia of worship was all before the invention of writing and this religion suddenly started to erode the moment it could have been recorded by writing 🤔. In the author’s defense she does discuss why the idea of matriarchies being inherently peaceful is challenged by scholars. Doesn’t make up for the rest of the content though.
Not a good source. Using hoards of ridiculously old sources despite being published in 2003. Discusses BS like a non-provable prehistoric matriarchy, Wiccan-esq religions that survived Christianity, and Carl Jung. It’s just bad.
There is no dragon or Goddess in the image. The figures are Ninurta or Adad, male Gods; plus the Anzû or Asakku, monsters.
The closest relationship between this relief and Tiāmat is:
Another important influence for the figure of Tiamat is Anzu, a mythical bird defeated by Ninurta, indeed the battle between Marduk and Tiamat has a number of parallels to the battle between Ninurta and Anzu [Oracc 1]
Note this is influnce and parallels— the relief still does not depict Tiāmat or Marduk
The goddess of a religion may be absorbed into new theologies as demons, monsters, dragons, and serpents, which are usually described as dwelling in the darkness and depth of the primordial waters.
First off, “the goddess of a religion”? These are polytheistic religions there isn’t a single Goddess there are many, in all of them. The idea of any pre-historical monotheistic feminine deity is an unsubstantiated claim. Second, this is also stated much too broadly, it should be narrowed to a particular region of religions or cluster of cultures. Lastly, this also seems to imply that only demons and monsters dwelled in dark premordial waters, as if placed there by these supposed new theologies.
The struggle of the consistent, light, male deity, representing goodness, against the changeable, dark, female divinity continued into the monotheistic religions.
Again, this is polytheism. There are ’light Goddesses’ and ’dark Goddesses’ AND ’light Gods’ and ’dark Gods’.
The author is fabricating a struggle of a “dark Goddess” being oppressed by an all-good male God. The author claims this is “consistent.” By using multiple different cultures as examples, this implies it is a struggle represented across the world in all (or most) cultures. Which, like Jung Archtypes, is small minded; shoving other cultures into your preferred box that fits your culture and preconceived western narrative.
Probably the first goddess to suffer this fate was Tiamat of ancient Sumer. By the time that Akkadian had taken over from Sumerian as the main spoken language of Sumer, in the 2nd millenium BC, the goddess Tiamat had been transformed from a devoted mother into an evil breeder of dragons. This new depiction helped to justify humanity’s allegiance to Marduk, who as her enemy became defender of the right.
Tiāmat didn’t suffer any fate described nor was she demonized into a dragon breeder and sent to the primordial waters. She personified the primordial waters or alternatively the primordial waters were located within her. She was the first Goddess along with Apsû, the first God. She was salty sea water while he was subterranean fresh water. [Black pp. 177]
Tiāmat and Apsû waters’ mingled before heaven and earth were set into place. They then produce Gods who produce more gods and so on for many generations [Black pp. 177] [Oracc 1]. Tiāmat is depicted as a Mother in this myth who loves her offspring, but ends up being provoked shown here:
But while the aspect of parricide is thus mitigated both by making the parents remote ancestors and putting them plainly in the wrong, part of this effect is countered—deliberately, it would seem - by the stress on Ti'amat’s motherliness and by presenting her repeatedly in a sympathetic light. Her mother’s heart is much in evidence, for instance, when she refuses to side with Apsu: “Ti'amat, when she heard this, became upset, cried out against her husband, cried out, hurt, the only one indignant. She took the evilness (thereof) to heart: “How could we destroy what we (ourselves) have brought into being? Though their ways be noisome, let us bear it in good part!"’ Similarly, when she is finally roused to fatal action, it is by appealing to her motherly instincts of protection—not from lack of patience or forbearance on her part. [Jacobsen 187]
However, she is not one of "The Mother Goddesses” of Mesopotamia which there are numerous (e.g Ninhursaga, Bau, Aruru, Damkina). The closest she comes is being a possible reflection of Nammu/Namma; the primordial ocean in Sumerian cosmology and the mother of An, Ki, and Enki [Bottero pp. 75] [Black pp. 134]. However, unlike Tiāmat we know that Nammu/Namma had temples, they have yet to be located but they are attested; where as Tiāmat does not “there are only a handful of references to her outside of [The Enuma Elish],” [Oracc 2].
