Are there any opinions about the "sexy" 35,000 year old ivory carving found recently?

I could be wrong about this but after looking at the photographs of this supposed carving it appears to me to be something completely different. I'm thinking that it's simply the tooth of a wooly mammoth and it's being completely misinterpreted. I would like to know some other people's opinion about it. Best argument pro or con gets the 10 points. Come on all you skeptics let's see what you've got. LOL!

Update:

Here's an article about the carving which may help some of you make a better opinion or conclusion.

http://news.google.com/news?q=35,000+year+old+ivor...

Update 2:

I wonder if fundamentalists would argue that man was sinful and corrupt 28,000 years before God threw him out of the garden of Eden? That's the point I'm trying to convey with my query that science is a part of religion not against it whether this is real or not.

Update 3:

Another reason why I asked the question F de B.

Update 4:

Nearly 45 years ago my mother found an agate about the size of a hen's egg. Clearly imprinted on the stone was a figure of Jesus with his arms outstretched. It was etched into the stone by nature, not man because it was "scribed" in separate segments different depths into the stone. Would it be any less probable that nature could've carved this mastodon's tooth? How much longer will the world have to wait before the "experts" stop lying to the public for their own personal gain? Isn't this just like one of the tabloid stories that tell us that extraterrestrials shook hands with the President of the United States?

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think that we've been shown lousy pictures of this thing. if you could see it up close, you might have a different opinion.

  • Raf
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    There are two traditional appearances of early stone age female figures. One is the "frog goddess", and represents a woman giving birth with legs spread. The other is the "paleolithic venus" and shows a rough female figure with breasts, hips, etc. This carving fits into the venus group.

  • 1 decade ago

    It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that it is a carving. I'm pretty sure there is no dispute as to whether this is a carving or not. clearly there are scratch marks that are human made , and it can be determined it is a carving indeed, and not just a tooth.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think you are right. They hardly look like any carving of any kind. I might as well be looking at clouds in the sky and claiming them to be 35,000 year old carvings of Micky Mouse.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    A "healthy" portrayal of the female form was considered sexy in that time period because it was a symbol of wealth and fertility. The healthy female we thought to be goddess or the beginning of life itself. Thinner women seemed frail and sickly. I don't think the term "sexy" was meant in a term of sex for pleasure but reproduction. But to be honest when I saw the picture it was hard for me to even tell what it was.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.