She’s beautiful and German. She’s also naked, with very large breasts, and she isn’t wearing any underwear — in fact, she’s posing almost obscenely, and has rather prominent labia in view. She’s also 35,000 years old and has no head.
A few other interesting details: she doesn’t seem to be entirely naked— there are markings like bands and hatchmarks that are suggestive of some kind of clothing. More attention was paid to carving the hands, which have 5 and 4 fingers marked out, than to the head, which is nonexistent. In its place, there is a well-polished, carved loop, suggesting that she was probabl worn as a pendant. She’s also carved out of something you can’t get anymore, mammoth ivory.
These Venus figurines have been found in many places in Europe, but this is the oldest one yet discovered. You have to wonder what they were for. Crude stone-age porn, whittled out by horny, bored mammoth hunters? Fertility fetishes worn by women trying to get pregnant? Symbols of some complicated body of religious belief now completely lost to us? Imagine if, tens of thousands of years from now, archaeologists who have lost all records of our civilization were digging around in Europe and kept unearthing one of our common kinds of statuary—figures of a tormented dead man, arms outstretched, strange wounds carved into hands, feet, and side. It would probably make about as much sense as these fascinating Venus symbols.
Conard NJ (2009) A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in Southwestern Germany. Nature 459:248-252.
With respect, Dr. Myers, you CAN get mammoth ivory. As I understand, the preserved tusks are quite common in the wilderness of the Siberian tundra (if you know where to find natives who have uncovered them) and can fetch a decent price among collectors. It’s also popular among artisans who do carved handles for knives and handguns, because you don’t need to explain that the elephant died in its sleep of natural causes.
“About as much sense”? I know which one makes more sense to me to worship, and it’s not even close.
I love when artifacts pop up that are older than the YEC’s supposed age of the earth.
There was a woman in my undergrad program who had the exact same figure as the Venus of Willendorf. Some people called her Humpty Dumpty.
So true.
Is it just me, or she sporting one hell of a Titanotylopus toe?
Was the carver a boob guy?
I always imagine that in several hundred years, McDonalds will be unearthed and people we think we offered sacrifices on the grills to golden arches. Wait. Maybe we do.
“…Imagine if, tens of thousands of years from now, archaeologists who have lost all records of our civilization were digging around in Europe…”
Just what the author Robert Nathan was thinking, when he wrote his satirical essay on archeology in Harper’s Magazine (1956), entitled “Digging the Weans!” (“Weans” comes from “USA” when “US” is interpreted by the future archeologists as “We,” hence the title.)
Story is available on line; just “Google” it!
For those, like me, who were wondering who Heidi Klum is, she’s a bleach-blonde model.
>insert YEC joke/comment here< Reminds me of the scene in The Good Earth, where the illiterate Chinese main character is given some Christian tract by a missionary. He takes it home and his entire illiterate family try to puzzle out what the picture (of Christ's tortured body on the cross) could mean. The suggestions, if I recall correctly, were "a dangerous criminal", "someone's wronged brother,and the other brethren seeking revenge", and the two little boys reacted gleefully in the way little boys today react to splat-gore films. Also, George Carlin's impression of Jesus giving his perspective on religious icons "Buddha was smart--that's why he's laughing!" *sigh* I miss him.
Where are the transitionals to that?
See, just more gaps.
Where would all of the gods and goddesses fit into any evolutionary scheme anyway? Evolution makes no sense.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Just unearthed
Extract from “Modern Cavewoman”
“Are Size 38 statuettes putting too much pressure on young girls to gain weight”
“…you can see it has been ‘flint-shopped’ to make the thighs bigger, no real woman looks like that…”
Big fake boobs, no brain… seems like Ms California.
That is definitely not a woman. It is a chicken, proving that it is no older than the domesticated bird. (jjk, ffs)
Prehistoric porno or fertility Goddess? Either way it is pretty cool.
For the group. A little diversion down the dark road of my addition to front projection video….
Sample:
More: http://backyardtheater.com/forums/index.php?topic=3661.msg30618#msg30618
Enjoy.
