The many art philosophers who read this might disagree, but I find these three stele from Saudi Arabia strangely disturbing. They're radically different, what was in the mind of the makers? We don't know, their culture and thought is lost to us.
They date, apparently, from the fourth millennium BC, but notice their similarity to this statue, Urfa Man, found near Gobekli Tepe, and some 7000 years older:
Some suggest a continuity and there is, to my mind, a resemblance. Does this indicate i. that the Saudi Arabian stele are far older than their given date and/or ii. the existence of a comparatively homogenous culture in the Middle East circa 11,000-4,000 BC?
Possibly, though arch[a]eologists would roll their eyes, snort into their lattes and polish off their BLM figurines before making such wild claims. Regardless, look at this. Again, from Gobekli Tepe:
Here it is in full:
You'll note the position of the hands and possible parallels to Moai on Easter Island. But consider the Shigir idol, carved from wood that's over 11,000 years old. The oldest wooden sculpture we know of in existence and contemporary with Gobekli Tepe.
With Shigir we find ourselves back where we started, with something ancient, unsettling and very different to the way we live now. Perhaps it's just me, but I sense human sacrifice; unholy offerings on the altars of strange gods under the implacable movement of the stars.
That said, I'm furious that the pinko, dropped-on-head-as-infant, ComSymp SJW in charge of Oxford's Pitt Rivers museum has cancelled their immemorial display of shrunken heads. Why? Because they're racist. Wow. Nothing quite like erasing history, commie. More on this latest leftist excrescence later.
Precession of the Equinoxes,
LSP
6 comments:
"archeologists [sic] would roll their eyes, snort into their lattes"
We cannot afford lattes, but we can spell.
LSP
The thing that struck me was the … consistency of how humans portray humans.
Compare/contrast those, statues throughout the ages, and even effigies on medieval knights tombs. they’re crude, weathered and worn, but you can immediately ‘understand’ what is being depicted.
Now look at (Australian) aborigines depictions of humans in art. Unless someone tells you that that is supposed to be a human, you just wont see it. (Our crude ‘stick figures’ are as incomprehensible to aborigines until told what they signify).
I find it ‘interesting’ that we can almost guarantee that we and they, across the millennia, saw the world in similar ways.
I have no idea (and doubt whether the archaeologists do either) what they really represented or were used for, but isn’t it worth noting that (minus the lens of environment, culture, experience and education) we’re all mostly ‘still the same’? (Although what it says of the ancestry of the aborigines is beyond me).
As to Oxford's Pitt Rivers museum it (and the Ashmolean and the rest) are simply following the (predictable) PC script. The could care less about 'racism' (except when openly displaying their own 'reverse'), what they care about is only showing the 'good' sides of every culture but our own (and only showing the alleged bad sides of that of course).
I believe 'it will pass', my only hope is that 'they' don't become more like their idols (islam) and destroy that history for posterity.
I do, at times, wonder just what kind of mental gymnastics (or pathology) it requires to 'hate' colonialism (with its negatives to be sure, but overall benefits to all affected) and yet to laud (even worship), excuse and explain away the 'religious', cultural, spiritual and 'respect' aspects of 'killing anyone not of the tribe, shrinking their heads and eating their brains'.
Must get moar and betur copy editers, Anonymous.
Good call, Anon. There is a consistency and humans are, well, humans. You can make too much of the "radically other" aspect and before you know it you can't know anything. With that in mind, whole generations of philosophy students deserve a full tuition refund.
As for Pitt Rivers... grrr. I used to love that exhibit.
Those ancients couldn't sculpt worth a hoot. Their philosophies and religions were just as bad. Just the opinion of some fool who artistically dated a philosophy major once.
"Those ancients couldn't sculpt worth a hoot."
Pewster, you're starting to sound a lot like Fredd, which is a very fine thing :)
Post a Comment