She cries out to her husband, as a mother, to not destroy the generations of Gods they created; then later in the myth becomes enraged and creates eleven monsters; finally when defeated she is turned into geological features [Black pp. 177]. She is not transformed from a mother to an evil breeder of dragons in a 'goddess demonized by new religion’ narrative. It’s a natural progression of her character within the same myth.
This was not “justifying humanity’s allegiance to Marduk.” The purpose of the myth was to explain why a much younger God, Marduk, became supreme among the Gods. And thus most important to humanity (or rather the Babylonian Empire's ruling elite). The story is literally theological apologetics [Bottero pp. 87].
She wasn’t some Goddess demonized by the patriarchy or whatever. She was a Goddess in a common theme of Mesopotamian Religions—Genealogies.
Here is a neat picture that outlines the story. Again, motherly primordial goddess to monster is a plot progression within a singular myth:
▪️Notes For Mesopotamian Section
Black, A Dictionary of Gods Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia
Jaccobsen, Treasures of Darkness
Bottero, Ancient Religion in Mesopotamia
Similarly, each night, the sun god Ra fought Apophis, the dragon of chaos, who was harboured by the goddess Nuanet in her watery abyss.
There is not even much to say here. Since this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Egyptian Cosmology. A/pophis is non-existence, it’s only capability is to destroy the universe. Not in a “things must be destroyed so they can be reborn,” sense. No, an actual literal undoing of the fabric of reality.
A/pophis is not harbored by any God.
Nuanet (Nunet) literally protects the Gods, she could never harbor uncreation. [1] To make the author’s ignorance worse she is mixing up the “watery abyss” who is Nun… her consort, a “"male”“ God. [2] So even if the watery abyss does harbor A/pophis (it really really does not) it would have absolutely nothing to do with an all-good god fighting and destroying a dark goddess.
▪️Notes for Egyptian Section
[1] https://henadology.wordpress.com/theology/netjeru/naunet/
[2] https://henadology.wordpress.com/theology/netjeru/nun/
(I realize these are other blog posts, so not authoritative sources, but they have numerous sources at the bottom to substantiate the claim hence why I linked to them)
The Indo-Europeans made a virtue of the slaughter of dragons, pitting gods of light and sky against these reptilian monsters. In the 3,000-year-old Indian sacred text, the Rigveda, Indra mutilated the mighty dragon Vritra, at the same time assaulting Vritra’s mother Danu with a deadly weapon so that her “vital enery..ebbed away.”
Hold up lets back up to the base claim stated in the very first quote. It sets out the entire thesis the author is trying to prove:
An original Dark Goddess ➡️
Turns into demon/snake/dragon/monster ➡️
and because of this dwells in dark promordial waters.
This means ONE being. But we have various different aspects of the Rigveda being smooshed together to attempt to try and fulfill this dark Goddess demonized by all good God theme. Its a stretch so far you have to break your arm.
A river goddess *Deh₂nu- has been proposed based on the Vedic goddess Dānu, the Irish goddess Danu, the Welsh goddess Don and the names of the rivers Danube, Don, Dnieper, and Dniester. Mallory and Adams however note that while the lexical correspondence is probable, "there is really no evidence for a specific river goddess” in Proto-Indo-European mythology “other than the deification of the concept of ‘river’ in Indic tradition”.[1]
So this is the closest idea to represent the previous pre-historic “”“dark Goddess”“” that was demonized into Danu and cast to the premordial waters. Except nothing about a river Goddess screams “darkness” and, as this mentions, there isn’t necessarily a specific Goddess
Virtra was the monster. Virtra isn’t Danu
Danu, was or controlled the premordial waters. She was NOT cast or sent there as a demon/monster, it was just who she already was (like Tiāmat). Indra kills her after defeating her son in order to release the waters she withheld. [Dexter pp. 45] Not only that— Danu wasn’t always female or personified within the literature. [Dexter pp. 46-47]
This is flawed logic cherry-picking. This story is not a dark goddess demonized by a new religion turned into a monster and cast into the premordial waters.
She already was the waters, her son was the monster, her “previous form” is debatable and (if it existed) wasn’t dark.
The entire argument is literally not applicable.
