4 responses so far ↓

• 1 Lessie // May 17, 2009 at 7:42 am

  The BBC put out a much more reasoned report about the statue. Basically saying the same thing this author does: we’re imposing entirely too many modern concepts on a 35,000 year old figure. And of course now I can’t find the link. I’ll try again this afternoon, maybe.

  At any rate, thanks for *this* link. What a scathing critique of the biases that go into modern science.

• 2 Jonathan // May 29, 2009 at 6:00 am

  I’ve been doing a lot of scholarly/archaeological research into idols / figurines and their manufacture in the fertile crescent region. This looks like a common household figurine found in Mesopotamia & Israel – a fertility goddess of some type. It’s definitely not pornographic.

  One thing I have noticed in this field is that scholars and researchers say outlandish things to get published, not to be truthful. They have a lot of pressure to publish, so they put out any crap and come to ridiculous conclusions. The old saying for those in the field of archaeology and near-eastern studies is “publish or perish.” Sadly, too many choose the former.

• 3 aaaaaddddddddd // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:00 am

  i think it is the oldest

• 4 aaaaaddddddddd // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:01 am

  and im just a kid

Leave a Comment