Another classic archeology send-up is the “Motel of the Mysteries”. Don’t recall who wrote it and don’t have time to check amazon.
You’re sure this isn’t a turkey dinner figurine?
I wonder how the person who found it detected that it was designed and not natural.
/snark
@17 David Macauley did “Motel of the Mysteries”. Hilarious.
When future archaeologists dig up Coca-Cola bottles, they might just interpret the shape as a slender curvy headless female form, and wonder why all these glass votive oferings were deposited in such abundance at this particular time. A goddess-cult?
They also found a life-sized stone phallus in the same cave. I’m beginning think these prehistoric folks were fun people.
What if Jesus gets transgendered? Then, you could have the Roman soldiers doing some S&M on the cross.
The thing that I find chillingly fascinating about this is that is it 5000 years older than the previously oldest Venus figurine. That’s longer than our recorded history! These figures were made for an incredibly long period of time and over a huge stretch of land from the Atlantic coast of Europe to the Black Sea. They obviously met some very real need and we don’t have the faintest idea of what. I’m boggled.
All those neanderthals at the neanderthal rave, dancing to their neanderthal beat, wearing their neanderthal bling. Bet it was rare and hard to come by. Probably made quite the impression. Quite the status symbol.
I agree with #15, this is merely the petrified remains of a frozen chicken.
Yeah, Steve – several times older, in this case. Gotta love it.
“Chillingly fascinating,” yes. I wonder what future archaeologists will think when they unearth a DVD of the Spice Girls movie, or The Hulk.
With all the plastic crap out there, future archaeologists are basically screwed.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
oh, it’s too hard to choose exhibits C through ZZZ. I think the point is made.
Speaking of plastic artifacts, what if archaelogists 5-10K years from now go to a place known as “San Fernando Valley” and find a dildo graveyard?
PZ…
One small item — mammoth ivory is very available, if somewhat expensive, today. I have a beautiful little Paul knife with mammoth ivory handles.
She looks familiar.
Yes, with all due respect, the worship of breasts and vulvae makes much more sense than the worship of pierced corpses.
The Venus figurine is warm, fun, and human. The outstretched thorn-crowned hate-preacher is just nasty.
“I wonder what future archaeologists will think when they unearth a DVD of the Spice Girls movie, or The Hulk.”
Probably: “*&^%ing Ang Lee!”
Evolution Graphics. New to me anyway…
http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/courses/EEB210/evolution.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38371016@N04/3527852097/
http://www.bant-shirts.com/images/nonph/kansas-350.gif
Enjoy.
You don’t know who Heidi Klum is? Should I have used the name Gisele Bündchen instead?
Nerds. They know nothing about the important elements of pop culture.
Large breasts, no head? Sounds like something out of a Robert Crumb comic.
“Gisele Bündchen Brady, if you don’t mind!”
</Virginia Patton>
That’s not true, I’m a nerd and I know who Heidi Klum is.
Gisele Bündchen on the other hand…
I’m a nerd, and I’ve heard of both of them…
” there are markings like bands and hatchmarks that are suggestive of some kind of clothing”
Could be tattoos or makeup – stripes of mud or ash, that sort of thing.
Hmmm…
Maybe something given to girls at a coming of age ceremony or something? Being headless, if worn high, the wearer’s head would “complete the picture”. A way of saying “While my body may look young and undeveloped, I am a woman.” Maybe used by young women to attract mates with a promise of future fertility, voluptuousness, and a Rubenesque figure?
Interesting and cool.
Saw some interpretation that it’s like the self-image that a pregnant woman has of herself. I wouldn’t know, personally; it don’t look like a beer/bacon-gut to me, which is my only comparison.
Archaeological excavation is my favourite activity, you never know what wonders the next layer will reveal. Ooops, sorry. Apparently I’m not supposed to have any sense of wonder, curiosity or awe, according to Cormac Moron-O’Connor.
Her proportion suggest that this lass may have been forbidden Neanderthal fruit…
Actually, as JShuey said, mammoth ivory is used in replacement of elephant ivory in sculpture and violin bow making. The thin white layer at the tip of your bow (may it be violin, cello or bass) has all chances to be mammoth ivory.
