(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Willendorf-Venus-1468.jpg/220px-Willendorf-Venus-1468.jpg)
I came upon this, which happens every now and again while browsing an unrelated topic. In my early 20s, I learned about the Venus in an Anthropology class. A year later, I was visiting the Museum of Natural History in Chicago and looking at a huge display case of Paleolithic artifacts of marginal interest to me in one of the museum's halls. I turned around, and next to the opposite wall was what amounted to an antique looking curio cabinet with a few additional artifacts of the kind not meant to be as significant as the main display, I suppose, and there with a few other artifacts was the Venus of Willindorf. There was a small identification card with some additional information about the find, but nothing to indicate that it was a plaster cast. I assume it was the actual artifact, as I would have remembered if the card said it was a reproduction. I'm not sure why I post this. I guess it's because of the sense of excitement and awe I felt when I saw it. It's thought to be well over 24,000 years old. I want to think I saw the original. I'm not sure why that's important, but I can't find any information about previous locations. Today it resides in a museum in Vienna, Austria, nearer to where it was found.
Liked em a mite chunkier back then I suspect.
Quote from: aitm on February 26, 2018, 03:14:31 PM
Liked em a mite chunkier back then I suspect.
It would appear so.
The Earth goddess, Gaia ... has to birth the whole world. You would look rather fecund in that circumstance too ;-)
Quote from: aitm on February 26, 2018, 03:14:31 PM
Liked em a mite chunkier back then I suspect.
yes, This was an icon for a few different reasons.
A short art history lesson, but this icon in particular was symbolic of life, because it resembled maternity (obviously) but also because food was less plentiful, a fat person was seen as better off than a skinny person or what we would call a fit person, nowadays.
On top of that, it's size is of much importance as well. It is small enough to hold in your hand, about the size of a soda can. This made it very personable and comforting to the people that had it. A portable icon to worship.
I would suspect at that stage, the women's religion and men's religion were still separate, with the connection between sex and conception still a mystery, and gender mixing taboo. So this was a charm for the matriarchy.
Quote from: Baruch on February 27, 2018, 06:31:28 PM
I would suspect at that stage, the women's religion and men's religion were still separate, with the connection between sex and conception still a mystery, and gender mixing taboo. So this was a charm for the matriarchy.
This is why people put you on ignore.
It is well known in primitive society, the men stay out of the women's hut, and vice versa. The consequences can be death. That seemed to be a detente back in the day. Once rape was figured out, maybe thru warfare ... the matriarchy was over. Goddesses were just a concession to a failing model (relative to Kurgan values anyway). Kazakh men still practice bride capture I believe.
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2018, 10:02:44 PM
It is well known in primitive society, the men stay out of the women's hut, and vice versa. The consequences can be death. That seemed to be a detente back in the day. Once rape was figured out, maybe thru warfare ... the matriarchy was over. Goddesses were just a concession to a failing model (relative to Kurgan values anyway). Kazakh men still practice bride capture I believe.
That could use some source references. It seems to me that most of that is speculation.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 03, 2018, 01:23:05 AM
That could use some source references. It seems to me that most of that is speculation.
You still have eyes. Challenge anythingl you like, and I will ignore your curmugeonness all I want. But sometimes you are worth reading.
Quote from: Baruch on March 03, 2018, 08:26:25 AM
You still have eyes. Challenge anythingl you like, and I will ignore your curmugeonness all I want. But sometimes you are worth reading.
I'm always worth reading. But what was your point? I merely pointed out that some suppositions are not based in fact and could use some evidence. And there might well be some, but I'll let others offer it.
I'm curious what point in human evolution men and women didn't realise that sex = babies. I've spent several years now learning about paleohumans and have not once heard that discussed, nor can I find any sources confirming it.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 05, 2018, 01:56:37 AM
I'm curious what point in human evolution men and women didn't realise that sex = babies. I've spent several years now learning about paleohumans and have not once heard that discussed, nor can I find any sources confirming it.
I can't imagine how we would know. When did we first look at stars and womder what they were? Where did to think of following footprints on prey animals? When did we first think we could re-create fire?
Some human one day went "AHA!" about sex and babies. And it could have been really early or really late. How would we know?
Quote from: Cavebear on March 05, 2018, 02:13:32 AM
I can't imagine how we would know. When did we first look at stars and womder what they were? Where did to think of following footprints on prey animals? When did we first think we could re-create fire?
Some human one day went "AHA!" about sex and babies. And it could have been really early or really late. How would we know?
Anecdote. British in Australia claim it of the Aborigines. But then they are evil White men.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 05, 2018, 02:13:32 AM
I can't imagine how we would know. When did we first look at stars and womder what they were? Where did to think of following footprints on prey animals? When did we first think we could re-create fire?
Some human one day went "AHA!" about sex and babies. And it could have been really early or really late. How would we know?
