Venus Wore Clothing but...

Great Debates
21

I repeat, it would be helpful if you specified exactly which figurines you mean. I get the impression that you have seen pictures of two figurines and extrapolated from there. You could, of course, prove this impression wrong by clearly stating which figurines you wish to include. I wonder why you continue to avoid doing so.

I also repeat that you should provide cites for your outrageous claim that DNA analysis has shed light upon the specific mating patterns of paleolithic societies.

I also repeat that you have yet to answer the straightforward question, “What makes you think that labor and birth are the only aspects of fertility which might inspire a cult figure?”

I also repeat that you have yet to address the lack of consensus among scholars regarding this issue with anything other than your own confidence in what the figures look like to you.

I also repeat that you have yet to address the obvious fallacy of assuming that icons can only be a realistic depiction of the direcct object of veneration.

Need I repeat my observation that ignoring points that one cannot refute is a woefully overused tactic in great Debates?

HOW ABOUT SOME NEWER ONES?

I now note that you have failed to substantiate your implied slur that I called you names.

I also note that you have added a claim that I am out to “muddy the waters”. On the contrary, I am simply pointing out the clear truths of your evasions and lack of supporting reason. Thus far, your entire case apparently boils down to “they look pregnant to me” and “pregnancy was dangerous in technologically primitive cultures.” Is “muddying the waters” your usual euphemism for “find flaws in my argument”?

AND NOW THE LATEST

How about this from basic logic: simply repeating a claim does not provide support for the claim.

Who is trying to change your mind about what pregnant females look like? Several of us have just commented that there is more than one way to view the representation implied by the figurines, and more than one way to attach ritual/personal significance to each representation. You maintain steadfast that your view is the only plausible one. That is arrogant. In this case, it also seems to be unfounded arrogance, since you have demonstrated no depth of knowledge concerning this subject which might lend authority to such assurance.

What?! Have you not read any of the links proferred? Have you not read even teh posts of those offering dissenting views? Several alternative explanations have been specified in this thread. Do you dismiss them out of hand without even the courtesy of specific refutation? Does the word arrogant still ring untrue in your ears?

This simply demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the literature surrounding the “Venus figurines”. Actually, I personally believ that the claims for a persistent and unified cult throughout the neolithic and surviving into the Indo-European era are far-fetched, but it certainly is not difficult to find support for the idea. I suggest you type Marijta Gimbutas into a search engine and start reading.

22

jois

That cite also mentions possible associations with menstruation, miscarriage, and idealized femininity. But of course if you had quoted those passsages it wouldn’t have supported your contention that only one interpretation is possible, would it?

23

i]Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
I repeat, it would be helpful if you specified exactly which figurines you mean. I get the impression that you have seen pictures of two figurines and extrapolated from there. You could, of course, prove this impression wrong by clearly stating which figurines you wish to include. I wonder why you continue to avoid doing so.

The OP really is pretty specific: portly/robust 20,000 years ago, nicknamed Venus, women. I get the impression that nothing will be clear for you. The figurines from Laussel, Lespugue, Grimaldi, Dolni Vestonice, Willendorf, Gagarino, Kostenki.

I also repeat that you should provide cites for your outrageous claim that DNA analysis has shed light upon the specific mating patterns of paleolithic societies.

You seem confused enough already.

I also repeat that you have yet to answer the straightforward question, "What makes you think that labor and birth are the only aspects of fertility which might inspire a cult figure?"

I don’t know about “Cult Figure” was there a cult involved here? Mother Goddesses were cult figures and I didn’t say these figurines were more than charms. Labor and Delivery are the most dangerous parts…but you didn’t like that the first time I said it.

**I also repeat that you have yet to address the lack of consensus among scholars regarding this issue with anything other than your own confidence in what the figures look like to you. **

I addressed that in the very first sentence of the OP. Do you have any different information?

I also repeat that you have yet to address the obvious fallacy of assuming that icons can only be a realistic depiction of the direcct object of veneration.

I don’t remember that one. Veneration? Does one venerate a charm? Does this mean you think these figurines are realistic looking? You agree that they look like females at or near term?

Need I repeat my observation that ignoring points that one cannot refute is a woefully overused tactic in great Debates?

Happen to you a lot?

I now note that you have failed to substantiate your implied slur that I called you names.

Took long enough.