You don’t know who Heidi Klum is?
I’m sorry, you are out. Auf widersehen!
I’m still a little pissed that Korto didn’t win, but at least she didn’t turn into crazy cat-throwing woman.
And, I’ll say this, Heidi Klum is ok. But Iman…..I’d consider switching.
“I wonder what future archaeologists will think when they unearth a DVD of the Spice Girls movie, or The Hulk.”
Same thing I think about them now– “Hey, these would make great coasters!!”
Hmmm, boobs!
“I’m still a little pissed that Korto didn’t win, but at least she didn’t turn into crazy cat-throwing woman.”
That was a bad season. It was kind of like our elections–“I’ll vote for the least psychopathic one.”
…there are markings like bands and hatchmarks that are suggestive of some kind of clothing.
Or, maybe, stretchmarks.
For a paper I did for the history side of my degree I came across an article about these figures which suggested that we, modern archeologists and histories, were putting to much into the religious aspect that the figures many or many not have but rather, because of their large frequency of occurrence over such a wide area, they may have just simply been dolls for kids…toys. Of course, it was over 5 years since I read and used that article, and I don’t remember the author or journal that the article was in. The missing head-pendant/necklace part of this particular figurine is very interesting though.
Damn straight. I’m much more interested in who William C. Dudley and Mervyn King are.
Steve_C @3,
I love when artifacts pop up that are older than the YEC’s supposed age of the earth
More naive scientism.
This artifact cannot be more than 6,000 years (minus six days) old. The ancient heathens who carved it simply gave it the appearance of vastly greater age, to test the faith of modern Christians and fool modern heathens unto their damnation.
i’ve been wearing a Willendorf pendant for years
it replaced a decades-old pendant with the Chinese character for monkey (zodiac). i gave that to another monkey-sign who needed support … likewise, i’m sure someday i’ll meet someone who can use the Willendorf more than i, and then i’ll get something else and wear that
Perhaps it was a bobble head.
The head is missing be cause the leather springs wore out, and the copper springs were still in development and wore poorly.
Actually, the statue bears a startling resemblance to the recent photos of Kirstie Alley…
Porn…what an ugly name and idea for something as marvelous and glorious as sex of the most interesting kind.
A primitive hunting society that could, by dint of hard, dangerous, incessant work and good luck, be able to support women that carried excess a large amount of excess fat such as these idealized venus figures display was indeed a formidable group. Excess calories, women who don’t do anything but provide cushy comfort and provide milk for infants. It just couldn’t say any more clearly “we are blessed” at least and “we are better than you” most likely. And I suppose someone might want to run a swipe over some of these things just to see if there’s any dna residue left on the outside.
I swear I thought it was a carving of a chicken ready for the oven.
@DaveH #42:
I think I read that article too. Specifically, the idea was that it’s sort of a 3D representation of a pregnant woman from her own perspective — looking down at her own body. The theory was that women were carving these during pregnancy as a good luck charm or something. Also explains the headlessness, as the sculptor obviously can’t see her own head.
FWIW…there still exists at least one artist who continues to carve sexually oriented figures and themes in ivory (fossil walrus is particularly nice)…Me.
Now that we’ve found a 12.9 billion year old blob in the center of the universe that may be Azathoth, they unearth ancient evidence of Shub-Niggurath. Where will the madness end!?
She is stunning! I would proudly wear her alongside my Minoan snake goddess.
There is no need to attach any significance whatsoever to the figurine. Look at the stuff that people wear around their neck/wrists/ankles these days. Do they have any significance whatsoever? Generally no; they are simply decorative. Of course you have bling with some sentimental value like wedding rings and so on, and the deluded have bizarre things like necklaces with the figure of the supreme sado-masochist nailed to an X. We also know that other deluded people have had bizarre things such as charms, but there really isn’t a need to ascribe some significance to every ancient carving found except of course for the historical significance that someone may have carved this many thousands of years ago. One question does come to mind: did someone carve this on an already ancient mammoth tusk which they just happened to find, or was the ape that carved it alive around the time the mammoth died?