Quote from: Shiranu on March 05, 2018, 01:56:37 AM
I'm curious what point in human evolution men and women didn't realise that sex = babies. I've spent several years now learning about paleohumans and have not once heard that discussed, nor can I find any sources confirming it.
I think it had something to do with the change from matriarchal to patriarchal societies. When women were considered to be the originators of all human life, they were worshipped, but when it was noticed that men had something to do with it, things changed. I don't have any citations for that right now, but I'll see what I can find.
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 05:55:32 AM
Anecdote. British in Australia claim it of the Aborigines. But then they are evil White men.
"Which ones"? he said innocently...
I went checking for Aboriginal origin myths and discovered this from ABC news:
"Australia’s indigenous peoples arrived about 40,000 years ago, when Asia and Australia were still connected by a land bridge." My understanding is that they arrived closer to 60,000 years ago and that there never was a land bridge because the ocean level never fell far enough. Or have I missed something?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 05, 2018, 01:46:18 PM
I think iI think it had something to do with the change from matriarchal to patriarchal societies. When women were considered to be the originators of all human life, they were worshipped, but when it was noticed that men had something to do with it, things changed. I don't have any citations for that right now, but I'll see what I can find.
That is the circumstantial evidence, but it is mostly prehistoric. Almost all societies studied in modern times, were already past the prehistoric stage. Though Tasmanian Aborigines might come close (they apparently regressed due to even greater isolation than the natives in mainland Australia. The British explorers of that area give us the anecdotal evidence. Given that labor happens 9 month after sex ... it is plausible that early people didn't get the connection, since they didn't have Dr Kinsey to educate them.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 05, 2018, 04:42:32 PM
"Which ones"? he said innocently...
I went checking for Aboriginal origin myths and discovered this from ABC news:
"Australia’s indigenous peoples arrived about 40,000 years ago, when Asia and Australia were still connected by a land bridge." My understanding is that they arrived closer to 60,000 years ago and that there never was a land bridge because the ocean level never fell far enough. Or have I missed something?
Land bridge? Yes and no. The Malay and Indonesian island area had multiple land bridges presently under water. But there was a final water gap between Indonesia and New Guinea/Australia, and maybe between Australia and Tasmania. New Zealand was never colonized by early man from there ... it was colonized from the NE, by Polynesian people, who where at a more sophisticated level of development.
https://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_Level_During_Last_Ice_Age.htm
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 09:55:34 PM
That is the circumstantial evidence, but it is mostly prehistoric. Almost all societies studied in modern times, were already past the prehistoric stage. Though Tasmanian Aborigines might come close (they apparently regressed due to even greater isolation than the natives in mainland Australia. The British explorers of that area give us the anecdotal evidence. Given that labor happens 9 month after sex ... it is plausible that early people didn't get the connection, since they didn't have Dr Kinsey to educate them.
They may have figured it out by watching the animals do it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 06, 2018, 01:23:07 PM
They may have figured it out by watching the animals do it.
Different gestation periods. Also lack of microscopes to study the sperm or eggs (of mammals) would make that hard for them to confirm. Some claim the Dogon in Africa already knew that Sirius was a double star. If the ideas of early man are scientific, then I have a firmament that keeps the rain from falling, to sell you ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 09:59:30 PM
Land bridge? Yes and no. The Malay and Indonesian island area had multiple land bridges presently under water. But there was a final water gap between Indonesia and New Guinea/Australia, and maybe between Australia and Tasmania. New Zealand was never colonized by early man from there ... it was colonized from the NE, by Polynesian people, who where at a more sophisticated level of development.
https://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_Level_During_Last_Ice_Age.htm
Well, land-bridges to Australia, yes or no? And the answer is no. None connected Australia to any other part of the world. So stop even trying to pretend any did. And stop making up answers to questions you know nothing about just to make an arguement that seems good to you for your own purposes. I know too much about that stuff to allow you to just fluff off plausible answers that are false.
I looked up the map. No land bridge to Australia, but one to New Guinea from Australia ... and lots of them all over what would become Indonesia. I was clear, you simply can't read.
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 07:54:25 PM
I looked up the map. No land bridge to Australia, but one to New Guinea from Australia ... and lots of them all over what would become Indonesia. I was clear, you simply can't read.
Show me the map. I've seen the denials of your claim from real map experts. I can READ your claim clearly enough. What I don't see is any evidence of it.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 01:06:44 AM
Show me the map. I've seen the denials of your claim from real map experts. I can READ your claim clearly enough. What I don't see is any evidence of it.
Already posted it earlier in this string. You aren't reading very well. Get new glasses.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 01:35:40 AM
Already posted it earlier in this string. You aren't reading very well. Get new glasses.
Of course I looked at the map you showed. The local Australian details are weak on your large map, but the gap between Australia and Asian islands was always at least 60 miles.