I also note that you have added a claim that I am out to “muddy the waters”. On the contrary, I am simply pointing out the clear truths of your evasions and lack of supporting reason. Thus far, your entire case apparently boils down to “they look pregnant to me” and “pregnancy was dangerous in technologically primitive cultures.” Is “muddying the waters” your usual euphemism for “find flaws in my argument”?

The “muddy the waters” goes to those three sites you offered quite different from the OP topic. I didn’t think they were helpful. Did you?

How about this from basic logic: simply repeating a claim does not provide support for the claim.

[quote]

I had hoped that by repeating it, it would be re-read and understood. We are uncertain of their function, but… present a better case, someone might have mentioned how they were painted or numbers too few or that people without pockets would have a tough time carrying them around. You know, something from someone who knew something about them?

Who is trying to change your mind about what pregnant females look like?

You said: “What makes you think that a staetophygus figure has to be pregnant?” And something else about African females? Seemed dismissive to me.

Several(You have trouble counting, too.) of us have just commented that there is more than one way to view the representation implied by the figurines, and more than one way to attach ritual/personal significance to each representation. You maintain steadfast that your view is the only plausible one. That is arrogant. In this case, it also seems to be unfounded arrogance, since you have demonstrated no depth of knowledge concerning this subject which might lend authority to such assurance.

See, I think you are the arrogant one. You assume I need to demonstrate more knowledge than you have. I’m the guy that asked the question. You’re the guy who answered:1., 2., 3., 4., 5. , “Oy, she’s pregnant. Must be a labor charm.” Arrogant? No, that was supposed to be helpful, right?

** What?! Have you not read any of the links proferred? Have you not read even teh posts of those offering dissenting views? Several alternative explanations have been specified in this thread. Do you dismiss them out of hand without even the courtesy of specific refutation? Does the word arrogant still ring untrue in your ears? **

More big assumptions.

Did you read this:
**1) What makes you think that a statue of a pregnant woman could only be used as a charm for labor and childbirth?

I haven’t seen any other theory that comes close to explaining this statuette. It might be for a safe pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Note that she’s no Demi Moore who was quite pregnant, but this female looks like a term pregnancy.

  1. What makes you think that a staetophygus figure has to be pregnant?

No double chins, no plump upper arms? The figurines are “fat” only in the way of a term pregnancy.

  1. What makes you think that a cult figure can have only one “use”?

Not large enough to be used in a group ceremony or gathering. Personal size, easy to carry and there is no evident second “use” - doesn’t even have holes to be a button.

  1. What makes you think that labor and birth are the only aspects of fertility which might inspire a cult figure?

Pregnancy, labor and delivery carried a one chance in five death rate. Be hard not to want something to help in labor and delivery. Oddly enough, at least to me, it was most usual for the female to marry outside her group and not be with the female relatives of her own birth family. Again, seems reasonable that charm would be desirable.

  1. What makes you think that the explanation you find “most plausible” is the “correct” one for a prehistoric culture that left no written records.

There simply isn’t another plausible explanation. **

Or this? ** DDG is right about prosperity. In a very poor group the female would look like she’d swallowed a basketball with the baby’s demands taking from the body of the mother what the mother’s food intake can’t supply. However a look at the arms in the figurines…she’s not a worker**

Tracer replied to Arden Ranger.

I replied to Lucie and Ravendriver.

You replied to Mipsman.

You mean your post?

**This simply demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the literature surrounding the “Venus figurines”. Actually, I personally believ that the claims for a persistent and unified cult throughout the neolithic and surviving into the Indo-European era are far-fetched, but it certainly is not difficult to find support for the idea. I suggest you type Marijta Gimbutas into a search engine and start reading. **

Ah, I should have said that you wouldn’t find much support for that either today. That dusty and discredited idea is the main reason why I picked that particular paragraph to quote from your third site. Made me think you hadn’t read it!

Jois

{fixed code.–Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 03-19-2001 at 09:47 AM]

24

That cite also mentions possible associations with menstruation, miscarriage, and idealized femininity. But of course if you had quoted those passsages it wouldn’t have supported your contention that only one interpretation is possible, would it?

Be honest, you didn’t read the entire article before you posted it, did you?

Jois

25

I read all three cites. Why on earth would you assume otherwise?

That was quite clear, thank you. And specific. Really, was that so hard?

Any particular reason you omitted the balzi rossi figurines?

Not at all.