MadScientist #62
Considering the figurine is 35,000 years old and mammoths became extinct 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, the question probably can’t be answered.
CorgiHound@9:
Just part of a much greater collection of works on the nature of science and Engineering – that I used to have but have long ago lost – “A Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown – and other Scientific Essays of our time.”
Priceless, really. I should find another.
JC
Oops – #64 was me – I seem to have fallen out of TypeKey again. Sorry if I embarrassed anyone…
JC
They were a free give-away with Paleoboy #1.
Fat ladies are funny! HAW HAW HAW.
Seriously, man, fuck you.
My guess is, archeologists discovering crucifixes on walls and on necklaces and placed in the hands of corpses before burial are going to think Jesus was a demon whom people sought to portray restrained as a means of banishing evil from their houses and themselves.
And if they find Catholic churches with all the statuary they’re gonna take one look around and go, “OH! The woman there in the central/exalted position (the Virgin Mary) must have been their goddess—look at the child in her arms, she must be a creation goddess, and there’s that demon again, she must have been the one to defeat him—maybe he was the father of her child, too?
And then the future version of Neopagans are going to start up a faith centering around Mary as a warrior goddess with tales of her conquering the demon. (Baby Jesus, for that matter, might wind up as a girl.)
What this shows is that women have only recently evolved heads. Prior to this their purpose was purely to satisfy men’s sexual desires & perpetuate the species.
This also explains why when women talk, men don’t listen; men have yet to evolve enough to accept that women can now talk. Or maybe they’re just subconsciously longing for the days when women couldn’t talk.
How come the Liberal Media ™ never publish pictures of the life-size stone phalluses (phalli?)?
No offense, Venus – you’re gorgeous. And thanks, PZ, for posting pictures that actually show her. The picture I saw this morning was taken from an angle that made her look like a lumpy rock.
I wonder if Hitler would have got off his superior Aryan kick if he knew about these.
Mammoths were still around 35,000 yrs. ago, and were hunted by our ancestors. Of course it’s doubtful that ancient humans would pass up a dead one or its skeleton and almost certainly scavenged what they could, when they could. I doubt there’d be any way to tell how this particular hunk of ivory was acquired by the paleolithic artisan.
#42 & #58 Specifically, the idea was that it’s sort of a 3D representation of a pregnant woman from her own perspective — looking down at her own body. The theory was that women were carving these during pregnancy as a good luck charm or something.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if this were true. I compulsively drew pictures of myself just like this (looking down) throughout my pregnancies. My body changed so much and the view was so different, it completely fascinated me. I can barely imagine what women without access to What to Expect When You’re Expecting thought as they went through these changes– especially since such a large percentage of them perished at the end of it.
keep in mind that we’re living in a consumer society in which there’s more “stuff” than we know what to do with, and it takes a single trip to the store to acquire it. On the other hand, the further into the past you go, the more time-consuming and rare “stuff” was… 35000 years ago, the mere ability to have “stuff” might have been significant!
also: what do you guys mean: she doesn’t have a head…? that tiny knob at the top looks like a head to me… are there any other photos where the point of that knob, if it’s not the head, is visible better?
and lastly: stop referring to prehistoric man as neanderthals. as far as we know, neanderthals never produced anything like this.
Imagine, if you will how a tentacular creature would react to a crucifix…
Randall Garrett did in “The Horror Out Of Time”.
In a perfect pastiche of H.P. Lovecraft’s style.
It’s in Garrett’s collection TAKEOFF.
I may be revealing my age here, but I used to date her.
Actually, I was referring to the “rather prominent labia” PZ mentioned in the article. The resemblance is uncanny…
Seriously, man, chill out.
Posted by: Yellow Dog | May 14, 2009 8:49 PM
How come the Liberal Media ™ never publish pictures of the life-size stone phalluses (phalli?)?
NYT covered an exhibition of phallic art somewhere in Italy maybe a few years back. With slideshow. I don’t believe any of it was ancient.
Pun intended?
Was this 35K-y.o. Venus an early, short-armed sheela-na-gig?
