Female (extremely so) figurine, made of mammoth ivory, at least 35,000 years old, possibly 40,000 years. Press conference was today.
Should be safe for work, but to be extremely safe I have munged the links - add a letter h at the beginning
ttp://www.netzeitung.de/largepic/?media_id=264029 (picture)
ttp://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42450.html#backToArticle=624618 (more pictures)
ttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-venus14-2009may14,0,181830.story (LA Times article)
Personally my favourite is the later Lion Man (32,000 years old). To think that more than a thousand generations ago people made such art…
Usually I’ve seen these interpreted as “cult figurines”. Everything’s religion with these archaeologists. Big impressive central building of unknown origin? Probably a temple. Ancient pre-historic carvings of “Venus figures”? Must be veneration of a mother goddess. Tapered cylinder with a knob on the end carved out of horn, with ridges? Hmmm, probably for better gripping and used as a pestle, to prepare offerings for the gods.
My wife and I have always said that people were no less prurient before than now. Just as the Roman god Priapus has what could well have been “utilitarian” figurines like this one (but historians know the cultural context of Ancient Rome), I would not be surprised if these “goddess figurines” were really, as you say, pr0n.
Is academic opinion now admitting this possibility, or even making it a likely interpretation?
ETA: OK, this is not a Priapus picture, but after posting that link to an ancient figure I just had to also give this companion pic of a modern and utilitarian interpretation.
Heh, you must live right around the corner from my sister, tschild. I’d heard about the recent discovery, but I did not know that lion man beforehand – is it the oldest known example of some degree of abstraction, as opposed to (idealized) reproduction, in art? It’s fascinating, in any case.
It depends upon which experts you talk to. Bjorn Kurten, in his book How to Deep-Freeze a Mommoth, claims that such figures certainly are prn, and puts pictures side-by-side with modern porn. Even before I saw the book, I thought this was the case. Heck, I’ve seen ads in men’s magazines for zaftig, “Venus”-type maquettes. The Venus of Willendorf lives!! I note that Kurten is a paleontologist, not an anthropologist.
I’ve read lots of papers on the Internet and elsewhere claiming that these can’t be porn, and giving al sorts of alternative explanations. One paper thought that the enlarged boobs were the result of the figure being a self-portrait, and the breasts were closer than the feet, so they were shown larger. That doesn’t explain the larger hips, but whatever works for you. To ne these alternative explanations seem forced. You can believe, if you wish, that these figures represent some idealized female, one whose success is evident from her ability to find enough food to be fat. But it seems much more direct and likely that the figure was carved by a horny male who knew what turned him on.
I have a theory about Priapus figures. I don’t think that they’re sexual. Or at any rate, they’re not wholly sexual. They are apotropaic figures, like Medusa heads, and have thus, I think, gotten someone conflated and confused by the ancients with them. The Romans explicitly stated that woodfen Priapus figures , with boldly painted red phalli, were placed in fields to ward off birds – something they’re not especially good at.