You claimed that DNA studies demonstrated that neolithic mating patterns were patrilocal and exogamous. You are unwilling or unable to document the claim. You either lack the integrity to admit that you made a mistake, the honesty to recognize your error, or the manners to provide a cite after it has been asked for repeatedly.

No confusion. As above, this is quite clear.

Ah yes, the lovely switch to picayune semantics. I simply asked why you thought that labor and birth are the only aspects of fertility which might inspire someone to carve a statue. As before, you prefer to evade a simple answer.

Perhaps you are honestly unable to understand wht the answer “labor and delivery are the most dangerous parts” is not directly responsive to the questoin “why are they the only . . .” More’s the pity. I will simply note that many historically known cultures have seen reason to celebrate, venerate, or ritualize other aspects of fertility.

It really wasn’t that hard a question.

As I noted before, the first sentence of the OP was contradicted by the last. Perhaps this is simply a case of imprecise communication. Perhaps you meant, “how could anyone say they were anything but pregnant females near term and some kind of charm for labor and delivery?” to be read as an honest appeal for divergent opinion.

If so, I see little evidence of that attitude in your later posts. For instance: I haven’t seen any other theory that comes close to explaining this statuette. and There simply isn’t another plausible explanation.

Yet, when people mention the diversity of explanations, you cry “I mentioned that in the OP”. Yes, you did. Then you declared that said diversity was implausible and unconvincing. After all, you know what they look like.

You don’t remember? How sad.

Your position was that no purported use for these figurines could be taken seriously if it involved any abstracttion or expansion of association beyond the directly representative. Perhaps you have forgotten it because it is so clearly contradicted by the history of icons, idols and symbols in human history.

And, yes, I think the figures look like pregnant females. they also look like fat, nonpregnant females. No, I do not find them particularly realistic looking.

Yes. I often run into posters who lack the appreciation for intellectual honesty required to directly address all rebutals to their positions. Thankfully, I also run into many posters who do not suffer from this particular character fault.

To note that you had yet to substantiate your charge of namecalling? Yes. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, first. I find it more pleasant to assume that people might not be jerks. I find your apparent amusement in this issue illuminating.

Why would I post them otherwise? You obviously felt that your OP was specific and unambiguous about which figurines you wished to discuss. I obviously did not understand it as you intended.

However – I do not believe that you are honest in assigning “muddy the waters” to my links. In fact, you did not make this accusation in your response to my links. It came later. It came in direct response (quoted, no less) to my observation that your replies both to me and to lucie had been avasive.

If your words are being misunderstood, perhaps the fault does not necessarily lie with the audience. Given the specific examples that you say might come from “someone who knew something about them” I find little reason to suspect that your clarity of thought and expression exceeds the reading skills of your audience.

Numbers too few?
No pockets to carry them?

You see these as arguments for or against specific uses for the figurines? Perhaps you should repeat that one, too.

Ah – you are unable to tell the difference between “something else might look like that” and “pregnant females do not look like that”. Nevertheless, the two are not identical.

I count well enoug, thank you. Are you under the impression that I am the only person on this thread who has taken exception to the idea that yours is the only reasonable explanation for the figurines? Or are you simply engaging in an opportunity for another cheap insult devoid of factual basis?

I assumem no such thing. I have simply observed your behavior. For instance, I now observe that you characterize your OP as a simple request for information. As I noted above, it was couched as an assertion that your’s was the only plausible position. Your later posts made that implication excplicitly clear. Yes – I find your assertion that you know the only plausible explanation for the venus figurines to be arrogant. And I find that arrogance to be unjustified.

I read it the first time, thank you. It is no more impressive upon repetition.

Goodness, dusty and discredited? Hardly. Certainly the theory has come under attack, but to pretend that the debate has been settled misrepresents the diversity of ideas. Gimbutas’ ideas are not without adherents. In fact, I personally find her work to be highly speculative. But then, what you said was I don’t think you would get much support for that either. I do not believe the theory, but many others do.

Still, I can hardly be surprised that you would pretend that only one plausible opinion existed on this aspect of prehistoric culture, too.

Physician, heal thyself.

26

Calm, calm.

If I may help, I recall having the impression there is incomplete evidence suggesting a predominance of patrilocal and exogamous mating patterns. But given unresolved problems in re different evidence, I think we should maintain caution. I’m too lazy presently to dig through cites and the like to back this up, so take the observation for what it is worth.