▪️Notes for Indo European Section
Dexter, Reflections on The Goddess Donu. (This article explores an Indo European *Deh₂nu- goddess which she spelled Donu. While another source may say its not a specific Goddess the various linguistic connections make it worthy of analysis)
[1] Quote is wikipedia. Source is The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World by J. P. Mallory, D. Q. Adams page 434
Part of the Rigveda the story comes from: https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01032.htm
In Greek myth, Apollo killed Python, the oracle of Delphi. The struggle of the consistent, light, male deity, representing goodness, against the changeable, dark, female divinity…
First, if we are debunking this “dark goddess” theme it should be noted that Python was a female or male depending on the author. In some instances they are the son of Gaia:
Python (Πύθων), the famous dragon who guarded the oracle of Delphi, is described as a son of Gaea. He lived in the caves of mount Parnassus, but was killed by Apollo, who then took possession of the oracle. (Apollod. 1.1 ; Strab. ix. p.422.) [Smith]
Second, the Oracle of Delphi was Pythia the priestess of Apollo. A prophetess, she wasn’t even one person since it stretched over many centuries. Which deity she (or he) was a prophetess of also changed over time. The Oracle was a real human, she was not a myth and therefore not Python a 'dark Goddess’. [Ohio State]
Third, Python regardless of gender was not a 'dark Goddess’ to be destroyed by the 'light God’ Apollo. They were a monster created by Gaia.
Apollo… destroyed Tityos, a violent and lawless man who ruled there; and that the Parnassians joined him and informed him of another cruel man named Python and known as the Drakon (Dragon)’ [Strabo, Geography 9. 3. 12.] [1]
Leto was pursued by Python. Leto then gave birth to Apollo, who slew Python [Ovid, Metamorphosis, VI, 370.] [1]
Python,… was a huge draco who, before the time of Apollo, use to give oracular responses… Death was fated to come him from semen of Latona (Leto)… When Python knew that Latona was pregnant he followed her to kill her… Four days after they was born, Apollo… slew Python with his arrows [Pseudo-Hyginus, Fabulae 140.] [1]
Never is Python described as a female deity. They are always described as a snake, dragon, and/or monster. A glance at theoi.com’s page on Python clearly lays that out. Theoi.com plus the sources I already gave illustrate that which God ruled the Temple varied. Slaying the protective monster meant seizing the coveted temple/area.
Delphi was variously attributed to Gaia, Zeus, Poseidon, Themis, and Apollo as mentioned in the sources (and through my browsing to try and find sources that I’m too lazy to link), point is: it did not always belong to Apollo. At most it can be seen as Apollo conquering something so he can get what he wants— The Temple at Delphi; NOT slaying a dark Goddess.
▪️Notes for Greek Section
Smith, A Dictionary Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology
Ohio State University, Oracle of Delphi
[1] Three quotes here: https://www.journal-of-hepatology.eu/article/S0168-8278(12)00322-4/pdf
Python page https://www.theoi.com/Ther/DrakainaPython.html
The goddess of a religion may be absorbed into new theologies as demons, monsters, dragons, and serpents, which are usually described as dwelling in the darkness and depth of the primordial waters. The struggle of the consistent, light, male deity, representing goodness, against the changeable, dark, female divinity
I quoted and analyzed this at the beginning of the claims section but let’s review it after dissecting and correcting all her other claims.
Not a single one of these examples shows a dark Goddess being turned into a monster by new theology
Not a single one of these examples shows a goddess being cast into or changed into premordial waters by new theologies
There is no proof given in these examples that the stories presented were religious TRANSITIONAL periods of a “new theology” changing the Goddess. Except saying Akkadian replaced Sumerian, which is more of a continuation of Mesopotamian traditions.
Tiāmat, Nunet, and Danu were already some form of primordial waters or related to them.
Nunet and Nun were mixed up by the author
Python and Danu don’t always appear as feminine
The male Gods in these stories aren’t exactly “light all-good”
…continued into the monotheistic religions.
What continued? If her claims don’t hold up there is no concept that can be continued.
The author proved absolutely nothing except that she is willing to publish inaccurate and misrepresented history. If this one tiny section of the book has this much misinformation and makes this many reaches I believe the book itself should be avoided.
Disclaimer: I am not an academic in the field, some things are off or need corrections later but I did my best to bring sources and knowledge to correct the misinformed claims.
October 19th, 2020— Originally a reblog to debunk something. Has been revised and edited to remain a debunk of this author and book.