27 replies to this topic

[Doki]

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

Edited by Nabi, 14 May 2009 - 09:20 PM.

[hobglobin]

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here



(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

[casandra]

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

these are giant replicas of molars... a little bit deformed tho......the artist should've consulted a dentist or a tooth atlas........

[casandra]

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here



(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

[hobglobin]

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here

(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

They are about 40000 years old, what do you expect? And they were dig out somewhere outsides, therefore they are "used" and not in perfect condition. Anyway everyone can speculate about their meaning, art, symbols of fertility, charms, whatever. Beauty ideals is of course a farfetched interpretation .

[casandra]

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here

(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

They are about 40000 years old, what do you expect? And they were dig out somewhere outsides, therefore they are "used" and not in perfect condition. Anyway everyone can speculate about their meaning, art, symbols of fertility, charms, whatever. Beauty ideals is of course a farfetched interpretation .

This venus of Willendorf is not 40,000 years old...the oldest one ..this one BB posted I think, is the one from your caves, and I think it's only 30,000...and there's much debate over these upper paleolithic venus figurines since the late 1800s...the best theories are from the feminist perspective......the mother goddess before the usurper male god...

[hobglobin]

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here

(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

They are about 40000 years old, what do you expect? And they were dig out somewhere outsides, therefore they are "used" and not in perfect condition. Anyway everyone can speculate about their meaning, art, symbols of fertility, charms, whatever. Beauty ideals is of course a farfetched interpretation .

This venus of Willendorf is not 40,000 years old...the oldest one ..this one BB posted I think, is the one from your caves, and I think it's only 30,000...and there's much debate over these upper paleolithic venus figurines since the late 1800s...the best theories are from the feminist perspective......the mother goddess before the usurper male god...

40,000 years should be the oldest, but some thousands years in this relation, who cares? My favourite explanation are of course palaeolithic pin-ups...

[casandra]

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here

(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

They are about 40000 years old, what do you expect? And they were dig out somewhere outsides, therefore they are "used" and not in perfect condition. Anyway everyone can speculate about their meaning, art, symbols of fertility, charms, whatever. Beauty ideals is of course a farfetched interpretation .

This venus of Willendorf is not 40,000 years old...the oldest one ..this one BB posted I think, is the one from your caves, and I think it's only 30,000...and there's much debate over these upper paleolithic venus figurines since the late 1800s...the best theories are from the feminist perspective......the mother goddess before the usurper male god...

40,000 years should be the oldest, but some thousands years in this relation, who cares? My favourite explanation are of course palaeolithic pin-ups...

yup...the sexist theory of course- it's portable erotica/pornographic paraphernalia that the men bring with them while the're hunting the poor mammoth......so why do you think most of the figures have no heads, facial features, nor limbs..at least the lower parts...

[hobglobin]

casandra, on May 15 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here

(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

They are about 40000 years old, what do you expect? And they were dig out somewhere outsides, therefore they are "used" and not in perfect condition. Anyway everyone can speculate about their meaning, art, symbols of fertility, charms, whatever. Beauty ideals is of course a farfetched interpretation .

This venus of Willendorf is not 40,000 years old...the oldest one ..this one BB posted I think, is the one from your caves, and I think it's only 30,000...and there's much debate over these upper paleolithic venus figurines since the late 1800s...the best theories are from the feminist perspective......the mother goddess before the usurper male god...

40,000 years should be the oldest, but some thousands years in this relation, who cares? My favourite explanation are of course palaeolithic pin-ups...

yup...the sexist theory of course- it's portable erotica/pornographic paraphernalia that the men bring with them while the're hunting the poor mammoth......so why do you think most of the figures have no heads, facial features, nor limbs..at least the lower parts...

Don't know. Not enough skills to make them? Worn-out and/or broken off? Useless for their function? BTW the "venus" Nabi posted is of ivory and has a small thread eye.

[casandra]

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here

(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

They are about 40000 years old, what do you expect? And they were dig out somewhere outsides, therefore they are "used" and not in perfect condition. Anyway everyone can speculate about their meaning, art, symbols of fertility, charms, whatever. Beauty ideals is of course a farfetched interpretation .

This venus of Willendorf is not 40,000 years old...the oldest one ..this one BB posted I think, is the one from your caves, and I think it's only 30,000...and there's much debate over these upper paleolithic venus figurines since the late 1800s...the best theories are from the feminist perspective......the mother goddess before the usurper male god...

40,000 years should be the oldest, but some thousands years in this relation, who cares? My favourite explanation are of course palaeolithic pin-ups...

yup...the sexist theory of course- it's portable erotica/pornographic paraphernalia that the men bring with them while the're hunting the poor mammoth......so why do you think most of the figures have no heads, facial features, nor limbs..at least the lower parts...

Don't know. Not enough skills to make them? Worn-out and/or broken off? Useless for their function? BTW the "venus" Nabi posted is of ivory and has a small thread eye.

so you can put whatever head you want on it.......ooppss...I think that's roman (or greek) art....the small thread eye is actually an indication that it is used as a necklace...used as an amulet perhaps or asking protection from the mother goddess...
the headless/faceless feature of most of these figurines support the theory of these objects being symbols of fertility/fecundity...you don't need a face for that but just a body to produce an offspring...and most of them are pregnant anyways...and with a lot of adipose deposits....

[hobglobin]

casandra, on May 15 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here

(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

They are about 40000 years old, what do you expect? And they were dig out somewhere outsides, therefore they are "used" and not in perfect condition. Anyway everyone can speculate about their meaning, art, symbols of fertility, charms, whatever. Beauty ideals is of course a farfetched interpretation .

This venus of Willendorf is not 40,000 years old...the oldest one ..this one BB posted I think, is the one from your caves, and I think it's only 30,000...and there's much debate over these upper paleolithic venus figurines since the late 1800s...the best theories are from the feminist perspective......the mother goddess before the usurper male god...