Well, the BBC has pictures of the phallus. It’s not really very vulgar in any sense. Apparently, there is evidence that it was used to knap flints, in addition to looking attractively phallic.
At least nobody seems to be claiming it’s the “great mother goddess”…and that piece of baloney has finally been laid to rest (amongst archaeologists, anyway).
#13
“…you can see it has been ‘flint-shopped’ to make the thighs bigger, no real woman looks like that…”
You’ve obviously never been to Ladies Night at the Pig and Thistle in Newcastle.
Ah the Fat Slags – bless ’em!
Nope. Doesn’t ring a bell.
Using Gisele Bündchen’s name wouldn’t have made sense. She not German.
She’s beautiful – PZ
Well, impressive anyway – but not really my type. I do wonder if the head was attached by cords run through the loop at the top – after all, if it was a pendant, the loop could just as easily have been atop a head, so I think there must be some other reason for the latter’s absence. Other “Venuses” have been found with heads, but not showing the face, so maybe there was some religious/ritual significance to not showing it, rather like Old Nobbodaddy’s “Thou shalt not see my face, but my bum thou shalt see”, or whatever it was.
You say that as if you’re not a nerd, PZ.
@ MadScientist #62
If you’re really interested in why people ascribe meaning to archaeological finds you could do worse than read up on some of the social theories of material culture and technology that are current. Dobres (2000) “Technology and Social Agency” is good, as is Edmonds (1995) “Stone Tools and Society” which is very clearly explained.
Everything we do as humans involves living in the world and interacting with it through material things, it’s a massive part of our identity even if unconscious. Just think about everyday stuff in your house- why do you choose to own the things you do, where did you get the ideas that they are attractive/good/right? Jewellery is inherently saying something by display, it’s communicating very specific ideas about that person. It’s easier to think if you ask why you *wouldn’t* choose certain jewellery.
Material culture is tied up in the construction of identity, whether explicitly symbolic or not, and whether it also serves a quotidian function or not.
Also just to clarify for other people, The Aurignacian is currently interpreted as probably the earliest culture made by anatomically modern humans entering Europe (although we have very few skeletal remains). It’s nothing to do with Neanderthals, although there are slightly earlier industries (for example Chatelperronian in France, Uluzzian in Italy) that are more complicated as they seem to be made by Neanderthals but include aspects of the Upper Palaeolithic (modern human cultures) including different stone technology, more use of bone and antler and even carvings.
Jadehawk @74, grats on the most insightful comment so far. IMHO.
Walton @86, I only had a vague idea about the referent, but Google is useful.
Except you have to pay money to view it.
I wouldn’t be surprised, given the nature of art in (say) Inuit society prior to European contact that this was in a way both porn and a religious artifact.
MadScientist: You may be right that it is purely artistic, but if good materials are hard to come by, it isn’t too implausible to assume that there’s a functional (even if superstitious) role too …
PZ: You can get mammoth ivory. It’s sold legally. It’s very expensive …
To be honest I think that future-archaeologists are more likely to focus on the millions of deformed female figures made out of long-chain polymers.
They’ll probably conclude that she was a god of some description, especially once they find the little houses, cars and aircraft apparently designed especially for her.
The guy on the cross? That would be her mate, they’ll name him ‘Ken’.
Sven @28
Perhaps something with 3 holes and real hair?
My completely uneducated guesses:
1) She had a head…. maybe carved out of wood or something less hardy than ivory, that swiveled on that ball on the top.
2) The lines scratched on the statue don’t represent clothing, but a particularly well regarded tattoo pattern of the day.
Jadehawk@74: On the other hand, the further into the past you go, the more time-consuming and rare “stuff” was… 35000 years ago, the mere ability to have “stuff” might have been significant!
So this item was a priceless heirloom and bickering over who should get it poisoned family gatherings for generations?
There is no way to answer questions which begin with “why?” in prehistoric archaeology.
We may be able to deal with “when, who, what, where and how?” if we have enough data but “why?” will always remain speculation, unless we develop time travel.
So this is a wonderful find but why it was created is lost to us.
