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

--- 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