News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The Venus of Willendorf

Started by SGOS, February 26, 2018, 03:10:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SGOS



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.

aitm

Liked em a mite chunkier back then I suspect.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

SGOS


Baruch

The Earth goddess, Gaia ... has to birth the whole world.  You would look rather fecund in that circumstance too ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PickelledEggs

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.

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PickelledEggs

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.

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

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.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

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.



Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Shiranu

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.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Cavebear

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?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

#14
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.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman