Afrocentrics claim the Venus figures show steatopygia (huge buttocks) and general 'robust' females to infer African ancestry.
Venus of Lespugue
==========
This has however been disproved in an excellent article -
Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines LeRoy McDermott Current Anthropology Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1996) (pp. 227-275)
If you are a female and look at your body from an aerial perspective (looking down at yourself, or at your side) you can appear precisely the same as the Venus figures.
The following is a 30 year old Caucasian woman (3 months pregnant) looking down at herself compared to the above venus figurine.
The Venus figures were not modeled on african women with steatopygia, instead they were created on women looking down at themselves and depicting their bodies from that angle.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
"created on women looking down at themselves"
You didn't say Caucasian women.
Do you realize that the people that fight you the most are actually not Black people but a completely neutral and unrelated group of people. You spend your time arguing with Orientals who are completely unbias. If you really think about it, Orientals are actually socially anti-Black in many ways but in this they tell it like they see it.
A simple depiction that clearly indicates a Black population in what we now call Greece.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Afrocentrics claim the Venus figures show steatopygia (huge buttocks) and general 'robust' females to infer African ancestry.
This has however been disproved in an excellent article -
Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines LeRoy McDermott Current Anthropology Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1996) (pp. 227-275)
If you are a female and look at your body from an aerial perspective (looking down at yourself, or at your side) you can appear precisely the same as the Venus figures.
The following is a 30 year old Caucasian woman (3 months pregnant) looking down at herself compared to the above venus figurine.
The Venus figures were not modeled on african women with steatopygia, instead they were created on women looking down at themselves and depicting their bodies from that angle.
It's not an excellent article, it's a ridiculous concept. No sculptor modern or primitive would work this way, making these statues by looking at themselves (as if they were all pregnant women hermit sculptors) . Obviouosly it would be very awkward to work that way and unecessary and as soon as the person looked at another person they would have realized that they had made something extremely distorted. This is certainly the dumbest theory ever.
Posted by Horus' (Member # 15917) on :
I don't think any sane man would desire to have sex with this:
If he had a choice.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Afrocentrics claim the Venus figures show steatopygia (huge buttocks) and general 'robust' females to infer African ancestry.
Venus of Lespugue
==========
This has however been disproved in an excellent article -
Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines LeRoy McDermott Current Anthropology Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1996) (pp. 227-275)
If you are a female and look at your body from an aerial perspective (looking down at yourself, or at your side) you can appear precisely the same as the Venus figures.
compared to the above venus figurine.
The Venus figures were not modeled on african women with steatopygia, instead they were created on women looking down at themselves and depicting their bodies from that angle.
funny ting how batty injections and/or implants have become popular amongst the Sistas these days...it's sad...hate to tell the men here who are not aware of this yet, lol, but nuff Black Women these days whose backside yuh drool ova paid for that batty- bere silicone or whateva other garbage was injected not a bit Natural.... Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Afrocentrics claim the Venus figures show steatopygia (huge buttocks) and general 'robust' females to infer African ancestry.
Venus of Lespugue
==========
This has however been disproved in an excellent article -
Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines LeRoy McDermott Current Anthropology Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1996) (pp. 227-275)
If you are a female and look at your body from an aerial perspective (looking down at yourself, or at your side) you can appear precisely the same as the Venus figures.
compared to the above venus figurine.
The Venus figures were not modeled on african women with steatopygia, instead they were created on women looking down at themselves and depicting their bodies from that angle.
Lol!! LMBAO!!! Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ this is mearly a fat woman, notice the big condition of the tits
You are wrong, you are showing two fat women who are bending over.
You can take the flatest ass on the planet, make it bend and voila, it becomes a bubble butt. Although the first image you showed is still a shapeless blubber butt.
This is a fair picture, Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The Willendorf statue is easily again explained by the looking down perspective -
You already have been proven wrong, so now what you should do is walk off in shame. Since it doesn't look the same at all.