40,000 years should be the oldest, but some thousands years in this relation, who cares? My favourite explanation are of course palaeolithic pin-ups...

yup...the sexist theory of course- it's portable erotica/pornographic paraphernalia that the men bring with them while the're hunting the poor mammoth......so why do you think most of the figures have no heads, facial features, nor limbs..at least the lower parts...

Don't know. Not enough skills to make them? Worn-out and/or broken off? Useless for their function? BTW the "venus" Nabi posted is of ivory and has a small thread eye.

so you can put whatever head you want on it.......ooppss...I think that's roman (or greek) art....the small thread eye is actually an indication that it is used as a necklace...used as an amulet perhaps or asking protection from the mother goddess...
the headless/faceless feature of most of these figurines support the theory of these objects being symbols of fertility/fecundity...you don't need a face for that but just a body to produce an offspring...and most of them are pregnant anyways...and with a lot of adipose deposits....

What roman or greek? They are stone-age relics...much older. And the adipose that's what I meant with beauty ideal. To say it plain, in more than 99% of the human history "fat" women where the ideal. Fat = more fertile. Look at the Roman (real Roman) sculptures with for our time "chunky" women (Aphrodite, Venus de Milo), all the "Rubens" women on the old oil paintings, or Marilyn Monroe. Not as fat as the stone-age Venuses, but more than today's ideal.

[casandra]

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

casandra, on May 15 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

hobglobin, on May 15 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

Nabi, on May 15 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Without knowing what this is before hand - please write down what do U think this might be. This has been in news for sometime and many of you already must be knowing. But, when I had a look, I recognised this as something different than what is being said. Am I the only one - just want to confirm.

PS : is carved out of wood I think

It's the same as this one here

(made of limestone). Ideal of beauty changes with time...

but does this really represent beauty? well, at least this one has a head (but still no face)...

They are about 40000 years old, what do you expect? And they were dig out somewhere outsides, therefore they are "used" and not in perfect condition. Anyway everyone can speculate about their meaning, art, symbols of fertility, charms, whatever. Beauty ideals is of course a farfetched interpretation .

This venus of Willendorf is not 40,000 years old...the oldest one ..this one BB posted I think, is the one from your caves, and I think it's only 30,000...and there's much debate over these upper paleolithic venus figurines since the late 1800s...the best theories are from the feminist perspective......the mother goddess before the usurper male god...

40,000 years should be the oldest, but some thousands years in this relation, who cares? My favourite explanation are of course palaeolithic pin-ups...

yup...the sexist theory of course- it's portable erotica/pornographic paraphernalia that the men bring with them while the're hunting the poor mammoth......so why do you think most of the figures have no heads, facial features, nor limbs..at least the lower parts...

Don't know. Not enough skills to make them? Worn-out and/or broken off? Useless for their function? BTW the "venus" Nabi posted is of ivory and has a small thread eye.

so you can put whatever head you want on it.......ooppss...I think that's roman (or greek) art....the small thread eye is actually an indication that it is used as a necklace...used as an amulet perhaps or asking protection from the mother goddess...
the headless/faceless feature of most of these figurines support the theory of these objects being symbols of fertility/fecundity...you don't need a face for that but just a body to produce an offspring...and most of them are pregnant anyways...and with a lot of adipose deposits....

What roman or greek? They are stone-age relics...much older. And the adipose that's what I meant with beauty ideal. To say it plain, in more than 99% of the human history "fat" women where the ideal. Fat = more fertile. Look at the Roman (real Roman) sculptures with for our time "chunky" women (Aphrodite, Venus de Milo), all the "Rubens" women on the old oil paintings, or Marilyn Monroe. Not as fat as the stone-age Venuses, but more than today's ideal.

I meant the replacing of the head...I think it's roman sculpture..they make them headless so one can put whatever head they want on it...like you can put your bust on wolverine's body.........as an aside, I think that one of oldest theories about these venuses was considered racist or racialistic bec they were thought to depict the bodies of african women...and you're right, now, it's a sin to have any extra ounce of fat at all...but like I said, they're not actually fat but probably just pregnant....

[Doki]

I am sorry if it offends anyone but when I saw it the first time then this is what came to my mind . . .





.. . may be because we all have something or the other in mind. . some are preoccupied with 'venuses' and others with 'food'. If it was me who had found this thing the first . . . .

[casandra]

..I think you're more obsessed with chickens than I am....the midline grooves are all missing- top, bottom and lower back....and these venuses, the oldest so far is this one from Hohle Fels that you posted, don't only signify stone-age men's obsession with sex (so what else is new) but perhaps also the jump from abstract art (African) to representational art including all of it's implications- the evolution of language, cognition, human behavior etc. .....and if it were you who found this thing first...what? Btw, were there already prehistoric chickens looking like our dressed chickens at that time?

[Doki]

casandra, on May 17 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

..I think you're more obsessed with chickens than I am....the midline grooves are all missing- top, bottom and lower back....and these venuses, the oldest so far is this one from Hohle Fels that you posted, don't only signify stone-age men's obsession with sex (so what else is new) but perhaps also the jump from abstract art (African) to representational art including all of it's implications- the evolution of language, cognition, human behavior etc. .....and if it were you who found this thing first...what? Btw, were there already prehistoric chickens looking like our dressed chickens at that time?

it's how we see and interpret depending on what is in the mind. Like I said, if it were me who had found it first, I would have interpreted that back in those time also they had chickens and turkeys like we have now and they were conscious about presentation of it on the table. About the midline grooves - the one who made it must have exaggerated the dimensions of the chicken/turkey (just like now it is claimed that the sensual features of venuses were highlighted)