Skip to comments.New archaeological finds challenge ideas of prehistoric Israel
Posted on 05/10/2015 1:27:57 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
click here to read article
She’s wearing a hat?
Let’s see if Laz would hit it.
This will cause you to scratch you head.
About people who take it seriously, yes.
You have asked an excellent question...
Hmmm.she has cankles? can we surmise anything from that?
The prehistoric shaman liked ‘em? ;’)
I don’t have a subscription and haven’t read the entire article, but how does this change thinking? We’ve seen similar fertility goddesses from other very early Neolithic settlements.
Not clear, is it? Gotta pull in readers I suppose.
To read the whole thing without subscription (this was pointed out to me a week or so ago), do a search, and use that resulting link — it’s the same URL, but because of the source of the jump-from, it loads the whole thing more often than not.
Basically, the Jericho 9 and the Yarmoukian cultures were contemporary and not geographically isolated; until now it was thought they were isolated, and before that, that Jericho 9 was later and took over the same areas from the Yarmoukian.
It may not be knowable, but it would be interesting to know if these figurines resembled the mature women of the day or if this was some kind of exaggerated, ritualized view of female fertility.
Assuming the male brain in those days was similar to ours, you have to think those were idealized visions of feminine pulchritude.
Sure, fashions change, but what were those old guys thinking about?
I’ve never been convinced that figures such as this and the Willmendorf Venus represent idealized feminine beauty or godesses. A beer fueled discussion long ago resulted in a consensus that they were all mother-in-law representations, embodying all of the negative attributes of an elder woman controlling the social life of younger couples.
One observation ended the discussion. It was noted that almost all of these mother goddess figures fit comfortably to hand and suitable as projectiles to ward off human and animal predators and supernatural terrors because of the sheer ugliness.
What enemy would attack a second time if they thought your best women looked like those figures?
They were living at the dawn of the agricultural revolution and the guys were probably thinking I need a woman to give me lots of kids to run this place.
I think we’re looking at the art of a culture where the art wasn’t all that great. :’) Or, maybe they just liked ‘em with a little more junk in the trunk. Or, and this is my favorite theory about most prehistoric cultural remains, the statues were produced by teen boys.
Now, that’s funny.
On a serious note, the web has provided higher quality photographs of the Willmendorf Woman, nee Venus. The newer photos provide greater detail over the blurry black and white images in the Art History texts I last saw some 40 years ago.
The level of detail is pretty amazing. The headwear appears to strongly suggest a knit or woven cap. At odds with that detailing is the absence of any facial features. More questions.
SC, thanks for the post and the impetus to revisit old impressions and seek newer information.
Hey, who needs facial features? Whoops, I mean, yeah, looks more like a hat than a hairstyle, but could be either.
Paperbags hadn’t been invented at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.