Never did your freak tested other groups of females. For obvious reasons. As I have shown. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: funny ting how batty injections and/or implants have become popular amongst the Sistas these days...it's sad...hate to tell the men here who are not aware of this yet, lol, but nuff Black Women these days whose backside yuh drool ova paid for that batty- bere silicone or whateva other garbage was injected not a bit Natural....
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Afrocentrics claim the Venus figures show steatopygia (huge buttocks) and general 'robust' females to infer African ancestry.
This has however been disproved in an excellent article -
If you are a female and look at your body from an aerial perspective (looking down at yourself, or at your side) you can appear precisely the same as the Venus figures.
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
What I have to say is this topic is a ****. cassiterides, His job here is to distract us. The black forum are the ones who accept white supremacists, a shame.
egmond was kicked out of millions of forums for telling the truth. if you go in forums white pride will be expelled immediately. Then expel the cassiterides and we will study black history which is the key to get out of this ****. **** that black people are all over the world.
Posted by element (Member # 19569) on :
^ ^
where are the rear view images? This hypothesis fails if you try looking at your rear.
you see....
you cannot view your legs, waist,thighs from the rear if you have a big butt.
But everything is clear if your maga..
conclusion ...If viewed from the rear
Big ass = No rear view Flat ass = No problem
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
For once in my life, I actually agree with the castrated one. The so-called 'venus' figurines of paleolithic Europe do not show any actual steatopygea. The buttocks in all of these are not prominent at all proportionally.
This is not to say steatopygea did not exist among Europeans at all especially those of this time period who still retained some tropical traits according to skeletal studies.
I say we should ignore this crap and stick to Egypt which is African.
Naqada II figurine with actual steatopygea.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by element: ^ ^
where are the rear view images? This hypothesis fails if you try looking at your rear.
you see....
you cannot view your legs, waist,thighs from the rear if you have a big butt.
But everything is clear if your maga..
conclusion ...If viewed from the rear
Big ass = No rear view Flat ass = No problem
The problem is, you don't have any experience with this. You just pulled that theory right out of your behind.
Besides the "point" of view, you're showing, it's from the side aerial perspective.
If we look at it from different perspectives you can clearly see that the bottoms stick out. And aren't flat as you try to claim. This is the steatopygea point (of view) where you fail.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
For once in my life, I actually agree with the castrated one. The so-called 'venus' figurines of paleolithic Europe do not show any actual steatopygea. The buttocks in all of these are not prominent at all proportionally.
This is not to say steatopygea did not exist among Europeans at all especially those of this time period who still retained some tropical traits according to skeletal studies.
I say we should ignore this crap and stick to Egypt which is African.
Naqada II figurine with actual steatopygea.
This I think too is the key factor:
This is not to say steatopygea did not exist among Europeans at all especially those of this time period who still retained some tropical traits according to skeletal studies. Posted by element (Member # 19569) on :
@ troll patrol .. It is not me making the claim..
quote:Originally posted by element:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Afrocentrics claim the Venus figures show steatopygia (huge buttocks) and general 'robust' females to infer African ancestry.
This has however been disproved in an excellent article -
If you are a female and look at your body from an aerial perspective (looking down at yourself, or at your side) you can appear precisely the same as the Venus figures.
The Venus figures were not modeled on african women with steatopygia, instead they were created on women looking down at themselves and depicting their bodies from that angle.
your gender makes no difference & you've omitteed imagery to show the ariel perspective of the rear view. you cannot view your hips legs waist if you have a big butt because it is obscured.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by element: @ troll patrol .. It is not me making the claim..
quote:Originally posted by element:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Afrocentrics claim the Venus figures show steatopygia (huge buttocks) and general 'robust' females to infer African ancestry.
This has however been disproved in an excellent article -
If you are a female and look at your body from an aerial perspective (looking down at yourself, or at your side) you can appear precisely the same as the Venus figures.
The Venus figures were not modeled on african women with steatopygia, instead they were created on women looking down at themselves and depicting their bodies from that angle.
your gender makes no difference & you've omitteed imagery to show the ariel perspective of the rear view. you cannot view your hips legs waist if you have a big butt because it is obscured.