27

**2) What possible evidence could you be relying upon to state that the neolithic cultures which coincide with Venus figurines were patrilocal and exogamous? **

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
**You claimed that DNA studies demonstrated that neolithic mating patterns were patrilocal and exogamous. You are unwilling or unable to document the claim. **

You seem confused enough already.

**Not at all.

You claimed that DNA studies demonstrated that neolithic mating patterns were patrilocal and exogamous. You are unwilling or unable to document the claim. You either lack the integrity to admit that you made a mistake, the honesty to recognize your error, or the manners to provide a cite after it has been asked for repeatedly.

No confusion. As above, this is quite clear. **
Clear to you, maybe. The op says 20,000 years ago or so and you call that Neolithic? I wouldn’t claim that, infact, I didn’t claim that. That’s what made me wonder what you’d read.

I do like this part: **You either lack the integrity to admit that you made a mistake, the honesty to recognize your error, or the manners to provide a cite after it has been asked for repeatedly. **

Here’s a cite:
“The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective”

O. Semino at al., Science 290 1155 (2000)

Let’s see if you can recognize your error and admit you made a mistake before rip in to Semino.

Jois

28

[cautiously peering around door]
[coughing apologetically]

Re this:

Well, the other half of labor and birth (female fertility) is male fertility. A male fertility figure would be an erect phallus. However, it was my understanding that many primitive cultures don’t understand that semen is what makes a woman pregnant.

http://icarus.ubetc.buffalo.edu/users/apy106/cultures/trobrianders.html

So it is possible that 20,000 years ago, they didn’t make the connection either, and the only aspect of human fertility that they recognized was the pregnant female. Her tummy gets big, and eventually a baby emerges. The fact that a boy’s ding-dong gets big and you can do interesting things with it wouldn’t have been connected with the fact of the new baby, and nobody would have made little clay statues of ding-dongs to be left lying around for archeologists to discover.

[closing door quietly and cautiously tiptoeing away]
[tiptoeing back]
Although I have to say that personally, I have always thought the Trobrianders were half out to lunch for thinking this. And I don’t really buy the concept myself, that Early Man wouldn’t have Gotten It. Anybody who lives closely with animals eventually has to realize that when the mooing animal with the ding-dong gets on top of the mooing animal with no ding-dong, 11 months later a baby mooing animal presents itself. Granting our Paleolithic ancestors the same observational skills and powers of inductive reasoning as we have today, which only seems sensible, I can’t believe they wouldn’t have made the connection. They also had nothing better to do all day than sit around and watch the animals, and knowing everything you can about your local animals would have been very important in a hunter/gatherer culture.

[out]

29

Someone who lives closely with animals might perhaps realize it takes approximately nine months for little mooers to come along, not eleven. :wink: I believe it is generally accepted that most early humans did not realize the male’s role in reproduction until they domesticated and penned animals of their own and found out that many ewes=no lambs and ewes+ram=lambs. While hunter-gatherers might be very interested in when baby animals come along, I don’t think they’d care much how, and it is quite a leap to assume that a certain behavior many months previous will result in a birth–one could just as easily say that stags rutting with each other produces the babies in the does, rather than the mounting by the males. We wouldn’t immediately assume that, say, the growth and molting of antlers must be “caused” by something the does do–pregnancy might have been viewed as very similar, a natural event that simply “happens” when the creature is old enough. Since humans do not come into season and can have sex at any time, the inference between the sex act and the pregancy is even more tenuous.

30

[back again, drawn against my will]

Ah, horses. Horses–11 months. Okay.

I think the discussion needs to start distinguishing between Paleolithic and Neolithic. Some people are saying one thing and some are saying the other.

The Venus figurines are Paleolithic, yes?