Mammoth ivory would have been a common material, indeed the populations of these mammals (and others) were huge and there would have been skeletal remains lying around for the taking without resorting to hunting. I think our fauna deprived modern world makes it hard for us to understand how rich these palaeolithic landscapes were.
And of course we only find a tiny fraction of the “stuff” these people used in their daily lives as most of it was ephemeral and biodegradable.
There has been some really interesting discussion on this. Thanks for that. I am still in awe over this. Here’s a question I hope some of the experts can answer. The projection on top of the figurine has a hole through it, presumably for hanging it around the neck. How in the world could the maker drill a tiny hole in ivory? No metal to use. What could they find to make a hole like that? (Obviously, I am in an obsessed state here.)
Seems to me that the most direct way for a ‘fertility symbol’ to work is to make people want to have sex. By making them horny. Like porn does.
Coincidence? I think not.
@100: a small flake of rock and unbelievable patience. Scrape. Scrape. Scrape.
REPLY to post 92 (Alex Deam) | May 15, 2009 7:13 AM)
RE: “Just what the author Robert Nathan was thinking, when he wrote his satirical essay on archeology in Harper’s Magazine (1956), entitled “Digging the Weans!” (“Weans” comes from “USA” when “US” is interpreted by the future archeologists as “We,” hence the title.)
Story is available on line; just “Google” it!
Except you have to pay money to view it.”
EMAIL me, and I’ll be glad to send you a four page .pdf file with the story! jwcahill @ yahoo. com
@100
You can make a very serviceable drill out of flint, but any fine, sharp stone which is harder than the ivory can be used. It just takes time and careful workmanship.
Jenny McCarthy?
What strikes me most about these things isn’t the exaggerated anatomy but rather the fact that these people had so much spare time that they could make this stuff!
And they didn’t have the O’Reilly show to keep them amused at night!
Uh, I think the view on the right is a rotisserie chicken…
Comment 68 wins.
Brazilian.
Only agriculture takes time.
@Benny #4: It’s rude to call people names based on physical appearance. Its doubly rude to do it in public on the internet, where it is immortalized for ages and thousands of people who match the description of your target may come to read it.
Women have heads? Funny, my gaze never makes it that high.
Quote David Marjanović, OM:
Really? I would think finding food in the absence of agriculture would be very time consuming. Especially if most of that food has few calories or the calories are difficult to extract. Seems to me it would take all day except when one could catch big game.
Charles Minus, you can even do it with a stick or piece of bone and some sand. Rotating the stick in a small heap of sand, replacing the sand as necessary, makes quite an useful drill that can go through some pretty hard materials given enough time and patience. This is a method still in use by some today.
Chris, think of the hunter gatherers still in existence today. Few if any spend literally all day hunting and gathering food, not even in ‘hostile’ environments like the Kalahari. What agriculture made possible, more than anything, was permanent large scale groupings of people.
I’m pretty sure that’s supposed to depict a turkey carcass.
I’m just sayin’.
except when one could catch big game.
Ah, but the game was BIG. If a group of 150-200 could take down a mammoth, they wouldn’t be able to smoke all the meat before some spoiled, I imagine. And given hunting techniques like herding megafauna over a cliff or into bogs, where they either went smash or got mired for the easier kill, hunting needn’t have been even close to an every day activity. A few hours of gathering, a few hours more of crafts (basketry, clothing, rope, tools, figurines), and you’ve got about a five or six hour workday, max.
As long as we’re on the topic of undergrad Anthro. readings, I recall an essay we read in an anthro class to the effect that agriculture was “The Biggest Mistake” or something close to that. An analysis of modern hunter-gatherering lifestyles was the basis of it, and they’re not doing nearly as well as their prehistoric counterparts did, having by and large been forced onto marginal land.
It was paradise compared to early agricultural societies. Also, I imagine involved and intricate carvings like this were primarily made during the winter months. Likely sedentary and boring. Think scrimshaw. It could have been as much about the process asthe finished object.
@101 Seems to me that the most direct way for a ‘fertility symbol’ to work is to make people want to have sex. By making them horny. Like porn does.