I am a male, "I like big butts and I can't lie other brothers might denial."
Well, the photo was taken from a slight off angle.
And not from a straight ariel perspective, since we see hips and legs, even feet, but no rear end. The photographer did not take the picture from above the head, neither was the Venus figure taken that way. Neither do we see other ethnic groups depicted from this angle. They are ruled, out "by the photographer".
You may like explaining why from the side view we see in the Venus figures steatopygia (a butt sticking out?) Because that is the dilemma here.
Why is that, why does it show similarities with the females I've posted, who have steatopygia?
Posted by element (Member # 19569) on :
I'm new here & i'm just getting used to the posting system..Is their no edit post function?
My point to the thread starter is that their are no ariel perspectives of the rear view. just a front & side perspective.
How can you form a hypothesis but overlook all perspectives..
An artist pays attention to detail so why overlook the ariel perspective rear view ?
If your male or female. you can try this simple test..
If you look behind yourself you can just about see your legs. If you used an item to simulate a big butt you can't see your legs.hips waist.
Posted by element (Member # 19569) on :
tracings of photographs of pkg style figurines seen from above..showing lateral displacement of posterior masses
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by element: I'm new here & i'm just getting used to the posting system..Is their no edit post function?
My point to the thread starter is that their are no ariel perspectives of the rear view. just a front & side perspective.
How can you form a hypothesis but overlook all perspectives..
An artist pays attention to detail so why overlook the ariel perspective rear view ?
If your male or female. you can try this simple test..
If you look behind yourself you can just about see your legs. If you used an item to simulate a big butt you can't see your legs.hips waist.
There is a delete function. It's the paper with the pencil logo.
Again, my question is, why we see from the side view in the Venus figures steatopygia (a butt sticking out)?
Why is that, why does it show similarities with the females I've posted, who have steatopygia? Why?
FIG. 4. Naturally shaped limonite form from Monpazier resembling a pregnant female with large buttocks. Height 55 mm.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
tracings of photographs of pkg style figurines seen from above..showing lateral displacement of posterior masses
Nice drawings. But still unsolved my question...The paintings are drawn from a lateral displacement of posterior masses true, NOT THE PHOTOGRAPHS. The photographs always show a slightly off angle view.
And maybe I am just athletic because I can see my feet, when I look over my shoulder.
Posted by element (Member # 19569) on :
@ troll patrol.
Is this some newbie initiation joke or do you really believe i'm supporting cassiterideses theory?
My erroneous posts on Oct 11th at 7.58 & 8.37 were supposed to be connected .But i thought i clarified things.
I requested an aerial view of the rear & examined & completed his flawed aerial hypothesis..
Are my posts too vague ..how ?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Next to the paper-pencil logo is a logo with quotation marks. That is how you quote someone's post. In ranking imbedded order.
quote:Originally posted by element: @ troll patrol.
Is this some newbie initiation joke or do you really believe i'm supporting cassiterideses theory?
My erroneous posts on Oct 11th at 7.58 & 8.37 were supposed to be connected .But i thought i clarified things.
I requested an aerial view of the rear & examined & completed his flawed aerial hypothesis..
Are my posts too vague ..how ?
It's not a newbie initiation joke, although I do have fun and enjoy, on the bottom-line theory. Or should I say, the "main essential point"?
No, I don't know who you support, all I wonder about is steatopygia in the Venus figures. Other than that I don't even care about the issue.
I however, actually agree with Djehuti's case.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This is not to say steatopygea did not exist among Europeans at all especially those of this time period who still retained some tropical traits according to skeletal studies.
Posted by element (Member # 19569) on :
@ troll patrol ...ok thanks .. Now i can finish my point .
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Afrocentrics claim the Venus figures show steatopygia (huge buttocks) and general 'robust' females to infer African ancestry.
If you are a female and look at your body from an aerial perspective (looking down at yourself, or at your side) you can appear precisely the same as the Venus figures.
The Venus figures were not modeled on african women with steatopygia, instead they were created on women looking down at themselves and depicting their bodies from that angle.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