[*eh, BTW, “patrilocal” isn’t in Merriam-Webster. * :confused: ]
FTR, what Jois actually said was:

So, bad on both a ya for jumping the boundary between Paleo and Neolithic. :smiley:

Even if Jois did find some cites that show Neolithic societies were patrilocal and exogamous, it would be irrelevant–we’re talking about the Paleolithic, 10,000 years earlier.
Mipsman said:

Spiritus Mundi responded:

Er, we’re not talking about the historic era, or even the Neolithic. The various Venus figurines have been dated at between 22,000 and 30,000 years B.P., depending on the researcher and the website.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/academic/cult_sci/anthro/great%20leap/venus.html

Back! Back! Back in time, to the Age of the Cave Man, when mammoths roamed the Earth! :smiley:

Time line.
http://www.kirtland.cc.mi.us/honors/timeline.htm

**Paleolithic (150,000-10,000 BC) **
Homo neanderthalensis (100,000 - 33,000 BC)
Appearance of homo sapiens sapiens (c.40,000 BC)
Widespread distribution of goddess figurines and images from Pyrenees to Siberia (artefacts after 25,000 BC)
Possible predominance of matriarchal, matrilineal cultures
Altamira Cave Paintings (c.14,000 - 10,000 BC)
End of “Ice Age” (c.10,000 B.C.)

**Mesolithic (10,000-7,000 BC) **
Steppes across northern and central Europe and Asia
Widespread infusion of hunter-gatherer cultures
Domesticated plants and animals, beginning of agriculture
Invention of the bow and arrow
Earliest pottery (China, Japan)

**Neolithic (7000-3500 BC) **
“Neolithic Revolution” in Western and Central Europe (c.4,500 BC)
Continued development of agriculture
Catal Huyuk (c.6500 - 5650 BC)
[/quote]

Carry on. :slight_smile:

And hey, I wanna hear more about those male figurines. I didn’t know they’d ever found any. Maybe they just don’t get as much media coverage as naked females.

what a sad, sad world we live in…

:smiley:

31

DDG: Well, there may be a difference between what some people SAY they believe and what they actually believe. If anthropologists had interviewed 18th Century Americans about where babies come from they might have got all kinds of bizarre stories about storks and cabbage patches. But no one REALLY believed them, they just PRETENDED to believe them. It would take a very dense culture not to realize that women who never have sex never have babies.

Now, back to the OP. Sure, these figures could be pregnant females. But I always liked the “pornography” theory…that these figures were carved by men for their private enjoyment, and the figures represent the carver’s idea of the “ideal woman”. I have to say that the carvings remind me of my wife’s figure, and she’s not currently pregnant.

Of course, the only people who could answer the question have been dead for 20,000 years, so there’s no way we can know the answer for sure.

The OTHER thing to remember is that our ideas about paleolithic art are biased by the differential preservation of materials. We have surviving cave paintings, but the people who made the cave paintings almost certainly made other paintings on other surfaces…but those have all been destroyed. So, we can be pretty sure that the people who carved these figurines also made other things out of other materials…but all the other ones are gone.

32

How nice. I thought we had established that I did not read your OP to be restricted solely to those figures dating pre 20,000 BP. My use of neolithic as a descriptor clearly stems from that confusion.

You, of course, latch on to the semantic quiblle as a purported justification for your repeated failure to profer a cite. Lovely.

Now you have offered a cite. Unfortunately, I do not have a subscription to science magazine and thus cannot view the archives online. I have found seveal summaries online, but none of them discusses the reasoning behind a conclusion for patrilocality and exogamy. I did find this quote from Semino:

Now, since the portion arguing for partilocalism provides no evidence it really only supports the idea that Semino believes paleolithic European groups were patrilocal. It say nothing about exogamy and unfortunately provides no correlation between this conclusion and y-chromosome distributions.

Perhaps you (or someone else with access to the science archives) might quote or summarize the relevant portions of the argument.

I offered three possibilities for your refusal to provide a cite. I see no reason to conclude that they did not adequately describe your behavior.

notes added after interruption and preview
Duck: There are more aspect to female fertility than labor or birth. One of the links I posted, for instance, mentioned miscarriage and menstruation. More basic than that, even, is conception itself.

I think the neolithic/paleolithic issue has been addressed, but I would like to note that the paleolithic populations responsible for the early Venus figurines were still fully modern human beings.

Patrilocal refers to a marriage pattern in which the female relocates to the tribe/clan/village of the male after marriage.

33

First, I am not an art historian, nor do I know jack about sculpture from 20,000 years ago, nor was I able to wade through many of the above posts.

The OP nevertheless strikes me as rather brazen.

This is precisely the kind of logic that students of material culture should seek to avoid. Whether something seems patently obvious to us is completely irrelevant if it cannot be supported by coroborating evidence.

Here are two examples I can think of off the top of my head from a period I am more comfortable with: Diana of the Ephesians and the hermai.