The idea that human beings have to be induced to have sex is pretty funny to me. But then I’m normal, and think it feels good.
Crumb was earlier referenced, but he wrote a strip referencing such fethishes titled “Cave Wimp” which, if my synopsis is accurate, is named for the artist whose carvings of the figures in question were discovered by the tribe’s Alpha Male, so the Wimp was tolerated and earned the protection of the Alpha Male for generating porn, and, when the Alpha Women discovered it, the story of religious totems was created as a cover story–during the fracas, Cave Wimp impregnated a couple of cuties curious about the source of the fracas before being sacrificed to the volcano for the good of the tribe, but not before passing on his genes.
… and has rather prominent labia in view.
I thought that it looked kind of like that, too.
However, the article I read about this said that the carving had been found in pieces and put back together. I think it’s more likely that that’s a seam from where it broke apart and wore away.
I’m not saying it’s not labia or even that I don’t want it to be, just that I don’t think it is.
The little stump at the top where the head should be is a dead giveaway.
Kids! It’s Neanderthal Barbie!
This is very cool, indeed. I love archaeology!
Charles Minus, if your think drilling a hole in bone is mind-bogglingly impressive for a stone-age culture (certainly putting a tiny hole in ANYTHING seems difficult with stone tools, I know), consider this: The ancient Mesopotamians produced a few known examples of GARNET BEADS. Even if these were produced in an iron-age time period (I don’t know how old they are), garnet is comparable to steel in hardness (Mohs’ scale 6.5-7.5 for garnet, 7 for steel, 4 for iron, 3 for bronze)! Think about how they managed that one…
One way they could have: Place a tiny chip of garnet on the end of a straight wooden hand-drill, put the chip-tipped end against your intended bead, and spin it between your hands for several hours. Did the chip disintegrate? Put another one on, and repeat until you have your hole.
The same procedure could very well have been used for the hole in this figure, with a small stone chip and hand drill. Certainly there are many examples of stone age bone, ivory, shell, and wooden beads out there.
It’s truly amazing what people can accomplish with “primitive” tools when they put their minds to it.
To be fair, Heidi (Cthulhu love ‘er) hasn’t had large breasts in a decade. In fact, looking back on her career, I begin to doubt she ever actually had “large” breats. When compared to her cohort Tyra Banks, I’m forced to admit that Heidi’s mammaries were of modest girth.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Either way, the woman is a goddess.
Back in the bad old days, when ships were made out of wood and men were made out of steel, sailors worked a four hours on/four hours off watch cycle.* They worked the ship for four hours and then had four hours for everything else: eating, sleeping, mending clothes, recreation, etc. Sailors on whaling ships produced scrimshaw from whale bone and whale teeth.
If sailors could find time to produce scrimshaw, hunter-gatherers could find time to produce ivory figurines.
*Actually it was a little more complicated than that, but I’m ignoring dog watches.
@’Tis Himself
Have you read the Aubrey/Maturin books by Patrick O’Brian?
I have to guess you have.
woodsong @ 120.
Fascinating stuff that, thanks. Can you recommend any recent books on this. I’m especially interested in Mesopotamian history, Sumeria and before. I am fascinated with ancient technology and, as you imply, the use of the term “primitive” does not fit at all. I think it’s possible that human technology at all periods of history is very advanced and equally complex when you consider the tools at hand. For instance, the people who populated northern Asia and and eventually crossed the Bering Straits, lived in ice age conditions that are unimaginable, with no metal for tools. Any of us would die in a few hours in that environment, but they not only survived but thrived and multiplied. Fun stuff to think about.
woodsong @ 120
Oops, forgot to sign that post.
And suppose that 10,000 years from now some archaeologist dug up part of Stephen King’s “Dreamcatcher”; would people really believe that at one point in time the world was saved by a guy named Duddits? Just a thought…..
John Newby, we’re history, not prehistory – a state to which only the direst events can force a reversion.
Early history, in the long term, of course.
… And suppose that 10,000 years from now some archaeologist dug up part of Stephen King’s “Dreamcatcher” …
A story is not a physical artifact. What artifact is it that’s dug up, in your supposition?