tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38472234.post6402730431292378616..comments2024-02-04T03:57:19.271+01:00Comments on Zenobia: Empress of the East: The Newest Uppity Stone-Age VenusJudith Weingartenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06683483030413488309noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38472234.post-16536582453623337192009-05-22T18:10:59.261+02:002009-05-22T18:10:59.261+02:00Anonymous,
Many thanks for your series of stimula...Anonymous,<br /><br />Many thanks for your series of stimulating remarks.<br /><br />1) I'm sorry that you consider <I> Miss</I> Willendorf to be an unmarried mother-- unless you think she's simply obese and not pregnant; which is possible, of course :-). <I>If</I> Hohle Fels is truly + 35,000 B.P., she's more than 10,000 years older than Willendorf (usually dated ca. 24,000 BP) and even more distant from her SW Russian/Ukrainian sisters (some pregnant, some not; the subject of my posts, Uppity Venus I, and III) at roughly 22,000 BP. <br /><br />2) While the media translates Löwenmenschen as 'lion-man', it really means 'lion-person'; however, Conard does mention 'male sexual features; perhaps. Your point about the lack of mane is a very good one. I have never seen a full photo of this figurine [upper part of body only at <A HREF="http://www.planet-wissen.de/pw/Artikel,,,,,,,E6B95AF5669A3B21E0340003BA5E0905,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.html" REL="nofollow"> Planet Wissen</A>]. Clearly, no mane.<br /><br />3) I am not disregarding <A HREF="http://donsmaps.com/tantanvenus.html" REL="nofollow">Tan-Tan</A> from Marocco or <A HREF="http://donsmaps.com/ukrainevenus.html" REL="nofollow">Berekhat Ram</A> from Israel but, in my opinion, both are natural pebbles probably slightly modified by humans. While this shows that homo erectus had a strong interest in female sexuality -- and was able to transfer that interest onto a suggestive pebble (if I may put it so) -- it's not the same thing as the Venus sculptures. Another story. Another post. Another time.<br /><br />4. Ditto Neanderthal.<br /><br />5. ditto Australopithecus.<br /><br />I like to think you're right that no Upper Palaeolithic 'mister' was willing or able to impose 'downity' on the missus. I love that word, and will certainly plagiarize it, sooner rather than later. <br /><br />Thanks again for these very interesting comments. If you do find a more complete photo of the Löwenmenschen, please let me know.Judith Weingartenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06683483030413488309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38472234.post-24913305465553091992009-05-21T17:02:41.064+02:002009-05-21T17:02:41.064+02:00(1) How does Miss Hohle Fels compare in age to tho...(1) How does Miss Hohle Fels compare in age to those Russian misses, specifically the ones found in southern Russia (maybe Ukraine actually) and in Mal'ta (Siberia, I suppose)? I thought they were mighty early, more so than Miss Willendorf.<br />(2) Are we sure that the Loewenmensch is male? I thought it might be female since it lacked a mane.<br />(3) Are we disregarding Miss Tan-Tan (Homo erectus) and Miss whatever her name was of comparable age from Israel, since they aren't as good?<br />(4) Are we also disregarding that not-so-good Neanderthal "mask" since it's not so good? How about that schematic Neanderthal reindeer drawing from Russia? I suppose it doesn't count since it doesn't have a head either, just a body, feet, and antlers. No, not human. Forget I mentioned it.<br />(5) Forget, too, that funny-looking almost-a-face on that pebble from Australopithecus africanus times. That certainly doesn't count since there's only one of those. No, no, doesn't count at all! I shouldn't even have brought it up. Good heavens! What was I thinking?!<br /><br />Oh, by the by, Miss Hohle Fels probably can't be considered properly uppity, since I don't imagine any misters had yet forced her mommies or sisters to be downity, in contrast.Anonymoushttp://wwww.examiner.com/x-3315-Word-Geek-Examinernoreply@blogger.com