Sadly, the only link with a decent picture I can find regarding Diana has a rather poor explanation, but here it is nonetheless.

Diana, the virgin goddess, has three rows of breasts. Despite the obvious connotations of fertility, most scholars in the field cannot agree on what the statue actually means. Diana was the patron of the great city of Ephesos, but how this peculiar iconography developed and what it meant to her worshippers are two largely obscure and extremely interesting questions. It is simply not satisfying to anyone with imagination, intellectual curiousity, and a high confidence judgment threshhold to say, “She’s got lots of tits, ergo she must be a symbol of fertility. It’s obvious.”

This sort of scholarship reveals more about the biases of the scholar than the actual function of the object studied.

The hermai present an even more difficult problem. As everyone who has read Thucydides will recall, they are male statues with enormous erect phalluses.

What the hell are they? Even Thucydides is obscure. Evidently they were something like good luck charms. However, their alleged mutilation by Alcibiades was considered a truly heinous offense. Certainly the accusation was politically motivated by Alcibiades’ numerous enemies, but coroborating evidence indicates that the hermai were considered extremely valuable, having been part of a truly ancient Athenian tradition.

So what the hell are they? If they were 20,000 years old, would you naturally assume that they were fertility statues? If you did, you would reveal that you considered the large phallus the most important facet of the statue, thus assuming that its meaning is represented primarily by its penis.

AFAIK, neither Thucydides nor Aulus Gellius (who never passed up a chance to wax obscenely) never even mentioned the big white pricks on the hermai statues, let alone drew attention to them as distinguishing features. Furthermore, anyone who has studied classical Greek art would be familiar with a profusion of phalluses. Everywhere. Your everyday amphora might have a picture of a Satyr stroking his hose, labeled “The Kneader,” or “Cock’s Delight.”

[sub]Yes, mom, this is what an Ivy League education in Classics has gotten me.[/sub]

So when viewing a work of art, especially in a relative vacuum, it is imperative that we do not impose our own biases nor do we jump to seemingly logical or uncontestable conclusions without evidence.

I apologize in advance if the OPer feels that I have missed the point.

MR

34

Jois wrote:

How about primitive pornography?

Couldn’t these figurines have been masturbation aids for men? That would explain their small size. Small enough to be held (and fondled) in one hand while the other hand is, er, otherwise occupied.

The small size would also make them easily portable, for males going on long hunts or military raids, when there might be no females around.

It would explain the exaggerated female characteristics of the figurines- the large breasts, buttocks and bellies. (Count me among those who do not think these figurines look particularly pregnant. They are carrying planty of fat, but one would expect that from an idealized sexual partner in a culture where hunger was probably a day-to-day problem. A fat mate is more likely to bear healthy children.)

35

Spiritus Mundi: Is this a SDMB apology? “How nice. I thought we had established that I did not read your OP to be restricted solely to those figures dating pre 20,000 BP. My use of neolithic as a descriptor clearly stems from that confusion.” You gvae a pretty strongly worded sentence about apologies. Probably just meant for the other guy?

And I thought you were reading the stuff I posted over and over. 20,000 year ago. I mentioned your sites and how only the third showed…

So I start a thread and you post about whatever you want, sounds like a GD standard practice to you?

Do you want to discuss what I said about males and females moving in paleolithic times with me before you continue on by yourself?

Jois

36

1. Apology? I have admitted that I misread the OP to refer more inclusively to most or all of the statues which have been grouped under the terms Venus or Goddess figurines. Do you feel that you have been harmed by my mistake and thus deserve an apology? Usually, I find a simple clarification sufficient in cases of simpl confusion and reserve apologies for instances where harm was done or false charges were levelled. (You know, like name-calling and water-muddying.)

I might even apologize for misreading an OP if I think my mistake has led to a disagreement where none was warranted. That does not appear to be the case here. The last sentence of your OP is the salient point of our disagrement. My reading of that sentence has been confirmed nicely by succeeding posts. It was, and is, an arrogant position unwarranted by the evidence.

2. I hardly find your posts worth reading the first time. I cannot imagine why you would imagine that I read them more than once (except, of course, for those times that you pointlessly repeat yourself.)

3. Post whatever I want? If you believe this is an honest characterization of my posts in this thread then you have more serious issues than simple arrogance.

