Re: [tied] Ancient female figurines (was Medieval Dragons, dog/snak

From: tgpedersen
Message: 17747
Date: 2003-01-18

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:
>
> Jean:
> >However, from the medical point of view, plump ladies might not
> >necessarily be the best equipped for this biological task.
>
> Cort:
> >True, but it is not uncommon for plumpness to be considered both
attractive
> >and a sign of fecundity.
>
> You're both off track, I think. In our current timeframe, "plump
ladies"
> are now the opposite of the drug-induced, paper-thin images of
beauty
> now being advertised for both men and women in popular media. That,
> together with the medical statements warning against obesity,
definitely
> will steer us away from any neolithic viewpoint on "fat". On the
other
> hand, I've heard the "fecundity" explanation too and it leaves me
> unsatisfied. Jean might have a point there.
>
> Taking both your statements, there may be a solution. "Fat" here is
used
> as a means to convey "large". Remember, if this goddess is to be
viewed
> as the creator of all things, she must be very large to have given
birth
> to the heavens, the land and the waters below. To convey her cosmic
> magnitude, fat would be the only way I can think of to show this.
>
>
> >And, finally, how do we know that the figurines were supposed to
be divine?
>
> The fact that there is a sufficient amount of these figurines shows
that
> there was a great enough importance placed on them to rule out just
idle
> obsessions with fat woman, otherwise we should see fat men, fat
children,
> skinny children, skinny men, medium-sized people, people with
clothes on,
> people on a picnic, etc. :)
>
> Secondarily, the predominence of the same Venus-like fertility
goddesses
> across different cultures right from the dawn of history, with the
same
> sorts of associated symbols and legends, emphasizes a common
prehistoric
> origin hands down.
>
>
> - gLeN
>

Maybe they were just waiting for her to sing?

Torsten