@cassana@the-crossroads-inn.com
Post #1576395
2025-02-11 12:28 UTC
That of course assumes the figurines are anatomically correct. And yes, palaeolithic depictions are generally quite literal. Macromastia or gigantomastia, two conditions involving abnormal female breast hypertrophy are rare conditions nowadays, and they probably were back then too. And sure, sagging breasts may make sense after breast-feeding for multiple years, which probably was the norm. But why are they naked? (7/12)
Replies (1)
-
@cassana@the-crossroads-inn.com 2025-02-11 12:28
During the Last Glacial Maximum, which lies centrally within the figurine's date range, the annual global average temperature was a balmy 8℃, combined with missing faces, arms, feet, etc. seems to indicate we're not dealing with a wholly-literal depiction. (8/12)