4. I would welcome an honest discussion of the topic. I have little hope of finding one with you.

37

Thank you, DDG, a “visual aid” not a bad idea! :slight_smile:

I didn’t offer Neolithic DNA info, BTW, all I have is Paleolithic. I’d hoped if SM had read and typed it enough, well, you know the rest.

Spoke and Lemur866, I’d like to meet your wives. (There is a whole health and pregnancy issue that goes along with female body fat but I’d rather not add that to this mess.)

Maeglin, you were made for Great Debates!

**I am not an art historian, nor do I know jack about sculpture from 20,000 years ago, nor was I able to wade through many of the above posts.

The OP nevertheless strikes me as rather brazen.**

Spititus Mundi, it is hard to discuss anything with someone who reads neither your posts or his own.

Please don’t keep posting on my account.

Jois

38

Okay, back to the OP for a moment. I ran across this site:

http://cmsu2.cmsu.edu/~ldm4683/4.htm

This particular page discusses a number of alternative explanations for the significance of these figurines that have been presented over the years. The author himself is putting forth a hypothesis that is totally new to me on this page of the site:

http://cmsu2.cmsu.edu/~ldm4683/2.htm

If I read it correctly, he makes a good case for these being self portraits from the point of veiw of a woman looking down at her body, hence the odd proportions and perspective.

So I still contend that yes, there are many possible explanations for these figurines, and as it is very unlikely we will ever be able to say for certain we can expect a new theory every few years that is just as likely as any of the others to be correct.

BTW, Jois, when I made the analogy in an earlier post (accidentally using Ravendriver’s identity rather than my own) about showing a crucifix to an Anasazi, I was speaking of a full crucifix with a depiction of a tortured Christ, not an abstract cross. Hope that makes my meaning clearer.

39

*Originally posted by lucie *
**Okay, back to the OP for a moment. I ran across this site:

http://cmsu2.cmsu.edu/~ldm4683/4.htm

This particular page discusses a number of alternative explanations for the significance of these figurines that have been presented over the years. The author himself is putting forth a hypothesis that is totally new to me on this page of the site:

http://cmsu2.cmsu.edu/~ldm4683/2.htm

If I read it correctly, he makes a good case for these being self portraits from the point of veiw of a woman looking down at her body, hence the odd proportions and perspective.**

Good catch. It’s going to take me a while to read it and I wiil. I can’t figure out what cmsu.edu is? Do you know? And the format is a little odd, too. Just trying to figure out what prompted the site.

So I still contend that yes, there are many possible explanations for these figurines, and as it is very unlikely we will ever be able to say for certain we can expect a new theory every few years that is just as likely as any of the others to be correct.

**BTW, Jois, when I made the analogy in an earlier post (accidentally using Ravendriver’s identity rather than my own) about showing a crucifix to an Anasazi, I was speaking of a full crucifix with a depiction of a tortured Christ, not an abstract cross. Hope that makes my meaning clearer. **

You were clear the first time. :)I still think they are both very abstract and I wouldn’t want the job of explaining either to someone who had never seen them before, I can see your point.

Still, these figurines are especially tempting.

Jois

40

I see from your response to Maeglin that arrogant dismissivenes is still your chosen form of expression. I give you points, however, for milking the absolute most mileage out of a single mistake, long after the confusion has been edxplicated, even. Perhaps this feeds into the same ego that allows you to declare that you know the only plausible explanation for 25,000 year old art.

Perhaps you feel that such tactics divert attention away from teh fact that your case for a single unambiguous interpretation rests upon nothing more than “they look pregnant” and “labor and delivery were dangerous to the mother”.

You seem very fond of commenting upon the practices of posters in GD. So far, we have witnessed from you:
[ul][li]sweeping conclusions based on scant evidence[/li][li]unsupported and unrecanted accusations of poor behavior by others[/li][li]seemingly dishonest representation of your own posts[/li][li]continued focus on tangential errors long after they have been addressed[/li][li]refusal to address rebutals to your position–often through complete dismissal of an entire post[/li][li]reluctance to support your assertions with either links or quotes[/li][li]an apparent conviction that your position has been expressed with such unambiguous excellence that someone could fail to agree only if they had not read your posts–thus, repeating yourself frequently is all clarity could require[/li][/ul]

What a charming list.

Don’t worry, though, I gave up posting “on your account” some time ago.

It does seem, though, that I was to correct not to hope for an honest dicussion of paleolithic mating customs from you.