Re: Ancient female figurines (was Medieval Dragons, dog/snake, Gree

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Kelly" <jeffcob@...> wrote:

> Glen Gordon wrote:
>
> >it's only another small step to concluding
> that a giant woman must have given birth to all life, all creation

itself

> because the female form can be taken as a symbol of birth.
> >This concept while bizarre and trite in the modern world is based

on

> understandable reasoning. It also explains the meaning behind many
> Goddess figurines showing a plump naked lady with big birthing hips,
> sometimes even in the process of giving birth.
>
> As you say, some of these figures are depicted in the process of

giving

> birth. However, from the medical point of view, plump ladies might

not

> necessarily be the best equipped for this biological task. I once

showed a

> picture of one of these figures - the Venus of Willendorf, IIRC -

to a

> doctor, and asked him what his opinion would have been had this lady
> presented herself at his surgery. He said that her blood-pressure

would

> have given him cause for concern, and it was also possible that her

weight

> might make her arthritic. Given these conditions, pregnancy might

be rather

> difficult. Finally, it was impossible to tell whether the figurine

itself

> was supposed to be pregnant - as my doctor friend put it, there

might be

> anything under all those rolls of flesh. However, he did add that

perhaps

> the fat might be indicative of someone who had in the past given

birth to

> several children.
>
> Nevertheless, given that the societies that produced these

figurines were

> supposed to be hunter-gatherers and so forth, out on their feet all

day

> long, how could anyone, even someone who might have given birth to

several

> children, have put on so much weight?
>
> And, finally, how do we know that the figurines were supposed to be

divine?

> How do we know that they weren't just representations of very

overweight

> females?
>
> Jean Kelly

True, but it is not uncommon for plumpness to be considered both
attractive and a sign of fecundity. This might be particularly true
in a society where food gathering was more difficult, and a skinny
woman could mean an undernoursihed woman that may have more
difficulty nursing healthy offspring. Also, larger hips would have
been very advantageous in the process of surviving childbirth in the
days before modern medicine.

The prportions of many of these "venus" figurines are not just obese,
but vastly out of proportion with the human figure to the point of
medical impossibility. Certain aspects i.e. breasts, buttocks, are
enlarged far more than others. This points against them
being "portraits" of some kind, not to mention the dificulty in
explaining why we don't find similar representations of men, less
rotund women, children etc., but instead a preponderance of female
figurines with these clear and repeated exaggerations.

I do agree we must take care in interpreting artifacts with the lack
of supporting evidence, but it is true that similar figurines were
known to be used in religious practice. The exaggerated sexual
characteristics certainly argue in favor of an interpretation
relating to childbirth or fertility, though again I agree we must
tread gingerly in areas where we have little evidence as footing.

Cort Williams